HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - LYONS AVE EXTENSION RPT (2)AGENDA REPORT ,
City Manager Approval
Item to be oresented bvs7,
NEW BUSINESS
DATE: November 26, 1991
SUBJECT: LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION FEASIBILITY REPORT
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Upon the adoption of the General Plan, Council directed staff to.investigate
the feasibility of extending Lyons Avenue from San Fernando Road through
Placerita Canyon to a connection with the Antelope Valley Freeway, State Route
14 (SR14). A copy of the draft report which discusses this investigation is
attached for the Council's reference.
Although, the focus of the investigation was the Lyons Avenue extension, it
needed to be expanded to include an analysis of how it would effect other
proposed roadways. Since it would be essentially in the same area at the
east/west leg of Rio Vista Road and Santa Clarita Parkway as proposed might
replace the north/south leg of Rio Vista Road, we investigated three
alternatives:
1. A Lyons Avenue extension without Rio Vista Road or Santa Clarita.Parkway.
2. Rio Vista Road without the Lyons Avenue extension or Santa Clarita Parkway.
3. A Lyons Avenue extension with Santa Clarita Parkway replacing Rio Vista
Road.
What we observed was the following:
• The Lyons Avenue extension could be constructed as an 84 -foot secondary
highway which would allow it to fit the existing roadway through the
Westcreek property. No additional right-of-way or building relocation
would be required in that specific area.
• The Lyons Avenue extension would provide a suitable bypass for Placerita
Canyon and significantly reduce traffic on Placerita Canyon Road.
• The Lyons Avenue extension in and of itself has little benefit for overall
traffic circulation.
• Replacing. the north/south leg of Rio Vista Road with Santa Clarita Parkway
increases the proposed traffic on San Fernando Road by 25%.
• The cost of constructing Santa Clarita Parkway in combination with the
Lyons Avenue extension is approximately 12`b higher than constructing Rio
Vista Road. -
.,oma Agenda Item:_/4
LYONS .AVENUE EXTENSION FEASIBILITY REPORT
Page 2
• There is a strong indication that a grade separation, overpass/underpass,
will be required for the extension of Lyons Avenue across the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks.
A citizen participation meeting was held to discuss the report and to receive
citizen input on the report and circulation in general. A summary of that
meeting is included in the draft report and is attached to this item.
Some of the highlights of the comments presented at the meeting are as follows:
• Placerita Canyon Road carries too much traffic and is a potential
liability for the City if no bypass is constructed.
• In light of the projected high volumes of traffic on Placerita. Canyon Road
and the need for an east/west roadway in this traffic corridor, cost
should not be the only .consideration in a cost benefit analysis of this
proposal.
• Traffic on Placerita Canyon and San Fernando Roads is a commuter generated
problem. If we could provide other roadways that would link population
centers with Interstate 5.or SR 14, we could relieve both roads, and thus
the need for Rio Vista Road, the Lyons Avenue extension, and Santa Clarita
Parkway may not be necessary.
The results of the report, and at least some of the comments at the public
meeting, indicate that the project's. costs, far outweighh the benefits of a
Lyons Avenue extension. This is especially true when we consider that the
project is not included in the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) and would have to compete with the other $541,000,000 of unfunded
projects. It would have to compete with existing unfunded roadways which need
widening to increase capacity; whereas, the Lyons Avenue extension would in
the short term only replace capacity.
With these factors in mind, it would be appropriate to determine that the
study is complete and to keep'it on file for future reference. . If the Council
wishes to pursue additional information on the project, staff will prepare a
suitable work program for your consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the report.
ATTACHMENT
Draft Report
hds/558
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION
November 6, 1991
• Why not call the Lyons Avenue extension the Placerita Canyon bypass,
because that is what it is.
• The increase in traffic on Placerita Canyon Road is going to increase the
City's exposure to liability, whether or not it is a publicly dedicated
street.
• The amount of traffic on Placerita Canyon Road is unacceptable now and
will be worse in the future. Something needs to be done.
• Will the Lyons Avenue extension affect oak trees and the ridgelines?
• Placerita Canyon Road is the only roadway in the east/west traffic
corridor, and it has been used quite heavily during natural disasters,
i.e., oil spills, earthquakes, etc. For this reason, a relief roadway
should be constructed, such as the Lyons Avenue extension.
• The heavy traffic on Placerita Canyon Road is a commuter problem. If we
could get the commuters sooner. to I-5 or SR 14, we could relieve Placerita
Canyon Road and San Fernando Road. Some ideas were:
1. Connect Santa Clarita Parkway to Golden Valley Road.
2. Extend Magic Mountain Parkway easterly to Soledad Canyon Road or Santa
Clarita Parkway.
3. Improve Wiley Canyon Road, including a connection to Via Princessa.
• There should be an on/off ramp at SR 14 and Placerita Canyon Road rather
than the current arrangement at San Fernando Road.
• Why not widen the 13th Street crossing instead of building the expensive
overpass/underpass at Lyons Avenue. This would reduce the cost.
• Wouldn't an overpass/underpass ruin the businesses at Lyons Avenue and
San Fernando Road?
• The City should set priorities for building or widening new roads -that are
not necessarily cost -related, i.e., the potential liability of leaving
Placerita Canyon Road in its current condition.
• How much of Santa Clarita Parkway will be paid for by the developer, Anden
Group? This would make the cost of the roadway less for the City.
COMMENTS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION
Page 2
• Lyons Avenue extension is not a regional problem but a local one and
should be prioritized on that basis.
• The heavy traffic on Placerita Canyon Road causes noise and air pollution
problems.
• Building roads to allow the rapid movement of commuter traffic would
reduce air pollution. This should be investigated.
hds/558
3
PROJECT
REPORT
LYONS AVENUE
EXTENSION
Draft
October 1991
Prepared by the City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department
Engineering
1.
1
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................
.1
1
Exhibit "A"
- Rio Vista Alignment (Sheet 1 of 2).. .................
2
Exhibit "A"
- Santa Clarita Parkway & Lyons Avenue Extension
(Sheet 2 of
2) ....................................................
3
INTRODUCTION.........................................................
9
METHODOLOGY .
.... .......L ............................................
9
1
Figure 1 -
Proposed Master Plan of Arterial Highways ..............
10
Figure IA -
Lyons Avenue Extension - Rio Vista Road Alternatives...
13
1
SCOPE OF WORK
.......................................................
14
ROADWAYCAPACITY ....................................................
15
1
Figure 2 -
Future Traffic Volumes - Lyons Avenue Extension
Included in Rio Vista Road .............................
16
1
Figure 3 -
Future Traffic Volumes - Lyons Avenue Extension........
17
Figure 4 -
Future Traffic Volumes - Lyons Avenue Extension
with Santa Clarita Parkway
18
.............................
1
Figure 5 -
Screenline Locations ...................................
20
Figure 6 -
Screenline V/C Ratio - Santa Clarita Parkway
1
Alternative (Lyons Extension as a Secondary)...........
.21.
Figure 7 -
Screenline V/C.Ratio - Santa Clarita Parkway
1
Alternative (Lyons Extension as a Major) ...............
24
STREET CATEGORY (CROSS SECTION) .....................................
27
'
Figure 8 -
Screenline V/C Ratio - No Santa Clarita Parkway
(Lyons Extension as a Secondary) ........................
28
1
COST ESTIMATE
.......................................................
31
TRAFFICMOVEMENTS ...................................................
32
'
Figure 9 -
Turning Movement Diagram - San.Fernando Road/
Lyons Avenue
...........................................
34
Figure 10 -
Turning Movement Diagram - Lyons -Avenue Extension
'
(East End)/Placerita Canyon Road .......................
35
Figure -11 -
Turning Movement Diagram - Lyons. Avenue Extension/
'
Arch Street...............................0............
36
COST/BENEFIT RATIO
...........................................
38
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION RAILROAD CROSSING
39
'
............................
CURRENT BUDGET/FUNDING SOURCES ......................................
40
INFRASTRUCTURENEEDS/ALTERNATIVES
...................................
42
PUBLICPARTICIPATION/COMMENTS
.......................................
42
APPENDIX1 ..................................................... ... 43
II
I1.
II
:w -v 10 d1 F
' The recent adoption of the General Plan provides the framework for planning
the City's future. One major aspect of the General Plan is the Circulation
' Element which'provides a picture of the major highways which will be necessary
to accommodate traffic over 20 years and more. Like most plans, it is a
' starting point. to measure the appropriateness of future development. It is
also a dynamic plan which has the effect of being able to accommodate
revisions to meet an ever-changing environment.
After the plan was approved by the City Council, staff was directed. to
investigate an alternate roadway in the east/west corridor to the south of
Placerita Canyon. This roadway would extend Lyons Avenue .from its present
' terminus just east of San Fernando Road to .State Route 14 (SR 14), the
Antelope Valley Freeway. The Lyons Avenue extension is proposed along the
' southerly rim of Placerita Canyon. Since this route is in the .same vicinity
as that proposed for the east/west leg of.Rio Vista. Road,. which is already a
component of. a Circulation Element, it was appropriate to differentiate the
' difference between this proposed route versus Rio Vista Road. In addition,
since the Lyons Avenue extension would replace the east/west leg of Rio Vista
' Road and a proposal to construct a north/south route, designated as Santa
Clarita Parkway, easterly of Rio Vista Road which could replace the
' north/south portion of Rio Vista Road, an analysis was conducted to evaluate
how each of these roadways affected the Circulation Element. Each of these
' reviewed and proposed routes is able to be acted upon individually and need
not be considered as a package. These routes are depicted on the attached
Exhibit "A".
The methodology used to analyze these alternatives was to input data into the
traffic model used to develop the Circulation Element to determine the effect
these alternatives would have. We also wanted to test and analyze the effects
if the Lyons Avenue extension were proposed as a four -lane (two in each
direction) 84 -foot wide secondary highway or a six -lane (three in each
' direction) 104 -foot wide major highway.
Page 2
EXHIBIT "A"�
FF/O YisTA F709,0
'ate
m
RIO VISTA ALIGI
fel 1x11 .
r
e
Page 3 EXHIBIT "A"
fiJ[ ENC/q
SANTA CLAlt�/TA -PARHHAY
Mc6r.9N PffWY-
Z LYoit/,S` fll/�'IVUE
m EXTEMS101V
L
v
SANTA_ CLARFA PARKWAY & LYONS AVENUE
EXTENSION
SHEET 2 of 2 SHEETS
III ' PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
' Page 4
The results of the traffic model indicate the followings
• The Lyons Avenue extension along the south rim of Placerita Canyon can be
' constructed as a four -lane, 84 -foot secondary highway and provide a Level
of Service A. free-flowing traffic.
' • Upon further study, the Lyons Avenue extension could require a.grade
separation across the Southern Pacific Railroad because of the volume of
' traffic it is expected to carry.
f
• The extension of Via Princessa to Wiley Canyon Road (see Figure 1), is
necessary for San Fernando Road, Santa Clarita Parkway or Rio Vista Road
to function in the current Circulation Element.,
• The Lyons Avenue Extension will probably be a grade separation
(overpass/underpass) across the Southern Pacific Railroad because of the
volume of traffic it is expected to carry and the resistance to any new
at -grade crossings.
• The construction of the Lyons Avenue extension in and of itself provides
' no significant benefit to the overall Circulation Element but would
reduce future traffic volumes on Placerita Canyon Road.
1
• If Santa Clarita Parkway
is constructed
instead
of Rio Vista
Road, the
model predicts that San
Fernando Road
will ,be
required to
carry 25
percent more total daily traffic than is
currently
predicted at buildout.
• There is no significant
effect on Soledad Canyon Road or the
proposed
'
State Route 126 whether
Santa Clarita
Parkway
or Rio Vista
Road are
constructed.
f
• The extension of Via Princessa to Wiley Canyon Road (see Figure 1), is
necessary for San Fernando Road, Santa Clarita Parkway or Rio Vista Road
to function in the current Circulation Element.,
• The Lyons Avenue Extension will probably be a grade separation
(overpass/underpass) across the Southern Pacific Railroad because of the
volume of traffic it is expected to carry and the resistance to any new
at -grade crossings.
• The construction of the Lyons Avenue extension in and of itself provides
' no significant benefit to the overall Circulation Element but would
reduce future traffic volumes on Placerita Canyon Road.
1
I1.
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 5
'
A comparison of the estimated costs for each of
the roadway alternatives is as
follows:
Cost/100
Vehicle
'
Const, Cost
Mile Trips
1. Rio Vista Road: Bouquet Canyon
Road to Lyons Avenue . . . . . . . . . . .
$40,000,000
$4.71
'
** Rio Vista Road: Lyons Avenue to SR 14
$24,400,000*
$8.43
Rio Vista Road: Total . . . . . . . . . .
$64,400,000
$4.29.
2. Santa Clarita Parkway: Bouquet Canyon
Road to SR'14 . . . . . . . . . . . .
$48,000,000
$4.71
'
3.** Lyons Avenue Extension: San Fernando
Road to SR 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$24,400,000*
$10.47
4. Lyons Avenue Extension in Combination
with Santa Clarita Parkway
$72,400,000
$3.24
* Does not include right-of-way in the event that a grade
separation at -
Lyons Avenue and the Southern Pacific: Railroad is required.
** Since the traffic models show that an
east/west roadway whether an
extension of Rio Vista Road or Lyons Avenue
can be- a secondary highway in
an 84 -foot right-of-way, these cost estimates are identical and reflect
an 84 -foot right-of-way.
■ The following describes each of these routes and summarizes results of the
' study.
Lyons Avenue Extension
The Lyons Avenue extension provides an east/west corridor for traffic.moving
between SR 14. and .interstate 5 (I-5). This extension was shown on the
' Circulation Element as the east/west continuation of Rio Vista Road through
Placerita Canyon. The current alternate would be essentially in the same
location, except there would be no proposal for the construction of Rio Vista
Road and thus no connection to it,,,,.
11
0
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 6
The traffic model indicates that the utilization of this roadway, as a
four -lane secondary highway is a maximum of 67 percent of its capacity. Thus,
' the roadway, even at four lanes, is free-flowing and would not inhibit
traffic. However, we also need to compare .its cost to the ,relatively low
volume of traffic it services. For the purposes of an economic evaluation, we
have assumed a service life of 20 years for the original roadway costs which
results in a cost -per -100 -vehicle mile trip for this roadway of $10.47. When
used in conjunction with Santa Clarita Parkway results. in a $3.24 per vehicle
mile trip which is the least cost of the alternativesr
Although the Lyons Avenue extension has a minimal positive effect, on the
Circulation Element, it does .provide the only suitable relief for expected
future traffic volumes on Placerita Canyon Road. The only alternative is to
widen Placerita Canyon Road, which has substantial public opposition.
The most significant aspect of this alternative is the need to provide for a
crossing of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. This proposal "would double
the traffic flow at 13th Street. Therefore, negotiations would have to be
opened with the Public Utilities Commission in support of an exchange of
crossings, i.e., open a crossing for the Lyons Avenue extension in exchange
for closing the 13th Street crossing. In the worst case a grade separation
bridge .may be required to extend Lyons as proposed. However, a.final ruling
cannot be made until after a detailed proposal is submitted based on the
results of this study.
our analysis of traffic movements in the area indicates that separate
left -turn phasing will be required at all approaches to the intersection of
Lyons Avenue and San Fernando Road. Based on projected traffic volumes,
signals will also be required at the extension of Lyons Avenue with Arch
Street at the west end and at Placerita Canyon Road at the east end.
ti
' PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 7
1
Santa Clarita Parkway
This roadway has been proposed by the Anden. Group- as an alternative
' north/south roadway -for Rio Vista Road. It has an added benefit because a
major portion would be constructed by this developer, thus saving the City the
time and expense of finding a financing program for a portion of its
' construction. It does however require a right-of-way through the oil fields
in order to complete it linking up with SR 14 which may take some extended
' time to acquire.
' The traffic analysis indicates that Santa Clarita Parkway will have• a
detrimental effect on San Fernando Road when compared to the proposal to
construct Rio Vista Road. This is simply because. Santa Clarita Parkway is
farther east than Rio Vista Road, and thus does not provide an effective
alternate roadway to remove traffic from San Fernando Road. It does, however,
' provide more relief for Soledad Canyon Road in the area between Golden Valley
Road and Bouquet Junction than does Rio Vista Road. The net effect in
' constructing Santa Clarita Parkway as an alternative to the north/south.
segment of Rio Vista Road would be to require an increase in width to eight
lanes for San Fernando_ Road in the area between Lyons Avenue and .Bouquet
Junction. San Fernando Road is currently only planned as a six -lane roadway
in the General Plan.
Rio Vista Road
0
Except for the benefits to traffic flow on San Fernando Road, Rio Vista Road.
could be replaced with a combined alternative of Santa Clarita Parkway and
Lyons Avenue extension. Rio Vista Road was designed as a six -lane roadway
' through Placerita Canyon. The -study did indicate that their portion could be
proposed as a four -lane roadway and would carry the' expected future traffic
' volumes.
11
PROJECT REPORT
.LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 8
The cost of each of these roadways requires a significant commitment of public
and/or private funds. To complete our analysis of this effort, we will be
studying a ,revenue source and a Five -Year Capital Improvement Program to
determine what is a likely competition for these funds and how we might
proceed to finance this work. This phase of the project will be completed
shortly, and in the meantime, we will be scheduling public meetings during the
latter part of October to discuss and receive public, participation in this
analysis.
�1
PROJECT REPORT
1
LI
iI
This is a report on the findings of an analysis to extend Lyons Avenue from
its present terminus at Railroad Avenue approximately 200 feet east of
San Fernando Road through the southerly rim of Placerita Canyon to a
connection with Sierra Highway and State Route 14 (S.R. 14). The analysis was
requested by the City Council during -the adoption process of the City's first
General Plan. Since the Circulation Element (see Figure'1), which is included
in the General Plan, provides the backbone road network for the -City's future
needs, we can now test alternative roadways by inputting traffic data into the
traffic model and observe the effects on the. roadways identified in the
Circulation Element.
Since the Lyons Avenue Extension is generally in the. same location as the
proposed east/west leg of Rio Vista Road and a there is proposal to substitute
Santa Clarita Parkway for the.north/south leg of Rio Vista Road, we studied a
corollary network of replacing'.Rio Vista Road with a combination proposal of.
Lyons Avenue Extension and Santa Clarita Parkway. F
METHODOLOGY
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
model developed
Page 9
the roadway needs and capacities
'
depicted in
INTRODUCTION
1
LI
iI
This is a report on the findings of an analysis to extend Lyons Avenue from
its present terminus at Railroad Avenue approximately 200 feet east of
San Fernando Road through the southerly rim of Placerita Canyon to a
connection with Sierra Highway and State Route 14 (S.R. 14). The analysis was
requested by the City Council during -the adoption process of the City's first
General Plan. Since the Circulation Element (see Figure'1), which is included
in the General Plan, provides the backbone road network for the -City's future
needs, we can now test alternative roadways by inputting traffic data into the
traffic model and observe the effects on the. roadways identified in the
Circulation Element.
Since the Lyons Avenue Extension is generally in the. same location as the
proposed east/west leg of Rio Vista Road and a there is proposal to substitute
Santa Clarita Parkway for the.north/south leg of Rio Vista Road, we studied a
corollary network of replacing'.Rio Vista Road with a combination proposal of.
Lyons Avenue Extension and Santa Clarita Parkway. F
METHODOLOGY
Once the raw traffic data was developed, we then analyzed the cumulative
effects of budgeting, outside agency approvals and resources. In the final
analysis and report to the City Council, the Community's input,. reaction and
thoughts on the alternatives will also be presented.
The traffic
model developed
to determine
the roadway needs and capacities
'
depicted in
the Circulation
Element provides the basis to determine the
effects of new development on
our existing
roadway system and the need for new
roads. It
also can and was
used as the
basis to test proposed alternate
alignments and roadways.
Once the raw traffic data was developed, we then analyzed the cumulative
effects of budgeting, outside agency approvals and resources. In the final
analysis and report to the City Council, the Community's input,. reaction and
thoughts on the alternatives will also be presented.
10
ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST
LOS PADRES
NATIONAL FOREST
t.
r�
Gtl
7
7
HIGHWAYS
Expressway (8 lanes)
Freeway'
Major Highway (6 Lanes)
Secondary Highway (4 Lanes)
--------- Limited Highway (2 Lanes)
EXCEPTIONS AS NOTED
---1-
Proposed Master Plan of
Arterial Highways
AREA 6ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST
Oil
Gtl
7
7
HIGHWAYS
Expressway (8 lanes)
Freeway'
Major Highway (6 Lanes)
Secondary Highway (4 Lanes)
--------- Limited Highway (2 Lanes)
EXCEPTIONS AS NOTED
---1-
Proposed Master Plan of
Arterial Highways
AREA 6ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST
StROCC M Amdata.
..kGURE. IL
(I OF 3)
J�Ljn
A;
ANGELES VATIOXAL FOREST AJ
Santo
eneral Plan
rnta Clarita
ROAD
3
ANGELES NA TOMEST,*
0
CUAJM, NC WAV R/O/V
4 LANE W/M
zo
ANGELES VOMAL FOREST
Jt T
SAN CABRIEL MOUNTAINS
StROCC M Amdata.
..kGURE. IL
(I OF 3)
J�Ljn
A;
ANGELES VATIOXAL FOREST AJ
Santo
eneral Plan
rnta Clarita
Page 11
F
S
104'
10'1TT11-1-12*14'12T IT Iz, 10,
THREE LANES IN EACH DIRECTION,
NO ONSTREET PARKING, RAISED
LANDSCAPE MEDIAN.
-FOR BIKE TRAILS. AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY -
SHALL BE PROVIDED ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY TO PROVIDE FIGURE 1 (Z OF 3)
FOR A TWO-WAY BICYCLE PATH. THIS ROADWAY SECTION IS FOR
ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY.. ACTUAL CONFIGURATION WAY VARY ..
AND WILL BE INP(EWENTED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. CC.aibit C-4
Major Arterial Highway
Soum. KHR &sociata.
Santa Clarita General Plan
�� ` City of Santa Clarita
Page 12
8{•
TWO LANES IN EACH DIRECTION
WITH A TWO WAY LEFT TURN LANE.
F
THIS ROADWAY SECTION IS FOR ILLUSTRATION PUPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL CON- FIGUM -1 (A 013)
FlGURATION WAY VARY AND WILL BE IuPTEWENTED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. _
Exhibit C-6
Urban Secondary Arterial Highway
Sarsrrc MR Associates.
T3]pOR �t�,
. Santa Clarita General Plan
11M`- City of Santa Clarita
_.__. •. - — - - - . - - - — - - - -_ --- _ . _.
.. - _.. -
- - - --
_..
11 :.,,..
,
,
I
_ ..
_ ..W. I
.
.1 I
. 11
B
e 13
_
... .. :.
... .,.
:: r
.: _
-
. ... .. .. .. _.... .— ...._. . - _ ..
I ..
- -
.. _ _ _ -
. - - _ ..
.. _.. ' ,
... ..
,. _ .. . - ,
,
F
a
1 :
l
..,1.
♦ Al rn. ..
�Y q
a S
I
1.
't o _ _ -
{)
��
6
'�
r
Cl" l
,^ _
. �; Q - 4�qC' irk ,� 2 .
�..,, r-. ., r
U
53 ` l
\ �, i F „ - \: ,,_ ADY'J.n r\(},%n b - G•M`:/: o_ 11.1!x: - r - .. _
• ' c, 'r O 50 >' .
fr
.
,. 'L8 6'-s - .53. $ ti 48 � - -a
st
f .1 7 �. 1. I
t Au
J /.� : ,:
- J 14 F .-\
� -
J
o z
9
,� 4 4 4` /.
.4 11 -11•
\ . C�
T
"Ja ' o
2
J
�. 8 J .>
. 7S
f
\ :•
'I -
I
2 _ -
9 .'
f ;'
U �
T
•4
/ O.
'L i- 1 y
^ 4` _
4
r
i-; „l.. e
1 -
o
3- 1 -
\ ��-
/���
1
..., _ff.r . .
_ , r �. _
,.�. �.l 7 ti .._ .
\ �,. ,. \
\t _ _
3
29 � �
• ♦ r / ..
_ _ l".. , i - ��/ A_D• - I.X36 _
—_ . �.. \- - -- Tom. - - ♦ ��r �' .
1. T .. / _ v - -
V
ti
fir!.'_ --1'
- - ---
- - — - ,
�.;._ ''\: \� `- .'^ -+.r✓ __. -'1:.. .1 \'�\`fes, j i1.9. `� _�.' ��� :: .,. I
. _ , - _
1
y
is
•
•il
a _ l /
ti !�I
.r ^r
F 2�
. . I "N ; , I., .. I
_ -
11�- l
1<.: - - -
r s
t
r . , — _ \��. \ i - L t
2.,�
`_
1 f
V �_ ,1. ': t i .. �... _ - ! ,,:'r ;i•,'_ 'C Jnr' / F.� //
,l, _ :.. \ )!� ///. /'' % (, .a• 11 \ l fir. 6. r�i."
r
.�'
% r 1111 1 / /-
5 , 24' a 1 �„ �' t
=,i 0 0" / _
i 9 A' ,E - r Z 1'
_ V 1 — X _ o _ 2 6 i` % - % L
fir.
- \ r! �` <
\ �i ;
. ��
i
/ /.
r jL
1
r ) °�1
-_ t.�„ , ,r `.' '` r. moi- li' i\w.
r r _ ;� r
� a
✓" /
i' � l �
i/ � A
C
-: \ T
W
\ 'ir
v
'L -\ � l - 'oV ' /
_%; ?\
\1. T r
/-- , . ' -moi., `'
i' i <: '
/ ,- �� ` r .
\. .. ,\ ,./ - ...�.:L.' .: , /: � �, .�\ `l r' -yam`• •1r"A I LV 'r .!,&
, ,,,--- �-� � � .32365 1rt�•""' — ,\ ,)'
--. _ -_. -� % fi AL..� -
,
NSION .�_, - - -�._. w,:,.:; r _ r, \\\ i �Y '�� '/i \\'t\\\ --'.♦,\',\r �-1� ,�i\, '� ),•�l l `1;E ///i „i /. - i - 1
LYONS AVENUE EXTE �� c� J' `�� ,_ '�
._ ,\,� .tel :�, r,. _
=i ` �. % ,v � 1 l •`` \ . lam',`' \�., ; =� \
' k '� ` .,- , ' � :ate. J.. ." �'C \"' , ' I \ (-'� � \ - \ `� r /).--s - -.. ,, � - . _ , \ , �^-••..\� f / /, / � 1 ' - /�:' t - 1
--`` ` ..
,\`,...� .OY ,/ '\�\\' ^.�\\♦, \ 1 \� ,\�IIr� '��'\, j r' ��'•,. �'�\�. 1. ,�,\:./7!,r lrf�` i'' i
:1 --'� ./,"j,. . �iJ, ,\ 1� . \ \,\ Ll..l .• �\ \' �. `�(/\\�\ 1. \;C (,\ P 1 _ r'
ALTERNATIVE C g-� ,,, i :1
TA ROAD _r \ `' \ \ ! r 1 . � ,,.., , /\. `,` ..\ rti ; / / ♦ 1 4
RIO VIS /;/;/ :- �� \ J' �' -(' __ a •! \\.\
(•-fes NN,` ,
_. .- -
._ .. .,
/� �� j //
\�' - i%i'/, rl �^ \ n �i l %1 �% ^��f- %�^��.l I f ..ri \\:\\�/\r. L� �,r L'c \♦r. /.// (`V� .. •'.. :,3 -
�. 1 \' //I J,,i / :.,♦ `` - ,:•% /yam Y'
/ - Q=
__
..
%
. r _ .-' - ---- ' r / .
- - _ /. :\` \ tom. l \, \.:\t'. 'I . 1, .i ,. ✓'. r
[� W.
��
/ 1
/,,:•;�1y U ✓n ,,?, , r' 1 ;;',�.: \�'\' ��" l .fir /�/�i. �(/ '
_ , ,/r fir.: , .> „ 'I � Ali �-
.. r
. :
. I ,.. \ �J`�;.,; `, /i is Ii -*I \,, \.,j::G\J. .�\`ter-,' , -
.
•
1 >
r 1 \11.'.\ Ali„ Ir\ 1'iir .. .., !'\�•�.i•i `'~�• /��� - - I - -i
LEND .
��
I f \i _
`
0o
"' �7 '�
LOT LINE \ �' _ 1 =�_.'jlj�'�/i% '��
�J c� N
PROPERTY LINE Iii,,, : C. - �/ / .
/, �
. I J // ��/.i��/r', - --
[BY OWNERSHIP] __ _ _ t . ��`�_ -
_ I'
1.
/,I , YY [ 1 1
. Io' zs• �' 7' oil is \ . � �� I .. " 1
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT p .
..-�__ r _ tel-• i.:C .rU C.
OR RIGHT-OF-WAY .a — _ - -
.:.. . . .
1 lwls i
1
PROPOSED ROADWAY ALIGNMENT 1,
- ---- - - ___________7_.,.
---- ----- --- ..
�J
_:: EXISTING STRUCTURE •
tJ
rI
.T PRDPDSED BRIDGE , • I ! , _
.... \_ --- - .
! . - - -- - -- •' - - - . LYONS AVENUE' • EXTENSION / RIO _ VISTA .
, _ _
r. I
. .
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP I / .
,;14 .
OAD ALTERNATIVES
II
.`_' ' � IDENTIFICATION NO. .. .
,
TYPICAL SECTION
.
PROJECT REPORT -
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 14
SCOPE OF WORE
The following is the scope of •work that was developed to structure our
analysis and reports
• Input into the traffic model for the Circulation Element of the General
Plan the extension of Lyons Avenue, from its current terminus at
San Fernando Road to the Placerita Canyon Road interchange at State
Route 14. The model would also replace the current alignment of Rio
Vista with the alignment proposed by the Anden Group.
• Analyze the effects (increase or decrease) on the carrying capacity of
the Circulation Element streets as a result of the alternate described
above.
• Determine the street category (i.e., major, secondary highway) to.
accommodate the traffic projections determined in the model.
• Prepare a cost estimate of the new proposed alignment of the Lyons Avenue
extension and the alternate alignment for Rio Vista.
• List the advantages and disadvantages of constructing a narrower (4
through lanes instead of 6) for the Lyons Avenue extension.
• Analyze the likely traffic.movements at the Lyons Avenue connection with
San Fernando Road, and at the extension with PIacerita Canyon Road.
• Evaluate the cost benefit ratio of constructing the Rio Vista alternative
with other roadway improvements.
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
i Page 15
• Establish the inter -relationship for a new at -grade crossing at Lyons
Avenue based on criteria of the Public Utilities Commission, the Southern
Pacific Railroad, and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.
' This would be based on the assumption that .this new at -grade crossing
would be exchanged for the closing of the current crossing at 13th Street.
• Review the current budget and recommend possible funding sources.
' • Compare. the costs of this alternative and the original Rio Vista
alignment with other infrastructure needs. Develop a priority list of.
these improvements.
• Present the draft report at a community meeting to discuss and receive
citizen input.
' • Based on our analysis and citizen input, prepare a final report for
.presentation to the City Council.
ROADWAY CAPACITY
' 5,000 or 194 (see Figures 2, 3 S 4). This would be expected because the
deletion of the north leg of Rio Vista Road or the replacement of Rio Vista
' Road with Santa Clarita Parkway would shift traffic away from the Lyons Avenue
extension.
�'I
The results of the input to the
traffic model indicate that the Lyons Avenue
extension
would be expected to carry a maximum of approximately 20,700
vehicles
per day. Originally,
the east/west .leg of Rio Vista Road was
expected
to carry approximately
25,700 vehicles per day. Thus, constructing
only the
Lyons Avenue extension
would.reduce the number of vehicles per day by
' 5,000 or 194 (see Figures 2, 3 S 4). This would be expected because the
deletion of the north leg of Rio Vista Road or the replacement of Rio Vista
' Road with Santa Clarita Parkway would shift traffic away from the Lyons Avenue
extension.
�'I
16
SOZEO
I
I:
ir� A
IS �cESSA
1:
RIO VISTA ROAD
III LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
En
I 1 �
PIACERITA CANYON ROAD
LYONS
25,700
VENUE
II
FUTURE. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
1 LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
INCLUDED IN RIO VISTA ROAD
�1
e
w�
�V
J
VO4�
N
FIGURE 2
NOT TO SCALE
' Page 17
SozFO
i'
O
O
a
72
t
LYONS
i' AVENUE
I
ii
0.
..v, ,
CJ��
P�
cEssA
PLACERITA - CANYON - ROAD
20,700
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
LYONS AVF&UE EXTENSION
�vw
4
v04�
N
FIGURE 3
NOT TO SCALE
Page 18
SOt4�OD a
o
A o
y Y
Y
1�
PLACERI'rA CANYON RO.
' LYONS
16,400
AVENUE
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
1
1
'FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
WITH SANTA CLARITA PARKWAY
Al
�w
w�
�v
v
v°
EXIS'nNG 1 V
WESTCREEE
PROJECT
FIGURE 4
NOT TO SCALE
o
W'
a RCE5SA
o
A o
y Y
Y
1�
PLACERI'rA CANYON RO.
' LYONS
16,400
AVENUE
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
1
1
'FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
WITH SANTA CLARITA PARKWAY
Al
�w
w�
�v
v
v°
EXIS'nNG 1 V
WESTCREEE
PROJECT
FIGURE 4
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page.19
A secondary effect of deleting the north leg of Rio Vista Road entirely or
replacing it with Santa Clarita Parkway is to increase traffic on San Fernando
Road. The traffic model indicated a future vehicle usage for San Fernando
Road of 59,700 ADT with a volume capacity ratio (V/C) of 1.09 for a Level of
Service F.
Compared to the original estimate of 46,400 vehicles per day and V/C of 0.86,
this difference points out the need for a San Fernando Road at eight la:ies
(four in each direction) or a parallel road to divert traffic from San
Fernando Road. Further studies should be conducted to determine the cost
benefits of San Fernando Road. at eight lanes versus constructing Rio Vista
Road.
The benefits in considering the Lyons Avenue Extension in combination with
Santa Clarita Parkway are:
• Traffic on San Fernando `Road between Lyons Avenue & State Route 14 is
reduced by 3,300 ADT. (See screenline 11 on Figures 5, 6 & 7.)
• Traffic on Soledad Canyon Road near Golden Valley Road would be reduced
by,8,900 ADT. (See screenline 12 on Figures 6 & 7.)
Page 20
1 DKS ;associates
Mr);;ntmn
.......... ....
f-
_ y�wY
O m
vU,or Hrngnwav
Stto wry Highway
lunte•d Hignwav
Stale Route 126 -proposal
tturrr�r Screenline
42)
15 Av w
Nq
a
I O
Cal¢rovc.{
►tea
Blvd
1..1110
Attachment B
5creenline Locations
FIGURE 5
Oad
t`
Fat #f•�?'.�
C Ufa` ^cf
E
•;HaltPv�.
E
.r !
1
dif� Oft
i
Mr);;ntmn
.......... ....
f-
_ y�wY
O m
vU,or Hrngnwav
Stto wry Highway
lunte•d Hignwav
Stale Route 126 -proposal
tturrr�r Screenline
42)
15 Av w
Nq
a
I O
Cal¢rovc.{
►tea
Blvd
1..1110
Attachment B
5creenline Locations
FIGURE 5
Page 21
Santa Clarita Model
Build Out Screenline v/c Ratio
Santa Clarita Parkway Alternative
(Lyons Extension as a Secondarv)
FIGURE 6 (1 OF 3)
Improved Network with
Modified Land Use
Number of
B/O .
Proj B/O
V/C
Roadway
Screenline
Location
Lanes
capacity
Volume
Ratio
1
Interstate 5
8
206.4
200.8
0.97
Ile Old Road
6
54.0
16.9
0.31
Terra Highway
6
54.0
153
0.28
State Route 14
10
258.0
1745
0.68
ScreenlineTotal
572.4
4075
--------
0.71
2
Old Road
4
30.8
20.1
0.65
Interstate 5
8
206.4
194.8
0.94
Wiley Canyon Road
6
54.0
30.8
0.57
rchard Village Road
6
54.0
26.9
050
ewhall Avenue
4
30.8
7.6
0.25
an Fernando Road
6
54.0
46.0
0.85
nta Clarita Pkwy
6
54.0
24.7
0.46
eenline Total
------------------------
484.0
350.9
0.73
3
Dld Road
4
30.8
20.1
0.65
nterstate 5
8
206.4
194.8
0.94
ockwell Canyon Road
4
30.6
12.6
0.41
rchard Village Road
- 6
54.0
48.8
0.90
n Fernando Road
6
54.0
59.0
1.09
anta Clarita Pkwy
6
54.0
243
0.45
eenline Total
------------------------
429.8
359.6
0.84
4
Old Road
4
30.8
24.4
0.79
Interstate 5
8
206.4
1893
0.92
Rockwell Canyon Road
4
30.6
203
0.66
McBean Parkway
6
54.0
41.9
0.78
Magic Mt. Parkway
6
54.0
25.5
0.47
n Fernando Road
6
54.0
53.1
0.98
anta Clarita Pkwy
6
54.0
28.0
052
eenline Total
------------------------
483.8
3825
0.79
5
Calgrove Boulevard
4
30.8
29.7
0.96
yons Avenue
4
30.8
47.3
1.54
eenline Total
------------------------
61.6
77.0
1.25
FIGURE 6 (1 OF 3)
Page 22
Santa Clarita Model
Build Out Screenline v/c Ratio
Santa Clarita Parkway Alternative
(Lvons Extension as a Secondarv)
FIGURE 6 (2 QF 3)
Improved Network with
Modified Land Use
Number of
B/O
Proj B/O
V/C
Roadway
Screenline
Location
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
Ratio
6
McBean Parkway
6
54.0
37.5
-0.69
Valencia Boulevard
6
54.0
41.5
0.77
Magic Mt. Parkway
6
54.0
55.1
1.02
Rye Canyon Road
6
54.0
58.9
1.09
R 126
8
164.8
135.7
0.82
Screenline Total
380.8
328.7
-------
0.86
7
Copper Hill Drive
6
462
31.7
0.69
Bouquet Canyon Road
6
54.0
56.9
1.05
Santa Clarita Pkwy
6
54.0
19.1
035
Golden Valley Road
4
30.8
40.8
132
Whites Canyon Road
6
54.0
46.6
0.86
Terra Highway
6
54.0
54.1
1.00
Screenline Total
293.0
249.2
0.85
8
ierra Highway
6
54.0
46.8
0.87
ledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
60.3
1.12
tate Route 14
18
206.4
85.8
0.42
-ost Canyon Road
6' '
54.0
323
0.60
eenline Total
368.4
225.2
0.61
9
ierra Highway
6
54.0
23.0
0.43
ledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
28.0
0.52
State Route 14
8
206.4
903
0.44
Screenline Total
314.4
1413
--------
0.45
10
Sierra Highway
6
54.0
24.9
0.46
State Route 14
6
1548
96.7
0.62
IScrectilineTotal
2088
121.6
OS8
FIGURE 6 (2 QF 3)
Page 23
Santa Clarita Model
Build Out Screenline v/c Ratio
Santa Clarita Parkway Alternative
(Lyons Extension as a Secondarv)
FIGURE 6 (3 OF 3)
Improved Network with
Modified Land Use
Number of
B/O
Proj B/O
Vic
Roadway
Screenline
Location
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
Ratio
11
3an Fernando Road
6
54.0
65.2
1.21
L.yonsAvenue
4
30.8
16.4
053
Via Princessa
6
54.0
47.3
0.88
ledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
34.7
0.64
311126
8
164.8
1333
0.81
eenline Total
-----------------------
357.6
296.9
0.83
12
Soledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
34.7
0.64
R 126
8
164.8
90.0
0.55
Plum Canyon Road
6
54.0
41.6
0.77
Vasquez Canyon Road
6
54.0
20.6
038
Screenline Total
--------------------
326.8
186.9
0.57
13
Soledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
45.2
0.84
Bouquet Canyon Road
8
72.0
56.9
0.79
R 126
8
164.8
160.0
0.97
ecoro Drive
4
30.8
17.9
058
Aper Hill Drive
6
46.2
32.1
0.69
Screenline Total
367.8
312.1
0.85
FIGURE 6 (3 OF 3)
Page 24
Santa Clarita Model
Build Out Screenline v/c Ratio
Santa Clarita Parkway Alternative
(Lyons Extension as a Maior)
FIGURE 7 (1 OF 3)
Improved Network with
Modified Land Use
Number of
B/O
Proj B/O
V/C
Roadway
Screenline
Location
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
Ratio
L
Interstate 5
8
206.4
2003
0.97
The Old Road
6
54.0
165
031
Terra Highway
6
54.0
15.4
0.29
State Route 14
10
258.0
175.0
0.68
eenline Total
572.4
407.21
0.71
2
]d Road
4
30.8
199
0.65
nterstate 5
8
206.4
195.1
0.95
Wiley Canyon Road
6
54.0
30.7
0.57
rchard Village Road
6
54.0
26.8
050
ewhall Avenue
4
30.8
7.8
0.25
n Fernando Road
6
54.0
47.2
0.87
nta Clarita Pkwy
6
54.0
24.6
0.46
eenline Total
484.0
352.11
0.73
3
31d Road
4
30.8
19.9
0.65
nterstate 5
8
206.4
195.1
0.95
ockwell Canyon Road
4
30.6
123
0.40
rchard Village Road
6
54.0
49.4
0.91
a Fernando Road
6
54.0
59.8
1.11
nta Clarity Pkwy
6
54.0
232
0.43
Pcreenline
429.8
359.7
0.84
4
Nd Road
4
30.8
24.4
0.79
nterstate 5
8
206.4
1902
0.92
ockwell Canyon Road
4
30.6
203
0.66
cBean Parkway
6
54.0
41.9
0.78
agic Mt. Parkway
6
54.0
2.5.5
0.47
n Fernando Road
6
54.0
53.4
0.99
ta Clarity Pkwy
teenline
6
54.0
28.8
053
Total
483.8
3845
0.79
5
Zalgrove Boulevard
4
30.8
29.7
0.96
Lyons Avenue
6
54.0
475
0.88
Screenline
84.8
77.2
0.91
FIGURE 7 (1 OF 3)
Page 25
Santa Clarita Model
Build Out Screenline v/c Ratio
Santa Clarita Parkway Alternative
(Lvons Extension as a Maior)
FIGURE 7 (2 OF 3)
Improved Network with
Modified Land Use
Number of
B/O
Proj B/O
Vic
Roadway
Screenline
Location
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
Ratio
6
cBean Parkway
6
54.0
37.4
0.69
Valencia Boulevard
6
54.0
41.8
0.77
agic Mt. Parkway
6
54.0
55.0
1.02
ye Canyon Road
6
54.0
58.9
1.09
311126
8
164.8
1353
0.82
eenline Total
------------------------
380.8
328.4
0.86
7
pper Hill Drive
6
46.2
31.6
0.68
uquet Canyon Road
6
54.0
56.8
1.05
nta Clarita Pkwy
6
54.0
19.1
035
olden Valley Road
4
30.8
40.8
132
Whites Canyon Road
6
54.0
46.1
0.85
Lierra Highway
6
54.0
54.1
1.00
eenlineTotal
------------------------
293.0
2485
0.85
8
Sierra Highway
6
54.0
47.4
0.88
ledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
592
1.10
State Route 14
8
206.4
86.1
0.42
Lost Canyon Road
6
54.0
33.4
0.62
eenline Total
368.4
226.1
0.61
9
Sierra Highway
6
54.0
22.9
0.42
ledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
279
0.52
State Route 14
8
206.4
89.4
0.43
eenline Total
------------------------
314.4
1402
0.45
10
Sierra Highway
6
54.0
24.8
0.46
State Route 14
6
154.8
982
0.63
eenline Total
------------------------
208.8
123.0
0.59
FIGURE 7 (2 OF 3)
Page 26
Santa Clarita Model
.Build Out Screenline We Ratio
Santa Clarita Parkway Alternative
(Lvons Extension as a Malar)
FIGURE 7 (3 OF 3)
Improved Network with
Modified Land Use
Number of
B/O
Proj B/O
V/C
Roadway
Screenline
Location
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
Ratio
11
3an Fernando Road
6
54.0
63.7
1.18
yons Avenue
6
54.0
22.7
0.42
Via Princessa
6
54.0
45.8
0.85
ledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
34.7
0.64
311126
8
164.8
131.4
0.80
eenlineTotal
380.8
2983
0.78
12
Soledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
34.7
0.64
R 126
8
164.8
89.6
054
Plum Canyon Road
6
54.0
41.6
0.77
Vasquez Canyon Road
6
54.0
20.6
038
------
Screenline Total
3262
1865
057
13
Soledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
45.7
0.85
Bouquet Canyon Road
8
72.0
56.8
0.79
R 126
8
164.8
1543
0.94
Decoro Drive
4
30.8
17.6
057
Aper Hill Drive
6
462
32.1
0.69
Screenline Total
367 8
3065
0.83
FIGURE 7 (3 OF 3)
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 27
STREET CATEGORY (CROSS SECTION)
Two specific. -capacity analyses were performed on the Lyons Avenue Extension.
One was based on a major roadway section, 104 feet of right-of-way with three
travel lanes in each direction with provision for left -turn pockets. . The
other cross section was of a secondary highway which includes 84 feet of
right-of-way with two traffic lanes in each direction, again with provision
for left -turn pockets. (See Figures 6 & 8.) All of the data indicates that
the Lyons Avenue Extension could be designed as a secondary highway and
function at a Level of Service A. The traffic data also showed that the
east/west leg of Rio Vista Road could be constructed as an 84 -foot secondary
highway and function at a Level of Service A. Originally, this section had
been proposed as a 104 -foot major highway section. A comparison of the
advantages and disadvantages of constructing the Lyons Avenue Extension as an
84 -foot secondary highway instead of a.104 -foot major highway are as follows:
Advantages
1 Costs savings of approximately 10%.
. • Existing development (Westcreek Project) has constructed a secondary
roadway within an 80 -foot right-of-way, thus removing the cost of
additional right-of-way. (See Figure 4.) Reduced lane width will; allow
two lanes of traffic in each direction within an 80 -foot right-of-way.
' • Less disruption of existing improvements -and topography.
• Less impact on future development.
II
'
Improved Network with
Page 28
'
Santa Clarita Model
Number of
Build Out Screenline We Ratio
Proj B/O
No Santa Clarita Parkway
(Lvons Extension as a Secondarv)
FIGURE 8 (1 OF 3)
Improved Network with
Modified Land Use
Number of
B/O
Proj B/O
V/C
Roadway
Screenline
Location
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
Ratio
1
Interstate 5
8
206.4
202.8
0.98
The Old Road
6
54.0
18.1
034
Terra Highway
6
54.0
143
0.26
State Route 14
10
258.0
172.6
0.67
eenline Total
------------------------
572.4
407.8
0.71
2
Xd Road
4
30.8
19.6
0.64
nterstate 5
8
206.4
200.8
0.97
iley Canyon Road
6
54.0
343
0.64
rchard Village Road
6
54.0
28.1
0.52
ewhall Avenue
4
30.8
7.8
0.25
San Fernando Road
6
54.0
46.8
0.87
eenlineTotal
430.0
337.4
0.78
3
Xd Road
4
30.8
19.6
0.64
nterstate 5
8
206.4
200.8
0.97
ockwell Canyon Road
4
30.6
12.4
0.41
rchard Village Road
6
54.0
52.0
0.96
n Fernando Road
6
54.0
653
1.21
Pcreenline Total
375.8
350.1
0.93
4
Nd Road
4
30.8
26.4
0.86
Interstate 5
8
206.4
191.2
0.93
ockwell Canyon Road
4
30.6
21.9
0.72
cBean Parkway
6
54.0
42.2
0.78
agic Mt. Parkway
6
54.0
29.0
054
n Fernando Road
6
54.0
56.8
1.05
eenline Total
429.8
3675
0.86
5
Calgrave Boulevard
4
30.8
29.7
0.96
Lyons Avenue
4
30.8
49.7
1.61
Screenline Total
61.6
79.4
1.29
FIGURE 8 (1 OF 3)
Page 29
Santa Clarita Model
Build Out Screenline v/c Ratio
No Santa Clarita Parkway
(Lvons Extension as a Secondarv)
FIGURE 8 (2 OF 3)
Improved Network with
Modred Land Use
Number of
B/O
Proj B/0
VIC
Roadway
Screenline
Location
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
Ratio
6
McBean Parkway
6
54.0
38.6
0.71
Valencia Boulevard
6
54.0
41.9
0.78
Magic Mt. Parkway
6
54.0
55.6
1.03
Rye Canyon Road
6
54.0
58.8
1.09
R 126
8
164.8
134.1
0.81
Screenline Total
380.8
329.0
0.86
7
Copper Hill Drive
6
46.2
31.7
0.69
Bouquet Canyon Road
6
54.0
57.6
1.07
Golden Valley Road
4
30.8
483
1.57
Whites Canyon Road
6
54.0
47.6
0.88
Terra Highway
6
54.0
543
1.01
Screenline Total
239.0
2395
1.00
8
Sierra Highway.
6
54.0
47.6
0.88
ledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
603
1.12
tate Route 14
8
206.4
862
0.42
Lost Canyon Road
6
54.0
323
0.60
3creerdine Total
368.4
226.4
0.61
9
Sierra Highway
6
54.0
23.2
0.43
ledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
28.0
0.52
State Route 14
8
206.4
89.4
0.43
eenline Total
------------------------
314.4
140.6
0.45
10
3icrra Highway
6
54.0
31.9
0.59
Rate Route 14
6
154.8
1045
0.68
eenline Total
------------------------
208.8
136.4
0.65
FIGURE 8 (2 OF 3)
Page 30
Santa Clarita Model
Build Out Screenline We Ratio
No Santa Clarita Parkway
(Lvons Extension as a Secondarv)
FIGURE 8 (3 OF 3)
Improved Network with
Modified Land Use
Number of
B/O
ProjB/O
V/C
Roadway
Screenline
Location
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
Ratio
11
3an Fernando Road
6
54.0
65.2
1.21
yons Avenue
4
30.8
16.4
0.53
Via Princessa
6
54.0
50.4
0.93
ledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
44.4
0.82
311126
8
164.8
140.5
0.85
Pcreenline Total
357.6
316.9
0.89
12
Soledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
44.4
0.82
R 126
8
164.8
98.7
0.60
Plum Canyon Road
6
540
42.9
0.79
Vasquez Canyon Road
6
54.0
20S
039
eenlineTotal
-----------------------
326.8
706.8
0.63
13
Soledad Canyon Road
6
54.0
40.9
0.76
Bouquet Canyon Road
8
72.0
58.7
0.82
R 126
8
164.8
1593
0.97
Decoro Drive
4
30.8
17.4
0.56
Copper Hill Drive
6
46.2
333
0.72
F
-
Screenline
eenlineTotal
3678
. 309.6
0.84
FIGURE 8 (3 OF 3)
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUEEXTENSION
i Page 31
IDisadvantages
Since the Lyons Avenue Extension operates at a Level of Service A as a
secondary -highway, there is noadvantage of constructing a wider road. Only
long-term future land density- increases would provide any advantage in
constructing a wider roadway.
COST ESTIMATE
The cost estimates were prepared based on a secondary highway status for Lyons'
Avenue Extension and a major highway status for both Rio.Vista Road and Santa
Clarita Parkway. The estimates are -based on current dollar costs for roadway
construction and without the benefit of detailed plans to determine actual
quantities of work to be performed.. However, they are suitable for planning
purposes, and we do not expect actual costs if constructed to be at variance
1 except for the costs attributed to inflation.
Lyons Avenue Extension -
,
Roadway improvements including curb,
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, grading
and right-of-way ......................................:. $17,500,000
Grade separation of the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company/Southern California
Regional Rail Authority ................ * 6.900,000
TOTAL COST........ $24,400,000
* Does not include right-of-way or relocation costs.
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 32
Santa Clarita Parkway
Roadway improvements including curb, gutter
sidewalk, street lights, grading and
1 right-of-way.............................................$48,000,000
For comparison purposes, we had originally estimated the total cost of
Rio Vista Road at $64,400,000. The combination of Santa Clarita Parkway and
Lyons Avenue Extension totals $72,000,000 or an increase of approximately 12
I
percent. The one factor that effects each of
these. estimates is
the
'
right-of-way necessary to construct the grade
separation (overpass
or
movements as a
underpass) across the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. The acquisition
of
Avenue Extension, we estimated
existing developed property will add considerable
expense to this effort.
volumes for the
Estimates for this acquisition will need to part
of any future-analysis.of
Fernando Road. and
either the Lyons Avenue Extension or Rio Vista Road.
forecasts. The following sections
I
TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
In order to determine likely future
traffic
movements as a
result of the Lyons
Avenue Extension, we estimated
hourly
'peak traffic
volumes for the
intersection of Lyons Avenue and
Arch Street and San
Fernando Road. and
Placerita Canyon Road. The estimates are based on daily traffic volume
forecasts. The following sections
present
the results of
the projections and
analyses:
I
.1
I
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 33
Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts
The following diagrams (Figures 9, 10 6 11) show the projected turning
movements counts for the three intersections. These turning movement counts
are based on peak -hour traffic representing 8 to 10 percent of the daily
traffic. Some estimates were required based on judgment to derive turning
movement counts. These volumes represent afternoon peak -hour volumes.
Level of Service Analysis
'1
iI
Each of the three 'intersections were analyzed to determine the minimum lane
configuration required to provide an acceptable level of service
during
peak -hour operations. The proposed intersections of Lyons Avenue at Placerita
Canyon Road and Lyons Avenue at Arch Street have limited cross stfeet
traffic
a
making acceptable levels of service easily attainable within minimum
lanes.
However, the intersection of San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue
is a
high-volume intersection under the projected demand conditions.
Lane
configuration requirements for this intersection required
careful
consideration. Even though the project is only the extension of Lyons
Avenue,
1
some assumptions as to the future configuration of -San Fernando Road were
needed to meet the desired level of service.
'1
iI
`1 Page 34
LYONS
0
AVENUE
alo
640
/ 140
560
330 I
t
0
FFNNMM M h
TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
SAN FERNANDO ROAD/LYONS AVENUE
FIGURE ..9
t
t
TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
SAN FERNANDO ROAD/LYONS AVENUE
FIGURE ..9
Page 35
rn
LYONS
AVENUE
EXTENSION
140
z
TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION (EAST END) / PLACERITA CANYON ROAD
FIGURE •10
-36
LYONS
890
WW
�4
AVENUE ElEN:
TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION / ARCH STREET
900
FIGURE 11
S
o
i
U
I
WW
�4
AVENUE ElEN:
TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION / ARCH STREET
900
FIGURE 11
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 37
The calculated V/C and resulting level of service for each intersection area
are presented below:
Intersection Vf LOS
Lyons Avenue at:
San Fernando Road 0.84 D
Arch Street 0.48 A
Placerita Canyon Road 0.42 A
Intersection Sivnalization
The intersection of Lyons . Avenue and San Fernando Road is currently
signalized. Under the projected conditions with the extension of Lyons
Avenue, separate left -turn phasing should be provided for each approach.
The intersection of Lyons Avenue and Arch Street is Axpected.to satisfy signal
warrants under the estimated demand configuration. The projected volumes on
Lyons Avenue would make turning movements out of Arch Street difficult without
signalization. Preliminary reviews indicate that a separate eastbound
left -turn phase may also be required.
The intersection of Lyons Avenue and Placerita Canyon Road is also expected to
meet signal warrants under the estimated demand configuration. No separate
left -turn phasing is anticipated to be necessary for safe operations of this
intersection.
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 38
COST/BENEFIT RATIO
All the new roadways and widening of existing roadways shown on the
Circulation Element should be prioritized in light of costs and available
funds. One method to accomplish this is to compare the costs of various
roadways to the benefits. received. For the purposes of this study, we have
used the same time span of 20 years that was used in the General Plan. This
compares favorably with the basic life of a new major or secondary roadway
which, except for routine maintenance, will provide adequate service for 20
years before major rehabilitation work is necessary. The following compares
the cost of construction of the roadway to the. number of vehicle miles
accommodated during its initial service life of 20 years.
Cost per 100
Vehicle Mile
Trips
1. Lyons Avenue Extension.........:.........................$10.47.
2. Santa Clarita Parkway... o ............................ oo..$ 4.71
3. Lyons Avenue Extension in Combination
with Santa Clarita.Parkway...............................$ 3.24
4. Rio.Vista Road; Bouquet to Lyons and
Lyons to State Route 14 ...................:..............$ 4.29
VT = Vehicle trips during the 20 -year roadway, initial service life.
II
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 39
L
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION RAILROAD CROSSING
Because of the expense of a grade separation (overpass/underpass) and the
competition for roadway funds, the extension of 'Lyons Avenue across the
Southern Pacific Transportation Company Railroad tracks has been proposed .as
an at -grade crossing similar to the one that currently exists at 13th Street.
However, recent experience.with similar proposals for at -grade crossings has
shown that the Public Utilities Commission may be resistant to this type of
proposal. Since an overpass/underpass can be between $6 and $12 million more
than an at -grade crossing, it has a significant affect on a proposal which
must cross railroad right-of-way.
�I
PUC - Raymond Toohey - Senior Engineer
The PUC would be extremely reluctant in approving a new at -grade crossing for
the Lyons Avenue extension even though the 13th Street at -grade crossing would
be closed. The likelihood of it being approved is maybe 109„ that is. if no
complaints or oppositions are received. Opposition could come from the two
agencies, i.e., SPTC and SCRRA, who operate .freight and passenger service on
the line. He also stated that the Federal Government wants 25% of all
existing at -grade crossings closed. He mentioned that a grade separation
would be backed 100% by the PUC and would be what they would recommend.
We discussed the
proposal with representatives of _
the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) who must approve all new crossings and
the two agencies which
operate the trains
on the right-of-way - the Southern
Pacific Transportation
Company (SPTC) and
the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority.(SCRRA).
IThe
following are
the responses from "these agencies involved in the railroad
M
at -grade crossing exchange relating to the Lyons Avenue
extension.
�I
PUC - Raymond Toohey - Senior Engineer
The PUC would be extremely reluctant in approving a new at -grade crossing for
the Lyons Avenue extension even though the 13th Street at -grade crossing would
be closed. The likelihood of it being approved is maybe 109„ that is. if no
complaints or oppositions are received. Opposition could come from the two
agencies, i.e., SPTC and SCRRA, who operate .freight and passenger service on
the line. He also stated that the Federal Government wants 25% of all
existing at -grade crossings closed. He mentioned that a grade separation
would be backed 100% by the PUC and would be what they would recommend.
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 40
SPTC - Bob Prince
He stated that Southern Pacific Transportation Co. would generally oppose any
new at -grade crossing whether or not any existing grade crossing were closed
in exchange. They would insist on a grade separation and -would participate
with SPTC funds if our existing at -grade crossing were closed.
SCRRA - Ron Mathieu - Public Projects Enoineer
He mentioned the likelihood of them supporting any new at -grade crossings: is
very small. They recently.passed a resolution/policy which does not allow any
new at -grade crossings. He also mentioned that if possibly we had a
two-for-one swap they "might" consider it.
These discussions point out the need to develop a strategy and thorough cost
analysis of a grade separation of any proposals to extend Lyons Avenue
easterly.
CURRENT BUDGET/FUNDING SOURCES "
There are several sources of funds which are targeted for roadway
improvements. These include, Gas Tax, Transportation Deve lopment *Act (TDA),
Federal -Aid -Urban, Bridge and Thoroughfare, County Aid -to -Cities and State and
Local Partnership. A significant portion of these funds are used for road
maintenance. Some, such as TDA, must be used to satisfy the City's reasonable
unmet transit. needs. before they can be used for streets and roads.. The
following is a list of these revenues by fund source, as well as expenditures
for the 1991/92 Fiscal Year.
I
1
PROSECT REPORT
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 41
Revenue
Gas Tax $2,498,270
County Aid -to -Cities 300,000
Federal Aid Urban 400,000
TDA (Article 8) 2,600,000
Bridge & Thoroughfare 1,055,000
Total Restricted Revenue $6,853,270
Expenditures
Street Maintenance $2,793,451
Capital Projects (Streets) 8,337,000
San Fernando Road
Magic Mountain Parkway
Soledad Canyon Road.
Barbacoa
Valencia Boulevard
Soledad/Luther
Sierra Highway
Bouquet Canyon Road
Whites Canyon Road
Valencia/Cinema
Newhall Avenue
Rockwell Canyon
Lyons/Wayman
Total Street Expenditures $11,130,451
I
I!
to V
r
PROJECT REPORT
LYONS'AVENUE EXTENSION
Page 42
The total street expenditures in the current budget exceed street revenues by
$4,277,181. These additional funds are drawn from the City's General Fund,
which must .compete with all other City services and capital improvements.
There are no current funds available or sufficientprojects which could be
delayed to fund the $24,400,000 Lyons Avenue Extension.
INFRASTRUMIRE NEEDS/ALTFRNATIVE
The infrastructure needs of the City are for basic quality of life
improvements such as parks, flood control, sanitation, streets, public
transportation, libraries, etc. These infrastructure needs 'compete with each
other for City funds, although street. construction has been given a high
priority by the City. Given.a 5% increase in revenue over the next. five
years, the City should have approximately $22,500,000, which excludes the cost
of annual maintenance expenses available for street and bridge projects. The
City's current Five -Year Capital Improvement Program has identified
approximately $18,600,000 of street projects. This difference results in
approximately $1,000,000 being available for unfunded projects. It is. clear.
that unless other infrastructure projects are delayed or other sources of
funds are made available, such as special assessments, special taxes or bond
issues, the Lyons Avenue Extension, as well as other major roadway
construction, remains unfunded for the forseeable future.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMENTS
As part of the City's Public Participation. Program, a public meeting was held
to receive public comments and input on the material presented in this
report. Their concerns and comments are included as Appendix 1 to this report.
RK:hds/1388