Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR JUNE 198011111111111111111111111111111111111111 lill 1111111.
*NEW FILE*
SANTA ANA
TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR JUNE 1980
City Manager's Briefing
Proposed Phase I Rapid Transit Program
October 14 and 15, 1980
1. General Background
A. Multi -Modal Transportation Study - high priority corridor identified
B. Stage I Alternatives Analysis - 19 alternatives under consideration
C. Other Rapid Transit Studies - technologies, economic impact and joint
development
2. Joint OCTD/OCTC Meeting - November 10, 1980
A. Draft Final Report - key findings and recommendations - highway and
transit
3. Next Steps in Implementation Process
A. Project Schedule
B. Public Participation Process - November -January
4. Key Issues for Cities Relative to Rapid Transit Development
A. Land Use and Densities (housing)
B. Alignments and Station Locations (RTAC)
C. Financial Plan and Joint Development
BP:js
(I
RA..rd uS, fir^-�M� ,
Pv-AtAQvn %.txvw�
Gt(L/
N,
vnA�N STi S.A.
�-a
S,/A, Civtc C � r-2 -� s, C,R�2P�RT-
ryll + 7 6,0 re.A2(sn GaJNay SAyS --� k�t.tr CCMb^(Z.
v�r�
u trwr (ukil,
i. Rv6yY Gfi- 'IlyLls.
q , (r2oop Ilpflo T(+.P,d$ t'r'
w t,, )OU
?�,���
lJ, vj o
/2,de)0
io-ram ��p
Plt/ pdnr"' 4)k26-lq
N, h� /N S7-
/ZvS�=w dLvr+e 4x
C l �tj Cc=.✓TLi2
od:rc-
C�n� P11-70/'% S
1s
%M�.�1.kr l0'1P
J
(--G
'� 2
40
December 22, 1980
STUDY SESSION
ITEM NO. 8
TO: CITY COUNCIL
• FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study
DISCUSSION:
At the study session of December 22, 1980, Mr. Al Hollinden,
Chairman of the Orange County Transportation Commission, will make a presentation
on the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study. This presentation is part of
the public participation phase of the study.
The element of the study that most affects Newport Beach is a proposed
24-mile rapid transit "starter line" from Anaheim through Santa Ana to Irvine
near John Wayne Airport. If extended, this starter line could also serve Newport
Center.
Attached for reference are copies of the "Summary Report - Stage 1
Technical Evaluation - Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis"
•and a Fact Sheet. Alternatives 8, 9, and 10 described on page 16 of the Summary
Report include the rapid transit starter line mentioned above. Also, pages 30
and 31 discuss the recommendation on the starter line.
The Santa Ana Transportation Corridor (SATC) Alternatives Analysis
Study is in the middle of a three month public review and comment period which
began November 10, 1980. Public agencies have been asked to review the report
and make recommendations on what alternatives should be evaluated in Stage II
of the study. The Transportation Commission would like to receive comments
before the first of February.
As indicated above, the aspect of the study of most direct interest
to the City of Newport Beach is the possible extension into Newport Center of
the proposed rapid transit "starter line". The Irvine Company, by letter dated
October 3, 1980 (copy attached) has requested inclusion of the Newport Center
extension in the study analysis.
If a response from the City is desired by the Council, the staff should
be directed to prepare recommendations for Council review and approval at the
meeting of January �26, 1981.
Benjamin B. Nolan
Public Works Director
BBN:jo
Att: For Council Only
SUMMARY REPORT
Stage 1
Technical Evaluation
Santa Ana Transportation Corridor
Alternatives Analysis
This report was prepared for presentation at the meeting of
the Orange County Transportation Commission and the Orange
County Transit District Board held on November 10, 1980.
POLICY GROUPS
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS
• Al Hollinden, Chairman
Ralph B. Clark
Zika Djokovich
Hein* Heckeroth
Thomas F. Riley
Bill Vardoulis
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Thomas L. Jenkins
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSIT DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Ralph B. Clark, Chairman
Philip L. Anthony
William E. Farris
Al Hollinden
Donald A. Holt, Jr.
GENERAL MANAGER
James P. Reichert
TABLE OF CONTENTS
—
The Study - Its
Origin and Process- - - - - - -
- - - 1
The Problem and
Its Background- - - - - - - - -
- - - 4
•
The Options for
Transportation Improvements - -
- - - 11
The Alternatives
- Performance, Costs and
Comparisons-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - 18
Findings and Recommendations- - - - - - - - - -
- - - 27
The Next Steps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 33
•
THE STUDY - ITS ORIGIN AND PROCESS
Background
The interest in improving transportation
leervice in the Santa Ana Corridor is not
ew. In the 1950's, the Santa Ana Free-
way was constructed to serve a low density,
mostly rural area and small towns as well
as to provide an inter -regional connec-
tion between San Diego, Orange County
and Los Angeles. That improvement in
accessibility in turn contributed signi-
ficantly to the growth and development
of the Santa Ana Corridor in Orange
County, changing the character of the
corridor from semi -rural to urban in a
relatively short period of time. Travel
demands and traffic volumes in the cor-
ridor have increased accordingly. By the
early 1970's, average peak hour travel
speeds throughout the 35 mile length in
Orange County had dropped to less than
20 miles per hour.
Wese changes, both in area character and
avel demand, have produced a long-stand-
ng and growing concern for transportation
improvements in the corridor. In response
to those concerns, county, regional and
state agencies have focused attention
over the past decade on potential improve-
ments in this corridor as evidenced by
the following recommendations,.
• 1971-Caltrans Santa Ana Freeway Study.
A multi -jurisdictional study to develop
and recommend near -term solutions to
the critical peak hour congestion - 71
individual projects were recommended.
• 1973-1975 Orange County Transit
District (OCTD) Alternative Transit
Corridors Study. An early OCTD study
to examine systemwide, long-range
transit options in Orange County led
to the adoption by OCTD in 1974 of a
Master Plan for Fixed Guideways in
which the Santa Ana Corridor was identi-
fied as the priority corridor.
• Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Trans-
'ortation Plan. Since 1975, this
PH has included specific recom-
mendations for improvement in the
corridor as the highest priority improve-
ment in Orange County.
1-5 northbound during rush hour
1974-1976-Los Angeles/San Diego
Corridor Study. Caltrans, SCAG
and the Comprehensive Planning Organ-
ization of San Diego recommended dif-
ferent levels of improvement for
Amtrak services.
• 1978-Air Quality Management Plan
A fixed guideway transit facility in
the Santa Ana Corridor is included as
one of the techniques for air quality
management.
• 1976-1978-Caltrans Freeway Transit
Element. This multi -agency plan for
Los Angeles County identified two high
priority freeway corridors, the Harbor
and the Santa Ana. Funding for preli-
1
minary engineering work on the Santa
Ana Freeway between the Los Angeles CBD
and Beach Boulevard in Orange County
has been appropriated, but final deci-
•sions regarding improvements south of
the San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605)
will depend on the outcome of this
corridor study in Orange County.
Orange County MultimodaI Trans ortation
Study MMTS). The MMfS was conducted by
the Orange County Transportation Commis-
sion (OCTC) to evaluate alternative ways
of meeting future transportation needs
and to develop a specific transporta-
tion plan for Orange County. The MMTS
was the first transportation plan for
Orange County which simultaneously
addressed various modes of transporta-
tion.
The key issues addressed by the MMTS
were:
- Congestion - Should congestion be
•alleviated by construction of new
facilities, maximizing use of exist-
ing facilities, expanding mass transit
or by a combination of techniques?
- Mobility - What are the travel needs
of Orange County residents and how
can these needs best be met?
- Investment and Funding - How much
money should be spent for different
transportation modes and how should
this money be generated?
- Energy Conservation - What type of
transportation system will offer the
greatest energy efficiency?
The key recommendations from the MMTS
relating to the Santa Ana Corridor were
to:
1.Increase capacity on all existing
freeways in Orange County, with de-
tailed improvements on I-5 to be
determined by the Santa Ana Corridor
•Alternatives Analysis. The highest
highway system priorities were found
to be capacity increases in the Santa
Ana and Costa Mesa freeway corridors,
along with development of the San
Joaquin Hills and Orange Freeway Exten-
sion corridors.
Conduct corridor level analyses of
fixed guideway rapid transit in the
Santa Ana/Pacific Electric corridor,
and in the north -south corridor.
The Process
• What is "Alternatives Analvsis"?
Almost any decision which involves choices
requires careful consideration of the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of each avail-
able option or alternative. This is
certainly true where major investments
of public funds in transportation faci-
lities are concerned. "Alternatives
Analysis" is simply a structured filter-
ing process designed to insure that all
options are considered and evaluated
equally in an objective way.
RAPID t
TRANSIT EXF
�Santa••'�
" C•Ana •...�••
orridor
SIYIAY 1:
ON
SUSWAYS
SANTA ANA CORRIDOR - THE OPTIONS
The filtering process ("alternatives
analysis") is conducted in two phases,
each with increasing detail. Phase I
is designed to weed out all but the
most promising alternatives on the basis
of their overall performance, cost, and
impacts, relative to the existing or
"null" situation. Since the remaining
group of alternatives will usually dis-
play smaller differences, Phase II is
conducted in more detail so that the
more subtle differences can be identi-
fied and a preferred alternative selected
with confidence. This phase also includes
preparation of a draft environmental
impact statement structured to meet both
California and Federal requirements.
This logical process is required in order
to obtain Federal assistance in financing
any project involving major investment of
public funds. However, completing the
2
alternatives analysis process does not
guarantee Federal funding. The preferred
project must still compete with other pro-
grams around the country on its own merit.
Nevertheless, the alternatives analysis
— rocess makes the local agency eligible
o receive funds and place a proposed
project in the Federal and State deci-
sion -making process for transportation
funding.
I t
•,The Process in the Santa Ana Corridor
The work to date as described in this
report covers Phase I of Alternatives
Analysis. Initially, fifty-five alterna-
tives ranging from the existing or "do-
nothing" option to capital intensive com-
binations of transit and highway improve-
ments were identified. The performance,
costs, and impacts of these alternatives
were described at the concept level.
These findings were first reviewed in
public workshops and by the Orange County
Transportation Commission's Technical,
olicy and Citizen Advisory committees.
sed on that review, the OCTC, on May 12,
80, approved further study of nineteen
alternatives for the remainder of Phase I.
Since that decision, the nineteen alterna-
tives have been subjected to more exhaus-
tive testing for performance, costs and
impacts. This testing has included de-
velopment of patronage and performance
estimates, capital and operating cost
estimates, and a general assessment of
socio/economic and environmental impacts.
This report focuses on the analysis and
evaluation of these nineteen alternatives,
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION COflRIOOq
SELECT
ALTERNATIVES'
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS — PHASEI
,FOREII
DECISION PROCESS
ANALYSIS
=e w1
,
R..p.1
FlnElp.
y
Nat. UX 1YM
14
Fa FunM.
61WV
D.r.bO I,". nullw.
I
An.muh. Avom.w Srccrc,
I
2
6II 11 Mry 1pM
I
W.
, . .
oelMUW I
I
W
m
66TIN.W11.Ibn Albm.lh..—
al
'
C.I.cm.x. APPOond
er M"19M I
.v teM I
�
together with the results from selected
additional studies which examined var-
ious rapid transit vehicle technologies
and the economic impact of a transit
project.
The technical analysis in Phase I has been
conducted by staff from OCTD, OCTC, SCAG
and CalTrans. Staff from these agencies
as well as from the Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission and the Southern
California Rapid Transit District partici-
pated in the Technical Task Force which
guided the development of the technical
work.
eThe Conclusions and Recommendations
The alternatives analysis process has
resulted in a set of recommendations
with respect to both the long-term al-
ternatives to be further studied in the
detailed Phase II work. This report
summarizes those conclusions and gives
recommendations for a general program
of highway and transit improvements
within the Santa Ana Corridor.
It is important to stress that these
recommendations are not specific with
respect to a particular vehicle system,
a precise route alignment or a detailed
transit route plan. Rather, they are
general in nature in keeping with the
continuing filtering and refining pro-
cess of alternatives analysis. In the
ensuing preparation of the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement, more specific
information relating to alignments, tech-
nology and costs will be developed in con-
junction with the communities involved.
The recommendations of this Phase.I
study are presented in enough detail
to permit comprehensive public review
and debate in the ensuing months. This
public review process is essential,
not only to assist in selecting the
best and most acceptable alternatives
and course of action, but also to insure,
that subsequent technical analysis and
evaluation adequately address the issues
perceived as important by the citizens of
Orange County. This report and the mater-
ial developed in the study to date will
provide the starting point for that public
review and debate.
3
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Population and Employment - Growth and
Trends
• Population
Orange County was largely unurbanized
and agricultural prior to the post -World
War II housing boom, and was character-
ized by enormous tracts of ranch land
and orchards. In 1940 the county popula-
tion was 131,000; in 1950 it was 216,000,
and by 1976 had grown to 1.7 million re-
sidents - an almost 13-fold increase in
35 years. By comparison, Los Angeles
County's population increased by 2.5
times during that same period.
logo Ing Imo I'm logs Ions
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Current projections of population
growth indicate that about 2.6 million
people will reside in Orange County in
1995, an increase of over 600,000 from
today's level. While this growth rate
iwth
not as dramatic as that experienced
the past 35 years, this additional will place heavy demands on an
already overloaded transportation
system.
• Employment
Employment in the county is now growing
faster than population, a distinct change
from earlier trends when Orange County
functioned as a "bedroom" for jobs located
in Los Angeles and other locations.
By 1976, employment had passed the half -
million mark, with some 600,000 jobs, up
from a 1950 total of 66,000.
Major industries are relocating to the
county, and major new employment centers
such as the East Irvine Industrial Complex,
and office complexes in Anaheim, Santa Ana,
Costa Mesa and the Airport are being de-
veloped. Population -employment ratios in-
dicate that the county is no longer just
a residential community for Los Angeles.
While there is still a considerable amount
of work -trip travel into Los Angeles
County, especially via the Santa Ana and
San Diego Freeways, there is also a con-
siderable amount of reverse -commute.
This trend of increasing employment
growth is expected to continue. By 1995,
employment in the county is expected to
reach 1.25 million, an increase of 400,000
over 1980.
Of particular importance is the projec-
tion that by 1995 the number of available
jobs will be greater than the resident
labor force. In 1976, there were approxi-
mately 0.8 jobs for every person in Orange
County in the labor force. By 1995 this
relationship is projected to increase to
1.07 jobs. This means that the number of
people commuting into Orange County to
work will continue to increase.
Not only will there be more workers com-
muting into the county, but there will
be more work trips made entirely within
the county by employed residents. In-
creased transportation capacity, whether
it be by transit or by -automobile, will
be required, with an emphasis on shorter,
intra-county trips.
Development Patterns and Trends
• The Past
Prior to the 19701s, urbanization was
almost entirely confined to the flatlands
in the northern and central portions of
the county. Planning principles at the
! . I
time led to development of big block resi-
dential areas (one mile square tracts),
segregation of land uses into distinct
commercial, industrial and residential
�careas, low residential densities (four
ouses per acre) and emphasis on strip-
ommercial development along major arter-
ial streets.
Before 1970, Orange County functioned
primarily as a "bedroom" suburban commu-
nity for employment areas in central and
southern Los Angeles County. This type
of development led to highly dispersed
trip patterns. Although there were a few
focal points in older towns such as Santa
Ana and in new major industrial parks,
trip patterns were - and still are -
"many -to -many".
This early development pattern also led
to an emphasis on commercial and indust-
rial use adjacent to the freeways, espec-
ially in the Santa Ana Corridor. At the
same time, the freeways were built to
Wrve a low density agrarian region and
e
mall towns, and were designed as re-
gional routes to Los Angeles. Built in
the 1950's to rural standards, they are
now inadequate for urban transportation
needs.
• The Present
The urbanized portion of Orange County
today encompasses approximately 300
square miles out of the total county
area of 786 square miles. From 1970 to
1975, the land area devoted to urbanized
ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT AREA - 1966
5
uses grew by 30 percent, and by the year
2000 is expected to increase significantly
over the area in urban uses in 1975.
Substantial changes in the development
patterns are becoming evident. Orange
County has no single center of economic
activity (such as a single central busi-
ness district) due to the manner in which
the county developed. However, commercial
activities, especially in the newer parts
of the county, are becoming concentrated
in a few multi -functional centers that
act as sub -regional "downtowns". Freeway
corridors are still the major focus of
new commercial and industrial development
and most of the activity centers shown in
Figure are located in a corridor fol-
lowing the alignment of the Newport, Santa
Ana and San Diego Freeways.
Industrial areas, while not as multi-
functional as the commercial centers,
also serve as major centers of economic
activity. Major industrial focal points
include the Irvine Industrial Complex and
the northeast Anaheim, South Fullerton
and Garden Grove industrial areas.
With the exception of Newport Center, all
of the commercial activity centers and
major industrial centers are located in
close proximity to a freeway, with the
Santa Ana Freeway standing out as the
major population and employment corridor
in the county. Nearly half of the people
living and working in the county do so
within three miles of this facility.
ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT AREA -'1979
• The Future
By 1995, Orange County is projected to
contain 20 percent of the region's popu-
tion and jobs, and will have become a
jor employment center, in marked con-
rast to its earlier role as Los Angeles'
"bedroom'!.
The activity centers shown on the next
page, which initially developed primarily
as commercial retail shopping centers,
have expanded in recent years to include
major office, cultural and service func-
tions. This trend is expected to continue.
Based on employment projections and on
existing trends, Central Orange County
will develop into the major office/com-
.mercial focal point in the county. In
addition, the combination of the proposed
Irvine Center plus the adjacent East
Irvine Industrial Complex will result in
new employment and commercial center
ated at the junction of the San Diego
Santa Ana Freeways in South County.
The largest increases in residential
population are expected to be in Irvine
and other areas of South County. However,
increases in residential density in cities
north of the Newport Freeway will lead to
significant increases in the population
of northern and central Orange County as
well.
The transportation implications of these
changes in development pattern are:
• The large increases in population pro-
jected for South County will produce
additional strain on the Santa Ana
Corridor transportation system
There will be an intensification of
ravel in the established travel cor-
idors, with more trips oriented to
the major activity centers
• The pattern to more centralized and
concentrated land use development will
reinforce transit use
Socio-Economic Trends
• Employment Characteristics
Aside from continuing increases in popu-
lation and employment, perhaps the most
significant socio-economic trend in
Orange County is the change in the types
of employment.
The earliest job base was agriculture,,
but by 1976 agricultural employment had
dropped to less than two percent of the
County's tptal employment. Manufacturing
now accounts for the greatest number of
workers employed by any one sector of
the economy. However, the greatest num-
erical increase for any employment sector
was for the combined wholesale/retail
trade category, which has become second
only to manufacturing.
IPSO 108 PPS
EMPLOYMENT BY TYPE
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT BY TYPE
The fastest growing employment sector
has been wholesale trade, indicating
the growing importance of.Orange
County as a distribution center, not
only for county markets but for the
region as a whole. Other sectors which
exhibited higher than average growth
rates were services, government, finance
and real estate, and retail trade. This
distinct trend toward non -manufacturing
activities -is reflected in the signifi-
cant change, in employment density. By
0
1995 South Coast Plaza, downtown Santa
Ana, Anaheim Stadium, Irvine Center the
airport commercial office complex and
other office complexes in the corridor
Wwill employ over 140,000 people, repre-
`enting nearly 12 percent of total county
employment.
• Housing Market Characteristics
As elsewhere, the affordability of housing
is a pressing concern in Orange County.
Rapid growth coupled with increasing costs
has caused the market to shift toward mul-
tiple family unit construction. For in-
stance, since 1970, 47 percent of'all new
housing units being built in Orange County
were townhouses, condominiums or apart-
ments. By 1995 countywide projections in-
dicate that this style of development will
account for 37% of the housing stock, a
distinct change from 30 years ago when
almost all housing was single-family.
0n
esidential densities in the Santa Ana
rridor will continue to be higher than
the rest of the county. By 1995, 60
percent of all multi -family housing will
be located here, as will 51 percent of
all single-family homes. This relative
concentration of housing together with
the activity centers will produce more
concentrated travel patterns than exist
today, further reinforcing transit as an
attractive and necessary travel alterha-
tive.
Transportation in Orange County
• Trip and Travel Patterns
Current travel patterns reflect the
underlying land use pattern of the
county. Generally speaking, travel
patterns in the northern urbanized
area of Orange County are dispersed,,
but with some focus at several major
employment areas: downtown Santa Ana,
North Anaheim Industrial, Irvine Indus-
trial West and portions of Los Angeles
County. Probably the most significant
factor affecting these travel patterns
is the large amount of employment
found in this part of the county.
7
This focus of travel patterns will con-
tinue in the future because all major
employment opportunities for South County
residents will be found northward in
0her the Santa Ana or San Diego Free -
corridors. As new employment centers
in South County such as Irvine Center and
Irvine Industrial East grow, they will add
to the already crowded condition of the
Santa Ana Freeway since this is the primary
travel facility leading to the activity
centers.
• Expressway and Freeway Systems
Orange County is served by more than
160 miles of freeway systems and 1,250
miles of major arterials such as Beach
Boulevard, First Street and the Pacific
Coast Highway. The major freeways are
shown below.
Of the freeways serving the county, the
Santa Ana Freeway clearly stands out as
the one serving major population and
employment centers most directly. This
freeway provides access to more people
and more jobs than any other in the
county. Some 800,000 people (49 percent
of the county's population) live within
three miles of the freeway. By 1995,
46corridor population is anticipated
grow to 1.2 million. Approximately
,000 jobs (5S percent of the county
total) are also within three miles of
the Santa Ana Freeway. By 1995 this
figure is projected to increase to 560,
000 jobs.
The Santa Ana Freeway is the major inter-
regional route connecting the Los Angeles
and San Diego metropolitan areas and is
the major transportation facility serv-
ing the Southern California megalopolis —
which has developed along the coastline
south of Los Angeles. It is also an
important regional facility for both _
commuter and non -commuter traffic.
In addition to its commuter transporta-
tion function, I-5 is an important re-
creational route, running near capacity
on Saturdays and Sundays. In some loca-
tions, weekend traffic is as much as 50
percent higher than weekday traffic.
The I-5 freeway is also the major freight
artery along the coastline. Vehicular
counts show trucks accounting for between
7 and 13.5 percent (6,000 - 17,000 trucks)
of the daily vehicle traffic along various
sections of the freeway in,Orange County.
In comparison, I-10, the major regional
facility eastbound from Los Angeles, V
carries from 6,000 to 12,000 trucks daily.
* Transit Service
OCTD provides public transit service
within the county. Regional service is
provided by the Southern California Rapid
Transit District (RTD) which links Orange
and Los Angeles counties -and by AMTRAK
serving San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles'
counties. The vast majority of all tran-
sit trips.in Orange County is on OCTD
buses.
As of September, 1980, OCTD operated 53
local bus routes with service frequencies
ranging from 10 to 60 minutes. These are —
fixed route services operated on the major
arterial grid street system. This portion
of the service carries over 95 percent of
all OCTD transit riders. In addition,
OCTD operates 10 peak hour park/ride ex-
press routes, generally on the freeway
network and focused on central Santa Ana.
Supplementing these express routes are 6
peak hour commuter routes which operate
on arterial streets serving major employ-
ment concentrations in north county. Dial -
a -Ride and Dial -a -Lift services are also
offered in a large segment of the county.
ri
13
The Santa Ana Corridor is served by many
of the local fixed routes in both north/
- south and east/west directions. Peak hour
express service is provided by two routes
201 and 204), and on I-5 between a major
ark/ride lot in Fullerton and central
anta Ana. Five routes (201, 202, 209,
210 and 291) serve the Santa
generally using the Santa An
south county into the central
area.
Ana
Ana Corridor,
Freeway from
Santa Ana
• Usage and Level of Service of
Transportation Facilities
Usage of the regional freeway system in
Orange County has been increasing steadily
in keeping with employment and population
growth. The dramatic changes in popula-
tion and new jobs available in the county
have resulted in a substantial growth in
the number of daily person trips both by
transit and by auto.
Feincreased number of auto trips being
e on the existing freeway system has
used traffic congestion to be a regular
part of the commuter's day. As shown on
the next page, portions of every freeway
in Orange County experience periods of
congestion, with the Santa Ana Freeway
operating at the lowest levels of ser-
vice(severe congestion, stop -and -go move-
ment) during peak hours, with 35 miles
of the total 52 miles of the freeway
currently operating at the theoretical
design capacity.
OCTD ridership has increased dramatically
since its beginning in 1972. In its
first year of operation, the system opera-
ted only 25 buses and carried just under
984,000 passengers. By 1979 the system
had grown to 640 buses and carried over
26 million passengers. Projections for
his year, only nine years from start of
rvice, indicate that ridership for the
ear will reach 36 million passengers.
During that same time, system productivity
in terms of passengers per bus hour has
increased from 15.7 to 25.6. These
statistics clearly show that there is a
market for good reliable transit service
in Orange County. Most of the county's
local and express bus ridership occurs
within the Santa Ana Corridor.
taco
OCTD PERFORMANCE
0M
B.S.0
ja.eM(I16 Buaoe)
"M (2a Busae)
1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I
AMTRAK ridership has also exhibited sub-
stantial growth, largely because of a
doubling of service. Monthly ridership
for 1979 averaged 120,000 - an increase
of 200 percent over 1976. Depending
upon AMTRAK's service and pricing poli-
cies, ridership can be expected to in-
crease.
• The Problem
The Santa Ana Corridor is considered
to be the primary transportation corridor
in the county for two reasons: 1) the
large number of trips now served; and
2) the dramatic increase in population
and employment projected for this cor-
ridor by 1995.
M
Simply stated, the problem is that there
are more people wanting to travel in and
around the county than there is capacity
to move them - and by 1995 or even sooner
0 e situation will be much more severe.
e existing freeways do not have the
pacity to serve future travel demand
through the corridor, and capacity must
be increased. In addition, intense de-
mand throughout the corridor has resulted
in poor levels of service, characterized
by severe congestion and low travel speeds
Further, current transit service levels
and capacity are not high enough to signi-
ficantly affect the number of auto trips
or reduce freeway congestion levels.
The best indication of the severity of
traffic operational problems is evident
from Caltrans data for 1977:
- Operation of i8 miles (two-way) of the
Santa Ana Freeway is in breakdown condi-
tion (Level F - severe congestion, less
*than 20 mph average speed) during peak
hours.
Recurrent congestion (20-35 mph) for
more than 6 hours a day is evident
along major sections of the freeway.
- The extent and severity of these
traffic problems is worse on the Santa
Ana Freeway than on any other facility
in Orange County.
© Lcee mw.0 ve unsecvw¢ eoxoearux
Q vo-oe uvx •coxwe�0x
1
i
1977 PM PEAK HODH DELAY
All indications are that the growing
severity of transportation problems in
Orange County warrant an examination of
major transportation investment alterna-
tives. The question to be answered is
how best to meet the increased demand.
In the 501s, the answer would have been
to build another - or several - freeways.
But experience has shown that this solu-
tion not only presents other problems -
air pollution, energy consumption, neigh-
borhood and business disruption - but also
generates more trips and more congestion.
Orange County has changed over time from
a rural agricultural county to a highly
urbanized area. Policy decisions regard-
ing both land use and transportation must
reflect this change. The issues involved
in policy decisions are more complex than'
they once were, involving a mix of trans-
portation alternatives that meet the ob-
jectives of the county regarding social
equity, environmental quality, budgetary
constraints, joint usage of land, growth
of development, as well as transportation
and land use compatibility.
10
- -
THE OPTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Introduction
In developing the alternative transporta-
Oion investments to be analyzed in Phase I
t
of the Alternatives Analysis, a broad
range of concepts in serving present and
future travel demand in the Santa Ana
Transportation Corridor was considered.
Some of the concepts attempt to serve
projected travel demand primarily through
improvements to either transit or highway
systems. Other alternatives are based on
providing a combination of transit and
highway capacity increases. Major differ-
ences in alignments, level of service
provided, and extent of new construction
are also exhibited by the alternatives.
As indicated earlier in this report, some
55 alternative methods of serving future
travel demands in this corridor were
initially considered. After reviewing
performance, costs and impacts, the OCTC
rrowed the list of feasible alternatives
the 19 which are analyzed in this re-
port.
• General Transportation Categories
The 19 alternatives are composed of combi-
nations of various transportation concepts
designed primarily to expand capacity and
improve the overall service levels in the
Santa Ana Corridor in response to the pro-
jected growth in travel demand in that
corridor. The combinations recognize that
no one transportation element, either
highway or transit, can be expected to meet
the combined increase in both person trips
and goods movement projected within both
the county and the region.
The 19 alternatives represent six basic
categories, each placing major emphasis on
.e or more transportation components. The
tegories are:
1. Baseline: Includes Alternatives 1 and 2
Busways: Includes Alternatives 3, 4,
and 5.
Rapid Rail: Includes Alternatives 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, and 11.
4. Commuter Rail: Represented by Alterna-
tive 12.
5. Combined Highway and Transit Imorove-
ments: Represented by Alternatives 13
(Highway and Commuter Rail), 14 and 15
(Highway and Bus Combinations), 16 and
17 (Highway and Rail transit).
Transit Combinations: Represented by
Alternative 18 (Rail transit and Bus -
way combinations) and 19 (Busway,
Commuter Rail and Highway Widening).
At this point in the analysis, the alterna-
tives are general in nature. They do not
designate specific transit equipment since
there are many vehicles which provide the
service levels required in the general bus
or rail transit categories. Similarly,
they do not define specific routes or
station locations. This approach is
taken because in Phase I, the signifi-
cant cost and performance differences - are
between general system characteristics
rather than between specific vehicles,
routes or alignments.
11
Transportation Technologies
A recent study completed for OCTD inven-
toried transportation technologies that
F
ld be most appropriate for use in
nge County. Rather than concentrating
specific manufacturers or hardware,
the inventory was based on classes or
"generic" transportation systems, pri-
marily because of the large number of
potential equipment suppliers and the
similarity of the vehicle concepts.
• Buses
One of the major attributes of a bus is
its unique flexibility. Unlike the var-
ious rail,or guideway systems, it is con-
strained only by the street and freeway
network, and is capable of being operated
in mixed traffic or in various exclusive
right-of-way designs. In urban conditions,
buses in mixed traffic can carry 2,000
to 4,000 passengers per hour and would
�obably operate at average speeds gener-
y under 10 miles per hour. On busways
exclusive right-of-way operation, it
is not the vehicle system itself but
rather the support facilities such as
street capacity, number of bus stops or
size of terminals required which limit
the capacity of the system.
Bus design can be either the standard de-
sign usually seen on city streets, arti-
culated or double -decked. The standard
design usually seats 48 people, is 40
feet long and can be handicapped access-
ible. The articulated bus, having two
rigid sections with a flexible mid -joint
seats 67, is 60 feet long, and can be
handicapped accessible. Double -decked
buses seat 78, are 40 feet long, and are
not generally handicapped accessible.
Light Rail Transit
t Rail Transit (LRT) is a type of
fixed guideway transit with the unique
ability to function in either grade separa-
ted, semi -exclusive or mixed traffic rights -
of -way.
Vehicles can operate as single units or
can be coupled into trains. These factors
plus the wide range of vehicle sizes avail-
able today make LRT very flexible in terms
of passenger capacity and performance.' LRT
is manually operated but can incorporate a
wide range of train control. This capa-
bility also contributes to the ability
to adapt the LRT system to specific area
requirements.
Most LRT vehicles are articulated in de-
sign. Depending upon the manufacturer,
vehicles can carry from 42 to 68 seated
passengers (San Francisco's new Muni Metro
vehicles carry 68), are from 131 to 180
feet in length and can be handicapped -
accessible although at great expense and
operational i.iterference. Boarding from
platform or street level and the type of
fare collection system (on -board or pre-
paid) are features which must be selected
during the design phase.
• Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)
AGT systems offer the widest possible
range of vehicle size and system capacity.
In configuration, they may be bottom sup
ported or suspended from overhead struct-.
ures and may roll on either rubber tires .
or steel wheels. Regardless of size or
capacity, all such systems require a fully
grade separated and exclusive right-of-way
because of the automated operation and the
"third raid" method of power pick-up.
• Technologies Considered for Orange County
All of the various rail rapid transit and bus -
way options considered in this analysis are
based on the line haul application of any of
the technologies described above. The desig-
nation of a specific technology for implemen-
tation will be considered. during Phase Hofthe Alternatives Analysis.
w
-� I
12
19--
13
The Alternatives
• Components
Each of the nineteen alternatives is a
0mbination of transit and highway elements
systems. Three different highway systems
and twelve different transit elements are
included in various combinations in the
nineteen alternatives. All alternatives
except the null alternative (No. 1)include a
non -capital intensive highway and transit
element. The primary differences between
alternatives involve the addition of various
single or combined highway and transit
capital intensive facilities within the
Santa Ana Corridor.
The three highway systems that are being
studied in the various alternatives are:
1. Null - includes all highway facilities
which were in use as of June 1980.
2. Transportation Systems Management
(TSM) - includes non -capital intensive
improvements such as ramp metering on
all urban freeways.
3. I-S widening - widen I-5 from 6 to 8
lanes between I-605 and I-405.
The following transit features are included
in the alternatives:
1. Null - routes and frequencies of service
operated by OCTD as of June 1980.
2. TSM - peak period headways of 10-30
minutes on local transit routes; express
bus routes from residential zones to all
major employment zones in Orange County
with preferential bus lanes at metered
ramps.
3. Busways on combinations of the Pacific
Electric right-of-way, I-5 and Beach
Boulevard.
•Rapid Rail Transit on combinations of the
Pacific Electric right-of-way, I-5, Beach
Boulevard and other alignments.
S. Commuter Rail Service on AT&SF right-of-
way.
The transit and highway components comprising
each alternative are described on the follow-
ing pages.
• Null Alternative ("Do -Nothing")
No. 1 This alternative, included as a base-
line against which to measure the changes
implied in the remaining alternatives, con-
sists of the highway facilities and transit
routes in operation as of June 1980. Any
additional demand in the year 1995 would
have to be handled by the highway and tran-
sit systems which are available today in
Orange County.
• Transportation System Management (TSM)
No. 2 This alternative is designed to offer
improved service and capacity by means of
improvements to the existing highway and
transit systems, with investment in tran-
sit equipment, but with no major invests
ments in costly facilities. Modest facil-
ities such as ramp metering, High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) bypasses on freeway ramps and
auxiliary lanes on I-5 were included. This
alternative also includes improved transit
frequencies and greatly expanded express
service. These improvements are included 11
in all subsequent alternatives. Appro
priate modifications have been made to
the TSM measures when higher level faci- -
lities(busway or rail guideways) have
been included.
• Busways with Ridesharing Emphasis
No. 3 Ridesharing/Bus Emphasis I
This alternative adds an exclusive busway
for buses and carpools on,I-5 between I-605
and Ortega Highway.
No. 4 Ridesharing/Bus Emphasis II
This alternative includes an exclusive bus -
way for buses and carpools in the P.E.
right-of-way from the intersection of I-605
with the future Century Freeway (I-105),
through downtown Santa Ana to I-5 and con-
tinuing on I-5 to Ortega Highway.
14
,i a
TECHNICAL DLSCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
• COMMUTERBUSWAY RAPID RAIL TRaNSIT RAIL HIGHWAY
P.E, to Anaheim
P.E.•" I-5 to South Coast Plaza Convention (AMIRAK)
g P,E. via through -Santa Ana Center to Improve 8 lanes
ALT. TSM" I-5 I-5 Beach Blvd, g Irvine Irvine I-5 Service on I-5 OTHER
1 "NUL " Alternative; flighty y facilities g Transit Routes in servi a as of 6/ 980
2 5 new Commuter (tail
Stations
3 0 miles) 28 Park/Ride Lots
4 0 (40 miles)
4 new Park/Ride Lots
5 0 0 (44 miles) _ 2 new Park/Ride Lots
6 40 (43 miles) 27 stations;
1.59 mile spacing
7 with Beach Blvd. connection to I-5 29 stations;
(47 miles) I 1.62 mile spacing
8 I• via Katella to 34 stations;
St. College to 1.56 mile spacing
Rt. 22; along '
Rt. 22 to Ma
in S .
(53 miles total)
9 40 with Beach Blvd. 0 same as 8. above 36 stations;
connection to 1.58 mile spacing,
I-5 (55 milei total)
10 via Katella to.- 36 stations;
Main St. 1.52 mile spacing
11 0 24 stations; . ,
(4 mile ) 1.75 mile spacing
12 5 new Commuter Rail
Stations
13 (30 mi.) 5 new Commuter Rail
Stations
14 0 (42 miles) (30 mi.) 28 Park/Ride Lots
15 0 (40 miles) (30 mi.)' 4 new Park/Ride Lots
16 0 (43 miles) (30 mi.) 27 stations;
1.59 mile spacing
17 0 0(30 mi.) 24 stations;
(42 mile!) 1.75 mile spacing
18 9 0 terminates at Laguna (43 miles) 27 stations;
Hills Mall 1.59 mile spacing
(33 miles)
190 0 (42 miles) (30 mi.) Same new Amtrak
stations as in Alt. 12
"Transportation Systems Management
""Pacific Electric Right -of -Way
T
"Transportation Systems Management
""Pacific Electric Right -of -Way
T
*Sae l,tarnardino Cnunty
dal
Rt,ernifie County
"e w k
V= ott • ;.{1". 1................
Ali-
Pacific Ocean
IDOR ROUTE AND SEGMENT MAP -"- Beach Ellec
��� AMTRo K R.O.W. R.O.W.
AMTflAe R.O.
nm.n.um. 1-6 (Beach Blvd, to downtown Santa Ana I
.�.�. �. 1-6 (Downtown Santa Ana to 1-406) �
1-6 ( 1-405 to Ortega Rd. )
N00000406 Potential Guideway Alignments
ow
ALT. 1: NULL SYSTEM -SERVICE
As of June 1980
Exclusive guideway for buses
and carpools
41•
•••• Freeway romp metering
Area with TSM measures
ALT. 2: TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT(TSM)
dt•
Exclusive guideway for buses
and carpools
ALT.4: RIDESHARING/BUS ALT.5: RIDESHARING/BUS
EMPHASIS 11 EMPHASIS 11
(With Beach Blvd. Variation)
Exclusive guideway for buses
and carpools
LT.3: RIDESHARING/BUS
EMPHASIS I
� Alignment still to be defined
ALT. 6: RAIL TRANSIT
EMPHASIS i
.,r ALT.9: RAIL TRANSIT
EMPHASIS II
(With Beach Blvd. Variation)
Track Improvement
i
ALT. 12: COMMUTER RAIL
EMPHASIS
.�wr. Rail line
A
.� Rail lines ff
RAILTRANSIT ALT.8: RAIL TRANSIT
EMPHASIS I EMPHASIS 11
(With Beach Blvd. Variation)
Roil lines
i
MT In- RAILTRANSIT
EMPHASIS III
Track Improvement
.... 1.5 widened to 8+ lanes
between 1.60511.5 and 1.405
ALT. 13: COMMUTER RAIL/
HIGHWAY
COMBINATION
Rail line
..... 1-5 widened to 8+ lenos
ALT. 15: RIDESHARING/BUS/ ALT. 16: RAILTRANSIT/HIGHWAY
HIGHWAY COMBINATION I
COMBINATION II
Rail line
• • • • Exclusive guideway for buses
and carpools an 1.5 R O.W.
•••• 1.6 widened to 8+ lanes
Track Improvement
Exclusive guldoway for buses
and carpools on 1.5 R.O.W.
ALT. IS: RAILTRANSIT/ ALT.19: RIDESHARING/BUS/
RIDESHARING/ HIGHWAY/
BUS COMBINATION COMMUTER RAIL
Rail line
A
ALT.11: RAIL TRANSIT
EMPHASIS IV
Exclusive guideway for buses
and carpools
••••• 1.5 widened to 8+ feral;
ALT. 14: RIDESHARING/BUS/
HIGHWAY
COMBINATION I
•••• 1.5 widened to 8 lanes
— Rail line on 1.5 R.O.W.
ALT. 17: RAILTRANSIT/HIGHW
COMBINATION II
iF
� AIIBnmont atilt to be dollnotl
n
No. 5 Ridesharing/Bus Emphasis III
This alternative is the same as Alternative
4 except at the northwest end where the bus -
would be located on I-5 from I-605 to
h Boulevard, and on or near Beach
evard from I-5 to the P.E. right-of-way.
• Rail Transit Emphasis
No. 6 Rail Transit Emphasis I
This alternative would provide a rail
transit line on the P.E. right-of-way from
I-605/I-105 through downtown Santa Ana,
south to South Coast Plaza, through Irvine
and south on I-S to Ortega Highway. Twenty-
six stations are assumed.
eo
eo
MNOTRAxert
CRM6ITT
CAR RRRERI6TIC6
yg
6tlMa MtlroIroIlMn
Tm.TwMllan Moan
i
...�
...............
.......
si
nuso.RAIL
ox aacwawe.
URAOFEEVMITEOROW
...9 RAA
"TRAIL
vFowMUTERaLAAR
W.U
-- RR
COMMUTER RAILmru
MMIMN6R'.M. . AIRAfl.
-rp
RA RR
ow
o 10 RR b
,".1111vaEo—Mm
No. 7 Rail Transit Emphasis,I-Beach Blvd.
The rail line would be the same as described
Alternative 6, except at the northwestern
where the line would follow Beach Blvd.
een the P.E. and I-5. This rail line
would include 26 stations.
No. 8 Rail Transit Emphasis II
The rail line would be the same as described
in Alternative 6, with the addition of
north -south extensions to. the Anaheim
Convention/Recreation activity center
ii:
and to the vicinity of University/Campus.
These two rail lines include 33 stations.
No. 9 Rail Transit Emphasis II -Beach Blvd.
This alternative includes the two rail lines
described in Alternative 8, except that at
the northwest end the rail line would leave
the P.E. right-of-way at Beach Blvd., proceed
on Beach Blvd. to I-5, and continue northwest
on I-5 to I-605/I-105. This alternative would
have 33 stations.
No. 10 Rail Transit Emphasis III
Two rail transit lines are included. The first
line would be on the P.E. right-of-way from
I-605/I-105 to Santa Ana, continuing on I-5
from downtown Santa Ana to Ortega Highway. .
The second line, running north -south, would
extend from Disneyland south through Santa
Ana to the vicinity of University/Campus.
There would be 36 stations.
No. 11 Rail Transit Emphasis IV
A rapid rail transit line would be located on
the I-5 right-of-way from I-605/I-105 to
Ortega Highway, and includes 23 stations.
• Commuter Rail Emphasis
No. 12 Commuter Rail
Service would be improved by the use of
new diesel-electric engines, more frequent
schedules and track improvements. New
stations would be added at Anaheim Stad-
ium, Irvine Center and Mission Viejo, and
duplicative express bus service would be
eliminated.
• Combinations
No. 13 Commuter Rail/Highway Combination
This alternative is the same as No. 12 except
that, in addition, I-5 would be widened to 8-
plus lanes between I-605/I-105 and I-405, a
length of 30 miles.
No. 14 Ridesharing/Bus Highway Combination I
As in Alternative I3, I-5 would be widened
to 8-plus lanes between I-605/I-105 and
I-405, and an exclusive busway as described
in Alternative 3 would be provided on I-5
between I-605 and Ortega Highway.
No. 15 Ridesharing/Bus/ Highway Combination II
As in Alternative 13, I-5 would be widened.
An exclusive busway as described in Alterna-
tive 4 would be located on the P.E. between
I-605/I-105 through downtown Santa Ana and
on I-5 between 4th Street and Ortega Highway.
No. 16 Rail Transit/Highway Combination I
As in Alternative 13, I-5 would be widened.
A rail transit line (as in Alternative 6)
would be provided on the P.E. from I-605/
I-105 through downtown Santa Ana, south to
South Coast Plaza, through Irvine and south
on I-5 to Ortega Highway.
No. 17 Rail Transit/Highway Combination II
As in Alternative 13, I-5 would be widened.
The rail portion is the same as that con-
tained in Alternative 11, which includes a
rail line on I-5 from I-605/I-105 to Ortega
Highway.
No. 18 Rail Transit/Ridesharing/Bus
_ Combination
•As in Alternative 6, a rail transit line
would be provided on the P.E. from I-605/
I-105 through Santa Ana, South Coast Plaza
and Irvine and south on I-5 to Ortega
Highway. An exclusive guideway for buses
and carpools would be located on,I-5 (as
in Alternative 3).
17
No. 19 Ridesharing/Bus/Highway/Commuter
Rail
As in Alternative 13, 30 miles of I-5 would
-be widened to 8 lanes. An exclusive guide-
way for buses and carpools would be located
on I-5 (as in Alternative 3) and the Amtrak
commuter rail improvements as described in
Alternative 12 would be included.
THE ALTERNATIVES - PERFORMANCE, COSTS
AND COMPARISONS
Nineteen alternative combinations of tran-
t tand highway improvements have been ana-
ed in this study. Eighteen of them rep -
sent quantum jumps, both in the level of
transit service offered and in total cost.
There are major differences in the type of
transit service provided (express bus,
rapid rail or commuter rail) and the extent
of highway improvements proposed in each
alternative.
Within the transit guideway alternatives,
comparable levels of transit service have
been presumed in order to avoid biasing the
analysis. Since service level, i.e., fre-
quency and travel time relative to auto
travel, are major factors in a decision to
use transit, comparable systems should be
expected to produce comparahle results.
Similarly, major improvements in service
levels for either transit or highway travel
whuire
large investments in both capital
operating costs. In fifteen of the
teen alternatives, a major capital
investment in grade separated transit guide-
ways was included to assure that the assumed
transit speeds, frequencies, etc., could be
attained. Two of the remaining three alter-
natives included major upgrading of the
commuter rail service.
Recognizing these similarities, it is not
particularly surprising that systemwide per-
formance differences between the eighteen
major improvement alternatives are relative-
ly small. Therefore, impacts which can be
attibuted to specific corridor elements
must be separated and examined invididually
as well as on a system -wide basis.
This section presents the overall system
analysis and then examines the various seg-
ments as a basis for arriving at specific
ommendations for future action. Table 1
Bents the basic analytical data for
full corridor systems which will be used
in the ensuing discussion.
18
System Performance
At this level of analysis, ridership is the
most direct measure of performance. By 1995
the existing transit system, or "null" alter-
native, would be carrying an estimated
167,000 riders on an average weekday, an
increase of more than 65% from today's vol-
umes. In contrast, the eighteen alterna-
tives providing major service level increas-
es have been projected to carry between
290,000 and 315,000 daily transit trips in
Orange County, or about three times current
use.
The similarity in level of service offered
under any of these alternatives is illustrat-
ed by the fact that only about 8 percent dif-
ference in total patronage separates the
lowest and highest alternatives at the sys-
tem level. As a group, the busway alterna-
tives were projected to have slightly more
total system transit trips than the rail
alternatives. Within the Santa Ana corri-
dor, the rail alternatives would have almost
twice the ridership that the express bus
alternatives have. However, the number of
total person trips (on buses and carpools)
utilizing the corridor busways would be
very similar to the passenger volumes on
the rapid rail alternatives.
As might be expected, when major improve-
ments to I-S are included with either bus -
way or rail alternatives, total transit
usage generally shows a slight decline. In
any case, the local bus portion of the sys-
tem is essential regardless of the corridor
express transit system used.
In terms of highway performance, the free-
way system will still be heavily congested
under any of the alternatives. However,
traffic volumes projected for I-5 and for
the Newport Freeway are generally slightly
lower in those alternatives employing rapid
transit in the corridor.
The implementation of any of the fixed
guideway transit improvements would re -
it in a very sharp increase in transit
— age within the Corridor. For example,
ansit would account for between 6 and
14 percent of daily corridor line -haul
trips and 10 to 30 percent of peak hour
trips. High occupancy vehicles on Bus -
ways would account for between 7 to 20
percent of peak hour vehicles.
As shown in the table below, the transit
alternatives were projected to be much
more effective in northern and central
Orange County than in South County. The
following estimates of transit's percen-
tage of total trips were made for two lo-
cations in the corridor, one near down-
town Santa Ana and the other in Mission
Viejo.
•
TSH
Busways
Rapid Rail
Commuter
Rail
TSM
Busways
Rapid Rail
Coavutar
Rail
Corridor Modal Split
Daily Line Haul Peak Hour Line Peak
Corridor Trips Haul Corridor Hour Trips on
on Transit Trips on Transit HOV's
SALTA ANA
5.5% 13.7%
3.8-6.3 10.4-16.2 19.4-20.8%
8-13.5 23.6-35.9
6.4
19.6
MISSION VIED
1.5
5.9
1.6-1.9
5.6-6.7 6.7
3-3.3
10.8-12.4
2.2 8.1
System Costs
All costs have been estimated using 1980
cost levels. Total capital costs shown in
Table include all vehicles, rights -of -
way, guideways, stations, parking, highway
improvements and other facilities as approp-
riate to fully implement each of the alter-
natives.
The lowest cost alternative, which includes
a major increase in express bus service and
transportation system management measures
(TSM) measures such as ramp metering, will
cost over $SSO,000,000. These TSM costs are
included in all of the remaining alterna-
tives. Total system capital costs for the
busway (including HOV to produce comparable
usage levels) and rapid rail alternatives
are about the same with costs in the range
of $1.4 billion for the busways to $1.5 to
$1.6 billion for the rapid rail alternatives.
Combining the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) widen-
ing with either of these transit improve-
ments produces total system capital costs
ranging from $1.6 to $1.9 billion. When bott
rail and bus transit guideways are included,
total costs exceed $2.0 billion. Alternative
19, the most expensive of all the alterna-
tives, includes a busway, commuter rail
improvements and I-5 widening with total
costs in excess of $2.3 billion.
Operating and maintenance costs reflect the
differences in transit type (bus, rapid
rail or commuter rail), but these differ-
ences are even smaller than they were for
capital costs. The greatest portion of
operating cost is related to the personnel
required to operate and maintain the equip-
ment. In addition, total equipment require-
ments are similar for all guideway alterna-
tives. One difference between bus and rail
systems is related to the maintenance of the
roadway or guideway. In most cases, the bus
system uses streets and highways where main-
tenance costs are not directly assignable to
the transit system. In rail systems, on the
other hand, these costs are fully borne by
the transit system. Nevertheless, annual
operating costs are comparable for all alter-
natives except the "null".
19
•
r]
z
TABLE I PERFORMANCE AND COST
TRANSIT PATRONAGE DAILY 1/
CAPITAL
(In Thousands)
-
(In Millions
a
>
o
w
o
0
H 3
m
C 0 0 3
N
++
A
C 00
p.
3
O C
N
d
H m
H 3
w
H H C m
td d 0
•.I •�
W •M
0
•'I
O W
td C H W
a+ ni td •d
O H -H
•d h
•H C 2/
O O-
V .#
rl
6
O 7
..lm
Y. r
W O
IC O
W m
.0 U} r
NO
td
W
U7.
.0
FEN AL
C9U
N NG
1
164.5
3.2
-
-
-
-
167.7
-
-
2
239.4
62.1
-
-
-
-
301.5
-
81.S
3
240.9
27.4
42:9
35.0
-
-
311.3
642.5
43.4
3A3/
240.9
27.4
42.9
-
-
-
311.3
334.0
43.4
4
235.3
44.8
32.2
34.9
-
-
312.3
438.5
34.9
4A
235.3
44.8
32.2
-
-
-
312.3
210.1
34.9
5
230.6
47.4
33.5
34.9
-
-
311.4
558.s
35.8
SA
230.6
47.4
33.5
-
-
-
311.4
259.6
3S.8
6
203.1
35.1
-
-
64.1
-
302.3
344.9
120.0
7
205.0,
33.8
-
-
68.6
-
307.4
526.9
146.6
8
193.7
29.1
-
-
77.7
-
300.4
459.3
162.3
9
195.6
28.3
-
-
80.2
-
304.0
641.3
187.4
10
196.1
27.3
-
-
79.4
-
302.8
533.8
184.9
11
228.4
38.2
-
-
48.1
-
314.7
S98.2
122.7
12
238.5
43.4
-
-
-
22.8
304.7
378.0
26.3
13
236.1
42.1
-
-
-
22.2
300.4
378.0
25.5
14
238.3
25.0
41.0
35.0
-
-
304.3
642.5
43.4
14A
238.3
2S.0
41.0
-
-
-
304.3
527.5
43.4
15
232.8
41.7
30.6
35.0
-
-
305.0
438.5
33.0
15A
232.8
41.7
30.6
-
-
-
305.0
244.0
33.0
16
201.0
33.7
-
-
61.5 ,
-
296.3
344.9
110.7
17
226.6
37.9
-
-
48.1
-
312.7
598.2
111.5
18
200.5
11.6
29.7
26.2
59.8
-
301.6
940.9
145.6
Rail
-
-
-
-
59.8
-
-
344.9
114.5
Busway
18'
- -
29.7
26.2 - -
- S96.0
31.1
18A
- -
29.7
- - -
- 331.8
31.1
19
233.7 10.4
32.9
34.9 - 21.3
298.3 1,020.5
59.1
Rail
- -
-
- - 21.3
- 378.0
24.2
Busway
19
- -
32.9
34.9 - -
- 642.5
34.9
19A
- -
32.9
- - -
- 527.5
34.9
1
With Los Angeles
trips included
2
Guideway costs are based
on partial grade separation
3
"A" Alternatives
do not
include HOB.
PEI
1�
TABLE I ' PERFORMANCE AND COST
•COSTS BY ELEMENT
of 1980 dollars
TOTAL COSTS
Cost Per Trip
•
>
H
u
N
H u
•k N
N
O. \
_ (Guideway Portion Only)
C
N
H •.�•1
.a N •H
00
•H
0 C
N
C
uT •H
H
P.
F.
Cd P.
-+
O.
N
U N .-.
C
V
C •H
N
.y V
•-�/1 N
N
...
ld V
•+ t0
F
U
0
41
H C •H
.0 •H U
m
N 'td
,C
00 !.
•.� a+
Cd'd C
id
� r-1
c0 •H ♦+
1•� F4 0
cd W a C
N C U1 ttl
F �+ P.
N 0 •H
� •.+ N P.
C FL 0 .H
Cd P ++
P CCq 0
k
6
>xw
C 033
W U
FIx
FUU
FNUF-
&UF
6VUF
FAU
a.
43C
l
78.5
-
-
-
-
78.5
44.83/14.28
NA
NA
NA
2
196.4
112.1
65.1
100.3
-
555.4
94.16/17.04
NA
NA
NA
r
3
47.1
-
27.1
253.2
426.4
1,439.7
106.23/17.04
1.19
5.37
6.56
3A3/
47.1
-
33.6
147.5
426.4
1,032.0
95.43/17.04
1.19
5.77
6.96
4
37.1
-
23.7
177.0
484.7
1,195.9
100.97/17.04
1.22
4.38
5.60
4A
37.1
-
23.7
97.1
484.7
887.6
99.20/17.04
1.26
5.22
6.48
5
37.8
-
23.4
219.2
491.6
1,366.3
111.34/17.04
1.21
5.26
6.47
SA
37.8
-
23.4
114.6
491.6
962.8
100.55/17.04
1.23
5.87
7.10
6
55.2
-
70.9
194.5
482.3
1,267.8
115.82/17.04
1.43
4.39
5.82
7
55.2
-
78.2
270.2
480.7
1,557.8
118.65/17.04
1.51
5.73
7.24
8
73.6
-
88.7
255.6
470.6
1,S10.1
128.75/17.04
1.67
4.85
6.52
9
73.6
-
69.5
321.4
466.4
1,759.6
128.81/17.04
1.83
5.88
7.71
84.0
-
90.7
290.3
465.1
1,648.8
125.81/17.04
1.69
5.66
7.35
•10
11
43.2
71.7
284.4
501.8
1,622.0
115.36/17.04
1.87
8.31
10.18
12
63.7
-
30.1
1S2.1
S19.8
1,170.0
128.47/17.045/ 5.74
10.43
16.17
13
63.7
255.3
36.2
243.2
516.0
1,517.9
128.47/17.365/ 5.90
10.68
16.98
14
48.5
255.3
34.2
345.0
424.4
1,793.3
106.44/17.36
1.24
5.52
6.76
14A
48.5
255.3
34.2
304.8
424.4
1,638.1
95.63/17.36
1.29
9.55
10.84
15
37.1
255.3
29.2
267.6
481.7
1,542.4
109.99/17.36
1.25
4.46
S.71
15A
37.1
255.3
29.2
199.5
481.7
1,279.8
99.20/17.36
1.32
6.90
8.22
16
55.2
255.3
77.1
232.8
491.1
1,617.1
115.98/17.36
1.49
4.57
6.06
17
43.2
255.3
69.5
369.1
502.2
1,949.0
115.53/17.36
1.87
8.30
10.17
18
111.0
-
91.2
423.5
383.S
2,095.7
126.24/17.04
-
-
-
Rail
55.2 }
-
71.4
_
_
-
_
1.53
4.74
6.27
Busway
18
55.8
-
19.8
_
_
_
_
1.65
6.93
8.58
18A
55.8
-
26.3
_
_
_
_
2.06
7.56
9.62
19
120.0
58.8
492,1
377.4
2,384.3
133.52/17.36
-
_
•Busway
Rail
63.7
_
29.1
_
-
_
_
6.15
11.08
17,23
19
57.0
-
23.2
-
-
_
_
1.57
6.14
7.71
19A
57.0
-
29.7
_
_
_
-
1.97
10.85
12.82
4
Transit operating costs
excluded.
Amtrak
service and
highway
operating
costs
are public costs
on1y.
Private
annual highway
operating
costs
would
be approximately
$S.6
billion.
5
Includes commuter rail
operating
costs
for service to
Los Angeles
and
San Diego.
21
Other Performance Factors
Phase I analysis also included assessing
the general impacts of the alternatives on
�ollution, land development, community
ption and noise levels.
minary analysis indicates that there
my slight differences between alter-
n ves in most of these impact factors.
For instance, the emission of carbon monox-
ide, hydrocarbon and nitrous oxides varies
by only one to two percentage points between
the alternatives. All of the alternatives
compared to the null alternative do show a
reduction -in air pollutants. For carbon
monoxide, the reduction (in 1995) ranges
between 6 and 7.6 percent; for hydrocarbons
between 6 and 8 percent; for nitrous oxides,
between 1 and 3 percent; and for sulfur
oxides between 0.3 and 1 percent.
Considering land requirements as a component
of community disruption, only slight varia-
tions between alternatives are evident at
this point, since all alignments were as-
sumed to follow existing public rights -of -
way.
0eriminary analysis indicates that the
natives would require between 98 and
195 acres, primarily for parking or sta-
tion facilities. Very little residential
acreage would be taken, since most acre-
age required for the systems is currently
in commercial use.
When considering transportation alterna-
tives, noise levels generated by the sys-
tems, are always a concern. Although
increasingly sophisticated technology has
decreased transit noise levels, there are
still noise impacts associated with vehicle
movement, either steel transit wheels on
steel tracks or bus/auto wheels on pave-
ment. Of the alternatives being analyzed,
alternative 19 (widening I-5 to 8 lanes
with an exclusive guideway for buses and
carpools, along with commuter rail improve-
ments) would expose the most sites (hous-
ing, businesses, schools, parks, hospitals,
etc.) to noise levels greater than 65 DBA.
Alternative Five (an exclusive bus and
carpool guideway on I-5, the P.E. and
Beach Blvd.) would represent the least
increase in sites affected (beyond the
existing noise levels). The remaining
alternatives are similar in the number of
sites exposed to noise levels above the
current levels.
An Overall Evaluation of the Alternatives
As indicated in the matrix of costs and
performance and the accompanying discus-
sion, no alternative considered in its
entirety and in comparison with others
performs significantly better in terms of
costs or total patronage. All provide a
major improvement in the transportation
system in Orange County in terms of in-
creased capacity and levels of service.
However, based on this analysis, no single
alternative can be justified or recommend-
ed in its entirety.
The analysis also revealed that selected
segments within the alternatives produce
much more cost-effective results than do
the alternatives as a whole. Essentially,
this indicates that combining those ele-
ments to produce a "scaled -down" set of
alternatives for more detailed examination
in the Phase II analysis should produce more
cost effective results. The following anal-
ysis of each mode (highway, transit and
commuter rail) on a segment by segment basis
identifies the location and extent of approp-
riate components from which to develop the
alternatives for detailed analysis and
comparison.
J
22
1
• Highway Component
As described in an earlier section of this
report, Orange County has changed from a
fural to "highly urganized area". Moreover,
e next 15 year period is expected to see
an additional 25 percent increase in popula-
tion and a 50 percent increase in employment
within Orange County.
Translated to travel demand, that level of
growth will increase already heavy demands
placed on the Santa Ana corridor and the
Santa Ana Freeway in particular during peak
periods. If the, Santa Ana Freeway could
accommodate all vehicles that would desire
to utilize it, it would attract over one
quarter of a million cars per day. At least
10 lanes would be needed to provide that
capacity, and the level of service would
still be inadequate.
Clearly, expanding the Santa Ana to that
extent is impractical if not impossible.
f
e development of a parallel freeway would
cur enormous social and environmental
sts. Hundreds of homes and businesses
would have to be relocated to cut a new
right-of-way through central Orange County.
Even the 100-foot wide Pacific Electric
right-of-way is not wide enough to permit
new freeway construction, nor is it contin-
uous throughout the length of the corridor.
I-5 will remain a vital regional link between
San Diego and Los Angeles through Orange
County. In addition, it will continue to be
an essential arterial for travel within the
county by those for whom transit is an im-
practical alternative. Therefore, improve-
ments to this facility should be considered
as an important element in the future•trans-
portation system.
Opportunities for improving capacity on the
nta Ana Freeway are quite limited. North
I-405, the Santa Ana Freeway varies bet -
en 164 and 210 feet wide with homes and
businesses already built bordering on the
right-of-way along much of its length. The
freeway cannot be easily widened beyond 8
lanes within the existing right-of-way.
Even widening to 8 lanes will cost between
$354 and $423 million depending on the pre-
cise amount of right-of-way required. In
terms of each person trip, private operat-
ing costs of $1.79 and public costs for
capital improvements of $1.61 are projected
for the 67,250 daily person trips(50,000
vehicles) which could use the two added
lanes.
Since the Santa Ana Freeway has now out-
lived its original service life by over
five years, reconstruction and rehabilita-
tion is going to be required in any event.
An additional $54 million will be required
for resurfacing and rehabilitating the en-
tire facility, bringing the entire freeway
improvement cost to at least $408 million,
and perhaps as much as $477 million. How-
ever, this program is recommended for in-
clusion because:
• It will bring the Santa Ana Freeway
to Caltrans standards for urban free-
ways and extend the usefulness of the
freeway in another 25 years. l
• It will increase peak -hour capacity by
25 percent. The freeway by 1995 will
still be heavily congested during peak
pehds and much ZY the new peak -period
traffic from growing Orange County will
have to be carried on regular arterials
and on other modes.
o An eight -lane configuration will reduce
congestion during off-peak periods and
on weekends. This point is important
because the Santa Ana Freeway is a key
facility for recreational, truck, inter-
city and regional traffic.
23
• The 25 percent increase in peak -hour
capacity achieved by widening the
facility is important to offer some
peak period commuter relief for trips
•not destined for concentrated employ-
ment served by transit.
Even with this widening there is no possi-
bility for the Santa Ana Freeway to shoulder
the entire burden of the growth in Orange
County. For this reason, as well as because
of the iricreasing concern for air quality and
energy conservation, transit improvements
which are much more efficient in terms o?
long term capacity to carry trips in the
same space that a freeway lane would occupy,
will still be necessary.
• Transit Component
Alternative transit improvements included
various applications of buses, rapid rail
and commuter rail. The alternatives eval-
uated in this study included all of these
o tions either singly or in combinations.
ber of rapid transit improvements and
nments were examined in this study. Not
rprisingly, those alternatives which pro-
vided direct service to key activity centers
performed far better than all other potential
alignments by almost every measure consider-
ed, overall ridership, cost-effectiveness,
mode -split, employment served, population
served, etc.
The southern most segments of the rapid
rail alternatives from State Route 55 to
Ortega Highway performed poorly with 1,000
or fewer daily passenger boardings per mile
projected. The Santa Ana Freeway align-
ment also tested poorly.
The best segments, i.e. those that had the
highest number of passenger boardings per
mile or lowest cost per trip, were those
from central Santa Ana south to South
t Plaza, and from central Santa Ana
toward Beach Blvd. The segments on
t e P,E. right-of-way north to the Los
Angeles County line also ranked high be-
cause a direct connection to central Los
Angeles was assumed.
In order to test the performance of a rail
rapid transit alternative which included the
best segments of the full corridor alterna-
tives, a truncated version of alternative 8
was defined. This alternative did not
include a direct connection to Los Angeles
County because the northern most station
was located at Beach Blvd. and the P.E.
right-of-way. The other extremities of this
guideway were located near Disneyland in
Anaheim and the Airport commercial area.
tives but without direct connection to
downtwon Los Angeles, a truncated version
of alternative 8 was defined. In this
alternative, the northern most station
was located at Beach Blvd. and the P.E.
right-of-way. The other extremities of
this guideway were located near Disneyland
in Anaheim and the Airport commercial area.
Ridership from South County was, therefore,
also greatly reduced. The estimated costs
and performance for this rail rapid transit
alternative could be as follows:
Guideway Construction
$248.6
M*
Stations and Parking
49.9
M
Vehicles and Maintenance
45.6
M
Facilities
Right -of -Way
21.9
M
Engineering and Contingency
119.2
M
System Construction Cost
Estimated Daily Patronage in 1995
Operating Cost per Trip
Annualized Capital Cost per Trip
Total Annualized Cost per Trip
485.2 M**
45,000
$1.20
$3.91
$5.11
*In millions of 1980 dollars
**Assumes reduced parking
and added at -grade alignment.
Total cost could be as high as
$663 million, depending upon final
design.
24
k
• Busway Component
- A number of Busway options were examined in
alternatives 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 18, and 19
grnder a variety of conditions --different
ignments, fully grade -separated and at-
ade in the median, and for exclusive bus
use as well as including carpools and van -
pools.
The travel forecasts showed that overall
transit ridership potential on bus routes
using a busway facility was in the range of
30,000 to 40,000 trips per day --about half
to two-thirds the number attracted to any
of the'better rail rapid transit alterna-
tives. The primary reason for this lower
ridership potential of busways is attribut-
able to the fact that the rail alternatives
penetrate directly into employment concen-
trations in Santa Ana and other major centers
Busway alignments could not offer this direct
penetration, and while buses themselves were
routed directly into activity centers, the
loss in speeds on city streets reduced rider-
ip potential considerably.
This analysis has shown that the busway costs
per passenger approach those of rapid rail
ly when carpools and vanpools are included
the Busway. When high occupancy vehicles
OV's) were included, total busway usage
was nearly equal to the rail transit use.
However, when these HOV's are included,
construction of the busway at -grade anywhere
except in an already grade separated facility
such as a freeway becomes operationally in-
feasible because of the high volume of vehi-
cles. This stream of vehicles would ser-
iously disrupt all crossing traffic on major
arterials and to provide traffic 'signals at
these intersections would negate the time
advantage sought in building a busway.
• Commuter Rail Component
Commuter rail service is traditionally most
suitable for long-distance commute trips to
highly concentrated downtown areas from low -
density outlying suburban areas. Usage of
commuter rail service is oriented primarily
to the work trip. Station spacing is usu-
ally longer than for rapid transit or for
busways (on the order of 5 miles) in order
to maintain high train speeds and because
the "market" of trips from any given area
is small compared with other trip markets.
Commuter rail is also cheaper and faster
than bus service on the long-distance com-
mute because it is unaffected by traffic
and can maintain high average speeds. Under
these conditions, commuter rail can be com-
petitive with the automobile, even for high
income households.
The potential for commuter rail service
was examined in alternatives 12, 13 and 19.
Travel forecasts showed a potential rider-
ship on the order of 20-25,000 passengers
per day. Technical analysis of the com-
muter rail alternatives indicated that des-
pite the fact that Orange County stations
are somewhat removed (1-2 miles away) from
emerging activity centers in Anaheim,
Santa Ana and Irvine Center, about 10,000
daily passengers would be carried just
within Orange County.
In addition, commuter rail patronage and
investment compared well with busway and
rapid transit alignments in south county.
South county, with wealthier and lower den-
sity residential neighborhoods may not gen-
erate enough trips to support rapid transit
guideway investments, but can generate enough
trips to support the relatively lower invest-
ment of improving commuter rail services on
an established rail right-of-way.
The 8,000 commuter rail trips projected from
Orange County to downtown Los Angeles com-
25
0
pares favorably with sapid rail or busway
modes, which attracted about the same rider-
ship potential. Other modes, however, are
dependent on extension of the system in Los
eles County. Commuter rail trackage, on
other hand, is already built and avail-
e. Further, the projection of 8,000 trips
daily between Los Angeles and Orange County
may be understated, since commuter rail serv-
ice will be faster and can be complemented
by intercity service operated on the same
tracks.
At first glance, the capital cost per rider
of $10.50 and average operating cost per
rider of $5,80 depicted in Table 1 for the
commuter rail alternatives do not seem to
portray a highly cost effective investment.
Under,scrutiny, however, commuter rail invest-
ments do look to be as good of an invest-
ment as the better of the busway and rapid
transit alternatives.
The $672 million capital cost for developing
mmuter rail includes $180 million for grade
rations and $50 million for new stations.
of these improvements are likely to be
pursued for intercity Amtrak service anyway
and, consequently, may not be assignable just
to a commuter rail program in Orange County.
Without those costs, annualized capital cost
per rider would be reduced to $7.80. In
addition, commuter rail service as portrayed
in Table 1 includes costs of service improve-
ments all the way to Los Angeles but assigns
the costs to Orange County users 'only. These
improvements will benefit Los Angeles County
as well, and it is quite likely that rider-
ship potential in Los Angeles County is at
least as great as in Orange County and the
Santa Ana corridor. A full regional commit-
ment to rail service including the state,
the region, Los Angeles County and Orange
County could potentially reduce capital cost
per rider to the $4.00 to $5.00 range, with
itdership potentially doubling along the
at only marginally increased cost.
would compare with the best of the
rapid transit and busway alternatives.
Similarly, the estimated operating cost per
rider does not accurately portray regional
service potential. The $5.80 figure under-
writes the operation of trains all the way
through Los Angeles County to downtown just ,
for Orange County trips. The schedules
26
developed as a basis for these operating
cost estimates provide sufficient capacity
to effectively double overall ridership
with only marginal increases in operating
costs.
If on the order of 10,000 Los Angeles County
users were encouraged to ride, average op-
erating costs could drop to $3.00 to $5.00 _
per rider. Since commuter rail fares are
normally higher than on -other modes of
transit (for example, now $4.50 from Fuller-
ton to downtown Los Angeles),'commuter rail
service may very well require the least op-
erating subsidy of all the transit modes
analyzed.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
sed upon the analysis of the nineteen
1ternatives adopted by the OCTC in May of
980 and considering the findings and com-
parisons presented in the previous sections
of this report, a "package" of transit,
highway and commuter rail improvements is
proposed for further consideration. This
package consists of those segments of the
nineteen alternatives which rated highest
in performance feasibility and cost effect-
iveness in meeting the increasing transpor-
tation demands in the Santa Ana Corridor
over the next 15 years.
The need for multi -modal improvements is
great when considering that in 20 years
Orange County has become the sixth most
populous county in the United States and
the second largest county in the State of
California, while its transportation system
�s not grown at anywhere near the same
te.
All indications of current economic growth
and development, and forecasts of jobs and
population reveal that the tremendous pres-
sure for growth in Orange County will con-
tinue. By 1995, the county population is
projected to reach 2.6 million and employ-
ment will grow to 1.25 million jobs.
Continued economic vitality of the county
requires that government agencies provide
public services, facilities and infra-
structure to support this continued growth
demand. Access, mobility, capacity and
level of service - all must be improved in
order to maintain a transportation system
that supports that vitality.
Highway System
• Findings
1. The Santa Ana Freeway, built 30 years
ago, is inadequate not only in capacity
but also in design and the soundness of
its structural elements. Demand is such
that it would not be possible to properly
provide an adequate level of service for
peak -hour traffic because of social,
environmental and fiscal constraints.
2. The addition of an another travel lane
in each direction on the Santa Ana Free-
way would bring the freeway within con-
temporary CalTrans design standards and
would offer the capability of increasing
the peak -hour capacity by about 25
percent. However, it should be recognized
that the Santa Ana Freeway will be playing
a smaller role for providing capacity for
peak work trips. The freeway cannot be
widened enough at any cost to provide
adequate longterm capacity increases.
3. There are no longer any viable oppor-
tunities for developing parallel freeway
facilities in North Orange County. In
South County, the analysis indicated
tremendous overloading of the Santa Ana
Freeway at low population densities be-
cause it is the only major north -south
facility in.the area, no supporting street
system has been developed for shorter com-
muter trips, and the I-405 and I-5 cor-
ridors merge, feeding 14 lanes into 8.
9 Recommendations
1. The Santa Ana Freeway should be rehabili-
tated and brought up to contemporary urban
freeway standards.
The Santa Ana Freeway should be widened
to 8 lanes throughout Orange County. This
widening should be extended throughout
I-Sts length into Los Angeles County as
well as throughout Orange County in order
to maintain lane continuity and serve
inter -regional automobile and truck traffic.
A Parallel arterial street system in South
4. Transportation system management mea-
sures including freeway ramp metering,
signal coordination and other improve-
ments on arterials should be initiated
in North Count
27
Commuter Rail
• Findings
JM,Land use conditions and travel patterns
Win the Santa Ana Corridor (especially
n South County) and through to Los
Angeles are such that commuter rail
operations are particularly well suited
to attract large volumes of trips. Past
trends and future projections of rider-
ship indicate that the Orange -Los Angeles
County Corridor is quite competitive
with other rail corridors being studied
by CalTrans around the State as well as
those currently in place and operating
in other metropolitan areas around the
country. With improvements in the com-
muter rail service, as tested in Alter-
natives 12, 13 and 19, daily ridership
should be as high as 25,000.
2. The level of service assumed in this
study was on the order of 15-minute
service during peak periods in both
rections and hourly service at other
roes during the day. An operational
analysis will have to be conducted
during future studies to determine the
most efficient means by which this level
of service can be offered,
The Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way from
San Clemente through Orange County to
Union Station Terminal in Los Angeles
is wide enough throughout most of its
length to accommodate a double track
for exclusive use of passenger trains.
However, there are several "bottleneck"
sections where additional easements or
parcel -takings would be required.
4. Interest in providing high speed grade -
separated intercity service throughout
Qe San Diego -Los Angeles Corridor and
ncern about traffic safety may warrant
e investment in additional grade
separations.
S. Existing and proposed stations are now
located about every 4-5 miles throughout
the length of the county. However, in
some sections of the corridor, the spacing
between stations is inadequate and insuf-
ficient to make the system accessible and
useful to the commuting public.
Existing or proposed Orange County stations
in Anaheim, Irvine and Santa Ana are or will
be located 1-2 miles from the employment
centers, too far for walking and not well
served by existing bus schedules, poten-
tially discouraging the use of rail
commuting.
• Recommendations
1, Count , regional, and State trans ortation
sut or3.ties should immediately start work
toward improving and increasing service
between San Clemente and downtown Los
Angeles, along the ATP,SF alignment on which
Amtrak and Caltrak currently operate pas-
senger train service.
2.
Grade separations should be provided at
major arterials where required to main-
tain high speed service and reduce
traffic and pedestrian safety problems.
. 1
v ,
28
•
In addition to the development of com-
muter rail stations in Mission Viejo,
Irvine, and Anaheim, the feasibility of_
providi ding adtional rail stations in
the vicinity of Buena Park and in Irvine
should be explored. Improvements at
existing and proposed stations could
include additional platform area for
potential expansion to three tracks and
additional parking.
Connecting bus service to stations should
be improved, especially to those destina-
tion stations in central Orange County
where rail alignments are 1-2 miles from
activity centers.
6. The efforts of the Tri-County Rail
Committee and the coordination between
Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego
Counties to improve Amtrak and Caltrak's
inter -regional service should continue.
Fixed Guideway Transit
• Findings
•The rapid transit systems studied in
Alternatives 6 and 8 consistently prove
to be more successful and cost-effective
transit corridor solutions than other
transit alternatives considered, par-
ticularly when compared with both busway
and rail options on the Santa Ana Free-
way itself. This is true because they
serve more Orange County activity centers
directly with high speed line -haul service.
2. The transit system's studies in Alterna-
tives 6, 8 and 10 attracted more guideway
ridership than any other alternative.
Alternatives 6 and 8 attracted more rider-
ship per mile and per dollar invested,
primarily because they directly serve
major areas of employment concentration.
3. The costs of building elevated structures
for a busway on the Santa Ana Freeway
result in very high costs per person
trip. The inclusion of high -occupancy
vehicles (HOV's)and the potential for
construction of an at -grade busway
located in the median of the freeway
south of Myford Road in Irvine would
tend to greatly reduce total costs per
trip.
4. The construction of at -grade busways
(for buses and carpools) on the Pacific
Electric right-of-way would have limited
opportunities for the expansion of
capacity and would result in operational
problems at major intersections if grade
separations are not provided.
The alignments tested in Alternative 6
and 8 can provide more capacity during
peak hours at key activity areas where
the need to serve large numbers of persons
is the greatest.
29
6. A medium capacity rapid transit starter
line is needed and is justifiable in
its own right without connections to
Los Angeles County, since analysis indi-
•cates that such a system could have an
overall ridership level of 45,000 daily
riders by 1995. However, it is logical
to provide a future connection to Los
Angeles County to serve intra-county
commute needs and provide an integrated
regional rapid transit network.
7. The analysis did not conclusively indi-
cate how the connection to Los Angeles
County should be made (by the Pacific
Electric Electric right-of-way to I-605
or by Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana
Freeway).
8. The South County portions of the rail
transit alternatives were not projected
to attract high enough ridership to make
rail transit service cost-effective by
1995 based on land use and transporta-
tion projections used in the analysis.
commendations
Based upon these findings, the following
recommendations are made:
1. Detailed alternatives analysis, concept
design and environmental analysis should
be initiated immediately leading to the
development of a medium capacity rapid
transit guideway system in the north -
south central corridor and the Pacific
Electric corridor. The best potential
for rapid transit guideway development
is a general alignment which directly
serves Orange County's major activity
centers within the central corridor -
Anaheim commercial/office/recreational
complex, Anaheim stadium office/retail
development, Santa Ana - North Main,
Santa Ana CBD/Orange County Civic Center,
outh Coast Plaza, Irvine Industrial/
ommercial Complex, and the Pacific
Electric corridor serving Garden Grove
and Stanton.
A future rapid transit connection to
Los Angeles is desirable, and Orange
County agencies should work closely
with those in Los Angeles County to
assure the development of such a con-
nection. These connections should be
evaluated in the next stage of
Alternatives Analysis.
The.South County alignments should be
retained for consideration as part of
an extension from the core system.
However,,these alignments should not be
included in the analysis of the "starter
line" corridor.
4. The local and express bus
more
serve as
bus service will be vital to the
success of rapid transit in the
corridor because of the necessity
to serve destinations beyond walking
distance.
30
,ew ✓+ M # 01 f J
Ate, ar • �'„ C'irl' j.: ��7�• �.x tl. • 1, s'"' �. +/^ __���(\)\(
A� fY �P inra ST? , I•�! ♦ \aY � 1
i,P�a_
��� +y�F, `, t" ` 1 ``►w� ': +ate ,•. S / �
�,"�" k �1Rr�/�; r.'�p 5ct ^jP�=9=� � 11 •yam, ` \; '9"•(�r `� �R••i.i _./
ei"'4g''' r'� n:n ` ; y �,} ..33F �r ?aTt�Y 1 • .1 �,5,.
•,(': ri r \. �• 1,� pv;
Vol
CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS
HIGHWAY WIDENING
COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENTS uunnunuu
RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • ALIGNMENT TO BE DEFINED )
RAPID TRANSIT ALIGNMENT
ON PACIFIC ELECTRIC R.O.W.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY T
CONNECTION
31
Other Recommendations
Many of the transit alternatives in this
study have been oriented to activity cen-
4prs where increased peak -hour capacity is
eded most and where transit can work best.
this basis, the transit alternatives
included in the Santa Ana Transportation
Corridor improvement program can play a key
role in shaping growth in the county and
creating an opportunity for guiding the tre-
mendous pressure for development to key
points where high capacity access can be
provided. To support the emphasis in util-
izing transit as a major travel mode in the
future, it is recommended that the cities
and county consider the following actions:
1. Continue to Pursue a land use Plan which
is integrated and complementary to the
capabilities of the transportation im-
provements included in the proposed
transportation improvement package.
Concentrations of employment should be
encouraged in the vicinity of transit
stations and discouraged elsewhere.
In addition, planning for increased
housing and population densities to
accommodate the anticipated growth
should be encouraged in rapid transit
corridors and discouraged outside of
rapid transit corridors.
2. Evaluate impacts on land use, general
plans, redevelopment plans and zoning
ordinances to take full advantage of
the access and capacity offered by
rapid transit to improve peak hour
mobility.
3. Additional rapid transit guideway seg-
ments should continue to be analyzed
as potential candidates for system
expansion, including connections with
Los Angeles County.
is
Project Costs
The major elements of the proposed Trans-
portation Improvement package are the rapid
transit starter line, commuter rail improve-
ments and widening of I-5 throughout Santa
Ana County. A summary of the approximate
costs associated with these elements is
given below.
Transportation Capital Costs
Costs
(in 1980
Elements dollars)
Rapid Transit Starter Line $485 million
Commuter Rail 672 million
Highway Widening 394 million/
Total Program 1,551 million
l/ Costs do not include full provision
for parking facilities as they may
eventually be required.
2/ Cost includes $40 million for new
arterials in South County.
Implementation costs for TSM proposals
would add $467 million and the OCTC five-
year program of projects currently approved
for this corridor would add another $39
million. In addition, resurfacing the
existing six -lane Santa Ana freeway could
cost $54 million. These are initial
estimates based on general concepts and
reflect the expected magnitude of proposed
transportation improvement cost.
32
THE NEXT STEPS
Stage I Completion/Community
participation
n November 10, 1980, the technical recom-
mendations for improvements in the Santa
Ana Transportation Corridor will be pre-
sented at the first joint meeting of the
Orange County Transportation Commission
and the Orange County Transit District
Board. The recommendations described to
the Commission and the Board on November
10 will be as stated in this summary
report, and are based on the technical
analysis conducted by engineers and plan-
ners on the inter -agency study team over
the past year. The joint Commission and
Board meeting will not result in any de-
cisions relative to the recommended pro-
gram, but rather will be the start of a
rocess of full review and discussion of
e findings and recommendations in various'
ublic meetings and workshops.
A Citizens Task Force has previously been
formed to review the process and recommen-
dations of Stage I. Their work will con-
tinue to expand following the November 10
presentation. Four major community work-
shops are scheduled in January, 1981 to
present the findings of the study. A
particular effort through the media and
public announcements will be made to urge
the general public to attend and partici-
pate in these workshops. Public debate
over issues identified in the study will
be encouraged, and the staff of the Trans-
portation Commission and the Transit
District will be working over the next two
enths with community, civic and business
oups and elected officials to collect
public opinion, input and responses.
In the meantime, the technical analysis
will be reviewed with federal, state, and
regional transportation authorities. This
review process will insure that the views
of government agencies and the public will
be presented to the Commission and the
Board prior to their decisions in February,
1981.
In February of 1981, the Transportation
Commission and the Transit District Board
will then make the initial decisions about
the nature of the corridor improvement and
will approve the draft final technical re-
port. Once these initial decisions are
made, the draft final technical report will
be formally submitted to the appropriate
federal agencies for their final review
and comments prior to adopting the final
Stage I technical report in April or May,
1981.
Stage II
*Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact
Statement
The recommendations contained in this re-
port are based on a technical analysis of
the potential performance of a wide vari-
ety of highway, transit, commuter rail and
TSM options for improving transportation
in the Santa Ana corridor. They reflect
the technical judgment of the engineers
and planners as to which actions and pro-
jects show the greatest potential for in-
creasing the capacity and level of service
in this corridor.
A major element of the Stage II work, as
required by both the Federal Highway Admin-
istration (FHWA) and Urban Mass Transit
Administration (UMTA) and described ear-
lier in this report, is the analysis and
evaluation of detailed corridor alterna-
tives. The recommendations of Phase I
are general in nature, identifying those
alternatives or portions of alternatives
from among the nineteen studied that
demonstrate the greatest potential as part
of an overall improvement program.
33
,
Stage II will define these alternatives in
detail, identifying specific routes and
alignments, station locations, and neces-
sary facilities to provide a complete
idor system under each candidate
rnative. This will allow an accurate
estimate of system development costs and a
detailed assessment of specific local
neighborhood and community environmental
impacts.
The recommendations contained in this re-
port do not reflect a detailed assessment
of potential environmental impacts con-
nected with any of the improvements in the
program. Before final decisions can be
made to implement the recommended improve-
ments, potential environmental impacts
will have to be considered. The Stage II
work scheduled to begin soon after the fi-
nal report is adopted in April or May will
include the preparation of a Draft Environ-
i1 Impact Statement (DEIS).
The alternatives to be studied and
assessed in Stage II include:
Highway Widening: Physical requirements
and environmental impacts connected with
widening of the Santa Ana Freeway will be
examined.
Commuter Rail: Commuter rail service
similar to Alternative 12 will require
specific definition of facility improvements
necessary for implementation.
Busway and HOV Lanes: Alternate designs
of the busway/HOV concept within North
County as represented by Alternatives 3
and 4 will be evaluated.
Guideway Transit: Similarly, several
native designs in the rapid transit
corridor will be examined from a detailed
performance and environmental perspective.
They will all reflect the North County
versions of Alternatives 6 and 8. The
alternative designs studied will include a
variety of specific alignments, station
locations, and vehicle technologies as
34
described in the concept design phase
discussed below. _
TSM: Busway and rapid rail alternatives
will be compared with non -capital inten-
sive options included in the "Transporta-
tion Systems Management" alternative. The
alternative, including an "all -bus" transit
improvement, will be studied both to assure
the advantages of major capital improvement
over TSM as well as to study low-cost im=
provement projects for near -term implemen-
tation.
"Do -Nothing": In addition, the "null" or
"do-nothing" approach will be included as
a baseline comparison of the improvements
in accessibility, capacity, and level of
service offered by the alternatives. This
alternative is required by both Federal and
California environmental regulations.
A detailed description of these alternatives,
along with a work program and citizen action
plan, will be developed for public review
and public hearings before these studies
are begun in the spring of 1981.
pConcept Design
The technical work conducted during the
past year focused on general improvements
which appeared to be the best among the
many considered. The studies assessed
general overall feasibility, and did not
represent detailed proposals of alignments,
station locations, vehicle systems, etc.
In order to accurately portray actual
anticipated service and system development
costs associated with each alternative,
concept design will be conducted for the
selected Stage II alternatives.
The outcome of this phase of work will be
a detailed proposal for the design of a
package of transportation improvements in
the corridor based on the detailed analy-
sis, the DEIS, and public involvement.
Upon approval, these system elements will
then be ready for preliminary final engi-
neering and, ultimately, implementation.
*Other Studies
Other studies will also be conducted to
resolve a variety of pending issues. The
Isost important of these issues is the
avelopment of alternative financing plans
for funding the proposed improvements.
Now that the ultimate need for improve-
ments in the corridor is better under-
stood, and assuming general agreement on
the scope of the program, the financing
alternatives can be considered and evalu-
ated.
Program Implementation
Assuming that the public, the cities, the
Transportation Commission, and the Transit
District Board agree to implement selected
highway, commuter rail and fixed guideline
projects, it will be necessary to proceed
through several years of preliminary engi-
neering, final design, construction and
equipment procurement. Although an overall
schedule has not been completed for the
entire package of recommended improvements,
a preliminary schedule for the design and
construction of the fixed guideline pro-
ject is shown below as being illustrative
of the general process. The schedule
shown assumes the use of federal funds and
indicates that a rapid transit system could
be operational by late 1988.
MASTER PROJECT SCHEDULE
• Phase I Rapid Transit Project
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1988 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
1�
u
STAGEI: —Al
i ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
lIIIIYBINIWN
STAGE II:
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
GUIDEWAY CONCEPTLWL
�Y
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
FINAL EIS
FINAL DESIGN & PREPARE
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
CONSTRUCTION &
CAR PROCUREMENT
�Ill��:w.:�illl
SYSTEM & OPERATIONAL
TESTING & TRAINING
I�N�I
35
Fact Sheet
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY
• The Problem
o The Santa Ana Freeway, the primary transportation corridor in Orange
County is breaking down under severe congestion on 18 miles of its 52-mile
length within the County, with average speeds of less than 20 mph.
0 800,000 residents, or almost half the County's population, live and work
within three miles of the Santa Ana Freeway and are dependent upon it.
o It is the major artery between Los Angeles and San Diego with trucks
accounting for up to 13.5 percent of all daily traffic.
0 Completed more than 25 years ago, the freeway now is inadequate in its
capacity, design and structural soundness.
0 12 lanes, not six, are needed to handle the projected demand, but
relocating homes and businesses to permit widening to this extent may not
be socially, environmentally or fiscally acceptable.
• Recommendations
o Rapid Transit:
- Begin concept design and environmental analysis work on a 24-mile
rapid transit "starter line" from Anaheim through Santa Ana to
Irvine with a branch through Garden Grove to Beach Boulevard.
- The four rapid transit technologies best suited for Orange County's
environment and population densities are: automated guideway
transit, light -rail (modern trolleys), 'busways and monorail.
- Some portions would operate at ground level while other portions
would be elevated above street traffic.
o Highway Improvements:
- Resurface and widen Santa Ana Freeway from six to eight lanes
throughout Orange County.
- Build parallel corridors in south county to reduce reliance on
• freeway.
o Amtrak Commuter Rail Improvements
- Increase rush tour frequencies to every 15 minutes.
- Double tracks throughout County to avoid conflicts with freight
traffic.
Build over- and underpasses at all major (arterial) streets.
Add new stations at Mission Viejo, Irvine, Anaheim and Buena Park.
. o Transportation System Management Improvements
- In north county, widen major (arterial) streets, coordinate traffic
signals, install ramp meters to freeway, build park -and -ride lots.
- Expand OCTD's local and express bus system from 497 buses to
800-1,000 buses.
o Other Recommendations:
- Encourage complimentary land -uses, concentrating employment around
transit stations and discourage high densities elsewhere.
- Study additional extensions of the rapid transit system, including
connections with Los Angeles County.
Costs
o Rapid Transit Starter Line $485 million
•o Highway Widening & New Corridors 394 million
o Amtrak Commuter Rail & Stations 672 million
o Transportation Systems Management _ 467 million
TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS $2.018 billion
0
0
THE IRVINE CWPAW
550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I
Newport Beach, California 92663
(714) 644-3011
. October 3, 1950
Brian Pearson,
Staff Director -Service Development
Orange County Transit District
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92642
Subject: Santa Ana Transportation Corridor - Phase 1
Dear Mr. Pearson:
As a follow-up to our September 29th meeting, I would like to formally request that
Newport Center be included in any analysis by the District regarding the extent of
the Phase 1 advanced transit system for the County. We understand that this
analysis may be initiated after the November 10 joint O.C.T.D./O.C.T.C, meeting.
We believe that inclusion of Newport Center in the Phase 1 improvements has merits
• for the following reasons:
1) Newport Center provides a unique opportunity for transit service due to its
dense employment base (11,000 existing/17,000 future) primarily located
around a loop road which could be utilized for a shuttle system between the
transit station and the office buildings.
2) In addition to its employment base, the Fashion Island shopping center provides
another major destination point for transit riders which would result in
utilization of the system throughout the day.
3) If properly designed, the transit terminal could be combined with a park-n-
ride lot for Newport Beach residents and thus function as both a major origin
and destination for transit trips.
4) The existing O.C.T.C. bus stop in Fashion Island also functions as a major
transfer station. Therefore, a Newport Center terminal could directly inter-
face with this transfer station and provide improved transit service to
coastal employment and recreational uses as well as improving ridership to
the central County destinations.
IF5) While it is acknowledged that any transit service must be justified by
home -to -work weekday patronage, any terminal which can supplement ridership
during low ridership periods (i.e., weekends) has some additional merit. As
such, the Newport Center terminal could function as a staging area for
weekend recreational trips and help increase the overall partronage of the
system.
Brian Pearson
Staff Director -Service Development
Orange County Transit District
October 3, 1980
• age Two r
6) The cost per mile for implementation from the Airport to Newport Center ,
would appear to be significantly lower than the rest of the system (i.e.,
Santa Ana to Costa Mesa) due to available R/W such as along MacArthur
Blvd. which was previously reserved for extension of the Corona del Mar
Freeway.
In summary, we b,
significantly ei
project. We app,
forward to workii
Very truly yours
ul'
irectora W. Stiles
of Engii
DWS/nb
*cc: Tom Nielsen
Bob 'Shelton
Ron Hendricl
John Boslet
10
Transportation Corridor
Alternatives Analysis
�o�a0 ppo�c�c�f�oo��
Released for Public Review
by the
Orange County Transportation Commission
June, 1980
1•
I•
is
10
�0
P"
u
SANTA ANA
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
REPORT 2
ZONAL PROJECTIONS
The preparation of this report was funded in part through
a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation -Urban
s Mass Transportation Administration, under the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration Act of 1964, as amended.
U
I•
10
1•
El
13
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER/SECTION
I. Introduction
II. Procedure for Aggregating and Disaggregating MMTS Zones
A. Identification of Data Resources
B. Data Analysis
C. Disaggregating and Aggregating Procedures
III. Socio-Economic Data Within the New SATCAA Zone System
IV. Inventory of General Plan Data
APPENDIX
1. SATCAA Study Area Zones Outside Orange County
2. SATCAA Zonal Projections Outside Orange County
PAGE
1
1
3
3
4
5
108
125
131
i*
F-3
U3
10
10
10
1 !'
i0
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE
PAGE
1.
Multimodal Transportation Study Zone System
2
2.
Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives
Analysis 8
LIST OF TABLES
TITLE
PAGE
1. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis
Zonal Projections, Sec. I. 47
(for following variables: single-family dwelling units, multiple
family dwelling units, total population, lower income population,
retail employment, total employment)
2. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis
Zonal Projections, Sec. II. 78
(for remaining variables: group quarter population, acres,
workers by residence, median income ($1976), low income dwelling
units, a-crage parking cost)
LIST OF MAPS
TITLE
PAGE
1. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis
Zone Boundary Maps. 9
0
I it.
14P
I!
li
I*
ID
if
�f
Introduction
This technical report contains a description of the zone
system that has been developed for use in the Santa Ana
Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis (SATCAA). The
report also contains the zonal projections of socio-economic
and land use data which will be used in preparing travel
forecasts for the corridor.
The next chapter of this report includes a description of how
the traffic analysis zone system of the Multi -Modal Transport-
ation Study (MMTS) was modified to develop a more refined
zone system for the Santa Ana corridor. The third chapter of
the report contains an inventory of general plan data for
cities located within the corridor. This numerical interpreta-
tion of land use policies provided detailed land use and
density information used in the aggregation and disaggregation
process.
II. Procedure for Aggregating and Disaggregating MMTS Zones
This section contains a description of the procedures that
were used to disaggregate and aggregate the MMTS traffic
analysis zonal system for the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor
Alternatives Analysis. The resultant zonal system is more
refined within the corridor and will facilitate the development
of more detailed travel forecasts for the Santa Ana Corridor.
Since the MMTS traffic analysis zone system was tailored for
usage in determining county -wide travel, its overall configura-
tion is not particularly well suited for single corridor
analysis (See Figure 1). Therefore, a procedure for revising
the size and uniformity of the MMTS zone system was needed to
make it more useful for this Alternatives Analysis. Therefore,
most zone modifications centered on disaggregating MMTS zones
within the corridor to facilitate more detailed analysis. On
the other hand, MMTS zones outside of the corridor boundary
were aggregated because analysis would be more generalized on
the periphery and, also, the total number of SATCAA zones
needed to be held relatively close to the MMTS total. Of the
270 MMTS zones in Orange County, 144 zones fall within the
corridor while 121 zones are outside of the corridor. In
addition, there are also 126 MMTS zones located in Los Angeles,
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. To maintain an appro-
priate balance between the total number of the SATCAA zones
and the number originally used for MMTS, the total number of
SATCAA zones was held to 320 zones. The following steps were
utilized in the aggregation-disaggregation process.
-1-
I
n
figure 1 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTAT20N STODT ZONE SYSTEM
Is 4 0 ♦ 0 11 �
F*
14
Ic
li
10
W
A. Identification of Data Resources
As a prerequisite to conducting zonal aggregation and
disaggregation, an investigation of land use and socio-
economic data resources was conducted. In addition to
the WITS projections and data, existing and proposed
local land use plans and transportation system character-
istics such as potential park -and -ride stations, were
identified. Existing and projected land uses (commercial,
residential, industrial and vacant), general plan
recommendations, generalized zoning, and specific
development plans were mapped for use in identifying
homogenous areas and potential zonal boundaries.
Special generators, such as colleges, were also located
for later use in disaggregating zones.
B. Data Analysis
After all major data sources were identified and mapped,
project staff conducted an analysis of the land use,
population, and employment information. In general, the
analysis showed that levels of urban density and patterns
of activity vary widely from the northwestern part of
the county to the newly developing areas of southern
Orange County. The following significant land use
characteristics and trends were identified within the
corridor area.
Higher population densities, and subsequently
higher percentages of multiple family dwelling
units and low income households were more readily
found in the developed northern and northwestern
portions of the county. By comparison, the urban
portions of southern and central county have lower
residential densities and higher percentages of
high income households.
There is no predominant central business district
located in Orange County. Most of the commercial
developments and shopping centers are located along
major arterial roads and near freeway interchanges,
often in close proximity to residential areas.
Industrial areas are generally concentrated in
large tracts such as Anaheim Industrial, East
Irvine Industrial, Buena Park Industrial, etc.
Since these are sizable tracts, they can be easily
separated from nearby commercial and residential
areas.
_3-
C. Disaggregatiog and Aggregating Procedures
In order to develop sufficiently detailed travel forecasts
for the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor, the original
MMTS zones within the corridor area were disaggregated
into smaller SATCAA zones and zones outside the corridor
area were aggregated into larger SATCAA zones. During
the disaggregation process, consideration was given to
the following criteria:
1. For the validation of travel forecasts of the new
zone system, the smaller SATCAA zone was defined to
be as homogenous as possible. Efforts were made to
limit zones to only one type of land use or demo-
graphic characteristic. Therefore, the industrial
zones within the corridor were separated from
commercial or residential zones, while, at the same
time, medium or high density residential zones were
separated from lower density residential zones.
2. Major arterial roads, freeways, railroad ways, or
other physical barriers were utilized as much as
possible for zonal boundaries.
3. Attempts were made to limit smaller zones to only
one shopping center, potential transit station or
park -and -ride lot.
4. Areas requiring more detailed and specialized
studies, such as downtown Santa Ana and South Coast
Plaza, were disaggregated into the smallest zones
possible.
5. Land identified as currently vacant was disaggre-
gated on the basis of its proposed use.
The aggregating procedure was carried out with methodologies
that were similar to those applied in disaggregation. The
following criteria were used in this process:
1. Each larger zone was kept as homogenous as possible.
2. Each larger zone would have its boundaries on major
arterial roads, freeways, or major physical con-
straints such as ridges or streams.
3. Each larger zone would be connected by at least one
major access route to the rest of the system.
S
0-
-4-
i*
Ir
1*
it
14
1!
Or
li
rl
As a result of the disaggregation and aggregation procedures,
a total of 320 SATCAA zones were designated for the new zone
system in Orange County (Figure 2). The original 143 MMTS
zones within the corridor area were disaggregated into 248
SATCAA zones (Nos. 501-748), and 137 MMTS zones outside the
corridor area were aggregated into 72 SATCC zones (No. 801-
872). For the study area outside of Orange County, the original
MMTS zones remained intact, i.e. 131 zones (no. 31-161).
III. Socio-Economic Data within the New SATCAA Zone System
New SATCAA socio-economic data, based on the MMTS data was
developed for both base and target years. This section
contains a description of the assumptions and methodologies
that were used to disaggaegate and aggregate the original
MMTS data for this alternatives analysis.
Population
The population of each SATCAA zone was determined to be
the number of residents living within its boundaries.
Staff assumed that the average number of persons living
in both multiple -family dwelling units and single-family
dwelling units remained constant as projected at the
Community Analysis Area level. The total population in
each disaggregated SATCAA zone was calculated based on
the average number of persons per household multiplied
by the number of both multiple -family and single-family
dwelling units within the zone. Percentages for each of
these two types of dwelling units were estimated by
comparing the amount of residential land in an SATCAA
zone to that in the original MMTS zone. Since the
number of single- and multiple -family dwelling units can
be estimated through comparison of land uses, therefore,
X = (persons/SDU) x (no. of SDU) x (% of SDU in SATCAA)
Y = (persons/MDU) x (no. of MDU) x (% of MDU in SATCAA)
and the total population of the disaggregated zone = X + Y.
Lower -Income Population
The fundamental assumption used in estimating lower
income population was that the lower income population
is closely related to the level of urban density and
total population. For instance, if a SATCAA zone has a
large population and a high percentage of multiple -
family dwelling units, then, the size of lower income
population would be expected to be quite large. Based
on the location of the lowest of the three original MMTS
income groups, the SATCAA lower income population was
calculated by means of comparing the population in
SATCAA zones to that found in the original MMTS zones as
follows:
•5-
STION AREA 70NES
Figure 2
r
_ A p
t
•
s
p i M. w t .•" .• ,
ta Opp
sob
.�,^i - � • as
s +
,
'+, 'p
ps
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
r
i
•++
0 r 0
li
I .t
10
16
�-0
p
Lower SATCAA Original MMTS Lower SATCAA Populations
Income Population ( Income Population) x ( MMTS Populations )
C. Employment
Industrial and commercial land use information was used
as a major source for readjusting the SATCAA employment
data. The number of jobs in industrial and commercial
areas were estimated separately based on levels of land
use. Staff concluded that higher percentages of retail
employment would be found in commercial areas and the
majority of the non -retail employment jobs would be
found in industrial areas.
The first step in determining the allocation of employment
to each SATCAA zone was to analyze whether there were
industrial, or commercial uses located within each
SATCAA zone. Next, staff identified amounts for different
land use categories. At this point, the percentages of
commercial land and industrial land in each SATCAA zone
were estimated by utilizing the original MMTS zonal
information. For instance, if the SATCAA zone included
both commercial and industrial lands, then the total
employment would be the sum of the retail and non -retail
industrial employment jobs within the zone.
That is:
SATCAA Retail Employment = (total MMTS retail employment
in zone)
x
(percentage of commercial land use in SATCAA zone/percent-
age of commercial land use in the MMTS zone)
SATCAA Non -Retail Employment = (total MMTS non -retail
employment in zone)
x
(percentage of non -retail land use in SATCAA zone/percent-
age of non -retail land use in the MMTS zone).
Therefore, the total employment in one SATCAA zone would
be the sum of the retail and non -retail employment jobs.
In addition, special generators, such as shopping centers,
hospitals, civic centers or airports were taken into
consideration in estimating the percentage of both
retail and, non -retail employment.
As a result of this analysis process, 1995 projections
were developed for the SATCAA at the new zonal level,
for the following variables:
r
.7-
t
1. Single-family dwelling units
2. Multiple -family dwelling units
3. Total population
4. Lower income population
5. Retail employment
6. Total employment
7. Group quarter population
S. Acres
9. Workers by residence
10. Median income ($1976)
11. Low income dwelling units
12. Median income dwelling units
13. High income dwelling units
14. Average parking cost.
This information has been included on
the following 60
tables and 37 maps for both aggregated
and disaggregated
SATCAA zones. As a final check, local
city staff will
review the socio-economic information
to ensure its
accuracy and compatibility with local plans
and character-
istics.
iI
*I
M
,0 R 4
ION
SAITA ANA TRINSPORTATCORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
INDEX TO ZONE BOUNDARY MAPS
NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION
MAP NUMBER
NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION
MAP NUMBER
ANAHEIM
2, 3,4, 8, 9
LOS ALAMITOS
5
BREA
1, 6
MISSION VIEJO
25,29,30931,32
BUENA PARK
2, 3
NEWPORT BEACH
16, 22
CAPISTRANO BEACH
369 37
ORANGE
8, 9, 13
COSTA MESA
10, 11, 14, 15, 16
ORTEGA
34, 35
CYPRESS
4
PLACENTIA
6, 8
DANA POINT
27, 33
SADDLEBACK
269 32
EL TORO
25, 31
SAN CLEMENTE
36, 37
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
10, 11, 12
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
32, 339 36
FULLERTON
1, 2, 39 69 8
SANTA ANA
9, 10, 13, 149 15
GARDEN GROVE
3, 4, 9, 109 11
SEAL BEACH
5
HUNTINGTON BEACH
5, 12, 16
SILVERADO - MODJESKA
23
IRVINE
13914,15916,20,21,26
SOUTH COUNTY CANYON
28, 29930934,35
IRVINE SUBDIVISION
13917,18,20924,25,31
STANTON
4
LAGUNA BEACH
22, 27
SUNSET BEACH
12
LAGUNA HILLS
229 26, 27
TUSTIN
13
LA HABRA
1
VILLA PARK
19
LAKE FOREST
25
WESTMINSTER
11
LA PALMA
3 4
IL
0
•
503mme
• q
502
•
•a •
County L
WTS-162.163
SATCAA-801 rM i
CbT �n 1
w
MMITS-164,16S
SATCAA-802
Imperial Wy.
=71P
TRwrwrr oaRTw�cr
501
A.)
il
MMTS-166,167,168
� w
3t d SATCAA-803
mperial Hwy
1 !
Rolling
SpjCM"0* 1
View
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
■ 1 ■ 11 ■ 1 Disaggregated Zones
� = m m m Aggregrated Zones
t t i
0 12 1 mile A\
for adjacent
2 areas, see maps
SATE 773
•
_ ' 526
ZONE SYSTEM MAP 1
FULLERTON, LA HABRA, BREA
1
SAnM-go? ;
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
fb yr 0 iv
.S 1'* 0 10
0
r
F.4-,ex
, 1
"J� 4
rl
vo5.112+113
st1,cwao
7
Corridor Boundary
• Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
0 — --3 mile \
1 8 for adjacent,
3 areas, see maps
5100
�i0,�•��lo ,l00a1Jec
ada Ma1ae
9yAy h�u
50 y!?. 0� � �'►�a1e �QF1 w 7' �� �tl� �
_A i�
pV� ZONE SYSTEM MAP 2 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
�wwr o�sTw�T BUENA PARK, FULLERTON, ANAHEIM ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
N
N
I
FA
a
U
<5x-ti
140
PACIFIC
RaGTA
�wn�xr a-,r-4 wr
0-
you
�� ♦r vas _ �'�
_� tG
o
35
Qa1�♦♦♦
IC,R.0:w.
10
1 LEGEND
- Corridor Boundary
�,�q ♦♦♦ I • N ■ 111 Disaggregated Zones
,'♦♦ �5 Aggregrated Zones
c�61 D 1 mile :+
�s
for adjacent
Y 4 areas, see snaps
♦ 55°�
I►1'?y A5�10;�A
all
6 �a ' 31 1
► ;
'q65
s
I92l',
LuNt JTJItm MAP 3
BUENA PARK, FULLERTON, LA PALMA,
ANAHEIM, GARDEN GROVE
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
0
0
4
W
/it
4%
PACIFIC ELEC
w
4"
o
c.�
..i
LEGEND
_ Corridor Boundary
• Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated.Zones
0 1 mile A
5=9 for adjacent
areas, see wraps
���' �� S•S81 gad S�,'$9 $c�U
� I
ORANGE COUNTY
=CTU
ZONE SYSTEM MAP4 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
LA PALMA, CYPRESS, ANAHEIM, STANTON, CORRIDOR
T o��Twor GARDEN GROVE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
N
A
f
41.
1-1 O.Jr.10
Twwp-mrr n -I, Im
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
16 • ■ • ■ • 0isaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
Rti1 Z
Sly 0 11 1 mile
ff ,
!q
12 for adjacent
Oka
areas, see in
ZONE SYSTEM M A P 5
SEAL BEACH, HUNTINGTON BEACH, LOS ALAMITOS
too
to
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
fo
w
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
Disaggregated Zones
. Aggregrated Zones
t i l
0
County Line (L.A.) v
if County Line (L,A .) z 1 mile
1 co5-162.163 rE MMTS-166.167,168
TUA-801 i q 1 7 for adjacent
IL
� a IL 2 areas, see maps
SPT Co.1
1
:. Lambed s
W S-164.165 A
SATCAA-802 c �'
0
d �
Imperial they
Imperial Hwy. 1 F)p ` rial
NTS-182.183 1
Rolling Hills ��
501 1 SATCAA-807 1
C
ANODE COOUNTr � ZONE SYSTEM MAP 6 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
FULLERTON, BREA, PLACENTIA �wCORRIDOR
APMrrn-TR1Ur ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
Disaggregated Zones
County Line (S,B,) Aggregrated Zones
l � i
0 1 mile +
'1 a 6 17 for adjacent
tom' B areas, see maps
0
a
fir
1�
!� •181 o a• 91
ANOE COUNTY ZONE SYSTEM M A P 7 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
=lnm
YORBA LINDA CORRIDOR
twwNa�To,�Tw�cr ALTERNA`fIVES ANALYSIS
& (a t/ ,0
•
r
r
r
•
V
i
<iu
4iA
( =12
'
ToCr
♦♦ NO +NBS
♦ 'es' gpB
�SP�pPP"
ZONE SYSTEM MAP 8
FULLERTON, PLACENTIA,•ANAHEIM, ORANGE
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ N Disaggregated Zones
m =m = . Aggregrated Zones
0 11 1mile +
2 13
for adjacent
g 1 areas. see maps
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
♦♦` ��c• °�' a �011 LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
Qt �;,♦♦ e asp N �� • • • 8 ■ ■ • Disaggregated Zones
,�� ♦ ��0'e�'j h�� 0 5u ENI ♦ �. Aggregrated Zones
�1
Ir
♦� v�r� hOv` �oF Ja �� 0 3� —1 mile
!♦ SACRA c �v� , ♦ 253 8 13 for adjacent
'' MN ,�♦�'.ti° �, 10 areas, see snaps
03
IV
AO
tz
v
♦ �o
ANOE COUNTY
CTA
ZONE SYSTEM MAP 9 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
o•
CORRIDOR
+T ANAHEIM, GARDEN GROVE, ORANGE, SANTA ANA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
r
r
r
♦
C R.
'�P
9'0;1
=."I
ttu►Nerr o�sTwKsr
141
PACIFI
S.
ECTRIC
00
d
j6d!
6h W
SP�c
pro
es
S St•�o'
C Qa
►♦'''°?
0
6
cFaa
6u6 .; 6
ZONE SYSTEM MAP 10
GARDEN GROVE, COSTA MESA, SANTA ANA,
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
■I Disaggregated Zones
a• a■ a■ a Aggregrated Zones
0 —� mile '+
a 9 for adjacent
la
11 areas, see maps
6wu \Ll!�'
6u�J
/ oN
6w",
Out l lk *i
6 O
5�,. Adr v, fp�
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
i
0&
S-0 e
4yo
0
1o1
i
•
mi
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
1 / ■ ■ B ■ ■ Di saggregated Zones
m m m Aggregrated Zones
0 mile �+
4 10 14 for adjacent
12 areas, see v
ZONE SYSTEM M A P 11 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
Msl
�
GARDEN GROVE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CORRIDOR
uTwwr COSTA MESA, WESTMINSTER ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
ar
0
0
0
0
• 0
i
M
n
•
11
f,s
fv
c�•
PACIFIC OCEAN
10-UX
�ww T ourrw 1wr
ZONE SYSTEM
FA
SUNSET BEACH, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, HUNTINGTON BEACH
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
a I. l
0 1 mile
for adjacent
areas, see maps
Coast Hry,
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
I
N
N
LEGEND
�� ; �,e.�9 ♦; _Corridor Boundary
;
F
Disaggregated Zones
Ctb h ♦ c°,1 P1MTS-324 Aggregrated Zones
ye 6Q`l. ar SATCAA-824
c,°�♦♦ J� 0 0 mile
g 19 20 for adjacent
as dA �jr��ve " a�,7,��,' WTS-32 14 areas. see maps
9� 9�A Fa QQ� g;;♦♦ Skyline SATCAA-82F
.a `� aye ♦♦ WTS-258
f
♦ �'� ire ♦♦♦ QQ� La CoT ina SATCAA_
612 826 WTS-25!
Irvine
SATfAq_f
■�/I/N■
ne
613 . L
4 9 lip"
♦651
�♦60� �� �1 ■Riiii L 652 0 653
♦ 6 614 °° . 6
6�1 Q`L`L ♦ 91
11�.1_ r s�� bti� �; r� ♦ h`�� .o _ �c�Is 661 , _... S
ANDE COUNTY ZONE SYSTEM MAP 13
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
OCTA CORRIDOR
ORANGE, TUSTIN, IRVINE, SANTA ANA,
* amT =T IRVINE SUBDIVISION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
W
0
i
As
M
♦♦ ",�wr v- C Lro spy♦ �rL� a�°� y���� Walnut LEGEND
�o,�♦j♦ A♦♦ Leo' y `�„A�o �o`L �h`L 663. _Corridor Boundary
■ •, ■ 5 N 1 Disaggregated Zones
od Lr ��� �� �a'�,� • Aggregrated Zones
of 'S ♦ �* ♦ .-m
ti ••6'� 1:'''�� Go�~a G�:j♦♦ ~O' �°�� t o =m 6 0 � ,rile
�.
. 0 . W u s� O ♦ tie 7O 13
��� �� v� ♦♦ ��1 �� ^ Bcrr 10611 2i for adjacent
m areas. see maps
r ' as ��"�♦ rn
w 6ya ;:;���F ��a o et ,.a�o�� rA1 ♦ �q'� Alton an ,,Ulf
`�� ♦ A m y
672 �u0 et ♦j € >
,r y v�a`� ♦� �� 668 R ot�oo
too
vp
3A�` fo���= ���` mY�, vd�ol 6o`L♦ �
L- 687
e
P ♦ ev ♦ b =i an
��ete
♦♦a�yv v� 1° ♦ zm 695. a� 686
c�� ♦��A �J�k cud ,GO _ 0 6$4 O� rim v
ORANGE couNTY
'ZONE SYSTEM MAP 14 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
oCTal
SANTA ANA, IRVINE, COSTA MESA CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
e
0
PIN
wormomm
a i to1n6E
r
�m\
tEs-€.
ea
Y0
•=aW
G6d7
F
N p
r�
3
-pm
•
E95
0 68q
cpp Tj s-
a.
��
ci.
a
_ OFt _
LEGEND
- Corridor Boundary
• Disaggregated Zones
�� • m . Aggregrated Zones
0 1 Nile �+
14 for adjacent
0311 21
16 areas, see s
W.
y- -� ♦ MMTS-298
P,��PQ ♦ 1 SATCAA-86 S_29 864
,� 1 SpTCM-
1 MMTS-297
SATCAA463
1
ANOE COUNTY ZONE SYSTEM MAP 15
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, IRVINE CORRIDOR
L To*f*K-`r ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
i
•
M
•
i
•
i
•
•
•
.20
WTS-298
a
its
•00606w•
ew
*pop'
v4fj/
i
LEGEND
- Corridor Boundary
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Disaggregated Zones
a Aggregrated Zones
L 1 1
0 � 1 mile .+�
15
12 for adjacent
22
areass seen
PACIFIC OCEAM
- ZONE SYSTEM M A P 16 SANTA AN
A TRANSPORTATION
S
COSTA MESA, HUNTPNGTON BEACH CORRIDOR
TRANum oinTplar NEWPORT BEACH, IRVINE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
1
BERNARDINO COUNTY
County Line (S.B.)
WTS-191
SA-fCAA-815
qA
�fr
O.JS-�.g11
Spy
T" v
1510 P
MKTS - 198, 200
SATCAA - 816
ZONE SYSTEM
IRVINE SUB -DIVISION
LEGEND
- Corridor Boundary
■ N • N ■ ■ ■ Di saggregated Zones
�. Aggregrated Zones
0 1 mile
3 18 for adjacent
19 areas, see m
WTS-19B,20O
SATCAA-816
M A P 17 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
t 10 10 0 0 10 !, 0 • r
•
i
i
i
i
i
N
v
MMTS - 198, 200
SATCAA - 816
Co�cr/
TwwNltlr o�sTwICT
MMTS - 201, 219
SATCAA - 830
ZONE SYSTEM
IRVINE SUB —DIVISION
LEGEND
— Corridor Boundary
Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
1 i l
0 i 1 mile
17 23 for adjacent
19 areas, see m
M A P 18 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
c
c
u
99 2
MMTS - 108,200
SATCAA- 816
M
c _
gti% 4�
LJ MATS-324
'•`a•��� SATCAA-824
,SPA
Coa ZONE SYSTEM
VILLA PARK
tww�rr ohKw�cT
LEGEND
- Corridor Boundary
Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
1 t 1
0 3� 1 mile
7 17 P4 for adjacent
20 areas, see m
�on
ago
MdTS - 258
SATCAA - 826
MfiTS -259 i
SATCAA 827 c
M A P 19 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
t 0 19 to 0
• • •
4b
S-325
CMMTS-259AA-825 MMTS-258
-'
olina SATCAA-826 SATCAA-827
om m
v�
0 651 w: 652
n Xm
m
m w b�
664. 669=� 670
- -
Pkwy
A .
WTS-260
SATCAA-828
i
653
654
;
655 b
i
w�
M4 }
�=
c
FRF�✓AY
=
673
&S.F.
wR.R,
674
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
0 mile :+
19
1for adjacent
21
3 25
areas. see maps
■o■■iiiiii■ii■
q Feu
675 678 T M FR
i n r ■ ■ Irvine Center
■ ■■■
676 682
Barranc ;° 680 �WEEWAY
679 •
SpN Dt�GO
ZONE SYSTEM M ii P 20
659
660
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
IRVINE,o IRVINE SUBDIVISION CORRIDOR
(MARINE CORPS AIR STATION EL TORO) ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
r
00
0
672
679
b.
N �
677
01E� J 690
691
LEGEND
_ Corridor Boundary
• Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
0 1 mile A
20
15 26 for adjacent
2 areas, see maps
Wi5_225,228
7-794 ,2.96
T r cesCMP 4 - ?` --
ANOE COIJNTy MA P 21 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
oCT� ZONE SYSTEM CORRIDOR
twA�r onaTw�cr IRVINE, INCORPORATED AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
i
LEGEND
S 301.3138��� �, _Corridor Boundary
CM_g66����� Disaggregated Zones
�. Aggregrated Zones
d¢ 22 1 i
+ S_222%61 p �' mite +
SNIC
w 16 2627 for adjacent
i
areasp see maps
LS-290v?91,?91,?93
a WI
gS-226
knM.865 v�Cl A_870
St
CkA-
ANDS COUNTY
ZONE SYSTEM MAP 22 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
455CORRIDOR
NEWPORT BEACH, LAGUNA HILLS
�' T�'�T' ar LAGUNA BEACH ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
• 0 10 • 0
LEGEND
NMTS - 201, 219 Corridor Boundary
y SATCAA - 830 8 ■ 1 ■ ■ I N Disaggregated Zones
Santiago Canyon . Aggregrated Zones
0 z 1 mile
Sant a 20 23 30 for adjacent
WTS - 260 „ 90 Canyon 25 areas, see maps
0
SATCAA - 828
Kc
GM
e
w o N U
v
won�.
�r o�srw«rT
J
04 0 II U
.o o
o A F
U � -
c MILTS-202 "d
.0
u
e SATCM-829
WTS-201,217,219
SATCAA-830
reek
ZONE SYSTEM M A P 24 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
IRVINE SUB -DIVISION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
I
to
.A
656
R.R
soon
658 j
asoft
Cb
70CT
659
•r
694
w
v
WTS-202 LEGEND
SATCAA-829 _ Corridor Boundary
MMTS-201,21 8 1 Disaggregated Zones
SATCAA-830
Aggregrated Zones
C t 1 l
695 F
Irab�O 0 1 mile
•
h•
• 24 for adjacent
20 30
h • 26 1 areas, see m
o•
698
•
•
•
•
•
696 1 700
S-F• .R.R
ZONE SYSTEM MAP25
MISSION VIEJO, EL TORO, IRVINE SUBDIVISION
LAKE FOREST
702
703
704
SATCAA
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
•
IV
•
E�
J
ity
gg6qJ��'�y
693
697
WTS-227,231
SATCAA-869
a go +A"W96"
JM0S-227 ,231
SptCAA'g69
714
701
DIEGO F
��....
716"1
715T�
a�
717
71�
♦ A
MMTS-236
SATCAA-871
17-1� x d
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
111 ■ ■ ■ @ Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
0 mile �+
[21 31
25 for adjacent
27
areas, see maps
0
Iton Parkway/�i
Iwo
•
722
� 724
sell** A
723 �0
QZONE SYSTEM MAP 26 11
SATTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
, =CT NJ P
CORRIDOR
r a�TMCT IRVINE, LACUNA HILLS, SADDLEBACK VALLEY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
11
♦ `fi5-236 LEGEND
_ Corridor Boundary
•i` Sp%AA-871 723 Disaggregated Zones
4! > yo-4 b . Aggregrated Zones
♦ s�Aft
y` � S-243.248 � 0 I mile .+
SATCAA-872
o5-225.2�8 �i, 26
22 33 for adjacent
SptCpA"g68 areas,
see In
! 72 0 • 728
� + 1MTS-226 7rao 0 • � -' SATCAA-870 •
727
st pkig d9e L ne as 0.0* •
r�1tw '�y 729
PACIFIC OCEAN
ZONE SYSTEM MAP 27 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
=Wrw
CORRIDOR
�Tww�rasTwCT LAGUNA HILLS, LAGUNA BEACH,DANA POINT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
0 9 0 to 0 6 0 0 0 0
•
w
V
1
0
0
4
i
i
i
•
•
ANOE ccKiNTr MAP 2 9 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
=C-Vxb
ZONE SYSTEM CORRIDOR
twwN�r asTwcT UNINCORPORATED AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
0 • 0 0 0 • • • • ! •
i
4
•
•
•
•
•
w
It
MMTS-20192179219
SATCAA-830
MMTS - 216 u
SATCAA - 831 e
WOOD*
T o�srwiar
0;
MMTS-218.220
SATCAA-832
ZONE SYSTEM
UNINCORPORATED AREA
WTS-218.220
S4TCM-832
MAP30
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Disaggregated Zones
�. Aggregrated Zones
0 mile :+
25 E2]8
for adjacent
3areas, see maps
40*
440
MMTS - 221
SATCAA - 834
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
J.
I
Creek
ITS CO at
•
h •
Q•
♦
695 698 699
W ♦
•
•
700
S �
F' .R . R
701
=C-V)M
T o�Tw ar
702
703
\� 704
1
705
707
MMTS-216
SATCAA-831
ZONE SYSTEM MAP 31
EL TORO, MISSION VIEJO, IRVINE SUBDIVISION
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
8 111 Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
0 mile �+
30 25526 34 for adjacent
32 1 areas, seen
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
•
• • • • • • • • • •
120
n a�
os° 721
722
723
MMTS-243,248
SATCAA-872
TwCr
726
9
46
a 728
MMTS-215
SATCAA-833
(rs'q
1�
ZONE SYSTEM MAP 3 2
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, SADDLEBACK VALLEY
MISSION VIEJO, LAGUNA HILLS
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
0 mile :+
F27 31 35 for adjacent
33 areas. see maps
n
Ea So
•o
35
•
739 .Ion,
.`"
Z
136 y
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
4.
N
s
729
727
729
739
Est
ocrA
iwwNerr oisTw�eT
i 735
to
,r
1316
733
731
A.T.6!i.t. etc.
740
I LEGEND
'La: ;a _ Corridor Boundary
1
Maggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
0 1 mile �+
0
F 32636
27 35 for adjacent
I areas, see wraps
5AR UILGo FREEWAY
■NNNIN2589562
WL._. 744
El Camino Rea
PACIFIC OCEAN
ZONE SYSTEM M A P33
DANA POINT HARBOR, SAN JUAN CAPI,STRANO'
746 -qqq%
A,
T':s•F
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
J
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
•
n
0
0
•
•
•
•
n
•
a
.P
MMTS - 215
SATCAA - 833
a O,
=c7ft
TwCr
q#.
MMTS-22I
SATCAA-834
-r
8m"
742 Plw
-2
ZONE SYSTEM MA P35
UNINCORPORATED AREA
LEGEND
- Corridor Boundary
Disaggregated Zones
. Aggregrated Zones
0 12 1 mile :+
34 34 for adjacent
131932
36 1 areas, seen
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
J
• 0 • •
0
0
L
•
n
n
eso
Qooer
739
� II
•;Q Il�ta
•
•o
it
map
739 MN
ISd
683
rr
♦ �yo 740
0
m
q
■■■■■■
A.T.&%.F. kR.R 741
="C-Th
TRAMMY c"*TvwCT
ti
win
743
1.
1�
1�
1�
1,
�10
0
00 747
n �
w a
o� ♦ d
745 �p,
O .0
a
SAN DIEGO FREEWAY
■■■■■■■■■■t■■ 0
744 746
AST' is. F f
El Camino Rea
ZONE SYSTEM M A P36
SAN CLEMENTE, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
CAPISTRANO BEACH
LEGEND
_ Corridor Boundary
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Disaggregated Zones
Aggregrated Zones
0 1 mile
35
33 34
37
for adjacent
areas. see
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
FJ
738
Q�
i 1
o
747 0
� � Z
a 7 •��O G N
743rn
a o
o a •� y '�
745
�o
Sm OIUM M-VAr 1` ov
/////744 //
746
A.T.SS F- R. s748
El Camino Real
1
PACIFIC 0CEA1
ORANGE COUNTY M A P37
oC.rlo ZONE SYSTEM
Twcr SAN CLEMENTE, CAPISTRANO BEACH
LEGEND
Corridor Boundary
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Disaggregated Zones
� m m = a Aggregrated Zones
0 mile
36 for adjacent
33
areas, see maps
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
0 0 9
0 0 0
SANT•ANA TRANSPOTATION CORORDOR ALTERNWIVES ANALYAS
INDEX TO 1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS, SEC.I*
•
•
•
I,
4q
V
*For following variables:
single family dwelling units, multiple family dwelling units, total population, lower income
population, retail employment and total emDlovment.
NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION
PAGE NUMBER
NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION
PAGE NUMBER
ANAHEIM
51,
52,
53,
54.71,72
LOS ALAMITOS
74
BREA
48,
71
MISsInN VIEJO
66,67.68
BUENA PARK
40
NFWPORT BEACH
64.76
CAPISTRANO BEACH
ORANGE
56, 57, 72
-s
COSTA MESA
61,
64,
76
PLACENTIA
71
CYPRESS
48,
49
SADDLEBACK
77
DANA POINT
68,
69
SAN CLEMENTE
70
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
75
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
68, 69
FULLERTON
48,49, 59,
71
SNATA ANA
56, 56, 58, 59,60, 61
GARDEN GROVE
54,
55,
56,
74
SEAL BEACH
74
HUNTINGTON BEACH
64.
75.
76
SOUTH COUNTY CANYON
73, 74
IRVINE
61,
62,
63,
64, 65.76
STANTON
53
IRVINE SUBDIVISION
65,
66,
73
SUNSET BEACH
75
LAGUNA BEACH
77
TUSTIN •
57, 58, 62, 63
LAGUNA HILLS
65,
67,
68,
77
VILLA PARK
73
LA HABRA
71
WESTMINSTER
74, 75
LAKE FOREST/EL TORO
62,
65,
66
YORBA LINDA
72
LA PALMA
48
SINGLE-
MULTI-
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLINO
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
501
Fullerton
County line, Bastanchury
1749
5320
20506
1230
750
19780
b Euclid.Malvern,
Magnolia
502
Buena Park
Rosecrans, Magnolia,
1124
342
3564
641
246
1410
Malvern, Dale
503
Buena Park
County Line, Dale,
282
1027
3178
2447
105
311
Malvern
504
Buena Park
La Mirada, Beach, Santa
Ana Freeway, county line
363
1443
4389
2633
686
4344
505
Buena Park
La Mirada, Dale, Santa
1454
1443
7038
4222
1030
2598
Ana Freeway, Beach
'
06.
Buena Park
Amtrak, Gilbert,
417
483
2450
1519
178
2566
Valencia, Dale
507
Buena Park
Valencia, Gilbert
Riverside Freeway, Dale
1250
1449
7350
4557
178
775
SOB
Buena Park
Artesia, Knott,
Orangethorpe, Valley View
0
0
0
0
345
9936
5W
Buena Park
Santa Ana Freeway,
883
1816
6558
3738
3109
5507
Orangethorpe, Knott
I
51Q
La Palma
Walker, P.E. ROW,
3399
639
13083
0093
1076
4245
County line
511
Cypress
P.E. ROW, Walker, Ball
4077
1525
17214
4131
409
2761
County Line
• 40 0 +� • li • • • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SINGLE.
MULTI-
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA /
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
OWELLINO
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
Orangethoope, Holder
512
Cypress
La Plama, Walker
1588
544
6312
2516
73
462
La Plama, Holder
513
Cypress
Crescent, Walker
1588
544
6312
2516
73
462
514
Cypress
Crescent , Lincoln,
Holder, Ball, Walker
2339
1530
11839
4108
828
2986
515
Cypress
Orangethorpe, Western
_[_
-
-
La Palma, Holder
1508
447
5790
1621
529
3511
516
Cypress
La Palma, Western
1508
448
5790
1592
132
417
Crescent, Holder
517
Cypress
Crescent, Western
1925
1412
9879
2137
652
1673
Lincoln & Orange,
Vallpv View
518
Cypress
Ball & Orange, Knott
1575
1156
8082
1936
217
767
Cerritos, Valley View
519
Cypress
Orangethorpe, Beach,
885
470
3999
1544
2527
7238
Lincoln, Western
520
Cypress
Orangethorpe, Dale
Crescent, Beach
1328
471
5337
2274 I
3791
4969
521
Fullerton
Valley View, Highland
Commonwealth, Bastanchury
3075
836
10653
4442
621
1309
522 Fullerton
Malvern & Commonwealth
Gilbert 9 Valencia,
0
92
253
106
621
6813
SINGLE.
MULTI-
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
Fullerton Junior
Brea, Berkeley,
523
College, Fullerton
Commonwealth, Highland
356
826
3311
1253
1309
1958
Richman
524
Fullerton
Skyline, Acacia
2845
0
6270
3019
654
1303
Commonwealth, Berkeley
525
Fullerton
Commonwealth, Acacia
Valencia, Highland
356
1533
4495
2004
218
11899
California State
Yorba Linda, Orange
1357
1806
7526
3635
1880
3192
526
University -Fullerton
Freeway, Commonwealth,
Fullerton
Acacia
Commonwealth, Orange
339
1805
5157
2465
470
12280
527
Fullerton
Freeway, Valencia, Acacia
528
Fullerton
Valencia, Placentia
Riverside Freeway,
0
0
0
0
0
19374
Raymond
529
Fullerton
Valencia, Raymond
1390
2841
10112
6281
409
6242
Riverside Freeway,
Richman
Fullerton
Valencia, Richman
530
Riverside Freeway,
1076
469
4290
1228
513
656
Euclid
531
Fullerton
Valencia, Euclid
1076
312
3746
1104 I
220
282
Riverside Freeway,
,532
Fullerton
Valencia, Basque
1335
231
4289
1160
873
5191
Riverside Freeway,
Brookhurst
533
Fullerton
Valencia, Brookhurst
1335
231
4289
1071
1310
7787
Riverside Freeway,
Gilbert
Li
0 10 ( to i
SINGLE.
MULTI.
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
534
Anaheim
Riverside Freeway, Euclid
1520
587
5078
2047
309
1672
La Palma, Santa Ana Free-
way
535
Anaheim
La Plama, Euclid, Santa
652
2348
7229
2913
1 77
418
Ana Freeway
536
Anaheim
Riverside Freeway, Harbor
La Palma, Eucid
559
2022
6243
3090
367
9308
Anaheim
La Palma, Harbor
2237
1348
8622
4223
1471
7418
537
Lincoln, Santa Ana
Freeway, Euclid
538
Anaheim
Riverside Freeway,
0
262
695
460
271
2220
Raymond, La Palma, Harbor
539
Anaheim
La Palma, Raymond
1660
1056
6482
5142
F406
406
Sycamore, Harbor
Anaheim
Riverside Freeway,
540
State College, La Palma
1888
848
5772
1922
355
1643
Raymond
Anaheim
La Plama, State College
2307
1036
7054
2349
355
1642
541
Lincoln, Raymond
542
Anaheim
Riverside Freeway, Santa
2465
4016
13674
4855
806
1841
in ojnertta?etColleneQ ist
I
543
Anaheim
Lincoln, State College
Vermont, East, AT & SF RR
1737
635
5004
1577
258
1927
Sycamore, East, South
544 Anaheim
Santa Ana Freeway &
1772
1914
8883
1452
12846
Harbor
SINGLE.
MULTI-
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMEN7
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
545
Anaheim
South, A.T.& S.F. RR
Anaheim Blvd, Santa Ana
1458
2047
8447
4977
613
6588
Freeway
546
Anaheim
Vermont, State College
115
1415
3727
888
3406
7011
Cerritos, Anaheim Blvd
Cerritos, State College
58
94
320
88
973
10886
547
Anaheim
Santa Ana Freeway' I
Ball, Santa Ana River
548
Anaheim
A.T. & S.F., State College
980
377
2365
486
486
4M
Anaheim
South, Orange Freeway
1163
1410
5427
1254
248
427
549
Ball, State Colleqe
550
Anaheim
South, Santa Ana River
Ball, Orange Freeway
775
352
2379
550
64
233
551
Anaheim
Santa Ana Freeway
La Palma, Ball
133
122
665
260
238
4864
552
Anaheim
La Palma, Brookhurst
Crescent, Dale
1333
292
4242
1655
238
657
553
Anaheim
Crescent, Gilbert
Lincoln, Beach
1200
2020
8405
3278 1
715
1057
554
Anaheim
Lincoln, Western, Ball
Knott
840
1773
6834
3973
497
1314
555
Anaheim
Lincoln, Beach,
687
1182
4864
2363
745
1563
Ball, Western
r
0
0
40
li
0
i Ab i r i Mi i i i i
SINGLE-
MULTI-
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
556
Anaheim
Lincoln, Dale,
826
1793
6810
2234
129
461
Ball, Beach
Lincoln, Magnolia
557
Anaheim
Ball, Dale
826
448
3325
1653
129
461
Anaheim
Lincoln, Gilbert,
558
Ball, Magnolia
930
936
4777
1589
642
1017
Anaheim
559
Crescent, Brookhurst
Orange, Gilbert
464
936
3661
1193
1156
1889
560
Anaheim
Orange, Nutwood
930
1248
5526
1855
771
1271
Ball, Gilbert
561
Anaheim
Santa Ana Freeway,
Lincoln, Brookhurst
372
1296
4004
1706
1904
8076
562
Anaheim
1860
486
5631
2399
1332
2361
pLincoln,Euclid
61'OOKg1(FIt& Ball,
563
Anaheim
Santa Ana Freeway,Ball
1488
1458
7072
3013
571
3657
Euclid
564
Stanton
Ball, Beach, Katella,
2493
1181
10140
4289
258
1384
Knott
I
j
565
Stanton
Ball, Gilbert
2076
2982
13960
7134
904
3851
Katella, Beach
Ball, Brookhurst
Anaheim
E
Katella, Gilbert
1392
96
3870
989
226
254
SINGLE-
MULTI-
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION,
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
567
Anaheim
Ball, Nutwood
Katella, Brookhurst
928
859
4590
1188
527
569
568
-Anaheim
Ball, 9th
899
592
3460
1208
164
959
Cerritos, Nutwood
569
Anaheim
Cerritos, 9th -
1225
1776
7322
2556
384
1577
Orangewood, Nutwood
570
Anaheim
Ball, West
1502
1734
8727
4535
440
3473
Orangewood, 9th
571
Anaheim
Ball, Harbor
125
578
1961
1159
1762
10861
Orangewood, West
572
Anaheim
Santa Ana Freeway,
Harbor, Tiller
876
3468
9165
5417
734
8822
573
Orange
Santa Ana Freeway, Santa
557
1105
3567
1567
2190
12157
Ana.River, Garden Grove,
eW75
574
Garden Grove
Orangewood, Lewis
Chapman, West
1585
1242
7849
4213
710
1888
575
Garden Grove
Chapman, Lewis,Garden
1586
1864
9622
5139 I
580
2020
Grove E Lampson, West
576
Garden Grove
Orangewood, West
2596
458
8520
2386
137
954
Lampson, Nutwood 6
Garden Grove
Katella, Euclid
F577]
Chapman, Brookhurst
2295
672
8189
2541
65•
421
0
0
i
0
0
• 0 0 i 0
•
•
•
A
r!
•
•
SINGLE.
MULTI.
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION,
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMEN7
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
578
Garden Grove
Katella, Brookhurst
Chapman, Gilbert
856
190
2886
950
497
686
Katella, Gilbert
579
'Garden Grove
Chapman, Dale
1996
762
7612
2504
213
479
Katella, SPT Co.
1490
591
5681
2918
516
1810
580
Garden Grove
Chapman, Dale
Katella, Knott, Garden
684
134
2257
612
323
11763
581
Garden Grove
Grove Blvd., SPT Co
Chapman, Gilbert
582
Garden Grove
Garden Grove, SPT Co.
4157
1262
14906
6820
440
2794
Garden Grove, Gilbert
734
2945
10152
4629
818
171
583
Garden Grove
Trask, Westminster,
Beach
584
Garden Grove
Chapman, Nutwood
Trask, Gilbert
2343
2515
13374
7750
1936
3731
585
Garden Grove
Campson, Euclid
Trask, Nutwood
598
1260
5128
3092
384
2727
586
Garden Grove
Lampson, 9th & Newhope
Trask, Euclid
898
539
3968
2393
164
2507
Lampson, Haster
587
Garden Grove
Garden Grove, 9th
1436
774
6164
3805
568
1620
588
Garden Grove
Garden Grove, Santa Ana
River Trask,Newhope
2154
945
8647
3935
852
2806
SINGLE.
MULTI.
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION,
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
588
Garden Grove
Garden Grove, Santa Ana
2154
945
8647
3935
852
2806
River, Trask, Newhope
589
Garden Grove
Trask, Santa Ana River
Westminster, Euclid
1693
617
6444
2638
1000
4720
590
Westminster, Santa Ana
Santa Ana
River, 1st, Euclid
4423
2151
20116
10883
978
3198
591
Garden Grove
Garden Grove Freeway,
Euclid, 1st, Brookhurst
2773
546
9162
2969
503
2048
Garden Grove Freeway
592
Garden Grove
Brookhurst, Hazard,
1188
546
4748
1552
336
1365
Magnolia
Santa Ana
1st, Santa Ana River
4606
2316
21181
90615—j
704
2798
593
Edinger, Ward
594
Orange
Fletcher Ave, Orange -
Olive Rd, Taft, Santa
Ana River
0
0
0
0
25
675
595
Orange
Taft, Glassell Ave
Katella, Santa Ana River
197
403
1267
964
332
L
5807
596
Orange
Katella, Glassell
197
403
1267
-
964 I
332
3982
AT & SF RR, Santa Ana
597
Orange
AT & SF, State College
Santa Ana Freeway, Santa
674
620
2729
1179
428
6355
River
598
Orange
AT & SF, Santa Ana Riv1:16874
Chapman, BataviaF930
5414
2382
428
8049
•
6
0
•
i
•
•
`J
C!
rl
•
n
•
•
•
SINGLE-
MULTI-
LOWER
SATCAA
NAMEOF AREA/
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYM
UNITS
UNITS
599
Orange
Chapman, Santa Ana River
1010
1549
5339
2333
1997
5385
AT & SF, Riviera Drive,
Santa Ana Freeway
600
-Orange
Walnut, Cambridge
Fairheaven, AT & SF
2083
3133
13106
608
743
5490
601
Orange
Walnut, Newport Freeway
Fairheaven, Cambridge
2224
l7nl
9891
4016
1173
4040
Collins, Prospect
602
Orange
Chapman, Newport Freeway
1262
1572
7492
1364
933
1016
Chapman, Newport Freeway
603
Orange
Fairheaven, Prospect
2945
847
9954
1825
933
1057
Fairheaven, Tustin
604
Tustin
Santa Clara, Foothill
1316
662
4614
848
352
1171
605
Tustin
Santa Clara, Tustin
17th St & Warren,
2444
1229
85d9
1575
352
1171
Foothil
606
Tustin
Fairheaven, Tustin
17th, Grand
1093
908
4042
1508
664
2450
607
Santa Ana
Riviera Or, Grand
1640
1361
6563
2405 I
664
2450
17th Santa Ana Freeway
17th, Mabury
608
Santa Ana
Santa Ana Freeway
579
890
3155
1004
938
2469
17th, Tustin
579
890
3155
1004
938
2469
609
Santa Ana
Mabury
SINGLE-
MULTI-
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION,
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
17th, Newport Avenue
610
Tustin
Irvine Blvd, Newport Fwy
1500
1190
6266
2463
500
2908
Irvine Blvd, Newport
611
.Tustin
Avenue, Santa Ana
642
1785
5656
2223
750
3159
Freeway, Newport Freeway
Skyline, Browning Avenue
612
Tustin
Irvine, Newport Avenue
1231
368
3727
1100
23
821
Irvine, Browning
613
Tustin
Bryan, Newport Avenue
1095
399
3480
1027
23
821
Bryan, Browning
614
Tustin
Santa Ana Freeway,
411
2301
6317
1864
31
1095
Newport Avenue
615
Santa Ana
Santa Ana Freeway
Rivera Drive, Santa Ana
826
470
2785
889
322
2254
River
Riviera, Bristol
616
Santa Ana
Westminster (S), 17th
826
470
2785
889
451
4314
Santa Ana River
617
Santa Ana
Riviera, Santa Ana
Freeway, 17th,Bristol
1102
626
3714
1185
516
4379
618
Santa Ana
17th, Colleqe
1025
560
4343
2392
156
1440
Santa Ana River
I
17th, Bristol
619
Santa Ana
College
683
373
2895
1955
156
1440
620
Broadway, Civic
Santa Ana
Center Drive, Bristol
1719•
1025
8204
6072
428
3782
0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0
I,
w
W
W
W
s
W
SATCAA
ZONE
NAME OF AREA/
JURISDICTION,
ZONE
BOUNDARY
SINGLE.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
MULTI.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
TOTAL
POPULATION
LOWER
INCOME
POPULATION
RETAIL
EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
621
Santa Ana
Civic Center Drive,
Bristol, Santa Ana Blvd,
Broadway
159
375
1325
`
983
285
20359
622
Santa Ana
17th, Broadway, Civic
Center Drive, Garfield
159
1975
5446
4026
713
4059
623
Santa Ana
Civic Center Drive,
Broadway, Chestnut,
Standard
159
375
1329
7839
1427
8136
624
Santa Ana
AT & SF, Garfield &
Standard, Chestnut
802
509
3592
2803
489
2600
625
Santa Ana
Santa Ana Freeway
Main, A.T. & S.F.
89
1189
3502
2731
489
8933
626
Santa Ana
Main, Newport Freeway
McFadden, Standard
782
4211
11681
6658
1900
5285
627
Santa Ana
McFadden, Newport Freeway
Edinger, Standard
260
526
1840
F1049
633
9249
628
Santa Ana
Edinger, Standard
Warner, Newport Freeway
260
526
1846
1652
633
11892
Santa na
Chestnut, Main, Edinger
& McFadden, Standard
265
2400
7237
5641 I
303
1088
630
Santa Ana
Chestnut & McFadden
Flower, Edinger, Main
2387
424
7577
6262
303
1088
631 Santa Ana Edinger & McFadden,
Main,Warner, Standard
1651
1046
7389
3984
508
752
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
SINGLE.
FAMILY
MULTI.
FAMILY
TOTAL
LOWER
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYM
UNITS
UNITS
Edinger, Flower
632
Santa Ana
Warner, Main
1350
116
4020"
2132
508
752
633
Santa Ana, Raitt
Santa Ana
1st, Flower
127
90
694
469
117
863
1st St, Raitt
634
Santa Ana
Monte Vista & McFadden
Flower
2412
1701
10626
7856
273
356
635
Santa Ana
Santa Ana, Santa Ana
River, Bishop, Raitt
376
F971
3691
2429
410
1737
636
Santa Ana
Bishop, Santa Ana River
o
Edinger, McFadden,
3385
1457
13236
8729
176
1502
Bristol
637
Santa Ana
McFadden, Fairview
Edinger, Flower
2055
1-038
8476
4414
469
1813
Edinger, Santa Ana
638
Santa Ana
River, Warner
Fairview
0
0
0
0
74
4551
639
Santa Ana
Edinger, Fairview
Warner, Raitt
1417
576
4663
2527
299
796
640
Santa Ana
Edinger, Raitt
Warner, Flower
2373
363
6407
2057
665
2438
641
Santa Ana
Warner, Main
Sunflower, Newport
421
436
2005
698
176
15248
Freeway
642
Santa Ana
Warner, Flower
Sunflower, Main
985
1745
6385
2222
410
6535
SATCAA
ZONE
NAME OF AREA/
JURISDICTION.
ZONE
BOUNDARY
SINGLE.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
MULTI.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
TOTAL
POPULATION
LOWER
INCOME
POPULATION
RETAIL
EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
643
Santa Ana
arner, Bristol
Sunflower, Flower
1894
1812
8688
3041
606
1174
644
Santa Ana
Warner, Greenville
Alton, Bristol
1894
1811
8688
3041
606
1175
Warner & Alton, Fairfiew•
645
Santa Ana
Sunflower, Bristol
974
3728
10952
5120
1212
1212
646
Santa Ana
Fairview, Santa Ana River
MacArthur, Sunflower,
Fairview
0
0
0
0
0
12522
647
Costa Mesa
MacArthur, Santa Ana
River, San Diego Freeway
Bear
313
1752
5500
517
1040
1400
648
Costa Mesa
8323
15400
Sunflower, Bear
San Diego Freeway,Bristol
0
0
0
0
649
Costa Mesa
Sunflower, Bristol
Diego Freeway,
San40
Newport Freeway
313
1753
5500
517r-
11200
650
Costa Mesa
San Diego Freeway, Del
Mar Freeway, Newport
Freeway
787
1498
5346
2074
1743
2138
651
Irvine
Irvine Blvd., Browning
Santa Ana Freeway,
1155
1240
5581
558 I
40
346
652
Irvine
Irvine Blvd, Myford
Santa Ana Freeway,
Culver
1733
1860
8839
884
60
519
653
Irvine
Irvine, Culver
Santa Ana Freeway, Vale
2295
629
7193
0
104
468
SINGLE-
MULTI.
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION,
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
654
Irvine
Irvine, Yale
Santa Ana Freeway
Jeffrey
1624
250
4610
0
175
1047
Irvine, Jeffrey
655
Irvine
Santa Ana Freeway,
Sand Canyon
2436
375
7097
0
175
1047
Rancho Canada De Los
656
Alisos, Trabuco; Irvine
142
392
4267
2000
0
100
Irvine
Irvine, Sand Canyon
657
Irvine
AT & SF, Perimeter
0
0
0
0
0
3800
658
A.T & S.F. Perimeter
Irvine
Santa Ana Freeway
162
392
4267
20M
0
100
659
Irvine
Trabuco, Perimeter
AT & SF, Bake Parkway
0
0
0
0
0
6000
660
Cake Forest
A.T. & S.F. Perimeter
San Diego Freeway, Bake
Parkway
0
0
0
0
370
13000
rT��
-•
Santa Ana Freeway,
Newport Freeway,McFadden
& Walnut, Browning
1394
29M
10024
4391
399
819
662
Tustin
Walnut, Newport
Freeway Edinger,
349
29M
7587
3323 I
266
546
Red Hill
663
Tustin
Santa Ana Freeway,
Browning, Walnut &
998
0
2326
161 T
2
959
Redhill, Mauston Pkway
L664
Tustin
Santa Ana Freeway, A.T.
& S.F. Moulton Pkway,
538
0
1252
86
13
29M
U
0
a
a
a
SINGLE.
MULTI-
LOWER
SATCAA
ZONE
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
665
Tustin
Moulton, Red Hill
Alton, Newport Freeway
0
0
0
0
397
6000
666
Tustin
Moulton, Red Hill
Barranca, Harvard
135
0
1428
714
44
2831.
667
Irvine
Barranca, Alton -
--
Newport Freeway, San Diege
Freeway, Von
0
0
0
0
1200
28560
668.
Irvine
Karman
Barranca, Von Kaman
San Diego,;Murphy
0
0
0
0
1200
19440
Santa Ana Freeway, Myford
669
Irvine
A.T. & S.F. Harvard
106
80
458
0
928
3028
Santa Ana Freeway
670
Irvine
Harvard, A.T. & S. F.,
2020
320
5758
0
232
757
Culver
671
Irvine, Murphy
Irvine
Barranca, Culver
1521
2045
8772
F439
160
1772
672
Irvine
Barranca, Murphy
San Diego Freeway, Culver
1892
2707
11216
566
380
3146
673
Irvine
Santa Ana Freeway, Culver
AT & SF, Yale
1402
120
3942
378 I
339
391
674
Irvine
A.T. & S.F., Culver
Irvine Center Dr., Yale
935
80
2299
232
226
261
Santa Ana Freeway, Yale
675
Irvine
Irvine Center Drive,
2695
0
6629
663
558
635
Jeffrey
SATCAA
ZONE
NAME OF AREA/
JURISDICTION.
ZONE
BOUNDARY
SINGLE.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
MULTI.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
TOTAL
POPULATION
LOWER
INCOME
POPULATION
RETAIL
EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
676
Irvine
Irvine Center Drive,
Culver, Barranca, Jeffrey
3053
1299
10706
540
0
400
677
Irvine
Barranca, Culver
San Diego Freeway,
Jeffrey
2912
1623
11156
558
896
1031
678
Irvine
Santa Ana Freeway, Jeffre
-F
.
Irvine Center Drive,
Laguna Freeway
34
0
84
17
261
490
679
Irvine
Irvine Center Drive,
Jeffrey, San Diego Fwy
Sand Canyon
238
2552
6863
1373
4711
6541
680
Irvine
Irvine Center Drive,
Sand Canyon, San Diego
Freeway, Laguna Freeway
68
638
1736
347
261
490
681
Irvine
Santa Ana Freeway, Laguna
Freeway, Irvine Center
Dr. San Diego Freeway
0
0
0
0
300
7200
682
Irvine
Irvine Center Dr, Laguna
Freeway, San Diego
Freeway
0
0
0
0
200
4800
683
Costa Mesa
San Diego Freeway
Newport Freeway, bet Mar
Freeway, Airport Way
0
0
0
0
442
8165
684
Costa Mesa
San Diego Freeway,
Airport Way, Del Mar
Freeway, MacArthur
0
0
0
0
553
13937
685
Newport & Irvine
San Diego Freeway,
MacArthur, Del Mar
Freeway, Jamboree
0
0
0
0
711
72608
686 Irvine
San Diego Freeway,
Jamboree, Del Mar
Freeway, Harvard
0
0
0
0
316
4777
•
iJ
•
0
►r
•
•
•
i
i
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
SINGLE-
FAMILY
MULTI.
FAMILY
TOTAL
LOWER
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYM EW
UNITS
UNITS
687
Irvine
San Diego Freeway,
Harvard, University Drive
2441
2078
11254
558
284
631
688
University Drive, Harvard
Irvine
Bonita Canyon Drive,
0
4509
11137
10580
995
9684
Culver
689
Irvine
University, Culver,
R%eIinenyon Dr.
3700
0
9139
183
180
434
690
Irvine
San Diego Freeway,
University , Ridgeline
Sand Canyon
1400
935
5767
294
190
396
691
Irvine
San Diego Freeway, Sand
Canyon, Bonita Canyon,
;;I
Laguna Canyon
1400
0
2352
0
150
432
692
Irvine
San Diego Freeway, Laguna
Canyon, Bonita Canyon,
0
0
0
0
400
3059
Lake Forest
'693
Laguna Hills
Lake Forest, Santa Maria
Corridor Boundary,
2567
0
4313
2161
750
2500
Moulton
694
Irvine Sub Division
Same as (MMTS)203
1691
0
4819
482
800
1200
695
Irvine Sub Division
MMTS 204
3009
0
8550
855 I
800
1200
696
Lake Forest/El Toro
Trabuco, Bake Parkway
At & S.F., E1 Toro
3299
268
9298
1860
800
1200
697 Lake Forest/El Toro
AT & SF, Bake Pkway
San Diego Fwy, El Toro
2716
288
7840
1568
3000
4200
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA /
ZONE
SINGLE.
FAMILY
MULTI.
FAMILY
TOTAL
LOWER
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
OWELLINO
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYM ENT
UNITS
UNITS
Irvine Sub Division
Antonio Road, El Toro,
698
Trabuco, Los Alisos
3281
0
9608
961
600
1000
699
Irvine Sub Division
Antonio Road, Los Alisos
Trabuco Road, Alicia
Parkway
4922
0
14413
1441
600
1000
700
Irvine Sub Division
Trabuco Road, E1 Toro,
A.T.. & S.F., Alicia
2672
1055
10883
2177
2000
3000
Parkwa
701
Lake Forest/El Toro
A.T. & S.F., El Toro
San Diego Freeway
2630
225
8337
1667
2000
2800
702
Alicia Parkway, Marguerite
Mission Viejo
A.T. & S.F., La Paz Road
3471
0
10135
517
800
1200
703
Alicia Parkway, Marguerite
Mission Viejo
Trabuco, Jeronimo
3077
267
9765
977
720
1080
704
Jeronimo, La Paz,
Mission Viejo
Marguerite
2518
219
7990
799
480
720
705
Mission Viejo
La Paz, Marguerite
Oso Parkway, San Diego
1388
500
5513
557
1750
2390
Freeway
706
Oso Parkway, Marguerite
Mission Viejo
Crown Valley Parkway,
1388
500
5513
557 I
1750
2710
San Diego Freeway
707
Mission Viejo
La Paz, Marguerite
Oso Parkway
240
0
700
70
80
120
708 Mission Viejo
Marguerite, La Paz
S Zone 212)
2160
0
6307
631
720
1080
Oso Parkway
a
0
0
•
0
r
•
0
40
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SINGLE.
MULTI.
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
709
Mission Viejo
Crown Valley, Marguerite
San Diego Freeway
635
216
2483
497
3200
4225
710
Mission Viejo
Marguerite, Crown Valley
MMTS 214, San Diego Fwy
1480
864
6845
1369
800
1825
711
Lake Forest, San Diego '
Laguna Hills
Freeway, Ridge Route,
118
1388
2447
1268
850
1900
Moulton
712
Ridge Route, San Diego
Laguna Hills
Freeway, E1 Toro, Moulton
118
1388
2447
1268
850
3300
713
Laguna Hills
San Diego Freeway, Los
Alisos, Paseo de Valencia
131
375
850
425
4000
6000
E1 Toro
714
Laguna Hills
E1 Toro, Paseo De Valenci
Parkway, Los Alisos,
Moulton
35
4718
7966
4541
1000
1600
San Diego Freeway, Los
715
Laguna Hills
Alisos, Alicia, Paseo
De Valencia
606
100
1187
178
560
800
716
San Diego Freeway, Alicia
Laguna Hills
Paseo De Valencia
1125
186
2204
331
240
400
717
Los Alisos, Paseo De
Laguna Hills
Valencia, Alicia
Moulton
585
870
2444
489
500
800
718
Laguna Hills
Paseo De Valencia, La Paz
Moulton, Alicia
1953
0
3281
0
280
455
719
Paseo De Valencia, La Paz
Laguna Hills
Moulton, Oso Parkway
837
0
1406
0
120
195
SATCAA
ZONE
NAMEOf AREA /
JURISDICTION.
SINGLE. MULTI.
ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL
BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION
UNITS UNITS
LOWER
INCOME RETAIL TOTAL
POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYM EM
720
Mission Vie
Viejo
J
Moul-ton, La Paz,
Alicia Parkway
1373
1550
7587
259
6000 18350
721
Mission Viejo
A.T.& S.F., Crown Valley
Moulton, Oso Parkway
1214
0
3217
0
1000 3000
722
Mission Viejo
Valley, La Paz
Oso Parkway, Moulton
3974
1092
13504
7350
800 1200
723
Laguna Niguel
La Paz, Crown Valley,
Alicia Parkway
1876
0
4971
0
800 1200
724
Laguna Niguel
La Pazi San Diego Frwy,
Crown Valley, A.T.& S.F.
2449
52
5850
0
280 840
725
Laguna Niguel
La Paz, Trabuco Creek
Niguel, Crown Valley
1318
28
3152
0
p
120 360
726
Laguna Niguel
Niguel, Trabuco Creek, Crown Valley583
34Q
2160
400 71 65Q
727
San Juan Capistrano
La Paz, Del
Trabuco Creekvion
1900
0
4415
0
105 325
728
San Juan Capistrano
Trabuco Creek, Golden
Lantern, Selva & Chula
Vista, Stonehill I910
0
4500
0 I
105 325
729
Dana Point
Del Avian, Golden Lantern
Selva & Chula Vista,
Stonehill 3719
Stonehill, Chula Vistz,'
Pacific Coast Hwy 3905
409
198
8255
9557
Q
0
280 550
2100 3000
730
Dana Point
b
•
•
0
•
•
•
w w w w w
SATCAA
ZONE
NAME OF AREA/
JURISDICTION.
SINGLE. MULTI. LOWER
ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL
BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT
UNITS UNITS
731
Dana Point
Selva, Pacific Coast Hwy,
Chula Vista
710
2836
6356
2542
2600
4000'
732
San Juan Capistrano
A.T. & S.F., Del Obispo
Stonehill, Golden Lantern
1050
150
2868
281
210
325
733
San Juan Capistrano
Del Avion, Del Obispo,
Stonehill, Golden Lantern
1050
150
2868
287
210
325
734
San Juan Capistrano
Ortega Highway, San Juan
Creek, San Diego Freeway
600
360
2294
O
1800
2600
735
San Juan Capistrano
p
Ortega Highway
San Juan Creek, San Diego
Freeway
1400
840
5353
O
2dO
400
736
San Juan Capistrano
San Juan Creek
Del Obispo A.T. & SF
1296
865
5165
5596
517
260
500
737
Capistrano Beach
San Diego Freeway
Pacific Coast Highway
San Juan Creek
1400
1387
565
1700
2600
•738
San Juan Capistrano
Proposed La Novia
Camino Estrella
702
210
2175
218
75
97
739
San Juan Capistrano
Proposed Camino Las
740
San Juan Capistrano
Ramblas. Proposed La Novi
San Diego Freeway_
Proposed La Novia,
Proposed Camino Estrella
702
210
2175
218
75
97
741
San Juan Capistrano
San Diego Freeway, Propos
sr
San Diego Freeway
Camino Estrella
Pacific Coast Highway
d 1637
490
5076
508
337
556
1637
490
5079
508
_262
44$
[SATCAA
0NE
NAME OF AREA /
JURISDICTION.
ZONE
BOUNDARY
SINGLE.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
MULTI.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
TOTAL
POPULATION
LOWER
INCOMERETAIL
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENTEMPLOYMENT
TOTAL
742
San Clemente
Edison Power Line Estrella
La Novia, Camino Estrella
0
0
0
0
0
0
743
San Clemente
La Novia, Avenida Pico,
San Dieqo Frwy
Camino Estrella
3106
525
7152
715
400
600
744
San Clemente
San Diego Frwy, Avenida
Pico, Pacific Coast Hwy,
Camino Estrella
Avenida San Pablo,
San Diego Frwy, Avenida
Pico
1331
7098
6756
676
400
600
745
San Clemente
1966
1529
6885
689
400
600
I 746
San Clemente
San Diego Frwy, Avenida
San Pablo, Pacific Coast
Avenida Pico
County Line (S.D.).
San Diego Frwy, Avenida
San Pablo
San Diego Frwy, County
Line(S.D.), Pacific Coast
Hwy, Avenida San Pablo
490
3190
9281
1856
1530
2080
747
San Clemente
1967
655
5165
51.7
400
600
748
San Clemente
1960
1947
5795
1185
170
520
Ll -::-71 1
0 0 40 • jp 0 0 0 0 0 0
SATCAA
ZONE
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
SINGLE.
FAMILY
MULTI.
FAMILY
TOTAL
LOWER
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
801
La Habra
County line (L.Aj , Harbo
Blvd, SPT, County Line
4690
2740
20,209
8474
2,223
7,083
(L.A.)
802
Fullerton
County Line (L.A.), Palm
& Puente, Imperial Hwy,
4264
4072
22,749
13,427
8,134
15,446
County Line (L.A.)
803
Brea
County Line (L.A.) Orange
Fwy, Elm & Brea, Palm
6983
1765
24,868
6,184
1,531
14,464
Imperial Hwy, Puente &
804
Fullerton
Brea Blvd, Valley View,
Bastanchury & Euclid
4212
1607
16,81.6
2,186
1,106
10,856
Elm & ItWperial Hwy, Pla-
i 805
Fullerton
centia, Yorba Linda &
Skyline, Brea Blvd.
4581
3102
22,203
5,326
294
3,067
County Line (L.A.), County
806
Orange County
Line (.S.B.) Telegraph
Canyon Rd & Imperial, Brea
3314
2000
13,393
670
592
1,900
807
Brea
Imperial Hwy, Ross, Yorba
Linda & Palm, Placentia
4894
201
12,788
927
Avenue
655
4,090
Palm, Rose Drive, Chapman
808
Placentia
& Orangethorpe, Placentia
3689
4064
19,427
6,406
29411
99350
809
Anaheim
Chapman & Orangethorpe,
Tustin, Riverside Fwy,
Placentia
2064
1838
10,263
5,610 I
1,163
360229
Orangethorpe, Imperial Fwy
810
Anaheim
Santa Ana River, Jefferson
725
65
2 078
374
453
13,523
& Tustin
811
Placentia
Buena Vistas Imperial Hwy
Oranqethorpe, Rose Drive
2779
904
9,722
972
404
13,438
SATCAA
ZONE
NAME OF AREA /
ZONE
SINGLE.
FAMILY
MULTI.
FAMILY
TOTAL
LOWER
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
Imperial Hwy & Yorba
812
Yorba Linda
Linda, Ohio, Buena
3728
807
12,934
1,256
948
3,070
Vista, Rose Dr.
TeTigrap anyon ., an
Dominguez, Yorba Linda
813
Yorba Linda
& Bastanchury, Valley
2797
3 18
9,034
732
420
650
Yorba Linda, Santa Ana
814
Yorba Linda
River, Imperial Hwy,
6818
671
21,718
2,192
815
11950
Kellog Or & Ohio
Telegraph Canyon Rd.
815
Yorba Linda
County Line (S.B.) Santa
3229
760
11,529
0•
200
300
Ana River, Yorba Linda Cit
Santa Ana River,
816
Irvine Sub -Division
County Line(Riverside)
Black Star Cyn,Santiago
9158
400
26,419
0
700
1,050
Rri
Santa Ana River, Nohl Ranc
817
Anaheim Hills
Rd. Imperial Hwy, Canyon
4678
368
1:1'El
1,337
900
1,450
Rim, Weir Canyon
818
Anaheim Hills
Santa na ver, mperia
& Nohl Ranch Rd., Nohl
5146
246
149342
1,434
341
600
Ranch Rd, Newport Freeway
Santa Ana River, Tustin
819
Orange
Ave. Taft, Orange, Olive
4005
1769
15,186
3,139
59996
71,378
Rd. Heim
820
Orange
Taft & Me—afs—Nei-e-Ur—ange
City Line, Collins &
5067
3208
21,289
79246 (
2,208
5,439_'
Walnut, Grand
-Rd;
f
821
Orange
Nohl Ranch Park
City Line, Santiago Creek
4889
543
17,059
19373
508
i,468
Collins, Tustin Avenue
822 Orange Park Acres
Canyon Rim Rd, Santiago
Canyon Rd. Villa Park Cit
7639F809
22,440
29468
400
600
Line
a� 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• • a • • • • • in
SATCAA
ZONE
NAME OF AREA/
JURISDICTION.
ZONE
BOUNDARY
SINGLE.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
MULTI.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
TOTAL
POPULATION
LOWER
INCOME
POPULATION
RETAIL
EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
823
Villa Park
Villa Park City Line,
Santiago Creek, Collins
Tustin Avenue
6717
739
190610
3,424
262
1456
824
Cowan Heights
Chapman & Santiago Cyn Rd.
Peters Canyon Rd, Foothill
Blvd.
2875
0
9,566
96
39
596
825
Lemon Heights
Foothill Blvd, Peter yn.
Rd., Irvine Blvd & Skyline
Newport Ave.
1790
1
5,964
120
100
294
826
Irvine Sub -Division
ntiagol
B1vd,PCanyon eterCanyon Rd.vin
7093
800
19;939
0
1,660
927
827
Irvine Sub -Division
Santiago Canyon Rd,Jeffre)
Dr, Irvine Blvd'Culver Rd
5115
1000
15,440
0
320
871
828
Irvine Sub -Division
Santiago Cyn Rd.,Rancho
Lomas Dr.Santiago, Irvine
Blvd, Jeffrey
1000
0
2,525
.0
0
275
829
Irvine Sub -Division
Rancho Canada De Los
Alisos,Santiago Cyn Rd
1150
0
3,277
164
300
700
830
Silverado Canyon &
Trabuco Oaks
County Line,(Riverside)
National Forest, Trabuco
Cyn Rd,Antonio Rd,Aliso C
4550
7
14,789
1211
1,650
3,100
831
Trabuco Oaks
Trabuco Cyn Rd. Plano
Trabuco, Oso Pkwy,Trabuco
Creek
1680
0
60815
340 I
470
1vim
'832
Unincorporated Area
County Line, (Riverside)
Ortega Hwy, Star -Viejo
Ranch,Boundary,Plano Trabu
1000
o
0•
4,050
121
740
11300
833
Unincorporated Area
Oso Pkwy, Ortega Hwy
Trabuco Parkway
1488
0
6,026
301
460
11000
SINGLE.
MULTI.
LOWER
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
FAMILY
FAMILY
TOTAL
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
834
Unincorporated Area
Ortega HwyCunty Line
8 (Riverside) RMission
2280
0
Viejo, Edison Power ROW
59053
252
600
1,000
Ball, Valley View, Cerrito
835
Cypress
Bloomfield
2965
70
9,287
1,393
103
467
836
Cypress
Cerritos, Knott, _
Katella, Bloomfield
710
47
29313
231
331
4,108
837
Los Alamitos
Katella, Los Alamitos City
Line, County Line (LA)
2554
4386
17,286
4,494
669
6,268
838
Rossmoor
Katella, Los Alamitos City
Line, Bolsa Chica Rd, San
5389
1105
17,971
2,936
852
1,602
Die o Fwy,County Line LA
San Diego Fwy, Bolsa Chica
839
Seal Beach
Rd, Edinqer, Pacific Coast
Hwy, County Line (L.A.)
2976
10399
20,326
11,791
3,715
7,032
Katella, Knott, Garden
840
Garden Grove
Grove Fwy
7526
424
25,560
2,829
1,064
2,671
Garden Grove Fwy, Hoover,
841
Westminster
Fadden, Bolsa & Westminster
Bolsa Chica
6703
2812
25,939
7,871
694'S4
1Q.429
842
Huntington Beach
Westminster, Edwards,
Bolsa Ave & Edinger, Bolsa
3745
550
110932
2,028 I
621
16,232
Chica
Bolsa Avenue, Golden West
843
Huntington Beach
Hoover, Edinger, Springdal
2608
691
99138
1,279
11,331
2,000
844
Huntington Beach
Edinger, o en es
Edwards,Varsity Or &
6022
2614
23,956
4,573
1,646
2,266
Warner, Bolsa Chica
A
9
6
0
•
•
0
0
a
V
Cn
f
SATCAA
ZONE
NAME OF AREA/
JURISDICTION.
ZONE
BOUNDARY
SINGLE.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
MULTI.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
TOTAL
POPULATION
LOWER
INCOME
POPULATION
RETAIL
EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
845
Sunset Beach
Edinger & Warner, Spring-
dale, Huntington Seacliff
Country Club, Pacific Cst
Hwy
9038
5070
23,431
3,279
795
1,807
846
Sunset Beach
:..Coast
Garfield, Beach, Pacific
5804
7225
25,989
10,663
1,097
12,095
847
Sunset Beach
Warner & Talbert, Beach
Garfield, Edwards-
2797
2685
10,964
1,973
1,331
6,541
848
Huntington Beach
Warner, Newland, Talbert,
Golden West
1936
2011
10,933
4,919
499
7,585
849
Fountain Valley
Edinger, Magnolia, Warner
Golden West
2794
4690
20,767
7,060
4,115
7,398
850
Westminster
Midway City
Garden Grove Blvd. Trask
& Westminster, Magnolia,
Edinger, Hoover
7130
1820
24,344
T10,237
3,755
8,620
851
Midway City
Westminster & Johannah Ave
Ward, Edinger, Magnolia
5922
1780
20,950
69000
1,150
3,478
852
Fountain Valley
Edinger, Santa Ana River,
Warner, Magnolia
4718
636
16,115
2,052
1,331
2,485
853
Fountain Valley
Warner, Santa Ana River,
Garfield, Bushard
356M
3739
21,954
4,473 I
3,998
13,468
854
Fountain Valley
Warner & Talbert, Bushard
& Brookhurst, Garfield,
Newland
--
5814
---
157
17,972
1,983
1,907
6,054
855 Huntington Beach
Garfield, Santa Ana River,
Atlanta, Bushard & Magnoli
7911
528
23,545
4,746
1,829
3,989
SATCAA
NAME OF AREA/
ZONE
SINGLE-
FAMILY
MULTI.
FAMILY
TOTAL
LOWER
INCOME
RETAIL
TOTAL
ZONE
JURISDICTION.
BOUNDARY
DWELLING
DWELLING
POPULATION
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
UNITS
UNITS
Talbert, Garfield & Adams
856
Huntington Beach
Newland, Magnolia &
Bushard, Atlanta, Beach
7456
1210
24,178
2,552
1,298
6,910
Atlanta, Brookhurst &
857
Huntington Beach
Santa Ana River, Pacific
1 4944
3453
23,436
3,514
531
3,111
Coast Hwy, Beach
19th, Newport Fwy, 15th &
858
Newport Beach
16th, Dover Dr, Main
7093
14177
46,463
19,993
10,595
24,656
Channel, Pacific Coast
San Diego Fwy, Harbor,
859
Huntington Beach
Fair & Newport Fwy,
Banning, Santa Ana River
5205
5503
28,643
10,259
3,419
6,252
San Diego Fwy, Corona Del
860
Costa Mesa
Mar Fwy, Newport Fwy,
2645
6835
33,204
10,430
66180
69647
Fair, Harbor
Wilson & Fair, Irvine Ave
861
Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa City Line
7700
10264
389550
17,445
4,566
7,977
862
Newport Beach
Mesa Dr. Jamboree,
Upper Newport Bay, Costa
3314
1632
11,800
1,534
643
1,389
Mesa City line
Upper Newport Bay,
863
Newport Beach
Jamboree, Joaquin Hills
1850
1875
8,903
1,758
5,640
19,308
Dr, MacArthur, PCH
864
Newport Beach
Bonita Canyon Dr, San
Joaquin Hills Dr,
5931
161
14,560
0 I
559
4,821
Jamboree
865
Newport Beach
Pacific Coast Hwy, Mac-
Arthur & San Joaquin Hill
Dr. Pacific Coast
12263
8129
46,455
4,034
4,380
7,048
866 Irvine
Bonita Canyon Dr,
National Boundary
2800
10
6,916
0.
456
862
i ine
+t 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 i 0 0
dh
- -
-
W
W
qW
mr
W
SATCAA
ZONE
NAME OF AREA /
JURISDICTION.
ZONE
BOUNDARY
SINGLE.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
MULTI.
FAMILY
DWELLING
UNITS
TOTAL
POPULATION
LOWER
INCOME
POPULATION
RETAIL
EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL
EMPLOYM EM
867
Unincorporated Area
National Boundary (Ridge
Line), Dublin, Pacific
Coast Hwy, Trancas Canyon
1850
1897
6,820
252
1,240
1,900
868
Laguna Beach
Irvine City Line, Santa
Maria Ave, Moulton Pkwy
E1 Toro, Laguna Cyn Pkwy
4064
4527
15,010
6,753
3,500
5,350
869
Saddleback Valley
& Laguna Hills
E1 Toro Rd, Moulton Pkway'
Woods Canyon, Laguna
Canyon
3138
332
6,017
716
580
850
870
South Laguna Hills
Laguna Beach City Line,
Aliso Cyn Rd, Noyes P1,
Pacific Coast, Laguna Cyn Fd.
4100
1500
10,234
2,558
2,000
3,000
Acacia Parkway, P.C. Aliso
871
Saddleback Valley
National Boundary
3351
1000
11,530
576
1,500
5,000
872
Laguna Hills
Crown Valley Pkwy, Pacific
Coast, National Boundary
Ridgeline, Aliso Canyon
4111
1256
12,126
846
2,600
4,000
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
INDEX TO 1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS, SEC.1I*
*For remaining variables:
Group Quarters population, acres, workers by residence, median income ($ 1976),low income dwellinq units,
medium income dwelling units, hiqh income dwellinq units, average parkinq cost
NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION
PAGE NUMBER
NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION
PAGE NUMBER
ANAHEIM
82,
33,
84,85, 102, 102
LOS ALAMITOS
105
BREA
102
MISSION VIEJO
97, 98, 99
BUENA PARK
79
NEWPORT BEACH
107
CAPISTRANO BEACH
100
ORANGE
857 87, 88, 103
COSTA MESA
92,
95,
107
PLACENTIA
102
CYPRESS
79,
80,
81, 105
SADDLEBACK
DANA POINT
99
SAN CLEMENTE
100, 101
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
106
SAC! JUAN CAPISTPANO
99, 100
FULLERTON
70,
80,
81, 102
SANTA ANA
87,88,89,90,91,92
GARDEN GROVE
85,
86,
87, 105
SEAL BEACH
105,
HUNTINGTON BEACH
105,
106, 107
SOUTH COUNTY CANYON
104. 105
IRVINE
92,
93,
94, 95, 96, 107
STANTON
84
IRVINE SUBDIVISION
96,
97,
103, 104
SUNSET BEACH
106
LAGUNA BEACH
1.03
TUSTIN
88, 89, 93, 94
LAGUNA HILLS
016,
98,
99
VILLA PARK
104
LA HABRA
96,
102
WESTMINSTER
105, 106
LAKE FOREST/EL TORO
93,
96,
97
YORBA LINDA
103
LA PAL14A
79
tr 0 • • No 0 • • 0 • a
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS 1076 ►
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
501
0
3231
8818
39904
420
2324
4324
0
502
9
349
1741
35072
120
475
858
0
503
9
427
1550
35072
369
722
214
0
504
0
536
2033
15167
1412
334
60
0
505
200
536
3318
15167
1411
1236
250
0
506
5
352
1142
11798
560
208
132
0
507
5
353
3393
11798
1682
825
190
0
508
0
474
0
0
0
0
0
0
509
25
579
3005
16686
1533
1052
109
0
510
0
1002
5494
30822
645
2257
1135
0
511
7
1430
7402
27964
1320
2831
L
1451
0
I
m
0
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS 1976)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
512
5
417
2903
26710
427
1465
241
0
513
6
341
2904
26710
427
1464
241
0
0
800
5209
P3144
1373
1823
671
0
515
4
472
2489
23883
538
1124
294
0
516
4
387
2480
23883
538
1124
293
0
517
355
616
4346 •
22800
1020
1953
364
0
518
10
504
3556
22800
835
1597
297
0
519
9
570
1806
20779
608
585
160
0
520
10
467
2395
29779
608
945
246
0
521
18
557
4780
20469
1640
1576
694
0
522
0
557
129
20469
28
65
0
0
•
* 0 • + • 0 6 i • •
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
(S 19761-
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
523
1000
564
1394
21473
815
192
165
0
524
0
564
2667
21473
307
1600
938
0
525
0
282
2002
21473
1513
228
155
0
526
700
707
3805
18466
1361
1128
674
0
527
0
302
2537
18466
1200
744
200
0
528
0
954
0
0
0
0
0
0
529
400
780
5056
14596
2602
1331
297
0
530
4
297
1916
22970
540
798
205
0
531
4
297
1700
22970
428
760
200
0
532
6
305
1845
23113
444
859
261
0
533
5
306
1844
F23113
445
859
262
0
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS 1976►
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING_
COST
534
15
481
2366
21013
420
1317
370
0
535
28
320
3550
21013
1637
1164
700
0
536
200
333
3336
16863
2055
476
140
0
537
150
778
3205
16863
1500
1391
605
0
538
0
289
328
13714
182
60
20
0
539
41
288
2830
13714
1786
660
269
0
540
13
437
2597
20904
909
1106
720
0
541
14
437
3175
20904
lill
1353
880
0
542
16
1178
7253
24575
2296
3001
1178
0
543
10
426
2202
23874
746
1253
369
0
544
400
06
3905
9856
2755
700
230
0.50
0 ♦ 0
• • ! E • • w C 0 • •
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
(S 1976 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
545
139
572
3801
15003
2357
892
255
0
546
0
621
1970
24083
625
855
50
0
547
0
497
168
24083
40
86
26
0
548
0
435
1257
24083
218
744
432
0
a,
w
t
549
4
437
2568
37031
640
1333
600
0
550
0
358
1101
37031
212
467
436
0
551
0
516
326
21581
100
132
23
0
552
46
386
2083
21581
743
712
170
0
553
100
387
4114
21581
1144
1892
185
0
554
10
320
3120
17717
1490
883
240
0
555
10
320
2261
17717
1004
708
157
0
I
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
(S 1976 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
556
0
320
3472
19204
1535
910
174
0
557
0
320
1710
19204
400
700
174
0
558
10
288
2563
23599
566
1060
240
0
559
10
336
1969
23599
567
868
147
0
560
17
336
3015
235
800
1138
240
0
561
12
575
772
20242
1000
572
96
0
562
20
431
3859
20242
562
1300
484
0
563
250
432
3087
20242
1400
1158
388
0
564
36
640
4714
21052
1551
1676
447
0
565
57
960
6210
18636
2585
1903
570
0
566
8
320
1731
25092
107
1139
240
0
U
01
r
0
aw
G - 0_ - --0 - - 0
• 0 P • e • 0 • 0
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
(S 1976 ►
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
567
9
320
2115
25092
800
765
222
0
568
70
320
1526
25671
400
731
360
0
569
133
480
3563
25671
1166
1229
607
0
570
10
448
4209
23158
1700
994
480
0
571
0
446
935
23158
235
423
45
0
572
11
599
4210
23158
2960
1034
370
0
573
564
533
1683
23281
573
757
326
0.50
574
40
463
3853
18319
1508
1123
192
0
575
42
566
4710
18319
1844
1372
235
0
576
11
800
3920
25663
885
1794
404
0
577
24
624
3685
24519
909
1704
351
0
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
OUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRE$
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS 1976 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
578
579
5
20
288
672
1382
3553
24738
24738
350
900
458
1409
166
428
0
0
580
32
530
2261
18187
1057
766
257
0
581
2
855
1061
25074
221
425
172
0
582
58
1029
7372
21886
1200
3304
896
0
583
23
686
4914
17645
2941
538
200
0
84
81
975
6286
17922
2515
1655
689-
0
585
150
338
2156
25663
I143
618
97
0
843
1483
168
0
587
210
510
2548
20226
966
588
29
624
3821
20226
1450
990
252
0
589
218
727
2642
19742
940
966
400
0
4
f
to
rw
0
a a
f.
a
w
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS 1976 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELUNG
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
1748
1267
0
591
350
768
3709
23886
817
1955
440
0
592
150
512
1997
21886
817
892
189
0
593
150
1254
8701
19574
2963
2969
986
0
594
0
592
0
0
0
0
0
0
464
11146
457
87
55
0
596
21
650
465
11146
457
87
56
0
597
250
355
1390
18223
558
475
261
0
8
17
711
2780
18223
1117
978
517
0
599
350
711
2779
18223
1117
924
518
0
600
400
812
6553
16088
3154
1602
460
0
r:
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
BY
WORKERSFIS
RESIDENCE
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
NIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
601
80
775
4550
20442
1592
1626
705
0
602
85
584
3302
28890
543
1437
854
0
603
10
876
4378
28890
719
1903
1133
0
604
7
482
1937
35561
322
866
789
0
605
15
1124
3599
35561
599
1608
1466
0
606
80
632
2192
24788
598
984
419
0
607
120
421
3288
24788
898
1475
628
0
608
100
332
1735
24044
466
708
292
0
609
100
405
1735
24044
466
708
292
0
610
0
636
2864
22873
800
956
934
0
611
0
272
2643
22873
1201
824
400
0
0
6
i
11
�
SATCAA
ZONE
�;
A r
♦ ly
�
t1 � ! �
MEDIUM HIGH AVERAGE
INCOME INCOME PARKING
DWELLING DWELLING COST
UNITS UNITS
GROUP
OUARTERS
1 POPULATION
ACRES
I
I
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS 1976)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
612
5
427
1782
26675
214
833
550
0
613
5
320
T
1592
26675
214
730 1
550
0
614
2
320
2992
26675
1282
1140
290
0
615
50
594
1253
24946
412
571
312
0
616
150
238
1254
24946
412
571
312
0
617
50
356
1672
24946
550
762
416
0
618
20
243
1738
15889
1069
419
94
0
619
280
296
1158
15889
712
280
62
0
620
300
371
3260
15179
1520
716
408
1.00
621
1200
186
652
10179
440
70
24
1.00
622 200 92 1957 10179 2000 110 24 1.00
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
OUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS 1976)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
NIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
623
300
278
652
10179
440
70
24
1.00
624
32
345
1550
12147
1201
89
15
0
625
30
282
1500
16088
818
360
100
0
626
36
498
6316
17284
2994
1578
417
0.50
627
7
373
997
17284
374
292
120
0.50
628
7
374
997
17284
374
292
120
0.50
629
60
472
2910
10553
2273
308
84
0
630
68
202
2929
12553
1800
811
200
0
631
44
423
3115
16575
1383
1075
240
0
632
30
346
1335
16575
1200
235
31
0
633
1
280
30
10865
170
35
12
0
0
W
10
41
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
I GUARTERS
POPULATION
I ACRES
I
i
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS 1976 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
'UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
634
60
341
4370
10865
3247
655
220
0
635
13
377
1218
15321
868
442
37
0
636
50
567
4876
15321
3200
1288
350
0
637
23
482
3220
16800
1888
1007
194
0
638
0
326
0
0
0
0
0
0
639
27
399
1639
17854
1080
731
178
0
640
33
503
2508
21092
887
1318
530
0
641
6
435
1031
21783
248•
459
150
1.00
642
26
290
3100
21783
998
1306
424
1.00
643
350
475
4170
21783
1296
1632
776
0
644
150
581
4171
21783
1295
1632
775
0
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
OUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
1$1978)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
645
0
700
5946
18857
2216
1557
928
0
646
0
572
0
0
0
0
0
0
647
0
500
2476
36168
192
966
771
1.00
648
0
376
0
0
0
0
0
1.00
649
0
376
2475
36168
192
966
770
1.00
650
8
396
3600
22979
1100
997
188
0
651
0
508
2904
32632
240
599
1557
0
652
0
761
4355
32632
359
898
2336
0
653
0
476
2879
47443
0
731
2193
0
654
0
702
2271
47315
0
188
1687
0
655
0
1640
3407
47315
0
281
2530
0
U
40
0
it
A
r
i
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
($1976)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
656
8
1126
1024
14378
277
277
0
0
657
3800
2703
0
0
0
0
0
0
658
8
676
1024
14378
277
277
0
0
659
0
620
0
0
0
0
0
0
660
0
978
0
0
0
0
0
0
661
47
413
4447
20372
1654
1926
720
0
662
30
275
3495
20372
1655
1326
266
0
663
0
295
966
36867
30
603
365
0
664
0
296
543
36867
75
203
260
0
665
0
667
0
0
0
0
0
0
666
0
1557
257
19468
68
68
0
0
I
.0
F
1
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
By
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS 1976)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
667
0
1283
0
0
0
0
0
1.00
668
0
855
0
0
0
0
0
1.00
669
0
397
209
34841
0
44
133
0
671
0
478
4211
40789
178
892
2496
0
672
0
789
5384
34857
230
1150
3219_
0
673
0
434
1722
35054
152
457
913
0
674
0
289
1148
35054
304
675
0
545
2785
34808
269
808
1617
0_
676
0
847
5139
44052
218
1088
3046
0
677 1
0 1
941
5355
42420
227
1134
3175
0
A
0
0
a
it
10
Al
A
A
r
•
t
t
A
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
($1976 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
678
0
835
40
45683
45
10
0
0
679
0
731
3292
45683
560
1130
1100
0
680
0
521
834
45683
121
272
312
0
681
0
342
0
0
0
0
0
0
682
0
228
0
0
0
0
0
0
683
0
574
0
0
0
0
0
0
684
0
475
0
.0
0
0
0
0
685
0
1188
0
0
0
0
0
0
686
0
712
0
0
0
0
0
0
687
0
1027
5514
37581
226
678
3615
0
688
1570
1976
5569
10217
4284
225
0
0
�1
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
($1976)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
689
0
1773
4387
56464
74
111
3515
0
690
0
785
2768
47315
117
350
1868
0
691
0
1969
1660
47315
0
140
1260
0
692
0
1766
0
0
0
0
0
0
693
0
725
1337
29369
1284
1027
257
0
694
0
1731
2120
42420
169
507
1015
0
695
0
1434
3762
42420
301
903
1805
0
696
0
1304
3998
31846
713
1784
1070
0
697
0
866
3136
28275
601
1502
901
0
698
0
782
4324
37525
328
820
2133
0
1823
6486
37525
492
1231
3199
0
A
0
4`
a
0
,*
M
6
0
r
i
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
($1976)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
700
0
908
5006
37525
745
1491
1491
0
701
101
1078
3335
31046
571
1428
856
0
702
0
1029
4054
35356
174
1388
1909
0
703
0
932
4004
45683
334
836
2174
0
704
0
1396
3276
45683
274
684
1779
0
705
1
682
2040
43138
189
472
1227
0
706
1
558
2040
43138
189
472
1227
0
707
0
1021
315
45683
24
60
156
0
40
1404
0
32632
120
223
498
0
710
0
335
3132
32632
519
735
1100
0
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS1976)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
711
0
368
98
19873
778
583
145
0
712
0
369
98
19873
777
582
146
0
713
167
197
340
18550
253
202
51
1.50
714
0
523
159
18549
2709
1901
143
0
715
1
229
511
43542
106
283
318
0
716
1
535
948
43542
197
525
491
0
717
0
324
1051
37525
29I
291
873
0
718
0
608
2225
47315
0
195
1758
0
719
0
608
954
47315
0
84
753
0
720
0
793
3490
45683
286
716
1861
0
1287
53841
0
121
1093
0
Li
4
r
i
r
(t
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
($1976)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
722
0
1218
6482
30673
507
1267
3293
0
723
0
1056
1988
45683
0
188
1688
0
724
0
1660
2340
45683
0
250
2250
0
725
0
1106
1261
45683
0
135
1212
0
726
0
803
907
30731
0
231
692
0
727
0
691
1784
47315
0
0
1900
0
728
0
461
1784
47315
0
0
1910
0
729
0
806
3715
45683
0
1058
2470
0
739
4492
45683
0
821
3282
0
731
0
752
3559
21974
1418
1418
709
0
732
0
820
1233 1
24167 1
120 1
480
600
0
0
CD
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
By
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
(S/976 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
733
0
351
1233
24167
120
480
600
0
734
5
598
1101
21629
0
288
672
0
735
10
490
2570
21629
0
672
1568
0
736
2
692
2221
23088
216
864
1081
0
737
100
1061
2182
18584
279
836
1672
0
738
0
713
870
29697
91
182
638
0
739
0
2378
870
29697
91
182
638
0
740 _
110
1189
2031
29697
213
425
1489
0
741
0
476
2031
29697
213
425
1489
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35653
494
988
3459
0
is
4
Li
0
v
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
($1976)
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST '
744
30
826
1794
35653
212
424
1483
0
745
5
2418
3108
29252
368
1292
1835
0
746
24
749
3799
16924
1170
1910
600
0
747
6
2418
2073
29252
244
543
1835
0
748
16
612
2533
16924
367
1065
2475
0
17
I
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
By
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
iS 1076 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
801
110
1837
9297
22942
3125
3207
1098
0
802
53
2141
10565
21494
3829
3556
949
0
803
590
3979
10602
27229
2182
3913
2653
0
804
175
2509
7231
44013
744
1671
3403
0
805
30
2510
10793
23699
1340
3417
2425
0
806
0
11054
5357
32632
266
1329
3720
0
807
12
1451
5102
34819
366
2699
2029
0
808
20
1640
9459
23685
2558
3299
1889
0
809
0
2272
4276
15209
2006
1204
586
0
810
10
1111
914
13710
146
160
482
0
811
0
1717
4083
29301
363
2075
1238
0
0
C3
w
w
i
S i 0 0 It A 140
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
($ 1976 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
812
4
1826
5508
30110
777
2214
1542
0
813
0
2612
3885
33109
0
623
2492
0
814
5
2914
9339
40645
722
2767
4005
0
815
0
6105
4957
48946
0
0
3489
0
816
0
24071
11947
54104
0
388
9170
0
817
8
3619
5884
38787
505
1009
3532
0
818
0
2256
6024
38784
539
1078
3774
0
819
11
1716
6831
28882
1202
3251
1320
0
820
501
1567
9793
24249
2791
3656
1825
0
821
29
2148
6716
45291
523
1118
3789
0
822
0
4386
10322
38833
845
845
6758
0
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
(S 1076 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
823
0
2961
7844
34296
920
2862
3673
0
824
0
2944
4496
59171
50
678
2147
0
825
1
1315
2863
57715
50
445
1306
0
826
0
5354
9172
43542
0
789
7104
0
827
0
3712
7102
47315
0
612
5504
0
828
0
11313
1161
47315
0
100
900
0
829
0
4358
1442
48947
58
173
920
0
830
7
37679
7314
43947
481
704
3372
0
831
0
5712
3135
47315
84
168
1428
0
832
198
43534
1863
43947
30
20
950
0
833
0
13440
2772
47315
74
372
1042 • ''
0
i
0
to
•
A
�t
•
r
0
t
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
(S 1876 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
834
0
19804
2122
28657
114
570
1596
0
835
0
507
3808
28115
465
2045
525
0
836
0
978
925
27903
76
491
188
0
837
370
2423
7260
29342
1563
2355
2119
0
838
2
1977
8103
35726
1055
2938
2499
0
839
1292
6241
6373
19246
8163
3624
1580
0
840
115
1883
10614
30851
897
5116
1937
0
841
7
2439
11100
23125
3342
4599
1174
0
842
31
1567
5489
28159
721
2146
1427
0
843
17
793
3929
29090
451
2112
732
0
844
60
1586
10998
29081
1669
5428
3148
0
i
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
OUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
(S 1976 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
NIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
845
54
3945
11136
34615
2038
5226
6838
0
846
350
2529
13380
19532
5317
4167
3536
0
847
32
1220
5263
28119
992
2522
1968
0
848
15
955
7216
18884
1763
1519
664
0
849
26
1275
9968
23560
2530
3619
1323
0
850
278
2370
9709
19871
3767
3603
1580
0
851
11
1600
8992
25645
2218
4033
1451
0
852
0
2040
6616
31527
685•
3177
1491
0
853
125
2036
10367
28945
1596
3733
2169
0
854
0
1600
7070
42264
689
3190
2092
0
855
41
1690
9889
28477
1703
4358
2378
0
SATCAA GROUP ACRES WORKERS MEDIAN LOW MEDIUM
ZONE QUARTERS BY INCOME INCOME INCOME
POPULATION RESIDENCE IS 1978) DWELLING DWELLING
UNITS UNITS
HIGH AVERAGE
INCOME PARKING
DWELLING COST
UNITS
856
25
1920
10396
29428
909
4057
3699
0
857
36
1721
10187
33248
1240
4267
2878
0
858
887
4077
24656
20258
9505
6291
3321
0
859
2222
2939
13078
22638
3832
4788 _
2077
0
860
64
2119
12107
22979
3571
4594
1306
0
861
967
2470
19802 •
15320
11476
4510
1968
0
862
0
1435
5782
32228
659
1858
2429
0.50
863
5
1939
8903
37805
744
1185
1796
0
864
0
2988
6989
62143
0
1054
5038
0
865
6
4400
22464
42473
1859
5380
12041
0
866
0
3896
3320
48947
0
140
2660
0
SATCAA
ZONE
GROUP
QUARTERS
POPULATION
ACRES
WORKERS
BY
RESIDENCE
MEDIAN
INCOME
IS 1076 )
LOW
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
MEDIUM
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
HIGH
INCOME
DWELLING
UNITS
AVERAGE
PARKING
COST
867
0
5397
2932
65143
0
290
3457
0
868
61
3980
15010
55419
3882
3437
1371
0
869
0
2841
2480
41683
426
560
2584
0.50
870
57
3474
5526
35653
1400
1400
2800
0
871
0
2704
5304
42420
218
1088
3046
0
872
0
3848
4935
33649
593
1268
4478
0
IV. Inventory of General Plan Data
This section contains a description of the sources of informa-
tion which were used to disaggregate and aggregate land use
data for the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives
Analysis. This data was used as a basis for the development
of the new corridor zone system, as well as to identify
available data resources and obtain detailed land use and
S
density information within the corridor that will be used to
develop detailed transit and highway networks.
The inventory of general plan data was completed through in-
dividual contacts with each local planning agency within the
corridor. A standardized form was developed for recording
the local land use planning efforts for each jurisdiction.
The categories included on the form are:
1. The identification of the planning agency which is
directly responsible for the general plan and has zoning
responsibilities, or is involved in planned development
or redevelopment.
2. The name of local technical reports and documents that
contain information on existing land use, zoning, general
plan, and future land use proposals including redevelopment
plans and areas of special interest. Reports that
assess the compatibility between transportation facilities
and local land uses are also included.
3. Maps that are directly related to local land use planning
activities, such as the general comprehensive land use
element, zoning, redevelopment and future land management
programs.
4. Important dates such as those that indicate when the
general plan or zoning plan was first adopted by the
planning commission, along with the date of the latest
update or revision.
5. Base year and future years which identify when the land
use plan data had been analyzed and had been scheduled
for build out. It should be noted that base and future
years were not always identified in the general plans.
6. Land use patterns are broken into different categories,
such as residential land (low, medium, and high density),
commercial land, which includes business and professional
office buildings, and industrial areas. Other land use
information is included such as vacant land, educational,
recreational and public facilities, and special study
corridors.
-109-
C:
7. The level of detail at which the data is available is
soown at the end of the inventory. Data could be avail- Is,
able at various levels, including: acreage, parcel,
block, census track, or analysis zonal levels.
The available general plan data has been inventoried within
these seven categories and is listed on the following 14
tables for each individual local jurisdiction within the a:
corridor.
sI
V
11
!1
*I
tl
C.]
R4051580SHC
[7
I*
is
UA
10
If
IC:
�0
CITY: Costa Mesa
AGENCY: Planning Department
PLAN ADOPTED
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
October 1979 General Plan Review
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. General Plan Land Use Element (Feb. 1979)
2. Official Land Use Map (3-19-79)
3. Master Plan of Highways
4. Traffic Volume Map
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
® Residential--
® Low Density
® Med. Density
L= High Density
[ Commercial
Q Professional Buildings
t= Industrial - Light, heavy
r--1 Open Space
r---1 Recreational
= Schools and Public Facilities
r-'-1 Multi -Use Corridor
CQ Specific Development
Q Special Study Corridor
Q Military Bases
x Golf Course
1979
Long Range
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
Acreage
Q Parcel Level
[y� Block Level
Q Census Tract Level
Analysis Zones
n
121379SHF
all..
•,
CITY: Santa Ana
AGENCY: Planning Department
PLAN ADOPTED Jan. 1979 (revised)
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR Long Range
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
1. Downtown Santa Ana (1976)
2. Amendment to Redevelopment Plan, City of Santa Ana
Redevelopment Project (1975)
0
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. Santa Ana General Plan Maps (1-79)
2. Santa Ana Planning Areas (11 neighborhood communities)
3. Santa Ana Land Use Maps (2-17-76)
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
Q Residential--
Low Density
® Med. Density
i-A-1 High Density
[� Commercial
Q Professional Buildings
r-in Industrial
t�7 Open Space
CE7 Recreational
r= Schools and Public Facilities
r- 1 Multi -Use Corridor
= Specific Development
® Special Study Corridor
[Q Military Bases
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
C� Acreage
Parcel Level
® Block Level
L= Census Tract Level
= Analysis Zones
&
*1
!I
*I
*I
121379SHF
412.
W
It
is
Is
10
I*
is
Is
�•
�•
I!
CITY: La Palma
AGENCY: Planning Division
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. General Plan Map
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
Q Residential—
Cgj Low Density
CS] Med. Density
r-Tn High Density
Mq Commercial
® Professional Buildings
d Industrial
[Q Open Space
CM Recreational
® Schools and Public Facilities
[Q Multi -Use Corridor
O Specific Development
C--1 Special Study Corridor
Q Military Bases
PLAN ADOPTED 12-74 (revised)
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR Long range
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
Q Acreage
Q Parcel Level
Block Level
Q Census Tract Level
Analysis Zones
j0 121379SHF
-113-
n
CITY: Irvine
AGENCY: Planning Department
PLAN ADOPTED Sept. 1977
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR 2010
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
1. City of Irvine Traffic Analysis Program Land Use and
Circulation Element Evaluation (Sept. 1979)
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. City of Irvine General Plan (Sept. 1977)
2. Majbr undeveloped areas within the city or proposed for annexation
3. City of Irvine, Planning Data Base (11-9-78)
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
�] Residential—
Low Density
® Med. Density
t= High Density
Op Commercial
Q Professional Buildings
Industrial
L= Open Space
C31 Recreational
CT1 Schools and Public Facilities
Multi -Use Corridor
O Specific Development
G-1 Special Study Corridor
Q Military Bases
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
C� Acreage
Parcel Level
[� Block Level
© Census Tract Level
Analysis Zones
® General
*I
13
11
&I
11
AI
01
121379SHF
-114-
461
I*
1•
E]
I•
is
is
�,
�9
a
CITY: Tustin
AGENCY: Planning Commission
PLAN ADOPTED April, 1973
BASE YEAR 8-1-79 (revised)
FUTURE YEAR Long Range
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
1. Housing - Population Unit Data (1-31-79)
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. General Plan Land Use Map (revised 8-1-79)
2. 1978 Average Daily Traffic Volume (3-1-97)
3. Tustin E1 Camino Real Design Study
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
® Residential--
V Low Density
-T Med. Density
© High Density
Commercial
® Professional Buildings
t'A-1 Industrial
[---] Open Space
C —n Recreational
CJ-' Schools and Public Facilities
CQ Multi -Use Corridor
d Specific Development
C-7 Special Study Corridor
Q Military Bases
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
Q Acreage
j� Parcel Level
Block Level
Q Census Tract Level
Analysis Zones
121379SHF
i � 115-
A
CITY: Cypress
AGENCY: Planning Department
ZONE PLAN ADOPTED Nov. 1972
May 3, 1978 (revised)
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR Long range
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
1. Dwelling Unit/Population Capacity of General Plan (1979)
2. Residential Land Use Acreage (1979)
3. Land Use Acreage (1979)
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. Zoning Map (May 3, 1978)
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
CM Residential--
t= Low Density
= Med. Density
High Density
V Commercial
Q Professional Buildings
t= Industrial
t1 Open Space
b Recreational
t= Schools and Public Facilities
[--1 Multi -Use Corridor
L- D Specific Development
C—_] Special Study Corridor
[= Military Bases
r.
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
[� Acreage
C� Parcel Level
[� Block Level
© Census Tract Level
Analysis Zones
S
L
J
a
0I
L
121379SHF
-116-
0I
I•
10
Is
1♦
Is
Is
1s
1!
I•
f]
CITY: Garden Grove
AGENCY:
Department of Community Development PLAN ADOPTED August 1979
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR Long range
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
1. Land for Growth and Development, City of Garden Grove (April 1979)
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. General Plan Map (1979)
2. City Zone Map (Feb. 1979)
3. Traffic Count Map
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
® Residential--
Low Density
C7 Med. Density
C� High Density
C:3q Commercial
® Professional Buildings
tom] Industrial
® Open Space
C� Recreational
t= Schools and Public Facilities
t= Multi -Use Corridor
E =] Specific Development
t= Special Study Corridor
[--1 Military Bases
u7:iVIM4A 3WillK!)4
Q Acreage
Q Parcel Level
(� Block Level
.Census Tract Level
Analysis Zones
I•
121379SHF
-117-
•'
CITY: San Clemente
AGENCY:
Planning Department
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
PLAN ADOPTED 5-17-78
BASE YEAR (corrected 4-30-79)
FUTURE YEAR 1986 (Future - existing
dev.) long range (general
plan)
1. City of San Clemente Multi -Modal Transportation Proposal
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. San Clemente Land Use Element - General Plan (4-30-79)
2. Precise Zoning Map (7-5-78)
3. San Clemente Future - Existing Development (April, 1978)
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
Residential--
Low Density
r'i'l Med. Density
r-'-1 High Density
Commercial
Q Professional Buildings
Industrial
1_k`] Open Space
r'Xn Recreational
r= Schools and Public Facilities
= Multi -Use Corridor
O Specific Development
C'] Special Study Corridor
Q Military Bases
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
[=j Acreage
Q Parcel Level
Q Block Level
Q Census Tract Level
Analysis Zones
GT1 General
•I
tl
it
L7
•I
01
61
•1
W
121379SHF
-118-
•I
IA
19
Is
1•
10
I•
I•
10
I*
10
CITY: San Juan Capistrano
AGENCY:
Planning Department
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
PLAN ADOPTED Dec. 18, 1974
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR king range
1. General Plan (Dec. 1974)
2. Dwelling Unit and Population Projections (1979)
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. Official Zoning Map (6-6-79)
LANE USE CATEGORIES: DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
® Residential—
�j Low Density
[J Med. Density
�-X) High Density
Commercial
Professional Buildings
r--X-1 Industrial
r-X'l Open Space
= Recreational
['XJ Schools and Public Facilities
r1 Multi -Use Corridor
C-0 Specific Development
[1 Special Study Corridor
= Military Bases
[� Acreage
Parcel Level
[� Block Level
0 Census Tract Level
Analysis Zones
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS
[X--) Floodway
® Floodway Fringe
121379SHF
-119-
4
CITY: Orange
AGENCY:
City of Orange
Department of Development and
Community Services
PLAN ADOPTED 1974
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR 1985
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
1. Land Use Element, The General Plan (1973)
2. Circulation Element, The General Plan (4-25-78)
3. Land Use and Socio-economic Rate Summary (July, 1979)
4. Traffic Flower (1978)
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. Land Use Area Maps 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 15 (revised 4-66)
2. General Plan Map - Land Use Element (revised 2-78)
3. Use Districting Map, City of Orange (March 1979)
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
Residential—
�7 Low Density
® Med. Density
= High Density
(q Commercial - local, major, highrise
® Professional Buildings
�) Industrial
t =1 Open Space
C= Recreational
t= Schools and Public Facilities
[_J Multi -Use Corridor
G7 Specific Development
C.] Special Study Corridor
Q Military Bases
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
[� Acreage
(� Parcel Level
-" Block Level
Cj Census Tract Level
Analysis Zones
r
s,
91
E
121379SHF
-120"
0I
I•
1•
lie
I•
19
I•
1!
1s
1*
10
CITY: Fullerton
AGENCY: Fullerton Development Services
Department
PLAN ADOPTED September, 1972
BASE YEAR 1971 (Economic Survey and
Analysis)
FUTURE YEAR 1985
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
1. Fullerton General Plan
2. Land Use Element Policy Document (1979)
3. Land Use Technical Document, Draft (1977)
4. Fullerton Redevelopment Program (Central & East. Oct. 1973)
5. Technical Document of the Circulation/Transportation Element
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. Land Use Element (1972)
2. Zoning Maps (June, 1979)
3. Orangefair Redevelopment Area
4. Central Fullerton Redevelopment Area
5. East Fullerton Redevelopment Area
p Residential--
© Low Density
® Med. Density
1� High Density
[y� Commercial
=x j Professional Buildings
t7 Industrial
® Open Space
[$7 Recreational
[-3n Schools and Public Facilities
C-1 Multi -Use Corridor
i1 Specific Development
[� Special Study Corridor
Q Military Bases
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
[� Acreage
Parcel Level
Block Level
(� Census Tract Level
G� Analysis Zones
I•
121379SHF
"121..
•
CITY: Stanton
AGENCY: Planning Division
PLAN ADOPTED
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
1. Land Use Distribution Summary in Acres
2. Traffic and Circulation
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. Official Zoning Map
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
Q Residential—
C� Low Density
t= Med. Density
t-71 High Density
[� Commercial
Q Professional Buildings
C� Industrial
r= Open Space
r=n Recreational
C1 Schools and Public Facilities
[Q Multi -Use Corridor
L7 Specific Development
C=.7 Special Study Corridor
Q Military Bases
0
January, 1979
Long Range
3
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
Cj Acreage
Q Parcel Level
Block Level
Q Census Tract Level
Analysis Zones
•
•
•
is
a
7
0-
121379SHF
"122w
•
CITY:
Buena Park
AGENCY: City Planning Department
ZONING PLAN ADOPTED 1979
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR Long Range
NAME
OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
1.
Present Zoning and Land Use Statistics
(1978)
2.
Census data (1973)
3.
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for
the Central Business
District Redevelopment Project
(1979)
4.
EIR Downtown Redevelopment Plan
(Sept. 1979)
TYPE
OF MAPS:
•
1. Zoning Map (8-13-79)
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
® Residential—
Cyr] Low Density
[� Med. Density
C� High Density
Commercial
Q Professional Buildings
Industrial
Open Space
Cx�] Recreational
r= Schools and Public Facilities
r'] Multi -Use Corridor
C= Specific Development
(Q Special Study Corridor
Q Military Bases
a
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
C� Acreage
Q Parcel Level
[bj Block Level
© Census Tract Level
Q] Analysis Zones
• 121379SHF
-123�
0
CITY: Anaheim
AGENCY: Anaheim City Planning Department
PLAN ADOPTED
BASE YEAR
FUTURE YEAR
NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS:
1. Zoning Acreage (1979)
2. Dwelling Unit - Population Estimates (1979)
3. Land Use Survey Acreage Data (1979)
TYPE OF MAPS:
1. Anaheim General Plan (July, 1979)
2. Commercial Recreation Area (July, 1979)
3. Anaheim Stadium Industrial Area (July, 1979)
4. Map of City of Anaheim (Nov. 1966)
5. Arterial Streets & Highways (Feb. 1979)
LANE USE CATEGORIES:
® Residential--
® Low Density
I= Med. Density
= High Density
[ x Commercial
[ x Professional Buildings
r'" Industrial
® Open Space
CM Recreational
[-'-1 Schools and Public Facilities
[= Multi -Use Corridor
C-3 Specific Development
C=i Special Study Corridor
Q Military Bases
July, 1979
Loag Range
DATA LEVEL SHOWN:
[.=j Acreage
Q,=, Parcel Level
M Block Level
© Census Tract Level
f = Analysis Zones
•1
A
*I
W
•1
7
:1
•I
*l
121379SHF
-124-
*I
C
C
APPENDIX
I*
STUDY AREA AND 1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS
OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY
10
19
le
I0
b`
r +
% aa° f?
`�'^•rm uwn � i
-. �,� - -0n II lW=� L/ �y ^•Ira.^• o`
70
vil aPIM1 �` `�i ♦ , S
\`♦ a � � 'tea t LAI{x�.
STITY AREA ME nilTSIDE nRAFE CnuNTY
,L'O � IL .,nm•�n �
�tv y5 V5 p� yavm
t L sI t1 ���P`r, 0 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
�• •,C t3 / �'t
c r
0
4y ev'y Y + � ,y �, ♦5
\t�YN •l .Jit♦ b � 5q
Yq� \
N"
t
O+
Tf1CT
AREAS/JURISDICTION
MAP NUMBER
i.
Artesia
1
2.
Bell
1
3.
Bellflower
1, 2
4.
Cerritos
1, 2
5.
Chino
39 4
6.
City of Industry
3
7.
Commerce
1
8.
Corona
4
9.
Downey
1, 2
10.
Hawaiian Gardens
2
11.
La Habra
1, 3
12.
Lakewood
1, 2
13.
La Mirada
1, 3
14.
Long Beach
1, 2
15.
Los Angeles County
1, 3
16.
Montebello
1
17.
Norwalk
1, 2
18.
Paramount
1, 2
19.
Pico -Rivera
1
20.
Pomona
3
21.
Riverside County
39 4
22.
San Bernardino County
3, 4
23.
Santa Fe Springs
1
24.
Signal Hill
2
25.
Walnut
3
26.
West Covina
3
27.
Whittier
19 3
STUDY AREA ZONES OUTSIDE (IRANGE COUNTY
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
0
0
0
0 • 0
0 0 0 0
• • • • • • • • • • •
J
MarrlA 0 CITY LIMITS wyF� 0.`Vi8 13E LEGEND s>� J
i26 OPRR �
119 M EYER PICO IYERIA
/25 124 CITY LIMITS R f
1l8 12$; IN 131 139 Mile
4,J 117 116 //5 130
122 € w� '� � �'" % 2&3 1
m RCE 4 l4
CITY LIMP
PERK 95
< 133 for adjacent areas, see maps
88 J Ito c
87 � f 89 r(�E 109 �107 1:
v Q�/$b 90 E 10$ 134
85 93 LOS 4W;F.LES CO,
/
135 OPrry,F. C^, 8Y 83 91
12 94 106 105 SfF04 `
ti IMPERIAL CI
4 71 72 3 82 81 T 97 2103
3Ec 8o q5 : 98 a 1002 loz
70 a g 78 �RA"s Iol f(j
n a 73 a A g
79 99
x PARR
69 68 Ty
{
PT 65 77 76`p.
6T
62 +�'{ moo•
66 64 63 PALM
OR^NGE COUNTY
MAP38
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION
SOUTH EAST LOS ANGELES
CORRIDOR
TwwNerTM -T IlCr ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
e
r
N
co
L
•
L
• • • • • • • • • • •
J
d" a0N pF 9ERNpft� NO FWY LEGEND
Ea ' ptmiT 147 0 11, 3
eN IN , �% tiviIT I 1.
vrRF iYLIMITS
NFST CnYI9p CM ^ Mile
f] !�, IYi cR' o-po- O'pp
R 139 tft P�tpN �9p�'
r, Iip A IY4 � � 2b6
151 138 1 731
141 � t
` ` 'm LEY 145 for adjacent areas. see snaps
s
�CLIFORTnM
IY2�p 1Y3 COE M4
133
onwLA T aTOY r,yr 150 Q
1 4 LINE �•" IY6 Wl' 4 ��1�^� CAR 6N�SNYOF
f+
136 137 c
1 e
134
Lnq V11FLES rn, 155
!D4 135 9PA'rr r.n,
EFF
i
1:
� 103
!oo loz !,
p
IDI
99 ° ''1.
_UE —COUNTY _SNTAAA_T_A_SPORMAP40 TATION AREA
CORRIDOR
iwwNerro�sTwar ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
..
W
0
•
•
•
• • • • •
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY
•
ZONE
nCC
511N
nCL:
MUU
nuoTIIL-___bnwc__...�,,.�uFy--__GEI_.._____TUT
Ort PqP kth
4345 43ytl_ 1
FMP
-7.16---
.._
EMP
ucl.----LOB
-.131005aQO
INC
1.305---1-212
1410---.--'-
INC
PAGE
INC
768
3 I
PCOST
0 6�
125
1716
1040
0
6hH5
3ny5
66
lh6
312
1331
1331
13100
1212
1212
337
0.0
12b
dn42
2?1?
52
13444
hldd
100
77b
2570
14800
1906
249R
850
0.0
1`a
Inl-2ldbl----bb91-_.-�a09643
...__
24b6
7600A.---_1w3--�bd2
y355__-0.0--_.___
128
)4GR
4or
I
7195
1479
4h6
215
791
13600
855
Boo
205
0.0
129
2925
494
1f
12190
4',03
1144
470
7737
15b00
1059
1916
444
0.0
U_
22115
96u
11
tl067---3882---Wh.
-4---416---4.9300-
A13
15'9
911.----0.0---
131
374
3
104
14oh
523
roll
0
701
26700
•. U
151
204
0.67
I32
2A93
3464
159
12412
66811
175R
2481
13290
13300
2924
2225
12OR
0.67
3
Srn
1564
loll
21D11---7-U
13a-..-1194_
2016__.
_..9518
_.-1B50U.--2638-_-
'4518-2638-_._.0.0-
134
2755
AH9
i
9645
4UH
R54
3513
14U3
21000
411
1U24
849
0.0
135
29A8
HO!
31
IO444
47514
Ain
20,n9
5735
27500
2b5
1911
1555
0.0 .
h
137
-i731
1043
71"
1M
1.1
I7
1412h--164 ';81.7-V800
3160 14hd 24A6 0 0
31200
1/8
64
iiiI
304
a127--0
713
0-
0.0
138
3134
73h
0
Ilh3h
4Sd3
1651
59h
4467
IA300
512
1888
910
0.0
39
'An?,;
74
11079----4341
1�4B.__..79tl1526.-_1,-•64---0.0------------
140
46h
103
214
11+91
681
1749
996
116b]
15100
210
246
63
0.0
141
4177
6oI
2d
16999
646
615A
1043
341J3
19?00
709
2932
1087
0.0
142
1416
711
n
4Hn9
P01ti
1179
n
52.3
-4294.0
14 476
951
0-0
------��,
' 144
A79
6
17295
4467
1043
11147
2U5
0.0
'
' 144
b(142
b042
A7/
Al
3IdH5
1818
11H1tl
7';l9
149
1147
17300
1730U
2130
5595,
SS94
1154
1154
0.0
145
ISPA
Rlw
59
_BbtlZ--12b2.-2634
149____.1U3tl0-__18640
SL;7
-1489 '461.---0.0---
146
4194
I155
2b
194H4
7446
6190
149
158b
I970U
534
3745
10/0
0.0
147
3
11
1133
1235
0
993
U
3309
MOO
3
0
0
0.0
4N 2755 44,1 4y 10692 431d SAnR 14Y_1588A 24A00 141 1i71 1535 0 0
149 1676 241 32 743R 2841 24?1 0 206 22700 76 912 863 0.0
ISO 4074 231p 0 16393 hlO3 81;11 149 2dh 73100 215 2238 Iasi 0.0
51 3695 491 lu_I4791, 5821 698Il_-14-9 717___ 241OD a09 onto --
ILL
n„4
!!!1
ly
C11770
ntHl
6`,U
111pV
JIVU
170UV
L70C
J1'/7
lueu
1.90
153
16.7
94
9
6'132
2441
Inn
300
3400
21000
294
969
460
0.0
154
179
11h
7R74
4hh6
12a
5
IS
650
19800
AMC
,n
0
0 9
155
3470
20?
16tl
11410
4737
475
701)
8000
1A1U0
1101
2020
S51
0.0
156
n
0
11
0
0
n
In0
250
0
0
0
0
0.0
151
1671
6YU
11
.71 Bb__298S...-__4nn
650_._.12500._
-1B600 46A
1391
198
hOA5
11 /
15
1 V M4
7AI5
75
1'10
800
MOO
312
3907
1923
0.0
159
1I40
2070
It)
1064h
4R,37
625
1300
1600
14600
1537
1937
716
0.0
16n
tn99
Alin
n
bbS1
d501
- i7-0n
'41.00 7200
1..1y{l0
...1369
gas
119
1 OA
161
4A7n
1310
160
7olh9
8110
)no
Inn
8U0
20000
1226
3246
1655
0.0
AL_._15.4384_ZDB549_-2.51B.Z_.1h07y12..._6S7147.._
18053S-.117443.__
b39644
_ _._-
-_160223__...P as?&_I am&_
-
SANTA AM TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY
P4r.E t
1.0 MQHM . ACRE .l dET TUT ..MGU.. ..- Low
Ini,t SITU 1'11J 4N V9M Pt y F4v f 14W 1 1f INC IN' P 0
•.
Ia.
•1L
14'il
I119L
5^�
14412__-146n1-.
_.145-.--Lnvl-�.�215-
-••-1360U--6S16-__. S6L4
2331L_l
14-�
33
1001
ln541
141
111-s1
IUMb2
44n
1-,IH
till-1
ovUu
►N15
3150
TOU
1.17
34
?479
b314
94
i5^nr1
M451
NN
944
b417
9100
91.110
7129
704
1.11
�5
711.
214-.--130).i--6104...--.--...40..-_._-7bb
___..4211-
._bILU--
_r3v 7.-.-.
lis3b
32B.--l.IT
3b
455
44.1�
2I2
911"1
5011
174
1210
ball:
92011
31:100
1132
377
1.17
31
410
119h3
?Sb
11197
10919
711
01431
244h7
9b00
9219
2076
718
1.17
]li
n
h
12nn
120�,
O_- -.-gum 553-.-
44238
3v
747
S731
3100
9v4S
57b4
a41
153M
93.3
M400
4733
1492
259
1.17
4U
E-4L_k!',7
2111
4117
43
16134
63b1
6n4
I?1n
3704
17600
304?
2599
697
0.0
__b8y1, '_ 265d
7h9-_...•.
b715.
-101OU 1712_- H03 - 160._0.0_
a2
t?l3
591,
)IV
7464
31v1
••01
440
13U3
13100
1067
1405
337
0.0
43
1104
4)3a
1119
71v1,
344n
67.,
111.
1100
I73UU
ISOI
1315
313
0.0
4
2194
1n9h
'17h
12uc
.3bd! 'SIN
ab9___-6115__.15b0U.-1110
'S4T
62S
0
4y •
1502
2340
347
1:154h
45bl
444
AM
571?
?21U0
629
Ibll
1691
0.0
46
i94S
17?1
0
9tin9
575b
N7M
1.1?2
5111
17y0U
1463
1042
1417
0.0
47_-1bZ5 1012p, h6�91y
1.400--_
491 _1b51--..
o1011----10140-2b43_--4356
i7S-0.
4b
1063
1673
17U
Sltib
2H71)
1479
7h9
6?19
144VU
1121
1259
356
0.0
49
0
4
0
11
U
2114
440
763b6
0
0
0
0
0.0
T_SU
1303
777h
479
9ST1
4711
7713
SS'7
1504 1SNna
11911
1116n
660
6-0
4. 51
1863
2390
482
8100
4?32
71T
994
37U7
11100
2211
1574
468
1.17
0'a St
N
3473
7259
32
19375
11419
1143
994
2400
1550U
3863
4SUe
2361
0.67
53
19'111
5341
n
149vi MIA
1.19
7h9 10117 2p7an
llhi
_ 1tiwS
x
54
957
260e
132d
InFMO
4?39
937
0
SOUH
23100
534
1139
1886
0.0
SS
2078
not)
14
6374
3353
616
Rol
2504
20700
604
1353
921
0.0
56
i400
)i0
14
14521
1656
180.i
1972
0.4
51
44R0
U
)9
14521
6035
6035
496
149h
.656
1800
24700
24700
313
313
� 1972
219S
2195
0.0
Sd
1874
491
627
8►TO
3174
1314
0
403
29800
69
Pilo
1436
0.0
59
9791
a
4-4
12,974
Sn7y
1140,
i4a 1603
211Dnn
1S1
911117
15,rS
n-0
6U
6376
I6
23
1825b
blt4
1499
543
2007
27360
70
34b3
1726
0.0
61
5213
11
31
155v3
67U4
111?
440
1200
21500
521
3336
1356
0.0
hl
44R?
i4i
4n
141n1
hill
WIN
In07�19
63
4075
1196
72
12647
6119
1776
33n2
711Q
17500
1305
2715
1201
0.0
64
I
5736
1?Lt
16
17634
8034
1673
147y
3311
21200
1161
3679
1614
0.0
65
4
597n
170
In I.H "II
7AR
S,iiVIA
-3011
2"0
0.0
66
2831
2141
d
1 L74S
57yy
444
994
301I
171ou
1710u
493
lava
2440
045
1045
0.0
67
6235
7411
3Su
31302
.Ibnbo
1441
IR76
6219
1,4900
54SR
6551
1638
0.0
8
LAI;&
P77n
;111
,lhn&n
RH�I
I73s0
I172
74
69
3164
2130
30
11731
5846
1?711
553
260
14500
1568
2912
794
0.0
70
4032
1590
213
13521
63b7
1790
1412
8hb3
15300
1967
2bb7
788
0.0
71
06R
1777
44
In661 i85b
l.nlh
Sll- �.992_13900_ aC4273h
sigh
0-0
72
3Mn9
1675
bt
13624
614y
046
511
40b7
14400
1920
2854
714
0.0
73
3962
3143
IOv
14535
77?3
115R
Witt
b145
15000
2466
3411
1208
C.0
4
4n%'i
a44-.
JS1
Ih42n
1124U
I?4O
1515
'37.9--i
75
63P3
3669
141
33039
12431
1771
1023
3284
16800
2613
5730
1709
6.0
76
10970
1697
25
417t7
17199
3404
380
4728
25200
SO
S447
6712
'0.0
r-
u
•
•
•
n
•
7
n
n
•
•
•
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY
1---_ Mr. nrr
ZONt SOU MDD U14 POP HGS
...4r.RES - - . RET . .. TUT
FMP EMP
PAGE 2
-_MEU_____111Y_- 0410 uILH___._ __ ' -'-'-
INC INC INC PCOST
n
PI7h
JA4H
Ai
13d64__6524-._405
644__ ._.
1972.-163n0
1AA7
7075
1012
-0
79
37n4
A65
19
14447
5944
H97
7h7
2237
197U0
913
2697
959
0.p
-1
HO
25�P
Phn
T1
10034
4231
A09
14?4
4067
17100
717
2085
61h
0.0
BL
7771 A?11 I3--116U2-___4589
._3U
__._-_..754__..._.�Hd
_-_
17UH
-19000--_�Ol---_�266.
.0_._______-
J
H'2
3693
2005
S.
16140
7n59
1106
900
2359
188OU
1137
3242
1309
0.0
A3
PPA
znh7
b
h3i/
3,139
A43
119h
?4293
15300
1020
1661
234
0.0
4 i6•in
17.14
I1h
17613
62U5. uh7 767
1db7-_.1760U
Ii+A 2H 2
-1.22A
0-0_
PS
8b
1644
IAHO
4H5
35y3
1430
II
77S4
I0hS7
30h5
5460
HSS
Aug
1i3
Iv?4
5b43
1?H73
19700
16100
525
1915
1367
2573
737
985
0.0
0.67�
97 3g6H
'1715. I 2-_13BSb.___
6A4 6..__1173____
1668._.
4434
_21800 __
195_._2899_---19.89
8B
3HP7,
14i1
33
13526
bh39
12n1
1073
41y9
27900
533
?177
202P
0.0
89
1974
571
53
7061)
3?Jl
F70
3H8
1443
?4500
127
1199
1225
0.0
91
2070
Phl
106
46i1
3869
7P7
761
1576
20500
43Q
1759
733
0.0
92
JIM
411
?3
76u?
JOCO
479
133
396
19200
3b6
1512
413
0.0
8114 _.._191UA_-3b2_._...1476_
94
193n
ll
1310
7h IO
2431
h0?
7h7
3548
16600
312
1307
332
0.0
95
2?96
14911,
Hh
9h19
4374
7h5
644
47?P
14600
1328
2049
4114
0.0
91 2270
P15
371
101140 39b4
741
7-55
(
98 12h9
134
I
4940 1h9t>
LhSH
2'15
10U ?SA2
421
P64
111612 39/b
7?14
47(1
101 20A9
6UU
25
9499 3704
643
11147
02 ?343
71B
7n4 ln8yn 4266
1171
Jill
37H4
1P500
740
11351
494
0.0
5318
18800
197
901
310
0.0
7972
_24700-__
93-
1127_3428._-C.0._.
1535
23400
120
1532
1351
0.0
3213
2?300
161
1505
1022
0.0
103
IIn4
?979 tnt13
2513 456
2562__315t__111U
11 15475 664d
17 44il 31498
_3933_
1171
644
------ H3Z._-.593.
U
470
..
2H4
1403
1820
24900
71000
_.19800.
147 2368
415 1841
5U4 172s
?417
713
Mc;
0.0
0.0
0.0--_.
1n6
107
[63n
241,3
?l.5
31.4
90
I
Inn 15
1710
J751
3431
740
h9?
?45
?251
1677
5877
163U0
18500
942
641
1599
N33
314
613
0.0
0.0
111Q6 2921
42i
78
106d2-
4431
1"?
158____3355
- 49500
944
7110
In9
110
1631
k756
614
977
U
67b
8517
lU?hl
3130
437?
1751
471
.39,P
7nb
75b5
974?
18800
17100
336
1104
1504
1990
405
SB9
0.0
0.0
1
111__-3385
556.-
U--LUB05__._._._4H43__LfU.6..__-__S91__-
12b0
_19000_-._906^-2286
11?
113
1470
4512
h61
101)13
26
111
71-,h
193-`7
PHI
7453
547
1756
3SH
919
3498
3640
MOO
19000
447
1169
1322
3454
362
947
0.0
0.0
4-
Jill
44 i
1 A 7
3Hdc--149J
9 oc
- 358-__.10636.----1-71110
106
67
11S
4059
1297
165
1A7147
71 P2
1h46
N29
Pbb4
1AB00
1124
3321
911
0.0
Ilb
1157
41?1
a
4906
1985
1764
SS4
?1019
15800
554
BOB
222
0.0
9y
L.__..
_.10H9 ......_.
4/4.__.___SiH2_�_..443_
.._
4624
-15800-
-_1J8__203
•SS.__._-0.II
__.___-_.
IIH
1199
151
I
454E
16h7
P?l
HO
41UP
13100
623
b.5
108
0.0
119
1231
11114
3u
6342
2483
;,An
736
2?91
10400
1344
763
134
0.0
D_ u764
141h i1
IhSS46SbH
121
274
0 U
875
3416
link 449
122
992
P45 92
491h
2n Ab
701 37?
123
_ _ _ _2539__16uJ.
_-..-- -3u.__.
1.1419
. _ .5144
..__1.146___._ 665
24776 1S000 tl5 117 22 0.0
5657 1S600 607 $151 279 0.0