SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
99 Reduced Conflict Intersection, 17th Street at Ross Street, Santa Ana Exhibit C . Reduced Conflict Intersection
Potential features as applicable:
• Restricts left turns at an intersection
• Reduces car on car collisions
• Conflict point management
Exhibit D . Median or Type C Curb
Potential features as applicable:
• Reduces head-on collisions
• Allows for safer turning movements
Type C Curb, sourced from Google Maps
City Council 32 – 104 6/4/2024
100
1. Main Street
17th Street to 1st Street
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Main Street from 17th Street to 1st Street is a one-mile stretch of road located in downtown Santa Ana running north to south through the northeast quarter of the City. Land uses along the route are limited to commercial retail and public services that draw a large volume of traffic that results in one of the highest densities of traffic collision rates for the City, including one fatality and numerous severe injuries during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-2 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
Project Location View of Main Street
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
3 Pedestrian
1 8
Bicycle Vehicle
City Council 32 – 105 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
101
Proposed Bike Routes
Transit Stops
Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated
Bikeway
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated
Bikeway
N MAIN ST
N BUSH ST
N SYCAMORE ST
E 1ST ST
E 4TH ST
E 3RD ST
E 5TH ST
E 8TH ST
W 5TH ST
E 9TH ST
W 10TH ST
W 4TH ST
W 3RD ST
W 1ST ST
W 2ND ST
E 10TH ST
W SANTA ANA BLVD
E SANTA ANA BLVD
CIVIC CENTER DR E
N SYCAMORE ST
0 220 440 Feet
[
!( Transit Stops Proposed Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
N MAIN ST
E 11TH ST
E 10TH ST
E 12TH ST
E 14TH ST
E 15TH ST
E 16TH ST
W 17TH ST E 17TH ST
W 15TH ST
W 10TH ST
E WASHINGTON AV
W
WASHINGTON AV
0 220 440 feet
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
Exhibit
‘A’
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
Existing Traffic
Signal
Commercial
Commercial
W 1ST ST
W 2ND ST
W WALNUT ST S RAITT ST
S DAISY AV
N RAITT ST
N DAISY AV
S PACIFIC AV
N PACIFIC AV
N FOREST AV
S FRANKLIN ST
N WESTERN AV
N HESPERIAN ST
N TOWNSEND ST
0 270 540 Feet
[
!( Transit Stops
Add Signalized Crossing
Beacon - More than 600
feet without a signalized
crossing adjacent to
commercial land use
Proposed Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
Exist
S A
Project 1. Main Street
Figure 6-2: Main Street from 17th Street to 1st Street
MATCHLINE - SEE LOWER LEFT END PROJECT
MATCHLINE - SEE UPPER RIGHT BEGIN PROJECT
City Council 32 – 106 6/4/2024
102
2. Euclid Street
Hazard Avenue to McFadden Avenue
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Euclid Street from Hazard Avenue to McFadden Avenue is a one-mile stretch of road located at the west edge of the City running north to south through mixed land uses including general commercial retail and residential homes, mobile home parks and multifamily units.
Large traffic volumes are generated going to and from uses that results in a high density of traffic collision rates including one fatality and numerous severe injuries during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-3 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
View of Euclid Street and Hazard Avenue
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
2 Pedestrian
1 7
Bicycle Vehicle
Project Location
City Council 32 – 107 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
103
Proposed Bike Routes Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated
Bikeway
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated
Bikeway
Residential Residential
Residential Residential
S EUCLID ST
W 1ST ST
W MCFADDEN AV
W DAVIT AV
S HURLEY ST
W LUCKY WY
N EUCLID ST
W BARBETTE AV
W QUINCY COM
W HENDERSON PL
LINDELL LN
CANFIELD LN
TYSON CRSG
S BOSTON COM
S PLYMOUTH COM
W HANOVER COM
W DAV TI AV
0 225 450 Feet
[
!( Transit Stops Proposed Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
N EUCLID ST
W 1ST ST
W 7TH ST
W 6TH ST
W 5TH ST
W 4TH ST
W 2ND ST
W 3RD ST
HAZARD AV
W S LI VER DR
W HAZARD AV
S EUCLID ST EUCLID ST
W ROOSEVELT AV
W 5TH ST
0 220 440 feet
Project 2. Euclid Avenue between Hazard Avenue and McFadden Avenue See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
Comme
Comm
S RAITT ST
S DAISY AV
N RAITT ST
N DAISY AV
S FRANKLIN ST
N WESTERN AV
N TOWNSEND ST
0 270 540 Feet
[
S A
See
Exhibit
‘D’
Typ.
See
Exhibit
‘D’
Typ.
Transit Stops
Existing Traffic
Signal
Figure 6-3: Euclid Avenue from Hazard Avenue to McFadden Avenue
MATCHLINE - SEE LOWER LEFT END PROJECT
MATCHLINE - SEE UPPER RIGHT BEGIN PROJECT
City Council 32 – 108 6/4/2024
104
3. 1st Street
Fairview Street to Bristol Street
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
1st Street from Fairview Street to Bristol Street is a one-mile stretch located near the center of the City just west of downtown Santa Ana.
The street runs west to east through multifamily and mobile home park residential units on the west end and high density commercial uses along the east part of the corridor. This stretch of road generates one of the highest levels of traffic and traffic collisions including three fatalities and fourteen severe injuries during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street to support pedestrian mobility. Minimal bicycle facilities are provided with single line markings at the edge of vehicle travel lanes. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-6 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
Project Location
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
15 Pedestrian
2 19
Bicycle Vehicle
View of 1st Street
City Council 32 – 109 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
105
Figure 6-4: 1st Street from Fairview Street to Bristol Street Proposed Bike Routes Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated
Bikeway
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated
Bikeway
Commercial
Commercial
W 1ST ST
W 2ND ST
W WALNUT ST S RAITT ST
S DAISY AV
N RAITT ST
N DAISY AV
S PACIFIC AV
N PACIFIC AV
S BRISTOL ST
N FOREST AV
N BRISTOL ST
S FRANKLIN ST
N WESTERN AV
N HESPERIAN ST
N TOWNSEND ST
W WALNUT ST
0 270 540 Feet
[
!( Transit Stops
Add Signalized Crossing
Beacon - More than 600
feet without a signalized
crossing adjacent to
commercial land use
Proposed Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
Commercial
Commercial
W 1ST ST
S CENTER ST
N CLARA ST
S SULL VI AN ST
S FA RI V EI W ST
N FA RI V EI W ST
N SULL VI AN ST
W KNIGHT LN S AMALFI DR
W WALNUT ST
0 220 440 feet
Project 5. First Street between Fairview Street & Bristol Street See
Exhibit
‘B’
See
Exhibit
‘B’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘D’
Typ.
See
Exhibit
‘D’
Typ.
Transit Stops
Existing Traffic
Signal
MATCHLINE - SEE LOWER LEFT END PROJECT
MATCHLINE - SEE UPPER RIGHT BEGIN PROJECT
City Council 32 – 110 6/4/2024
106
4. Tustin Avenue
Fairhaven Street to 17th Street
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Tustin Avenue from Fairhaven Street to 17th Street is a one-mile stretch located at the farthest northeast edge of the City running north to south through primarily commercial retail and multifamily units that draw a large volume of traffic and a high density of traffic collisions including three severe injuries during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-4 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
Project Location View of Tustin Avenue
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 4
Bicycle Vehicle
City Council 32 – 111 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
107
Figure 6-5: Tustin Avenue from Fairhaven to 17th Street Project 3. Tustin Avenue between Fairhaven and 17th Street Proposed Bike Routes Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated
Bikeway
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated
Bikeway
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
N TUSTIN AV N OLD TUSTIN AV
E 17TH ST
E CATALINA AV
E SANTA CLARA AV
E LENITA LN
N PONDEROSA ST
N TUSTIN AV (FRONTAGE)
E AVALON AV
E BUFFALO AV
N TUSTIN AV
0 210 420 Feet
[
!( Transit Stops Proposed Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike Lane
Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike Lane
N TUSTIN AV
*****
E SANTA CLARA AV
FAIRHAVEN AV
E FRANZEN AV
E GROVEMONT ST
0 220 440 feet
See
Exhibit
‘B’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
Commercial
Commercial
W 1ST ST
W 2ND ST
W WALNUT ST S RAITT ST
S DAISY AV
N RAITT ST
N DAISY AV
S PACIFIC AV
N PACIFIC AV
S BRISTOL ST
N FOREST AV
N BRISTOL ST
S FRANKLIN ST
N WESTERN AV
N HESPERIAN ST
N TOWNSEND ST
W WA
0 270 540 Feet
[
!( Transit Stops
Add Signalized Crossing
Beacon - More than 600
feet without a signalized
crossing adjacent to
commercial land use
Proposed Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
Commercial
Commercial
W 1ST ST
S CENTER ST
N CLARA ST
S SULL VI AN ST
S FA RI V EI W ST
N FA RI V EI W ST
N SULL VI AN ST
W KNIGHT LN S AMALFI DR
W
Commercial
Commercial
W 1ST ST
W 2ND ST
W WALNUT ST S RAITT ST
S DAISY AV
N RAITT ST
N DAISY AV
S PACIFIC AV
N PACIFIC AV
N FOREST AV
S FRANKLIN ST
N WESTERN AV
N HESPERIAN ST
N TOWNSEND ST
0 270 540 Feet
[
!( Transit Stops
Add Signalized Crossing
Beacon - More than 600
feet without a signalized
crossing adjacent to
commercial land use
Proposed Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
Ex
S A
See
Exhibit
‘D’
Typ.
See
Exhibit
‘D’
Typ.
Transit Stops
Existing Traffic
Signal
MATCHLINE - SEE LOWER LEFT END PROJECT
MATCHLINE - SEE UPPER RIGHT BEGIN PROJECT
City Council 32 – 112 6/4/2024
108
5. Greenville Street
Warner Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Greenville Street from Warner Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard is a one-mile stretch located in the southwest quarter of the City running north to south through single family, multifamily, and mobile home park residential units that generate daily traffic flows going to work or shopping. The corridor has a moderate density of traffic collisions, showing higher densities at intersections with Warner Avenue, Segerstrom Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks and curb ramps run along the street but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-5 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
Project Location View of Greenville Street
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 1
Bicycle Vehicle
City Council 32 – 113 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
109
Project 4. Greenville Street between Warner Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard Proposed Bike Routes Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated
Bikeway
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated
Bikeway
Res di ent ai l
Residential Residential
Residential Residential
Residential
GREENVILLE ST
DEEGAN DR
W ALTON AV
W MACARTHUR BLVD
W CURIE AV
W COLUMBINE AV
W GARRY AV
W MOORE AV
0 215 430 Feet
[
!( Transit Stops Proposed Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
Existing Bike Routes
I - Multi Use Path
II - Bike Lane
III - Bike Route
IV - Separated Bike
Lane
S GREENVILLE ST
W
WARNER AV
W SEGERSTROM AV
S DEEGAN DR
W
S GLENARBOR ST
HALL AV
GREENVILLE ST
W MANLY AV
W ADAMS ST
W NORTHWOOD
W MEADOWWOOD
W KNOX A
S W
V
ARBLER ST
S GLENARBOR ST
W HALL AV
S DEEGAN DR
W MANLY AV
0 220 440 feet
See
Exhibit
‘B’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘A’
See
Exhibit
‘D’
Typ.
See
Exhibit
‘D’
Typ.
Transit Stops
Existing Traffic
Signal
Midblock
Crossing with
Median Island or
Curb Extensions
Figure 6-6: Greenville Street from Warner Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard
MATCHLINE - SEE LOWER LEFT END PROJECT
MATCHLINE - SEE UPPER RIGHT BEGIN PROJECT
City Council 32 – 114 6/4/2024
110
#6. Grand Avenue
Century High School to Edinger Avenue
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Grand Avenue from Century High School to Edinger Avenue is a one-third mile stretch running north to south at the southeast edge of the City with Century High School on the east side of the street and light industry on the west side of the street. Light commercial retail is located at the intersection with Edinger Avenue. A moderate level of traffic and collisions occur on this stretch with one severe injury at the intersection with Edinger Avenue during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street to support pedestrian mobility but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-7 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Project Location
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 2
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 4 ,568,769 $ 5,558,607
$ 2 10,000 $ 255,497
$ 4 ,779,000 $ 5,815,000
$ 600,000 $ 730,000
$ 8 40,000 $ 1,030,000
$ 1 00,000 $ 130,000
CM
$ 910,000 $ 1,110,000
$ 2,450,000 $ 3,000,000
$ 7,250,000 $ 8,850,000
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Grand Ave (Century HS - Edinger Ave)
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
DESIGN
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
City Council 32 – 115 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
111
Wilshire Ave
Grand Ave
Add high visibility continental crosswalks
with stop bar 5 ft behind crosswalk
Add crossbikes
Add truck aprons at both corners with
directional wheelchair ramps
Add bike-friendly bus stop based
on roadway and bikeway
configurations. See section
6.1.9 for available typologies.
Add yellow reflective
border on signal heads
on all four approaches
Grand Ave
Edinger Ave
Borchard Ave
Add high visibility continental crosswalks
with stop bar 5 ft behind crosswalk
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb extensions
with directional wheelchair ramps Add raised Type
C curb on yellow
divider line
Add hardened
centerline in front
of median
Add crossbikes
Include bicycle/pedestrian
friendly signal timing, such
as LPIs, if possible.
Add bike-friendly bus stop
based on roadway and bikeway
configurations. See section
6.1.9 for available typologies.
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft behind
crosswalk
Add
crossbikes
Add truck aprons at both corners
with directional wheelchair ramps
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 50'-0"
January 2024
Grand Ave from Century High School to Edinger Ave
MATCHLINE SEE UPPER RIGHT
MATCHLINE SEE LOWER LEFT
Landscaped Areas
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings
High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping
High Visibility School
Crosswalk
Bike Sharrow
Marking
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in concept
plans are subject to further
evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information.
Figure 6-7: Grand Avenue from Edinger Avenue to Century High School Recommendations
END PROJECT
BEGIN PROJECT
City Council 32 – 116 6/4/2024
112
#7. Fairview Street
Edinger Avenue to St. Andrew Place
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Fairview Street from Edinger Avenue to St. Andrew Place is a onethird mile stretch running north to south near the middle of the west edge of the City. The Santa Ana College of Continuing Education and Centennial Park is on the west side of the corridor and single family housing and a grocery store on the east side. As a primary throughroad, it sees a daily large volume of traffic and high collisions rate with two severe injuries at the intersection with Edinger Avenue during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street to support pedestrian mobility but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-8 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
1 Pedestrian
0 2
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)*
$ 3,552,994 $ 4,322,760
$ 400,000 $ 486,661
$ 3 ,953,000 $ 4,810,000
$ 500,000 $ 610,000
$ 700,000 $ 860,000
$ 80,000 $ 100,000
CM
$ 760,000 $ 930,000
$ 2,040,000 $ 2,500,000
$ 6,000,000 $ 7,350,000
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Fairview St (Edinger Ave - St Andrew Pl)
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
DESIGN
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
City Council 32 – 117 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
113
Add yellow reflective border on signal
heads on all four approaches
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly signal
timing, such as LPIs, if possible.
Add bike-friendly bus stop based on
roadway and bikeway configurations. See
Section 6.1.9 for available typologies.
Fairview St
Edinger
Ave
Add hardened centerline
in front of median
Add crossbikes
Pomona St
Add two-way multi-use path.
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb extensions
with directional wheelchair ramps
Add truck aprons
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add separate
Add separate
bikeway
Add separate
bikeway
Centenial
Rd
St Andrew Pl
Fairview St
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add
crossbikes
Add two-way multi-use path.
Add bike-friendly bus stop based on
roadway and bikeway configurations. See
Section 6.1.9 for available typologies.
Add 'Blended Transition"
ADA ramp
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping High Visibility School
Crosswalk
Bike Sharrow
Marking
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 50'-0"
January 2024
Fairview St from Edinger Ave to St Andrew Pl
MATCHLINE SEE UPPER RIGHT
MATCHLINE SEE LOWER LEFT
DISCLAIMER: All improvements
shown in concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Figure 6-8: Fairview Street from Edinger Avenue to Centennial Road Recommendations
END PROJECT
BEGIN PROJECT
City Council 32 – 118 6/4/2024
114
#8. Bristol Street
Segerstrom Avenue to Alton Avenue
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Bristol Street from Segerstrom Avenue to Alton Avenue is a one-third mile stretch running north to south near the middle of the south edge of the City. Land uses include apartments and commercial retail at the intersections. As one of the main roads in Santa Ana, traffic volumes are very high along with high collision rates and two severe injuries at the intersections with Segerstrom Avenue and Alton Avenue during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street to support mobility for people walking and with visual and physical disabilities. Bike lanes are provided on both sides of the road with short segments providing buffers from traffic and other segments left as shared with vehicle traffic. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-9 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
1 Pedestrian
1 2
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 5,047,009 $ 6,420,289
$ 230,000 $ 279,830
$ 5 ,278,000 $ 6,701,000
$ 660,000 $ 810,000
$ 930,000 $ 1,140,000
$ 110,000 $ 1 40,000
CM
$ 1,010,000 $ 1,230,000
$ 2,710,000 $ 3,320,000
$ 8,000,000 $ 10,050,000
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Bristol St from Segerstorm Ave to Alton Ave
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
DESIGN
City Council 32 – 119 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
115
Bristol St
Add raised Type C curb on
yellow divider line
Add hardened centerline
in front of median
Add crossbikes
Add yellow reflective border on signal
heads on all four approaches
Add bike-friendly bus stop based on roadway
and bikeway configurations. See Section
6.1.9 for available typologies.
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly signal
timing, such as LPIs, if possible.
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb extensions
with directional wheelchair ramps
Add high visibility continental crosswalks with
stop bar 5 ft behind crosswalk
Segerstrom
Ave
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Alton
Ave
Bristol St
Garry Ave
Add hardened
centerline in front
of median
Add crossbikes
Add yellow reflective border on signal
heads on all four approaches
Existing two-way multi-use path Add raised Type C curb on Add raised Type C yellow divider line curb on yellow divider line
Add raised Type C
curb on yellow
divider line
Existing two-way multi-use path
Add curb refuge islands with truck aprons
at corners or curb extensions with
directional wheelchair ramps
Add high visibility continental crosswalks with
stop bar 5 ft behind crosswalk
Add crossbikes
Rebuild raised median to be 1'wide
to make room for a bike lane on the
west side of Bristol St.
54.3 7.1
Add high visibility continental crosswalks with
stop bar 5 ft behind crosswalk
Add truck aprons Add separated
bikeway Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping High Visibility School
Crosswalk
Bike Sharrow
Marking
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 50'-0"
January 2024
Bristol St from Segerstrom Ave to Alton Ave
MATCHLINE SEE UPPER RIGHT
MATCHLINE SEE LOWER LEFT
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in concept
plans are subject to further
evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information.
Figure 6-9: Bristol Street from Segerstrom Avenue to Alton Avenue Recommendations
END PROJECT
BEGIN PROJECT
City Council 32 – 120 6/4/2024
116
#9. 4th Street
Minter Street to Garfield Street
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
4th Street from Minter Street to Garfield Street is a one-third mile segment running west to east at the east edge of downtown Santa Ana. Land uses are primarily commercial retail and the Garfield Community Center on the north side. This segment has not had any recent fatalities or severe injuries, but due to roadway characteristics, the safe systems approach calls for improvements. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks and curb ramps are on both sides of the street but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-10 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 0
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 3,725,088 $ 4,824,136
$ 2 40,000 $ 291,997
$ 3,966,000 $ 5,117,000
$ 500,000 $ 610,000
$ 700,000 $ 860,000
$ 80,000 $ 100,000
CM
$ 760,000 $ 9 30,000
$ 2,040,000 $ 2,500,000
$ 6,050,000 $ 7 ,650,000
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
4th St from Minter St to Garfield St
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
DESIGN
City Council 32 – 121 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
117
Minter St
Porter St
Lacy St
Lacy St
4th St
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add truck aprons at two corners with
directional wheelchair ramps
Add hardened centerline
or flex posts
Add curb extensions with
plantings and directional
wheelchair ramps
Add planting to
curb extensions Add
crossbikes
Add high visibility
crosswalks if needed
Add high visibility
crosswalks if needed Add yellow reflective border on signal heads on all four approaches
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly signal
timing, such as LPIs, if possible.
Add curb extensions with
plantings and directional
wheelchair ramps
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Garfield St
Garfield St
4th St
Add truck apron to one corner with
directional wheelchair ramps
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add crossbikes
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 50'-0"
January 2024
4th St from Minter St to Garfield St
MATCHLINE SEE UPPER RIGHT
MATCHLINE SEE LOWER LEFT
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in concept
plans are subject to further
evaluation.
Landscaped Areas
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings
High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping
High Visibility School
Crosswalk
Bike Sharrow
Marking
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. END PROJECT
BEGIN PROJECT
Figure 6-10: 4th Street from Minter Street to Garfield Street Recommendations City Council 32 – 122 6/4/2024
118
10. 17th Street
Ross Street to Broadway
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
17th Street from Ross Street to Broadway is a one-third mile segment running along the north edge of downtown Santa Ana. Land uses are primarily commercial retail and one apartment complex. As a primary route through the City, it supports high traffic volumes and has high collision rates with one fatality at the Ross Street intersection.
Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street but no bicycle facilities. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-11 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
1 Pedestrian
0 1
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 5,499,832 $ 6,959,050
$ 220,000 $ 267,664
$ 5 ,720,000 $ 7,227,000
$ 720,000 $ 880,000
$ 1,010,000 $ 1,230,000
$ 120,000 $ 150,000
CM
$ 1,090,000 $ 1,330,000
$ 2,940,000 $ 3,590,000
$ 8,700,000 $ 10,850,000
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
17th St from Ross St to Broadway
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
DESIGN
City Council 32 – 123 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
119
Durant St
Jefferson Pl
Ross St
Ross St
17th St
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb extensions
with directional wheelchair ramps
Add crossbikes
Add yellow reflective
border on signal heads on
all four approaches
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly
signal timing, such as LPIs, if possible.
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind the crosswalk
Add bike-friendly bus stop based on
roadway and bikeway configurations.
See section 6.1.9 for available typologies.
Add raised Type C curb
on yellow divider line
Broadway
Broadway
17th St
Add yellow reflective border on
signal heads on all four approaches
Add bike-friendly bus stop based on
roadway and bikeway configurations. See
section 6.1.9 for available typologies.
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add hardened centerline
in front of median
Add K71 Flexible
Traffic Posts
Add crossbikes
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb extensions
with directional wheelchair ramps
Add raised Type C curb
on yellow divider line
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly
signal timing, such as LPIs, if possible.
MATCHLINE SEE UPPER RIGHT
MATCHLINE SEE LOWER LEFT
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 50'-0"
January 2024
17th St from Ross St to Broadway
DRAFT
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Landscaped Areas
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing Markings
High Visibility Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or c-curb divider
Road Striping
High Visibility School Crosswalk
Bike Sharrow Marking
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All improvements shown in
concept plants are subject to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. END PROJECT
BEGIN PROJECT
Figure 6-11: 17th Street from Ross Street to Broadway Recommendations City Council 32 – 124 6/4/2024
120
11. Harbor Boulevard and 1st Street
Intersection Project
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Harbor Boulevard and 1st Street is a busy intersection in the upper west quarter of the City with commercial retail at all corners. Six vehicle lanes, not counting multiple turn lanes in each direction, are on each leg of the intersection. The significantly high traffic volume at this intersection results in a similarly high collision rate during the study period, with multiple severe injuries and one fatality two blocks east of this intersection where a raised median is not provided. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. Bicycle facilities are provided going westbound on 1st Street and southbound on Harbor Boulevard. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-12 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
1 Pedestrian
1 3
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 1,532,310 $ 1,864,289
$ 40,000 $ 48,666
$ 1 ,573,000 $ 1,913,000
$ 200,000 $ 250,000
$ 280,000 $ 350,000
$ 40,000 $ 5 0,000
CM
$ 300,000 $ 370,000
$ 820,000 $ 1,020,000
$ 2,400,000 $ 2,940,000
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Harbor Blvd/1st St
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
DESIGN
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
City Council 32 – 125 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
121
Harbor Blvd
1st St Add hardened centerline
in front of median
Add curb refuge islands with
truck aprons at corners or curb
extensions with directional
wheelchair ramps
Add crossbikes
Add yellow reflective border on signal
heads on all four approaches
Include bicycle/pedestrian
friendly signal timing, such
as LPIs, if possible.
Add bike-friendly bus stop
based on roadway and
bikeway configurations.
See section 6.1.9 for
available typologies.
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add raised Type C curb
on yellow divider line
Add separated bikeway
Add separated bikeway
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0"
January 2024
1st St and Harbor Blvd
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping High Visibility School
Crosswalk Bike Sharrow Marking
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in
concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-12: Harbor Boulevard and 1st Street Recommendations Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated
bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form
of ‘continuous sidewalks’ or rubber humps. See
details page for more information.
City Council 32 – 126 6/4/2024
122
12. 17th Street and Grand Avenue
Intersection Project
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
17th Street and Grand Avenue is a busy intersection in the upper east quarter of the City with commercial retail at all corners. Five vehicle lanes, not counting multiple turn lanes in each direction, are on each leg of the intersection. Very high traffic volumes see similarly high collision rates during the study period, with multiple severe injuries near this intersection where raised medians are not provided.
Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided. Figure 6-13 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
1 Pedestrian
0 1
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 1,383,045 $ 1,731,352
$ 4 0,000 $ 48,666
$ 1 ,424,000 $ 1,781,000
$ 180,000 $ 220,000
$ 2 50,000 $ 310,000
$ 30,000 $ 40,000
CM
$ 280,000 $ 350,000
$ 740,000 $ 9 20,000
$ 2,170,000 $ 2,710,000
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
DESIGN
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
17th St and Grand Ave Intersection
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
City Council 32 – 127 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
123
Figure 6-13: 17th Street and Grand Avenue Recommendations Grand Ave 17th St
Add yellow reflective border on
signal heads on all four
approaches
Include bicycle/pedestrian
friendly signal timing, such
as LPIs, if possible.
Add bike-friendly bus stop
based on roadway and bikeway
configurations. See section
6.1.9 for available typologies.
Add hardened centerline
in front of median
Add
crossbikes
Add raised Type C curb on
yellow divider line
Add separated
bikeway
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb extensions
with directional wheelchair ramps
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind the crosswalk
Add separated
bikeway
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0"
January 2024
17th St and Grand Ave
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping High Visibility School
Crosswalk Bike Sharrow Marking
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in
concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated
bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form
of ‘continuous sidewalks’ or rubber humps. See
details page for more information.
City Council 32 – 128 6/4/2024
124
13. Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue
Intersection Project
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue is another busy intersection in the upper east quarter of the City with commercial retail at all corners. Not counting multiple turn lanes, there are six north-south vehicle lanes, and four west-east through lanes. Significantly high traffic volumes and collision rates have resulted in two fatalities and one severe injury during the study period. Raised medians are provided on three legs of the intersection. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. Bicycle facilities are provided on three legs of the intersection but the east leg of McFadden Avenue has no bike facilities. Figure 6-14 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
2 Pedestrian
0 3
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 1 ,567,485 $ 1,907,085
$ 40,000 $ 48,666
$ 1,608,000 $ 1,956,000
$ 210,000 $ 260,000
$ 290,000 $ 360,000
$ 40,000 $ 5 0,000
CM
$ 310,000 $ 380,000
$ 850,000 $ 1,050,000
$ 2,460,000 $ 3,010,000
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
DESIGN
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Harbor Blvd/McFadden Ave
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
City Council 32 – 129 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
125
Harbor Blvd
McFadden Ave
Add hardened centerline
in front of median
Add crossbikes
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb
extensions with directional
wheelchair ramps
Add yellow reflective
border on signal heads
on all four approaches
Rebuild raised median
to be 2 feet wide to
make room for bike
lanes
Add bike-friendly bus stop based
on roadway and bikeway
configurations. See Section 6.1.9
for available typologies.
Include bicycle/pedestrian
friendly signal timing, such
as LPIs, if possible.
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0"
January 2024
McFadden Ave and Harbor Blvd
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping High Visibility School
Crosswalk Bike Sharrow Marking
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in
concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in Figure 6-14: Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue Recommendations the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated
bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form
of ‘continuous sidewalks’ or rubber humps. See
details page for more information.
City Council 32 – 130 6/4/2024
126
14. 1st Street and Flower Street
Intersection Project
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
1st Street and Flower Street is a busy intersection near the center of the City at the southwest corner of downtown Santa Ana.
Tennis courts that are part of the Santa Ana High School are at the southeast corner of the intersection. Multifamily and commercial retail occupy the other three corners. There are a total of six westbound and eastbound vehicle lanes, not counting multiple turn lanes.
Northbound and southbound lanes total four plus dedicated turn lanes. High traffic volumes and collision rates have resulted in two severe injuries during the study period. Raised medians are provided on three legs of the intersection. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. Bicycle facilities are provided on all legs of the intersection class II bike lane markings without buffers. Figure 6-15 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 0
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 1,239,165 $ 1,556,300
$ 4 0,000 $ 48,666
$ 1,280,000 $ 1,605,000
$ 1 60,000 $ 200,000
$ 230,000 $ 280,000
$ 30,000 $ 40,000
CM
$ 250,000 $ 310,000
$ 670,000 $ 8 30,000
$ 1,950,000 $ 2,440,000
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
1st St and Flower St Intersection
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
DESIGN
City Council 32 – 131 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
127
Flower St
Add yellow reflective
border on signal heads
on all four approaches
Include bicycle/pedestrian
friendly signal timing, such
as LPIs, if possible.
Add bike-friendly bus stop based
on roadway and bikeway
configurations. See Section 6.1.9
for available typologies.
1st St
Add hardened
centerline in
front of median
Add
crossbikes
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Rebuild raised
median to be 2 feet
wide to make room
for bike lanes
Rebuild raised median to
be 2 feet wide to make
room for bike lanes
Add curb refuge islands with
truck aprons or curb
extensions with directional
wheelchair ramps
Add raised Type C curb on
yellow divider line
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0"
January 2024
1st St and Flower St
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping High Visibility School
Crosswalk
Bike Sharrow
Marking
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in
concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in Figure 6-15: the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. 1st Street and Flower Street Recommendations Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated
bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form
of ‘continuous sidewalks’ or rubber humps. See
details page for more information.
City Council 32 – 132 6/4/2024
128
15. Edinger Avenue and Maple Street
Intersection Project
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Edinger Avenue and Maple Street is a unique offset intersection, near the middle of the southeast quarter of the City, with Maple Street northbound centerline shifted west 150 feet relative to the southbound side of Maple Street. Another unique feature of the intersection is a dedicated multi-use path that runs adjacent to the southbound leg of Maple Street then runs north along a power line easement between single family residential backyards. Land uses are limited to single family residential. There are a total of five westbound and eastbound vehicle lanes. North and southbound lanes on Maple are small residential streets with limited local traffic. High traffic volumes occur on the westbound and eastbound legs. Collision rates are not high, but during the study period one severe injury has occurred at the pedestrian crossing. A raised center median with multi-use path and traffic signal is provided for people walking and bicycling across Edinger Ave. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided on the westbound and eastbound legs on Edinger. Figure 6-16 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 1
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 1,011,630 $ 1,230,803
$ 50,000 $ 60,833
$ 1,062,000 $ 1 ,292,000
$ 1 40,000 $ 180,000
$ 190,000 $ 240,000
$ 30,000 $ 40,000
CM
$ 210,000 $ 260,000
$ 570,000 $ 720,000
$ 1,640,000 $ 2,020,000
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Edinger Ave/Maple St
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
DESIGN
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
City Council 32 – 133 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
129
Edinger Ave
Maple St
4.0 Add bike-friendly bus stop
based on roadway and
bikeway configurations. See
Section 6.1.9 for available
typologies.
Add high visibility
continental crosswalks
with stop bars
Add yellow reflective border on
signal heads on both approaches
Add curb extension
with directional
wheelchair ramps
Maple St
Add truck aprons with
directional wheelchair ramps
Add
crossbikes
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0"
January 2024
Edinger Ave and Maple St
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
High Visibility School Road Striping Crosswalk
Bike Sharrow
Marking
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in
concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in Figure 6-16: Edinger Avenue and Maple Street Recommendations the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated
bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form
of ‘continuous sidewalks’ or rubber humps. See
details page for more information.
City Council 32 – 134 6/4/2024
130
16. MacArthur Boulevard and Flower Street
Intersection Project
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Flower Street and Macarthur Boulevard is a busy intersection at the southeast corner of the City with single family residential at all corners. Not counting turn lanes, there are six west-east vehicle lanes, and five north-south through lanes. High traffic volumes has resulted in a moderate level of collision rates and no recent fatalities or severe injuries. Raised medians are provided on the busiest westbound and eastbound legs of the intersection on MacArthur Boulevard.
Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided on the vehicle travel lane. However, there is a multi-use path running north-south along Flower Street and the channelized storm drain that starts north of the intersection. Figure 6-17 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 0
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 1,372,355 $ 1,669,680
$ 40,000 $ 48,666
$ 1,413,000 $ 1,719,000
$ 180,000 $ 220,000
$ 250,000 $ 310,000
$ 30,000 $ 40,000
CM
$ 270,000 $ 330,000
$ 730,000 $ 900,000
$ 2,150,000 $ 2,620,000
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
DESIGN
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Flower St/MacArthur Blvd
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
City Council 32 – 135 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
131
Flower St
Add hardened centerline
in front of median
MacArthur Blvd
Add yellow reflective border on
signal heads on all four approaches
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly
signal timing, such as LPIs, if possible.
Add bike-friendly bus stop based on
roadway and bikeway configurations.
See section 6.1.9 for available typologies.
Add raised Type C curb
on yellow divider line
Add
crossbikes
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb extensions
with directional wheelchair ramps
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0"
January 2024
MacArthur Blvd and Flower St
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping High Visibility School
Crosswalk Bike Sharrow Marking
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in
concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in Figure 6-17: MacArthur Boulevard and Flower Street Recommendations the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated
bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form
of ‘continuous sidewalks’ or rubber humps. See
details page for more information.
City Council 32 – 136 6/4/2024
132
17. MacArthur Boulevard and Raitt Street
Intersection Project
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Macarthur Boulevard and Raitt Street is a busy intersection at the southern edge of the City. The northbound and southbound legs of the intersection have single through lanes and less traffic than eastwest legs. Segerstrom High School and Greenville Fundamental School occupy the west corners of the intersection. Single family residential is on both east side corners. Not counting turn lanes, there are six west-east vehicle lanes. Collision rates are low with no fatalities or severe injuries during the study period. Raised medians are provided on the busiest westbound and eastbound legs of the intersection on MacArthur Boulevard and the southbound leg on Raitt Street. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on MacArthur Boulevard. No bicycle facilities are provided. Figure 6-18 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 1,480,500 $ 1,801,255
$ 40,000 $ 48,666
$ 1,521,000 $ 1,850,000
$ 200,000 $ 250,000
$ 270,000 $ 330,000
$ 40,000 $ 5 0,000
CM
$ 290,000 $ 360,000
$ 800,000 $ 990,000
$ 2,330,000 $ 2,840,000
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
MacArthur Blvd/Raitt St
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
DESIGN
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 0
Bicycle Vehicle
City Council 32 – 137 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
133
S Raitt St Jaguar Way
MacArthur Blvd
Add hardened centerline
in front of median
Add yellow reflective border on
signal heads on all four approaches
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly
signal timing, such as LPIs, if possible.
Add bike-friendly bus stop
based on roadway and bikeway
configurations. See section
6.1.9 for available typologies.
Add NACTO-style green
bike lane markings Add separated bikeway
Add
crossbikes
Add raised Type C curb
on yellow divider line
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb extensions
with directional wheelchair ramps
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add separated bikeway
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0"
January 2024
MacArthur Blvd and Raitt St/Jaguar Way
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping High Visibility School
Crosswalk Bike Sharrow Marking
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in
concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in Figure 6-18: MacArthur Boulevard and Raitt Street Recommendations the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated
bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form
of ‘continuous sidewalks’ or rubber humps. See
details page for more information.
City Council 32 – 138 6/4/2024
134
18. Dyer Road and Flower Street
Intersection Project
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Dyer Road/Segerstrom Avenue and Flower Street is a busy intersection, in the southeast quarter of the City. Land uses include Saddleback High School at the southwest corner, industrial and a railroad line on both east corners. Single family residential occupies the northwest corner of the intersection. Four vehicle lanes, not counting turn lanes, are on all legs of the intersection. Collision rates are moderately high around the intersection, but there were no fatalities or severe injuries during the study period. However, due to roadway characteristics, the safe systems approach calls for improvements. Raised center median exists on the westbound and eastbound lanes on Segerstrom/Dyer. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided on the westbound and eastbound legs.
However a multi-use path runs north-south on the east side of Flower Street for bicyclists. Figure 6-19 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 0
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 1,260,345 $ 1 ,533,402
$ 40,000 $ 48,666
$ 1,301,000 $ 1,583,000
$ 170,000 $ 210,000
$ 230,000 $ 280,000
$ 30,000 $ 40,000
CM
$ 250,000 $ 310,000
$ 680,000 $ 840,000
$ 1,990,000 $ 2,430,000
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Dyer Rd/Flower St
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
DESIGN
PA/ED (12.5%)
City Council 32 – 139 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
135
Add yellow reflective border on
signal heads on all four approaches
Segerstrom Ave
Flower St
Dyer Rd
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add hardened
centerline in
front of median
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb extensions
with directional wheelchair ramps
Add
crossbikes
Add raised Type C curb on
yellow divider line
Include bicycle/pedestrian
friendly signal timing, such
as LPIs, if possible.
Existing two-way multi-use path
Add separated
bikeway
Add separated
bikeway
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0"
January 2024
Flower St and Dyer Rd/Segerstrom Ave
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
High Visibility School Road Striping Crosswalk Bike Sharrow Marking DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in
concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in Figure 6-19: Dyer Road and Flower Street Recommendations the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated
bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form
of ‘continuous sidewalks’ or rubber humps. See
details page for more information.
City Council 32 – 140 6/4/2024
136
19. Flower Street and Alton Avenue
Intersection Project
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Flower Street and Alton Avenue is a moderately busy intersection at the southeast quarter of the City with single family residential at both west side corners. MacArthur Fundamental Intermediate School is on the southeast corner and a church is on the northeast corner. Not counting turn lanes, there are four north-south vehicle lanes, but only two west-east through lanes. Moderate traffic volumes has resulted in relatively low collision rates with no fatalities or severe injuries during the study period. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided on the vehicle travel lane. However, there is a multi-use path running north-south along Flower Street and the channelized storm drain that starts north of the intersection. Figure 6-20 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 0
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 1,295,910 $ 1,576,673
$ 40,000 $ 48,666
$ 1 ,336,000 $ 1,626,000
$ 170,000 $ 210,000
$ 240,000 $ 300,000
$ 30,000 $ 40,000
CM
$ 260,000 $ 320,000
$ 700,000 $ 870,000
$ 2,040,000 $ 2,500,000
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Flower St/Alton Ave
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
DESIGN
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
City Council 32 – 141 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
137
Alton Ave
Flower St
Add yellow reflective border on signal
heads on all four approaches
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add hardened
centerline in front
of median
Add curb refuge islands with truck
aprons at corners or curb extensions
with directional wheelchair ramps
Add crossbikes
Add raised Type C curb
on yellow divider line
Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly signal
timing, such as LPIs, if possible.
Existing two-way
multi-use path
Add separated
bikeway
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0"
January 2024
Flower St and Alton Ave
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
Road Striping High Visibility School
Crosswalk Bike Sharrow Marking
DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in
concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in Figure 6-20: Flower Street and Alton Avenue Recommendations the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated
bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form
of ‘continuous sidewalks’ or rubber humps. See
details page for more information.
City Council 32 – 142 6/4/2024
138
20. Segerstrom Avenue and Bear Street
Intersection Project
Existing Conditions and Recommendations
Segerstrom Avenue and Bear Street is a three-way intersection in the southwest quarter of the City with Carl Thornton Park and McFadden Institute of Technology occupying the north side of the intersection and no through road. Both south side corners have single family residential uses. Bear Street extends south from the intersection with three through lanes; not counting turn lanes. Westbound and eastbound lanes total four without counting turn lanes. Raised medians are provided on all three legs of the intersection. Traffic levels are relatively low along with lower collision rates without fatalities or severe injuries during the study period. No bicycle facilities are provided on the vehicle travel lanes. However, there is a multi-use path running north-south along Bear Street and extending north of the intersection into Carl Thornton Park. Figure 6-21 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route.
See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates.
Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021
0 Pedestrian
0 0
Bicycle Vehicle
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)**
$ 1,102,185 $ 1,340,977
$ 40,000 $ 48,666
$ 1,143,000 $ 1,390,000
$ 150,000 $ 190,000
$ 210,000 $ 260,000
$ 30,000 $ 40,000
CM
$ 220,000 $ 2 70,000
$ 6 10,000 $ 760,000
$ 1,760,000 $ 2,150,000
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Segerstrom Ave/Bear St
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (12.5%)
DESIGN
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
City Council 32 – 143 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
139
Bear St
Segerstrom Ave
Include bicycle/pedestrian
friendly signal timing, such
as LPIs, if possible.
Add hardened
centerline in
front of median
Add
crossbikes
Add high visibility continental
crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft
behind crosswalk
Add curb refuge islands with
truck aprons or curb
extensions with directional
wheelchair ramps
Add yellow reflective border on
signal heads on all four approaches
Add separated
bikeway
KTU+A
3916 Normal St
San Diego, CA 92103 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan
Conceptual Site Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0"
January 2024
Segerstrom Ave and Bear St
Multi-use Path
Bike Lane Marking
Bike Crossing
Markings High Visibility
Crosswalk
Lane divider and/or
c-curb divider
High Visibility School Road Striping Crosswalk Bike Sharrow Marking DISCLAIMER NOTE: All
improvements shown in
concept plans are subject
to further evaluation.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in Figure 6-21: Segerstrom Avenue and Bear Street Recommendations the form of 'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information.
Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated
bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form
of ‘continuous sidewalks’ or rubber humps. See
details page for more information.
City Council 32 – 144 6/4/2024
140
6.5 Typical Design Details
Bike-Friendly Bus Stop Configurations
Typology #1: Shared Facility (Standard Bus Stop)
This shows the most common type of bike facility at a bus stop, where buses and people biking share space at a bus stop. It is where a Class II bicycle facility exists between the curb and a general traffic lane, or in some cases there is just a shared lane marking (“Sharrow”) on the roadway. The shared bus-bike area is illustrated with green dashed conflict striping instead of solid green markings. The bus will encroach into the shared zone to board and alight passengers. Some places, like in Montreal, Canada, there are two sets of sharrows, allowing bicyclists to either continue straight through the conflict zone or go left around a stopped bus. This is typically used when there is limited right of way available and if the preferred treatment is a bike lane or a shared lane.
Typology #2: Constrained Facility
Where either a Class II bicycle lane or a Class IV separated bikeway exists, and there is not sufficient space to include a floating bus island (FBI). It is a constrained bus stop adjacent to a bike lane or separated bike lane where the bike lane is elevated to sidewalk height at the FBI.
The bike lane is crossed by people walking to access the bus, and it does not have parallel parking on the street. The raised area reduces conflict with vehicle traffic, and there is a bicycle ramp to elevate bicyclists to sidewalk height. This typology provides a designated pedestrian crossing zone and bicycle yield area across the bicycle facility to reduce conflict with passengers boarding and alighting. This is typically used when there is limited right of way available and the preferred treatment is a separated bike lane.
Typology #3: FBI with Bike Lane and Parking
This typology has some similarities with Typologies #1 and #2, with the key difference being that it has a FBI and there is parking on-street adjacent to the curb with a tapered bike lane between the parking and the general purpose lane. The bike lane jogs behind the floating Typology #1: Shared Facility (Standard Bus Stop)
Typology #2: Constrained Facility
Typology #3: Floating Bus Island with Bike Lane and Parking City Council 32 – 145 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
141
bus stop and then jogs again at the on-street parallel parking. This is typically used when there is a Class II bike lane instead of a Class IV separated bikeway.
Typology#4: FBI with Buffered Bike Lane, without Parking With similar conditions to Typology #3, the key difference is that it has a buffered bike lane and there is no on-street parking in this typology.
As in the previous typology, the bike lane jogs behind the FBI. This is typically used when there is plenty of right of way available and the preferred treatment is a buffered bike lane.
Typology #5: FBI with One-way Cycle Track
Similar to Typology #3, the key difference for this typology is that it’s designed for a Class IV separated bikeway rather than a Class II bike lane. It also has on-street parking that provides a physical separation to the bicycle facility. The separated bike lane runs straight behind the FBI. This is considered the “best practice typology” for when conditions are ideal. The FBI can be permanent, typically made out of concrete, or it can be temporary, typically made out of plastic, which is popular in Oakland, California, and several other cities.
Typology #6: FBI with Bike Lane and Parking
With the same conditions as Typology #5, Typology #6 also has a Class IV elevated separated bikeway that exists between the curb and the FBI. It also runs straight and there is parallel on-street parking that provides a physical separation to the bike facility. The main difference is that Typology #6 is for a two-way separated bike lane while Typology #5 is for a one-way separated bike lane. Two-way separated bike lanes have some benefits over one-way separated bike lanes, such as increased comfort and lower space requirements, but one-way separated bike lanes are more common. Two-way separated bike lanes include only about a third of the separated bike lanes in the United States.
Typology #4: Floating Bus Island with Buffered Bike Lane, without Parking Typology #5: Floating Bus Island with One-way Cycle Track Typology #6: Floating Bus Island with Bike Lane and Parking City Council 32 – 146 6/4/2024
142
Continuous Sidewalks, Source: Congress for New Urbanism New Zealand-style Driveway Humps used on Highway 101 in Encinitas, CA K71 Bollards
Typology #7: Bus Island Bike Bypass
This typology has more similarities with Typologies #1 & #2 than with the other typologies. It is for constrained environments where there is still sufficient space on the sidewalk to have a sidewalk-level bikeway next to ADA-accessible sidewalk space. This typology does not have a floating bus island and there is no on-street parking next to the bikeway. Instead, the bus island is connected to the sidewalk and the bikeway ramps up from street level to sidewalk level and then around the bus island before ramping back down to street level. The bikeway is typically either Class II or Class IV or in rare cases it consists of shared lane markings. This removes the stress of the bicyclist interacting with a bus stopped at the bus stop. Moreover, it also minimizes the interaction between people walking and people biking because, in theory, people waiting for the bus will already be on the street-side of the bicycle facility.
Engineering Treatment Details
Engineering details and photos are shown of continuous sidewalks, New Zealand rubber humps at driveways, K71 bollards, fanned curb ramps, dual curb ramps, and type C curbs.
Typology #7: Bus Island Bike Bypass
City Council 32 – 147 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
143
Dual Curb Ramp, Source: PROWAG
Type C-Curb, Cross-Sectional View, Source: City of Bellevue, WA Type C-Curb, Plan View, Source: City of Bellevue, WA
Type C-Curb used in the City of Bellevue, WA
Source: Google Maps
City Council 32 – 148 6/4/2024
144
6.6 Program Recommendations
Traditionally, Vision Zero is based on data-driven decision making, supplemented with the first three E’s of safety: Engineering, Education, and Enforcement. These E’s were developed around 1925 by the National Safety Council and came long before the concept of Vision Zero. The field of transportation planning is slowly expanding the E’s and including a Safe Systems1 approach. Rather than focusing on unachievable
levels of perfection, this approach offers a human-centered approach that proactively reduces crash risk and severity of collisions. It reprioritizes the E’s with an equitable, forgiving lens. The following sections display descriptions for the three E’s, paired with proactive steps to further the discourse with equity as a focal point.
Engineering
Vision zero uses engineering to reduce the likelihood of fatal or serious collisions through proactive roadway designs. Proactive designs study the roadway characteristics of high collision corridors and intersections, recommend treatments, and apply those treatments to similar corridors and intersections as a preventative measure before they result in an injury hot spot.
For example, designing self-enforcing roads and offering safe, equitable options for travel by foot, bicycle, and transit and managing speeds for safety will help reduce risk of crashes and lessen the need for enforcement.
Engineering Examples:
• Roundabouts
• Road buffets/road diets
• Curb space management and edge friction
• Traffic calming
• Daylighting intersections
1 Shahum, Leah. “It’s Time to Evolve Beyond the Es Approach to Traffic Safety. Vision Zero Network,” Vision Zero Network, January 20, 2022, https:// visionzeronetwork.org/its-time-to-evolve-beyond-the-es-approach-to-trafficsafety/ Education
It is important for roadway users to be aware of and follow roadway rules for everyone’s safety and comfort. Education-based programming can be held for ages and abilities, and held in schools, senior centers, or even community events. Human beings are vulnerable, and everyone plays a role in preventing serious injuries and deaths. Education can be empowered through various levels of government, non-profit and advocacy groups, academia, and the general public. The most effective education is aimed at motorists.
Education Examples:
• Safety assemblies
• DUI awareness campaigns
• Demonstration projects
• Bike safety and maintenance workshops
• Share the Road campaign
• Safety campaign from social media to newspapers
• Driver training programming
Enforcement E
It is important that roadway users must behave in a manner that is safe and respectful to everyone else to prevent serious collisions. Historically, transportation planning has over-emphasized enforcement, leading to discriminatory traffic stops. It is also important to factor in that the presence of police officers can make some communities uncomfortable. Enforcement is most effective when paired with equity and education.
For example, prioritizing warnings and education before issuing tickets and fines can help encourage residents to appreciate road rules. In Santa Ana, over a third of pedestrian collisions occur when the pedestrian is crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection. An example of a proactive measure would be to implement lead pedestrian intervals or no-turn blank out signs.
City Council 32 – 149 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS
145
Enforcement Examples:
• Issue warnings and education before tickets and fines • Enforcement of motorists in collision hot spots
• Speed enforcement campaign
• Red light traffic enforcements
• Encourage people to report pedestrian and bicycle crashes City Council 32 – 150 6/4/2024
7 Appendices
City Council 32 – 151 6/4/2024
Photo Location: Main Street City Council 32 – 152 6/4/2024 Appendix A
Los Angeles Department of City Planning
Mobility Plan 2035
An Element of the General Plan
Approved by City Planning Commission: June 23, 2016
City Plan Case No. CPC-2013-0910-GPA-SPCA-MSC
Adopted by City Council: September 7, 2016
Council File No. 15-0719-S15
Appendix A. Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035
City Council 32 – 153 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
C.1 Bicycle Ambassador Program. Develop a Bicycle Ambassador program to attend public events including health fairs and communitiy bike rodeos to broaden awareness of bicycling and provide safety information.
DOT, bicycle nonprofits 3.5, 2.6,
4.4,
Communication
C.2 Bike to Work Week. Expand the regional efforts of Bike-to-Work Week by providing City sponsored events and pit stops in every council district and supporting bicycling to school for students. Provide information, support services and incentives for bicyclists to bicycle to work and school. Distribute materials and post information on Bicycle Program Websites.
Mayor, Council Offices, LAUSD, DOT,
SCAG, Metro
5.1, 2.6, 1.3 Communication
C.3 Bus Arrival Information. Work with Metro, municipal transit providers, and local businesses and organizations to provide bus arrival information near station and stop areas.
Metro, DOT, Mayor’s Office, BSS, Council
Offices
4.2, 4.11 Communication
C.4 Car Free Days. Coordinate a Car-Free Day on a regular basis each month. Provide information and incentives for drivers to leave the car behind for a day. Work with Metro and City Council offices to provide incentives and disseminate materials to event participants.
DOT, DPW, Council Offices, Mayor, SCAG,
Metro
5.2, 4.8 Communication
C.5 Citywide Active Transportation Map. Provide and distribute physical and electronic copies of the City’s existing bikeway facilities, neighborhood greenways and safe routes to school along with information about public bicycle parking facilities and mobility hub facilities.
DOT Systems, Planning, DOT Bikeways,
Metro, Council Offices
4.14 Communication
C.6 Citywide Bicycle Transportation Website. Continue to maintain the BicycleLA.org website to provide bicyclists with current information about safety, future improvements, events, network maps, route information and suggestions, maintenance and other relevant information.
DOT 4.14, 1.6 Communication
C.7 Multi-Modal Access Campaign. Develop a Multi-Modal Access Campaign, in collaboration with Metro, SCAG and other transportation providers, to highlight the availability (all day, every day) of multiple transportation options (transit, vanpool, car share, bikeshare, bicycling, walking, etc.) across the region.
Metro, SCAG, DOT, BBB, Culver City Bus,
Metrolink, Foothill Transit, Orange Transit,
Gardena Transit
3.5, 4.11 Communication
C.8 Neighborhood Network and Business District Maps. Work with local Business Improvement Districts, Neighborhood Councils, Homeowner Associations and Chambers of Commerce to develop, fund, and distribute physical and electronic maps of localized portions of the existing bikeways, neighborhood network streets, and bicycling supportive businesses.
DOT, Council Offices 4.14 Communication
C.9 Poster Campaigns. Promote awareness of the various networks, streetscape, and green or “great street” improvements through the installation of posters and/or banners. Installation could be either temporary or permanent and could be used to inform the community about the Networks as well as focus on a variety of topics including safe driving practices and/or bicycling encouragement.
DOT, Mayor’s Office, Council Offices 4.14 Communication C.10 Roadway Safety Campaigns. Conduct outreach citywide to advance vision zero goal. DOT, LAPD, Caltrans, OHS, LAUSD, LASPD, Council Offices
1.2 Communication
C.11 Timely Information. Provide timely information on current roadway work, including scheduled maintenance, work in progress and completed projects. Use temporary signage, social media, and web banners to warn users and provide detour strategies for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Promote the State-wide 511 Real Time Travel Information System.
DOT, BOE, BSS, Council 4.2, 1.6,
4.14 Communication
LADCP 150
Chapter 5
City Council 32 – 154 6/4/2024
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
C.12 Wayfinding. Develop and install a comprehensive way-finding program throughout the City to provide information about transportation routes, schedules, bikeways urban trails, and area amenities including schools, parks, cultural and retail activities.
DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office, BSS, Council
Offices
4.14 Communication
C.13 CSTAN. In collaboration with Metro support efforts to promote goods movement traffic to the CSTAN and identify funding to maintain corridors.
DOT 4.14 Communication
D.1 Analysis of Existing Paths. Identify and map paved paths within City parks suitable for bicycling. Emphasize opportunities for gap closures in the active transportation network.
RAP, Council Offices 2.6 Data & Analysis
D.2 Annual Counts of Bicyclists and Pedestrians (Active Transportation). Initiate a long term strategy to count the number and type (by sex, age, disability, income and geography) of bicyclists and pedestrians traveling for all trips on the Networks and other City streets each year . Identify a specific date and locations for the annual count. The number of locations that are included each year should increase as funding increases. Utilize the locations, date, and time of the count conducted by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coaliton (LACBC) in 2009 as the baseline; implement a methodology that is consistent with SCAG and Metro/UCLA Luskin Center.
DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office of Technology,
LAPD, Council Offices
4.11, 3.1,
1.4, 2.3,
2.6, 2.15
Data & Analysis
D.3 Semi-Annual Survey. Conduct in-person and on-line interviews annually about active transportation implementation. In particular, identify on-going concerns and listen to suggested improvements. Collect data on problem areas (not just where collisions have occurred but where “near-misses” frequently occur) and identify solutions.
DOT, DCP, Council Offices 4.11, 4.10 Data & Analysis
D.4 Collision Monitoring and Analysis. Annually identify locations with high levels of auto, pedestrian, and bicycle collisions and develop and implement strategies to improve the safety of these areas and reduce overall collision rates. Analyze bicycle crash data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and other sources to evaluate the impacts of prior improvements. Use collision data to produce hot zone maps (GIS maps that reflect crash data citywide) and to conduct case studies of potential improvments to reduce collisions. Coordinate engineering and enforcement reporting systems to avoid duplication and/or overlooked emergency room data; with support and data from LAPD, LAFD and LAUSD.
DCP, DOT, LAPD, LAFD, Council Offices 1.1, 4.11 Data & Analysis D.5 Data Collection Protocols. Establish before and afer data collection protocols for all projects. DOT, DCP 4.6, 4.7 Data & Analysis D.6 Goods Movement Information. Compile goods movement data from the Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airport and regional goods movement providers to monitor and assess economic fluctuations.
Port, LAWA 4.12, 4.6 Data & Analysis
D.7 Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracking Program. Quantify total reduction in GHG from vehicle miles traveled reductions. Include data in the Citywide Climate Action Plan and the Climate Action Registry. Maintain a database of completed infrastructure projects; track and apply offset credits (resulting from GHG and VMT reductions) towards the city’s compliance with SB 375, AB 32 and the region’s Sustainable Community Strategy.
Mayor’s Office on Environment and
Sustainability, DCP, Council, SCAQMD
5.1, 5.4,
4.11 Data & Analysis
151Mobility Plan 2035
City Council 32 – 155 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
D.8 Mountain Trail Spillover and Conflict Resolution Analysis. Conduct a spillover analysis to determine the extent to which mountain biking use spills over onto trails where biking is prohibited. Examine other jurisdictions to understand how they accommodate mountain biking and how they have managed conflicts.
RAP, DPW, Council Offices 1.9 Data & Analysis
D.9 Off-Road and Park Trail Bicycle Database. Develop a database and create maps of mountain and park bicycling trails within and adjacent to the City of Los Angeles.
RAP, DCP, DOT, LAPD, Council Offices 1.9 Data & Analysis D.10 Revised Traffic Analysis Methodology. Establish a revised Traffic Analysis Methodology (TAM) that takes into consideration a project’s location, design and density, based on CEQA revisions, OPR guidelines, and other state/regional authorities DOT, DCP 5.3 Data & Analysis
D.11 Unimproved/Off-Road Database. Inventory all unimproved roads and determine their suitability for mountain biking and off-road facilities.
RAP, DCP, DOT, LAFD, Council Offices 1.9 Data & Analysis D.12 Strategic Capital Planning Group. Establish an inter-departmental Group to determine , using data and prioritization criteria,a list of priority projects and match to funding sources.
CAO, DCP. BPE. BSS. BSL, BOE, Council
Offices
4.6, 4.11,
4.7, 2.15
Data & Analysis
ED.1 Bicycle Parking Training. Develop a Bicycle Parking Requirement Training Presentation and Handbook and post on the Bicycle website. Provide training sessions to the Departments of Building and Safety, Planning, Engineering, and all other public counter staff on the LAMC bicycle parking requirements.
DBS, DOT, DCP 2.6, 3.8 Education
ED.2 Design Workshops. Host/participate in workshops on active transportation facility design. DOT, DCP, Council Offices 1.4, 2.2,
4.4, 4.10
Education
ED.3 Goods Movement Awareness. Develop and implement strategies to increase coordination of issues relating to goods movement and increase awareness of economic role of goods movement.
POLA 1.8, 2.8,
4.12, 2.10
Education
ED.4 LAPD Officer Training. Train officers on the rights and responsibilities of all roadway users and improve their ability to evaluate conflicts and collisions between different modal users.
LAPD 1.2 Education
ED.5 Rail Crossing Safety. Work with local and regional passenger and freight services to educate all users about safe at-grade crossing practices.
DOT, Mayor’s Office, Council Offices 1.5 Education
ED.6 Roadway Safety Education. Educate law enforcement, heavy duty bus and truck operators, taxis, motorists, all City employees, and roadway users on the rights of, and need for safe motoring skills, around non-motorized active transportation uses. Develop educational/ promotional materials to inform roadway users about the benefits of active transportation facilities.
DOT, POLA, LAUSD, GSD, LAPD, Council
Offices
1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Education
ED.7. Roadway Safety Public Service Announcements. Continue to produce a series of Roadway Safety Public Service Announcements (PSA’s) for distribution on television, radio, and outdoor signage.
DOT, LAPD, ITA 1.1, 1.2, 1.5 Education
ENF.1 Commercial Loading Zones. Target enforcement efforts against parking by vehicles not in the act of loading/unloading in Commercial Loading Zones.
DOT 2.10 Enforcement
LADCP 152
Chapter 5
City Council 32 – 156 6/4/2024
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
ENF.2 Enforcement Stings. Target enforcement efforts against unsafe behavior by roadway users, especially in school and commercial loading zones. Publicize the stings to encourage healthy interaction among all roadway users.
LAPD, Council Offices 1.1 Enforcement
ENF.3 Local Truck Use. Target enforcement efforts against truck use on local streets where cutthrough traffic has been expressly forbidden. DOT, LAPD, Council Offices 1.8 Enforcement ENF.4 Speed Limit Enforcement. Execute speed limit enforcement checks 48 hours prior to calculating prevailing speeds in Engineering and Traffic Surveys used for adjusting speed limits.
LAPD, DOT 1.4 Enforcement
ENF.5 Truck Inspection Areas. Develop a Truck Inspection Program in coordination with Highway Patrol and Port of Los Angeles.
DOT, POLA, LAPD 2.8, 4.12 Enforcement
ENF.6 Enforcement Program. Utilize LAPD and LADOT Traffic Officers to identify bicycle lane parking violations and issue citations.
LAPD, DOT, DPW 1.1 Enforcement
ENG.1 ATSAC. Continue to implement and update as needed the City’s signal management program (ATSAC) to monitor and manage the traffic flows.
DOT 4.11, 4.2 Engineering
ENG.2 Bicycle-Sensitive Detectors. Continue to install bicycle sensitive detectors at all actuated signal controlled intersections, including pavement markings for bicyclists.
DOT 2.6, 1.2 Engineering
ENG.3 Transit Enhanced Network. Collaborate with transit providers to implement the TEN, an approximately 300 mile network ofroadway improvements to provide a frequent and reliable bus system that interfaces and supports the fixed-transit lines.
DOT, DCP, Metro, Mayor’s Office, Council
Offices
2.5 Engineering
ENG.4 Bridge Design Program. Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities when designing new or retrofitting bridges. Particular attention to bridge underpasses that cross existing or future bicycle/walking paths to ensure design integration.
DOT, BOE 2.12 Engineering
ENG.5 Caltrans Design. Work with Caltrans to develop and implement design improvements to freeway entrances and exit ramps to transition motorists from freeways speeds to an urban environment that includes vulnerable roadway users.
DOT, Caltrans 1.1, 1.4, 2.2 Engineering
ENG.6 Bicycle Enhanced Network. Create and maintain an interconnected bicycle network of 150 miles of bicycle paths and 300 miles of protected bicycle lanes to provide a regional lowstress bicycle system.
DOT, DCP, Council Offices 1.4, 2.6,
4.14 Engineering
ENG.7 Flexible Installation Standards. Use engineering judgement and the approval of the City transportation engineer or designee, in lieu of warrants, to install facilities that will improve safety and comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians.
DOT, City Attorney, Caltrans, BOE, BSS,
BSL
1.4, 2.1, 2.2 Engineering
ENG.8 Grade Crossing Elimination. Work with Southern California Regional Railroad Association (Metrolink) as well as with freight rail operators to eliminate rail/ street at-grade crossings on regional passenger rail and freight lines.
BOE, Port of LA, DOT, FRA, FTA, FHWA,
CPUC, Metro, Expo Authority, City
Attorney, Railroad Owners and Operators.
1.5 Engineering
153Mobility Plan 2035
City Council 32 – 157 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
ENG.9 Green Alleys Program. Continue the Green Alleys program to introduce low-impact development stormwater features and improve the overall quality and safety of neighborhood alleys.
BOS, DOT, LASAN, Council Offices 5.5, 2.3,
1.2, 1.7
Engineering
ENG.10 Industrial Street Infrastructure. Provide adequate street infrastructure in established industrial areas; revise geometric design standards for intersections in/around industrial areas with high truck volumes.
DOT, DCP, BOE 1.7, 1.8, 2.8 Engineering
ENG.11 Manual of Policies and Procedures. Update LADOT Manual of Policies and Procedures to incorporate innovative engineering standards and traffic control devices (for all modes of transportation) included in the City’s Complete Street Design Guide. Regularly update both manuals as new standards and devices are adopted by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee in the MUTCD and/or the CA Highway Esign Manual and/or Federal Highway Administration.
BOE, DOT, DCP, LASAN 2.2, 1.4, 1.2 Engineering
ENG.12 Complete Street Design Guide (CSDG). Utilize the CSDG to guide decisions about specific complete street enhancements and potential cross-section designs of streets on the BEN, Bicycle Lane, TEN, PED, and VEN networks.
DCP, BOE, DOT, LASAN, LAPD, LAFD 2.2 Engineering
ENG.13. Neighborhood Traffic Calming and Slow Zones. Establish a procactive neighborhood traffic management program and institute “slow zones” in targeted areas. Support and advocate for 20 new zones.
DOT, DCP, CLA, LAPD, Council Offices 1.4, 2.4,
3.1, 3.2
Engineering
ENG.14 Neighborhood Enhanced Network. Implement the NEN, an approximately 800 mile system of collector and local streets designed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle activity. A subset of this network has been priortized to fill gaps in the protected bicycle lane system defined by the Bicycle Enhanced Network.
DOT, DCP, LASAN, Council Offices 2.4, 3.1, 3.2 Engineering ENG.15 Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN). Implement the VEN, an 80 mile roadway system of existing city streets that have been prioritized for vehicular movement due to their ability to improve vehicular access to the regional freeway system.
DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS, Council Offices 2.7 Engineering
ENG.16 Los Angeles River. Implement Greenway 2020 (a locally led effort to complete the bicycle path along the entire 32 mile stretch of the Los Angeles River by 2020.) and Los Angeles River Greenway Trail to provide a multi-generational trail and provide active transportation options to disadvantaged communities.
RiverWorks Team and local non-profit
partners, Council Offices
2.3, 2.4,
2.6, 3.1
Engineering
ENG.17 Bicycle Lane Network. Implement and maintain an interconnected 700 mile bicycle lane system 300 of which are intended to be upgraded to protected bicycle lanes. See above BEN.
DOT, DCP, Council Offices 1.4, 2.6,
4.14 Engineering
ENG.18 Pedestrian Enhanced Districts. Implement pedestrian improvements on targeted intersections and arterial street segments based on a set of criteria.
DOT, DCP, LASAN, Council Offices 2.3, 3.1, 3.2 Engineering LADCP 154
Chapter 5
City Council 32 – 158 6/4/2024
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
ENG.19 First Mile/Last Mile Transit Connectivity Program. Install pedestrian and bicycle connectivity improvements at every major Metro transit station by providing enhanced sidewalk amenities such as landscaping, shading, lighting, directional signage, shelters, curb extensions and midblock crosswalks where feasible, ADA rampos, lead pedestrian interval signal phases, secure bike parking, etc.
DOT, Council Offices 3.5 Engineering
F.1 Commercial Vehicle Related Revenue: Dedicate revenues generated by commercial vehicle fees to roadway-related purposes
DOT 1.7, 4.6 Funding
F.2 Congestion and Cordon Pricing. Evaluate potential revenues and performance improvements in congestion relief from the implementation of congestion or cordon pricing. Identify the boundaries of, and access points in and out of cordon pricing districts on which to implement congestion pricing.
DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office, CLA, SCAG,
Council Offices
4.6, 4.8 Funding
F.3 Coordinated Grant Application. Establish a coordinated effort to apply for and administer federal, state, and local transportation grants to provide additional funding to support transportation and streetscape efforts.
Mayor’s Office, Council Offices, LADOT,
DCP, Public Works
1.2, 4.6,
4.11 Funding
F.4 Funding Reports. Identify the total amount of funding needed to design, construct and maintain transportation related priority projects on an on-going basis. Identify existing sources of funds and evaluate funding gaps.
CAO, DOT, BOE, BSS, BOS 1.7, 4.6 Funding
F.5 Maintenance Options. Establish procedures and protocols to facilitate partnerships with community groups and the private sector to provide maintenance of street investments; encourage the utilization of assessment districts by local non-profits or businesses to fund and maintain specific infrastructure improvements
DOT, BOE, BSS, LASAN Council Offices 4.10, 4.6 Funding
F.6 Priority Grading System (PGS). Pursue funding for projects based upon the criteria established by the PGS as defined by the Strategic Capital Planning Group.
DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS, BSL, LASAN 1.7, 4.6 Funding
F.7 State Highway Control. Identify funding, and initiate process with Caltrans to transfer oversight of, and improve State Highways within the City limits including Lincoln, Santa Monica, Venice and Topanga Canyon Boulevards.
Mayor’s Office, DOT, DCP Council Offices 2.13, 4.6, Funding F.8 State Highway Funding. Coordinate with Caltrans, other local, regional, state and federal agencies, and the private sector to identify and implement funding alternatives for the City’s transportation network including the State highway system.
Mayor’s Office, DOT, DCP Council Offices 2.13, 4.11,
4.6 Funding
F.9 Active Transportation Funding. Update Mobility Plan every five years to stay competitive for state funding of active transportation grants.
DCP, DOT 1.2, 2.15,
4.6 Funding
L.1 Advocacy for Funding Multi-Modal Infrastructure Projects. Aggressively advocate for continued and expanded Federal, State, Regional, and Local funding for multi-modal transportation programs and infrastructure projects in transportation legislation. Ensure representation of issues with City’s lobbyists in Sacramento and Washington DC.
Mayor’s Office, City Council, CLA 1.2, 3.5, 4.6 Legislation 155Mobility Plan 2035
City Council 32 – 159 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
L.2 Legislation Monitoring. Continually monitor and develop state and federal legislation to support or oppose legislation that could impact plan/project implementation.
DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office, CLA 4.11, 4.6 Legislation
L.3 Posted Speed Limit Reductions. Develop and advocate for state legislation to support reducing posted traffic speeds. Revised methodology should account for all roadway users (including pedestrians and bicyclists), adjacent land uses, and street user demand.
Mayor’s Office, CLA 1.4, 1.2, 3.2 Legislation
L.4 Resetting Speed Limits. Evaluate the effectiveness of the State’s speed limit requirements on street safety and performance.
DOT, City Attorney 1.4 Legislation
L.5 Tailpipe Emission Legislation. Support legislation to reduce tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks.
Mayor’s Office, CLA, SCAQMD 5.3, 5.4 Legislation
L.6 Vehicular Travel Safety Training. Work with the Los Angeles County Superior Court to develop a program that offers training on driving behavior around other users of the roadway to motorists receiving citations and/or involved in collisions with non-auto modes.
DOT, City Attorney, Council Offices 1.1 Legislation
L.7 Local Street Speed Limit. Advocate for and support for a 20 mph speed limit on all local streets within California.
DOT, City Attorney 1.4 Legislation
MT.1 Bicycle Path Maintenance Program. Regulary inspect and maintain Class I bicycle paths. DOT, BOE, Council Offices 1.7 Maintenance MT.2 Crosswalk Maintenance. Implement a crosswalk upgrade and maintenance program to ensure all crosswalks are kept to City standards. See Street Design Manual.
DOT, Council Offices 3.2, 1.7 Maintenance
MT.3 Mandeville Canyon Park. Maintain off-road bicycle trails in Mandeville Canyon. RAP 1.9 Maintenance MT.4 Notification System. Develop a coordinated interdepartmental maintenance and response program for the City’s network of roads and bikeways; continue to utilize DPW service request forms and the 311 System for the public to directly inform the City.
Mayor’s Office, BSS, BOE, Council Offices 4.1, 4.2 Maintenance MT.5 Pavement Preservation Program. Annually fund a baseline pavement preservation program that provides for major rehabilitation (resurface and reconstruction) and preventive maintenance (crack and slurry seal). Make annual schedule public and easily accessible on the BSS website. Prioritize bikeways and other areas of high need. BSS to Coordinate nonemergency resurfacing with other departments one year in advance.
BSS, Council Offices 1.7, 4.6 Maintenance
MT.6 Sidewalk Cleaning. Work with local businesses and community organizations to maintain sidewalks, along arterials, free of debris
Mayor’s Office, BSS, Council Offices 1.7, 4.10 Maintenance MT.7 Sidewalk Repair. Implement a sidewalk improvement program to bring up all existing degraded sidewalk sections to City standards and implement a program to ensure that future degraded sidewalk sections are promptly identified and repaired in a timely manner.
BSS, Council Offices 1.7 Maintenance
MT.8 Street Services Budget Allocation Formula. Continue to utilize the Bureau of Street Services’ Budget Allocation Formula that allows for the equalization of pavement conditions citywide.
BSS 1.7 Maintenance
LADCP 156
Chapter 5
City Council 32 – 160 6/4/2024
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
MT.9 Street Trees. Implement a tree trimming cycle for all street trees within the public ROW. Use Priority Grading System to prioritize streets.
BSS 1.7, 2.3 Maintenance
MG.1 Five Year Mobility Plan Implementation Report. Develop and submit a report every five years detailing accomplishments of prior five years and prepare a proposed work plan for the next five year cycle.
DCP, DOT, BOE, BSS, BSL, BOS, Council
Offices
4.7 Management
MG.2 Green Streets Committee. Continue the Green Streets Committee to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of existing green street features and to continue to identify funding and location options in which to upgrade with green street features.
DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS, LASAN 5.5, 4.6, 4.7 Management
MG.3 Off-Peak Deliveries. Identify and Implement incentives to encourage off-peak hour delivery operations.
DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office 2.10 Management
MG.4 Regional Cooperation. Work cooperatively with adjoining jurisdictions and agencies to coordinate transportation related planing and implementation activities to ensure regional connectivity.
DOT, DCP, Metro, Mayor’s Office, SCAG 3.7, 4.11 Management MG.5 State Highway Management. Collaborate with Caltrans on any modifications to the State highway system necessary to accommodate new development or on any modifications to City’s transportation network.
DOT, DCP, Caltrans, Council Offices 2.13 Management
MG.6 State Highway Management continued. Cooperate with Caltrans to identify State highway deficiencies and associated improvement plans, to be used in the City’s long range planning and individual project review.
DOT, DCP, Caltrans, Council Offices 2.13, 4.11 Management MG.7 Transportation Management Organizations. Continue to work with businesses and future development projects to establish geographically and/or industry based Transportation Management Organizations throughout the City for the purposes of implementing a coordinated transportation demand management program.
DCP, DOT , Council Offices 4.9 Management
MG.8 Non-Ownership Models for Vehicle Mobility. Support existing and future innovations that support access to vehicle mobility without the cost and responsibility of ownership.
DOT, Metro, BIDS, Chambers of
Commerce, Departments of Aging and
Disability, User Groups, Council Offices
4.1, 4.2,
4.10, 5.2,
5.4 Management
O.1 City Fleet. Convert the City’s, including proprietary departments, fleets into alternative fuel, very- low and zero-emission vehicles.
GSD, LAWA, POLA, DPW 5.3, 5.4 Operations
O.2 City Work-related Trips. Instruct departments to establish protocols to facilitate the use of transit for short trips (< 5 miles during work hours when the employee does not need to transport materials). Facilitate non-vehicular alternatives to City employees for work-related trips.
Mayor’s Office, GSD, Council Offices 4.8, 4.9 Operations O.3 Construction Zone Standards. Implement and expand upon standard procedures as defined in the MUTCD to ensure safe bicycle and pedestrian travel through construction zones and detours.
DOT, BSS, BOE, DWP, POLA, Utilities,
Council Offices
1.6 Operations
157Mobility Plan 2035
City Council 32 – 161 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
O.4 Feeder Network/Transit Circulator (DASH System and Commuter Express). Coordinate local bus transit services so as to provide neighborhoods with local feeder buses where the roadway system permits.
DOT 3.4 Operations
O.5 Flyaway Shuttle. Continue the Flyaway Shuttle service from Westwood, Van Nuys, Expo, La Brea and Union Station locations, and evaluate other regional locations, such as San Pedro, for expanded service.
LAWA 3.4, 3.6, 3.7 Operations
O.6 Operational Efficiencies. Establish and strengthen public/private partnerships (with the goods movement industry) to coordinate and improve operational efficiencies for the movement of goods. Work could include the implementation of incentives to encourage off-peak and extended hour Port operations, an appointment system, the consideration of short-haul intermodal rail operations, and the establishment of an Advanced Transportation Management and Information System (ATMIS) which would include changeable message signs and video surveillance.
DOT, POLA, Mayor’s Office, Council
Offices
2.8, 4.10 Operations
O.7 Region-Wide Traffic Control Center. Link all of the traffic control centers in region on a 24 hour basis.
Mayor’s Office, ITA, DOT, Metro, Caltrans. 4.1, 4.2 Operations O.8 Shuttle Bus. Work with special event providers, employers and community-based organizations to identify and implement shuttle bus programs to serve as a first-mile, last-mile solution between transit stations and special events and/or specific populations. Continue programs like Cityride, to provide transportation assistance for senior citizens and individuals with disabilities.
DOT, Mayor’s Office, DOA, Council Offices 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 Operations O.9 Signal Timing. Identify opportunities to re-time street signals to provide safer speeds, improve safety for all, and create smoother traffic throughput. Identify opportunities to re-time street signals to allow longer crossing times for bicyclists and pedestrians in large intersections.
DOT, Council Offices 1.4, 2.3,
2.5, 2.6
Operations
O.10 Transit Coordination. Actively collaborate with regional transit partners to achieve seamless transfers between systems, including scheduling, ticketing, shared fare systems, and stops and loading areas.
DOT, IT, and other transit providers,
Mayor’s Office
3.4, 4.11 Operations
O.11 Transit/Event Coordination. Facilitate collaboration between regional transit partners and event providers to provide and promote awareness of additional and timely transit service before and after large events.
DOT, Council Offices 4.2, 3.4 Operations
O.12 Improve the Flow of Freight Traffic. Identify and implement strateigies to facilitate the flow of freight traffic.
DOT, Council Offices 2.8 Operations
O.13 Truck Inspections and Service Patrol. Identify locations for temporary and long-term truck inspection stations and Implement a Truck Service Patrol Program to remove disabled commercial trucks from freeway lanes.
DCP 2.8 Operations
O.14 Improve the Flow of Passenger Traffic. Identify and implement strategies to provide reliable travel times during peak hours and during special events.
DCP, DOT, Council Offices 2.5, 3.4 Operations
LADCP 158
Chapter 5
City Council 32 – 162 6/4/2024
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
O.15 Zero Emission Truck Collaborative (ZETC). Promote consistency among public agencies in working to catalyze the development and deployment of zero emission trucks in the region.
POLA, Metro, AQMD, POLB, Caltrans,
SCAG and Gateway Cities COG.
5.4, 5.1 Operations
PK.1 Creative Parking Solutions. Work with communities, businesses, and organizations to identify and implement creative strategies to resolve parking conflicts in areas with high-parking demand.
DCP, DOT, Council Offices 4.13, 4.10 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.2 Curb Parking Conversion. Standardize processes to facilitate the conversion of curb parking spaces for other uses such as parklets, plazas, bike corrals and docking stations for bicycle sharing, especially in high volume areas of pedestrians and bicyclists.
DOT, BOE, DCP, LASAN, Council Offices 2.1, 3.8,
3.11 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.3 Individualized Parking Requirements. Permit businesses to identify their respective parking demand and establish criteria whereby projects can reduce on-site parking through the inclusion of a package of transportation demand management strategies.
DCP, DOT 4.8, , 4.9 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.4 LA Express Park. Continue LA Express Park system using reak-time technology to increase awareness of the availability of parking spaces.
DOT, BIDS, Chambers of Commerce,
Council Offices
4.13 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.5 Meter Pricing. Establish demand based meter pricing to maximize efficient use of on-street meters.
DOT 4.13 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.6 Neighborhood Parking Districts. Explore modifying some Neighborhood Parking Districts to permit the utilization of residential streets for metered commercial parking and direct revenue to specific neighborhood improvements.
DOT, DCP, City Attorney, Council Offices 4.13 Parking/ Loading Zones
PK.7 Off-Street Loading. In non-industrial areas, require off-street dock and/or loading facilities for all new non-residential buildings and for existing non-residential buildings and undergoing extensive renovations and/or expansion, whenever practical.
DCP 2.10 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.8 On-Street Loading. Encourage the designation of on-street loading areas, through removal of curb parking, in established industrial areas where off-street loading facilities are lacking.
Update the Commercial Loading Zone Ordinance (see B-2, page 6, 2-14 of Mayor’s Task Force-Mar 2004)
DOT, DCP, City Attorney, Council Offices 2.10 Parking/ Loading Zones
PK.9 Pedestrian Design Features in Parking Areas. Update zoning code to require the inclusion of pedestrian design features into all parking lots and provide safe, clear paths of travel from parking lots and/or structures to the associated buildings and/or uses. Ensure that all features are ADA compliant.
DCP 2.3, 3.1 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.10 Pedestrian Improvement Incentives. Establish an incentive program to encourage projects to retrofit parking lots, structures and driveways to include pedestrian design features.
DCP 2.3, 3.1,
4.13,
Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.11 Reduced Size Parking. Develop parking, design, and replacement parking standards for reduced size vehicles (e.g. sub-compact cars, scooters, motorcycles, bike corrals) in residential and non-residential developments as well as public parking facilities and public rights-of-way.
DCP 4.13 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.12 Shared Off-Street Parking. Facilitate the shared utilization of privately owned off-street parking facilities.
DOT, City Attorney, BIDS, DCP, Council
Offices
4.13 Parking/ Loading
Zones
159Mobility Plan 2035
City Council 32 – 163 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
PK.13 Transit Area Parking Reductions. Reduce parking requirements for developments that locate near transit (e.g. within a half-mile of a transit stop)or a major bus stop and provide facilities to enable pedestrian, bicycle and disabled access. Parking requirement reductions are being reviewed as a potential component of the Central City and Central City North Community Plans.
DCP 4.13 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.14 Unbundled Parking Options. Evaluate potential for the unbundling of parking from rental or purchase options for all new multi-family development.
DCP 4.13 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.15. Accessible Parking in Residential Areas. Update policies and guidelines for accessible parking in residential areas.
DOT, DCP, City Attorney, Council Offices 3.2, 3.3,
4.13 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PK.16. Park and Ride. Expand the park and ride network. Dot, Caltrans, Metro 3.4, 3.5,
4.13 Parking/ Loading
Zones
PL.1 Driveway Access. Require driveway access to buildings from non-arterial streets or alleys (where feasible) in order to minimize interference with pedestrian access and vehicular movement.
DCP 3.9, 4.3 Planning & Land
Use
PL.2 Local Access. Explore opportunities to incorporate community assets (food, retail) in locations immediately adjacent to residential areas to promote local walking and biking trips and reduce VMT.
DCP, Council Offices 3.3, 1.2,
5.2 Planning & Land
Use
PL.3 Mixed-Use. Encourage mixed-use residential, employment and commercial serving uses where appropriate to facilitate increased utilization of walking, bicycling, and transit use.
DCP, Council Offices 3.3, 1.2, 5.1 Planning & Land
Use
PL.4 Network Additions. Identify bicycle, neighborhood, and transit enhanced streets and pedestrian enhanced areas in Community Plan updates to provide local complements to the Citywide Transit Neighborhood, and Bicycle Enhanced Networks, and Pedestrian Enhanced Destinations and increase access to area amenities including medical, schools, parks, major employment centers, and community facilities through continuous, predictable and safe sidewalks, intersections, bikeways, and transit support facilities.
DOT, DCP, Council Offices 3.3, 2.3,
2.4, 2.5,
2.6, 1.2
Planning & Land
Use
PL.5 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan for that enhances mobility and accessibility for pedestrians.
DOT, Mayor 3.1, 2.3 Planning & Land
Use
PL.6 Regional Transportation Plan. Coordinate with Metro and SCAG on the development of the Regional Transportation Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the Long Range Transportation Plan.
DCP, DOT,LASAN, Metro, SCAG 4.11 Planning & Land
Use
PL.7 Transit Coordination. Continue to work with Metro and various Construction Authorities on station location, portal siting, station access, support features and parking strategies that maximize ridership and transit revenue.
DCP, DOT, Metro, other bus providers 4.11, 3.7 Planning & Land Use
PL.8 Transit Neighborhood Plans. Adopt and implement Transit Neighborhood Plans that enhance access to transit stations and set new zoning regulations to effectuate appropriate mixes and scales of uses as well as site design.
DCP 3.3 Planning & Land
Use
LADCP 160
Chapter 5
City Council 32 – 164 6/4/2024
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
PL.9 Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Revision (TDM). Update the TDM ordinance (LA Municipal Code 12.26.J) to expand the number and type of projects required to incorporate TDM strategies and expand the number and variety of available TDM strategies.
Include bicycle parking and other bicycle use incentives as a TDM measure to mitigate traffic/ vehicle trips for purposes of CEQA compliance for commercial, residential and mixed-use development projects. Continue to require eligibile projects to provide work-trip reduction plans and parking cash-out programs in compliances with ACMD’s Regulation XV.
DCP, DOT 4.8 Planning & Land
Use
PL.10 Truck Staging Facilities. Identify locations within the City where regional truck staging and service facilities are permitted and address solutions to illegal freight staging practices.
DOT, DCP, Council Offices 1.8, 2.10 Planning & Land
Use
PL.11 Union Station Master Plan. Continue to work with Metro to complete the Union Station Master Plan and implement Connect US. Connect US is a strategy to improve active transportation options to and from Union Station.
DCP, DOT, Mayor’s Office, Council Offices 3.6 Planning & Land Use
PL.12 Greenways to Rivers Arterial Stormwater System (GRASS). Establish a stormwater greewnay planning network and an intergrative planning tool for Los Angeles’ One Water Plan.
DCP, DOT, Mayor’s Office, Council Offices 5.1, 5.5 Planning & Land Use
PL.13 Special Street/Alley Treatments. Explore the use of special materials used within public right of ways.
DCP, DOT, DPW 2.1, 2.2 Planning & Land
Use
PL.14 Community Engagement - Conduct extensive community engagement, develop detailed operational studies and design options and undertake additional environmental analysis for the following network segments within the Council District Four boundaries before implementing any street modifications: Melrose Avenue between Highland and Western Avenues; Lankershim between 134 Freeway and Cahuenga Boulevard, 4th Street between Highland and Western and segments of the BEN and/or TEN within the boundaries of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council. The Council office and community stakeholders would play a critical role in finalizing any plans or projects for these corridors. Alternative parallel corridors, in lieu of the ones identified here, may be considered as potential network substitutes during this process.
DCP, DOT, Community Stakeholders,
Council Office
4.4 Planning & Land
Use
PS.1 Plazas/Paseos. Identify temporary and/or permanent opportunities to establish car free zones and/or plazas/paseos/play streets in select locations around the City. Play streets provide an opportunity to open public spaces to families and residents in park-poor communities without fear of conflicts with motor vehicles.
DCP, DOT, Council Offices 3.11 Public Space
PS.2 Great Streets. Continue to support the Mayor’s Great Streets Initiative by creating a comprehensive matrix of project elements and associated costs, outlining an implementation timeline, tracking project impacts, evaluating funding strategy, and strategizing the coordination of city services to Great Streets.
DOT, BOE, BSS, LASAN, RAP, DCP, DCA,
DPW, BSL, EDD, Council Offices
2.15, 3.11 Public Space
PS.3 Pedestrian Loops. Explore the development of a connected network of walking passageways utilizing both public and private spaces, local streets and alleyways to facilitate circulation.
DOT, BOE, BSS, RAP, DCP, DPW, Council
Offices
3.9, 3.10,
3.11 Public Space
161Mobility Plan 2035
City Council 32 – 165 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
PS.4 People Street. Continue the People Street program for community partners to repurpose underused portions of streets (below the curb) using cost effective materials into temporary plazas, parklets, bike parking, and other public spaces.
DOT, BOE, LASAN, BOS, RAP, Council
Offices
4.10, 3.11 Public Space
PS.5 Recreational Rides. Organize and lead local and citywide recreational rides ranging from 5-30 miles. Prioritize routes that include the Green, Bicycle Enhanced or Neighborhood Networks.
RAP, LAPD, Mayor’s Office, Council
Offices, DOT, BOE, Bicycle non-profits
2.6 Public Space
PS.6 Open Streets. Establish procedures and protocols to support and expand non-profit efforts to coordinate and plan frequent and predictable events.
Mayor’s Office, Council Offices, RAP, DOT,
DPW, LAPD, LAFD
3.11 Public Space
S.1 Active Transportation Education. Coordinate with LAUSD to incorporate mobility education (for children ages 4-18) into regular physical education curriculum.
DOT, LAUSD, Council Offices 1.3, 1.2 Schools
S.2 Bike, Walk, and Roll Weeks. Support Metro’s Bike, Walk, and Roll Week by providing City sponsored events and pit stops in every council district and supporting bicycling to school for students. Provide information, support services and incentives for bicyclists to bicycle to work and school. Distribute materials, post information, and evaluate the progress of the program.
DOT, LAPD, Council, Mayor, LAUSD,
Metro, SCAG
1.3, 1.4,
3.1, 4.10,
5.1, 5.2
Schools
S.3 Safe Routes to School. Continue to work/partner with LAUSD, (with support from PTAs and traffic officers) to develop an education program, develop and implement a safe routes to school program and maps and a Comprehensive SRTS Strategic Plan to calm traffic in communities surrounding all elementary, middle and high schools to maximize pedestrian and bicycle convenience and safety. Refer to the Citywide Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan DOT, DPW, LASAN, support from LAPD,
and LAUSD, Council Offices
1.3 Schools
S.4 School Locations. Work with LAUSD and other school providers to site new schools in appropriate locations that can be easily accessed and integrated into the surrounding community.
DCP, LAUSD, Council Offices 1.3, 3.3 Schools
SF.1 Artist Designed Bicycle Parking Standards. Support and develop creative bicycle parking solutions in the public rights-of-way and adopt as city standard guidelines.
DOT, BOE 3.8, 3.11 Support Features
SF.2 Bicycle Parking at Existing Major Destinations. Work with special event facilities’ managers to provide convenient, secure, good quality and well-lit bicycle parking facilities at special event venues such as Dodger Stadium, the Staples Center/LA Convention Center, and the LA Memorial Coliseum/Sports Arena.
DOT, Council Offices 3.8 Support Features
SF.3 Bicycle Path Landscaping. Incorporate drought tolerant and low maintainence plant materials along bicycle paths.
DOT, DPW, MRCA, Council Offices 2.6,5.5 Support Features SF.4 Bicycle Path Lighting. Adopt and install standard lighting designs for bicycle paths and grade separated bikeways.
DOT, BSL, Council Offices 2.6 Support Features
SF.5 Bicycle Path Mile Markers. Continue to install and retrofit mile markers along bike paths; work with LAPD and LAFD to facilitate emergency response on paths.
DOT, LAPD, LAFD, BOE 2.6 Support Features
SF.6 Bicycle Racks on Taxis. Investigate the integration of bicycles with taxi service by adding bicycle racks on to all of the taxi cabs that are permitted through DOT.
DOT 3.5, 3.8 Support Features
LADCP 162
Chapter 5
City Council 32 – 166 6/4/2024
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
SF.7 Bicycle Sharing Network. Work with Metro and other area jurisdictions to launch a Bicycle Share Program. Identify a strategy to enable city staff to access the bicycle share system as a “fleet” option for work related tasks.
Metro, DOT, DCP, Council Offices, Office
of the Mayor
2.6, 4.11 Support Features
SF.8 Bicycle Valet. Work with special event providers, employers and community-based organizations to provide bicycle valet services at large public and private special events.
DOT, bicycle non-profits, Council Offices 3.8 Support Features SF.9 Bus Bike Racks (on/off-board). Work with transit providers to provide solutions for additional bike storage, such as bike rack systems to accommodate at least three bicycles on-board the bus, or permitting bicyclists to board with their bicycles at the rear of the bus.
DOT Transit, Metro, regional transit
providers
3.8, 3.5,
4.11 Support Features
SF.10 Essential Transit Components. Include short-term and long-term bicycle parking and wayfinding as essential components of all stations.Metro, DOT 3.8 Support Features SF.11 Increase Publicly Available Bicycle Parking. Review all City-owned, operated, and leased facilities for compliance with the City’s bicycle parking standards. Increase bicycle parking to meet LAMC requirements where deficiencies are present.Continue to implement bicycle parking and corrals at major destinations, especially where demand is already high. Encourage the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), local four-year universities, and the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) to install quality bicycle parking at public schools within the City of Los Angeles.
All 3.8, 1.3,
2.6 Support Features
SF.12 LED Street Lighting. Continue to retrofit existing street lighting infrastructure with energyefficient LEDs.BSL 1.7, 2.3, 3.2 Support Features SF.13 Mobility Hubs/Multi-Modal Transit Plaza. Facilitate the implementation of multi-modal transportation support activities and services in proximity to transit stations and major bus stops, including but not limited to: adequate bus stop and layover space, transit shelters with real-time bus arrival information, bike share docking stations, car share facilities, taxi-waiting/ call areas, Wi-Fi service, public showers/toilets, bicycle storage and repair facilities, and food and beverage providers.Develop a coordinated permitting proceess for the installation of the support features identified above.
DOT/Metro, Council Offices, DCP, Office
of the Mayor, DPW
3.5, 4.1, 4.2 Support Features
SF.14 Off-Street Alternative Energy Charging. Continue to support off-street alternative energy charging and fueling stations within privately and city-owned parking and/or fueling facilities.
DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office, DWP 5.3, 5.4 Support Features SF.15 On-Board Storage. Work with transit providers to provide an on-board location for the storage of shopping bags and/or luggage.
Metro, DOT 3.4, 4.11 Support Features
SF.16 On-Street Bicycle Corrals.Develop bicycle parking corrals in on-street parking spaces as a public-private partnership. Continue implemention of a pilot program and evaluate the feasibility and criteria for widespread use.
DOT, BSS, BOE, Council Offices 3.8, 3.11 Support Features SF.17 Operator Judgement of Bicycles on Buses. Work with Metro and local transit operators in the City of Los Angeles to allow operators to make decisions regarding allowing bicycles on buses when space on bus allows, racks are full, service is last of the day or in inclement weather DOT, City Council, Mayor’s Office, BAC,
Metro
3.5, 3.8,
4.11 Support Features
163Mobility Plan 2035
City Council 32 – 167 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix A
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
SF.18 Parking Meter Posts. Develop pilot project to install bicycle parking mechanism on parking meter posts.
DOT Parking 3.8 Support Features
SF.19 Sidewalk Bicycle Parking Program. Continue to install and maintain City-standard bicycle racks on sidewalks. Identify areas with demand for bicycle racks and implement an installation schedule. Prioritize the installation of racks on streets.
DOT, Council Offices 3.8 Support Features
SF.20 Street Furniture Definition. Include bicycle racks in the definition of street furniture to utilize streetscape funding opportunities
City Attorney, BSS 1.7, 2.2,
3.8, 2.15
Support Features
SF.21 Street Lighting. Support equitable distribution of funds for appropriate street and/or pedestrian lighting, especially in areas of high crime rate and high volume of pedestrian activities.
BSL, DCP, DOT, Council Offices 1.7, 2.3, 3.2 Support Features SF.22 Transit District Curbside Management. Manage curb areas adjacent to transit stops to facilitate the loading and unloading of buses, para transit, smart shuttles, van/car pools and taxi queuing. Include curb areas for bicycle parking and car share facilities where space warrants.
DCP, DPW, DOT, Metro & other transit
providers
3.5, 3.8,
3.2 Support Features
SF.23 Transit Furniture. Transit furniture shall be prioritized on corridors with the highest rates of public transit ridership; design features shall incorporate aesthetic, comfort, and protection from the elements (sun and rain) considerations. Target the equitable provision of transit furniture throughout the City. Evaluate and pursue all possible alternatives to increase transit furniture in underserved corridors.
DPW, Council Offices 1.7, 2.5,
4.3, 4.6
Support Features
SF.24 Transit Pass. Collaborate with Metro to encourage schools, employers, and residential developers to provide monthly or annual transit passes for their respective students, employees, and residents.
DOT, DCP, LAUSD, Metro 4.8, 4.9,
4.11 Support Features
SF.25 Trash Facilities. Increase the number of trashcans on sidewalks. Work with local business and community organizations to develop an adopt-a-trash can program.
DPW, BOS, Council Offices 1.7, 4.10 Support Features
SF.26 Tree Canopy. Continue to expand the City’s tree canopy using tree species that are appropriate for the location, climate, water supply, planting conditions and existing street infrastructure.
LASAN, BSS, BOE, DWP, Tree People,
Council Offices
1.7, 3.2,
2.3, 2.4,
3.1 Support Features
SF.27 Turnstile Design. Work with Metro and local transit agencies to ensure that all turnstiles can accommodate a bicycle.
DOT, City Council, Mayor’s Office, BAC 3.5, 4.11 Support Features SF.28 Bicycle Friendly Businesses. Continue to support Bicycle Friendly Business Program DOT, Council Offices 2.6 Support Features LADCP 164
Chapter 5
City Council 32 – 168 6/4/2024
Appendix B
Appendix B. Collision Severity per Road Segment
S M
AIN ST
S RAITT ST
S FAIRVIEW ST
E 4TH ST
E 17TH ST
N BRISTOL ST
E EDINGER AV
E DYER RD
E WARNER AV
S STANDARD AV
E MCFADDEN AV
S FLO
WER ST
S EUCLID ST
S NEWHOPE ST
S HARBOR BLVD
GREENVILLE ST
E BEVERLY PL
E SANTA CLARA AV
S BRO
ADWAY
S M
AIN ST
S FLO
WER ST
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
[
Quarter Mile Averaged Collision Ranking
Low Collision Rate and Injury Severity
Medium Low
Medium High
High Collision Rate and Injury Severity
Very High Collision Rate and Injury Severity
All Modes Injuries
D Fatal
( Severe Injury
!
Collision non-Fatal or Severe Injury
Santa Ana Boundary
City Council 32 – 169 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix B
Purpose
This map illustrates the Santa Ana road segments with moderately-high to high injuries involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. These corridors have the highest collision rates and injury severities collision rates and injury severities. This map can be used as a variety of purposes, such as determining high collision, high injury areas to prioritze improvements as well as where to reduce speed limits.
Methodology
The methodology for this analysis involved joining each collision to the nearest street segment to quantify the number of collisions and severity of injuries that have occurred at different locations along a road segment. Each injury was given a ‘score’ as noted in the list below. Each road segment’s score was then summed together for a total score per segment. The total score was divided by the length of the street segment to get a decimal number that can be used to rank each segment relative to all other street segments and identify highest to lowest relative ranking of collisions and injury severity. This final decimal number was multiplied by the feet in one quarter mile to get a larger whole number for facilitation. The final rank on road segments varied from a minimum ‘score’ of less than one per quarter mile to a maximum of 660 per quarter mile where multiple collisions with pedestrian or bike injuries have occured, often times at busy intersections. The ranks for each segment was then symbolized in GIS as quartile groups for this map. The highest ranking road segments are shown in thick purple lines and the lowest ranking are shown in thin light blue lines. A second overlay of collision points, circles and crossed lines show where the actual collisions have occurred.
Description Score
Pedestrian Fatalities or Severe Injuries 1.5
Bicycle Fatalities or Severe Injuries 1.5
All Other Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions 1.25
Vehile Collisions Resulting in Fatalities or Serious Injuries 1.25 All Other Vehicle Collisions 1.0
City Council 32 – 170 6/4/2024
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 1 of 2 Safe Streets and Roads for All
Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet
Lead Applicant: UEI:
Instructions: The purpose of this worksheet is to determine whether an applicant’s existing plan(s) is substantially similar to an Action Plan for purposes of applying for an Implementation Grant or to conduct Supplemental Planning/Demonstration Activities only. Use of this worksheet is required. Applicants should not adjust the formatting or headings of the worksheet.
For each question below, answer “yes” or “no.” If “yes,” cite the specific page in your existing Action Plan or other plan(s) that corroborate your response, or cite and provide other supporting documentation separately.
An applicant is eligible to apply for an Action Plan Grant that funds supplemental action plan activities, or an Implementation Grant, only if the following two conditions are met:
• Answer “yes” to Questions
• Answer “yes” to at least four of the six remaining Questions If both conditions are not met, an applicant is still eligible to apply for an Action Plan Grant that funds creation of a new Action Plan.
Are both of the following true?
• Did a high-ranking official and/or governing body in the jurisdiction publicly commit to an eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries?
• Did the commitment include either setting a target date to reach zero, OR setting one or more targets to achieve significant declines in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by a specific date? To develop the Action Plan, was a committee, task force, implementation group, or similar body established and charged with the plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring?
Does the Action Plan include all of the following?
• Analysis of existing conditions and historical trends to baseline the level of crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries across a jurisdiction, locality, Tribe, or region;
• Analysis of the location where there are crashes, the severity, as well as contributing factors and crash types;
• Analysis of systemic and specific safety needs is also performed, as needed (e.g., high risk road features, specific safety needs of relevant road users; and,
• A geospatial identification (geographic or locational data using maps) of higher risk locations.
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
If yes, provide documentation:
If yes, provide documentation:
If yes, provide documentation:
3 3
7 9
1 1
2 2
4 5 6 8
Still have questions? Visit the SS4A website
Applicants should follow the instructions in the NOFO to correctly apply for a grant. See the SS4A website for more information.
Safe Streets and Roads for All
Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet
SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet | Page 2 of 2 Did the Action Plan development include all of the following? • Considerations of equity using inclusive and representative processes; • The identification of underserved communities through data; and • Equity analysis, in collaboration with appropriate partners, focused on initial equity impact assessments of the proposed projects and strategies, and population characteristics.
Are both of the following true?
• The plan development included an assessment of current policies, plans, guidelines, and/or standards to identify opportunities to improve how processes prioritize safety; and
• The plan discusses implementation through the adoption of revised or new policies, guidelines, and/or standards.
Does the plan include all of the following?
• A description of how progress will be measured over time that includes, at a minimum, outcome data.
• The plan is posted publicly online.
Does the plan identify a comprehensive set of projects and strategies to address the safety problems in the Action Plan, time ranges when projects and strategies will be deployed, and explain project prioritization criteria?
Was the plan finalized and/or last updated between 2018 and June 2023?
YES NO
If yes, provide documentation:
If yes, provide documentation:
If yes, provide documentation:
If yes, provide documentation:
If yes, provide documentation:
If yes, provide documentation:
Did the Action Plan development include all of the following activities? • Engagement with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups;
• Incorporation of information received from the engagement and collaboration into the plan; and
• Coordination that included inter- and intra-governmental cooperation and collaboration, as appropriate.
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
7 9
4 5
6 8
Still have questions? Visit the SS4A website
Appendix C. SS4A worksheet
Appendix C
City Council 32 – 171 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D. Priority Projects Engineering Concept Development Summary
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Hina Chanchlani Project No.: 22-00136
Cc: Zed Kekula, Mauricio Castaneda
From: Paul Martin
Date: February 7th, 2024
RE: Santa Ana Vision Zero – Priority Projects Engineering Concept Development Summary Overview
In support of the update to the Santa Ana Vision Zero (SAVZ), formerly the Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) plan, Mark Thomas has developed planning level conceptual plans at the following five (5) top ranked SAVZ priority corridors:
• Main Street 1st Street to 17th Street
• Tustin Avenue 17th Street to Fairhaven Avenue
• Euclid Street Hazard Avenue to McFadden Avenue
• Greenville Street MacArthur Boulevard to Warner Avenue • First Street Fairview Street to Bristol Street
As scoped through guidance by SCAG and City staff, the concept plans evaluate one-mile of each corridor and incorporate active transportation design countermeasures recommended by the SAVZ plan and based on discussions with City staff. See Figure 1 for the Study Corridors Map.
The City of Santa Ana can leverage the SCAG-funded project to develop engineering concepts, cost estimates, and renderings to pursue future grant funding to advance each of the projects’ implementation.
Appendix D
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Hina Chanchlani Project No.: 22-00136
Cc: Zed Kekula, Mauricio Castaneda
From: Paul Martin
Date: February 7th, 2024
RE: Santa Ana Vision Zero – Priority Projects Engineering Concept Development Summary Overview
In support of the update to the Santa Ana Vision Zero (SAVZ), formerly the Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) plan, Mark Thomas has developed planning level conceptual plans at the following five (5) top ranked SAVZ priority corridors:
• Main Street 1st Street to 17th Street
• Tustin Avenue 17th Street to Fairhaven Avenue
• Euclid Street Hazard Avenue to McFadden Avenue
• Greenville Street MacArthur Boulevard to Warner Avenue • First Street Fairview Street to Bristol Street
As scoped through guidance by SCAG and City staff, the concept plans evaluate one-mile of each corridor and incorporate active transportation design countermeasures recommended by the SAVZ plan and based on discussions with City staff. See Figure 1 for the Study Corridors Map.
The City of Santa Ana can leverage the SCAG-funded project to develop engineering concepts, cost estimates, and renderings to pursue future grant funding to advance each of the projects’ implementation.
City Council 32 – 172 6/4/2024
Engineering Concepts
Engineering concepts have been developed for each of the five (5) study corridors (Attachment A). The concepts were developed based on multiple discussions with City staff and refined for consistency with the SAVZ and industry best practices.
Main Street
The Main Street concept implements the following improvements between 1st Street and 17th Street:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
• Directional pedestrian curb ramps
Euclid Street
The Euclid Street concept implements the following improvements between Hazard Avenue and McFadden Avenue:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Buffered Class II bicycle lanes
• Green conflict zone striping
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
• Directional pedestrian curb ramps
• Protected intersection features
• New Traffic Signal
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 173 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Tustin Avenue
The Tustin Avenue concept implements the following improvements between 17th Street and Fairhaven Avenue:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Buffered Class II bicycle lanes
• Green conflict zone striping
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
• Directional pedestrian curb ramps
• New traffic signal
• Floating bus island
• Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Greenville Street
The Greenville Street concept implements the following improvements between MacArthur Boulevard and Warner Avenue:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Class II bike lane
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
• Directional pedestrian curb ramps
• Protected intersection features
1st Street
The 1st Street concept implements the following improvements between Fairview Street and Bristol Street:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Class II bicycle lanes
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
Tustin Avenue
The Tustin Avenue concept implements the following improvements between 17th Street and Fairhaven Avenue:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Buffered Class II bicycle lanes
• Green conflict zone striping
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
• Directional pedestrian curb ramps
• New traffic signal
• Floating bus island
• Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Greenville Street
The Greenville Street concept implements the following improvements between MacArthur Boulevard and Warner Avenue:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Class II bike lane
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
• Directional pedestrian curb ramps
• Protected intersection features
1st Street
The 1st Street concept implements the following improvements between Fairview Street and Bristol Street:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Class II bicycle lanes
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
• Directional pedestrian curb ramps
Tustin Avenue
The Tustin Avenue concept implements the following improvements between 17th Street and Fairhaven Avenue:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Buffered Class II bicycle lanes
• Green conflict zone striping
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
• Directional pedestrian curb ramps
• New traffic signal
• Floating bus island
• Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Greenville Street
The Greenville Street concept implements the following improvements between MacArthur Boulevard and Warner Avenue:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Class II bike lane
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
• Directional pedestrian curb ramps
• Protected intersection features
1st Street
The 1st Street concept implements the following improvements between Fairview Street and Bristol Street:
• High-visibility crosswalk striping
• Stop lines
• Class II bicycle lanes
• Crossbike striping
• Raised center medians
• Directional pedestrian curb ramps
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 174 6/4/2024
Appendix D
Engineering Cost Estimates
Grant-ready engineering cost estimates have been developed for each of the five (5) study corridors (Attachment B). The cost estimates incorporate the most recently available Active Transportation Program (ATP) cost estimate template to position the City for future ATP grant pursuits.
Project Renderings
A conceptual project rendering has been prepared for each of the five (5) study corridors and are included in Attachment C.
Funding Opportunities
The project concepts, cost estimates, and renderings can be used by the City to seek implementation funding through various local, state, and federal grant programs listed below .
Table 1 provides additional program details, including anticipated submittal period, eligible phases and costs, match requirements, and key selection criteria.
Local Funding Opportunities
• Complete Streets Program (CSP) – Funds local agency projects in Orange County that contribute to the creation of a complete transportation network for all modes, improve transportation access, improve safety and health, and incorporate community input.
State Funding Opportunities
• Active Transportation Program (ATP) – Funds projects that increase use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and bicycling.
• Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) – Funds local communities to beautify and improve local streets and roads, tribal lands, parks, pathways, and transit centers. • Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) – Fund projects that achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. • Local Partnership Program (LPP) – Funds projects that align with the state’s climate and equity goals.
• Reconnecting Communities: Highways to Boulevards (RC:H2B) – Funds the conversion of key underutilized highways into multi-modal corridors to reconnect communities divided by transportation infrastructure.
• Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) – Funds projects that achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to Engineering Cost Estimates
Grant-ready engineering cost estimates have been developed for each of the five (5) study corridors (Attachment B). The cost estimates incorporate the most recently available Active Transportation Program (ATP) cost estimate template to position the City for future ATP grant pursuits.
Project Renderings
A conceptual project rendering has been prepared for each of the five (5) study corridors and are included in Attachment C.
Funding Opportunities
The project concepts, cost estimates, and renderings can be used by the City to seek implementation funding through various local, state, and federal grant programs listed below .
Table 1 provides additional program details, including anticipated submittal period, eligible phases and costs, match requirements, and key selection criteria.
Local Funding Opportunities
• Complete Streets Program (CSP) – Funds local agency projects in Orange County that contribute to the creation of a complete transportation network for all modes, improve transportation access, improve safety and health, and incorporate community input.
State Funding Opportunities
• Active Transportation Program (ATP) – Funds projects that increase use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and bicycling.
• Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) – Funds local communities to beautify and improve local streets and roads, tribal lands, parks, pathways, and transit centers. • Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) – Fund projects that achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. • Local Partnership Program (LPP) – Funds projects that align with the state’s climate and equity goals.
• Reconnecting Communities: Highways to Boulevards (RC:H2B) – Funds the conversion of key underutilized highways into multi-modal corridors to reconnect communities divided by transportation infrastructure.
• Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) – Funds projects that achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion throughout the state.
City Council 32 – 175 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
• Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants (STP) – Funds projects that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, develop climate adaptation plans, and address statewide, interregional, or regional transportation deficiencies on the highway system.
Federal Funding Opportunities
• Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) – Funds projects that help communities build transportation projects that have significant local or regional impact and improve safety and equity.
• Rural Surface Transportation Grant (RSTG) – Funds projects that increase connectivity, improve the safety and reliability of the movement of people and freight, and generate regional economic growth and improve quality of life.
• Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMRT) – Funds demonstration projects focused on advanced smart community technologies and systems to improve transportation efficiency and safety. • Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) – Funds initiatives to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.
• Areas of Persistent Poverty (AOPP) – Funds increased transit access for environmental justice populations, equity-focused community outreach and public engagement of underserved communities and adoption of equity-focused policies, reducing GHG, and addressing the effects of climate change.
Please contact me with any questions – Paul.
Table 1- Local, State, and Federal Funding Programs
Funding
Program
Submittal
Period
Eligible Phases
/Costs
Match
Requirement
Selection
Criteria
Local Funding Sources
Complete Streets
Program
• October
deadline
• Planning
• Capital
12% match Complete streets, DAC1,
community input, air quality
improvements
State Funding Sources
statewide, interregional, or regional transportation deficiencies on the highway system.
Federal Funding Opportunities
• Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) – Funds projects that help communities build transportation projects that have significant local or regional impact and improve safety and equity.
• Rural Surface Transportation Grant (RSTG) – Funds projects that increase connectivity, improve the safety and reliability of the movement of people and freight, and generate regional economic growth and improve quality of life.
• Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMRT) – Funds demonstration projects focused on advanced smart community technologies and systems to improve transportation efficiency and safety. • Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) – Funds initiatives to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.
• Areas of Persistent Poverty (AOPP) – Funds increased transit access for environmental justice populations, equity-focused community outreach and public engagement of underserved communities and adoption of equity-focused policies, reducing GHG, and addressing the effects of climate change.
Please contact me with any questions – Paul.
Table 1- Local, State, and Federal Funding Programs
Funding
Program
Submittal
Period
Eligible Phases
/Costs
Match
Requirement
Selection
Criteria
Local Funding Sources
Complete Streets
Program
• October
deadline
• Planning
• Capital
12% match Complete streets, DAC1,
community input, air quality
improvements
State Funding Sources
City Council 1 Disadvantaged Communities 32 – 176 6/4/2024 Appendix D
Funding
Program
Submittal
Period
Eligible Phases
/Costs
Match
Requirement
Selection
Criteria
Active
Transportation
Program
• Call for
projects in
even years
• Summer
deadline
• PA&ED2
• PS&E3
• ROW4
• CON5
No match
requirement
DAC, safety, public
participation in planning,
transformative projects,
evaluation, and sustainability
Clean California
Local Grant Program
• April
deadline
• PA&ED
• PS&E
• ROW
• CON
0%-50% of project
cost based on
severity of
disadvantaged
Partially or fully located in
underserved community AND
at least 75% of the population
surrounding the project site
must be underserved
Local Highway
Safety Improvement
Program
• Call for
projects in
even years
• September
deadline
• PE
• ROW
• CON
Reimbursement
ratio depends on
the project’s
countermeasures
with maximums of
100%, 90%, or 50%
Benefit-Cost Ratio, funding
set-asides
Local Partnership
Program
• Call for
projects in
even years
• November
deadline
• CON 1:1 match Accessibility, air quality and
GHG, community engagement,
safety, transportation, land
use, and housing goals, VMT6
Reconnecting
Communities:
Highways to
Boulevards
• Late
summer/
early fall
deadline
• PA&ED
• PS&E
• ROW
• CON
No match
requirement
DAC, mobility and community
connectivity, community
partnerships
Solutions for
Congested Corridors
Program
• Call for
projects in
even years
• December
deadline
• CON No match
requirement
Safety, congestion,
accessibility
Economic development, job
creation, and retention, air
pollution and GHG reductions,
efficient land use
2 Project Approval & Environmental Document
Program even years
• Summer
deadline
• RO
• CO
Clean California
Local Grant Program
• April
deadline
• PA&
• PS&
• RO
• CO
Local Highway
Safety Improvement
Program
• Call for
projects in
even years
• September
deadline
• PE
• RO
• CO
Local Partnership
Program
• Call for
projects in
even years
• November
deadline
• CO
Reconnecting
Communities:
Highways to
Boulevards
• Late
summer/
early fall
deadline
• PA&
• PS&
• RO
• CO
Solutions for
Congested Corridors
Program
• Call for
projects in
even years
• December
deadline
• CO
2 Project Approval & Environmental Document
3 Plans, Specifications, And Estimates
4 Right-of-Way
5 Construction
6 Vehicle Miles Traveled
City Council 32 – 177 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
Funding
Program
Submittal
Period
Eligible Phases
/Costs
Match
Requirement
Selection
Criteria
Sustainable
Transportation
Planning Grants
• Annual call
for projects
• March
deadline
• Studies or Plans 11.47%-20% local
match
GHG7 reduction, DAC,
housing, land use and
transportation planning
Federal Funding Sources
Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with
Sustainability and
Equity
• Annual call
for projects
• February
deadline
• Planning
• Capital
Federal cost share
may not exceed
80%
Safety, environmental
sustainability,
quality of life, mobility and
community connectivity,
economic competitiveness,
partnership, innovation
Rural Surface
Transportation Grant
• May
deadline
• PA&ED
• PS&E
• ROW
• CON
Federal cost share
may not exceed
80%
Regional economic, mobility,
or safety benefits
Strengthening
Mobility and
Revolutionizing
Transportation
• November
deadline
• PA&ED
• PS&E
• ROW
• CON
No match
requirement
Safety and reliability,
resiliency, equity and access,
climate, partnerships,
integration
Safe Streets and
Roads for All
• September
deadline
• Planning
• Implementation
20% local match DAC, Safety
Areas of Persistent
Poverty
• March
deadline
• Planning
• Engineering
• Development
of technical or
financial plans
Minimum federal
share is 90% of
total project cost
DAC
6 OF 37
W
N5
transformative projects,
evaluation, and sustainability
&ED
&E
W
N
0%-50% of project
cost based on
severity of
disadvantaged
Partially or fully located in
underserved community AND
at least 75% of the population
surrounding the project site
must be underserved
W
N
Reimbursement
ratio depends on
the project’s
countermeasures
with maximums of
100%, 90%, or 50%
Benefit-Cost Ratio, funding
set-asides
N 1:1 match Accessibility, air quality and
GHG, community engagement,
safety, transportation, land
use, and housing goals, VMT6
&ED
&E
W
N
No match
requirement
DAC, mobility and community
connectivity, community
partnerships
N No match
requirement
Safety, congestion,
accessibility
Economic development, job
creation, and retention, air
pollution and GHG reductions,
efficient land use
7 OF 37
Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with
Sustainability and
Equity
• Annual call
for projects
• February
deadline
• Planning
• Capital
Federal cost share
may not exceed
80%
Safety, environmental
sustainability,
quality of life, mobility and
community connectivity,
economic competitiveness,
partnership, innovation
Rural Surface
Transportation Grant
• May
deadline
• PA&ED
• PS&E
• ROW
• CON
Federal cost share
may not exceed
80%
Regional economic, mobility,
or safety benefits
Strengthening
Mobility and
Revolutionizing
Transportation
• November
deadline
• PA&ED
• PS&E
• ROW
• CON
No match
requirement
Safety and reliability,
resiliency, equity and access,
climate, partnerships,
integration
Safe Streets and
Roads for All
• September
deadline
• Planning
• Implementation
20% local match DAC, Safety
Areas of Persistent
Poverty
• March
deadline
• Planning
• Engineering
• Development
of technical or
financial plans
Minimum federal
share is 90% of
total project cost
DAC
7 Greenhouse Gas
City Council 32 – 178 6/4/2024
Appendix D
Attachment A – Engineering Concepts
City Council 32 – 179 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 180 6/4/2024
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 181 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 182 6/4/2024
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 183 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 184 6/4/2024
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 185 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 186 6/4/2024
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 187 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 188 6/4/2024
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 189 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 190 6/4/2024
Appendix D
City Council 32 – 191 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
Attachment B – Cost Estimates
City Council 32 – 192 6/4/2024
Appendix D
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)*
$ 7,210,000 $ 8,770,000
$ 300,000 $ 370,000
$ 7,510,000 $ 9,140,000
$ 940,000 $ 1,150,000
$ 1 ,320,000 $ 1 ,610,000
$ 160,000 $ 200,000
CM
$ 1,430,000 $ 1,740,000
$ 3,850,000 $ 4,700,000
$ 11,400,000 $ 13,850,000
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Tustin Ave (17th St to Fairhaven Ave)
(Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Median Islands, Bike Lanes, Bike Crossings, Curb Extensions, Directional Curb Ramps, Sidewalk Extensions and Bus Stop improvements)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COST
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
DESIGN
PA/ED (12.5%)
City Council 32 – 193 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 34 $ 8,000 $272,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 222 $ 1,230 $273,060 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 109 $ 1,040 $113,360 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 156 $ 850 $132,600
5 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 12 $ 850 $10,200
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 109 $ 890 $97,010 7 Roadway Excavation CY 5045 $ 110 $554,950
8 Remove Concrete CY 429 $ 340 $145,860
9 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 557 $ 140 $77,980
10 Base Repair (HMA)**** TON 1910 $ 140 $267,400
11 Slurry TON 470 $ 600 $282,000
12 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 2068 $ 130 $268,840
13 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 113,600 $113,600
14 Centerline Hardening EA 8 $ 5,000 $40,000
15 Landscape SF 23243 $ 8 $185,944
16 New Signal EA 2 $600,000 $1,200,000
17 Signal Modifications EA 2 $250,000 $500,000
18 RRFB System EA 1 $45,000 $45,000
$4,579,804
19 Minor Items (10% of Items 1-18) * LS 1 $458,000 $458,000 $5,037,804
20 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $504,000 $504,000 $5,541,804
$1,662,600
$7,204,404
$7,204,404
$300,000
$7,504,404
*
** This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. ***
**** Assumes 8% of project area reicieving Slurry Seal treatment will require Base Repair.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Tustin Ave (17th St to Fairhaven Ave)
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage.
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
An additional $150K of ROW acquisition and roadway easment is estimated for the sidewalk extension.
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included.
Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (30%) **
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement***=
GRAND TOTAL=
City Council 32 – 194 6/4/2024
Appendix D
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)*
$ 5,400,000 $ 6,570,000
$ 390,000 $ 480,000
$ 5 ,790,000 $ 7,050,000
$ 730,000 $ 890,000
$ 1,020,000 $ 1,250,000
$ 120,000 $ 150,000
CM
$ 1,110,000 $ 1,360,000
$ 2,980,000 $ 3,650,000
$ 8,800,000 $ 10,700,000
Santa Ana Vision Zero
1st St (Fairview St to Bristol St)
(Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Median Islands, Curb Extensions, Directional Curb Ramps, Bike Lanes, and Bike Crossings)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COST
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
DESIGN
PA/ED (12.5%)
City Council 32 – 195 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 63 $ 8,000 $504,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 227 $ 1,230 $279,210 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 142 $ 1,040 $147,680 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 277 $ 850 $235,450
5 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 129 $ 890 $114,810 6 Roadway Excavation CY 4355 $ 110 $479,050
7 Remove Concrete CY 846 $ 340 $287,640
8 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 608 $ 140 $85,120
9 Base Repair (HMA)**** TON 2059 $ 140 $288,260
10 Slurry TON 507 $ 600 $304,200
11 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 1958 $ 130 $254,540
12 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 110,700 $110,700
13 Centerline Hardening EA 8 $ 5,000 $40,000
14 Landscape SF 17616 $ 8 $140,928
15 Minor Drainage EA 8 $20,000 $160,000
$3,431,588
16 Minor Items (10% of Items 1-15) * LS 1 $344,000 $344,000 $3,775,588
17 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-16) LS 1 $378,000 $378,000 $4,153,588
$1,246,100
$5,399,688
$5,399,688
$390,000
$5,789,688
*
** This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. ***
**** Assumes 8% of project area reicieving Slurry Seal treatment will require Base Repair.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement***=
GRAND TOTAL=
Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage.
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included.
Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
1st St (Fairview St to Bristol St)
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
DRAINAGE
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (30%) **
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
City Council 32 – 196 6/4/2024
Appendix D
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)*
$ 8 ,230,000 $ 10,010,000
$ 4 10,000 $ 498,828
$ 8,640,000 $ 1 0,509,000
$ 1,080,000 $ 1,320,000
$ 1 ,520,000 $ 1,850,000
$ 180,000 $ 220,000
CM
$ 1,650,000 $ 2 ,010,000
$ 4,430,000 $ 5,400,000
$ 13,100,000 $ 15,950,000
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Euclid St (Hazard Ave to McFadden Ave)
(Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Median Islands, Bike Lanes, Bike Crossings, Curb Extensions, Directional Curb Ramps and Protected Corners)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COST
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
DESIGN
PA/ED (12.5%)
City Council 32 – 197 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 57 $ 8,000 $456,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 281 $ 1,230 $345,630 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 153 $ 1,040 $159,120 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 293 $ 850 $249,050
5 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 69 $ 890 $61,410 6 Cold Plane SQYD 47822 $ 6 $286,929
7 Roadway Excavation CY 3773 $ 110 $415,030
8 Remove Concrete CY 612 $ 340 $208,080
9 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 11485 $ 140 $1,607,900
10 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 2186 $ 130 $284,180
11 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 93,700 $93,700
12 Centerline Hardening EA 12 $ 5,000 $60,000
13 Landscape SF 20174 $ 8 $161,392
14 New Signal EA 1 $600,000 $600,000
$4,988,421
15 Minor Drainage EA 12 $20,000 $240,000
$5,228,421
16 Minor Items (10% of Items 1-15) * LS 1 $523,000 $523,000 $5,751,421
17 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-16) LS 1 $576,000 $576,000 $6,327,421
$1,898,300
$8,225,721
$8,225,721
$410,000
$8,635,721
* Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. ** This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. *** Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Euclid St (Hazard Ave to McFadden Ave)
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included.
Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
ROADWAY
DRAINAGE
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL=
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (30%) **
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement***=
City Council 32 – 198 6/4/2024
Appendix D
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)*
$ 7,020,000 $ 8,530,000
$ 3 90,000 $ 474,495
$ 7,410,000 $ 9,005,000
$ 930,000 $ 1,140,000
$ 1,300,000 $ 1,590,000
$ 150,000 $ 190,000
CM
$ 1,410,000 $ 1,720,000
$ 3,790,000 $ 4,640,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 11,200,000 $ 13,650,000
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
DESIGN
PA/ED (12.5%)
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Greenville St (MacArthur Blvd to Warner Ave)
(Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Median Islands, Class II/III/IV Bikeways, Bike Crossings, Curb Extensions, Directional Curb Ramps, Railroad improvemnts and a Lane reduction)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
City Council 32 – 199 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 52 $ 8,000 $416,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 131 $ 1,230 $161,130 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 135 $ 1,040 $140,400 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 250 $ 850 $212,500
5 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 6 $ 850 $5,100
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 76 $ 890 $67,640 7 Cold Plane SQYD 13347 $ 6 $80,082
8 Roadway Excavation CY 2354 $ 110 $258,940
9 Remove Concrete CY 496 $ 340 $168,640
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 3420 $ 140 $478,800
11 Base Repair (HMA)**** TON 741 $ 140 $103,740
12 Slurry TON 183 $ 600 $109,800
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 1005 $ 130 $130,650
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 50,800 $50,800
15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
16 Bikeway Delineators EA 181 $ 225 $40,725
17 Landscape SF 10134 $ 8 $81,072
18 Railroad Improvement LS 1 $ 1,000,000 $1,000,000
19 Signal Modification EA 3 $250,000 $750,000
$4,276,019
20 Minor Drainage EA 9 $20,000 $180,000
$4,456,019
21 Minor Items (10% of Items 1-20) * LS 1 $446,000 $446,000 $4,902,019
22 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-21) LS 1 $491,000 $491,000 $5,393,019
$1,618,000
$7,011,019
$7,011,019
$390,000
$7,401,019
*
** This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. ***
**** Assumes 8% of project area reicieving Slurry Seal treatment will require Base Repair.
SUBTOTAL
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Greenville St (MacArthur Blvd to Warner Ave)
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
DRAINAGE
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (30%) **
GRAND TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL=
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included.
Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement***=
Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
An additional $50K of ROW acquisition and roadway easment is estimated for the sidewalk extension.
City Council 32 – 200 6/4/2024
Appendix D
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)*
$ 4,890,000 $ 5,950,000
$ 370,000 $ 460,000
$ 5,260,000 $ 6,410,000
$ 660,000 $ 810,000
$ 930,000 $ 1,140,000
$ 110,000 $ 140,000
CM
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,220,000
$ 2,700,000 $ 3,310,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 8,000,000 $ 9,750,000
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.
PS&E (17.5%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (19%)
TOTAL DELIVERY COST
DESIGN
PA/ED (12.5%)
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Main St (1st St to 17th St)
(Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Median Islands, Curb Extensions, and Directional Curb Ramps)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
City Council 32 – 201 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 72 $ 8,000.00 $576,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 119 $ 1,230.00 $146,370 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 98 $ 1,040.00 $101,920 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 152 $ 850.00 $129,200
5 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 102 $ 890.00 $90,780 6 Cold Plane SQYD 35145 $ 6 $210,867
7 Roadway Excavation CY 1771 $ 110.00 $194,810
8 Remove Concrete CY 449 $ 340.00 $152,660
9 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 8256 $ 140.00 $1,155,840
10 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 1048 $ 130.00 $136,240
11 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 79,700.00 $79,700
12 Landscape SF 8948 $ 8.00 $71,584
13 Minor Drainage EA 3 $20,000 $60,000
$3,105,971
14 Minor Items (10% of Items 1-13) * LS 1 $311,000 $311,000 $3,416,971
15 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-14) LS 1 $342,000 $342,000 $3,758,971
$1,127,700
$4,886,671
$4,886,671
$370,000
$5,256,671
*
** This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. ***
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included.
Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
ROADWAY
DRAINAGE
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (30%) **
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement***=
GRAND TOTAL=
Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage.
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Main St (1st St to 17th St)
(Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost)
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL City Council 32 – 202 6/4/2024
Appendix D
Attachment C – Project Renderings
City Council 32 – 203 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
5’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 5’
SAVZ Corridor - 1st Street between Forest Avenue and Pacific Avenue Landscaped median
Bike lane
Bike lane
Green transitional
striping
SCALE: 1”= 50’
33 City Council 32 – 204 6/4/2024
Appendix D
SAVZ Corridor - Euclid Street between West 2nd Street and West 3rd Street 5’ 11’ 10’ 10’ 8’ 10’ 10’ 11’ 5’
Landscaped median
Buffered bike lane
Buffered bike lane
2’ 2’
SCALE: 1”= 50’
34 City Council 32 – 205 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
7’ 2’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 7’
SAVZ Corridor - Greenville Street between Meadowwood and Hall Avenue Buffered bike lane
Buffered bike lane
2’
SCALE: 1”= 50’
35 City Council 32 – 206 6/4/2024
Appendix D
7’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 10’ 11’ 8’
SAVZ Corridor - Main Street between 10th Street and 11th Street Landscaped median
SCALE: 1”= 50’
City Council 32 – 207 6/4/2024 36
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix D
5’ 11’ 10’ 10’ 12’ 10’ 10’ 11’ 5’
SAVZ Corridor - Tustin Avenue north of Catalina Avenue
Landscaped median
Bike lane Bike lane
SCALE: 1”= 50’
37 City Council 32 – 208 6/4/2024
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 12 $ 8,000 $96,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 15 $ 1,500 $22,500
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 21 $ 1,500 $31,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 194 $ 1,080 $209,520 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 75 $ 1,040 $78,000
6 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 150 $ 1,040 $155,897
7 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 94 $ 1,130 $106,220 8 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 33 $ 1,860 $61,380
9 Roadway Excavation CY 1381 $ 260 $359,135
10 Remove Concrete CY 750 $ 400 $299,933
11 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 295 $ 345 $101,775
12 Slurry TON 135 $ 790 $106,780
13 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 550 $ 345 $189,750
14 Raised Bike Path (HMA) TON 314 $ 345 $108,330
15 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 722 $ 180 $130,049
16 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 27,300 $27,300
17 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
18 Rubber Hump EA 101 $ 200 $20,200
19 Bus Stop Improvements EA 4 $ 30,000 $120,000
20 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
21 Drainage Improvements LS 1 $180,000 $180,000
$2,674,269
22 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-21) ** LS 1 $402,000 $402,000 $3,076,269
23 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-22) LS 1 $308,000 $308,000 $3,384,269
$1,184,500
$4,568,769
$4,568,769
$210,000
$4,778,769
*
** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair Santa Ana Vision Zero
Grand Ave from Century HS to Edinger Ave
(Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class IV Bike Lanes, Continuous Sidewalks, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
DRAINAGE
SUBTOTAL
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
An additional $130K of roadway easment is estimated for the Continuous Sidewalk.
Appendix E. Cost Estimates for Projects 6-20
City Council 32 – 209 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 18 $ 8,000 $144,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 21 $ 1,500 $31,500
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 128 $ 1,080 $138,024 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 81 $ 1,040 $84,240
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 37 $ 1,130 $41,810 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 15 $ 1,860 $27,900
8 Roadway Excavation CY 557 $ 260 $144,820
9 Remove Concrete CY 881 $ 400 $352,400
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 213 $ 345 $73,485
11 Slurry TON 147 $ 790 $116,130
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 598 $ 345 $206,310
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 511 $ 180 $91,980
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 25,400 $25,400
15 Multi-use Path (HMA) TON 711 $ 345 $245,295
16 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
17 Rubber Hump EA 35 $ 200 $7,000
18 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000
19 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$2,079,794
20 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-19) ** LS 1 $312,000 $312,000 $2,391,794
21 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-20) LS 1 $240,000 $240,000 $2,631,794
$921,200
$3,552,994
$3,552,994
$400,000
$3,952,994
*
** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
An additional $300K of roadway easment is estimated for the Multi-use Path.
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Fairview St from Edinger Ave to St Andrew Pl
(Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class I Bike Path, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
City Council 32 – 210 6/4/2024
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 21 $ 8,000 $168,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 103 $ 1,500 $154,500 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 25 $ 1,500 $37,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 189 $ 1,080 $204,120 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 66 $ 1,040 $68,640
6 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 70 $ 1,040 $72,774
7 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 128 $ 1,130 $144,640 8 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 23 $ 1,860 $42,780
9 Roadway Excavation CY 1959 $ 260 $509,340
10 Remove Concrete CY 423 $ 400 $169,200
11 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 511 $ 345 $176,295
12 Slurry TON 167 $ 790 $131,930
13 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 677 $ 345 $233,565
14 Raised Bike Path (HMA) TON 357 $ 345 $123,165
15 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 802 $ 180 $144,360
16 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 44,500 $44,500
17 Rubber Hump EA 41 $ 200 $8,200
18 Centerline Hardening EA 8 $ 5,000 $40,000
19 Bus Stop Improvements EA 1 $ 30,000 $30,000
20 Drainage Improvements LS 1 $201,000 $201,000
21 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$2,954,509
22 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-21) ** LS 1 $444,000 $444,000 $3,398,509
23 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-22) LS 1 $340,000 $340,000 $3,738,509
$1,308,500
$5,047,009
$5,047,009
$230,000
$5,277,009
*
** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
ELECTRICAL
ROADWAY
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
An additional $130K of roadway easment is estimated for the Continuous Sidewalk.
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
GRAND TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
SUBTOTAL
DRAINAGE
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Bristol St from Segerstorm Ave to Alton Ave
(Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class IV Bike Lanes, Continuous Sidewalks, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL City Council 32 – 211 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 20 $ 8,000 $160,000
2 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 12 $ 1,500 $18,000 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 176 $ 1,080 $190,080 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 65 $ 1,040 $67,600
5 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 21 $ 1,860 $39,060
6 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 141 $ 1,040 $146,640
7 Install Concrete - Textured Paving CY 64 $ 1,130 $72,320 8 Roadway Excavation CY 1528 $ 260 $397,280
9 Remove Concrete CY 501 $ 400 $200,400
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 234 $ 345 $80,730
11 Slurry TON 68 $ 790 $53,720
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 277 $ 345 $95,565
13 Raised Bike Path (HMA) TON 257 $ 345 $88,665
14 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 692 $ 180 $124,560
15 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 24,500 $24,500
16 Rubber Hump EA 81 $ 200 $16,200
17 Landscape SF 1496 $ 8 $11,968
18 Drainage Improvements LS 1 $143,000 $143,000
19 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$2,180,288
20 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-19) ** LS 1 $328,000 $328,000 $2,508,288
21 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-20) LS 1 $251,000 $251,000 $2,759,288
$965,800
$3,725,088
$3,725,088
$240,000
$3,965,088
*
** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
4th St from Minter St to Garfield St
(Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Curb Extensions, Directional Curb Ramps, Class IV Bike Lanes, Continuous Sidewalks, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
An additional $110K of roadway easment is estimated for the Continuous Sidewalk.
DRAINAGE
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
GRAND TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
ELECTRICAL
City Council 32 – 212 6/4/2024
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 20 $ 8,000 $160,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 102 $ 1,500 $153,000 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 25 $ 1,500 $37,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 156 $ 1,080 $168,480 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 69 $ 1,040 $71,760
6 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 100 $ 1,040 $104,000
7 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 161 $ 1,130 $181,930 8 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 26 $ 1,860 $48,360
9 Roadway Excavation CY 2241 $ 260 $582,660
10 Remove Concrete CY 440 $ 400 $176,000
11 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 417 $ 345 $143,865
12 Slurry TON 98 $ 790 $77,420
13 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 398 $ 345 $137,310
14 Raised Bike Path (HMA) TON 247 $ 345 $85,215
15 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 1052 $ 180 $189,360
16 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 40,600 $40,600
17 Rubber Hump EA 60 $ 200 $12,000
18 Landscape SF 4809 $ 8 $38,472
19 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
20 Bus Stop Improvements EA 3 $ 30,000 $90,000
21 Drainage Improvements LS 1 $202,000 $202,000
22 Signal Modification EA 2 $250,000 $500,000
$3,219,932
23 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-22) ** LS 1 $483,000 $483,000 $3,702,932
24 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-23) LS 1 $371,000 $371,000 $4,073,932
$1,425,900
$5,499,832
$5,499,832
$220,000
$5,719,832
*
** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair
GRAND TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
SUBTOTAL
DRAINAGE
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
17th St from Ross St to Broadway
(Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class IV Bike Lanes, Continuous Sidewalks, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
ELECTRICAL
ROADWAY
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
An additional $100K of roadway easment is estimated for the Continuous Sidewalk.
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
City Council 32 – 213 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 30 $ 1,500 $45,000
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 12 $ 1,500 $18,000 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 19 $ 1,080 $20,520 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 35 $ 1,040 $36,400
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 48 $ 1,130 $54,240 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 9 $ 1,860 $16,740
8 Roadway Excavation CY 254 $ 260 $66,040
9 Remove Concrete CY 89 $ 400 $35,600
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 93 $ 345 $32,085
11 Slurry TON 53 $ 790 $41,870
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 215 $ 345 $74,175
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 113 $ 180 $20,340
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 8,400 $8,400
15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
16 Rubber Hump EA 13 $ 200 $2,600
17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 3 $ 30,000 $90,000
18 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$896,010
19 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $135,000 $135,000 $1,031,010
20 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $104,000 $104,000 $1,135,010
$397,300
$1,532,310
$1,532,310
$40,000
$1,572,310
* Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Harbor Blvd and 1st St Intersection
(Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II/II/IV Bike Facilities, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
City Council 32 – 214 6/4/2024
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 34 $ 1,500 $51,000
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 13 $ 1,080 $14,040 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 26 $ 1,040 $27,040
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 23 $ 1,130 $25,990 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 10 $ 1,860 $18,600
8 Roadway Excavation CY 225 $ 260 $58,500
9 Remove Concrete CY 64 $ 400 $25,600
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 94 $ 345 $32,430
11 Slurry TON 50 $ 790 $39,500
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 201 $ 345 $69,345
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 90 $ 180 $16,200
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 15,900 $15,900
15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
16 Rubber Hump EA 4 $ 200 $800
17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000
18 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$808,445
19 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $122,000 $122,000 $930,445
20 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $94,000 $94,000 $1,024,445
$358,600
$1,383,045
$1,383,045
$40,000
$1,423,045
*
** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
17th St and Grand Ave Intersection
(Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class III Bike Routes, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
ELECTRICAL
ROADWAY
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
GRAND TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
SUBTOTAL
City Council 32 – 215 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 32 $ 1,500 $48,000
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 20 $ 1,080 $21,600 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 43 $ 1,040 $44,720
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 68 $ 1,130 $76,840 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 13 $ 1,860 $24,180
8 Roadway Excavation CY 273 $ 260 $70,980
9 Remove Concrete CY 104 $ 400 $41,600
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 99 $ 345 $34,155
11 Slurry TON 47 $ 790 $37,130
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 192 $ 345 $66,240
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 138 $ 180 $24,840
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 7,100 $7,100
15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
16 Rubber Hump EA 31 $ 200 $6,200
17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000
18 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$917,085
19 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $138,000 $138,000 $1,055,085
20 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $106,000 $106,000 $1,161,085
$406,400
$1,567,485
$1,567,485
$40,000
$1,607,485
* Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave Intersection
(Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II/IV Bike Lanes, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
City Council 32 – 216 6/4/2024
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 19 $ 1,500 $28,500
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 13 $ 1,080 $14,040 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 21 $ 1,040 $21,840
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 29 $ 1,130 $32,770 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 12 $ 1,860 $22,320
8 Roadway Excavation CY 192 $ 260 $49,920
9 Remove Concrete CY 54 $ 400 $21,600
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 65 $ 345 $22,425
11 Slurry TON 45 $ 790 $35,550
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 180 $ 345 $62,100
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 75 $ 180 $13,500
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 14,000 $14,000
15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
16 Rubber Hump EA 14 $ 200 $2,800
17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 1 $ 30,000 $30,000
18 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$724,865
19 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $109,000 $109,000 $833,865
20 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $84,000 $84,000 $917,865
$321,300
$1,239,165
$1,239,165
$40,000
$1,279,165
*
** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location.
An additional $300K of roadway easment is estimated for the Multi-use Path.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
1st St and Flower St Intersection
(Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II Bike Lanes, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
City Council 32 – 217 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 6 $ 8,000 $48,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 20 $ 1,500 $30,000
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 19 $ 1,500 $28,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 19 $ 1,080 $20,520 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 31 $ 1,040 $32,240
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 4 $ 1,130 $4,520 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 58 $ 1,860 $107,880 8 Roadway Excavation CY 366 $ 260 $95,160
9 Remove Concrete CY 80 $ 400 $32,000
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 62 $ 345 $21,390
11 Slurry TON 32 $ 790 $25,280
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 128 $ 345 $44,160
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 137 $ 180 $24,660
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 5,700 $5,700
15 Landscape SF 2440 $ 8 $19,520
16 Rubber Hump EA 9 $ 200 $1,800
17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 1 $ 30,000 $30,000
18 Minor Drainage LS 1 $20,000 $20,000
$591,330
19 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $89,000 $89,000 $680,330
20 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $69,000 $69,000 $749,330
$262,300
$1,011,630
$1,011,630
$50,000
$1,061,630
* Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Edinger Ave and Maple St Intersection
(Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Directional Curb Ramps, Class II Bike Lanes, and Conflict Striping)
SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
DRAINAGE
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
City Council 32 – 218 6/4/2024
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 6 $ 8,000 $48,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 28 $ 1,500 $42,000
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 7 $ 1,500 $10,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 11 $ 1,080 $11,880 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 20 $ 1,040 $20,800
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 29 $ 1,130 $32,770 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 5 $ 1,860 $9,300
8 Roadway Excavation CY 250 $ 260 $65,000
9 Remove Concrete CY 52 $ 400 $20,800
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 74 $ 345 $25,530
11 Slurry TON 30 $ 790 $23,700
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 121 $ 345 $41,745
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 74 $ 180 $13,320
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 5,000 $5,000
15 Centerline Hardening EA 3 $ 5,000 $15,000
16 Landscape SF 1130 $ 8 $9,040
17 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$644,385
18 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-17) ** LS 1 $97,000 $97,000 $741,385
19 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-18) LS 1 $75,000 $75,000 $816,385
$285,800
$1,102,185
$1,102,185
$40,000
$1,142,185
* Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Segerstrom Ave and Bear St Intersection
(Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II/IV Bike Lanes, and Bike Crossings)
SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
City Council 32 – 219 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 33 $ 1,500 $49,500
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 14 $ 1,500 $21,000 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 21 $ 1,080 $22,680 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 25 $ 1,040 $26,000
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 27 $ 1,130 $30,510 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 15 $ 1,860 $27,900
8 Roadway Excavation CY 222 $ 260 $57,720
9 Remove Concrete CY 72 $ 400 $28,800
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 103 $ 345 $35,535
11 Slurry TON 39 $ 790 $30,810
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 160 $ 345 $55,200
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 100 $ 180 $18,000
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 4,900 $4,900
15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
16 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000
17 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$802,555
18 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-17) ** LS 1 $121,000 $121,000 $923,555
19 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-18) LS 1 $93,000 $93,000 $1,016,555
$355,800
$1,372,355
$1,372,355
$40,000
$1,412,355
* Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Flower St and MacArthur Blvd Intersection
(Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class III Bike Routes, and Bike Crossings)
SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
City Council 32 – 220 6/4/2024
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 30 $ 1,500 $45,000
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 19 $ 1,500 $28,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 16 $ 1,080 $17,280 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 28 $ 1,040 $29,120
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 52 $ 1,130 $58,760 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 24 $ 1,860 $44,640
8 Roadway Excavation CY 256 $ 260 $66,560
9 Remove Concrete CY 71 $ 400 $28,400
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 98 $ 345 $33,810
11 Slurry TON 42 $ 790 $33,180
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 170 $ 345 $58,650
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 120 $ 180 $21,600
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 7,100 $7,100
15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
16 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000
17 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$866,600
18 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-17) ** LS 1 $130,000 $130,000 $996,600
19 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-18) LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 $1,096,600
$383,900
$1,480,500
$1,480,500
$40,000
$1,520,500
* Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair Santa Ana Vision Zero
MacArthur Blvd and Raitt St Intersection
(Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class IV Bike Lanes, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
City Council 32 – 221 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 27 $ 1,500 $40,500
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 13 $ 1,080 $14,040 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 21 $ 1,040 $21,840
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 38 $ 1,130 $42,940 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 8 $ 1,860 $14,880
8 Roadway Excavation CY 191 $ 260 $49,660
9 Remove Concrete CY 38 $ 400 $15,200
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 76 $ 345 $26,220
11 Slurry TON 36 $ 790 $28,440
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 145 $ 345 $50,025
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 85 $ 180 $15,300
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 5,000 $5,000
15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
16 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000
17 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$737,545
18 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-17) ** LS 1 $111,000 $111,000 $848,545
19 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-18) LS 1 $85,000 $85,000 $933,545
$326,800
$1,260,345
$1,260,345
$40,000
$1,300,345
* Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Dyer Rd and Flower St Intersection
(Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II/III Bike Facilities, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping)
SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
City Council 32 – 222 6/4/2024
Appendix E
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 9 $ 8,000 $72,000
2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 8 $ 1,500 $12,000
3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 21 $ 1,080 $22,680 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 35 $ 1,040 $36,400
6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 14 $ 1,130 $15,820 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 11 $ 1,860 $20,460
8 Roadway Excavation CY 288 $ 260 $74,880
9 Remove Concrete CY 71 $ 400 $28,400
10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 110 $ 345 $37,950
11 Slurry TON 30 $ 790 $23,700
12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 124 $ 345 $42,780
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 68 $ 180 $12,240
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 4,500 $4,500
15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000
16 Rubber Hump EA 23 $ 200 $4,600
17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000
18 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000
$757,910
19 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $114,000 $114,000 $871,910
20 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $88,000 $88,000 $959,910
$336,000
$1,295,910
$1,295,910
$40,000
$1,335,910
* Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
CONTINGENCY (35%) ***
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*=
GRAND TOTAL
Santa Ana Vision Zero
Flower St and Alton Ave Intersection
(Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II/IV Bike Lanes, and Bike Crossings)
SUBTOTAL
ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
ROADWAY
ELECTRICAL
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
City Council 32 – 223 6/4/2024
SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN
Appendix F
Appendix F. Priority Projects and Equity Map
W 1ST ST
S MAIN ST
S BRISTOL ST
W MCFADDEN AV
S RAITT ST
S FAIRVIEW ST
E 1ST ST
N MAIN ST
W 17TH ST
W WARNER AV
E 4TH ST
S GRAND AV
E 17TH ST
W EDINGER AV
N BRISTOL ST
W MACARTHUR BLVD
N GRAND AV
W SEGERSTROM AV
N BROADWAY
E EDINGER AV
E DYER RD
E WARNER AV
S STANDARD AV
N FAIRVIEW ST W ALTON AV
S LYON ST
S FLO
WER ST
BEAR ST
CIVIC CENTER DR W
HARBOR BLVD
W 5TH ST
E MCFADDEN AV
SUNFLOWER AV
N TUSTIN AV
S EUCLID ST
E ALTON AV
FAIRHAVEN AV
N NEWHOPE ST S NEWHOPE ST
N HARBOR BLVD
WESTMINSTER AV
E SANTA CLARA AV
S
GREENVILLE
ST
EUCLID ST N EUCLID ST
N CABRILLO PARK DR
E MEMORY LN
N
SANTIAGO
ST
E COLUMBINE AV ALTON PKWY
N RAITT ST
W SANTA ANA BLVD
N BRISTOL ST
N
TUSTIN
AV
WESTMINSTER AV
CalEnviroScreen 4
Score Percent
0 - 10
>10 - 20
>20 - 30
>30 - 40
>40 - 50
>50 - 60
>60 - 70
>70 - 80
>80 - 90
>90 - 100
Corridor Projects 1 to 5
Intersection Projects
Corridor Projects
6 to 10
Santa Ana Boundary
[ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
City Council 32 – 224 6/4/2024
Resolution 2024-xxx
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xxx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SANTA ANA
VISION ZERO PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana (“City”) has prioritized Citywide traffic safety and initiated a number of projects designed to address the safety of the City’s transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously undertaken studies and research in order to best address safety of all users of the City’s transportation system, including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to integrate all modes of transportation, including bicycling, walking, and public transportation, into the design of streets and highways to increase capacity and efficiency, reduce congestion, limit emissions, and improve general quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted a resolution in support of the Department of Transportation’s Safer People, Safer Streets: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Initiative (Resolution 2015-009) on February 17, 2015. The initiative challenged local agencies to take significant action to improve safety for bicycle riders and pedestrians; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2016, the City approved and adopted the Safe Mobility Santa Ana (“SMSA”) Plan (Resolution 2016-082). The stated goals of the SMSA Plan are to substantially increase safe mobility, to achieve zero fatal bicycle and pedestrian collisions, reduce vehicle speed, and minimize demonstrated collision patterns; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to update and build upon the success of the SMSA Plan with a new, comprehensive traffic safety plan called Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan (“SAVZ”); and
WHEREAS, the City has completed the SAVZ Plan, which evaluates mobility priorities and identifies innovative solutions to provide for all-around safety within the City and eliminate traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries by 2040. The SAVZ Plan analyzes numerous factors, such as citywide trends in traffic safety, and recommends solutions, goals, and objectives to be implemented within the City; and WHEREAS, the approval and adoption of the SAVZ Plan will make the City eligible to apply for grant funding opportunities, such as HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program) and SS4A (Safer Streets and Roads for All). These grant programs require local roadway safety plans to be updated and revalidated every five years; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), City EXHIBIT 2
City Council 32 – 225 6/4/2024
Resolution 2024-xxx
Staff determined the adoption of the SAVZ Plan (”Project”) is exempted pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR§ 15061(b)(3)), that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and City Staff found that there is no possible significant effect directly related to the Project. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 applies, as the Project is a study for possible future actions, which would be subject to independent review. Finally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15276 applies as the Project is a transportation improvement plan, but individual projects developed as a result of the Project will be evaluated individually.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
ANA , RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan, a copy of which will be on file at the offices of the Public Works Agency of the City for public inspection.
Section 3. The City Council has reviewed the Project and, based upon the whole record before it, in the exercise of its independent judgment and analysis, concurs that the adoption of the SAVZ Plan is exempt from consideration under the CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Plan, in and of itself, may have a significant effect on the environment; future projects described within the Plan may be subject to independent environmental review pursuant to CEQA; the Plan is a transportation improvement plan and any projects developed as result will be evaluated individually; and therefore no further action is required under CEQA at this time.
Section 4. The Executive Director of Public Works shall, pursuant to this Resolution, be authorized to apply on the City’s behalf for grant funding related to the Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan. If such application is accepted, the Executive Director will present the grant award to the City Council for approval.
Section 5. The Executive Director of Public Works shall be responsible for monitoring, implementing and delivering periodic updates regarding the SAVZ to the Environmental and Transportation Advisory Committee.
Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this Resolution, and each and all provisions hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more provisions may be declared invalid.
City Council 32 – 226 6/4/2024
Resolution 2024-xxx
Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
ADOPTED this day of June 2024.
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
Kyle Nellesen
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers_______________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers_______________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers_______________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers_______________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2024- XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on .
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
City Council 32 – 227 6/4/2024
Public Works Agency
www.santa-ana.org/public-works
Item # 33
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
June 4, 2024
TOPIC: Measure M2 Funding Eligibility 2024 Renewal
AGENDA TITLE
Resolution to Maintain Measure M2 Funding Eligibility by Approving a Pavement Management Plan Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution confirming the status and providing an update of the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) per Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 2024-25 Measure M2 eligibility requirements.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CONCERNING THE STATUS AND UPDATE OF THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MEASURE M2 PROGRAM
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No
DISCUSSION
In November 1990, Orange County voters approved Measure M, a one-half cent sales tax increase for 20 years, to fund transportation projects in Orange County. Sixteen years later, in November 2006, the voters approved the renewal of Measure M, referred to as M2, for an additional 30 years, effective in April 2011. The net revenues generated by M2 contribute to two types of grant funding: Local Fair Share (LFS) and competitive.
All Orange County cities are eligible for LFS funding, which is distributed on a formulabased allocation determined by population, number of existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways centerline miles, and taxable sales. Under the competitive component of M2 funding, cities must compete and demonstrate support of regional transportation to successfully qualify for grant monies. Fulfilling M2 eligibility requirements also allows the City to qualify for other regional competitive OC Go M2 grant funding opportunities.
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) determines annual eligibility for M2 funds based upon specific criteria that cities must meet prior to June 30 of every year. In order to maintain M2 eligibility for Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY 24-25), the City must update, and adopt via resolution, a Pavement Management Plan (PMP) biennially (Exhibit 1). The PMP is the City’s strategic plan to manage the preservation, City Council 33 – 1 6/4/2024
Measure M2 Funding Eligibility 2024 Renewal
June 4, 2024
rehabilitation, and maintenance of paved roads by analyzing pavement life cycles, assessing overall system performance costs, and determining alternative strategies and necessary costs to improve paved roads (Exhibit 2). A copy of the PMP with a certification must be submitted to OCTA by June 30, 2024. Adoption of the proposed resolution maintains the City’s eligibility to receive M2 Funds for FY 2024-25.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact at this time. The recommended actions will maintain the City’s eligibility to receive Measure M2 funds. Upon meeting OCTA eligibility requirements, the City of Santa Ana is anticipated to receive an estimated $6.4 million in Local Fair Share funds and an undetermined amount in M2 competitive funds for FY 2024-25.
If the recommended action is not taken, the City will lose Measure M2 local fair share revenue and eligibility to apply for various future OCTA comprehensive funding programs.
EXHIBIT(S)
1. Resolution – Pavement Management Plan
2. 2024 Pavement Management Plan
Submitted By: Nabil Saba, P.E., Executive Director – Public Works Agency Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, Acting City Manager
City Council 33 – 2 6/4/2024
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xxx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
ANA CONCERNING THE STATUS AND UPDATE OF THE
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MEASURE M2
PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. The City of Santa Ana is required to meet eligibility requirements and submit eligibility verification packages to the Orange County Transportation Authority (“OCTA”) in order to remain eligible to receive Measure M2 funds.
B. On a biennial basis, the City of Santa Ana is required to adopt and update a Pavement Management Plan (“PMP”), using the required format, regarding the status of road pavement conditions and implementation of the PMP.
C. The City of Santa Ana is required to provide a plan that manages the preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance of paved roads by analyzing pavement life cycles, assessing overall system performance costs, and determining alternative strategies and costs necessary to improve paved roads.
Section 2. The City Council hereby declares that the PMP is in conformance with the PMP Submittal Template provided in the Countywide Pavement Management Plan Guidelines.
Section 3. The City of Santa Ana hereby adopts a PMP and has provided an updated PMP report, using the required format, to OCTA.
Section 4. The City Council authorizes the Executive Director of the Public Works Agency, the City Engineer, or his or her designee to sign the PMP certification form.
Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
EXHIBIT 1
City Council 33 – 3 6/4/2024
Resolution 2024-xxx
ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 2024.
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
Kyle Nellesen
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers_______________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers_______________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers_______________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers_______________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, City Clerk do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2024-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on .
Date:
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
City Council 33 – 4 6/4/2024
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2024 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
May, 2024
DRAFT EXHIBIT 2
City Council 33 – 5 6/4/2024
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ E-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1-1
2.0 METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Inventory ......................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Planning .......................................................................................................................2-2
2.3 Data Collection.............................................................................................................2-2
2.4 Data Entry ....................................................................................................................2-2
2.5 Analysis........................................................................................................................2-2
3.0 PAVEMENT NETWORK....................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Functional Classifications .............................................................................................3-2
3.2 Pavement Condition Index ...........................................................................................3-4
3.3 Existing Pavement Condition........................................................................................3-5
4.0 MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION STRATEGIES..................................................4-1
4.1 Treatment Types and Associated Costs .......................................................................4-1
4.2 Funding ........................................................................................................................4-5
4.3 Budget Alternatives .....................................................................................................4-6
4.3.1 Existing Funding..................................................................................................4-7
4.3.2 Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI..........................4-10
4.3.3 Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI........................................4-13 APPENDIX A: ENTIRE PAVEMENT NETWORK PCI REPORT
APPENDIX B: ARTERIAL STREETS 7-YEAR M&R PLAN
APPENDIX C: LOCAL STREETS 7-YEAR M&R PLAN
APPENDIX D: OCTA PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 2024 - Pavement Management Plan Certification
- Quality Assurance / Quality Control Plan
- Executive Summary
City Council 33 – 6 6/4/2024
Table Of Contents
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program ii
FIGURES
Figure E-1: PCI Distribution for 2020, 2022 and 2024 ............................................................. E-1 Figure 2-1: Sample Pavement Deterioration Curve ..................................................................2-3 Figure 3-1: Entire Pavement Network Summary ......................................................................3-1 Figure 3-2: Arterial Street.........................................................................................................3-2 Figure 3-3: Local Street............................................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-4: Current PCI Distribution (Entire Pavement Network)..............................................3-5 Figure 3-5: Current PCI Distribution (Arterial Network).............................................................3-6 Figure 3-6: Current PCI Distribution (Local Network)................................................................3-7 TABLES
Table E-1: Funding Alternatives Summary.............................................................................. E-4 Table 3-1: Current Entire Pavement Network Summary...........................................................3-1 Table 3-2: Pavement Condition Index and Treatment Type .....................................................3-4 Table 3-3: PCI Distribution Comparison (2020, 2022 vs. 2024)................................................3-5 Table 3-4: PCI Distribution .......................................................................................................3-8 Table 4-1: Cost by Condition (Arterial Network) .......................................................................4-3 Table 4-2: Cost by Condition (Local Network)..........................................................................4-3 Table 4-3: Existing Funding (Entire Pavement Network) ..........................................................4-8 Table 4-4: Existing Funding (Arterial Network).........................................................................4-8 Table 4-5: Existing Funding (Local Network)............................................................................4-9 Table 4-6: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Entire Pavement Network)...................................................................................4-11 Table 4-7: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Arterial Network)..................................................................................................4-11 Table 4-8: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Local Network) ....................................................................................................4-12 Table 4-9: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Entire Pavement Network)...................................................................................4-14 Table 4-10: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Arterial Network)..................................................................................................4-14 Table 4-11: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Local Network) ....................................................................................................4-15 City Council 33 – 7 6/4/2024
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program
ACRONYMS
AC Asphalt Concrete
ASTM American Society of Testing Materials
AV Avenue
BLVD Boulevard
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CIR Circle
CIR Cold In-Place Recycling
City City of Santa Ana
COMM Common
CT Court
CTB Cement Treated Base
DR Drive
EB East Bound
FDR Full Depth Reconstruction
FWY Freeway
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographical Information System
GN Glen
GPCE General Plan Circulation Element
HUTA Highway Users Tax Account
LN Lane
M&R Maintenance and Rehabilitation
MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways
NB North Bound
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
PCC Portland Cement Concrete
PCI Pavement Condition Index
PCIaw Average Area-Weighted Pavement Condition Index
PDC Pavement Deterioration Curve
PL Place
PMP Pavement Management Program
RD Road
RR Railroad
RSRP Residential Street Repair Program
SB South Bound
SF Square Feet
ST Street
WB West Bound
WY Way
City Council 33 – 8 6/4/2024
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program E-1-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Santa Ana (City) Public Works Agency utilizes StreetSaver and geographical information system (GIS) to develop the Pavement Management Program (PMP) to provide an accurate inventory of the current and projected pavement condition of all public roadways and to implement a seven-year roadway maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) program to maximize the return from available existing funding for street pavement. The PMP’s ultimate goal is to effectively strategize short and long-term usages of current and future limited funding to restore and maintain the entire street pavement network at “Good” condition or better.
The City currently manages 454 miles of streets for a total of approximately 93.4 million square feet (SF) of paved surfaces. To be consistent with the City General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), the entire street pavement network is organized into two networks (arterial and local) depending on its functional classifications (i.e. major, primary, secondary, and collector arterial streets; residential and non-residential local streets). There are 129.3 miles (28% of entire pavement network) in the arterial network and 324.6 miles (72% of entire pavement network) in the local network. To assist planning maintenance needs, the streets are also arranged into over 4,174 sections and classified by surface types – Asphalt Concrete (AC) or Portland Cement Concrete (PCC).
Figure E-1: PCI Distribution for 2020, 2022 and 2024
Entire Network Arterial Network Local Network
City Council 33 – 9 6/4/2024
Executive Summary
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program E-1-2 Pavement condition inspections are performed biennially for both the arterial and local networks.
Figure E-1 shows a comparison of the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) distribution between the 2020, 2022 and 2024 inspections. The PCI is a numerical value ranging from 0 for deteriorated pavement with virtually no remaining life to 100 for new or recently rehabilitated pavement.
Generally, the PCI value is expressed as an area-weighted PCI (PCIaw) to provide a more representative value. A PCI value is computed for each street section based on the pavement distresses found within that section during an inspection. Inspections provide the data utilized in analysis and surface treatment recommendations for each street section; however, the PCI values shall be utilized for planning purposes in determining the surface treatment types and are not intended to replace sound engineering judgment. In general, the City’s strategies involve the utilization of surface seals, such as crack sealing or slurry sealing for preventive maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) of streets in “Good” condition and major M&R plans typically consist of overlays, such as thin overlays, for “Fair” condition streets; resurfacing, such as structural overlays or cold-in-place recycling (CIR), for “Poor” condition streets; and reconstruction, such as cement-treated base (CTB) or full depth reconstruction (FDR), for “Very Poor” condition streets.
A fully integrated PMP has had a positive effect on improving the City’s entire pavement network by developing efficient M&R strategies and analyzing the effect of various funding alternatives on the pavement conditions. The strategies include forecasting optimal time for M&R needs, providing cost-effective alternatives for halting the deterioration of existing pavement, improving the overall condition of the entire pavement network, and reducing the backlog of M&R work over the next seven years. To carry forward one of the City’s main objectives in providing a safe, reliable, efficient, and comfortable driving environment, this PMP report analyzes various M&R strategies, the effect of the City’s existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding on the street pavement system, and projected funding to both maintain and improve existing PCIaw over a seven-year plan.
With existing funding of just under $139 million for the entire pavement network over the sevenyear period from Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 through FY 2030/31, the entire pavement network existing PCIaw of 76.3 is projected to decrease by one (1) percent to 75.2 at the end of the sevenyear cycle under existing funding levels. Individually, the arterial and local networks are projected to experience a negative result in existing PCIaw, three (3) percent arterial decrease and one (1) percent local decrease. Furthermore, the backlog for the entire pavement network is projected to increase by 58 percent from $285.2 million in the first year to $453.4 million in the seventh year.
If the existing PCIaw of 76.3 were to be maintained at the end of the seven-year cycle, a total of $1.7 million in additional funds calculated at about $237,000 annually would be required; thus providing for a total alternative funding level of just over $140.4 million through FY 2030/31. The additional funding would be applied to both the arterial and local networks at 62 percent ($12.5 million) and 38 percent ($7.5 million), respectively. Furthermore, with this additional funding, the backlog for the entire pavement network is projected to increase by 56 percent from $285.2 million in the first year to $446.1 million in the seventh year.
If the existing PCIaw were to be improved by two (2) points to 78.3 at the end of the seven-year cycle, a total of $3.6 million in additional funds calculated at about $508,400 annually would be City Council 33 – 10 6/4/2024
Executive Summary
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program E-1-3 required; thus providing for a total alternative funding level of over $142.3 million through FY 2030/31. The additional funding would be applied to both the arterial and local networks at 63 percent ($12.8 million) and 37 percent ($7.6 million), respectively. Furthermore, with this additional funding, the backlog for the entire pavement network is projected to increase by 54 percent from $285.2 million in the first year to $440.3 million in the seventh year.
Overall, the conclusion drawn from this PMP report is that the backlog for the entire pavement network is evenly distributed across both the arterial and the local network. Additionally, existing funding levels in the City CIP will not keep pace with rehabilitation needs over the next seven years. Since preserving street condition and performance should be a priority to provide motorists with safety assurances, the City’s goal over the next seven years is to acquire sufficient pavement M&R funding to sustain the entire street pavement network at “Good” condition or better. By achieving this goal, the City will remain eligible for the reduced local match requirements for the renewed Measure M2 Competitive grant until FY 2030/31.
City Council 33 – 11 6/4/2024
Executive Summary
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program E-1-4 Table E-1: Funding Alternatives Summary
Existing Funding Alternative Funding
(Maintain Existing PCI)
Alternative Funding
(Improve Projected PCI)
Entire
Pavement
Network
Arterial
Network
Local
Network
Entire
Pavement
Network
Arterial
Network
Local
Network
Entire
Pavement
Network
Arterial
Network
Local
Network
2024 PCIaw with
Existing Funding1 76 73 78 76 73 78 76 73 78
2031 PCIaw with
Existing Funding2 75 70 77
2031 PCIaw with
Alternative Funding3 76 72 78 78 75 80
FY 2024/25 Backlog4
$285,218 $116,940 $168,279 $285,218 $116,940 $168,279 $285,218 $116,940 $168,279 FY 2030/31 Backlog4
$453,424 $185,903 $267,521 $446,110 $182,905 $263,205 $440,253 $180,504 $259,749 7-yr Preventive M&R
Existing Funding5 $20,776 $2,476 $18,300 $20,776 $2,476 $18,300 $20,776 $2,476 $18,300 7-yr Major M&R
Existing Funding6 $117,994 $84,468 $33,504 $117,994 $84,468 $33,504 $117,994 $84,468 $33,504 7-yr Total
Existing Funding7 $138,770 $86,945 $51,804 $138,770 $86,945 $51,804 $138,770 $86,945 $51,804 7-yr Major M&R
Additional Funding8 $1,659 $1,250 $409 $3,558 $1,422 $2,136 7-yr Total
Alternative Funding9 $140,429 $88,195 $53,678 $142,329 $88,366 $55,362 Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
1. 2024 PCI w Existing Funding: PCI yielded as a result of M&R work (existing PCI).
2. 2031 PCI w/ Existing Funding: PCI yielded at the end of the 7-year plan as a result of M&R work using existing funding.
3. 2031 PCI w/ Alternative Funding: PCI yielded @ the end of the 7-year plan as a result of M&R work using alternative funding.
4. Backlog: Total estimated M&R work left unfunded during the listed fiscal year.
5. 7-yr Preventive M&R Existing Funding: Existing funding for preventive M&R work from FY 2024/25 to FY 2030/31.
6. 7-yr Major M&R Existing Funding: Existing funding for major M&R work from FY 2024/25 to FY 2030/31.
7. 7-yr Total Existing Funding: Sum of existing funding from FY 2024/25 to FY 2030/31.
8. 7-yr Major M&R Additional Funding: Additional funding needed for major M&R work to reach the listed goal from FY 2024/25 to FY 2030/31.
9. 7-yr Total Alternative Funding: Sum of existing & additional funding needed required to reach the listed goal from FY 2024/25 to FY 2030/31.
City Council 33 – 12 6/4/2024
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 1-1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Since public streets are utilized for moving people and freight and they are vital to the City of Santa Ana (City) economy, preserving their condition and performance should be a priority. The City Public Works Agency has developed the Pavement Management Program (PMP) to monitor and maintain the City street system utilizing StreetSaver and geographic information system (GIS). The City’s PMP has been developed to assist City personnel generate a solid and reliable Capital Improvement Program (CIP) based on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of the streets to sustain a desirable level of pavement performance on a network scale. The PMP’s ultimate goal is to effectively strategize short and long-term usages of current and future limited funding to restore and maintain the entire pavement network at “Good” condition or better. Additionally, StreetSaver was selected as the pavement management software to be utilized by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and all member agencies in Orange County; therefore, with the City of Santa Ana’s ongoing management of StreetSaver, the City’s PMP is in compliance with this OCTA requirement.
The purpose of the PMP is to:
• Provide an accurate current inventory and pavement conditions of all public roadways; • Predict future pavement condition with and without work; • Develop a roadway maintenance program;
• Prioritize and recommend the most cost-effective roadway repairs; • Implement a 7-year roadway maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) program; • Maximize the return from available funding for street pavement.
Pavement is a dynamic structure where deterioration is constantly occurring. Therefore, as part of the development of the PMP, a survey of the City street pavement condition must be conducted on a regular basis to identify the type of severity and quantity of pavement distresses (refer to Section 2.0 Methodology and Appendix D: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan). The pavement management database needs to be updated frequently to reflect the changes in pavement conditions and pavement maintenance histories. Upon completion of the survey and database updates, StreetSaver generates a new PCI value, which assists in the selection of the most cost-effective roadway M&R strategy. The PCI value, which was developed by US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory and adopted as standard procedure by the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, has been utilized by numerous municipalities nationwide.
City Council 33 – 13 6/4/2024
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 2-2-1
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 INVENTORY
All streets within the City are categorized as either arterial or local streets and are grouped as such into their respective networks; collectively they comprise the entire pavement network.
Within each network, the streets are ranked based on their functional classifications (refer to Section 3.0 Pavement Network) and are assigned a letter that corresponds with the rank. In the case of the arterial network, the letter ‘B’ is assigned to major arterial streets, the letter ‘P’ is assigned to primary arterial streets, the letter ‘S’ is assigned to secondary arterial streets, and the letter ‘C’ is assigned to collector arterial streets. In the case of the local network, the letters ‘E’ and ‘I’ are assigned to residential and non-residential streets, respectively.
Each street, or branch, is divided into segments, or sections, at intersecting streets and railroads.
For example, Main Street from First Street to Second Street and Grand Avenue from Railroad to Chestnut Avenue. Additionally, a section break is introduced where a change in pavement surface is encountered mid-block. For example, if the pavement surface were to change from Asphalt Concrete (AC) to Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) at any point along Main Street from First Street to Second Street, then the resulting sections would be Main Street from First Street to ACPCC Transition and Main Street from AC-PCC Transition to Second Street; where one section has an AC surface and the other has a PCC surface.
In an effort to help identify and sort the streets efficiently, identifying numbers are assigned to each branch and section. A Branch ID is a six-digit number assigned to each branch and is numbered increasingly with numbered streets listed first followed by the remainder of the streets listed in alphabetical order. A Section ID is a four-digit number assigned to each section and is numbered increasingly based on geography from west to east and from south to north. For example, the westernmost or southernmost section of a branch would have a Section ID with the lowest number and the easternmost or northernmost section of a branch would have a Section ID with the highest number. Furthermore, the four-digit Section ID number may be followed by a letter such as N, S, E, or W that denotes the direction of travel (north, south, east, and west, respectively) along a street. This letter is used to differentiate between the two halves of a street when it is divided as such. For example, Section ID 1100N and Section ID 1100S would denote the northbound and southbound sides of a section, respectively.
Additionally, other sort features are available to assist in further grouping segments with similar characteristics. For example, to identify streets within pre-defined geographical areas, each section is labeled with a number that corresponds to either a neighborhood or a non-neighborhood area. A neighborhood area, which is typically comprised of churches, schools, and residential properties, is defined as the boundary established through a collaboration of the City’s Community Development Agency (CDA) and local residents based on both geographic and social components. Currently, there are 64 neighborhoods established in the City, which meet with CDA staff regularly to develop strategies to shape it for the better and sustain it for the long term. A non-neighborhood area refers to the zone located outside of the established neighborhood boundaries comprising of mostly commercial and industrial uses.
City Council 33 – 14 6/4/2024
2.0 Methodology
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 2-2-2
2.2 PLANNING
Preparation prior to performing pavement surveys involves three major components: inspector training, survey type selection, and identifying sample units. • Inspector Training - In order to be familiar with the inspection guidelines, inspectors are prompted to read the StreetSaver Asphalt & Concrete Distress Manuals, complete the web-based Pavement Management software training and learn the data input application for the StreetSaver program prior to inspecting. Additionally, the inspection routes are planned in a time-efficient manner to efficiently capture the pavement data. • Survey Types - There are two types of surveys allowable: “windshield” and “walking” surveys. A windshield survey consists of examining the pavement from a vehicle moving at no more than 10 miles per hour (MPH), while a walking survey allows an inspector to examine from the pavement surface itself. Although, for safety reasons, walking surveys on arterial roadways may be performed from a safe place adjacent to the pavement such as a sidewalk, center median, or shoulder.
• Sample Units - Random areas, known as sample units, within a street section are inspected as a representative of the whole segment. A sample unit for an asphalt street section contains a total area of 2500 square feet (SF) ±1000 SF, and a sample unit for a PCC street section contains a total number of 20 slabs ±8 slabs.
2.3 DATA COLLECTION
The pavement distresses found within a sample unit are identified by type, classified by severity, measured/counted, and recorded as they are encountered in the field. A number of sample units are randomly selected for re-inspection to assure consistent and accurate results among inspectors.
Refer to Appendix D: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan for further details on quality control/quality assurance.
2.4 DATA ENTRY
The collected pavement distress data is input into StreetSaver, creating an inspection record for each sample unit.
2.5 ANALYSIS
Based on the latest inspection data and several other factors, including surface type, functional classifications, last construction date, and PCI, pavement deterioration curves (PDCs) or pavement condition prediction models are generated separately for the local and arterial networks. These curves are imperative for a complete PMP to predict future pavement performance and determine maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) requirements. Figure 2-1 shows a sample PDC with the appropriate M&R.
City Council 33 – 15 6/4/2024
2.0 Methodology
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 2-2-3 Figure 2-1: Sample Pavement Deterioration Curve
To develop an accurate PDC, “suspicious” data / anomalies outside of the maximum and minimum envelopes generated from StreetSaver are filtered out. For example, data with PCI increase significantly with age (recording error) or lack of past inspection data must be removed because pavements are load carrying structures, which degrade over time due to the combined action of environmental and traffic. This data filtering processing is critical because pavements with unusual performance would have substantial impact on the PDC behavior and the pavement life cycle consequently.
The final PDCs illustrate that the rate of deterioration is fairly slow in the early years of the pavement’s design life. During the first 65 percent to 75 percent of a pavement’s design life, which varies based on functional classifications and surface type, a pavement deteriorates approximately 40 percent of its quality, i.e. from a PCI of 100 (“Very Good” condition) to a PCI of 60 (“Fair” condition). However, the rate of deterioration starts to increase rapidly with age after a pavement reaches this point in its life cycle. Typically, a pavement can deteriorate 40 percent in its quality (PCI quickly drops from 60 (“Fair” condition) to 20 (“Very Poor” condition)) in the next 15 percent to 25 percent of its design life. Although the local and arterial networks have different design life spans, both PDCs share similar characteristics because the pavement will crack and these cracks will propagate out and become severe with continued traffic loadings and weathering without any M&R treatment. Therefore, a PCI of 60 is assigned as the critical PCI for both the arterial and local networks. The critical PCI is defined as the PCI value after which a pavement section is expected to deteriorate rapidly with age or where the rate of PCI loss increases significantly with time.
85 Very Good
75 Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Do Nothing
Surface Seal
60 Overlay
Resurfacing
40 Reconstruction
0 100
Pavement Condition (PCI)
Pavement Life (yrs)
City Council 33 – 16 6/4/2024
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 3-3-1
3.0 PAVEMENT NETWORK
Currently, the City’s entire street pavement network has approximately 454 miles consisting of approximately 93.4 million square feet of paved surfaces. To assist planning maintenance needs, the entire pavement network is organized into two networks (arterial and local) depending on their importance in the whole roadway system. The arterial and local networks include 129.3 miles (28 percent) and 324.6 miles (72 percent), respectively. To be consistent with the City General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), the streets in each network are ranked based on their functional classes; the arterial network is comprised of Major, Primary, Secondary arterial streets and Collector Streets, and the local network is comprised of Residential and Non-Residential streets. Additionally, these streets are classified by surface types—Asphalt Concrete (AC) or Portland Cement Concrete (PCC); and they are divided into 4,174 sections (refer to section 2.0 Methodology) for ease of tracking their pavement conditions, pavement history and M&R requirements. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 summarize the current City pavement networks information.
Table 3-1: Entire Pavement Network Summary
Figure 3-1: Entire Pavement Network Summary
City Council 33 – 17 6/4/2024
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 3-3-2
3.1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
One of the critical factors affecting the roadbeds and pavement deterioration rate is the quantity and associated vehicle weight of traffic utilizing the streets. The volume and type of vehicular usage for the abovementioned arterial network’s four functional classifications are:
• Major Arterial – Generally consists of a six-travel lane, divided roadway connecting various parts within the City of Santa Ana and adjacent cities. A major arterial is designed to accommodate between 30,000 and 50,600 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 58 centerline miles or 55.2 percent of City arterial network. • Primary Arterial – Generally consists of a four-lane, divided roadway serving as a major access route to regional destinations (such as downtown and similar major focal points within the City). A primary arterial is designed to accommodate between 20,000 and 30,000 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 9 centerline miles or
8.6 percent of City arterial network.
• Secondary Arterial – Generally consists of a four-lane, undivided roadway serving intracity mobility. A secondary arterial is designed to accommodate between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 35 centerline miles or 33.3 percent of City arterial network.
• Collector Street – Generally consists of a two-lane, undivided roadway. A collector street is designed to accommodate between 7,500 and 10,000 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 3 centerline miles or 2.9 percent of City arterial network.
Figure 3-2: Arterial Street
The local network is comprised of two functional classifications as described below:
City Council 33 – 18 6/4/2024
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 3-3-3 • Non-Residential Street – Generally a low-speed two-lane, undivided roadway with parking allowed on both sides of the street. Businesses are located on both sides of the street. A non-residential street is designed to accommodate less than 6,000 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 32 centerline miles or 10 percent of City local network.
• Residential Street – Generally a low-speed and low-volume two-lane, undivided roadway providing access to individual properties in a neighborhood. A residential street is designed to accommodate less than 6,000 vehicle trips daily. This facility type comprises approximately 285 centerline miles or 90 percent of City local network.
Figure 3-3: Local Street
City Council 33 – 19 6/4/2024
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 3-3-4
3.2 PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX
The City utilizes PCI output from StreetSaver as the rating mechanism to describe the City street pavement condition. This numerical index ranges from PCI of “0” for a failed and/or badly deteriorated pavement with virtually no remaining life to PCI of “100” for a pavement in perfect condition. A street section with proper engineering design and construction begins its life cycle as a new or recently rehabilitated street with a PCI of “100”. As the condition of the street surface begins to deteriorate, the PCI decrease reflects the surface deterioration based on the signs of distress noted during the field surveys (refer to Section 2.0 Methodology and Appendix D: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan). Although the surface treatment recommendation for each street section utilizes the PCI value as the basis, the PCI values shall be used for planning purposes only and are not intended to replace sound engineering judgment. An engineering review of the pavement condition shall take place prior to any actual construction work at a particular street section because the review may indicate that a particular pavement section needs attention earlier than the other street sections in its localized area.
In general for planning and budgeting purposes, the correlation among the PCI, pavement quality and signs of distresses are summarized in Table 3-2:
Table 3-2: Pavement Condition Index and Treatment Type
Pavement
Quality PCI Pavement Description
Very Good 86-100
The pavement is new or almost new with very little or no roughness and surface distress (except utility patches if any), including minimal hairline cracks and/or weathering. The pavement structure is sound and no oxidation occurs.
Good 75-85
The pavement has minor roughness and little to slight surface distresses (except utility patches if any), including slight cracking, slight to moderate weathering. The pavement structure is sound and no oxidation occurs.
Fair 60-74
The pavement may have noticeable roughness and slight to moderate distresses are surfacing, including severe weathering, non-load-related cracking, depressions, and material loss. The pavement structure is becoming deficient (minimal base failure).
Poor 41-59
The pavement has noticeable roughness (significant surface distortion) and moderate to severe surface distresses, including severe weathering, load-related cracking (such as alligator cracking), depressions, material loss. The pavement structure is deficient (up to one-third base failure).
Very Poor 0-40
The pavement has severe surface distresses, including large quantities of distortion and major and unsafe cracking (alligator cracking). The pavement structure is inadequate (over one-third failure).
City Council 33 – 20 6/4/2024
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 3-3-5
3.3 EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITION
Based on the inspections and data processing procedures mentioned in Section 2.0 Methodology, the majority of the local street’s pavements (46 percent) currently have a PCI of at least 86 or in “Very Good” condition; this indicates that the City’s local network continues to demonstrate high conditional values. Furthermore, the arterial network shows a slight improvement from 2022, these results show a slight increase in the entire network since the City’s 2022 update due to sustaining of condition in the local network (refer to Table 3-3 for PCI distribution in 2020, 2022 compared to 2024).
Table 3-3: PCI Distribution Comparison (2020, 2022 vs. 2024) With the proper maintenance and rehabilitation application of the local and arterial streets, the majority of the entire pavement network is currently in “Very Good” condition (41 percent) with a PCI of at least 86, which is similar to the results from the previous update in 2022. Figure 3-4 summarizes the current PCI distribution for the entire pavement network.
Figure 3-4: Current PCI Distribution (Entire Pavement Network) City Council 33 – 21 6/4/2024
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 3-3-6 As shown in Table 3-3, the majority of arterial streets’ pavements are currently either in “Fair” (27.0 percent), “Good” (23.5 percent), or “Very Good” (26.2 percent) conditions. These results, which show a condition stabilization (no significant increase or decrease) in the top three condition categories of “Fair”, “Good”, and “Very Good” from 2022 to the current year (77 percent for all three categories), indicate that the City has been performing proper and timely maintenance and rehabilitation strategies for the arterial streets to maintain the percentage of streets in the top three condition categories (refer to Table 3-3 for the comparison). The sustaining in arterial street pavement conditions can be attributed to local funding and various funding sources from Orange County Transportation Authority, County of Orange, State of California, and other various agencies that the City has received in past years. Figure 3-5 shows the current PCI distribution of the arterial network.
Figure 3-5: Current PCI Distribution (Arterial Network) City Council 33 – 22 6/4/2024
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 3-3-7 The sustainment in the condition of the local pavement network in recent years resulted largely from the annual Local Street Preventative Maintenance Program, which commenced in 2014.
Figure 3-6 shows the current PCI distribution of the local network.
Figure 3-6: Current PCI Distribution (Local Network)
City Council 33 – 23 6/4/2024
3.0 Pavement Network
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 3-3-8 Table 3-4 shows the breakdown of PCI distribution of the entire pavement network, and the arterial and local pavement networks individually, based on area and section mileage.
Table 3-4: PCI Distribution
The pavement condition is generally measured by a weighted index (typically by area), referred to as Average Area-Weighted Pavement Condition Index (PCIaw), which is determined as follows:
Where,
PCIaw = Average area-weighted PCI
PCIi = PCI of pavement section number i
Ai = Area of section number i
n = Total number of pavement sections
Based on the formula above, the City’s current entire pavement network is in “Good” condition with a PCIaw of 76.3.
City Council 33 – 24 6/4/2024
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-1
4.0 MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION STRATEGIES
With 454 miles and 4,174 street sections, the City develops a comprehensive, fully-integrated PMP utilizing the inventory data along with the inspection information, M&R options and their associated costs, and predictions about future pavement condition from StreetSaver to determine optimal time for maintenance and rehabilitation needs. Due to limited available fiscal resources, the City needs to perform cost-effective M&R strategies to maintain the pavement networks.
Additionally, pavement preservation, which is an important aspect of the PMP considering the limited funding, will be included in the overall decision-making process.
4.1 TREATMENT TYPES AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
The pavement preservation and M&R considerations utilized by the City are categorized into localized, global and major M&R. Localized M&R can be applied as a stop-gap measure or a preventive measure, including routine maintenance such as crack-filling and pothole repairs.
Global M&R, which is cost effective when applied as a preventive measure, are methods applied to the entire pavement sections to slow the rate of deterioration and improve current PCI, including applying slurry seal to the existing pavement surface. Major M&R, which is often economically applicable to deteriorated pavements, pavements deteriorating at a rapid rate, and pavements subjected to a change in traffic loading, refer to methods correcting or improving structural and functional requirements, including cold-milling and overlay, cold-in-place recycling, cement treated base, and/or full depth reconstruction. The City currently utilizes the following M&R treatment methods:
• Crack Seal – Crack Seal is applicable for newer pavements with cracks beginning to form.
Since water is the most destructive element to a roadway pavement, this treatment utilizes asphalt materials bonding to the crack walls to restrict water penetration into the underlying base and sub-base layers to reduce further pavement deterioration. This preventive M&R treatment, which will extend the pavement life by three to five years, saves money by delaying the expense of major reconstructive pavement work. • Slurry Seal – Slurry Seal, which applies to pavement with minimal surface distress, such as minor/low severity cracks, provides a new wearing surface to extend the pavement life.
This treatment is a mix blend of high-quality crushed aggregates (sand-like), asphalt emulsion, water and mineral fillers, spreading over the entire pavement surface. The layer of slurry seal (ranging from 1/8” to 3/8” thick) prevents further oxidization and water from further deteriorating the asphalt concrete surface and subgrade, corrects raveling, and improves skid resistance.
• Thin Overlay – Thin Overlay is a maintenance overlay applicable to pavement with moderate cracking where preventive M&R is no longer effective. This treatment involves partially milling or grinding the edge of shoulder (typically 6 feet), sealing the cracks to retard reflective cracking, and placing a thin layer of hot-mixed asphalt concrete (up to two inches for streets in both arterial and local networks) over the existing pavement surface. The thin layer of AC improves the skid resistance and roadway’s performance, and corrects the crown and drainage features.
City Council 33 – 25 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-2 • Structural Overlay – Structural Overlays, which applies to moderate to severe pavement cracking with little or no deficiency in the foundation layers, entails cold-milling / grinding the surface to a depth of up to three inches for arterial streets and two inches for local streets, removing localized failed areas, and placing a thick layer of hot-mixed AC (typically four to five inches for arterial streets and three to four inches for local streets).
The new AC pavement section smooth the ride performance, improves skid resistance, correct the crown and drainage features, increases pavement structural capacity. • Cold-In-Place Recycling (CIR) – CIR, which applies to moderate to severe pavement cracking with little or no deficiency in the pavement structure, is a process rehabilitating pavement by recycling it in place. The top layer of pavement is removed with a milling (grinding) machine to a specified depth (typically three to four inches). The removed material is then crushed, sorted and mixed with a specially formulated asphalt emulsion.
This emulsion mixes with the milled pavement and acts as a binder to form the new CIR pavement. This new mixture is placed on the roadway by a paver and compacted as a new and more durable asphalt base course. Finally, a thin overlay of conventional asphalt pavement is placed over the CIR to seal it and provide a new wear to improve ride performance and drainage features and increase pavement structural capacity. • Cement-Treated Base (CTB) – CTB is applicable when the distress evidence at the surface indicates failure in the pavement structure or subgrade (the roadway completely failed with crumbling surface pavement), which is not correctable by less extensive construction. Due to its long curing time, this treatment method typically should be applied to low-moderate traffic areas and/or moderate traffic areas with more than one lane per direction with a low volume of large vehicles. CTB involves grinding the existing roadway surface and base into pieces to a prescribed depth (typically 14 to 20 inches for arterial streets and 8 to 11 inches for local streets), which are mixed with cement and water to be used as a base course. A thin overlay of conventional asphalt pavement is then placed over the CTB base to provide a new wear for improving ride performance and drainage features and increase pavement structural capacity.
• Full Depth Reconstruction (FDR) – FDR is applicable when the distress evidence at the surface indicates failure in the pavement structure or subgrade (the roadway completely failed with crumbling surface pavement), which is not correctable by less extensive construction. This treatment involves removal of existing layers of asphalt AC, PCC, and/or base to a prescribed depth recommended by geotechnical engineering pavement analysis and placement of conventional flexible pavement section. In general, local residential and non-residential streets are removed to depths of six inches and eight inches, respectively; a depth of 10 inches are removed on secondary arterial and collector streets; a depth of 12 inches are removed on primary arterial streets; and a depth of 16 inches are removed on major arterial streets. The actual depth depends on anticipated traffic loading, soil conditions, and roadway functional classifications. This treatment is by far the most expensive form of M&R strategies to increase pavement structural capacity.
City Council 33 – 26 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-3 Table 4-1: Cost by Condition (Arterial Network)
Condition
(PCI)
Functional
Classification Surface Cost($/SF)
75 - 85
Secondary / Collector
Primary
Major
AC $2.95
60 - 74 Secondary / Collector AC $6.39
41 - 59
Secondary / Collector AC $12.28
Primary AC $13.70
Major AC $15.11
41-59 Secondary / Collector PCC $26.46
0 - 40
Secondary / Collector AC $42.20
Primary AC $50.46
Major AC $66.96
Secondary / Collector PCC $26.46
Table 4-2: Cost by Condition (Local Network)
Condition
(PCI)
Functional
Classification Surface Cost ($/SF)
75 - 85
Residential
Non-Residential AC $1.93
60 - 74
Residential
Non-Residential AC $4.79
41 - 59
Residential AC $9.81
Non-Residential AC $9.81
0 - 40
Residential AC $21.82
Non-Residential AC $21.82
Residential/Non-Res PCC $23.79
Residential
Non-Residential PCC $23.79
City Council 33 – 27 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-4 It is imperative for the City to receive the proper amount and type of funding to perform the M&R strategies as a plan to preserve the roadway pavement system in good condition. The plan is to apply a slurry seal coat to new or recently rehabilitated streets at regular intervals, usually seven to ten years. After a couple slurry seal coats, maintenance (thin) overlay or structural overlay shall be utilized to address structural issues. Every street will fail eventually or reach a point where it is more cost-effective to reconstruct than to repair. The roadway functional classification (refer to Section 3.0 Pavement Network) and the original design life of a particular street section will determine the intervals and treatment types. Additionally, streets with higher speeds, traffic volumes, and/or loads, will demand a larger pavement section.
To account for the differences in pavement section across the spectrum of streets within the entire pavement network, the streets are grouped into M&R families according to their functional classification and/or surface type and a cost by condition is applied. The cost by condition for the arterial and local networks is shown in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2, respectively. These unit costs per SF include the soft costs of design, inspection, and construction engineering and are compiled utilizing current projects as a basis for costs.
As the pavement ages, the PMP is designed to predict the roadway pavement’s PCI based on the deterioration curves (refer to Section 2.0 Methodology). Additionally, the PMP, which is a tool to assist the City in making decisions when planning pavement M&R, involves scheduling pavement maintenance and rehabilitation before pavements deteriorate to a condition where reconstruction is the only solution. Based on Figure 2-1 in Section 2.0 Methodology showing how pavement generally deteriorates and the relative M&R cost (refer to Table 4-1 and Table 4-2) at various times throughout the pavement life, the critical PCI is established at 60. The critical PCI is defined as the PCI value after which the pavement section is expected to deteriorate rapidly with age, or the rate of PCI loss increases significantly with time, and the unit cost of repair greatly increases; therefore, the threshold for M&R decisions are considered at the critical PCI value since the cost of maintaining the pavement above the critical PCI value before the deterioration occurs is much less compared to maintaining pavements after substantial deterioration has occurred. Planned M&R strategies, essentially preventing pavements from reaching deteriorated conditions, helps the City stretch and maximize the use of City budgets and prolong the life of the pavements. StreetSaver utilizes the inventory database combined with the inspection information, M&R options along with their associated costs, and the deterioration curves predicting future pavement condition to calculate the chosen budget activity to reflect the best pavement management practices and costs.
The City’s PMP goal is to maintain a pavement system network with an optimal PCI of 75 (“Good” Condition) or better. The City’s pavement system currently has 68 percent of the pavement sections in “Good” or “Very Good” condition (refer to Section 3.0 Pavement Network). The PMP will recommend priority list of maintenance treatments annually to bring all City streets to at least “Good” condition. The preventive M&R treatments, which are inexpensive treatments to extend pavement life cycle, have minimal costs since they are applied prior to pavement deterioration to “Poor” and “Very Poor” conditions.
City Council 33 – 28 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-5
4.2 FUNDING
The City has estimated total funding amounts of $86.9 million and $51.6 million for the pavement expenditures of the arterial and local networks, respectively, for the next seven years (refer to City CIP on a separate document for further details). Generally, the future revenues for City street preventive and major M&R programs are from the following funding sources:
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 returns income tax funds to cities and counties to develop viable urban communities, primarily for the benefit of low and moderate income people. This U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development program gives priority to activities that help to eliminate blight, with emphasis on residential areas. CDBG projects are carried out by several operating departments with the City and by sub-agents. Public hearings are held to plan projects for each fiscal fear. The selected projects are recommended by citizens, commissioners, and staff.
• Gas Tax – Gas Tax funds are derived from the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (or Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA)). Motorists pay a tax for fuel consumption. It is apportioned to cities according to population and can only be utilized in the maintenance and construction of the street system.
• Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA – Streets and Highways Code Sec 2030 et sec.) includes funds from the following taxes enacted by Senate Bill 1 Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017: the 12 cent gasoline excise tax, 20 cent diesel fuel excise tax, transportation improvement fees. These new gas tax funding sources contribute funding on an annual basis.
• Local Street Bond Fund – In 2007, the City issued a $60 million bond as a certificate of participation (COP) against Gas Tax revenue to create the Residential Street Repair Program to repair and rehabilitate neighborhood streets Citywide. • Measure M2 – On November 7, 2006, voters approved the renewal of the Measure M half-cent sales tax (Measure M2), extending the program over a 30-year period beginning in 2011. In addition to the original three program components, this generation of the Measure M Transportation Plan expands the program to include Environmental Cleanup and Taxpayer Safeguards and Audits. To receive revenues from the one-half-cent sales tax, cities and the County of Orange must coordinate their land use and transportation decisions, establish cooperative transportation planning programs with neighboring jurisdictions, develop Growth Management programs, and guarantee that transportation funds are used for transportation purposes only.
• Measure M2 – Competitive – The competitive portion of the Measure M2 consists of the following programs: Regional Capacity Program (RCP), Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (TSSP), and several transit programs. • Measure M2 – Fairshare – This local fair share program returns a portion of the Measure M2 Streets and Roads revenues to the cities and the County of Orange once specific program requirements are met. Disbursement amounts are based on a formula that accounts for population, street mileage, and sales tax collected.
City Council 33 – 29 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-6 • Refuse Collection – Funds received in the course of business for the public collection and disposal of refuse. The City adopted a Vehicle Impact Fee program to provide funding for necessary improvements to the City’s streets to offset the wear and tear impact of heavy vehicle travel.
4.3 BUDGET ALTERNATIVES
Having determined the needs of the City local and arterial networks and the City fiscal-year budget for the next seven years, the City utilizes StreetSaver to evaluate impacts of various budget alternatives – existing budget in City CIP, budget to maintain the current PCIaw over a seven year plan, and budget to improve the current PCIaw by one point or better over a seven-year plan.
StreetSaver has the capability of forecasting the effects of different budget alternatives on PCI and deferred maintenance (backlog). By examining the effects of these indicators, these “whatif” analyses clearly identify the advantages and disadvantages of different funding levels and preventive and major M&R strategies.
The following guide is provided for interpreting the individual output in Budget Analysis tables below.
• PCI w/o Existing Funding – PCI yielded as a result of no preventive or major M&R work during the listed fiscal year. This value is provided for comparison purposes and is intended to be used as the baseline PCI.
• PCI w/ Existing Funding – PCI yielded as a result of preventive and major M&R work with existing funding during the listed fiscal year.
• PCI w/ Alternative Funding – PCI yielded as a result of preventive and major M&R work with existing plus additional funding during the listed fiscal year. • Preventive M&R Existing Funding – Existing funding for preventive M&R work during the listed fiscal year.
• Major M&R Existing Funding – Existing funding for major M&R work during the listed fiscal year.
• Major M&R Additional Funding – Additional funding for major M&R work required to reach the listed goal during the listed fiscal year.
• Total Existing Funding – Sum of existing funding during the listed fiscal year. • Total Alternative Funding – Sum of existing funding plus additional funding required to reach the listed goal during the listed fiscal year.
• Backlog – Total estimated M&R work left unfunded during the listed fiscal year.
City Council 33 – 30 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-7
4.3.1 EXISTING FUNDING
This alternative represents the impacts of the City’s current CIP budget on the entire pavement network, and the arterial and local pavement networks independently, for the next seven years.
Currently, there are approximately $86.9 million and $51.3 million for the pavement expenditures in the arterial and local networks, respectively, for the next seven years. The City’s main objective is keeping street sections from falling into the reconstruction category (“Very Poor” condition), at which point typically costs three to four times more per SF than resurfacing. Therefore, the selection of streets for M&R treatments during each fiscal year involves StreetSaver output, engineering judgment and experience, and available budget.
With a limited existing budget over the next seven years from FY 2024/25 to FY 2030/31, the entire pavement network will sustain within the “Good” condition by slightly deteriorating from a PCIaw of 76.3 to a PCIaw of 75.2. Not only does the pavement condition deteriorate, but the entire pavement network’s backlog will increase by 59 percent by FY 2030/31 as shown in Table 4-3.
This information indicates that the City is facing the challenge of securing adequate, sustainable funding for the M&R program to keep up with the increasing rate of deteriorating streets.
Although the arterial and local networks, independently, will reduce the PCIaw by at least one point during each of the next seven FYs with the existing budgeted funding as compared to the baseline alternative (without any funding), the pavement will deteriorate in a similar fashion to the entire pavement network. Furthermore, the local and arterial networks will remain in “Good” condition.
Additionally, the current level of funding is insufficient to stabilize the backlog since the unfunded deferred M&R projects will increase by 25 percent for the arterial network, increase by 34 percent for the local network by FY 2030/31 and 59% for the entire network.
City Council 33 – 31 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-8 Table 4-3: Existing Funding (Entire Pavement Network)
Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Existing
Funding
Preventive M&R
Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Total
Existing
Funding Backlog
Present 76 76 ~ ~ ~ $285,218
2024/25 75 79 $1,762 $18,446 $20,208 $267,345
2025/26 74 80 $4,269 $15,492 $19,760 $295,440
2026/27 74 78 $4,126 $15,634 $19,760 $322,919
2027/28 72 77 $3,505 $16,255 $19,760 $350,112
2028/29 71 77 $2,722 $17,039 $19,760 $377,325
2029/30 69 76 $4,099 $15,662 $19,760 $416,225
2030/31 67 75 $2,935 $19,467 $19,760 $453,425
TOTAL $20,776 $117,994 $138,770
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
Table 4-4: Existing Funding (Arterial Network)
Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Existing
Funding
Preventive M&R
Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Total
Existing
Funding Backlog
Present 73 73 ~ ~ ~ ~
2024/25 72 73 $219 $12,473 $12,693 $109,612
2025/26 71 74 $684 $11,747 $12,431 $121,131
2026/27 71 74 $1,121 $11,299 $12,420 $132,397
2027/28 69 74 $47 $12,333 $12,377 $143,546
2028/29 68 74 $39 $12,341 $12,380 $154,703
2029/30 66 74 $368 $11,942 $12,311 $170,652
2030/31 64 75 $0 $12,333 $12,333 $185,904
TOTAL $2,476 $84,468 $86,945
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
City Council 33 – 32 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-9 Table 4-5: Existing Funding (Local Network)
Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Existing
Funding
Preventive M&R
Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Total
Existing
Funding Backlog
Present 78 78 ~ ~ ~ ~
2024/25 77 81 $1,543 $5,945 $7,488 $157,734
2025/26 76 82 $3,585 $3,737 $7,322 $174,310
2026/27 75 80 $3,005 $4,342 $7,347 $190,521
2027/28 73 79 $3,461 $3,913 $7,374 $206,566
2028/29 72 78 $2,683 $4,699 $7,382 $222,621
2029/30 70 78 $3,730 $3,733 $7,463 $245,573
2030/31 68 77 $293 $7,134 $7,428 $267,521
TOTAL $18,300 $33,504 $51,804
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
City Council 33 – 33 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-10
4.3.2 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING LEVELS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN EXISTING PCI With existing funding of just under $139 million for the entire pavement network over the sevenyear period from FY 2024/25 through FY 2030/31, additional funding is required to maintain the existing PCIaw of 76.3. This alternative provides an available prioritized list of streets with recommended M&R treatment to allow the City to hand select if unforeseen funds become available at some point in the future. As illustrated in Table 4-6, a total of $1.7 million in additional funds calculated at about $237,000 annually would be needed; thus, providing for a total alternative funding level of just over $140.4 million over the seven-year period. Furthermore, with this additional funding, the backlog for FY 2024/25 of $285.2 million would be increased by about 56 percent to $446.1 million for FY 2030/31.
Demonstrated in Table 4-7 and Table 4-8, 44 percent ($1.7 million) of the additional funding ($756,000) would be applied to the arterial network and 56 percent ($944,000) would be applied to the local network. As a result, the existing PCIaw would be maintained at 76.0; 72 and 78 for the arterial and local networks, respectively.
City Council 33 – 34 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-11 Table 4-6: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Entire Pavement Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 76 76 ~ ~ ~ ~ $285,218
2024/25 75 77 $1,762 $18,446 -$333 $19,875 $272,310
2025/26 74 78 $4,269 $15,492 -$772 $18,989 $298,192
2026/27 74 78 $4,126 $15,634 -$244 $19,515 $326,443
2027/28 72 77 $3,505 $16,255 -$116 $19,644 $355,314
2028/29 71 77 $2,722 $17,039 $478 $20,239 $375,447
2029/30 69 77 $4,099 $15,662 $883 $20,644 $412,880
2030/31 67 76 $2,935 $19,467 $1,763 $21,523 $446,110
TOTAL $20,776 $117,994 $1,659 $140,429
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
Table 4-7: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Arterial Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 73 73 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2024/25 72 74 $219 $12,473 $0 $12,692 $119,512
2025/26 71 74 $684 $11,747 $0 $12,431 $110,845
2026/27 71 73 $1,121 $11,299 $0 $12,420 $124,646
2027/28 69 73 $47 $12,333 $0 $12,377 $139,410
2028/29 68 73 $39 $12,341 $192 $12,572 $147,778
2029/30 66 72 $368 $11,942 $354 $12,665 $170,215
2030/31 64 72 $0 $12,333 $705 $13,038 $182,404
TOTAL $2,476 $84,469 $1,251 $88,195
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
City Council 33 – 35 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-12 Table 4-8: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Maintain Existing PCI (Local Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 78 78 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2024/25 77 79 $1,543 $5,945 $0 $7,488 $152,798
2025/26 76 79 $3,585 $3,737 $0 $7,322 $187,347
2026/27 75 80 $3,005 $4,342 $0 $7,347 $201,797
2027/28 73 79 $3,461 $3,913 $0 $7,374 $215,904
2028/29 72 79 $2,683 $4,699 $287 $7,669 $227,669
2029/30 70 79 $3,730 $3,733 $530 $7,993 $242,665
2030/31 68 78 $293 $7,134 $1,057 $8,485 $263,706
TOTAL $18,300 $33,504 $409 $53,678
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
City Council 33 – 36 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-13
4.3.3 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING LEVELS REQUIRED TO IMPROVE PCI With existing funding of just under $139 million for the entire pavement network over the sevenyear period from FY 2024/25 through FY 2030/31, additional funding is required to improve the existing PCIaw for FY 2024/25 of 76.0 by one point or better. As illustrated in Table 4-9, a total of $3.6 million in additional funds calculated at about $508,400 annually would be needed; thus providing for a total alternative funding level of over $142.3 million over the seven-year period.
Furthermore, with this additional funding, the backlog for FY 2024/25 of $285.2 million would increase about 54 percent to $440.3 million for FY 2030/31.
Demonstrated in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11, 39 percent ($3.6 million) of the additional funding ($1.4 million) would be applied to the arterial network and 61 percent ($2.2 million) would be applied to the local network. As a result, the existing PCIaw would be improved to 75.0 and 80.0 for the arterial and local networks, respectively.
City Council 33 – 37 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-14 Table 4-9: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Entire Pavement Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 76 76 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2024/25 75 79 $1,762 $18,446 $0 $20,208 $267,345
2025/26 74 80 $4,269 $15,492 $0 $19,760 $295,440
2026/27 74 79 $4,126 $15,634 $453 $20,213 $320,811
2027/28 72 79 $3,505 $16,255 $1,073 $20,834 $348,661
2028/29 71 78 $2,722 $17,039 $573 $20,333 $371,787
2029/30 69 78 $4,099 $15,662 $655 $20,415 $409,555
2030/31 67 78 $2,935 $19,467 $804 $20,565 $440,253
TOTAL $20,776 $117,994 $3,558 $142,329
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
Table 4-10: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Arterial Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 73 73 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2024/25 72 73 $219 $12,473 $0 $12,693 $109,612
2025/26 71 74 $684 $11,747 $0 $12,431 $121,131
2026/27 71 74 $1,121 $11,299 $181 $12,601 $131,533
2027/28 69 74 $47 $12,333 $429 $12,806 $142,951
2028/29 68 74 $39 $12,341 $229 $12,609 $152,433
2029/30 66 74 $368 $11,942 $262 $12,573 $167,918
2030/31 64 75 $0 $12,333 $320 $12,653 $180,504
TOTAL $2,476 $84.469 $1,422 $88,366
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
City Council 33 – 38 6/4/2024
4.0 Maintenance And Rehabilitation Strategies
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program 4-4-15 Table 4-11: Alternative Funding Levels Required To Improve PCI (Local Network) Fiscal
Year
PCIaw w/o
Existing
Funding
PCIaw w/
Alternative
Funding
Preventive
M&R Existing
Funding
Major M&R
Existing
Funding
Additional
Funding
Total
Alternative
Funding Backlog
Present 78 78 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2024/25 77 81 $1,543 $5,945 $0 $7,488 $157,734
2025/26 76 82 $3,585 $3,737 $0 $7,322 $174,310
2026/27 75 83 $3,005 $4,342 $272 $7,800 $189,279
2027/28 73 82 $3,461 $3,913 $644 $8,447 $205,710
2028/29 72 81 $2,683 $4,699 $344 $7,955 $219,355
2029/30 70 81 $3,730 $3,733 $393 $8,118 $241,637
2030/31 68 80 $293 $7,134 $483 $8,232 $259,749
TOTAL $18,300 $33,504 $2,136 $55,362
Note: Cost figures are rounded to nearest $1,000.
City Council 33 – 39 6/4/2024
City of Santa Ana 2024 Pavement Management Program
APPENDIX A: ENTIRE PAVEMENT NETWORK PCI REPORT
City Council 33 – 40 6/4/2024
City of Santa Ana, CA
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Report - All Streets
Sorted by Func Class, Name Order (A-Z)
Street ID Sec ID ConcID Name From To Type Lanes Func Class Area ID Neighborhoods Length Width Area Insp. Date PCI PCT Load PCT Environment PCT Other Arterials / Collectors (MPAH)
101600 3205E 101600-3205E 17TH ST FAIRVIEW ST BRISTOL ST AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 5,255 40 195,350 4/19/24 100 0 0 0 101600 3205W 101600-3205W 17TH ST BRISTOL ST FAIRVIEW ST AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 5,255 40 191,325 4/11/24 100 0 0 0 101600 3905 101600-3905 17TH ST BRISTOL ST FLOWER ST AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,607 67 185,866 4/11/24 100 0 0 0 101600 4605 101600-4605 17TH ST FLOWER ST BROADWAY AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,505 68 158,016 5/1/24 74 25 47 28 101600 5550 101600-5550 17TH ST BROADWAY PENN WY AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,492 70 145,832 4/24/24 76 27 48 25 101600 5575 101600-5575 17TH ST PENN WY SANTIAGO ST6 AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,864 68 74,459 5/1/24 63 58 39 4 101600 5701 101600-5701 17TH ST SANTIAGO ST LINCOLN AV AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,255 68 91,314 5/1/24 70 27 69 4 101600 5702 101600-5702 17TH ST LINCOLN AV GRAND AV AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,430 68 89,365 3/29/24 70 24 64 12 101600 6001 101600-6001 17TH ST GRAND AV WRIGHT ST AC/AC 4 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,402 56 77,975 3/29/24 41 36 54 10 101600 6002 101600-6002 17TH ST WRIGHT ST CABRILLO PARK DR AC/AC 4 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,696 56 95,327 3/29/24 45 36 60 3 101600 6003 101600-6003 17TH ST CABRILLO PARK DR TUSTIN AV AC/AC 4 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,260 56 115,526 3/22/24 74 60 40 0 101600 6004 101600-6004 17TH ST TUSTIN AV CITY LIMIT AC/AC 4 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,660 56 76,759 5/3/24 52 50 35 15 101600 6006E 101600-6006E 17TH ST GRAND AV WRIGHT AV PCC 1 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,400 14 19,888 3/29/24 91 22 78 0 101600 6006W 101600-6006W 17TH ST WRIGHT ST GRAND AV PCC 1 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,400 14 20,592 3/22/24 87 15 80 5 101600 6007E 101600-6007E 17TH ST WRIGHT ST CABRILLO PARK DR PCC 1 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,702 14 24,594 3/29/24 87 42 56 2 101600 6007W 101600-6007W 17TH ST SHERRY LN WRIGHT ST PCC 1 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,702 14 24,259 3/22/24 93 16 70 14 101600 6008E 101600-6008E 17TH ST CABRILLO PARK DR TUSTIN AV PCC 1 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,180 14 32,477 3/22/24 85 72 26 2 101600 6008W 101600-6008W 17TH ST TUSTIN AV SHERRY LN PCC 1 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,189 14 32,929 3/22/24 93 0 59 41 100100 1101E 100100-1101E 1ST ST CITY LIMIT EUCLID ST AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,306 46 63,684 5/7/24 78 39 50 10 100100 1101W 100100-1101W 1ST ST EUCLID ST CITY LIMIT AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,306 45 59,384 5/7/24 72 45 55 0 100100 1102E 100100-1102E 1ST ST EUCLID ST S ANDRES PL AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,890 47 86,230 5/7/24 69 36 64 0 100100 1102W 100100-1102W 1ST ST S ANDRES PL EUCLID ST AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,890 52 95,145 5/7/24 75 47 45 8 100100 1103E 100100-1103E 1ST ST S ANDRES PL NEWHOPE ST AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 728 47 34,466 5/7/24 73 34 63 3 100100 1103W 100100-1103W 1ST ST NEWHOPE ST S ANDRES PL AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 728 51 36,588 5/7/24 72 51 49 0 100100 1701E 100100-1701E 1ST ST NEWHOPE ST HARBOR BLVD AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,640 49 124,564 5/13/24 85 0 100 0 100100 1701W 100100-1701W 1ST ST HARBOR BLVD NEWHOPE ST AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,640 48 116,815 4/5/24 92 0 100 0 100100 1901 100100-1901 1ST ST HARBOR BLVD SANTA ANA RIVER AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 5,300 76 193,540 4/5/24 78 30 63 7 100100 2901 100100-2901 1ST ST SANTA ANA RIVER FAIRVIEW ST AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,432 76 105,994 4/23/24 68 18 80 2 100100 2902 100100-2902 1ST ST FAIRVIEW ST RAITT ST AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 3,685 76 284,423 4/23/24 76 32 68 0 100100 3801E 100100-3801E 1ST ST RAITT ST BRISTOL ST AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,311 40 93,857 4/23/24 84 52 48 0 100100 3801W 100100-3801W 1ST ST BRISTOL ST RAITT ST AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,311 40 92,409 4/23/24 80 35 65 0 100100 4301 100100-4301 1ST ST BRISTOL ST FLOWER ST AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,656 66 177,862 4/23/24 84 45 52 4 100100 4805 100100-4805 1ST ST FLOWER ST MAIN ST AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,667 66 186,108 4/23/24 78 68 23 9 100100 5401 100100-5401 1ST ST MAIN ST OAK ST AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,634 65 119,340 5/3/24 77 48 38 14 100100 5402 100100-5402 1ST ST OAK ST AC-PCC TRANSITION (NEAR STANDA AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 3,800 65 126,813 5/3/24 75 39 48 13 100100 6550 100100-6550 1ST ST AC-PCC TRANSITION AC-PCC TRANSITION PCC 4 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,400 44 34,092 5/3/24 88 51 38 11 100100 6556 100100-6556 1ST ST AC-PCC TRANSITION (NEAR GRAND WRIGHT ST AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 4,100 66 133,508 5/9/24 66 48 48 4 100100 6557 100100-6557 1ST ST WRIGHT ST I-5 FWY AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,490 66 112,245 4/23/24 83 4 82 14 100100 7201 100100-7201 1ST ST I-5 FWY N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,235 66 86,941 5/3/24 70 50 25 25 100100 7202 100100-7202 1ST ST N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR TUSTIN AV AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,298 80 86,521 5/3/24 68 32 24 44 100400 1400 100400-1400 4TH ST TOWNSEND ST DAISY AV AC 2 A 21 - ARTESIA PILAR Local 04 833 22 18,566 4/11/24 42 76 20 4 100400 2201 100400-2201 4TH ST FRENCH ST RAILROAD AC/AC 3 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,747 53 134,126 4/24/24 61 36 32 32 100400 2202 100400-2202 4TH ST RAILROAD GRAND AV AC/AC 3 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,055 53 52,202 4/24/24 62 48 39 13 100400 3501 100400-3501 4TH ST GRAND AV MABURY ST AC 2 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,459 30 79,469 4/24/24 77 50 42 8 100400 3506E 100400-3506E 4TH ST GRAND AV MABURY ST PCC 1 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,437 9 23,090 5/1/24 94 0 82 18 100400 3506W 100400-3506W 4TH ST GRAND AV MABURY ST PCC 1 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,437 8 26,139 4/24/24 91 0 38 62 100400 4205 100400-4205 4TH ST I-5 FWY CABRILLO PARK DR AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,412 66 57,999 5/1/24 68 46 50 5 100400 4206 100400-4206 4TH ST CABRILLO PARK DR N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,470 66 54,219 5/3/24 70 43 49 8 100400 4207 100400-4207 4TH ST N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR TUSTIN AV AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,360 66 85,989 5/3/24 63 48 39 13 100400 4208 100400-4208 4TH ST TUSTIN AV SR-55 FWY AC/AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 770 66 32,410 5/1/24 59 30 59 12 100500 4705 100500-4705 5TH ST ROSS ST MAIN ST AC 6 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,420 36 38,605 2/7/24 97 0 35 65 100500 4706 100500-4706 5TH ST MAIN ST MORTIMER ST AC 6 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,189 36 33,850 2/7/24 98 0 100 0 103300 3105 103300-3105 ALTON AV - 103300 MAIN ST HALLADAY ST AC 3 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,497 50 125,052 4/3/24 99 0 100 0 103300 3106 103300-3106 ALTON AV - 103300 HALLADAY ST STANDARD AV AC 3 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 498 50 30,217 5/1/24 88 0 100 0 103300 4050 103300-4050 ALTON AV - 103300 DAIMLER ST RED HILL AV AC/AC 3 A 99 - NON-NEIGHBORHOOD AREA 99 ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,706 50 79,888 4/26/24 31 36 58 6 105300 1201 105300-1201 BEAR ST - 105300 SUNFLOWER AV W WAKEHAM PL AC/AC 2 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 729 38 28,521 5/16/24 69 0 38 62 105300 1202 105300-1202 BEAR ST - 105300 W WAKEHAM PL MACARTHUR BLVD AC/AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,290 67 90,755 5/16/24 64 20 65 14 105300 1203 105300-1203 BEAR ST - 105300 MACARTHUR BLVD ALTON AV AC/AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,240 44 70,024 5/16/24 77 14 86 0 105300 1204 105300-1204 BEAR ST - 105300 ALTON AV SEGERSTROM AV AC/AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,658 47 70,386 5/16/24 71 0 77 23 107900 1101N 107900-1101N BRISTOL ST SUNFLOWER AV MACARTHUR BLVD AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,025 42 97,690 5/10/24 56 35 49 16 107900 1101S 107900-1101S BRISTOL ST MACARTHUR BLVD SUNFLOWER AV AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,025 42 100,786 5/17/24 74 40 46 13 107900 1201N 107900-1201N BRISTOL ST MACARTHUR BLVD SEGERSTROM AV AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,675 40 130,274 3/15/24 91 0 77 23 107900 1201S 107900-1201S BRISTOL ST SEGERSTROM AV MACARTHUR BLVD AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,675 40 112,372 3/15/24 86 0 20 80 107900 1601N 107900-1601N BRISTOL ST SEGERSTROM AV WARNER AV AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 3,161 40 127,688 3/15/24 86 38 56 6 107900 1601S 107900-1601S BRISTOL ST WARNER AV SEGERSTROM AV AC/AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 3,161 40 127,527 3/15/24 80 19 54 26 107900 1901 107900-1901 BRISTOL ST WARNER AV EDINGER AV AC/AC 4 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 3,998 60 286,802 3/15/24 32 42 39 19 107900 2701N 107900-2701N BRISTOL ST EDINGER AV MCFADDEN AV AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,650 41 90,126 2/29/24 100 0 100 0 107900 2701S 107900-2701S BRISTOL ST MCFADDEN AV EDINGER AV AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,650 41 92,581 2/29/24 99 0 100 0 107900 3351N 107900-3351N BRISTOL ST MCFADDEN AV MYRTLE ST AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,660 41 90,116 2/29/24 99 0 100 0 107900 3351S 107900-3351S BRISTOL ST MYRTLE ST MCFADDEN AV AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,660 41 97,219 2/29/24 100 0 0 0 107900 3352N 107900-3352N BRISTOL ST MYRTLE ST 1ST ST AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,342 41 51,354 4/23/24 100 0 100 0 107900 3352S 107900-3352S BRISTOL ST 1ST ST MYRTLE ST AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,342 41 43,663 4/23/24 92 0 100 0 107900 4501N 107900-4501N BRISTOL ST 1ST ST CIVIC CENTER DR AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,195 41 96,094 4/23/24 83 6 94 0 107900 4501S 107900-4501S BRISTOL ST CIVIC CENTER DR 1ST ST AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,195 41 89,429 4/23/24 85 29 71 0 107900 5200 107900-5200 BRISTOL ST CIVIC CENTER DR 17TH ST AC/AC 4 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 3,107 64 234,109 4/19/24 49 52 37 11 107900 5801 107900-5801 BRISTOL ST 17TH ST SANTA CLARA AV AC 5 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,478 55 157,216 4/8/24 94 0 100 0 107900 6301 107900-6301 BRISTOL ST SANTA CLARA AV MEMORY LN AC 6 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,221 68 161,002 4/10/24 66 47 43 10 107900 6401N 107900-6401N BRISTOL ST MEMORY LN HESPERIAN ST AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,910 40 69,864 4/22/24 76 6 73 21 107900 6401S 107900-6401S BRISTOL ST HESPERIAN ST MEMORY LN AC 3 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,910 40 72,002 4/22/24 77 18 78 4 107900 6651N 107900-6651N BRISTOL ST HESPERIAN ST I-5 FWY AC 2 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,653 48 74,954 4/22/24 51 46 51 3 107900 6651S 107900-6651S BRISTOL ST i-5 FWY HESPERIAN ST AC 2 A ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,653 48 75,042 4/22/24 62 30 68 2 108000 1301 108000-1301 BROADWAY - 108000 ANAHURST PL ST ANDREW PL AC 2 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,634 46 58,533 3/1/24 75 2 98 0 108000 1302 108000-1302 BROADWAY - 108000 ST ANDREW PL EDINGER AV AC 2 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,672 46 78,041 3/1/24 78 0 100 0 108000 1801 108000-1801 BROADWAY - 108000 EDINGER AV WILSHIRE AV AC 2 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,252 47 53,111 4/29/24 82 0 100 0 108000 1802 108000-1802 BROADWAY - 108000 WILSHIRE AV MCFADDEN AV AC 2 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,342 47 55,269 4/29/24 74 0 93 7 108000 2201 108000-2201 BROADWAY - 108000 MCFADDEN AV BISHOP ST AC/AC 2 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,771 42 75,326 5/10/24 71 36 57 6 108000 2202 108000-2202 BROADWAY - 108000 BISHOP ST 1ST ST AC/AC 2 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,152 43 98,389 5/10/24 52 55 39 6 108000 3101 108000-3101 BROADWAY - 108000 1ST ST CIVIC CENTER DR AC/AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,060 42 93,740 5/18/24 88 2 17 82 108000 3701 108000-3701 BROADWAY - 108000 CIVIC CENTER DR WASHINGTON AV AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,607 50 81,703 4/19/24 89 0 66 34 108000 3702 108000-3702 BROADWAY - 108000 WASHINGTON AV 17TH ST AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,523 50 75,819 4/19/24 86 0 52 48 108000 4201 108000-4201 BROADWAY - 108000 17TH ST SANTA CLARA AV AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,479 54 121,852 4/19/24 75 21 45 35 108000 4701 108000-4701 BROADWAY - 108000 SANTA CLARA AV MAINPLACE DR AC 3 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,176 47 64,671 4/19/24 21 45 55 1 108100 1100 108100-1100 BROADWAY PL - 108100 ANAHURST PL MAIN ST AC 1 C 11 - SANTA ANA MEMORIAL PARK ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,054 32 30,956 3/1/24 96 0 100 0 108900 1101 108900-1101 CABRILLO PARK DR - 108900 1ST ST FRUIT ST AC/AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,190 47 131,208 5/24/24 43 38 28 34 108900 1102 108900-1102 CABRILLO PARK DR - 108900 FRUIT ST 17TH ST AC/AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 2,290 47 133,707 3/27/24 52 49 30 21 109600 1101 109600-1101 CAMBRIDGE ST - 109600 FAIRHAVEN AV CITY LIMIT AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 910 59 54,178 1/19/24 55 43 57 1 112100 2205 112100-2205 CHESTNUT AV - 112100 ROSS ST MAIN ST PCC 2 C 08 - HENINGER PARK ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,118 48 49,948 5/15/24 58 81 14 5 112100 2601 112100-2601 CHESTNUT AV - 112100 MAIN ST STANDARD AV AC 4 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 3,258 50 143,537 5/17/24 60 26 64 10 112100 3401 112100-3401 CHESTNUT AV - 112100 STANDARD AV GRAND AV AC/AC 6 C ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS ARTERIALS - ARTERIALS 1,989 58 117,539 5/17/24 60 34 38 28