CHAPTER 5: MODELING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTS

Transcription

1 HPTR : MOLING N UTUR TRI ORSTS In addition to the existing (year ) traffic conditions, the traffic LOS analysis was conducted for the years and for the ridge ment lternatives (which includes both the North-Side lignment and South-Side lignment lternatives for the proposed new bridge) and the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives (which represents the traffic conditions that would occur with the existing bridge configuration if no action is taken or if the existing bridge is rehabilitated and not replaced with a new bridge). traffic forecasting model was used as part of the study to forecast future traffic volumes with and without a new bridge in the years and. new bridge is expected to be opened to traffic in year, and year is the project horizon (design) year.. Traffic orecasting Model Methodology The traffic forecasting model used to forecast year and traffic was based upon the travel demand forecasting model (Port Model) developed for the Ports of Long each/los ngeles Transportation udy (). That Port Model, completed in, is based on the Southern alifornia ssociation of Governments (SG) Regional Travel emand orecasting Model. lements of the SG Heavy-uty Truck (HT) model were used, as well as input data from the ity of Long each model and the ity of Los ngeles Transportation Improvement Mitigation Program (TIMP) models for Wilmington and San Pedro. TRNPLN is the software platform used for modeling. Special model features are identified below... Network overage The roadway network used for traffic assignment in the SG model was augmented in the area of the ports to include all of the public roadways. Outside the area of the ports, the SG and roadway networks were used. The future networks include planned and programmed highway improvements included in SG s estination : Regional Transportation Plan, which is the current plan for the region in which the project is located. The future year networks do not include truck lanes or other widening on the I-7 freeway nor improvements to the SR xpressway or Schuyler Heim ridge on SR ; however, a sensitivity analysis was performed with these improvements in place... Traffic nalysis Zone isaggregation The traffic analysis zones (TZs) used for trip generation in the SG model were disaggregated into more refined zones within the area of the ports. TZ was provided for each of the ports container and non-container terminals... oding of Highway Grades and Reduced apacities n important feature of the model, which was explicitly accounted for and coded in the network, are locations of steep uphill and downhill grades. These include the Gerald esmond ridge, Schuyler Heim ridge, and Ocean oulevard/sr 7 connector ramps... Implementation of Truck Passenger ar quivalencies (Ps) The presence of trucks and vehicles other than passenger cars in the traffic stream affects traffic flow in two ways: () these vehicles, which are much larger than passenger cars, occupy more roadway space (and capacity) than individual passenger cars, () the operational capabilities of these vehicles, including acceleration, deceleration, and maintenance of speed, are generally inferior to passenger cars and result in the formation of large gaps in the traffic Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page

2 stream that reduce highway capacity. On long sustained grades, and segments with impaired capacities where trucks operate considerably slower, formation of these large gaps can have a profound impact on the traffic stream. The above characteristics are also accounted for in the model as discussed below... Grades and Passenger ar quivalents Grades are coded in the TRNPLN network as they are in the field to an accuracy of one percent. The grade is coded in directly, and then TRNPLN has a specialized passenger car equivalent (P) procedure that converts assigned truck traffic to Ps. It is not impedance; it is simply a conversion to Ps. The TRNPLN model uses an quilibrium Traffic ssignment method, which is an iterative process. fter each of the model iterations, the roadway volume/capacity ratios are calculated, and traffic is then reassigned to the shortest route until a predefined systemwide closure is achieved between two consecutive iterations. In this way, the effect of the truck volume is accounted for in the analysis using Ps. The P factors are the same as those used in the Southern alifornia HT Model, which was based on the 997 Highway apacity Manual (HM) P factors. They were developed by SG for the HT model, and they include a sliding scale of P factors that takes into account the grade, the length of grade, and the percent of truck traffic. While the SG P factors were used in the assignment of forecast traffic to the roadway network, they were not used in the assessment of roadway LOS. HM vehicle density calculations were used to determine LOS. To adhere to the HM procedures more closely, HM P factors were used in LOS analysis. standardized set of port-provided P factors for all trucks based on the HM factors was utilized in the LOS analysis. The P factors for each vehicle type used in the LOS analysis are:. for motorcycles, cars, pickup trucks, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), and vans;. for bobtails (tractor trailer combinations operated without a trailer);. for buses, -axle trucks, and -axle trucks; and. for container trucks, chassis trucks, and all other -axle or larger trucks... Trips rom Other Non-Port Zones Trips generated by major developments within the area of the ports for which specific trip generation rates were not included in the Port Model were added to the model at the TZ locations. Those developments include Queensway ay, abrillo Marina, and the Port of Los ngeles Industrial enter.. Port rea Trip istribution istribution of port trips was accomplished predominantly through information developed in the Ports Transportation udy, including results of user surveys and traffic counts. The port trip tables were allocated to known locations for major destinations, including off-dock rail yards, warehouse/industrial facilities, and other intermodal transfer facilities. The locations of these facilities by TZ were identified, and they were explicitly coded into the trip tables. These port trips are not part of the gravity model distribution process. oth trips internal to the ports and with one trip end internal to the ports were addressed using this methodology. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page

3 .. and Port Trip Tables The port model zone trip tables were developed in two parts and in a similar manner to those used in the Ports Transportation udy and model. The trip tables were developed based on a detailed port area zone system and specialized trip generation rates for autos and trucks in the port. Special trip generation rates for autos were developed for the port studies and applied to and -foot equivalent unit (TU) forecasts. Truck trip generation for container terminals was developed using the QuickTrip model, which is discussed below... Regional Trip Tables The regional trip tables were developed using the SG trip tables. Regional person-trip productions and attractions on a zonal level were obtained from SG for the entire SG modeling area for year. or the traffic zones within the ports, trip productions and attractions were disaggregated to the more refined zones described above. The port and regional person productions and attractions were then converted into vehicle trips based on SG s socio-economic data (S), trip distribution model, mode-split factors, and average auto-occupancy tables. Trips included in the model are drive alone, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV), HOV +, port autos, SG light heavy-duty trucks, SG medium heavy-duty trucks, SG heavy heavy-duty trucks, Port bobtails, Port chassis, and Port container trucks. onsistent with the SG model, the year trip tables reflect the throughput of million TUs at the ports... Traffic ssignment The total daily trips for all types of land uses in the region were allocated into SG's M, M, PM, and off-peak periods. Since the Port Model analyzes conditions for the M, M, and PM peak hours, the SG model data were converted to peak-hour values. This was accomplished by the application of conversion factors developed in cooperation with SG. SG previously applied similar factors to perform peak-hour analysis in other areas of the region. The factors were applied and calibrated as part of the original Port Model development completed in and have been consistently used since then. The resulting models include unique hourly trip tables for the peak activity hours of the ports. The trip tables contain peak-hour trip generation estimates that were developed specifically for the port zones. The hours for which trip tables have been developed are 8: M to 9: M, : PM to : PM, and :PM to : PM, representing the M peak hour, M peak hour, and PM peak hour, respectively. quilibriumtype multi-class assignments are used for the peak-hour traffic assignments.. QuickTrip Model The QuickTrip model is well documented in the Ports of Long each/los ngeles Transportation udy (). It is a spreadsheet model for truck trip generation analysis that was developed in a collaborative effort between the staff of both ports and a team of consultants. The model builds upon a gate trip generation model that was previously developed, with considerable refinements. It includes detailed input variables, such as mode split (rail versus truck moves), time of day factoring, weekend moves, empty return factors, and other characteristics that affect the numbers of trucks through the gates. The end product is a forecast of truck trip generation, by type of truck trip, for each hour of the day, by direction. The model was carefully validated against gate counts at each container terminal gate, and it was found to replicate within to percent overall, depending on the peak hour. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page

4 . Post-Processing of Model ssignment Results Model volume post processing is a procedure that is applied to make the future roadway, ramp, and intersection forecasts more accurate at the intersection and link levels. The intersection turning movement volumes and the link volumes on roadway segments from the year model were compared to actual turning movement and link volumes from ground counts. ased on that comparison, adjustment factors (the difference in volumes by traffic movement) are developed for the model volumes so that they match the ground counts. That same adjustment factor is then carried forward to the future model. or example, if the model underestimates a given intersection traffic movement by vehicles, then an adjustment of added vehicles is made to the model output for that movement s volume for model runs of forecast years. In this way, the localized micro-level inaccuracies in the model are accounted for and corrected at the intersection level... orecasting Model Validation (ase Year ) Within the port area, the model has been validated for individual roadway links. Model validation concentrated on Ocean oulevard/seaside venue, from the vicinity of SR 7/downtown Long each (in the POL) to Navy Way (in the POL). Traffic ground counts were collected in ugust and September on two consecutive weekdays. ount locations are shown in Table -. The port area travel demand model was updated from 999 base year conditions to base year conditions. To develop regional background trips, the SG trip regional tables were interpolated between the 999 model trip tables and the model trip tables. This accounted for trips outside of the port area. or Port-area trips, the QuickTrip truck generation model was utilized to estimate truck trips. Year port area auto trips were estimated using auto trip generation rates developed for the Port of Long each and Los ngeles Transportation udy. or, the following TU throughput totals were used to develop the QuickTrip model truck trip generation forecasts:.8 million TUs per year (, per month) for the POL, and 7. million TUs per year (8, per month) for the POL. The goal of model validation was to adjust model parameters so that the model will most closely match ground counts, within acceptable thresholds. Typically, subregional travel demand models are validated at the screenline level and on major facilities. or this project, however, a screenline approach was not appropriate since the focus area consists of Ocean oulevard and the bridge facility and nearby ramp systems; therefore, the validation focused on the specific roadways themselves. ased on the National ooperative Highway Research Program (NHRP) Report Highway Traffic ata for Urbanized rea Project Planning and esign, typical acceptable deviation for individual roadway links with volumes of, vehicles per day or less (Ocean oulevard carries an T of just under, vehicles currently) is percent (NHRP Report, page, igure -). Ground counts are known to vary by to percent depending on the prevailing conditions on the days that the counts were collected; therefore, a model that replicates counts to within that threshold for major facilities is considered to be accurately estimating travel patterns. This is also consistent with the NHRP report, as noted in the prior paragraph. or individual lower volume links, such as on- and off-ramps, validation to those thresholds is not feasible, as they carry very low volumes and are subject to significant fluctuation in daily ground counts; therefore, the focus of model validation was on Ocean oulevard itself, although every ramp was also reviewed during the validation process. The validation results at the link level indicate that the model is replicating existing volumes to within to percent for nearly all link locations along Ocean oulevard/seaside venue at the highest volume locations. uring the M peak hour, 8 locations have model volumes within Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page

5 percent of ground counts, and during the PM peak hour, 8 locations are within percent. Truck validation differences are somewhat larger than auto or total vehicles in percentage terms. This is to be expected, as truck volumes are only to percent of auto volumes at most locations. Lower-volume facilities, including ramps, tend to have somewhat higher differences between ground counts and the model; however, many of those locations carry very few trips (less than to trips in many locations). or lower-volume streets and ramps, validation is based on parameters contained in the NHRP Report. To achieve acceptable validation results, multiple model runs were made for each peak hour, and a series of model adjustments were made. The adjustments included the following: Increasing or decreasing facility speeds and capacities on a segment-by-segment basis where assigned volumes where either too high or too low, with different adjustments made by peak hour as appropriate; orrecting the model network where errors in coding were detected; djusting the TZ loading points to provide more accurate representation of travel patterns from local streets to the arterial system; and Refining the regional peak-hour trip tables to achieve the proper level of background traffic.. uture Year Model evelopment.. Year Model evelopment The first task during development of the model for both ports was to generate trip ends based on SG s regional trip tables. Regional production and attraction of person trips and regional HT trip tables were obtained from SG for and. Use of the regional trip tables ensures that cumulative traffic from planned growth region wide is included in the model forecasts. The SG regional trip table for was interpolated between and. The person trips were aggregated to the current Port Model s trip purposes and zone system. The trip distribution models were then run. Next, the person trips were converted to vehicle trips using the SG mode choice model. Time-of-day trip tables were generated using the SG period-of-day and peak-hour adjustment factors. The second key task was development of port-specific trip tables for trips to and from port zones themselves. Use of the forecast trip tables ensures that cumulative traffic from planned growth in the area of the ports is included in the model forecasts. The port area peakhour auto, bobtail, chassis, and container trip tables were generated based on the TUs using the Quick Trip model. The total estimated TU throughput for both ports for is approximately 7 million TUs. or the peak month, this equates to approximately. million TUs. The TU throughput for each terminal was provided by the POL. Table - summarizes the peak month TU throughput by terminal and the resultant truck and auto trips. Truck trips are disaggregated into bobtail, chassis, and container truck trips, representing the major types of truck trips in the ports. or both ports, the combined forecast trip generation totals for container terminals accounts for approximately 9 percent of port truck trips. The third task was to develop model roadway networks for the project conditions with and without the proposed bridge. New links were added to the network, and new lane configurations were coded in the model network based on the configuration with each condition. inally, the full model, including post-processing, was run and traffic volume forecasts were generated. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page

6 Table - Year Peak Month ontainer Terminal Trip Generation stimates M Peak Hour (8:M - 9:M) Year utos obtail hassis ontainer Total Trucks Total Vehicles Terminal TU In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out Total In Out Tota Pier, Pier 8, Pier, Pier GJ 8, Pier J South 7, Pier S 9, Pier T, , Total POL,8, ,,,8,7,99,9 YML, Trapac 9, SST 7, TI ast 9, TI West 8, Pier 97, Pier 9, , Total POL,7,,, 8 8 9,8,7,7,7,7,87 Total Ports,,,99,99, 7 7,79,,8,9,9,7, 9,7 M Peak Hour (:PM - :PM) Year utos obtail hassis ontainer Total Trucks Total Vehicles Terminal TU In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out Total In Out Total Pier, Pier 8, Pier, Pier GJ 8, Pier J South 7, Pier S 9, Pier T, ,9 Total POL,8, ,,87,9,79,,9,7 YML, Trapac 9, SST 7, TI ast 9, TI West 8, Pier 97, Pier 9, , Total POL,7, ,,88,9,8,97,,88, Total Ports,, 78,,97,7 79,8,,8,9 7,7,,8 9,79 PM Peak Hour (:PM - :PM) Year utos obtail hassis ontainer Total Trucks Total Vehicles Terminal TU In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out Total In Out Total Pier, Pier 8, Pier, Pier GJ 8, Pier J South 7, , Pier S 9, Pier T, ,8 Total POL,8,9 889,7 7 9,,9,9,9,7, YML, Trapac 9, SST 7, TI ast 9, TI West 8, Pier 97, Pier 9, ,8 Total POL,7, 9, ,8,8,,,78,8 Total Ports,,,8,9 77, 9,99,87,,,7,97,7, Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page

7 .. Year Model evelopment The first task during development of the model for both ports was to generate trip ends based on SG s regional trip tables. Regional production and attraction of person trips and regional HT trip tables were obtained from SG for. The person trips were aggregated to the current Port Model s trip purposes and zone system. The trip distribution models were then run. Next, the person trips were converted to vehicle trips, and time-of-day trip tables were generated. The second key task was development of port-specific trip tables for trips to and from port zones themselves. The port area peak-hour auto, bobtail, chassis, and container trip tables were generated based on the TUs using the Quick Trip model. The total estimated TU throughput for both ports for is approximately million TUs. or the peak month, this equates to approximately.8 million TUs. The TU throughput for each terminal was provided by the POL. Table - summarizes the peak month TU throughput by terminal and the resultant truck and auto trips. Truck trips are disaggregated into bobtail, chassis, and container truck trips, representing the major types of truck trips in the ports. or both ports, the combined forecast trip generation totals for container terminals accounts for approximately 9 percent of port truck trips.. Year and Traffic Volume orecasts Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives Traffic Volumes The T volumes forecast for the Gerald esmond ridge in year with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives is 77, vpd, which includes approximately percent trucks. The increase in truck percentage over the existing condition of percent is principally attributable to growth in TU throughput at the Ports. xhibit - shows the forecast peakhour traffic volumes on study roadway segments in the traffic study area with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives. igures - through - show the M, midday, and PM peak hour intersection volumes and T volumes. The vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and vehicle hours travelled (VHT) on a daily basis in the area potentially most affected by the ridge ment lternatives are shown in Table -. The area is bounded by I- on the west, I- on the north, I-7 on the east, and the water on the south. With the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives daily VMT and VHT in this area in is forecast at,, miles and,89 hours, respectively. Year ridge ment lternatives Traffic Volumes The T volumes forecast for the bridge in year with the ridge ment lternatives is 87, vpd, which includes approximately percent trucks. xhibit - shows the forecast peak-hour traffic volumes on study roadway segments in the traffic study area with the ridge ment lternatives. igures -7 through - show the M, midday, and PM peak hour intersection volumes and T volumes. The vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and vehicle hours travelled (VHT) are shown in Table -. With the ridge ment lternatives daily VMT and VHT in the area most affected by the ridge ment lternatives in is forecast at,,77 miles and, hours, respectively. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page

8 Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives Traffic Volumes The T volumes forecast for the Gerald esmond ridge in year with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives is, vpd, which includes approximately percent trucks. xhibit - shows the forecast peak-hour traffic volumes on study roadway segments in the traffic study area with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives. igures - through - show the M, midday, and PM peak hour intersection volumes and T volumes. The vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and vehicle hours travelled (VHT) are shown in Table -. With the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives daily VMT and VHT in the area most affected by the ridge ment lternatives in is forecast at,9, miles and 8, hours, respectively. Year ridge ment lternatives Traffic Volumes The T volumes forecast for the bridge in year with the ridge ment lternatives is, vpd, which includes approximately percent trucks. xhibit - shows the forecast peak-hour traffic volumes on study roadway segments in the traffic study area with the ridge ment lternatives. igures -7 through - show the M, midday, and PM peak hour intersection volumes and T volumes. The vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and vehicle hours travelled (VHT) are shown in Table -. With the ridge ment lternatives daily VMT and VHT in the area most affected by the ridge ment lternatives in is forecast at,7,99 miles and 78,8 hours, respectively. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page

9 Table - Year Peak Month ontainer Terminal Trip Generation stimates M Peak Hour (8:M - 9:M) Year utos obtail hassis ontaine Total Trucks Total Vehicles Terminal TU In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out Total In Out Total Pier 89, ,9 Pier, Pier, ,9 Pier GJ 9, , Pier J South 8, , Pier S, Pier T, , 9 89,7 Total POL,88,7,97, ,8,,9,,7,9, 7, YML 9, , Trapac, SST, TI ast, TI West 9, ,9 Pier 8, Pier, ,7,77,,8 Total POL,977,,, ,,,9,988,7,8,9 7, Total Ports,8,,99,99,77, 8,8,,78, 8,88 7,777 7,, M Peak Hour (:PM - :PM) Year utos obtail hassis ontaine Total Trucks Total Vehicles Terminal TU In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out Total In Out Total Pier 89, , Pier, Pier, , Pier GJ 9, , 9 78,7 Pier J South 8, ,7 Pier S, Pier T, , 8 88,87 Total POL,88,7 9, 99 8,,,8,889,7,7,8 7, YML 9, , Trapac, SST, TI ast, TI West 9, , Pier 8, Pier, , 89,,97 Total POL,977, 9, ,87,,7,7,9,,7,9 Total Ports,8,,8,9,99,9 7,7,,,,,7 7,, PM Peak Hour (:PM - :PM) Year utos obtai hassis ontaine Total Trucks Total Vehicles Terminal TU In Out In Out I Out In Out In Out Total In Out Tota Pier 89, , Pier, Pier, ,8 Pier GJ 9, ,8 Pier J South 8, ,7, Pier S, Pier T, ,9 7,,98 Total POL,88,7,8, ,88,,,98,9, 8, YML 9, , Trapac, SST, TI ast, TI West 9, ,9 Pier 8, ,87 Pier, , 8,9,9 Total POL,977,,8, ,,,8,,89, 7,9 Total Ports,8,,87,8,79, 8 8,,8,99, 7,89,89,,9 Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 8

10 N Gerald esmond ridge Harbor Scenic r. KY: NOT TO SL Period M M PM PM PM PM uto Volumes M M PM 7 Horseshoe Ramps (Pier T Interchange) Pier S ve lvd Ocean Navy Way Truck Volumes M M PM GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives Peak-Hour Roadway Segment Volumes

11 Santa e v Harbor v 88 YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Year No ction/rehabilitation lternative M Peak-Hour Turning Movements

12 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd 8 7 KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Year No ction/rehabilitation lternative Midday Peak-Hour Turning Movements

13 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Year No ction/rehabilitation lternative PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements

14 Harbor Scenic r. Gerald esmond ridge Horseshoe Ramps ) ( Pier T Interchange 7 KY: GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT N NOT TO SL xhibit - Year No ction/rehabilitation verage aily Traffic Roadway Segment Volumes Pier S ve lvd Ocean,,, 7,7,9 7,9,,,7,7 8,9 9,,8,9, 7,8,7, 7,, 7,78,,, 8,,,87 aily Volumes uto Truck Total Navy Way 8, 7,7,87

15 N Gerald esmond ridge Harbor Scenic r. KY: NOT TO SL Period M M PM PM PM PM uto Volumes M M PM 7 Horseshoe Ramps (Pier T Interchange) Pier S ve lvd Ocean Navy Way Truck Volumes M M PM GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Year ridge menet lternatives Peak-Hour Roadway Segment Volumes

16 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit -7 Year ridge ment lternative M Peak-Hour Turning Movements

17 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit -8 Year ridge ment lternative Midday Peak-Hour Turning Movements

18 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit -9 Year ridge ment lternative PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements

19 Gerald esmond ridge Harbor Scenic r. KY: Horseshoe Ramps (Pier T Interchange) GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT N NOT TO SL xhibit - Year ridge ment lternatives verage aily Traffic Roadway Segment Volumes Pier S ve lvd 8,98 aily Volumes uto Truck Total Ocean 7,, 7,7 7,,8 Navy Way 9, 7,7 7,,,9,, 7,9,8,8, 7, 9,7,9,,8, 8,,, 7,,7,,7

20 Table - Year Vehicle Miles Travelled and Vehicle Hours Travelled Opening Year Vehicle Miles Travelled Vehicle Hours Travelled Total Sub-rea Gerald esmond ridge Remaining Sub-rea Total Sub-rea Gerald esmond ridge Remaining Sub-rea M Peak Hour No ction ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference Port utos,,7-9 99,,, -9,9, ,8,79 - Port Trucks,8,87-7,,7,78, -,7, ,7, - Regional utos,,9 -,7, 9, 8,7-9,, ,7, - Regional Trucks,,7,9, Total utos 8, 8,79-7,,7 8, 79,97 -,9,, ,,9 - Total Trucks,, -9,9,8,88,8 -,9, ,9,8 - Total ll Vehicles 9, 8, -9,,7,8, -,,,9-8 -8,9,97-77 Midday Peak Hour No ction ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference Port utos,, ,,9-9,, - 9-8,8,7 - Port Trucks,7, -7,88,7,, -,88,88 - -,77,88-9 Regional utos,8,8-9,8,8,79, - 9,9 9, , 9, -8 Regional Trucks,, ,8, Total utos,, -,7,8 8,,79 -,99,8-8 -,,9 - Total Trucks 7,88 7, -8,9,8 7,97 7,78 -,,89 - -,9, - Total ll Vehicles,8,7-8,8,8 7,,87 -,9,, ,77, -7 PM Peak Hour No ction ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference Port utos,99,79 -,,,9,7 -,7, ,78, - Port Trucks,87,7-8,,9,9,7 -,98, ,,9-9 Regional utos 8, 8, -,9,,7 9 8, 78,78 -,8,,9-7 -,7, - Regional Trucks,8, -9 9,7, Total utos,, -,9,8,9, 8,9 -,7,, ,,8-7 Total Trucks 8,9 8,87-7,8,7 9,,7 -,7, ,, - Total ll Vehicles 9, 9,8 -,7,88,9 88,8 8, -,8,8,7-79 -,8,78-97 M+Midday+PM No ction ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference Port utos, 9,97-9,99, 7 7,, -8,9, ,79,78 - Port Trucks,8,8 -,79,79 788,9,8 -,,, ,, -9 Regional utos,8,,,79 -,8,78,9,,8,9,79 -,9,87,7-9 -7,8,9 - Regional Trucks,98, ,9, -,,8-8 8,, - Total utos,79,,7,9 -, 9,7,,9,9,789,, -,,8, - 8-8,, -7 Total Trucks 8,8 8, -,9,7 8 7, 7,79 -,,79, ,8, - Total ll Vehicles,,97,7, -,9,7,99,8,,,, -,789,, ,,9-7 aily Total No ction ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference Port utos, 8,877 -,8 7, 8,9 99,,7 -,87,, ,, -9 Port Trucks 9,787,97 -,87,8,7, 7,79,7 -,,, ,7,89-8 Regional utos,,,7,999-7,,87 7,,,9,,8,8-9,8 98,98 97,778 -,, ,8 9,7 - Regional Trucks,8, ,, -77,,8 -,, - Total utos,,,,87-8,9,7,9,,,978,,9 -,,,87-787,79, -8,8,7-9 Total Trucks 8,8 8,88 -,9,8,,79 88, 8,7 -,8 7,8 7, ,9, -9 Total ll Vehicles,,,,77 -,,8, 7,,7,979,, -8,77,89, -,8,78, - 8,9 7,77-7 Note: Total sub-area encompasses the area approximately bounded by I- on the west, I- on the north, I-7 on the east, and the water on the south. Remaining sub-area is all links except the Gerald esmond ridge. onversion factors for M plus Midday plus PM peak hours are.9 for Regional utos,.9 for Regional Trucks,.9 for Port utos, and. for Port Trucks. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 9

21 Harbor Scenic r. Gerald esmond ridge Horseshoe Ramps (Pier T Interchange) KY: GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT N NOT TO SL Period 8M -9M PM -PM PM -PM uto Volumes M M PM Truck Volumes M M PM xhibit - Year No ction/rehabilitations Peak-Hour Roadway Segment Volumes Pier S ve lvd Ocean Navy Way

22 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Year No ction/rehabilitation lternative M Peak-Hour Turning Movements

23 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd 9 7 KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Year No ction/rehabilitation lternative Midday Peak-Hour Turning Movements

24 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd 97 9 KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Year No ction/rehabilitation lternative PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements

25 Gerald esmond ridge Harbor Scenic r. Horseshoe Ramps (Pier T Interchange) 7 KY: GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT N NOT TO SL xhibit - Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives verage aily Traffic Roadway Segment Volumes Pier S ve lvd Ocean,7,,9,9, 7,7,,7 9,,77, 7,, 9,,7,, 8,, 9,8,, 8,8,,89,8,7 aily Volumes uto Truck Total Navy Way 7,7,9 9,

26 Harbor Scenic r. Horseshoe Ramps (Pier T Interchange) Gerald esmond ridge Pier S ve KY: lvd Ocean Navy Way GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT N NOT TO SL aily Volumes uto Truck Total xhibit - Year ridge ment lternatives Peak-Hour Roadway Segment Volumes

27 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd 9 KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit -7 Year ridge ment lternative M Peak-Hour Turning Movements

28 8 77 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit -8 Year ridge ment lternative Midday Peak-Hour Turning Movements

29 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd Note: Volumes shown are P volumes. GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit -9 Year ridge ment lternative PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements

30 Harbor Scenic r. Gerald esmond ridge 9, 9, 8,, 7,,8 Horseshoe Ramps (Pier T Interchange) Pier S ve lvd Ocean 7,,8 9,,7, 8,98 Navy Way 9,9,,,,,99,8 8,8,9,, 9,,9, GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT 7,8 9,7 9, 7 8,8 KY: N NOT TO SL aily Volumes uto Truck Total xhibit - Year ridge ment lternatives verage aily Traffic Roadway Segment Volumes

31 Table - Year Vehicle Miles Travelled and Vehicle Hour Travelled Opening Year Vehicle Miles Travelled Vehicle Hours Travelled Total Sub-rea Gerald esmond ridge Remaining Sub-rea Total Sub-rea Gerald esmond ridge Remaining Sub-rea M Peak Hour No ction ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference Port utos 7,78 7, - 9, 7,8, -9,8, ,8, -7 Port Trucks,8, -9,9,,9, -99,7, ,7,9 - Regional utos,7,99 -,7,789, 7,8,9 -,,, - -,, -9 Regional Trucks,889,87-9,8, Total utos,, -,8,79,8 9, 9,9 -,77,9,7 - -,8, -7 Total Trucks 78,7 78, -,98, 7,8 7,87-9,, ,98,87 - Total ll Vehicles,7,78 -,99,77,9 7 98,77 9, -,7 8, 7, ,8 7,77 - Midday Peak Hour No ction ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference Port utos,8, ,,7 -,99,9-7 7,89,8 - Port Trucks 78,77 77,7 -,,77 7 7,7 7,8 -,87,9, ,8,7 - Regional utos,8, -87,,7 9,77 8,78-97,9,9-9,99,879-9 Regional Trucks,7,7 97 -,, Total utos 9,8 9,8 -,,9, 9,9 9,8 -,,8,9-7,8,7 - Total Trucks,8, -,,779 99,9 98,8-987,, -8,,9 - Total ll Vehicles 97, 9, -,7,8, 87 9,78 9, -,9 8, 8, ,9 7, -99 PM Peak Hour No ction ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference Port utos 8,9 8,7 -,,8 8,89 8, -,, ,,9-9 Port Trucks, 9,9-7,7, 9 8,8,9 -,9, - -,,8-9 Regional utos,78, -,9, 9 9, 8, -8,7, ,887,797-9 Regional Trucks,88,87-9,8, Total utos 9, 9, -7,79,9 9, 89,98 -,98 9,8 9, ,9 8,7-9 Total Trucks,,788-7,77,78,8,7-7,88,8 - -7,7,7-8 Total ll Vehicles 9, 8, -,8,7,8 97,,7 -,97,, ,, -9 M+Midday+PM No ction ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference Port utos 8, 8, -79,87,77 8,8 8,99 -,99 8,9 8, , 8,89 - Port Trucks 9, 9,8 -,,79 7,8,9 89, 8,779 -,9 8, 8,9-8,8 7,8-77 Regional utos,9,,,88 -,77,7, 8,,8,,7 -, 9,97 9, - 9-9,7 8,779-9 Regional Trucks 9, 9, 8 8 9, 9,8 7,, -,, Total utos,,9,, -, 8,8,,,,87,, -, 8,, ,,97-8 Total Trucks,99,8 -,8,98 7,8,99 8,8, -,7,, - 9,7 9, -7 Total ll Vehicles,9,89,, -,,7 7,7,,,,7,78-7,79 8,9 7,7-79,7,97-7,8, -79 aily Total No ction ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ridge ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference No ction ifference Port utos,, -,9 8,7 9,,8,,9 -,,7, ,7,78-8 Port Trucks 9, 89, -,,7,9,97 87,9 8,87 -,,,77-78,,8 7,9,87-8 Regional utos,,7,, -,,97,,78,,,9,8 -,9,, -,9,, -8,7 9,7 -, Regional Trucks,9,97 9,877,7 8,,7 -,98,7 9 Total utos,9,,97,9 -,7,,7,,99,7,9,97 -, 8,89,7 -,9,88,89-98,8,98 -,98 Total Trucks,,,8,9 -, 7,,9,998,7,7,, -,8,87,99-778,8,7 8,9 9,9-8 Total ll Vehicles,9,,7,99-7,77 7,88 7,98,,,88,9, -7,88 8, 78,8 -,7,, - 7, 7,77 -, Note: nalysis sub-area encompasses the area approximately bounded by I- on the west, I- on the north, I-7 on the east, and the water on the south. onversion factors for M plus Midday plus PM peak hours are.9 for Regional utos,.9 for Regional Trucks,.9 for Port utos, and. for Port Trucks. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 7

32 HPTR : UTUR TRI OPRTIONS The proposed ridge ment lternatives provide a new bridge with grades of approximately percent (compared to existing grades of. to. percent) carrying three lanes in each direction across the bridge and on the roadways approaching and leaving the bridge in both directions. The ridge ment lternatives also include reconstruction of direct connectors between Ocean oulevard and SR 7 in both directions and other improvements shown in xhibit - (North-Side lignment) and xhibit - (South-Side lignment). The ridge ment lternatives would construct the new bridge either just north or just south of the existing bridge and require some modifications to nearby circulation and access. The ridge ment lternatives would include left and right shoulders in both directions.. uture irculation System s a result of implementation of the ridge ment lternatives, some modifications to the area s circulation system and access would also be implemented. The ridge ment lternatives would not change traffic circulation patterns in the vicinity of the Horseshoe Ramps interchange because this interchange would provide the same connections to West Seaside oulevard/pier T venue as the existing interchange. The following circulation system modifications would be similar for both ridge ment lternatives: ccess to the Long each Generation ation (LGS) would require modification of the existing access road from Pier T venue to allow bridge construction, but the general location and length of the route would not change. onstruction of approach roadways to the proposed new bridge with the ridge ment lternatives would require a realignment of a section of West roadway west of the Tidelands Warehouse. This realigned section of West roadway, which is not a public through-route, would link with nue approximately feet south of its existing location. irculation would be modified at the westbound Ocean oulevard ramps from nue. The location of the westbound off-ramp to nue would remain unchanged; however, the westbound Ocean oulevard on-ramp from nue would be reconfigured by locating the ramp intersection with nue approximately feet north of its existing location. The reconfigured on-ramp would loop to the north and east over nue and continue looping to the south and west to join the ramp from southbound SR 7 before entering westbound Ocean oulevard. The effect of this ramp redesign would be to slightly increase the distance for trips using the ramps compared to the existing "diamond" configuration of the westbound ramps. xhibit - illustrates the intersection lane geometrics for the analyzed intersections.. nalysis of uture Traffic Operations uture traffic operations for four future conditions were analyzed: Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives; Year ridge ment lternatives; Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 7

33 Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives; and Year ridge ment lternatives. Table - presents the results of the years and peak-hour LOS analysis of the eight roadway study segments, along with the existing (year ) LOS for comparison purposes. Table - presents the results of the years and peak-hour LOS analysis at the ramp junctions. Table - presents the results of the years and peak-hour LOS analysis at the study intersections, along with the existing (year ) LOS for comparison purposes... Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives Traffic Operations. With the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives, the existing Gerald esmond ridge structure and interchanges within the project limits would remain in place; however, the future traffic conditions with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives would be affected by other planned improvements in the traffic study area, which would affect traffic patterns at the project site. One recently completed transportation network improvement is the replacement of the existing atgrade intersections along Ocean oulevard at SR and Pier S venue. This project implemented grade-separated split-diamond interchanges and resulted in Ocean oulevard becoming a restricted-access facility east of Navy Way. Other planned improvements, including transportation and land development projects that would affect traffic patterns in the traffic study area, are included among the cumulative projects identified in Section. (Traffic ffects ssociated with Other Related Projects) of this document. The additional vehicular trips generated by planned transportation and land development projects are included in the traffic forecasting model used for this study as discussed in the previous chapter. Two projects not included among the pending transportation improvements assumed in the traffic forecasting model are truck lanes on SR 7 and the SR xpressway improvements, including the direct flyover connector ramp serving traffic from eastbound Ocean oulevard to northbound SR. These projects are included in a sensitivity traffic analysis presented later in Section., which explicitly addresses the traffic effects of these two projects. In general, in year with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives, peak-hour operating conditions are forecast to be acceptable LOS or better in the traffic study area except that: LOS will occur during all peak hours on the westbound upgrade of the Gerald esmond ridge (Segment ) where three lanes transition to two at the crest of the bridge; LOS conditions will occur at the Terminal Island reeway signalized intersection with the Ocean oulevard ramps (Intersection ) during the midday peak hour; LOS is forecast for the PM peak hour at the intersection of Navy Way and Seaside venue (Intersection ); and LOS will occur during the M peak hour at the signalized intersection of Ocean oulevard and Magnolia venue (Intersection ). Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 7

34 Santa e v Harbor v YNG MING LIN ONTINR L.. WORL RUIS NTR Pier Pl naheim Harry ridges lvd Neptune RIO O PSH Pier alcon Vincent Thomas ridge Los VRGRN ONTINR ries Water La Paloma ve valon lvd Hermosa ISLN ONTINR TRNSR ILITY erry Pilchard anal ve ISTRIUTION N UTO SRVI, IN. (NISSN) ngeles Harbor HUGO NU-PROLR YUSN ONTINR New ock Navy Wy Seaside ve LOS NGLS XPORT Terminal Way Shore Rd Ocean lvd Reeves ve Henry ord ve ock lameda nchorage Rd erritos 7 8 Pier S ve Sigsbee ve Pier Wy hannel S Pier HNJIN SHIPPING O. arrack ve Pier TOYOT MOTOR SLS Lugger Wy ack Gerald esmond ridge Long each Harbor Pier T ve dison ve 9th MTSON ONTINR Pier LIORIN UNIT S hannel Pier ONTINR 9 LONG H ONTINR Pier ve 7 Los ngeles River Pier G ve Pier G Queensway ridge Harbor Plaza PORT O LONG H MIN. LG. G Queensway r Harbor Scenic r N NOT TO SL INTRNTIONL TRNSPORTTION SRVI ONTINR J. TI reeway / Ocean lvd KY STUY INTRSTION SIGNLIZ INTRSTIONS. Ocean lvd / Pier S ve 7. TI reeway S Off- Ramp / New ock. 8. TI reeway N On- Ramp / New ock.. Pier S ve / New ock. Navy Way /Ocean lvd/seaside ve. Pier / / 9th ve. Pier / 9. Pier /. roadway /. Pier/. Golden Shore / Ocean lvd. Magnolia ve / Ocean lvd GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - uture Intersection Lane onfiguration for ridge ment lternative

35 Table - Years and orecast Peak-Hour LOS on Roadway Segments Year Year Year Segment rom To xisting No ction/ Rehabilitation lternatives ridge ment lternatives No ction/ Rehabilitation lternatives ridge ment lternatives Speed* ensity LOS ensity LOS ensity LOS ensity LOS ensity LOS M Peak Hour Ocean lvd Navy Way Pier S venue 8* W Ocean lvd Pier S venue Navy Way.* Ocean lvd Pier S venue Terminal Island reeway.* W Ocean lvd Terminal Island reeway Pier S venue 9.* Ocean lvd Terminal Island reeway Horseshoe Ramps 9.* W Ocean lvd Horseshoe Ramps Terminal Island reeway.* Gerald esmond ridge Upgrade rest Gerald esmond ridge rest owngrade W Gerald esmond ridge Upgrade rest W Gerald esmond ridge rest owngrade N onnector Ocean lvd N SR S onnector S SR 7 W Ocean lvd SR 7 N N onnector N SR 7 Mainline SR 7 S S SR 7 Mainline S onnector Ocean lvd N onnector owntown W Ocean lvd owntown S onnector M Peak Hour Ocean lvd Navy Way Pier S venue 7.* W Ocean lvd Pier S venue Navy Way.8* Ocean lvd Pier S venue Terminal Island reeway * W Ocean lvd Terminal Island reeway Pier S venue 9.* Ocean lvd Terminal Island reeway Horseshoe Ramps 9.* W Ocean lvd Horseshoe Ramps Terminal Island reeway.7* Gerald esmond ridge Upgrade rest Gerald esmond ridge rest owngrade W Gerald esmond ridge Upgrade rest W Gerald esmond ridge rest owngrade N onnector Ocean lvd N SR S onnector S SR 7 W Ocean lvd SR 7 N N onnector N SR 7 Mainline SR 7 S S SR 7 Mainline S onnector Ocean lvd N onnector owntown W Ocean lvd owntown S onnector..... PM Peak Hour Ocean lvd Navy Way Pier S venue.* W Ocean lvd Pier S venue Navy Way.8* Terminal Island Ocean lvd Pier S venue 9.7* reeway Terminal Island W Ocean lvd Pier S venue 9.* reeway Terminal Island Ocean lvd Horseshoe Ramps 9.7*.... reeway Terminal Island W Ocean lvd Horseshoe Ramps.7* reeway Gerald Upgrade rest esmond ridge Gerald rest owngrade esmond ridge W Gerald Upgrade rest esmond ridge W Gerald rest owngrade esmond ridge N onnector Ocean lvd N SR S onnector S SR 7 W Ocean lvd..... SR 7 N N onnector N SR 7 Mainline SR 7 S S SR 7 Mainline S onnector Ocean lvd N onnector owntown W Ocean lvd owntown S onnector LOS - Level of Service ; N - Northbound; S - Southbound; - astbound; W - Westbound * In the existing year condition, Segments - are analyzed as arterial segments because of the presence of traffic signals on Ocean oulevard at the Terminal Island reeway, Pier S venue, and Navy Way. The LOS for arterials is determined by speed (in mph). ll other segments are analyzed as multi-lane highways whose LOS is determined by vehicle density (vehicles per lane per mile). Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 7

36 Table - Years and orecast Peak-Hour LOS at Ramp Junctions M Peak M Peak PM Peak Ramp Location ensity ensity ensity (pc/mi/ln) LOS (pc/mi/ln) LOS (pc/mi/ln) LOS Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives W Ocean oulevard nue On-Ramp Merge to Ocean oulevard Horseshoe Off-Ramp to Pier T venue.9.. Ocean oulevard Horseshoe On-Ramp from Pier T venue Ocean oulevard to SR 7/owntown iverge... Ocean oulevard to nue Off-Ramp.9..7 W Ocean oulevard Year ridge ment lternatives nue On-Ramp Merge to Ocean oulevard 7... Horseshoe Off-Ramp to Pier T venue... Ocean oulevard Horseshoe On-Ramp from Pier T venue Ocean oulevard to SR 7/owntown iverge...8 Ocean oulevard to nue Off-Ramp W Ocean oulevard Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives nue On-Ramp Merge to Ocean oulevard Horseshoe Off-Ramp to Pier T venue.8.. Ocean oulevard Horseshoe On-Ramp from Pier T venue Ocean oulevard to SR 7/owntown iverge...9 Ocean oulevard to nue Off-Ramp.9..8 W Ocean oulevard Year ridge ment lternatives nue On-Ramp Merge to Ocean oulevard Horseshoe Off-Ramp to Pier T venue... Ocean oulevard Horseshoe On-Ramp from Pier T venue...7 Ocean oulevard to SR 7/owntown iverge Ocean oulevard to nue Off-Ramp eastbound; LOS level of service; pc/mi/ln passenger cars per mile per lane; W westbound LOS criteria for ramp junction areas are in density (pc/mi/ln). ensity ranges for different LOS types: LOS, ; LOS,. ; LOS,. 8; LOS, 8. ; LOS,. ; LOS, >. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 7

37 Intersection LOS Table - Years and orecast Peak-Hour LOS at Intersections Year Year Year xisting el/ Veh* V/ Ratio* LOS No ction/ Rehabilitation lternatives el/ Veh* V/ Ratio* M Peak Hour ridge ment lternatives LOS el/ Veh* V/ Ratio* LOS No ction/ Rehabilitation lternatives el/ Veh* V/ Ratio* ridge ment lternatives Terminal Island reeway / Ocean lvd Pier S ve / Ocean lvd Pier S ve / New ock Navy Way / Seaside ve nue / Pier reet & 9th reet nue / Pier reet Terminal Island reeway S 7 Off-Ramp / New ock nalyzed as signalized Terminal Island reeway N 8 On-Ramp / New ock nue / Pier reet a nue / roadway nue / Pier reet a Ocean lvd / Golden Shore reet Ocean lvd / Magnolia ve M Peak Hour Terminal Island reeway / Ocean lvd Pier S ve / Ocean lvd Pier S ve / New ock Navy Way / Seaside ve nue / Pier reet & 9th reet nue / Pier reet Terminal Island reeway S 7 Off-Ramp / New ock nalyzed as signalized Terminal Island reeway N 8 On-Ramp / New ock nue / Pier reet a nue / roadway nue / Pier reet a Ocean lvd / Golden Shore reet Ocean lvd / Magnolia ve PM Peak Hour Terminal Island reeway / Ocean lvd Pier S ve / Ocean lvd Pier S ve / New ock Navy Way / Seaside ve nue / Pier reet & 9th reet nue / Pier reet Terminal Island reeway S 7 Off-Ramp / New ock nalyzed as signalized Terminal Island reeway N 8 On-Ramp / New ock nue / Pier reet a nue / roadway nue / Pier reet a Ocean lvd / Golden Shore reet Ocean lvd / Magnolia ve Notes: LOS - Level of Service ; N - Northbound; S - Southbound; N/ - Not pplicable * Volume-to-capacity (V/) ratio is reported for signalized intersections and average stopped delay per vehicle (el/veh) in seconds is reported for unsignalized intersections in italics. a This intersection is currently stop-sign controlled, and a traffic signal would be added at this intersection to accommodate construction detour routing required under the ridge ment lternatives (signal would be in place by year ); therefore, this intersection has been analyzed as a signalized intersection in the and future years under the ridge Rehabilitation lternatives. There would be no signal installed at this intersection under the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives, so this intersection has been analyzed as an unsignalized (stop-sign controlled) intersection in the and future years under the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives. LOS el/ Veh* V/ Ratio* Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 7

38 .. Year ridge ment lternatives Traffic Operations. oth the North-Side and South-Side lignment lternatives would provide a new bridge with grades of approximately five percent carrying three lanes in each direction across the bridge and on the roadways approaching and leaving the bridge in both directions. Outside the limits of the proposed project site, the roadway network with the Year ridge ment lternatives would be the same as described under the Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives. In general, in year with the ridge ment lternatives, peak-hour operating conditions are forecast to be acceptable LOS to in the traffic study area, except that: Westbound Ocean oulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island reeway (Segment ) during the M and midday peak hours is forecast to operate at LOS and, respectively; LOS is forecast for the PM peak hour at the intersection of Navy Way and Seaside venue (Intersection ); and LOS would occur during the M peak hour at the signalized intersection of Ocean oulevard and Magnolia venue (Intersection )... Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives Traffic Operations. The Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives roadway network would be the same as described under the Year No ction/rehabilitation lternatives. In general, in year with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives, peak-hour operating conditions are forecast to be acceptable LOS or better in the traffic study area, except that: LOS would occur on eastbound Ocean oulevard between Navy Way and Pier S venue (Segment ) during all peak hours; LOS would occur on westbound Ocean oulevard between the Horseshoe Ramps and the Terminal Island reeway (Segment ) during the midday peak hour; LOS would occur during all peak hours on the westbound upgrade of the Gerald esmond ridge (Segment ) where three lanes transition to two at the crest of the bridge; and Intersection LOS is forecast to be LOS or LOS during one or more of the three peak hours analyzed at the following locations: Terminal Island reeway and Ocean oulevard (Intersection ); Pier S venue and Ocean oulevard (Intersection ); Navy Way and Seaside venue (Intersection ); Terminal Island reeway southbound Off-Ramp and New ock (Intersection 7); nue and Pier reet (Intersection 9); nue and Pier reet (Intersection ); and Ocean oulevard and Magnolia venue (Intersection ). Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 77

39 .. Year ridge ment lternatives Traffic Operations. The roadway network with the ridge ment lternatives would be the same in year as in year. In general, in year with the ridge ment lternatives, peakhour operating conditions are forecast to be acceptable LOS to, except that: astbound Ocean oulevard from Navy Way to Pier S venue (Segment ) is forecast to operate at LOS in the midday and PM peak hours; Westbound Ocean oulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island reeway (Segment ) is forecast to operate at LOS during the midday peak hour; Intersection LOS is forecast to be LOS or LOS during one or more of the three peak hours analyzed at the following locations: Terminal Island reeway and Ocean oulevard (Intersection ); Pier S venue and Ocean oulevard (Intersection ); Navy Way and Seaside venue (Intersection ); Terminal Island reeway southbound Off-Ramp and New ock (Intersection 7); and Ocean oulevard and Magnolia venue (Intersection ). The unsignalized intersection of the Terminal Island reeway southbound Off-Ramp with New ock reet (intersection 7) is forecast to operate at LOS in the M peak hour. ecause of the forecast LOS condition, this intersection was reanalyzed as a signalized intersection as required in Section 7.. of the Protocol. With a future signal in place, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS during the M peak hour... etermination of dverse ffects to Traffic This section provides comparisons of the future No ction and ridge ment lternative conditions to identify the source of changes in traffic operations so that those changes attributable to the ridge ment lternatives can be acknowledged and adverse traffic effects identified. The analysis provides a summary comparison of daily traffic on the bridge. Total T is useful in determining overall vehicle movement on the area roadway network and assessing the redistribution of traffic among various origins and destinations; however, peakhour traffic is used to determine the expected performance of improvements and their potential effects... aily Traffic omparisons Table - shows the existing and forecast T volumes on the segments of Ocean oulevard between the Horseshoe Ramps and SR 7. The following observations are based on averaging the volumes for all of the study conditions in years,, and. Total daily traffic is expected to grow by approximately 9 percent from 9,7 vpd to 77,7 vpd between years and with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives. The improvements provided by the ridge ment lternatives would potentially draw an estimated percent more vehicles (8,7 vpd) to the new bridge in year than the vehicle volume projected under the No ction/ Rehabilitation lternatives (77,7 vpd). The Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 78

40 additional traffic on the new bridge, approximately 9, vpd, would be redistributed to the new bridge from other roadways in the area network and is not growth in regional traffic volume. Total daily traffic is expected to grow by approximately percent, from 77,7 vpd to,7 vpd, between years and with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives. The improvements provided by the proposed ridge ment lternatives would potentially draw an estimated 9 percent more vehicles (,9 vpd) to the new bridge in year than the vehicle volume projected under the No ction/ Rehabilitation lternatives (,7 vpd). The additional traffic on the new bridge, approximately, vpd, would be redistributed to the new bridge from other roadways in the area network and is not growth in regional traffic volume. Table - aily Traffic Volumes on Ocean oulevard between Terminal Island Interchange and SR 7 Segment of Ocean oulevard from Horseshoe Ramps to SR 7 W from SR 7 to Horseshoe Ramps TOTL SR -7 to Horseshoe Ramps ridge eastbound; W westbound xisting No ction/ Rehabilitation lternatives ridge ment lternatives No ction/ Rehabilitation lternatives ridge ment lternatives,,87,7,7 8,8,,,, 7,8 9,7 77,7 8,7,7,9..7 omparisons Used to etermine Project ffects The future conditions were used to evaluate the potential traffic effects of the ridge ment lternatives. The anticipated year of the project opening () is used as the near-term data point for which the traffic conditions with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives and the ridge ment lternatives are documented and evaluated. The future operational year () is used as the design year. This is the horizon year of the current regional transportation model. oth ports are expected to be fully built out by that time. The process used to determine potential adverse effects of the ridge ment lternatives includes a comparison of the future ( and ) No ction/rehabilitation lternatives and the future ( and ) ridge ment lternatives. This comparison is used to determine if a ridge ment lternative would have adverse traffic effects...8 dverse ffects to Traffic from the Long-Term Operation of the ridge ment lternatives Intersection nalysis s shown in Table -, the comparison of the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives with the ridge ment lternatives for the study intersections shows adverse effects at the following intersections in year : Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 79

41 Navy Way/Seaside venue (Intersection ) during the M and PM peak hours; and Ocean oulevard/magnolia venue (Intersection ) during the M peak hour. The comparison of the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives with the ridge ment lternatives shows adverse effects at the following intersections in year : Navy Way/Seaside venue (Intersection ) during all three peak hours; and Ocean oulevard/magnolia venue (Intersection ) during all three peak hours. Navy Way/Seaside venue. The intersection of Navy Way and Seaside venue exceeds the ity of Los ngeles criteria for adverse effects at an intersection in years and. LOS is expected at this intersection during the M peak hour in year with the ridge ment lternative conditions. The V/ ratio is. higher with the ridge ment lternative conditions than with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives, which exceeds the threshold criterion of an increase of. in the V/ ratio for a build condition LOS. LOS is expected at this intersection during the PM peak hour in year with the ridge ment lternative conditions. The V/ ratio is. higher with the ridge ment lternative conditions than with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives, which exceeds the threshold criterion of an increase of. in the V/ ratio for a build condition LOS or. uring the M peak hour in year, LOS is expected with the ridge ment lternative conditions at the intersection of Navy Way and Seaside venue. The V/ ratio (see Table -) is.7 higher with the ridge ment lternative conditions than with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives, which exceeds the threshold criterion of an increase of. in the V/ ratio for a build condition LOS. uring the M peak hour in year, LOS is expected for the ridge ment lternative conditions. The V/ ratio is. higher with the ridge ment lternative conditions than with the No ction/ Rehabilitation lternatives, which exceeds the threshold criterion of an increase of. in the V/ ratio for a build condition LOS. uring the PM peak hour in year, LOS is expected for the ridge ment lternative conditions. The V/ ratio is. higher with the ridge ment lternative conditions than with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives, which exceeds the threshold criterion of an increase of. in the V/ ratio for a build condition LOS. Mitigation for the adverse effect at this intersection is described in Section.7. Ocean oulevard/magnolia venue. The intersection of Ocean oulevard and Magnolia venue in downtown Long each exceeds the ity of Long each criteria for adverse effects at an intersection in years and. LOS is expected at this intersection during the M peak hour in year with the ridge ment lternative conditions. The V/ ratio (see Table -) is. higher with the ridge ment lternative conditions than with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives, which exceeds the threshold criterion of an increase of. in the V/ ratio for a build condition LOS. uring all three peak hours in year, LOS or is expected at this intersection with the ridge ment lternative conditions. The V/ ratio is higher with the ridge ment lternative conditions than with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives by.7,., and. during the M, M, and PM peak hours, respectively. ll of these increases in the V/ ratio exceed the threshold criterion of an increase of. in the V/ ratio for a build condition LOS or. Mitigation for the adverse effect at this intersection is described in Section.7. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 8

42 Table - Project-Related ffects at udy Intersections Year Year omparison omparison M Peak Hour Intersection Without Project LOS el/veh* V/* LOS el/veh* V/* ifference No ction/rehab lternative vs. ridge lternative Without Project With Project dverse ffect b LOS el/veh* V/* LOS el/veh* V/* ifference No ction/rehab lternative vs. ridge lternative Terminal Island reeway / Ocean lvd No.. -. No Pier S ve / Ocean lvd No No Pier S ve / New ock.8.. No No Navy Way / Seaside ve Yes Yes nue / Pier reet & 9th reet No No nue / Pier reet No... No 7 Terminal Island reeway S Off-Ramp / New ock No No - nalyzed as signalized No No 8 Terminal Island reeway N On-Ramp / New ock No No 9 nue / Pier reet a..9 N/ No.. N/ No nue / roadway.. -. No.9.9. No nue / Pier reet a.. N/ No 8.7. N/ No Ocean oulevard / Golden Shore reet No.8.7. Ocean oulevard / Magnolia venue Yes Yes M Peak Hour Terminal Island reeway / Ocean lvd No No Pier S ve / Ocean lvd No No Pier S ve / New ock... No No Navy Way / Seaside ve No Yes nue / Pier reet & 9th reet.9..9 No No nue / Pier reet No No 7 Terminal Island reeway S Off-Ramp / New ock.. -. No No - nalyzed as signalized No No 8 Terminal Island reeway N On-Ramp / New ock No No 9 nue / Pier reet a 9.. N/ No..9 N/ No nue / roadway No.7.. No nue / Pier reet a.. N/ No.9.9 N/ No Ocean oulevard / Golden Shore reet No.7.7. Ocean oulevard / Magnolia venue No Yes PM Peak Hour With Project Terminal Island reeway / Ocean lvd No No Pier S ve / Ocean lvd No.. -. No Pier S ve / New ock.7.7. No No Navy Way / Seaside ve.9.9. Yes.9.. Yes nue / Pier reet & 9th reet No No nue / Pier reet..8. No... No 7 Terminal Island reeway S Off-Ramp / New ock.. -. No No - nalyzed as signalized No No 8 Terminal Island reeway N On-Ramp / New ock No No 9 nue / Pier reet a..99 N/ No.8.. N/ No nue / roadway No.... No nue / Pier reet a N/ No N/ No Ocean oulevard / Golden Shore reet No Ocean oulevard / Magnolia venue No.8.9. Yes Notes: LOS - Level of Service ; N - Northbound; S - Southbound; N/ - Not pplicable * Volume-to-capacity (V/) ratio is reported for signalized intersections and average stopped delay per vehicle (el/veh) in seconds is reported for unsignalized intersections in italics. "ifference" is the change in the applicable V/ ratio or el/veh. a - This intersection is currently stop-sign controlled and a traffic signal would be added at this intersection to accommodate construction detour routing required under the ridge ment lternatives (signal would be in place by year ). Therefore, this intersection has been analyzed as a signalized intersection in the and future years under the ridge Rehabilitation lternatives. There would be no signal installed at this intersection under the No ction/rehabilitation b - riteria and Thresholds Used to etermine dverse ffect: - ity of Long each, signalized intersections (applies to intersections -, #, #, #, and #): dverse effect would occur where the uild condition (ridge ment lternatives) would result in LOS or and the intersection V/ ratio increases by more than. over the No uild (No ction/rehabilitation lternatives) condition or the xisting/aseline condition. - ity of Long each, unsignalized intersections (applies to intersections #, #, and #9-): The ity has no established criteria for determination of adverse effects at unsignalized intersections. If the uild condition has an LOS or at an unsignalized intersection, then the intersection must be reanalyzed using the signalized intersection method and criteria to identify any adverse effects. This analysis assumes that there would be an adverse effect under the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives if LOS or is forecast for an unsignalized intersection in year or. or comparisons of intersections which are unsignalized under the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives and signalized under the ridge ment lternatives, this analysis assumes that there would be an adverse effect if the ridge ment lternatives would result in LOS or at the future signalized intersection. - ity of Los ngeles (applies to signalized intersection: dverse effect would occur where the final (future) LOS is or and an increase in V/ of. or greater would occur as a result of the project; for LOS, an increase of. or greater; or for LOS, an increase of. or greater. Yes Yellow highlights indicate locations with adverse effect where threshold criteria for an adverse effect have been exceeded and the effect is directly attributable to the proposed ridge ment lternatives. dverse ffect b Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 8

43 Roadway Segment nalysis: s shown in Table -, the comparison of the ridge ment lternatives with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives shows an adverse effect on the following roadway segment in year : Westbound Ocean oulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island reeway interchange (Segment ) during the M peak hour. The comparison of the ridge ment lternatives with the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives shows no adverse effects on roadway segments in year. Westbound Segment of Ocean oulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island reeway Interchange. This segment of Ocean oulevard is forecast to operate at LOS during the M peak hour in year under the ridge ment lternative condition with a density of. vehicles per lane per mile, as shown in Table -. In year under the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives, this segment is forecast to operate at LOS, with a density of.8; therefore, an adverse effect is found under the ridge ment lternative condition in year due to the forecast LOS and increased vehicle density that would occur along this westbound segment of Ocean oulevard. The improved LOS and density predicted under the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives along this westbound segment of Ocean oulevard is a result of the existing lane reduction from three lanes to two at the crest of the Gerald esmond ridge. The existing lane reduction causes an increase in traffic congestion on westbound Ocean oulevard, which limits the volume of vehicles that can flow into the westbound segment of Ocean oulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island reeway interchange, thereby providing a relatively low density and better LOS than would be experienced under the ridge ment lternative condition. The ridge ment lternatives would remove the existing lane reduction at the crest of the bridge and eliminate the corresponding increase in traffic congestion on westbound Ocean oulevard, thereby permitting a higher volume and density of traffic to flow into the westbound segment of Ocean oulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island reeway interchange. It is predicted that this increase in traffic flow under the ridge ment lternatives would strain the Terminal Island reeway interchange, resulting in an increased traffic queue (traffic backup). This queue would cause traffic on westbound Ocean oulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island reeway interchange to operate poorly at LOS. uring the M peak hour in year, the westbound segment of Ocean oulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island reeway interchange is forecast to operate at LOS with both the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives and the ridge ment lternative conditions, with vehicle densities of 7.7 and., respectively. Since the density is lower under the ridge ment lternative conditions, traffic operations are forecast to be better with the ridge ment lternative conditions; therefore, no adverse effect under the ridge ment lternative condition would occur in year. The finding of an adverse effect in year and no adverse effect in year under the ridge ment lternative condition results from a deterioration of operating conditions under the No ction/ Rehabilitation lternatives attributable to local and regional traffic growth between years and. Since the adverse effect is expected in year but not in year, the adverse effect is considered temporary. This adverse effect in year under the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives is further discussed below in Section. Traffic ffects Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 8

44 ssociated with Other Related Projects and in Section.8 Unavoidable dverse ffects under the ridge ment lternatives...9 Nonrecurring ongestion The ridge ment lternatives would have the benefit of reducing nonrecurring congestion in the project area caused by automobile crashes, disabled vehicles, work zones, adverse weather events, and planned special events. The addition of standard-width left- and right-side shoulders on the bridge and its approaches would provide adequate room for emergency response vehicles, roadway maintenance vehicles, and disabled automobiles without causing major congestion or requiring roadway closures. To better understand the potential effects caused by a nonrecurring incident, a computer simulation of a nonrecurring incident on the existing Gerald esmond ridge was conducted for the ridge ment lternatives and the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives conditions in year. The ORSIM program was used to conduct the simulation. The analysis compares the duration of restricted traffic operations resulting from an accident or other nonrecurring incident. One difference between the ridge ment lternatives and the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives conditions is the inclusion of a third lane on the downhill side of the bridge with the ridge ment lternatives. or this reason, the simulation included an incident on that portion of the bridge to comparatively estimate the amount of time that would elapse before traffic operations would return to pre-incident levels. The incident was assumed to block the eastbound right lane on the downhill side of the bridge. The incident itself was assumed to last -hour during the PM peak travel period. With the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives condition, the incident was assumed to block the right lane for the full hour and then be cleared from the area. With the ridge ment lternatives condition, the incident was assumed to block the right lane for minutes and then moved to the shoulder for the next minutes, at which time it would be cleared from the area. xhibit - shows summary graphs of travel speed in each lane approaching the incident for -hour before the incident occurred, -hour during the incident, and -hour after the incident was cleared from the bridge for the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives and the ridge ment lternatives conditions. ach graph shows the plotted mean speed for each - minute increment during the -hour period and a smoothed speed curve. nearly horizontal line links pre- and post-incident speed and illustrates likely speeds with no incident. The No ction/rehabilitation lternatives condition results show that the average vehicle travel speed would decrease from approximately to miles per hour (mph) in both lanes before the incident to to mph after the incident occurs. Speeds would remain slow for the whole hour of the incident plus an additional to minutes after the incident is cleared from the area, or a total duration of 8 to 9 minutes after the incident occurred. The ridge ment lternatives condition results show that the average vehicle travel speed would return to pre-incident levels approximately minutes after the incident is moved to the shoulder, or a total duration of minutes after the incident occurred; therefore, over -hour of incident-related delay could be saved as a result of implementing the ridge ment lternatives. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 8

45 Table - Project-Related ffects on Roadway Segments Year Year Segment rom To No ction/ Rehabilitation lternative ridge ment lternative omparison No ction/rehab lt vs. ridge lt No ction/ Rehabilitation lternative ridge ment lternative omparison No ction/rehab lt vs. ridge lt ensity LOS ensity LOS ensity ifference dverse ffect a ensity LOS ensity LOS to xisting ase M Peak Hour 7 8 M Peak Hour 7 8 PM Peak Hour Ocean lvd Navy Way Pier S venue 9... No No W Ocean lvd Pier S venue Navy Way No...8 No Ocean lvd Pier S venue Terminal Island reeway No.7.. No W Ocean lvd Terminal Island reeway Pier S venue No No Ocean lvd Terminal Island reeway Horseshoe Ramps No No W Ocean lvd Horseshoe Ramps Terminal Island reeway No No Gerald esmond ridge Upgrade rest..8. No. 9.. No Gerald esmond ridge rest owngrade No No W Gerald esmond ridge Upgrade rest No No W Gerald esmond ridge rest owngrade No No N onnector Ocean lvd N I No No S onnector S I-7 W Ocean lvd No No I-7 N N onnector N I-7 Mainline No No I-7 S S I-7 Mainline S onnector No No Ocean lvd N onnector owntown.. 8. No No W Ocean lvd owntown S onnector No No Ocean lvd Navy Way Pier S venue... No No W Ocean lvd Pier S venue Navy Way 8... No No Ocean lvd Pier S venue Terminal Island reeway... No No W Ocean lvd Terminal Island reeway Pier S venue. 8.. No No Ocean lvd Terminal Island reeway Horseshoe Ramps.7.. No.7.. No W Ocean lvd Horseshoe Ramps Terminal Island reeway.8.. Yes No Gerald esmond ridge Upgrade rest No No Gerald esmond ridge rest owngrade No No W Gerald esmond ridge Upgrade rest.. -. No No W Gerald esmond ridge rest owngrade No No N onnector Ocean lvd N I No No S onnector S I-7 W Ocean lvd No.. -. No I-7 N N onnector N I-7 Mainline No No I-7 S S I-7 Mainline S onnector.7.. No.9.. No Ocean lvd N onnector owntown No. 7.. No W Ocean lvd owntown S onnector.. 7. No No Ocean lvd Navy Way Pier S venue..8. No No W Ocean lvd Pier S venue Navy Way...8 No. 9.. No 7 8 Ocean lvd Ocean lvd Gerald esmond ridge W Gerald esmond ridge N onnector I-7 N Ocean lvd Pier S venue Terminal Island reeway Upgrade Upgrade Ocean lvd N onnector N onnector Terminal Island reeway Horseshoe Ramps rest rest N I-7 N I-7 Mainline owntown No No No No No No No No No No No No No No W Ocean lvd W Ocean lvd Gerald esmond ridge W Gerald esmond ridge S onnector I-7 S W Ocean lvd Terminal Island reeway Horseshoe Ramps rest rest S I-7 S I-7 Mainline owntown Pier S venue Terminal Island reeway owngrade owngrade W Ocean lvd S onnector S onnector No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Notes: LOS - Level of Service; N - Northbound; S - Nouthbound; ensity - vehicles per lane per mile (VPH) a - riteria and Thresholds Used to etermine dvers ffect - dverse effect would occur where the uild condition (ridge ment lternatives) would result in LOS and the vehicle density is greater in the No uild (No ction/rehabilitation lternatives) condition or the xisting/aseline condition. Yes Highlight indicates locations with adverse effect where threshold criteria for an adverse effect have been exceeded and the effect is directly attributable to the proposed ridge ment lternatives. * Level Of Service (LOS) criteria for traffic operations on multilane highways are based on density (pc/mi/ln). or a free-flow speed of mph, the density ranges for different LOS types: LOS, ; LOS, 8; LOS, 8 ; LOS, ; Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 8

46 GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Non-Recurring Incident Simulation Year

47 ..9. ffects to Nonrecurring ongestion rom the Long-Term Operation of the ridge ment lternatives Nonrecurring congestion due to incidents such as crashes and disabled vehicles would not be worse under the ridge ment lternatives than under the No ction/rehabilitation lternatives. Rather, such nonrecurring congestion is likely to be reduced by the presence of shoulders on the new bridge that would be implemented under the ridge ment lternatives; therefore, it is concluded that the proposed ridge ment lternatives would have a beneficial effect upon nonrecurring congestion.. ridge ikeway and Pedestrian ccess The ridge ment alternatives of the proposed project would transform Ocean oulevard, which is currently a local city street, into a state highway that would be a limitedaccess extension of the SR 7 freeway as far west as the Terminal Island reeway. Ingress and egress from the through lanes of Ocean oulevard in that area would be permitted only at on- and off-ramps. Terminal Island is an industrial area within the Harbor istrict where there is currently no residential, retail, or public recreational facilities. Since the closing of the Naval Shipyard and the opening of the Pier T container terminal, there has been essentially no non-motorized traffic (e.g., pedestrians or bicycles) on Ocean oulevard over the Gerald esmond ridge, despite a patchwork of sidewalks that exist along the roadway. In addition, Terminal Island does not include any designated bicycle route. The finished roadway improvements of the ridge ment lternatives would include standard, full-width paved shoulders inside and outside the traffic lanes for emergency vehicle breakdown and motorist safety. No bikeways or pedestrian sidewalks are included in the project plans. Non-motorized traffic is able to utilize the regularly scheduled bus service equipped with bicycle racks provided by the Los ngeles epartment of Transportation to travel between downtown Long each, Terminal Island, and San Pedro. designated bikeway is also accessible for non-motorized traffic on naheim reet at the northern edge of the Harbor istrict. Of the other two bridges that provide access to Terminal Island, neither the Schuyler Heim ridge nor the Vincent Thomas ridge provides shoulders or walkways for non-motorized traffic. The current bikeway master plans for the ities of Long each and Los ngeles do not include any designated bike routes in the Harbor istricts, including Terminal Island. (Refer to xhibits - and - for the bikeway plans for the cities of Long each and Los ngeles.) Likewise, the Los ngeles ounty Metropolitan Transportation uthority (MT) has not included bikeways or walkways on the Gerald esmond ridge (or its replacement) or Terminal Island in its regional bikeway master plan. ederal regulation requires the inclusion of non-motorized routes in roadway improvement projects only if the facility already includes an existing major non-motorized route. The existing Gerald esmond ridge has a pedestrian walkway, but it is not considered a major nonmotorized route. The Port addressed this issue in January in consideration of federal statute Title, section 7, as amended by the Transportation quity ct for the st entury (T-) and ST-LU, which states, The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action that will sever an existing major non-motorized route or adversely affect the safety of non-motorized traffic and light motorcycles, unless a reasonable alternate route exists or is established. [(c)]. Gerald esmond ridge ment Project Traffic Impact udy October 9 Page 8

48 GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Long each icycle Master Plan xisting ikeway acilities

49 GRL SMON RIG RPLMNT PROJT xhibit - Los ngeles itywide ikeways System