Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project

Transcription

1 Traffic Impact Analysis Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project Conducted for and By October 29

2 Traffic Impact Analysis Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project Conducted for and October 29 By 7 Carnegie Avenue, Suite Santa Ana, CA, 9275

3 Table of Contents CHAPTER : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION... 5 CHAPTER 3: PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Background Project Objectives Project Location and Setting Purpose and Need Project Purpose Project Need Project Alternatives Comparison of Alternatives... 5 CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Project Setting Regulatory Setting Environmental Setting Study Methodology Existing (Year 25) Traffic Conditions Existing Volumes Analysis Methodology Results of Existing Conditions Analysis Impact Evaluation Criteria Assumptions and Future Conditions Analyzed CHAPTER 5: MODELING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTS Traffic Forecasting Model Methodology Network Coverage Traffic Analysis Zone Disaggregation Coding of Highway Grades and Reduced Capacities Implementation of Truck Passenger Car Equivalencies (PCEs) Grades and Passenger Car Equivalents Trips From Other Non-Port Zones Port Area Trip Distribution and 23 Port Trip Tables Regional Trip Tables Traffic Assignment QuickTrip Model Post-Processing of Model Assignment Results Forecasting Model Validation (Base Year 25) Future Year Model Development Year 25 Model Development Year 23 Model Development Year 25 and 23 Traffic Volume Forecasts CHAPTER 6: FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Future Circulation System Analysis of Future Traffic Operations Year 25 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives Traffic Operations Year 25 Bridge Replacement Alternatives Traffic Operations Year 23 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives Traffic Operations Year 23 Bridge Replacement Alternatives Traffic Operations October 29 Page ii

4 6.2.5 Determination of Adverse Effects to Traffic Daily Traffic Comparisons Comparisons Used to Determine Project Effects Adverse Effects to Traffic from the Long-Term Operation of the Bridge Replacement Alternatives Nonrecurring Congestion Bridge Bikeway and Pedestrian Access Bikeways Pedestrian Walkways Effects to Bicycle and Pedestrian Access from the Long-Term Operation of the Bridge Replacement Alternatives Construction Effects Rehabilitation Alternative Bridge Replacement Alternatives Traffic Analysis of Detours Adverse Traffic Effects During Construction of the Bridge Replacement Alternatives Traffic Effects Associated with Other Related Projects SR 47 and SR 7 Improvements SR 47 Flyover at Terminal Island Freeway Interchange Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Adverse Construction Effects Temporary Adverse Operations Effects Permanent Adverse Operations Effects Unavoidable Adverse Effects Under the Bridge Replacement Alternatives Temporary Adverse Effects to Traffic During Construction Temporary Adverse Effects to Traffic During Operations... CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 2 APPENDIX... 4 October 29 Page iii

5 List of Tables Table 3- Daily Truck Percentages... Table 4- Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections Table 4-2 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Table 4-3 Count Locations and Specifications Summary Table 4-4 Existing (Year 25) Peak-Hour LOS for Arterial and Highway Segments Table 4-5 Existing (Year 25) Peak-Hour LOS for Ramp Junctions Table 4-6 Existing (Year 25) Peak-Hour LOS for Intersections Table 5- Year 25 Peak Month Container Terminal Trip Generation Estimates Table 5-2 Year 23 Peak Month Container Terminal Trip Generation Estimates Table 5-3 Year 25 Vehicle Miles Travelled and Vehicle Hours Travelled Table 5-4 Year 23 Vehicle Miles Travelled and Vehicle Hour Travelled... 7 Table 6- Years 25 and 23 Forecast Peak-Hour LOS on Roadway Segments Table 6-2 Years 25 and 23 Forecast Peak-Hour LOS at Ramp Junctions Table 6-3 Years 25 and 23 Forecast Peak-Hour LOS at Intersections Table 6-4 Daily Traffic Volumes on Ocean Boulevard between Terminal Island Interchange and SR Table 6-5 Project-Related Effects at Study Intersections... 8 Table 6-6 Project-Related Effects on Roadway Segments Table 6-7 Bridge Replacement Alternatives: Detour Route Level of Service Construction Stage Table 6-8 Bridge Replacement Alternatives: Detour Route Level of Service Construction Stages 3 and Table 6-9 Year 23 Traffic Volumes for the Bridge Replacement Alternatives with SR 7 and SR 47 Improvements Except SR 47 Flyover... Table 6- Comparison of Study Segment LOS for the No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives and Bridge Replacement Alternatives With and Without the Ocean Boulevard to SR-47 Flyover... 3 Table 6- Bridge Replacement Alternatives: Detour Route Level of Service with Mitigation Construction Stage Table 6-2 Bridge Replacement Alternatives: Detour Route Level of Service with Mitigation Construction Stages 3 and Table 6-3 Intersection Effects With and Without Mitigation at Navy Way/Seaside Avenue... 9 Table 6-4 Intersection Effects With and Without Mitigation at Ocean Boulevard/Magnolia Avenue... Table 7- Summary of Potentially Adverse/Significant Impacts... 3 October 29 Page iv

6 List of Exhibits Exhibit 2-: Project Vicinity and Project Location Map... 6 Exhibit 2-2: Traffic Study Area... 7 Exhibit 3-: North-Side Bridge Replacement Alternative Alignment... 2 Exhibit 3-2: South-Side Bridge Replacement Alternative Alignment... 3 Exhibit 4-: Traffic Study Roadway Segments... 8 Exhibit 4-2: Traffic Study Intersections... 9 Exhibit 4-3: Existing Roadway Segment Lane Configurations East End... 2 Exhibit 4-4: Existing Roadway Segment Lane Configurations West End... 2 Exhibit 4-5: Year 25 (Existing) Intersection Lane Configuration Exhibit 4-6: Levels of Service for Multi-Lane Highways Exhibit 4-7: Year 25 (Existing) Peak-Hour Roadway Segment Volumes Exhibit 4-8: Year 25 (Existing) AM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 4-9: Year 25 (Existing) Midday Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 4-: Year 25 (Existing) PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements... 3 Exhibit 4-: Year 25 (Existing) Average Daily Traffic Roadway Segment Volumes... 3 Exhibit 5-: Year 25 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternative Peak-Hour Roadway Segment Volumes Exhibit 5-2: Year 25 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternative AM Peak-Hour Turning Movements... 5 Exhibit 5-3: Year 25 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternative Midday Peak-Hour Turning Movements... 5 Exhibit 5-4: Year 25 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternative PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 5-5: Year 25 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternative Daily Traffic Roadway Segment Volumes Exhibit 5-6: Year 25 Bridge Replacement Alternative Peak-Hour Roadway Segment Volumes Exhibit 5-7: Year 25 Bridge Replacement Alternative AM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 5-8: Year 25 Bridge Replacement Alternative Midday Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 5-9: Year 25 Bridge Replacement Alternative PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 5-: Year 25 Bridge Replacement Alternative Average Daily Traffic Roadway Segment Volumes Exhibit 5-: Year 23 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternative Peak-Hour Roadway Segment Volumes... 6 Exhibit 5-2: Year 23 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternative AM Peak-Hour Turning Movements... 6 Exhibit 5-3: Year 23 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternative Midday Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 5-4: Year 23 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternative PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 5-5: Year 23 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternative Average Daily Traffic Roadway Segment Volumes Exhibit 5-6: Year 23 Bridge Replacement Alternative Peak-Hour Roadway Segment Volumes Exhibit 5-7: Year 23 Bridge Replacement Alternative AM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 5-8: Year 23 Bridge Replacement Alternative Midday Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 5-9: Year 23 Bridge Replacement Alternative PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 5-2: Year 23 Bridge Replacement Alternative Daily Traffic Roadway Segment Volumes Exhibit 6-: Future Intersection Lane Configuration for Bridge Replacement Alternative Exhibit 6-2: Non-Recurring Incident Simulation Year Exhibit 6-3: Long Beach Bicycle Master Plan Existing Bikeway Facilities Exhibit 6-4: Los Angeles Citywide Bikeways System Exhibit 6-5: Ramp Locations Where Bicycles Would Be Prohibited... 9 Exhibit 6-6: Construction Stage 2 AM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 6-7: Construction Stage 2 PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 6-8: Construction Stage 2 Lane Configuration Exhibit 6-9: Construction Stages 3 and 4 PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 6-: Construction Stages 3 and 4 PM Peak-Hour Turning Movements Exhibit 6-: Construction Stages 3 and 4 Lane Configuration October 29 Page v

7 CHAPTER : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This traffic study addresses the potential impacts to traffic and circulation associated with construction and long-term operation of the proposed Gerald Desmond Bridge project. The study identifies existing (year 25) and future projected (years 25 and 23) traffic volumes and lane configurations to determine the traffic LOS for roadway elements within the study area. The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the City of Long Beach at the southern end of State Route (SR) 7 in Los Angeles County. The traffic study analyzes project-specific impacts of the proposed Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project (Project) and was prepared to support the joint revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Assessment (EA). Purpose and Need The Gerald Desmond Bridge was constructed in 966 and seismically upgraded in 995. It provides four through travel lanes (i.e., two in each direction). On the uphill segments, climbing lanes were added to accommodate container trucks and improve LOS on the bridge. This improvement results in three ascending lanes and two descending lanes in each travel direction. Each climbing lane ends at the crest of the bridge. The bridge consists of a tied-arch truss structure, in which the horizontal forces of the arch are borne by the bridge deck, rather than the ground or the bridge foundations. The bridge has a 49.5-ft-wide (24.8-m-wide) suspended span that crosses the deep-water navigable channel connecting the middle and inner harbors of the Port. As the fifth largest seaport complex in the world, more than 3 percent of U.S. waterborne container cargo is transported through the Ports. The bridge is a vital link as the westerly extension of Route 7, which is the primary access route for the Ports and carries approximately 5 percent of all U.S. port-related container traffic. The proposed project would either replace the existing functionally and seismically deficient Gerald Desmond Bridge with a new bridge that will meet the transportation needs of the Port and the region or the existing bridge would be seismically retrofitted to current standards. The bridge replacement alternatives would also necessitate reconfiguration of adjacent arterial and freeway interchanges. The bridge replacement would be completed prior to demolition of the existing bridge, to maintain traffic service. For the rehabilitation alternative, any lane closures for deck replacement would be planned to occur during nighttime. Replacement of the existing bridge would also require relocation of the SCE transmission lines crossing Cerritos Channel north of the bridge. Project Description Two basic options have been considered for the project. The first is replacing the bridge with a new six-lane wide structure either north or south of the existing bridge, the North-Side and South-Side Bridge Replacements Alternatives, respectively. The second is a rehabilitation of the existing five-lane wide structure ( Rehabilitation Alternative ). A new bridge would be approximately 2, feet long. The reconstruction alternative would include reconstructing the existing connectors to SR 7 and the two ramp connections to Pico Avenue and retrofitting the existing structure to meet current seismic and structural requirements. A no-build or No Action Alternative is also considered. Based upon the traffic, navigation, and economic impacts of the Bridge Replacement, Rehabilitation, and No Action Alternatives, the Port has determined that the North-Side Alignment Bridge Replacement Alternative satisfies the project s purpose and need and is more cost effective to implement and therefore has identified the North-Side Alignment Alternative as the preferred alternative. October 29 Page

8 Existing Conditions The LOS analyses results of the analyzed roadway segments show that generally the segments operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) A to C in the peak hours; however, on Ocean Boulevard between Pier S Avenue and the Terminal Island Freeway, failing LOS F conditions occur in both directions during the peak hours, except for the eastbound direction during the midday peak hour when there are LOS E conditions. Subsequent to 25, the segment of Ocean Boulevard between Pier S Avenue and the Terminal Island Freeway was improved with a grade-separated interchange. Additionally, westbound Ocean Boulevard between the Horseshoe Ramps and the Terminal Island freeway has LOS E conditions during all three peak periods. All of the ramp junction areas analyzed operate at acceptable LOS B during the peak hours. The results of the study intersections LOS analyses with year 25 conditions show that all of the study intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better during peak hours with the existing year 25 conditions, except for the intersection of the Terminal Island Freeway with Ocean Boulevard. Subsequent to 25 this intersection was improved with a grade separation serving through traffic on Ocean Boulevard. Future Year Traffic Projections Future Year 25 and 23 traffic volume projections were developed using the Port Travel Demand Forecasting Model. Because no changes in roadway capacity or dimensions are included in the Rehabilitation Alternative, the traffic forecasts for the Rehabilitation and No Action Alternatives are the same. With respect to traffic the North and South-Side Alignment Bridge Replacement Alternative are the same, so the traffic forecasts for them are the same. The forecasted daily volume for the Year 25 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives for the Gerald Desmond Bridge is 77, vehicles per day (vpd), which includes approximately 3 percent trucks. For the Year 25 Bridge Replacement Alternatives, the ADT volumes forecast for the bridge are 87, vpd, which also includes approximately 3 percent trucks. For the Year 23 No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives the daily volume forecast for the Gerald Desmond Bridge is 25, vpd, which includes approximately 44 percent trucks. For the Year 23 Bridge Replacement Alternatives, the ADT volumes forecast for the bridge is 36, vpd, which includes approximately 44 percent trucks. Future Year Operating Conditions Since the traffic forecast for the No Action and Rehabilitation Alternatives are the same, the traffic analysis for those alternatives is combined. Similarly, a single traffic analysis covers both of the Bridge Replacement Alternatives. In year 25 with the No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives, peak-hour operating conditions are forecast to be acceptable LOS D or better in the traffic study area except that LOS F will occur during all peak hours on the westbound upgrade of the Gerald Desmond Bridge, LOS E conditions will occur at the Terminal Island Freeway signalized intersection with the Ocean Boulevard ramps during the midday peak hour, LOS E is forecast for the PM peak hour at the intersection of Navy Way and Seaside Avenue, and LOS E will occur during the AM peak hour at the signalized intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue. In year 25 with the Bridge Replacement Alternatives, peak-hour operating conditions are forecast to be acceptable LOS A to D in the traffic study area, except that Westbound Ocean Boulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island Freeway during the AM and midday peak hours is forecast to operate at LOS E and F, respectively, LOS E is forecast for the PM peak hour at the intersection of Navy Way and Seaside Avenue, and LOS E would occur October 29 Page 2

9 during the AM peak hour at the signalized intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue. In year 23 with the No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives, peak-hour operating conditions are forecast to be acceptable LOS D or better in the traffic study area, except that LOS F would occur on eastbound Ocean Boulevard between Navy Way and Pier S Avenue during all peak hours, LOS F would occur on westbound Ocean Boulevard between the Horseshoe Ramps and the Terminal Island Freeway during the midday peak hour, LOS F would occur during all peak hours on the westbound upgrade of the Gerald Desmond Bridge, and Intersection LOS is forecast to be LOS E or LOS F during one or more of the three peak hours analyzed at seven of the analyzed intersections. In year 23 with the Bridge Replacement Alternatives, peak-hour operating conditions are forecast to be acceptable LOS A to D, except that Eastbound Ocean Boulevard from Navy Way to Pier S Avenue is forecast to operate at LOS F in the midday and PM peak hours, westbound Ocean Boulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island Freeway is forecast to operate at LOS F during the midday peak hour, intersection LOS is forecast to be LOS E or LOS F during one or more of the three peak hours analyzed at five of the analyzed intersections. Total daily traffic is expected to grow by approximately 29 percent from 59,7 vpd to 77,7 vpd between years 25 and 25 with the No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives. The improvements provided by the Bridge Replacement Alternatives would potentially draw an estimated 3 percent more vehicles (86,73 vpd) to the new bridge in year 25 than the vehicle volume projected under the No Action/ Rehabilitation Alternatives (77,7 vpd). Total daily traffic is expected to grow by approximately 62 percent, from 77,7 vpd to 24,67 vpd, between years 25 and 23 with the No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives. The improvements provided by the proposed Bridge Replacement Alternatives would potentially draw an estimated 9 percent more vehicles (35,93 vpd) to the new bridge in year 23 than the vehicle volume projected under the No Action/ Rehabilitation Alternatives (24,67 vpd). The additional traffic on the new bridge would be redistributed to the new bridge from other roadways in the area network and would not constitute actual growth in regional traffic volume. Project Impacts The process used to determine potential adverse effects of the project alternatives includes a comparison of the future (25 and 23) No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives with the future (25 and 23) Bridge Replacement Alternatives. This comparison is used to determine if a Bridge Replacement Alternative would have adverse traffic effects. The intersections of Navy Way/Seaside Avenue and Ocean Boulevard/Magnolia Avenue exceed the criteria for adverse intersection effects. The segment of westbound Ocean Boulevard from the Horseshoe Ramps to the Terminal Island Freeway Interchange exceeds the criteria for adverse roadway segment effects. Conclusions and Project Mitigation Based on the analyses as described in this report, the following conclusions and recommendations are considered applicable with respect to the planned alternatives at the project site: The westbound Ocean Boulevard on- and off-ramp intersection with Pico Avenue is currently controlled by all-way STOP signs and is not expected to experience any significant October 29 Page 3

10 impacts related to the Bridge Replacement Alternatives. However, traffic operations at the intersection should be monitored after completion of the Project to determine if this intersection should be signalized in the future. As part of the construction mitigation program the Bridge Replacement Alternatives would signalize the intersections of Pico Avenue with Pier D Street and Pier E Street. These traffic signals will remain in place after construction of a Bridge Replacement Alternative. To mitigate impacts related to the Bridge Replacement Alternatives at the intersection of Navy Way with Seaside Avenue, the northbound approach of the intersection would provide a third left-turn lane. To mitigate impacts related to the Bridge Replacement Alternatives at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard with Magnolia Avenue, the POLB will provide funding for restriping and/or traffic signal modifications as mitigation to address the project s adverse effect. A sensitivity analysis showed that, with the proposed future expansion of the I-7 corridor and the SR 47 Expressway, the Bridge Replacement Alternatives would continue to operate with good levels of service and the traffic operations on the bridge would not be significantly affected. October 29 Page 4

11 CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION This traffic study addresses the potential impacts to traffic and circulation associated with construction and long-term operation of the proposed Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement project. The study identifies existing (year 25) and future projected (years 25 and 23) traffic volumes and lane configurations to determine the traffic LOS for roadway elements within the study area. For this analysis, the existing traffic conditions are defined as the conditions that existed in year 25 at the time that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this project was issued. The existing conditions are also referred to as the environmental baseline or baseline conditions. The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the City of Long Beach at the southern end of State Route (SR) 7 in Los Angeles County as shown in Exhibit 2-. This traffic study analyzes project-specific impacts of the proposed Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project (Project) and was prepared to support the joint revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Assessment (EA). This traffic study has been prepared for the City of Long Beach acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners (Port of Long Beach [Port or POLB]) as lead agency for the EIR and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as lead agency for the EA. The traffic study area is shown in Exhibit 2-2. The overall study area extends along Ocean Boulevard from Navy Way on the west to downtown Long Beach on the east. It includes the access between Ocean Boulevard, SR 7, and Pico Avenue. It extends north along Pico Avenue and SR 7 to 9 th Street, and it includes the Terminal Island Freeway (SR 47) interchange with Ocean Boulevard, as well as the Terminal Island Freeway interchange with New Dock Street. The study area extends west along New Dock Street from its interchange with the Terminal Island Freeway to Pier S Avenue. The traffic study area was defined to include the project site, as well as other roadways and facilities judged to potentially receive additional traffic as a result of the construction and longterm operation of the project. The proposed build alternatives of the project, which entail rehabilitation or replacement of the existing roadway and bridge facilities, would not actually generate any new traffic; however, the bridge replacement alternatives are expected to result in some local redistribution of traffic. October 29 Page 5

12 Exhibit 2-: Project Vicinity and Project Location Map October 29 Page 6

13 October 29 Page 7 Exhibit 2-2: Traffic Study Area

14 CHAPTER 3: PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION As previously noted, the proposed project would construct a new bridge across the Back Channel and associated roadway connectors, as well as demolish the existing Gerald Desmond Bridge (see Exhibit 2-2). The new bridge, excluding approach structures, would be 2, ft (6 m) long, and it would be elevated approximately 2 ft above the water. Bridge replacement would also necessitate reconfiguration of adjacent freeway and arterial interchanges. 3. Project Background The Gerald Desmond Bridge was constructed in 966 and seismically upgraded in 995. It provides four through travel lanes (i.e., two in each direction). On the uphill segments, climbing lanes were added to accommodate container trucks and improve LOS on the bridge. This improvement results in three ascending lanes and two descending lanes in each travel direction. Each climbing lane ends at the crest of the bridge. The bridge consists of a tied-arch truss structure, in which the horizontal forces of the arch are borne by the bridge deck, rather than the ground or the bridge foundations. The bridge has a 49.5-ft-wide (24.8-m-wide) suspended span that crosses the deep-water navigable channel connecting the middle and inner harbors of the Port. As the fifth largest seaport complex in the world, more than 3 percent of U.S. waterborne container cargo is transported through the Ports. The bridge is a vital link as the westerly extension of Route 7, which is the primary access route for the Ports and carries approximately 5 percent of all U.S. port-related container traffic. 3.2 Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed project include providing a structurally sound bridge linking Terminal Island and Long Beach/SR 7 over the next hundred years. Another objective is to provide sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate current and projected vehicular traffic volume demand, which the existing bridge cannot provide with only two through lanes and no outside shoulders. Lastly, the proposed project would provide sufficient vertical clearance for safe navigation through the Back Channel to the Inner Harbor, which the existing bridge does not provide. The project would replace the existing Gerald Desmond Bridge and improve vehicular traffic flow. The project will benefit the Port by accommodating existing operations and forecasted growth in vehicular traffic, vessel traffic, and goods movement. The project objectives are consistent with similar goals addressed in the Port Master Plan (PMP), as amended. 3.3 Project Location and Setting The Gerald Desmond Bridge is one of three bridges connecting surface highways to Terminal Island in the harbor area. The bridge is located within the Port in an area zoned industrial. The bridge crosses the Back Channel and generally runs east-west across Pier D. It is located in three different Planning Districts in the Long Beach Harbor. These include the Northeast Harbor Planning District, the Terminal Island Planning District, and the Middle Harbor Planning District (POLB, 999). The proposed project and alternatives are located in the southwest portion of the city of Long Beach at the southern end of SR 7. SR 7 is classified as Route 7 south of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in the State of California s Streets and Highways Code. The October 29 Page 8

15 bridge and Ocean Boulevard are proposed to be a part of SR 7, and they would be relinquished to Caltrans, as required by a state law enacted in 982, once the new bridge is constructed. The proposed project is on Ocean Boulevard from the intersection of the Terminal Island Freeway (SR 47) at the western end to its eastern terminus at the westerly end of the bridge over the Los Angeles River. The southern limit of the project is located on Pico Avenue approximately 66 feet south of the Ocean Boulevard interchange. The northern limit of the project is along SR 7, approximately 2,63 feet north of Ocean Boulevard, and along the northern limit of the Southern California Edison power lines on Pier A. 3.4 Purpose and Need This project is included in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 28 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 28 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for Local Highway Projects (Project ID LA52) Project Purpose Based on the overall project objectives and the specific needs and deficiencies described below, the purpose of the proposed project is four-fold. The purpose is to provide a bridge that would: Be structurally sound and seismically resistant; Reduce approach grades; Provide sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate current and future car and truck traffic volumes; and Provide vertical clearance that would afford safe passage for existing container ships and for new-generation vessels currently being constructed Project Need The following discussion summarizes the present and projected deficiencies of the existing Gerald Desmond Bridge. These deficiencies explain the need for replacement of the bridge Traffic Capacity/Roadway Deficiencies Capacity In 25, which is the NOP baseline year, approximately 38 percent of all traffic on the Gerald Desmond Bridge had an origin or destination in the Ports. Of the approximately 59,7 vehicles per day (vpd) on the bridge, 5,2 or 25 percent were trucks (see Table 3-). The presence of substantial numbers of vehicles other than passenger cars (i.e., heavy-duty trucks) affects traffic flow in two ways: () these vehicles occupy more roadway space than passenger cars; and (2) the operational capabilities of these vehicles, including acceleration, deceleration, and maintenance of speed, are inferior to passenger cars and result in the formation of large gaps in the traffic stream, which reduces highway capacity. On long sustained grades and segments where trucks operate considerably slower, gaps are created between October 29 Page 9

16 trucks and the auto traffic in front. Formation of these large gaps can have a profound impact on the traffic stream by creating rolling congestion points along the road. Year Table 3- Daily Truck Percentages Daily Trucks Percent Trucks Daily Traffic 25 5, ,7 25 No Action/Rehabilitation 22, ,7 25 Build Replacement 26, 3 86,73 23 No Action/Rehabilitation 54, ,67 23 Build Replacement 59, ,93 By the Year 23, traffic forecasts project that approximately 39 percent of the bridge s traffic will be non-port, regional through traffic. Regional traffic will increase due to several major development projects that have been constructed in downtown Long Beach, such as the Pike at Rainbow Harbor and the proposed San Pedro Waterfront Development in the Port of Los Angeles (POLA). Year 23 forecasted traffic volumes without the project are approximately 24,67 total trips per day (including 54,36 trucks or 43.6 percent of the total traffic) on the Gerald Desmond Bridge. Table 3- summarizes the daily traffic and truck percentages over the project planning years. Level of Service (LOS) is defined in six levels, from A through F (see Section 4.2 for further description). Level A is free-flow, high-speed conditions. At Level D, speed and maneuverability are reduced due to congestion, and Level F is a breakdown in flow, with speeds and vehicular throughput potentially dropping to zero. In 25, peak-hour (i.e., morning [8-9 AM], midday [2-3 PM], and evening [4-5 PM]) traffic on the uphill segments (i.e., base of bridge to the crest) of the existing Gerald Desmond Bridge operated at LOS B or C in both the westbound (WB) and eastbound (EB) directions. In 23, without the project, operations during peak hours are projected to be LOS F westbound toward Terminal Island and LOS C eastbound toward Long Beach. Deficiencies The primary roadway deficiencies are the lack of outside shoulders and the steep approach grades. Shoulders: The lack of shoulders often results in broken-down trucks or passenger vehicles being stuck in a travel lane, effectively blocking or severely restricting the entire traffic flow in that direction of travel until the incident is cleared. The lack of shoulders also makes it more difficult for emergency vehicles and tow vehicles to gain access to the incidents. Providing outside shoulders would improve safety to the emergency responders and traveling public in these situations. The recent addition of climbing lanes on the bridge does not mitigate the need for breakdown shoulders because breakdowns still tie up the travel lanes as wider, slow-moving trucks must negotiate around incidents. October 29 Page

17 Approach Grades: The long, steep approach grades cause trucks to operate considerably slower, especially when passing, which creates large gaps in the traffic stream and further reduces the roadway s capacity. The current approach grades are 5.5 percent on the west side of the bridge and 6 percent on the east side. 3.5 Project Alternatives Two basic options have been considered for the project. The first is replacing the bridge with a new six-lane wide structure either north or south of the existing bridge, the North-Side and South-Side Bridge Replacements Alternatives, respectively. The second is a rehabilitation of the existing five-lane wide structure ( Rehabilitation Alternative ) Bridge Replacement Alternatives North-Side Alignment Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The North-Side Alignment Alternative would provide a new bridge located approximately 2 feet north of the existing bridge (measured from centerline to centerline). This bridge alignment would have a vertical profile over the Back Channel of 2 ft (6 m) above the Mean Height Water Level (MHWL). The roadway grades would be 5 percent in both directions. The new bridge would be approximately 2, feet long, with a west approach structure 3,7 feet in length and an east approach structure 2,782 feet in length. The main span opening would be, feet, tower to tower. The bridge cross section and approaches to the new bridge would include the following project features: Three 2-foot-wide lanes in each direction; A foot-wide outside shoulder in each direction; A foot to 2-foot-wide inside shoulder in each direction; and A 32 inch high barrier that would run along the outside of each shoulder. Exhibit 3- shows the North-Side Alignment Alternative. The project would include the reconstruction of the existing connector ramps between Ocean Boulevard and SR 7 and the two ramp connections to Pico Avenue. The new bridge approach spans would require construction of new ramps for the existing Horseshoe interchange. (The Horseshoe Interchange is formally the Terminal Island East Interchange providing access to Pier T. To avoid confusion with the Terminal Island Freeway Interchange at SR 47, the Horseshoe terminology, derived from the aerial view of the interchange, is used throughout this report.) The proposed alignment would transition to join Ocean Boulevard approximately 3,28 feet east of the channel, and the new connections would join SR 7 approximately 2,63 feet north of Ocean Boulevard. The Horseshoe interchange would use reconfigured ramps to provide access from the westbound replacement bridge to Pier T Avenue and from Pier T Avenue to the eastbound replacement bridge. Additional ramp connections would be provided between Pier T Avenue and both Ocean Boulevard and the one-way frontage roads created by the newly constructed POLB Ocean Boulevard and SR 47 Interchange. These ramps would allow full access between Pier T Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in all directions. October 29 Page

18 GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Exhibit 3- North-Side Bridge Replacement Alignment Alternative

19 GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Exhibit 3-2 South-Side Bridge Replacement Alignment Alternative

20 At the SR 7 interchange, a new median connection to downtown Long Beach would be constructed, as would a new pair of connector ramps between SR 7 and the replacement bridge. A new hook ramp or loop ramp would be used to replace the existing ramp between the westbound Gerald Desmond Bridge and Pico Avenue. The current ramps between the eastbound Gerald Desmond Bridge and Pico Avenue would be partially reconstructed to join the new connectors from SR 7. This interchange concept would enable trucks traveling to and from SR 7 to remain in the outside lanes, while cars traveling to and from downtown Long Beach via Ocean Boulevard would remain in the inside lanes. This approach would minimize the intermixing, or weaving, of cars and trucks accessing the above-mentioned facilities South-Side Alignment Alternative The South-Side Alignment Alternative would provide a new bridge located approximately 56 feet south of the existing bridge (measured between centerlines). The proposed alignment would transition to join existing Ocean Boulevard approximately 3,28 feet west of the channel. This alignment would require reconstruction of all ramps for the existing Horseshoe interchange and a portion of the existing Pier T terminal main gate facility. The proposed alignment would transition to join existing Ocean Boulevard approximately 3,28 feet east of the channel, and the new connections would join existing SR 7 approximately 2,82 feet north of Ocean Boulevard. The four existing ramp connections to Pico Avenue would be reconstructed for this alternative. The interchange design variations used for the North-Side Alignment Alternative would also be applied to the South-Side Alignment Alternative. Exhibit 3-2 depicts the South-Side Alignment Alternative Bridge Rehabilitation Alternative The existing bridge underwent a seismic retrofit study in the early 99s, followed by a seismic retrofit to improve its seismic performance. To comply with current seismic detailing standards for new bridges and to bring the existing Gerald Desmond Bridge up to current AASHTO standards and to mitigate continuous bridge deterioration would require the following measures: Replacement of the bridge deck; Replacement of expansion joints; Replacement of the sway bracings for the main span; Painting of all steel members; and Seismic retrofit of foundations, columns, bent caps, abutments, and superstructure. All of the above measures would be consistent with the level of retrofit undergone by major bridges in California, where retrofit measures were designed for a No Collapse design criteria. No additional roadway capacity would be provided. Increasing traffic volumes would result in steadily deteriorating levels of service No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Gerald Desmond Bridge would not be replaced or rehabilitated. It would remain in its existing deteriorated condition until a retrofit schedule is October 29 Page 4

21 established. It would remain with insufficient roadway capacity to accommodate projected car and truck traffic volumes, and inadequate channel clearance for safe passage of some existing and new-generation container ships. Existing measures to protect against falling structural elements would need to be enhanced as the bridge continues to deteriorate, and the related safety issues would increase in severity. Seismic safety of the channel crossing would not be enhanced to meet current seismic standards. Increasing traffic volumes would result in steadily deteriorating levels of service. 3.6 Comparison of Alternatives The North-Side Alignment Alternative would address the project s purpose and need. Specifically, this alternative would: Provide a new bridge that is structurally sound and seismically resistant; Reduce approach grades; Provide sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate current and future car and truck traffic volumes; and Provide vertical clearance that would afford safe passage of existing container ships and for new-generation vessels currently being constructed. However, impacts would be experienced to properties located along the north side of the existing bridge. The South-Side Alignment Alternative would also address the project s purpose and need, but would impact properties located along the south side of the currently alignment. Overall, there is no traffic operations advantage for considering the North-Side Alignment Alternative over the South-Side Alignment Alternative. Under the Rehabilitation Alternative, the bridge would not accommodate current and future traffic volumes as no capacity would be added to the corridor, nor would it provide the vertical clearance needed for safe passage of container ships. The No Action Alternative would also not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project and would not eliminate the need for rehabilitation or replacement of the Gerald Desmond Bridge. Preferred Alternative Based upon the greater traffic, navigation, and economic impacts of the other build alternatives, the Port has determined that the North-Side Alignment Alternative satisfies the project s purpose and need and is more cost effective to implement; therefore, after comparing and weighing the benefits and impacts of all the feasible alternatives summarized above, the Project Development Team (PDT) has identified the North-Side Alignment Alternative as the preferred alternative, subject to public review. October 29 Page 5

22 CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS 4. Project Setting The existing lane configurations, traffic volumes, and LOS within the study area are presented in this subsection. 4.. Regulatory Setting Caltrans, as assigned by FHWA, directs that full consideration should be given to the safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists during the development of federal-aid highway projects (see 23 CFR 652). It further directs that the special needs of the elderly and the disabled must be considered in all federal-aid projects that include pedestrian facilities. When current or anticipated pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic presents a potential conflict with motor vehicle traffic, every effort must be made to minimize the detrimental effects on all highway users who share the facility. Caltrans is committed to carrying out the 99 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by building transportation facilities that provide equal access for all persons. The same degree of convenience, accessibility, and safety available to the general public will be provided to persons with disabilities Environmental Setting Analysis Locations Within the traffic study area, eight roadway segments with potential traffic impacts associated with the Bridge Replacement Alternatives have been investigated. These roadway segments are shown on Exhibit 4- and include:. Ocean Boulevard from Navy Way to Pier S Avenue; 2. Ocean Boulevard from Pier S Avenue to the Terminal Island Freeway; 3. Ocean Boulevard from the Terminal Island Freeway to the Horseshoe Ramps; 4. EB bridge upgrade (direction of travel is uphill) to the crest of the bridge; 5. WB bridge upgrade to the crest of the bridge; 6. Connectors between SR 7 and Ocean Boulevard; 7. SR 7 north of Ocean Boulevard; and 8. Ocean Boulevard from SR 7 Connectors to downtown Long Beach. Within the traffic study area, 3 intersections with potential traffic impacts associated with the Bridge Replacement Alternatives have been investigated. The intersections are shown on Exhibit 4-2 and include:. Terminal Island Freeway and Ocean Boulevard (signalized); 2. Pier S Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (signalized); 3. Pier S Avenue and New Dock Street (signalized); 4. Navy Way and Seaside Avenue (signalized); October 29 Page 6

23 5. Pico Avenue/Pier B Street and 9th Street (signalized); 6. Pico Avenue and Pier C Street (signalized); 7. Terminal Island Freeway SB Off-Ramp and New Dock Street (no signal/stop sign controlled); 8. Terminal Island Freeway Northbound (NB) On-Ramp and New Dock Street (no signal/stop sign controlled); 9. Pico Avenue and Pier D Street (no signal/stop sign controlled);. Pico Avenue and Broadway (no signal/stop sign controlled);. Pico Avenue and Pier E Street (no signal/stop sign controlled); 2. Ocean Boulevard and Golden Shore Street (signalized); and 3. Ocean Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue (signalized). The intersection of Navy Way and Seaside Avenue (Intersection 4) is located in the City of Los Angeles, while the other intersections are located in the City of Long Beach. Intersections through 6, 2, and 3 are signalized in the existing year 25 condition. Intersections 7 through are currently controlled with stop signs. Traffic signals are proposed at intersections 9 and as part of the construction traffic detour plans for the Bridge Replacement Alternatives and these signals would remain after implementation; therefore, these signals are considered implemented in the analysis of future year 25 and 23 conditions with the Bridge Replacement Alternatives. The analysis of future year 25 and 23 conditions with the No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives assumes that signals would not be in place at intersections 9 and, since no construction traffic detour plans would be necessary if the existing bridge is rehabilitated or if no action is taken. Existing Lane Configuration Exhibits 4-3 and 4-4 show the existing lane configuration of the Gerald Desmond Bridge and roadways within the immediate project area. Exhibit 4-5 illustrates the existing lane configurations for the analyzed intersections. Gerald Desmond Bridge The Gerald Desmond Bridge is a five-lane thoroughfare with two traffic lanes in each direction and one truck lane in each direction on the uphill side of the bridge. The truck lanes end at the roadway crest on the bridge. Ocean Boulevard The section of Ocean Boulevard connecting to the Gerald Desmond Bridge also has two lanes in each direction. The roadway transitions to three lanes in each direction east of the Pico Avenue interchange and west of the Ocean Boulevard/ Terminal Island Freeway interchange. Interchanges and Ramps Major interchanges along Ocean Boulevard within the project area include Terminal Island East (Horseshoe), SR 7, and Pico Avenue, as shown in Exhibit 4-. The Horseshoe interchange is located at the west end of the Gerald Desmond Bridge. The Horseshoe Ramps provide access October 29 Page 7

24 SR 7 North of Ocean Boulevard GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Exhibit 4- Traffic Study Roadway Segments

25 Exhibit 4-2: Traffic Study Intersections October 29 Page 9

26 GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Exhibit 4-3 Existing Roadway Segment Lane Configurations - East End

27 GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Exhibit 4-4 Existing Roadway Segment Lane Configurations - West End

28 Santa Fe Av Harbor Av YANG MING LINE 47 L.A. WORLD CRUISE CENTER Pier A Pl Anaheim St Harry Bridges Blvd Neptune RIO DOCE PASHA Pier A St Falcon St Vincent Thomas Bridge Los EVERGREEN Fries Water St La Paloma St Ave Avalon Blvd ASt Hermosa St CSt ISLAND TRANSFER FACILITY Ferry St Pilchard St Canal Ave DISTRIBUTION AND AUTO SERVICE, INC. (NISSAN) Angeles Harbor HUGO NEU-PROLER YUSEN New Dock St Navy Wy Seaside Ave LOS ANGELES EXPORT Terminal Way 4 Shore Rd Ocean Blvd Reeves Ave Henry Ford Ave Dock St Alameda St Anchorage Rd Cerritos Pier S Ave Sigsbee Ave 3 Pier A Wy Channel A S Pier B St HANJIN SHIPPING CO. Carrack Ave Pier B St TOYOTA MOTOR SALES Lugger Wy B Back Gerald Desmond Bridge Long Beach Harbor Pier T Ave Edison Ave C 9th St MATSON Pier D St CALIFORINA UNITED S Channel Pier C St D E D E F 5 9 E Pico Ave LONG BEACH Pier F Ave F 7 Los Angeles River 6 Pier G Ave 2 3 Pier E St G Queensway Bridge Harbor Plaza PORT OF LONG BEACH ADMIN. BLDG. G Queensway Dr Harbor Scenic Dr N NOT TO SCALE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE J. TI Freeway / Ocean Blvd KEY STUDY INTERSECTION SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 2. Ocean Blvd / Pier S Ave 7. TI Freeway SB Off- Ramp / New Dock St. 8. TI Freeway NB On- Ramp / New Dock St. 3. Pier S Ave / New Dock St 4. Navy Way /Ocean Blvd/Seaside Ave 5. Pier B / Pico Ave / 9th Ave 6. Pier C St / Pico Ave 9. Pier D St / Pico Ave. Broadway / Pico Ave. PierESt/ Pico Ave 2. Golden Shore / Ocean Blvd 3. Magnolia Ave / Ocean Blvd GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Exhibit 4-5 Year 25 (Existing) Intersection Lane Configuration

29 to the Pier T area and include ramps to and from Ocean Boulevard in both directions. The SR 7 freeway and Pico Avenue interchanges lie immediately east of the Gerald Desmond Bridge. The southbound SR-7 connector ramp to westbound Ocean Boulevard consists of two lanes that merge into one lane prior to merging with Ocean Boulevard. The connector ramp for the opposite move (eastbound Ocean Boulevard to northbound SR 7) consists of two lanes. 4.2 Study Methodology For the purpose of this analysis, the existing traffic conditions are defined as the conditions that existed in year 25 at the time that the CEQA NOP for this project was issued. The existing conditions are also referred to as the environmental baseline conditions. In addition to the existing (year 25) traffic conditions, the traffic LOS analysis was conducted for the years 25 and 23 for the Bridge Replacement Alternatives (which includes both the North-Side Alignment and the South-Side Alignment options for the proposed new bridge) and the No Action/Rehabilitation Alternatives (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). A traffic forecasting model was used as part of the study to forecast future traffic volumes with and without the Bridge Replacement Alternatives in the years 25 and 23. The project is expected to be opened to traffic in year 25, and year 23 is the project horizon (design) year. The findings of the LOS analyses are presented in this subsection. Level of Service LOS denotes the possible range of traffic operating conditions that may occur on a roadway or at an intersection when it is subjected to various traffic volumes. LOS analysis is based on hourly traffic and typically examines the peak travel hours of the day. It is a measure of the quality of flow defined in six levels, A through F, by the Highway Capacity Manual 2 Edition (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The six levels, A to F, relate to traffic congestion from best to worst, respectively. In general, LOS A represents freeflow conditions with no congestion. Conversely, LOS F represents severe congestion with stopand-go conditions. Levels E and F typically are considered unsatisfactory operating conditions. Exhibit 4-6 provides a graphic representation of the six LOS levels for a multi-lane highway such as Ocean Boulevard in the vicinity of the Gerald Desmond Bridge. October 29 Page 23

30 GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Exhibit 4-6 Levels of Service for Multi-Lane Highways