HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Pursuit of Relinquishment of Newport Blvd�a�WPaQ CITY OF
r
NEWPORT BEACH
�9CIFOPNP City C®dAll' cH Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 16
January 24, 2012
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Director
949 - 644 -3311, sbadum @newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: David Webb, Deputy Director of Public Works /City Engineer
APPROVED:
TITLE: Consideration to Further Pursue Street Relinquishment of Portions
of Newport Boulevard and /or West Coast Highway from the State of
California, Department of Transportation
ABSTRACT:
At the City Council's direction, staff has been pursuing the possibility of taking over the
ownership and operations of Newport Boulevard from Finley Avenue to the Newport Channel
Bridge Deck; and West Coast Highway from the Santa Ana River to Jamboree Road from the
State of California, Department of Transportation ( Caltrans).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Staff recommends that the City continue to pursue and negotiate taking over the
ownership and operation of Newport Boulevard from Finley Avenue to the Newport
Channel Bridge Deck through the relinquishment process.
2. Staff recommends that the City stop or postpone any further relinquishment efforts on
West Coast Highway from the Santa Ana River to Jamboree Road.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
No additional funding is necessary for this action at this time. Should the City Council direct
staff to proceed with relinquishment of Newport Boulevard and /or West Coast Highway, the
City may receive a one -time payment from the State of California.
DISCUSSION:
In 2008, City - Council directed staff to begin exploring the relinquishment process with
Caltrans to consider the possibility of taking over ownership and operation of both Newport
Boulevard from Finley Avenue to the Newport Channel Bridge Deck, and West Coast
Consideration to Further Pursue Street Relinquishment of Portions of Newport Boulevard and /or West Coast Highway from
the State of California, Department of Transportation
January 24, 2012
Page 2
Highway from the Santa Ana River to Jamboree Road, In February 2009, the City received
the approved Transportation System Analysis report from Caltrans clearing the way fof6the
City to pursue legislation that would allow the relinquishment to occur. This authorizing
legislation was signed by the Governor on October 11, 2009.
With the legislations in place, Caltrans undertook development of the necessary Project
Scope Summary Report (PSSR). A copy of the final draft PSSR is attached for your review.
This report took approximately two years to complete and the final draft was provided to City
staff at a meeting with Senior Caltrans Management staff on September 15, 2011. During this
meeting, Ryan Chamberlain (Deputy Director District 12) and Constantino Starvation (District
12 Branch Chief — Advance Planning) discussed the final draft PSSR report and
corresponding offer to the City for relinquishment of both Newport Boulevard from Finley to
the Newport Channel Bridge Deck, and West Coast Highway from the Santa Ana River to
Jamboree Road.
As identified in the PSSR, Caltrans determined the total relinquishment offer would be no
more than $117,000 for both facilities, or $20,000 for Newport Boulevard and $97,100 for
West Coast Highway. These values were derived by Caltrans determining what would be
necessary to bring the facilities into a "Safe and Drivable Condition." Additionally, Deputy
Director Chamberlain stated the amount of relinquishment funds available statewide is very
small and Caltrans may still have trouble funding the offer. City staff also pressed Caltrans to
consider a trade of other State property in lieu of having to pay cash. Caltrans responded
that they would entertain such an action if it made sense; however they would be required to
determine the fair market value of the property and then subtract out their cash offer, and the
City would have to pay the difference.
Council should know that the original offer was for zero dollars as the State strongly believes
that the facilities are currently in safe and drivable condition. City staff requested that
Caltrans review several areas again, and after further review, the only items Caltrans
believed warranted funding were for access ramp upgrades.
In developing staff recommendations, it appears several other areas in the Caltrans PSSR
report need to be considered beyond the cash offer. The first would the legal exposure
expected to come with the ownership of these facilities. The PSSR notes on page 6 of the
report that over a three -year period (2005 to 2008) there were 436 accidents on the West
Coast Highway segment. These accidents resulted in 5 fatalities and 224 injuries. For the
Newport Boulevard segment, there were 15 accidents recorded over the same time, but no
fatalities or injuries. This data indicates that taking over ownership and operation of these
two road segments, particularly the West Coast Highway segment, will include some degree
of liability as well as claims, defense and settlement costs. The City Attorney's Office
estimates that a non -death case or non - serious injury case, up through discovery and a
motion for summary judgment, may cost the City between $25,000 - $50,000, and a fatality
case is potentially between $60,000 - $80,000. Undertaking a serious case through trial
could potentially cost between $75,000 to $100,000 and $250,000 - $300,000 for fatality
cases. Additionally, given the proximity of these facilities to major recreational water bodies,
there is a higher potential for water quality related liability /fines associated with related runoff
and spills to arise.
Consideration to Further Pursue Street Relinquishment of Portions of Newport Boulevard and /or West Coast Highway from
the State of California, Department of Transportation
January 24, 2012
Page 3
Secondly, Caltrans notes they expect to save approximately $2.7 million over a tenl)8par
period in maintenance cost if they relinquish both street segments to the City. However City
staff believes this is a gross understatement of the actual maintenance cost that would be
required for these streets. Based on the City's actual operating and bid costs; the cost to
maintain just the 4.12 mile West Coast Highway segment over the next twenty years is
approximately $33.6 million, or an average of $1.1 million a year n including any current or
future landscaping costs). Additionally in, 50 or 60 years, — — ridge -will:
probably require replacement (current replacement value of $21 ml ion .
It should be noted, taking over ownership of these two street segments also brings some
level of benefit to the City. For instance, having full control of the roadways would provide the
City more flexibility, as well as speed up the implementation or construction of desired
capacity modifications to either street (although responsibility for funding future improvement
would also shift from the State to the City). The City would also gain enhanced ability to
control construction events, hold special events and coordinate traffic signal timing and
progression. Another benefit would be that the City would no longer be required to comply
with certain specific State rules and regulations that govern such items as access locations
and allowable landscape features such as large diameter trees or specialty pavements and
signage.
In summary review, staff considered the following factors:
• The actual cash offer from the State is able to make to turn over ownership.
• An understanding of the associated cost and liabilities that will come with these facilities.
• What the City would actually gain by completing the relinquishment and taking full
ownership of these street segments.
Staff believes it would be in the best interest of the City to continue through and complete the
relinquishment process for the Newport Boulevard segment at this time, and stop or
postpone any further efforts on the West Coast Highway segment unless some other
significant benefits can be identified. Staff's position for recommending the City continue
with the relinquishment of the Newport Boulevard segment is based on the fact that
significant traffic congestion relief can be realized by controlling both the Finley Avenue and
Via Lido traffic signals; the segment is short so the accompanying maintenance cost will be
small; accident history reveals that the potential associated liability exposures is small, and
City control will facilitate removal of a potential bottleneck to the possible streetscape and
pavement enhancements envisioned in the Lido Village Design Guidelines.
In contrast, the West Coast Highway segment provides almost no offset funding and has a
very high level of expected maintenance cost and liability exposure. This segment also
includes with a large and potentially expensive bridge. Additionally, considering the current
Caltrans traffic signal system and operation practices in place, City transportation staff
believes that even with a complete replacement and modernization of the current traffic signal
equipment on West Coast Highway, we would only expect to see a 5% to 10% increase in
operational efficiency at peak periods. Such a small increase is unlikely to be noticed by the
Consideration to Further Pursue Street Relinquishment of Portions of Newport Boulevard and /or West Coast Highway from
the State of California, Department of Transportation
January 24, 2012
Page 4
public. Noticeable congestion relief will require not only better and more efficient traffic signal
equipment and control, but must include physical widening within the Mariners Mile seg"nt,
installation of additional left and /or right turn lanes at certain impacted signals, as well as
other capacity measures.
After reviewing other state highways in and around Orange County and Southern California,
as well as past cooperative projects undertaken by cities on state highways such as Beach
Boulevard -and Jmpeoal_Higbway_ and funded through both Cities and the Orange County
Transportation Authority, staff believes several of the desired benefits related to capacity
improvement, traffic signal timing, and progression can be achieved without taking over
ownership of West Coast Highway. Enhanced landscaping of the facilities can also be
accomplished through agreements with the State without taking over ownership of the facility,
but maybe not to the same degree as envisioned within the West Newport Revitalization plan
for the westerly portion of this facility. For the reasons mentioned above, staff is
recommending that the City not proceed with the relinquishment of West Coast Highway from
the State.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not
result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and
15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential
for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the
meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
Submitted by:
Attachment: A. Location Map of Street Segment
B. Draft Final Project Scope Summary Report
C. Rough 20 Year Maintenance Cost Estimate for West Coast
Highway
16
ATTACHMENT A
FOR CONSIDERATION (4.12 MILES)
®NEWPORT BOULEVARD RELINQUISHMENT SEGMENT
FOR CONSIDERATION (0.17 MILES)
LOCATION MAP
16
ATTACHMENT B
PROJECT SCOPE SUMMARY REPORT
DRAFT (Relinquishment)
12 -ORA -001
PM 17.43/21.55
12 -ORA -055
PM 0.00/0.17
EFIS #1200000379
Relinquishments16
Program Code:
20.10.201.160
„� oeaxaet
September 2011
PROJECT
LOCATION
SR -55
PROJECT
LOCATION
SR -1
VICINITY MAP
On State Route 1 from Jamboree Road to southerly limit of Santa Ana River
Bridge& on State Route 55 from Finley Ave. to southerly limit of Newport
Channel Bridge.
In the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California to program funds for
financial contribution to the City of Newport Beach for relinquishment.
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY.-
Constantino Statnation, PE
Branch Chief, Advance Planning
Project Studies Branch
APPROVED BY:
Cindy Quon Date
District Director, District 12
Date Nooshin Yooseft, PE Date
Project Manager
12 -ORA -001 /055
SR -1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.0010.17)
12840- OLOOOK
This Project Scope Summary Report has been prepared under the direction of the following
registered civil engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information
contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and
decisions are based.
Solomon Mishkanian, P);
Registered Civil Engineer
Date
21Pnge
16
12'0lk\001/055
Table vvuContents
16
ProjectLimits: .................................................................................................................................
4
Brief Project Description: ...............................................................................................................
4
SR-1 .............................................................................................................................................
5
SR'55 ...........................................................................................................................................
5
EnvironmentalStatus: .....................................................................................................................
6
Ti{dDc Data: ............. ......................................................................................................................
6
A: Traffic Volumes and Characteristics: .....................................................................................
6
B: Accident Data: ........................................................................................................................
6
Roadway Geometric Information: ..................................................................................................
7
Structures Information: ..... ...................................... ......................................................................
7
Condition 0f Existing Pavement: ....................................................................................................
7
American Disability Act (ADA) compliance issues: ..................................................................
8
BenefitCost: ...................................................................................................................................
8
()1hmz Agencies Involved: .............................................................................................................
ll
Other Considerations: ......................................................................................................
............ ll
NPDES/StoomWuter Quality Compliance: ..............................................................................
ll
Right0f Way: ............................................................................................................................
Il
UtilityInvolvement: ....................................................................................................
............. l]
Consistency with other Planning: ........---.....—...,..—......--........l2
EnvironmentalIssues: ................................................................................................................
l2
Permit: .......................................................................................................................................
12
[}tboi iS�uoS
.�_ �..`—~.^......—...^,..,...~...~.~.—....~—...—.—.--~...l2
Benefittothe Department: ........................................................................................................
]2
Benefitto the City: ............................... ....................................................................................
l2
C- Method l>f accomplishment: ..,.,.....—......_.`........._,,_..._...^l2
ProjectReviewed by: ....................................................................................................................
l2
ProposedFunding ........................................................ .. ...............................................
.. .......... l3
Project Support and Schedule .............. .............................. ............................
............ .....^}3
Alternatives: ... ..........................................................................................................................
... }3
Listo[ Attachments: ..................................... .......................................
........................... ............ l6
DistrictContacts: ....................................... ........................................................
....... ...... ........... l7
Recommended By: —^~^~--^~^~^~^~^^^,..—^~..---^~^~^^—..—.^^^^.^~~~-^~.l9
3 1fa&e
12 -ORA- 001/055
SR -1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0.17)
12840- 01.000K
PROJECT SCOPE SUMMARY REPORT 16
(Refi nquuushment)
Project ]Limits:
This Project Scope Summary Report (PSSR) for Relinquishment is on State Route I (SR -1,
Pacific Coast Highway), and State Route 55 (SR -55, Newport Blvd.), in the City of Newport
Beach (City), Orange County.
The relinquishment project on SR -1 is from Jamboree Road (PM 17.43) to southerly limit of
Santa Ana River Bridge (PM 21.55) and on SR -55 from Finley Avenue (PM 0.00) to
southerly limit of Newport Channel Bridge (PM 0.17) which is located south of SR- l /SR -55
Interchange, as shown on the location and strip map (Attachment A).
Brief Project Description:
Caltrans Project Development Procedure Manual (PDPM), Article 4 states, " Caltrans is under
no statutory obligation to put a facility into a state of good repair, construct improvement or
betterment, or incur a financial obligation of any kind to relinquish a state highway to local
agency by legislative enactment."
This project is being prepared as a financial contribution only (FCO), to the City. The
California Department of Transportation (Department) is not proposing a construction project
and will not be involved in capital improvement projects including any pavement
rehabilitation activity after the relinquishment of the highway. It.is being proposed to pay. the
City for items needed to relinquish the facility in a safe drivable condition.
Background:
Senate Bill No. AB 344 (2009) authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC),
to relinquish to the City, a portion of SR -1 that is located between Jamboree Road (PM 17.43)
and the northern city limits of the City (Santa Ana River Bridge). It also includes the portion
of Newport Blvd. SR -55 that is located between Finley Avenue (PM 0.00) and Newport
Channel Bridge (PM 0.17). The bill allows the CTC to relinquish the highway, upon terms
and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the Department.
In 2004, the State previously relinquished the highway alignment from Newport Coast Drive
(PM 14.1) to Jamboree Road (PM 17.43) to the City.
41Page
12- ORA- 001/055
SR -1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00 /0.17)
12840- OLOOOK
The currently proposed southerly relinquishment limit of the project has been chosen and
agreed upon by both, the City and the Department, to be the intersection of SR -1 and16
Jamboree Road (PM 17.43) and hence current relinquishment limits of the project are from
Jamboree Road (PM 17.43) to southerly limit of Santa Ana River Bridge (PM 21.55) for a
total of 4.12 centerline -miles or 29 lane- miles.
SR-1
The segment of SR -1 located in the City is a six -lane facility from Jamboree road (PM 17.43)
to Dover Drive (PM R18.45), four -lane facility from Dover Drive to SR -55 (PM19.80) and
again six -lane facility from SR -55 to Santa Ana River Bridge (PM 21.55) with curb side
parking in both directions and is also surrounded by businesses /commercial and residential
developments. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume for 2009 is 51,000
Vehicles and the roadway average width of 106 feet.
The median between Jamboree Road to north side of Bayside drive (PM 18.17) is raised,
varies in width and has continuous left -turn lanes at various locations. The median between
north of Bayside drive (PM 18.17) and just south of Tustin Ave (PM 19.41) is paved. The
median between Tustin Ave and Highland Street (PM 21.38) is raised (curb and trees) except
at some left turn locations and paved to end of project (Santa Ana River Bridge, PM 21.55).
There are no inside shoulders and the outside shoulder varies in width. The outside shoulder
is used for parking at some locations that are business /commercial zones along northbound
and southbound direction for this highway.
On northbound direction, the outside
Jamboree Rd. to Dover Dr. /Bayshore,
and from Highland St. (PM 21.41) to
direction, the outside shoulder is used
19.09) to Jamboree Rd. (PM 17.46) ai
/Superior Ave. (PM 20.37).
shoulder /parking lane is used as a bike lane from
and South of Balboa Cove (PM 19.92) to PM 20.95,
Santa Ana River Bridge (PM 21.55). On southbound
as a bike lane fiom north of Balboa Bay Club (PM
1d from Santa Ana Bridge (PM 21.55) to Balboa Bl.
A pavement preservation project (EA OH1804) was completed on May 29, 2008 from Dover
Dr.(PM 18.5) to SR -55 (PM 19.8) and another pavement preservation project (EA 0G0004),
was completed on December 4, 2007 from SR -55 (PM 19.8) to Beach Blvd. (PM 23.7)
SR -55
The proposed relinquishment segment of SR -55 within the City of Newport Beach is four-
lane facility from Finley Avenue (PM 0.00) to Newport Channel Bridge (PM 0.17). The
AADT volume for 2009 is 54,000 Vehicles and the roadway average width of 80 feet. The
median from Finley Avenue (PM 0.00) to southerly limit of Newport Channel Bridge (PM
0.17) is raised. On Newport Blvd SR -55, a pavement preservation project (EA OJ4604) was
completed on July 25, 2008 from Finley Ave. (PM 0.0) to On & Off old Newport Blvd. (PM
0.5)
5 1Page
12 -OIIA -001 /055
SR -I (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.0010.17)
12840- OLOOOK
Both SR -1 and SR -55 are primarily traveled by tourists, visitors and residents. There are 29
lane -miles for SR -1 and 2 lane -miles for SR -55, for a total of 31 lane -miles in this16
relinquishment project.
Environmental Status:
This project is Categorical Exemption (CE) (CEQA)/ Categorical Exclusion (CE) (NEPA):
This project was approved as a Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion on October 14,
2010. (See Attachment I-1[)
Traffic Data:
A: Traffic Volumes and Characteristics:
On SR -1:
PresentAADT:
I 51,000
%Truck:
l.l%
10 -Year AADT:
69,000
T.I 10 Year
9.0
DIM (2-Way Direction
5,000
On SR -55:
Present AADT:
50,000
%Truck:
1.60
10 -Year AADT:
67,000
T.I (10 Year)
9.0
DDV: (2-Way Direction)
1,500
B: Accident Data:
Following is the Accident Data (Table B) from 04/01/2005 to 03/31/2008:
(Actual vs. Average Rates) (See Attachment I)
The TASAS SELECTIVE RECORD RETRIEVAL, for the three -year period from
04/01/2005 to 03/31/2008, on SR -1 indicates there were 436 total accidents in both directions,
200 accidents were in the northbound (NB) direction and 236 accidents were in the
southbound (SB) direction, and on SR -55 indicates there were 15 total accidents in both
directions, 8 accidents were in the northbound (NB) direction and 7 accidents were in the
southbound (SB) direction.
The TASAS Data, on SR -1 also indicates there were 5 fatal, 224 injury and 207 non - injury
accidents in both directions.
6IPage
12 -ORA- 001 /055
SR -1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0.17)
12840- OLOOOK
Roadway Geometric Information:
There are non - standard general purpose lanes and shoulder widths within the project limits.
Fact Sheet Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards are not required since this is a FCO
project for relinquishment.
Structures Information:
16
There arc two structures in this project. The SR -1/55 junction structure (PM 19.80) and
Newport Bay Bridge structure (PM 18.38) on SR -1. The SR -1/55 structure ownership and
maintenance will remain within State R/W, but the Newport Bay Bridge will be relinquished to
the City. The relinquishment of PCH at SR -55 is not included by 150 to 250 feet of each side
for on/off ramps to /from SR -55 (See Attachment G for limits). This portion is an easement for
SR -55 bridge and ramp maintenances.
Condition of Existing ]Pavement:
The pavement is in "Good condition" base on 2007 Pavement Condition Survey lnveritory.
(Attachment .1)
71Page
Through
Paved
Median
Roat 1
Post Mile
Traffic
Shoulder
Width
Rout 1
Post
Through
Lanes
Width
fl t)
Mile
Traffic Lanes
Ft
N/B or
Lane
Type
S/B
# of Lanes
Width
(AC or
Left
Right
(Ft)
PCC
N/B
17.49/18.44 &
4
12
AC
0
0 -10 and
0 -12 and VAR
19.93/20.48
VAR
18.44/18.57 &
NB
19.22/19.93 &
3
12 -14
AC
0
0 -10 and
0 -12 and VAR
20.48/21.66
VAR
NB
18.57/19.22
2
1.2 -14
AC
0
0 -12 and VAR
VARM1nd
S/B
17.49/17.86
4
12
AC
0
VA and
0 -12 and VAR
S/B
17.86/18.53&
3
12 -14
AC
0
0 -10 and
0 -12 and VAR
19.82/21.66
VAR
S/B
18.53/19.82
2
12 -14
AC
0
-110 and
0 -12 and VAR
,0/
AR
Min. 3R
Stds
12
AC
0
to
12
There are non - standard general purpose lanes and shoulder widths within the project limits.
Fact Sheet Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards are not required since this is a FCO
project for relinquishment.
Structures Information:
16
There arc two structures in this project. The SR -1/55 junction structure (PM 19.80) and
Newport Bay Bridge structure (PM 18.38) on SR -1. The SR -1/55 structure ownership and
maintenance will remain within State R/W, but the Newport Bay Bridge will be relinquished to
the City. The relinquishment of PCH at SR -55 is not included by 150 to 250 feet of each side
for on/off ramps to /from SR -55 (See Attachment G for limits). This portion is an easement for
SR -55 bridge and ramp maintenances.
Condition of Existing ]Pavement:
The pavement is in "Good condition" base on 2007 Pavement Condition Survey lnveritory.
(Attachment .1)
71Page
IRI (MAX):
322
12 -0RA- 001/055
SR -I (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00 /0.17)
12840- OLOOOK
16
PCC Pavement:
AC Pavement:
3`d stage cracking %
N/A
Alligator B Cracking %:
0%
Faulting
N/A
Patching %:
None
Joint Spalls
N/A
Rutting:
None
Pumping
N/A
Bleeding:
None
Corner Breaks %
N//A,
Raveling:
Fine
American Disability Act (ADA) compliance issues:
There are curb ramps that are not built to the current ADA. (See cost estimate under
Alternative 2, on pages 16 & 17). The cost estimate for these non- standard accesses curb
ramps are $117,000. The total expense for SR -I is $97,100 and for SR -55 is $20,000.
Benefit Cost:
According to PDPM (Oct. 4, 2005), Chapter 25, Article 4 — Legislative Relinquishment
Procedures - Policy, " the associated cost to relinquish, if any shall be based on a benefit -cost
analysis utilizing a ten-year analysis period". As such, Maintenance Engineering has
prepared benefit -cost analysis study to form the basis for the FCO to the City.
Methodology /Benefit Cost
The methodology used in this Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)-is based on the Department
LCCA Procedure Manual (PM) dated November 2007 (updated in Aug. 2010) using the
RLALCOST software.
The Department applied a recent pavement project (12- 085104) as the basis to estimate the cost
of Rubberized Asphalt Type "G" (RAC G) for cost estimations, as well as 2005 -2011 average
annual routine maintenance costs.
The first segment is on SR -1 in the City from Jamboree Road (PM 17.4) to southerly limit of the
Santa Ana Bridge (PM 21.6). Total lane -mile (LM) is 29. The second segment is on SR -55 in
the City from Finley (PM 0.0) to southerly limit of Newport Channel Bridge (PM 0.17) Total
Lane Mile is 2.0
The SR -1 segment is divided into three locations to calculate the cost - benefit to be relinquished
based on previous pavement projects as well as current pavement conditions as follows;
81P:ttc
12 -ORA -001 /055
SR -1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0.17)
12840- OLOOOK
First Segment on SR -1
16
Location # 1:
From Jamboree to Dover (PM 17.4/18.5), total of 8.0 (LM)
There was a pavement project completed in Nov.2001, the project placed 1" RAC G. The 2009
Pavement Condition Survey indicted the pavement to be in "Good Condition ". Based on current
pavement condition, and future traffic loading, the Department may initiate a Capital Preventive
Maintenance (CAPM) type project which typically is forecasted to last at least ten years in the
year 2011. (Assuming funding will be available)
o Capital Maintenance Costs (projected CAPM projects):
• $85,000 /LM for milling and overlay with RAC "G"
o 8.0 LM x $85,000 = $680,000
• Project Support Cost Multiplier, LCCA PM Table 3 (p. 22)
o 0.15 for medium CAPM w/o ROW costs
o $680,000x].15=$782,000
• Activity Service Life: 10 Years from Table F -1 (p. 92)
• Annual Maintenance Cost:
o $1,500/LM (2005 -2011 annual routine maintenance cost)
o 8.OLMx$1,500= $12,000 = $12($1000)
• Work Zone Duration: 0.29 LM completed /closure, LCCA PM Table 8 (p. 58)
o 8.0/0.29 = 27.5 closures = 28 days
• Work Zone Capacity: 1,510 from Table 6 for Level terrain, LCCA PM (p. 46)
Location # 2:
From Dover to SR -55 (PM 18.5/19.8), total of 9.0 LM
There was a pavement project completed in May 2008, the project placed 0.1' RAC G ".
The 2009 Pavement Condition Survey indicted the pavement to be in "Good Condition" and
isolated "Fine Ravel' issues. Based on current pavement condition, and future traffic loading,
the Department may initiate a CAPM type project which typically is forecasted to last at least ten
years in the year 2018. (Assuming funding will be available.)
o Capital Maintenance Cost:
o $85,000 /LM for milling and overlay RAC G
0 9.0 LM x $85,000 = $765,000
o Project Support Cost Multiplier, LCCA PM Table 3 (p. 22)
o 0.15 for medium CAPM w/o ROW costs
o $765,000 x 1.15 = $879,750
® Activity Service Life: 10 Years from Table F -I (p. 92)
o Annual Maintenance Cost (projected CAPM projects):
o $1,500 /LM (2005 -2011 annual routine maintenance cost)
91Page
12 -ORA -001 /055
SR-1 (PM 17.43121.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00 /0.17)
12840.OLOOOK
o 9,OLMx$1,500= $13,500= $13.5($1000)
• Work Zone Duration: 0.29 LM completed /closure, LCCA PM Table 8 (p. 58) 16
o 9.01/0.29 = 31 closures =31 days
• Work Zone Capacity: 1,510 from Table 6 for Level terrain, LCCA PM (p. 46)
Location # 3:
From SR -55 to Santa Ana Bridge (PM 19.8/21.6), total of 12 LM
There was a pavement project completed in Nov.2005, the project placed 1 " RAC G. The 2009
Pavement Condition Survey indicted the pavement to be in "Good Condition ". Based on current
pavement condition, and future traffic loading, the Department may initiate a CAPM type project
which typically is forecasted to last at least ten years in the year 2015. (Assuming funding will be
available.)
• Capital Maintenance Cost (projected CAPM projects):
o $85,000 /LM for milling and overlay RAC G
0 12.0 LM x $85,000 = $1,020,00
• Project Support Cost Multiplier, LCCA PM Table 3 (p. 22)
o 0.15 for medium CAPM w/o ROW costs
• $1,02,000 x 1.15 = $1,173,000
• Activity Service Life: 10 Years from Table F -1 (p. 92)
• Annual Maintenance Cost:
• $1,500 /LM (2005 -2011 annual routine maintenance cost)
• 12.0 LM x $1,500 = $18,000 = $18 ($1000)
• Work Zone Duration: 0.29 LM completed /closure, LCCA PM Table 8 (p. 58)
o 12.0/0.29 = 41 closures = 41 days
• Work Zone Capacity: 1,510 from Table 6 for Level terrain, LCCA PM (p. 46)
Second segment On SR -55
The second segment is on SR -55 in the City from Finley to SR- 1 /SR -55 Interchange. Total Lane
Mile is 2.0
Location # 4:
From Finley Road to PCH (PMO.0/0.3), total of 2.0 LM
There was a pavement project completed in May 2008, the project placed 0.2' RAC G.
The 2009 Pavement Condition Survey indicted the pavement to be in "Good Condition'.
This project is considered a CAPM and is forecasted to last at least ten years with routine
maintenance activity.
101P age
12 -ORA- 001 /055
SR-1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0.17)
12840- OLOOOK
Benefit Cost Summary
SR -1
SR -55
SR -1 & SR -55
Location
Lane -Mile
I Maintenance Cost $1000
1
8.00
871.22
2
9.00
567.36
3
12.00
1306.84
Total
29.00
2,745.42
Locntiou
Lane -Mile
Maintenance Cost $1000
A
12.00
22.31
All Locations
Lane -Mile
Maintenance Cost $1000
B/C estimate
31.00
2,767.73
ADA
117.00
Totals
31.00
2,884.73
Other Agencies Involved:
This is a FCO project. Only the City is involved.
Other Considerations:
NPDLS/Storn: Winter Quality Compliance:
This project is being prepared as a FCO to the City. The Department is not proposing a
construction contract.
Right of way:
The proposed project is within the existing State R/W. No R/W acquisition is required. (See
Attachment L). Design and RIW engineering branches will process mapping and legal
description for relinquishment recordation.
Utility Involvement:
This project will not require public utilities relocations
111page
16
12- ORA- 001/055
SR -1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0.17)
12840.OL000K
Consistency with other Planning:
16
The Department of Transportation has been working with various local agencies within the
district.
Environmental Issues:
Environmental Planning has determined the project is exempt and prepared a Categorical
Exemption (CE) under Section 15301, Class 1 (d) of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CF,QA) and prepared a Categorically Exclusion (CE) under Section 6004 of 23 CFR
771.117(d): activity (d)(1) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A signed
Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion (CE /CE) is attached. (Attachment 14)
Permit:
N/A
Other issues:
A- Participation:
Department will contribute to the City a negotiated lump sum payment to relinquish the
proposed segment of SR -1 and SR -55. The City will accept the lump sum payment and all
rights, existing encumbrances, title and interest of the roadway, without any additional costs
to the Department.
B- Benefits
Benefit to the Department:
The Department will not have to maintain the roadway over ten year period. The cost would
be approximately $2.7 Mil.
Benefit to the City:
Transferring ownership of the roadway to the City will provide the City the opportunity to
directly serve the needs of its community. The ownership benefits of valuable real estate and
valuable improvements that have been made to the facility over the years. The precise value of
this has not been determined but is assumed to be significant.
C- Method of raccomplishment:
The proposed method to accomplish this relinquishment is to make a lump sum FCO payment
to the City for accepting the relinquishment. The City other than accepting the relinquishment,
no restriction will be placed on the City as to how or when they do the repairs.
1[D- Recommendations:
121Paee
12 -ORA -001 /055
SR -1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0.17)
12840 - OLOOOK
Upon agreement on the terms and conditions, it is recommended that a cooperative agreement
be executed with the City to authorize the negotiated lump sum FCO payment to the City inl 6
exchange for the City's acceptance of the relinquishment of this facility within the limits
described herein.
A "Relinquishment - Cooperative agreement" with City is required. The PSSR will serve as an
authorizing document for the Department to enter into an agreement with the City.
(Project Reviewed by:
District Maintenance
Pavement advisor
Project Studies Branch
HQ Division of Design
HQ Division of Design
HQ Division of Design
Type of Federal Involvement:
Masooud Tajik
Majid Movahed
Constantino Stamation
.Tim DeLuca
Luis Betancourt
Karl Dreher
None
Date: 09/17/09
Date: 09/17/09-08/16/11
Date: 08/16/11
Date: 3/15/10
Date: 6/15/10
Date: 4/07/11- Present
This Project is considered exempt from FHWA oversight 23 USC sec. 106 (c) (1) according to
the Department Project Development Procedures Manual.
Proposed Funding
This project will be amended in current SHOPP plan. This project is proposed as FCO and a
FCO- Cooperative agreement will be required between the Department and the City.
Project Support and Schedule
Proposed
Program
FY
District PY'S
En meerin service Center PY's
FY
Total
PY'S
Other
Costs
$
METS and Others
Structures
Office
Design
R/W
Consh•
Design
Coasts
I Desi n
Constr
En r
13/14
0.2
0.7
1 --
I --
0.9
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT PY'S AND OTHER SUPPORT COSTS
PY'S
Alternatives:
The following Alternatives are considered for the project area:
Alternative 1: No relinquishment
The Department will continue to maintain the roadway.
13 11) 1 g e
12 -ORA -001 /055
SR -1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0.17)
12840- OLOOOK
Alternative 2: Relinquishment to the City
16
Per PDPM, chapter 25, Article 3- policies "When relinquishing a state highway, there may be
occasions when it is appropriate for Department to perform work or to provide financial
contributions to the local agency to ensure that the facility is safe and drivable. Additional
work or financial contribution may be considered if in the best interest of the public, as
evaluated by the Relinquishment Advisory Committee ".
Table below shows the cost for reconstruct new curb ramps and other sidewalk deficiencies
(American Disability Act -ADA list) that Relinquishment Advisory Committee (RAC) agreed
upon.
SR -1
Rte
PM
LOCATION
Mod.
Curb
WORK Description
COST
PM
Ram
1
17.430
Jamboree Road
1
Reconstruct curb ramp
$5,000
1
17.624
Promontory PT - LT
3
New yellow pads needed
$300
1
18:073
Bayside Drive
3
Reconstruct curb ramp
$15,000
1
18.218
N -Arm Newport Bay
1
Reconstruct curb ramp
$5,000
1
18.446
Diver Dr RT /Bayshore
0
New curb ramps exist
$ 0
1
18.833
Balboa Bay Club Resort
I
Reconstruct curb ramp
$5,000
LT
1
19.411
Tustin Ave RT
0
New curb ramps exist
$ 0
1
19.511
Riverside Ave
0
New curb ramps exist
$ 0
1
19.761
To /Fr Newport Blvd
2
New yellow pads needed
$200
B 55
1
19.768
SB off to NB Rte 55
2
New yellow pads needed
$200
1
19.858
NB off to SB Rte 55
2
New yellow pads needed
$200
1
19.867
SB off to SB Rte 55
2
New yellow pads needed
$200
1
19.881
RT Rte 55 off Ramp-
2
New yellow pads needed
$200
1
20.032
Balboa Cove/ Hospital
i
Reconstruct curb ramp
$5,000
1
20.370
Sufperior / RT; Balboa /
4
New yellow pads needed
$400
141Page
12 -ORA -001 /055
SR -I (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0,17)
12840- OLOOOK
1
20.981
End
61st St
2
New yellow pads needed
$200
1
21,021
PM
62nd St
2
New yellow pads needed
$200
1
21.061
Prospect St RT
2
Reconstruct curb ramp
$1 0,000
1
21.101
Cedar St RT
2
Reconstruct curb ramp
$10,000
1
21.141
Walnut St
1
Reconstruct curb ramp
$5,000
l
21.271
Orange St.
2
Reconstruct curb ramp
$10,000
1
21.301
Fern ST RT
1
Reconstruct curb ramp
$5,000
1
21.351
Grant St. RT
2
Reconstruct curb ramp
$10,000
l
21.381
Highland St. RT
2
Reconstruct curb ramp
$10,000
TOTAL
$97,100
SR -55
SR -1 & SR -55
TOTAL $117,000
15111agc
16
End
Mod.
Rte
Beg. PM
PM
LOCATION
Curb
Work Description
COST
Ram
55
0.000
Finley Ave.
2
Reconstruct curb ramp
$10,000
55
0.101
Via Lido St. RT /
2
Reconstruct curb ramp
$10,000
Short St.
TOTAL
$20,000
SR -1 & SR -55
TOTAL $117,000
15111agc
16
12 -ORA -001 /055
SR -1 (PM 17,43121.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0.17)
128407OLOOOK
]List of Attachments:
16
Attachment A
Location and Strip Maps
Attachment B
State Route Relinquishment Status
Attachment C
Typical Cross Sections
Attachment D
Relinquishment of State Highway by legislative Enactment
Attachment.E
Transportation System Analysis and Evaluation (TSAE)
Attachment F
State Bill authorization (AB 344)
Attachment G Proposed Relinquishment map
Attachment H Environmental Clearance
Attachment I
TSAR- Accident Reports
Attachment J
Pavement Condition Survey Inventory
Attachment K
Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) Work Sheet and Procedure
Manual (PM) Reference Sheets.
Attachment L
Right -of -Way Data Sheet
Attachment M
Storm Water Data Report (SWDR)
161Pag0
District Contacts:
Solomon Mishkanian, PE
Project Engineer
Project Studies Unit
Constantino Stamation, PE
Branch Chief
Advance Planning/Project Studies Branch
Majid Movahed, PE
Program Advisor
Maintenance
Massoud Tajik, PE
Program Advisor
Maintenance
Nooshin Yoosefi, PE, PMP
Project Manager
Project Management
Tien Tran, PE
District Program Manager
Program Management
Smita Deshpande
Branch Chief
Environmental Planning
Evy Washington
Right of Way
Project Coordinator
Mathew Cugini, PE
Acting Office Chief
Office of Design
Ryan Chamberlain
Deputy District Director
Planning and Local Assistances
12 -ORA- 001/055
SR -1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0.17)
12840- OLOOOK
(949) 724 -2139
(949) 724 -2249
(949) 553 -3563
(949) 724 -2478
(949) 724 -2131
(949) 223 -5424
(949) 724 -2243
(949) 724 -2515
(949) 724 -2126
(949) 724 -2899
171Pagc
16
12 -ORA -001 1055
SR -1 (PM 17.43/21.55)
SR -55 (PM 0.00/0.17)
12840.OLOOOK
Recommended By:
16
DATE:
CONSTANTINO STAMATION, PE
Branch Chief
Advance Planning/Project Studies Branch
DATE:
MASSOUD TAJII£, PE
Program Advisor
Maintenance Engineering
CONCURRENCE:
DATE:
MATHEW CUGINI, PE
Acting Office Chief
Office of Design
DATE:
ADMAN MAIM-][, PE, PMP, PhD
Office Chief,
Program & Project Management
DATE:
RYAN CHAMBERLAIN
Deputy District Director
Planning and Local Assistant
DATE:
JAMES PINHEIRO, PE
Deputy District Director
District Operations and Maintenance
t8IPae, e
16
16
Rough 20 Year Maintenance Cost Estimate for West.Coast Highway
Santa Ana River to Jamboree Road (4.12 Miles)
Item
Unit Cost (todays $)
20 Year Cost
Pavement Rehabilitation
2,175,000 square ft (grind and overlay -twice in next 20 years)
$1.8 per sq ft (all in)
$13,341,751
Existing Striping and Signage Maintenance
$2,000 /year
$59,556
Concrete Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Replacement
$4,000 /year
$119,112
Traffic Signals (11 signalized intersections)
Rehabilitation (once in 20 years)
$220,000 per signal
$5,302,462
Maintenance /Operations Cost ( electric, bulbs, maintenance, knock downs)
$8,200/TS /year
$2,685,985
Initial Signal System Upgrade /Modernization (interconnect, controllers, cabinets, CCTV, etc)
$2,500,000
$5,477,750
Storm Drain System
Storm Drain /Grating Refurbishment and screens (108,grates)
$10,000 1year
$297,781
Repair Coast Highway at Riverside SD (one time)
$150,000
$328,665
Maintain Concrete Ditch at Bayside Drive
$1,000 /year
$29,778
Repair Separated Outlet at Bay Crossing (one time)
$10,000
$21,911
Annual Cleaning
15000 /year
$446,672
Bridge
Crack Sea[ Bridge Deck (82,170 sq ft) x2
$2 per sq ft
$460,200
Repair Spaded Concrete (4,000 sq ft in 20 years)
$50 per sq ft
$438,220
ADA Ramps
Ramps rehab /replacement /upgrade
$117,000 Lump Sum
$256,359
Street Lights
Maintenance and Operations (Dover to Newport)
$26,400 /year
$786,142
Replacement Dover to Newport 80 lights (assume once in 20 yrs)
$4,000 per standard
$701,152
Additional Staffing Demand
0.5 FTE staff member for O &M of additional Traffic Signals; CIP Management /Encroachment
$98,800 per year
$2,942,076
Total 20 Year Cost $33,695,572
Average Annual Cost $1,132,171