Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC AG PKT 2013-08-12 #I -SDEIR Comments Attachments
Attachment 1 California Department of Transportation December 2012 Supplemental Traffic Study December 2012 This page intentionally left blank. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT San Diego Freeway (1-405) Improvement Project SR-73 to 1-605 Orange and Los Angeles Counties Fk ow December 2012 —7 raftans STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation DRAFT This page intentionally left blank. I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Front Material Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................i 1.0 Alternative 3 Modified ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Freeway Analysis and Levels of Service ................................................................... 1-4 1.2 Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis and Levels of Service.......................... 1-4 1.3 Weaving Analysis ...................................................................................................... 1-5 1.4 Alternative 3 Modified Analysis Summary ................................................................ 1-5 1.5 Express Lane Transition and Access Areas ................................................................ 1-6 1.6 I-405 Southbound Ramps/Magnolia Street Intersection Analysis................................ 1-9 1.7 Design Option for I-405 Northbound Between Warner Avenue and MagnoliaStreet.........................................................................................................1-10 2.0 Alternative 1 Magnolia/Warner Interchange ....................................................................... 2-1 2.1 I-405 Southbound Auxiliary Lane for Magnolia and Warner Ramps ......................... 2-1 2.2 Design Option for I-405 Northbound Between Warner Avenue and MagnoliaStreet ......................................................................................................... 2-3 3.0 I-405 Northbound Approaching I-605 ................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Existing Condition .................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Future 2040 Condition .............................................................................................. 3-2 4.0 Long Beach Area Traffic Study .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Existing (Year 2009) Conditions ............................................................................... 4-2 4.3 No Build Alternative Conditions ............................................................................... 4-6 4.4 Alternative 1 Conditions ...........................................................................................4-12 4.5 Alternative 2 Conditions ...........................................................................................4-20 4.6 Alternative 3 Conditions ...........................................................................................4-29 PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Front Material Table of Appendices I Alternative 3 Modified LOS Worksheets —Magnolia Street to North of Harbor Boulevard A. Alternative 3 Modified Freeway Analyses Al. Opening Year (2020) Basic Freeway Segment LOS Worksheets A2. Design Year (2040) Basic Freeway Segment LOS Worksheets A3. Opening Year (2020) Ramp-Freeway Junction LOS Worksheets A4. Design Year (2040) Ramp-Freeway Junction LOS Worksheets A5. Opening Year (2020) Freeway/Collector-Distributor Weaving LOS Worksheets A6. Design Year (2040) Freeway/Collector-Distributor Weaving LOS Worksheets B. I-405 Southbound Ramps/Magnolia Street Intersection Analysis B 1. Opening Year (2020) Intersection LOS Worksheets B2. Design Year (2040) Intersection LOS Worksheets C. Design Option Freeway Analysis C1. Opening Year (2020) Ramp-Freeway Junction LOS Worksheets C2. Design Year (2040) Ramp-Freeway Junction LOS Worksheets C3. Opening Year (2020) Freeway/Collector Distributor Weaving LOS Worksheets C4. Design Year (2040) Freeway/Collector Distributor Weaving LOS Worksheets II Alternative 3 Modified LOS Worksheets —Harbor Boulevard to Bristol Street A. Alternative 3 Modified Freeway Analyses Al. Opening Year (2020) Basic Freeway Segment LOS Worksheets A2. Design Year (2040) Basic Freeway Segment LOS Worksheets A3. Opening Year (2020) Ramp-Freeway Junction LOS Worksheets A4. Design Year (2040) Ramp-Freeway Junction LOS Worksheets A5. Opening Year (2020) Freeway/Collector-Distributor Weaving LOS Worksheets A6. Design Year (2040) Freeway/Collector-Distributor Weaving LOS Worksheets III Magnolia/Warner Interchange A. Magnolia/Warner Interchange Southbound LOS Worksheets B. Magnolia/Warner Interchange Northbound LOS Worksheets IV Traffic Volume and Data Calculations for Operational Analysis of I-405 Northbound Approaching I-605 V Long Beach Area Analysis: Existing (2009) LOS Worksheets A. Existing (2009) Intersection Analysis B. Existing (2009) Freeway Peak Hour LOS Worksheets VI Long Beach Area Analysis: No Build Alternative LOS Worksheets A. Intersection Analysis Al. No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Intersection LOS Worksheets A2. No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Intersection LOS Worksheets B. Freeway Analyses B 1. No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Freeway Peak Hour LOS Worksheets B2. No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Freeway Peak Hour LOS Worksheets VII Long Beach Area Analysis: Alternative 1 LOS Worksheets A. Intersection Analysis Al. Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Intersection LOS Worksheets A2. Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Intersection LOS Worksheets PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Front Material B. Freeway Analyses B 1. Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Freeway Peak Hour LOS Worksheets B2. Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Freeway Peak Hour LOS Worksheets VIII Long Beach Area Analysis: Alternative 2 LOS Worksheets A. Intersection Analysis Al. Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Intersection LOS Worksheets A2. Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Intersection LOS Worksheets B. Freeway Analyses B 1. Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Freeway Peak Hour LOS Worksheets B2. Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Freeway Peak Hour LOS Worksheets IX Long Beach Area Analysis: Alternative 3 LOS Worksheets A. Intersection Analysis Al. Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Intersection LOS Worksheets A2. Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Intersection LOS Worksheets B. Freeway Analyses B 1. Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Freeway Peak Hour LOS Worksheets B2. Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Freeway Peak Hour LOS Worksheets PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Front Material Table of Figures 1.1 Alternative 3 Modified (2020) Freeway Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours 1.2 Alternative 3 Modified (2040) Freeway Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours 4.1-1 Project Study Area/Location Map 4.1-2 Intersection Study Area 4.1-3 Intersection Lane Configuration 4.1-4 Freeway Lane Configuration 4.2-1 Existing (2009) Intersection Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.2-2 Existing (2009) Freeway Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.3-1 2020 No Build Alternative Intersection Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.3-2 2040 No Build Alternative Intersection Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.3-3 2020 No Build Alternative Freeway Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.3-4 2040 No Build Alternative Freeway Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.4-1 2020 Alternative 1 Intersection Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.4-2 2040 Alternative 1 Intersection Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.4-3 2020 Alternative 1 Freeway Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.4-4 2040 Alternative 1 Freeway Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.5-5 SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp and College Park Intersection Proposed Improvements 4.5-1 2020 Alternative 2 Intersection Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.5-2 2040 Alternative 2 Intersection Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.5-3 2020 Alternative 2 Freeway Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.5-4 2040 Alternative 2 Freeway Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.5-5 Willow Street and Bellflower Boulevard Intersection Proposed Improvements 4.5-6 Willow Street and Los Coyotes Diagonal Intersection Proposed Improvements 4.5-7 Willow Street and Woodruff Avenue Intersection Proposed Improvements 4.5-8 7t' Street and Pacific Coast Highway Intersection Proposed Improvements 4.5-9 7t' Street and Bellflower Boulevard Intersection Proposed Improvements 4.5-10 7t' Street and W. Campus Drive Intersection Proposed Improvements 4.5-11 7t' Street and E. Campus Drive Intersection Proposed Improvements 4.6-1 2020 Alternative 3 Intersection Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.6-2 2040 Alternative 3 Intersection Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.6-3 2020 Alternative 3 Freeway Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.6-4 2040 Alternative 3 Freeway Traffic Volumes -AM/PM Peak Hour 4.6-5 Los Coyotes Diagonal and Bellflower Boulevard Intersection Proposed Improvements PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Front Material Table of Tables 1.1 Alternative 3 Modified (2020) I-405 Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service 1.2 Alternative 3 Modified (2040) I-405 Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service 1.3 Alternative 3 Modified (2020) I-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service 1.4 Alternative 3 Modified (2040) I-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service-AM 1.5 Alternative 3 Modified (2040) I-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service-PM 1.6 Alternative 3 Modified (2020) Weaving Level of Service Freeway and Collector- Distributor Roads 1.7 Alternative 3 Modified (2040) Weaving Level of Service Freeway 1.8 Alternative 3 Modified (2020) Weaving Level of Service Collector-Distributor Roads 1.9 Level of Service and Throughput Summary Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1.10 Speed Index and Demand-to-Capacity Ratio Summary Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1.11 Alternative 3 Modified (2020) I-405 Mainline Transition Areas Peak Hour Level of Service 1.12 Alternative 3 Modified (2040) I-405 Mainline Transition Areas Peak Hour Level of Service 1.13 Alternative 3 Modified Intersection Level of Service I-405 Southbound Ramps & Magnolia Street 1.14 Alternative 3 Modified(2020) -Design Option I-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service 1.15 Alternative 3 Modified(2040) -Design Option I-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service - AM 1.16 Alternative 3 Modified(2040) -Design Option I-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service - PM 1.17 Alternative 3 Modified (2020) -Design Option Weaving Level-of-Service Collector- Distributor Roads 1.18 Alternative 3 Modified (2040) -Design Option Weaving Level-of-Service Collector- Distributor Roads 2.1 Alternative 1 Magnolia/Warner Southbound Auxiliary Lane Design Option Intersection Level of Service for I-405 Southbound Ramps & Magnolia Street 3.1 Existing 2009 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Speeds Northbound on I-405 Approaching the I-605/SR-22/7t' Street Interchange 4.2-1 Existing (2009) Intersection LOS Summary Table 4.2-2 Existing (2009) Intersection Queues vs. Storage Summary Table 4.2-3 Existing (2009) Mainline Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.2-4 Existing (2009) Ramp Junction Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.2-5 Existing (2009) Weaving Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.3-1 No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Intersection LOS Summary Table 4.3-2 No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Intersection Queues vs. Storage Summary Table 4.3-3 No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Intersection LOS Summary Table 4.3-4 No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Intersection Queues vs. Storage Summary Table 4.3-5 No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Mainline Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.3-6 No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.3-7 No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Weaving Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.3-8 No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Mainline Peak Hour LOS Summary Table PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Front Material 4.3-9 No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.3-10 No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Weaving Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.4-1 Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Intersection LOS Summary Table 4.4-2 Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Queues vs. Storage Summary Table 4.4-3 Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Intersection LOS Summary Table 4.4-4 Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Queues vs. Storage Summary Table 4.4-5 Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Mainline Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.4-6 Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.4-7 Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Weaving Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.4-8 Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Mainline Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.4-9 Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.4-10 Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Weaving Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.4-11 Year 2020 Alternative 1 vs. No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Table 4.4-12 Year 2040 Alternative 1 vs. No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Table 4.4-13 Year 2020 Alternative 1 vs. No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison Table 4.4-14 Year 2040 Alternative 1 vs. No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison Table 4.5-1 Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Intersection LOS Summary Table 4.5-2 Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Queues vs. Storage Summary Table 4.5-3 Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Intersection LOS Summary Table 4.5-4 Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Queues vs. Storage Summary Table 4.5-5 Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Mainline Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.5-6 Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.5-7 Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Weaving Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.5-8 Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Mainline Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.5-9 Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.5-10 Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Weaving Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.5-11 Year 2020 Alternative 2 vs. No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Table 4.5-12 Year 2040 Alternative 2 vs. No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Table 4.5-13 Year 2020 Alternative 2 vs. No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison Table 4.5-14 Year 2040 Alternative 2 vs. No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison Table 4.6-1 Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Intersection LOS Summary Table 4.6-2 Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Queues vs. Storage Summary Table 4.6-3 Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Intersection LOS Summary Table 4.6-4 Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Queues vs. Storage Summary Table 4.6-5 Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Mainline Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.6-6 Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.6-7 Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Weaving Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.6-8 Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Mainline Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.6-9 Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.6-10 Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Weaving Peak Hour LOS Summary Table 4.6-11 Year 2020 Alternative 3 vs. No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Table 4.6-12 Year 2040 Alternative 3 vs. No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Table 4.6-13 Year 2020 Alternative 3 vs. No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison Table 4.6-14 Year 2040 Alternative 3 vs. No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison Table PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Introduction INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Supplemental Traffic Study Report (Supplement) is to provide additional traffic information on the I-405 Improvement Project not included in the Traffic Study Report— San Diego Freeway (I-405) Improvement Project SR-73 to I-605 completed by Albert Grover & Associates in April 2011 (Traffic Study). These improvements were included as a result of public comments during the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) circulation. This Supplemental will be included in the Final EIR/EIS. In addition to this Introduction, this Supplement contains four sections, numbered and providing additional traffic information on the four topics in the list below: 1. Alternative 3 Modified. Section 1 provides traffic analysis assuming truncation of the Express Lanes near the Euclid Street interchange. Alternative 3 Modified also includes an optional design of the Magnolia/Warner interchange that does not include braided ramps and a modification to the northbound merge of the direct connector from westbound SR-22 into the Express Lanes. 2. Alternative 1 Magnolia/Warner Interchange. Section 2 provides traffic analysis of design options for the Magnolia/Warner interchange that do not include braided ramps. 3. Operational Analysis Northbound Approaching I-605. Potential for operational difficulties northbound on I-405 at I-605 is analyzed. As the build alternatives approach the LA County line, the additional lanes proposed in each of the build alternatives continue into receiving lanes on branch connectors to SR-22/7t" Street westbound and I- 605 northbound. If more motorists desire to continue northbound on I-405 in LA County than the freeway can handle as the additional lanes exit to SR-22/7t" Street and I-605, there is the potential for a bottleneck to occur. 4. Long Beach Area Traffic Study. Traffic changes in the Long Beach area along SR-22/7t" Street, I-405, and I-605, at their local interchanges, and at nearby intersections due to the proposed build alternatives are evaluated. The study area includes Carson Street in the vicinity of I-605 which, in addition to the City of Long Beach, includes the Cities of Lakewood and Hawaiian Gardens. Each of the four sections is independent and complete on its own with respect to its topic. References are made as necessary to the Traffic Study to avoid extensive duplication of topics fully covered in that report. Each of the four topics covered in this Supplement is more fully defined in their respective sections of this Supplement. All of the figures and tables associated with a section are presented at the end of the section, with the figures following the text and the tables at the end of the section. Appendices are provided electronically. PARSONS i Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified 1.0 ALTERNATIVE 3 MODIFIED Alternative 3 Modified was introduced during the environmental process by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the project sponsor, to address public comments received during the public circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS. Alternative 3 Modified would add one GP lane in each direction on I-405 from Euclid Street to the I-605 interchange (as in Alternatives 1 and 2), plus add a tolled Express Lane in each direction of I-405 from Euclid Street to SR-22 East. The tolled Express Lane and the existing HOV lanes would be managed jointly as a tolled Express Lane Facility with two lanes in each direction from Euclid Street to I-605. The Express Lanes would encourage carpooling by providing discounted tolls for HOVs with 3 or more occupants. Alternative 3 Modified removes the direct connector from SR-73 to I-405. Auxiliary lanes would be provided at the following locations on I-405: • Northbound to the Euclid Street off-ramp from a point 1200' south of the off-ramp; • Northbound from the Magnolia Street on-ramp to the Beach Boulevard off-ramp; • Northbound from the Seal Beach Boulevard on-ramp to the SR-22 Westbound/7rh Street off-ramp; • Southbound from the SR-22/7th Street on-ramp to Seal Beach Boulevard off-ramp; • Southbound from the Magnolia Street on-ramp to a point south of the Warner Avenue off-ramp; • Southbound from the Euclid Street on-ramp to Harbor Boulevard off-ramp; and • Southbound from the Harbor Boulevard on-ramp to the Fairview Road off-ramp. The existing northbound auxiliary lane from Magnolia Street to Beach Boulevard will be retained. The existing southbound auxiliary lanes from SR-22/7h' Street to Seal Beach Boulevard and from Harbor Boulevard to Fairview Road will be retained, and the existing southbound auxiliary lane from the Beach Boulevard interchange to the Magnolia Street interchange would be incorporated as part of the new southbound general purpose lane. A design option is also proposed for the northbound I-405 ramps between Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street. The design option proposes to modify the existing collector-distributor (C-D) system by providing an exclusive exit ramp for the northbound loop Off-Ramp to Warner Avenue and beginning the collector distributor road just downstream from the exit ramp to Warner Avenue. The C-D road consists of two lanes providing for a one lane entrance ramp from Warner Avenue and two lane exit ramp to Magnolia Street. Analysis for the design option is presented in Section 1.7. Alternative 3 Modified would include the same interchange improvements included in Alternative 3 except for minor lane designations on southbound Magnolia Street at the I-405 southbound ramp intersection. The analysis presented here assumes that there are not braided PARSONS 1-1 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified ramps in the southbound direction at the Magnolia Street/Warner Avenue interchange and that there is a southbound auxiliary lane starting from the loop on-ramps from Magnolia Street and continuing south of the Warner Avenue off-ramp before terminating north of the Warner Avenue on-ramp. This design option was suggested to retain business (Boomers, Fountain Valley Skate Center, Days Inn and Sports Authority). Express Lane Access To facilitate access to the Express Lane Facility, the following six access points are currently under consideration on: 1. I-405 near Euclid Street, by an at-grade access; 2. I-405 in the Magnolia Street/Warner Avenue area, by an at-grade access; 3. I-405 in the Bolsa Avenue/Goldenwest Street area,by an at-grade access; 4. SR-22 east of the I-405 junction, by a direct connector; 5. I-605 north of the I-405 junction, by a direct connector; and 6. I-405 north of the I-605 junction, by an at-grade access. Access to the Express Lane Facility from SR-22 and I-605 would be via the HOV direct connectors to be constructed as part of the SR-22 West County Connectors (WCC) Project. Under Alternative 3 Modified, the SR-22 WCC Project HOV direct connectors would become part of the I-405 tolled Express Lane Facility, and use of the direct connectors would become tolled. Express Lane Transition Areas Access points where Express Lanes begin or end would require transition areas. Transition areas near the beginning of Express Lanes would allow for traffic in HOV and GP lanes to change lanes to access the GP and Express Lanes within the project limits of Alternative 3 Modified. Transition areas at the end of Express Lanes would allow traffic in the Express and GP lanes to change lanes to access the GP and HOV lanes downstream of the end of the Express Facility. Transition Express Lanes would begin and end at four locations: 1. On SR-22 East at the I-405 interchange; 2. On I-605 at the I-405 interchange; 3. On I-405 at the Euclid Street interchange; and 4. On I-405 at the I-605 interchange. Two transition areas (one in each direction) would be required for each location, for a total of 8 transition areas. Express Lane Operations The type of tolling to be used in the Express Lanes is likely to be either variable or dynamic. Variable tolling provides different toll amounts by hour of the day and day of the week. Variable tolling is currently used on the SR-91 Express Lanes, with toll amounts adjusted every few months based on traffic levels by hour of the day and day of the week during the previous few months. Dynamic tolling varies toll amounts minute to minute in response to the real-time volume of traffic in the Express Lanes and levels of congestion in the GP lanes. PARSONS 1-2 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified During peak hours of traffic congestion, the volume of traffic using the Express Lanes would be managed to maintain high speeds and minimize congestion in the Express Lanes. This would be accomplished by limiting the volume of traffic in the Express Lanes to a maximum of 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl). Tolls amounts would be adjusted up when the 1,700 vphpl target volume is exceeded to reduce the volume in the Express Lanes; conversely, toll amounts would be adjusted down when volumes fall below the target volume to attract more traffic into the Express Lanes. The current plan is that the Express Lanes would use the same discount structure that is currently used on the SR-91 Express Lanes. HOVs with 3 or more occupants, zero omission vehicles, motorcycles, vehicles with disabled license plates, and disabled veterans would use the I-405 Express Lanes free of charge except during the most congested hours when such vehicles receive a 50 percent toll discount. The Express Lanes would be free to the following users at all times; transit vehicles, California Highway Patrol (CHP) vehicles, Caltrans vehicles, and emergency vehicles responding to an emergency. All tolls on the I-405 Express Lanes would be collected electronically. All vehicles on the I-405 Express Lanes would be required to use a transponder, even when under a full toll discount. Traffic volumes in the Express Lanes are based on congestion pricing limiting traffic in the lanes to a maximum of 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane as described in Section 1 of the Traffic Study. Volumes in the Express Lanes are expected to be slightly higher in the northern end of the corridor based on the Phase II Traffic & Revenue Study conducted for the corridor. The forecast volumes in the Express Lanes for Opening Year (2020) and Design Year (2040) are shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2 along with volumes in the general purpose lanes. Sections 1.1 through 1.5 below provide an analysis of the mainline freeway as well as the ramp junctions for Opening Year (2020) and Design Year (2040) conditions for Alternative 3 Modified. All analysis of arterial intersections with ramps and other arterials, as well as queuing analysis, is the same as for Alternative 3, except for the intersection analysis of Magnolia Street at the southbound I-405 ramps, which is presented in Section 1.6. All LOS worksheets for mainline freeway segment and ramp junction locations north of Harbor Boulevard to Magnolia Street are provided in Appendix L Under Alternative 3 Modified, mainline freeway segments and ramp junctions north of Magnolia Street are the same as under Alternative 3, except for the merge from the westbound SR-22 direct connector into the northbound Express Lanes. LOS worksheets for mainline freeway segment and ramp junction locations north of Magnolia Street can be found in the approved Traffic Study. The LOS worksheets for the merge into the northbound Express Lanes from the SR-22 westbound direct connector are presented in Appendix I Sections A3 and A4. Mainline freeway segment and ramp junction locations from Harbor Boulevard south are the same as for Alternatives 1 and 2. The LOS worksheets for Harbor Boulevard and locations south of Harbor Boulevard for Alternative 2 are included in Appendix II for reference; they are identical to the appendix material for Alternative 2 in the approved Traffic Study. PARSONS 1-3 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Section 1.6 describes and provides analysis of revisions to lane designations on southbound Magnolia Street at its intersection with the I-405 southbound ramps. Under Alternative 3 Modified the southbound approach would provide two exclusive through lanes and one exclusive right turn lane into the on-ramp to southbound I-405; under Alternative 3 there would be two exclusive through lanes and one shared through/right turn lane. The Synchro worksheets for this intersection under Alternative 3 Modified are provided in Appendix I B. Section 1.7 describes and provides analysis of a design option for I-405 northbound between Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street using a C-D (collector-distributor) road design. The LOS worksheets for the C-D road design option are presented in Appendix I C. 1.1 Freeway Analysis and Levels of Service In this section, Alternative 3 Modified is analyzed using projected Opening Year (2020) traffic volumes and Design Year (2040) traffic volumes. HCM methodology was used to analyze the LOS on freeway segments based on speed-flow-density relationships. The measure used to provide an estimate of LOS is density. A base free flow speed of 70 miles per hour was used to facilitate calculating the density and LOS for each freeway segment. The Opening Year (2020) and Design Year (2040) AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes along with lane schematics for I-405 mainline and all interchange ramps within the project limits for Alternative 3 Modified are illustrated on Figures 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 summarize the findings for Opening Year (2020) and Design Year (2040) northbound and southbound freeway conditions for Alternative 3 Modified. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, demand-to-capacity (d/c) ratio, density and LOS for all the freeway segments are shown. In general, under Alternative 3 Modified conditions, the freeway mainline general purpose lanes are expected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours in both the southbound and northbound directions under 2020 and 2040 conditions. The express lanes are expected to operate generally at LOS C to D under 2020 and 2040 conditions. 1.2 Ramps and Ramp-Freeway junction Analysis and Levels of Service The density and LOS for each of the ramps along I-405 within the study area for Alternative 3 Modified are based on projected Opening Year (2020) traffic volumes and Design Year (2040) traffic volumes. Table 1.3 provides a summary of the findings from the analyses for Opening Year (2020) conditions. As discussed under Analysis Methodology (Section 2.1.2 of Final Traffic Study), for the Design Year (2040) conditions two separate analyses were conducted for ramps and ramp-freeway junctions: one for Unconstrained Mainline Volumes and another for Constrained Mainline Volumes. PARSONS 1-4 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Tables 1.4 and 1.5 provide a summary of the findings from the analyses for Design Year (2040) conditions for the AM and PM time periods, respectively. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, demand-to-capacity (d/c) ratio, density and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under Alternative 3 Modified conditions for 2020, the ramp junction peak hour LOS generally varies from B to F, with most ramps north of the Brookhurst Street/Talbert Avenue interchange operating at LOS C to E during both the AM and PM peak hours. For 2040, most ramp junctions operate at LOS F under the unconstrained analysis and LOS C to E under the constrained analysis. The westbound SR-22 branch connector to northbound 405 Express Lanes merge location is expected to operate at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours for both Opening Year (2020) and Design Year (2040). The design assumed for this merge would not result in removal of the College Park East sound wall and would provide a merging distance of 500 feet with three 12 ft lanes followed by a 600 ft taper to two 12 ft lanes. 1.3 Weaving Analysis Weaving analysis is conducted between an on-ramp and an off-ramp spaced less than 2,500 feet apart. Separate analyses were conducted, as appropriate, for freeways and collector-distributor roads. Weaving analyses for Alternative 3 Modified are based on projected Opening Year (2020) traffic volumes and Design Year (2040) traffic volumes. Table 1.6 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for Opening Year (2020) conditions for Alternative 3 Modified for both the freeway and the collector-distributor roads. For the Design Year (2040) conditions, two separate analyses were conducted to evaluate freeway weaving conditions: one for Unconstrained Mainline Volumes, and another for Constrained Mainline Volumes. Table 1.7 provides a summary of the findings from the freeway weaving analyses for Alternative 3 Modified for Design Year (2040) conditions. Table 1.8 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for Design Year (2040) conditions for Alternative 3 Modified for the collector- distributor roads; the density and LOS for all the weaving sections are shown. Most mainline freeway weaving segments and collector-distributor roads operate at LOS C to E under both 2020 and 2040 conditions. 1.4 Alternative 3 Modified Analysis Summary Tables 1.1 and 1.2 document that LOS F is expected to occur in the general purpose lanes during the AM and PM peak hours on nearly all links in 2020 and on all links in 2040. The tables document that LOS C and D are expected in the express lanes. Table 1.9 presents LOS and the percent increase in throughput of Alternative 3 Modified compared to the No Build alternative for three summary segments. Because the Express Lanes PARSONS 1-5 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified terminate at Euclid Street, the summary segments are slightly revised from those presented in the Traffic Study. The table shows that the general purpose lanes on all segments are expected to operate at LOS F during the peak hours. Due to the jammed LOS F conditions, throughput for the general purpose lanes is calculated based on 1200 v/h/ln, consistent with the methodology described in Section 2.1 of the Traffic Study. Since the express lanes will be managed to avoid operations under jammed conditions, throughput is determined based on 1700 v/h/ln, the volume to which the express lanes will be managed through the imposition of tolls. Table 1.10 summarizes the speed index and d/c ratios for 2040 conditions under Alternative 3 Modified. The table shows that the d/c ratios in the general purpose lanes are expected to be in excess of 1.23 along the entire corridor. The d/c ratios in the express lanes are expected to range from 0.78 to 0.92. The speed index ranges from 6 to 42 in the general purpose lanes and 65 in the express lanes whose speeds and volumes are managed through the imposition of tolls. 1.5 Express Lane Transition and Access Areas This section summarizes the LOS expected in the transition areas and intermediate access locations associated with the Express Lanes in Alternative 3 Modified. Transition Areas Transition areas are along the roadways at the beginning and end of the Express Lanes and allow traffic in HOV and GP lanes to change lanes, if necessary, to access the GP and Express Lanes or vice versa. Transition areas may add new lanes and/or redesignate lanes from HOV to Express. The four proposed transition areas are listed above. Limits of transition areas approaching the start of the Express Lanes are defined upstream by the termination of an HOV restriction and downstream by the solid striping used to delineate the separation between the Express Lanes and the general purpose lanes. Limits of the transition areas approaching the end of the Express Lanes are defined upstream by the termination of solid striping used to delineate the separation between the Express Lanes and the general purpose lanes and the beginning of the downstream HOV access restriction. The length of the transition areas ranges from 2,600 feet to 12,150 feet. Due to the length of these areas, they are analyzed using the HCM freeway segment analysis. (Weaving analysis is not appropriate for these transition areas because the HCM weaving analysis method is limited "to weaving segments up to 2,500 ft long." (HCM 2000 p 13-18)) Tables 1.11 and 1.12 summarize the LOS in each of the transition areas anticipated for Opening Year (2020) and Design Year (2040), respectively. The transition areas are anticipated to operate at a level similar to the level expected for the HOV and/or general purpose lanes in the vicinity of the transition area. The northbound transition area on I-405 from Harbor Blvd to Euclid St is shown in Table 1.12 to operate at LOS F in 2040; Table 1.2 shows that the segment of I-405 northbound from Harbor Blvd to Euclid is expected to operate at LOS F in both the HOV and general purpose lanes. In the southbound direction both the transition area and the adjacent HOV and GP lanes are also expected to operate at LOS F in 2040. PARSONS 1-6 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified The northbound transition area on I-405 from I-605 to the end of the HOV access is shown in Table 1.12 to operate at LOS F in 2040; Table 1.2 shows that this segment of I-405 northbound is expected to operate at LOS F in both the HOV and general purpose lanes. In the southbound direction both the transition area and the segment HOV and GP lanes are also expected to operate at LOS F in 2040. The westbound transition area on SR-22 from the end of the HOV restriction to Valley View Street is shown in Table 1.12 to operate at LOS F in 2040; Table 1.4 shows that the branch connector from SR-22 westbound to northbound I-405 is expected to operate with a V/C ratio of 1.56 (LOS F) in 2040 under Alternative 3 Modified. The Express Lane direct connector is forecast to have a volume of 700 per hour (see Figure 1.2) with a V/C ratio of 0.47 based on a capacity of 1,500. Under the No Build Alternative the volume on the HOV direct connector from SR-22 westbound to northbound I-405 is forecast to be 1,739 and 2,030 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, (see Figure 2.4.2 of the Traffic Study) both well in excess of the capacity of a single lane HOV direct connector of 1,500. Under the No Build Alternative the general purpose branch connector from SR-22 westbound to northbound I-405 is forecast to operate with a V/C ratio of 1.33 in 2040 (see Table 2.4.4 of the Traffic Study). In short westbound SR-22 approaching I-405 northbound is expected to operate at LOS F under all conditions, except that the Express Lane direct connector itself would operate below capacity under Alternative 3 Modified. The eastbound transition area on SR-22 is shown in Table 1.12 to operate at LOS F in 2040; Table 1.4 shows that branch connector from I-405 southbound to eastbound SR-22 is expected to operate with a V/C ratio of 1.40 (LOS F) in 2040 under Alternative 3 Modified. The Express Lane direct connector is forecast to have a volume of 700 per hour (see Figure 2.7.2 of the Traffic Study) with a V/C ratio of 0.47 based on a capacity of 1,500. Under the No Build Alternative the volume on the HOV direct connector from I-405 southbound to eastbound SR-22 is forecast to be 1,644 and 1,819 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, (see Figure 2.4.2 of the Traffic Study) both well in excess of the capacity of a single lane HOV direct connector of 1,500. Under the No Build Alternative the general purpose branch connector from I-405 southbound to eastbound SR-22 is forecast to operate with a V/C ratio of 0.97 in 2040 (see Table 2.4.4 of the Traffic Study). Under the No Build Alternative, the combined volume of the HOV and general purpose connectors will result in an over capacity condition on SR-22 eastbound downstream of the direct connector. In short the HOV direct connector to eastbound SR-22 is expected to operate with a V/C ratio in excess of 1.00 under the No Build condition and under 1.00 with the Express Lanes in Alternative 3 Modified and the transition area along eastbound SR-22 is anticipated to operate at LOS F under all conditions. The northbound transition area on I-605 from the termination of the direct connector separation to the end of the HOV access is shown in Table 1.12 to operate at LOS D and F during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, in 2040; Table 1.2 shows that this segment of I-605 northbound is expected to operate at LOS C and F in both the HOV and general purpose lanes during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, in 2040. In the southbound direction the transition area is expected to operate at LOS F and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively; the segment HOV lanes are expected to operate at LOS E and D during the AM and PARSONS 1-7 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified PM peak hours, respectively, while the GP lanes are expected to operate at LOS F and D during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Generally, the transition areas are anticipated to operate at a level similar to the level expected for the HOV and/or general purpose lanes in the vicinity of the transition area. In only one case is the 2040 HOV lane LOS better than the transition area LOS: I-605 during the AM peak hour where the northbound LOS in the HOV lane is C compared to D in the transition area and the southbound where the LOS in the HOV lane is E compared to F in the transition area. Overall, the transition areas are not expected to degrade operations of the HOV system adjacent to the transition areas. Intermediate Access Areas The two intermediate at-grade access locations are near the Magnolia/Warner interchange and the Bolsa/Goldenwest interchange. The design of the Magnolia/Warner intermediate access area is a skip stripe similar to the existing access locations to HOV lanes on I-405. The length of the skip stripe area is 2,000 feet. The design of the Bolsa/Goldenwest access area includes a "weaving" lane between the #2 Express Lane and the #1 general purpose lane; the "weaving" lane is 2100 feet in length. These proposed designs are consistent with the Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) 11-02. The following qualitative analysis is presented for the year 2040 operations anticipated in the two intermediate access areas. HCM weaving analysis is not used to evaluation operations for either intermediate access location because the LOS F conditions expected in the general purpose lanes (see Table 1.2) make such an HCM analysis unreliable. The HCM weaving method effectively averages the densities of the two incoming roadways, represented by LOS C in the Express Lanes and LOS F in the general purpose lanes, resulting in a determination of LOS D or E in the weaving section. Such a result does not reliably relate the expected operations in the intermediate access area. The LOS F conditions expected during peak hours in the general purpose lanes at the Magnolia/Warner intermediate access area will affect vehicles exiting the Express Lanes. Slower speeds are expected in the #2 Express Lane as motorists exiting the Express Lanes match the slower speed of the general purpose lanes before making the lane change to the #1 general purpose lane. Slower speeds are also expected in the #2 Express Lane as motorists entering the Express Lanes move out of the LOS F conditions in the #1 general purpose lane into the #2 Express Lane. This condition is similar to the condition experienced in the existing limited access HOV lanes along I-405 during periods of congestion in the adjacent general purpose lanes. Experience over the last 20 years has shown that these HOV access locations operate efficiently and safely. Motorists adjust speeds as necessary to complete the required lane changes between the higher speed HOV lane and the lower speed general purpose lane. Some deterioration in LOS is anticipated in the Express Lanes in the vicinity of the Magnolia/Warner intermediate access area. The LOS F conditions expected in the general purpose lanes at the Bolsa/Goldenwest intermediate access area are not expected to affect vehicles exiting or entering the Express Lanes. A weaving lane is provided between the#2 Express Lane and the#1 general purpose lane PARSONS 1-8 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified to accommodate adjustments in speed between those lanes. The weaving lane provides the necessary length (per Caltrans TOPD 11-02) to accommodate motorists entering and exiting the Express Lanes as they adjust their speed between the higher speed #2 Express Lane and the lower speed#1 general purpose lane. A third intermediate access area is located at the SR-22 East. The direct connector from the median of SR-22 East to the median of I-405 being constructed as part the WCC project would become part of the Express Facility and would be tolled. The transition areas on SR-22 are covered above. The merge of the single lane direct connector from SR-22 westbound into the northbound Express Lanes on I-405 is forecast to operate at LOS D during both the AM and PM peak hours in years 2020 and 2040 as noted above in Section 1.2. The volumes using the direct connector and the Express Lanes would be managed to maintain the same volumes on those facilities in both directions in years 2020 and 2040, as shown in Figures 2.7.1 and 2.7.2. The diverge of the single lane direct connector to SR-22 eastbound from the southbound Express Lanes on I-405 is forecast to operate at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours in years 2020 and 2040. 1.6 I-405 Southbound Ramps/Magnolia Street Intersection Analysis Under Alternative 3 Modified, the Project Condition lane configuration at the intersection of the I-405 Southbound Ramps and Magnolia Street would be three exclusive northbound through lanes, two exclusive southbound through lanes, one exclusive southbound right turn lane, dual left turn lanes eastbound and dual right turn lanes eastbound. The intersection would be signalized. LOS was conducted for the I-405 southbound ramp and Magnolia Street intersection for Year 2020 and 2040 Project Conditions. Analysis was conducted for Project traffic with the proposed improvements. Table 1.13 shows the resulting LOS at the intersection with the minor lane designation change. As shown in Table 1.13 the I-405 southbound ramp and Magnolia Street intersection is expected to operate at LOS A and B during both peak hours under Year 2020 and Year 2040 conditions. The resulting peak hour queues under Year 2020 and 2040 indicate that the storage being provided under the Project Condition will be sufficient. For comparison purposes, Table 1.13 also summarizes LOS, We ratios and average delays under No Build Condition and Project traffic under No Build lane geometries. LOS worksheets for these two conditions can be found in the Traffic Study. As shown in Table 1.13, the widening of Magnolia Street and the improvement of the I-405 Southbound Off-Ramp under the Project Condition allows the I-405 Southbound Off- Ramp/Magnolia Street intersection to operate at LOS B or better compared to LOS F under Year 2040 No Build Condition. The intersection does not meet the significant impact criteria and there are no significant traffic impacts at the intersection. PARSONS 1-9 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified 1.7 Design Option for I-405 Northbound Between Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street The following is the traffic analysis for the proposed design option on northbound I-405 between Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street. For the design option, weaving and freeway-ramp junction analyses were conducted. Ramp Junction Analysis The ramp junction analysis is conducted for the following locations: • Northbound I-405 Loop Off-Ramp to Warner Avenue • Northbound I-405 Off-Ramp to Collector-Distributor (C-D) Road (between Warner Ave and Magnolia St) The density and LOS for each of the ramps listed above are based on projected Opening Year (2020) traffic volumes and Design Year (2040) traffic volumes. Table 1.14 provides a summary of the findings from the analyses for Opening Year (2020) conditions. Tables 1.15 and 1.16 provide a summary of the findings from the analyses for Design Year (2040) conditions for the AM and PM time periods, respectively. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, demand-to- capacity(d/c) ratio, density and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under the proposed design option for 2020 Alternative 3 Modified, the ramp junction peak hour LOS generally varies from D to F during both the AM and PM peak hours. For 2040, the ramps operate at LOS E and F under the unconstrained analysis and LOS D and E under the constrained analysis. Weaving Analysis: C-D Road Weaving analysis was conducted for the northbound C-D road between the loop on-ramp from Warner Avenue and the direct off-ramp to Magnolia Street. Weaving analyses are based on projected Opening Year (2020) traffic volumes and Design Year (2040) traffic volumes. Tables 1.17 and 1.18 summarize the weaving analysis findings for Opening Year (2020) and Design Year (2040) conditions for the proposed design option. Under 2020 conditions, the weaving segment is expected to operate at LOS B and D during the AM and PM peak hours. For 2040, the weaving segment is expected to operate at LOS B and D during the AM and PM peak hours. PARSONS 1-10 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.1: Alternative 3 Modified (2020) 1-405 Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline ! Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2020) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Lane Type Direction Traffic Traffic Lanes'Capacity'4 demand d/c Density LOSS Demand , dJe Density LO S3 Volume' Volume' �P NB 5 9,250 9,734 ! 1.05 ! 33.2 F 10,322 1.12 37.0 F Bristol Street to Fairview Road SB 5 9,250 12,490 ! 1.35 ! F 9,943! 1.07 34.4 F NB 1 1,850 1,947 1.05 33.2 F 2,064 1.12 37.0 F HOV .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB 1 1,850 2,498 1.35 F 1,989 1.08 34.4 F NB 6 11,100 11,023 0.99 30.2 D 12,153 1.09 35.6 F Fairview Road to OP SB 7 12,950 16,775 1.30 ! F 13,430! 1.04 32.4 F Harbor Boulevard/Hyland Avenue NB 1 1,850 1,837 0.99 30.2 D 2,026 1.10 35.6 F HOV ......... ......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ..... SB 1 1,850 2,397 1.30 F 1,919 1.04 32.4 F NB 6 11,1Q0 11,927 1.07 34.4 F 13,470 1.21 F Harbor Boulevard/Hyland Avenue to OP SB 6 11,100 15,486 1.40 ! F 12,596! 1.13 38.3 F Euclid Street/Ellis Avenue NB 1 1,850 1,988 1.07 34.4 F 2,245 1.21 F HOV ........ ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ..... SB 1 1,850 2,581 1.40 F 2,099 1.13 38.3 F NB 6 11,100 11,015 0.88 25.5 C 12,515 100 30.5 D OP Euclid Street/Ellis Avenue to SB 5 9,250 13,266 1.43 ! * F 10,224! 1.11 36.3 E Brookhurst Street/Talbert Avenue NB 2 3,700 2,900 0.78 22.3 C 3,200 0.86 24.6 C Express ........ ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ..... SB 2 3,700 3,200 0.86 24.6 C 2,900 0.78 22.3 C NB 5 9,250 9,625 1.04 32.5 F 10,909 1.18 41.9 F Brookhurst Street/Talbert Avenue to OP SB 5 9,250 11,654 ! 1.26 ! F 9,707! 1.05 33.0 F Magnolia Street/Warner Avenue NB 2 3,700 2,900 0.78 22.3 C 3,200 0.86 24.6 C E .......................................... ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ..... ... SB 2 3,700 3,200 0.86 24.6 C 2,900 0.78 22.3 C GP NB 5 9,250 10,378 1.12 37.4 F 11,079 1.20 43.6 F Magnolia Street/Warner Avenue to SB 5 9,250 10,480 ! 1.13 ! 38.2 F 10,277! 1.11 36.7 F Beach Boulevard/Edinger Street NB 2 3,700 2,800 0.76 21.5 C 3,000 0.81 23.1 C Express ............................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ..... SB 2 3,700 3,000 0.81 23.1 C 2,950 0.80 22.7 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.1: Alternative 3 Modified (2020) 1-405 Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2020) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Lane Type Direction Traffic Traffic Lanes'Capacity'4 demand d/c Density LOSS Demand , dJe Density LO S3 Volume' Volume' GP NB 5 9,250 9,900 1.07 34.2 F 10,465 1.13 38.1 F Beach Boulevard/Edinger Street to SB 5 9,250 9,692 1.05 319 F 10,108 1.09 35.5 F Goldenwest Street/Bolsa Avenue NB 2 3,700 2,800 0.76 21.5 C 3,000 0.81 23.1 C Express .................................. ......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ........ ............................................. ......... .... SB 2 3,700 3,000 0.81 23.1 C 2,950 0.80 22.7 C NB 5 9,250 9,960 1.08 34.5 F 10,881 1.18 41.6 F Goldenwest Street/Bolsa Avenue to GP SB 5 9,250 10,130 1.10 ! 35.7 F 10,090! 1.09 35.4 F Springdale Street/Westminster Boulevard NB 2 3,700 2,700 0.73 20.8 C 2,700 0.73 20.8 C Express ..... ........ ............................................. ......... SB 2 3,700 2,700 0.73 20.8 C 2,700 0.73 20.8 C GP NB 5 9,250 10,178 1.10 36.0 F 10,859 1.17 41.4 F Springdale Street/Westminster Boulevard to SB 5 9,250 9,998 1.08 34S F 9,792 1.06 33.5 F Bolsa Chica Road/Valley View Street NB 2 3,700 2,700 0.73 20.8 C 2,700 0.73 20.8 C Express .. ....... ......... ......... ......... ........ ............................................. ......... ........ ........ ...... SB 2 3,700 2,700 0.73 20.8 C 2,700 0.73 20.8 C NB 7 12,950 15,341 1.18 42.3 F 15,313 1.18 42.2 F GP Bolsa Chica Road/Valley View Street to SB 7 12,950 15,479 1.20 ! 43.3 F 15,165! 1.17 41.2 F Seal Beach Boulevard NB 2 3,700 3,400 0.92 26.2 D 3,400 0.92 26.2 D Express .. ....... ......... ......... ....... ........ ............................................. ......... .... SB 2 3,700 3,400 0.92 26.2 D 3,400 0.92 26.2 D GP' NB 7 12,950 15,391 1.19 42.7 F 15,230 1.18 41.6 F Seal Beach Boulevard to I-605 SB 7 12,950 15,484 1.20 „ 43:4 F 15,237„ 1.18 41.6 F NB 2 3,700 3,400 0.92 26.2 D 3,400 0.92 26.2 D Express p ................................................................................... ........................................;................................................................................ SB 2 3,700 3,400 0.92 26.2 D 3,400 0.92 26.2 D GP NB 4 7,400 9,518 1.29 F 7,888 1 1.07 1 34.5 F -605 to San Gabriel River SB 4 7,400 8,650 1.17 41.7 F 8,872` 1.20 1414,14 F HOV NB 1 1,850 :2,162:2,379 1.29 F 1,972 1.07 34.5 F SB 1 1,850 1.17 41.7 F 2,218 1.20 44.4 F PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.1: Alternative 3 Modified (2020) 1-405 Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline ! Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2020) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Lane Type Direction Traffic Traffic Lanes'Capacity'4 demand d/c Density LOSS Demand , dJe Density LO S3 Volume' Volume' GP! NB 5 9,250 6,406 0.69 19.9 C 7,957 0.86 25.0 C SB 4 7,400 6,795 0.92 „ 27;6 D 5,646„ 0.76 22.4 C 1-605 - 1-405 to Express/HOV Transition Express/ NB 1 1,850 1,550 0.84 1 19.9 C 1,700 : 0.92 1 25.0 C HOV SB 1 1,850 1,500 0.81 27.6 D 1,400 0.76 22.4 C NB 4 7,400 6,365 0.86 19.8 C 7,726 104 24.2 F GP 1-605 - Express/HOV Transition to SB 4 7,400 6,885 ! 0.93 ! 28.1 D 5,848! 0.79 23.3 C Katella Avenue HOV NB .... 1 1,850 1,591 0.86 19..8 C 1,931 1.04 24.2 F .... SB 1 1,850 1,410 0.76 28.1 D 1,198 0.65 23.3 C Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane,High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane and Express Toll lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(d/c)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single HOV/Express lane and 3,700 vph for dual HOV/Express lanes. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.2: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1-405 Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline ! Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Lane Type Direction Traffic Traffic Lanes'Capacity'4 demand d/c Density LOSS Demand , dJe Density LO S3 Volume' Volume' �P NB 5 9,250 11,079 120 ! 43.6 F 11867! 128 F Bristol Street to Fairview Road SB 5 9,250 14,301 1.55 ! F 11,139! 1.20 44.2 F NB 1 1,850 2,216 1.20 43.6 F 2,373 1.28 F HOV .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB 1 1,850 2,860 1.55 F 2,228 1.20 44.2 F NB 6 11,100 12,545 1.13 ! 38.0 F 14,239 1.28 F Fairview Road to OP SB 7 12,950 19,451 1.50 ! F 15,085! 1.16 40.6 F Harbor Boulevard/Hyland Avenue NB 1 1,850 2,091 1.13 38.0 F 2,373 1.28 F HOV ......... ......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ..... SB 1 1,850 2,779 1.50 F 2,155 1.16 40.6 F NB 6 11,100 13,635 1.23 F 15,597 141 F Harbor Boulevard/Hyland Avenue to OP SB 6 11,100 18,069 1.63 ! F 14,196! 1.28 F Euclid Street/Ellis Avenue NB 1 1,850 2,273 1.23 F 2,600 1.41 F HOV ....................................... ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ........ ....... ..... SB 1 1,850 3,012 1.63 F 2,366 1.28 F NB 6 11,100 11,647 1.05 33.0 F 13,316 1.20 43.8 F OP Euclid Street/Ellis Avenue to SB 5 9,250 15,955 1.72 ! F 11,836! 1.28 * F Brookhurst Street/Talbert Avenue NB 2 3,700 2,900 0.78 22.3 C 3,200 0.86 24.6 C Express ........ ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ..... SB 2 3,700 3,200 0.86 24.6 C 2,900 0.78 22.3 C NB 5 9,250 11,616 126 F 13,121 142 F OP Brookhurst Street/Talbert Avenue to SB 5 9,250 14,277 1.54 ! F 11,313! 1.22 F Magnolia Street/Warner Avenue NB 2 3,700 2,900 0.78 22.3 C 3,200 0,86 24.6 C Express ......... ......... ... ......... ......... ......... ..... SB 2 3,700 3,200 0.86 24.6 C 2,900 0.78 22.3 C NB 5 9,250 12,404 1.34 F 13,149, 142 F OP Magnolia Street/Warner Avenue to SB 5 9,250 13,219 1.43 ! F 11,898! 1.29 F Beach Boulevard/Edinger Street NB 2 3,700 2,800 0.76 21.5 C 3,000 0.81 23.1 C Express ............................................ ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ..... SB 2 3,700 3,000 0.81 23.1 C 2,950 0.80 22.7 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.2: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1-405 Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline ! Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Lane Type Direction Traffic Traffic Lanes'Capacity'4 demand d/c Density LOSS Demand , dJe Density LO S3 Volume' Volume' NB 5 9,250 11,928 1.29 F 12,423 1 1.34 F Beach Boulevard/Edinger Street to GP SB 5 9,250 12,507 1.35 F 11,768 1.27 F Goldenwest Street/Bolsa Avenue NB 2 3,700 2,800 0.76 21.5 C 3,000 0.81 23.1 C Express .................................. ......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ........ ............................................. ......... .... SB 2 3,700 3,000 0.81 23.1 C 2,950 0.80 22.7 C GP NB 5 9,250 11,993 1.30 F 12,858 1.39 F Goldenwest Street/Bolsa Avenue to SB 5 9,250 12,929 1.40 ! F 11,751! 1.27 F Springdale Street/Westminster Boulevard NB 2 3,700 2,700 0.73 20.8 C 2,700 0.73 20.8 C Express .................................. ......... ....... ......... ......... ........ ........ ............................................. ......... .... SB 2 3,700 2,700 0.73 20.8 C 2,700 0.73 20.8 C NB 5 9,250 12,218 1.32 F 12,817 1.39 F GP Springdale Street/Westminster Boulevard to SB 5 9,250 12,793 138 F 11,435 : 1.24 F Bolsa Chica Road/Valley View Street NB 2 3,700 2,700 0.73 20.8 C 2,700 0.73 20.8 C Express .................................. ......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ........ ............................................. ......... ........ ........ ...... SB 2 3,700 2,700 0.73 20.8 C 2,700 0.73 20.8 C NB 7 12,950 18,304 141 F 18,506 143 F GP Bolsa Chica Road/Valley View Street to SB 7 12,950 19,299 1.49 ! F 17,667! 1.36 F Seal Beach Boulevard NB 2 3,700 3,400 0.92 26.2 D 3,400 0.92 26.2 D Express .. ....... ......... ......... ....... ........ ............................................. ......... ........ ........ ...... SB 2 3,700 3,400 0.92 26.2 D 3,400 0.92 26.2 D GP! NB 7 12,950 18,356 1.42 F 18,438 142 F Seal Beach Boulevard to I-605 SB 7 12,950 19,298 149 „ F 17,840 1.38 F NB 2 3,700 3,400 0.92 26.2 D 3,400 0.92 26.2 D Express .......................................................................................................................................................................... p ..................................................................................:........................................;................................................................................ SB 2 3,700 3,400 0.92 26.2 D 3,400 0.92 26.2 D GP NB 4 7,400 11,076 1.50 ! F 8,914! 1 1.20 45.0 F -605 to San Gabriel River SB 4 7,400 10,563 1.43 F 10,420` 1.41 F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,769 1.50 �. F 2,228 1.20 45.0 F SB 1 1,850 2,641 1.43 2,605 1.41 F PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.2: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1-405 Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Lane Type Direction Traffic Traffic Lanes'Capacity'4 demand d/c Density LOSS Demand , dJe Density LO S3 Volume' Volume' GP' NB 5 9,250 7,397 0.80 23.1 C 9,841 106 33.8 F SB 4 7,400 8,162 1.10 „ 363 F 6,811 0.92 27.7 D 1-605 - 1-405 to Express/HOV Transition Express/ NB 1 1,850 1,650 0.89 23.1 1 C 1,800 1 0.97 1 33.8 D HOV SB 1 1,850 1,600 0.86 36.7 E 1,400 0.76 27.7 D NB 4 7,400 7,238 0.98 22.5 C 9,313 1.26 30.9 F GP 1-605 - Express/HOV Transition to SB 4 7,400 8,103 1.10 ! 36.2 F 6,815! 0.92 27.7 D Katella Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1 809 0 98 22.5 C 2 328 1.26 30.9 F SB 1 1,850 1,659 0.90 36.2 E 1,396 0.75 27.7 D Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane,High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane and Express Toll lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(d/c)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single HOV/Express lane and 3,700 vph for dual HOV/Express lanes. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.3: Alternative 3 Modified (2020) 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2820)' AM Peak PM Peak Interchange Ramp Type Ramp! Ramp1'4 Ramp, Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Lanes ! Capacity Traffic a s Traffic d/c Density' LOS"5 , d/c Density' LOS a s ' Volume _ Volume NB On Loop 1 1,500 148 0.10 31.0 '! D'! 335 0.22 '! 33.0 D NB On Direct 1 1,500 349 0.23 22.7 C' 238 0.16 24.5 C Bristol Street SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,295 1 0.43 F 935 0.31 20.2 C SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,042 0.69 F 1,418 0.95 28.1 D NB Off Direct 2 3,000 2,975 0.99 - F 3,512 1.17 - >.F NB On Direct 1 1,500 743 0.50 22.0 C» 707 0.47 24.3 C Fairview Road SB Off Direct 2 3,000 788 0.26 F 844 0.28 22.5 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,371 0.91 F 1,043 0.70 23.4 C NB On Loop 1 1,500 502 0.33 30.1 D" 603 0.40 33.5 D NB On Direct 1 1,500 553 0.37 24.9 C» 933 0.62 - F Harbor Boulevard SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,202 0.40 F 1,132 0.38 15.4 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 968 0.65 F 1,039 0.69 23.1 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,339 0.89 F 747 0.50 24.5 C NB Off Loop 2 3,000 1,573 »0 52 15.9 64 2,097 0.70 21.8 C NB On Direct 1 1,500 273 <0.18 20.8 ! G! 668 0.45 ! 23.5 C Euclid Street&Ellis Avenue SB Off Direct 1 1,500 474 0.32 F 429 0.29 25.6 C SB On Loop 1 1,500 949 0.63 F 1,230 0.82 28.3 D SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,126 0.75 F 770 0.51 24.7 C NB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,204 0.40 A 1,395 0.47 '! >.B NB On Loop 1 1,500 775 1 0.52 26.0 C 861 0.57 29.3 D Brookhurst Street&Talbert NB On Direct 1 1,500 339 >'0.23 23.3 !' C 357 0.24 !' 26.8 C Avenue SB Off Direct 1 1,500 820 0.55 F 950 0.63 38.8 E SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,325 0.88 F 723 0.48 27.2 C ............................................................................................;................................................................................;........................................;................................... ............................. ..................... ............................ ..................... ........................... SB On Direct 1 1,500 PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.3: Alternative 3 Modified (2020) 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2020) AM Peak PM Peak Interchange Ramp Type Ramp Ramp 1.4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Lanes Capacity Traffic Traffic d/c Density' LOS"5 ' d/c Density' LOS"5 Volume' Volume NB Off Loop 1 1,500 505 0.34 36.3 E 781 F ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ..... ......................................................................................................................... ............................................................................... 6 NB Off Direct 1 1,500 2 16 33.2 D 673 38.7 <E ................................................................................................................................................................... ..... Magnolia Street&Warner NB On Direct(Warner) 1 1,500 534 036 22.1 C 856 O 57 23.5 C ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Avenue NB On Loop+Direct(Magnolia) 1 1,500 860 0.57 21.9 C 568 0.38 23.9 C ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ SB Off Direct 1 1,500 554 0.37 39.4 E 1,141 0.76 -- F ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,391 0.93 F 732 0.49 22.1 C NB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,595 O 53 B 1,893 0.63 B ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NB On Loop 1 1,500 828 1 0.55 1 27.8 C 1,002 0.67 29.1 D ........................................................................... I............................................ .......... Beach Boulevard&Edinger NB On Direct 1 1,500 289 0.19 26.2 C OAS 277 28.1 D ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Avenue SB Off Direct 2 3,000 968 0.32 26.2 C 1,508 0.50 30.6 D ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ SB On Loop 1 1,500 758 1 0.51 1 24.7 C 897 0.60 24.4 C .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................... SB On Direct 1 1,500 998 0.67 23.2 C 780 0.52 23.2 C NB Off Loop 1 1,500 866 0.58 39.0 E 769 0.51 40.3 E ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Goldenwest Street&Bolsa NB On Loop 1 1,500 826 0.55 27.3 C 885 0.59 29.1 D ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Avenue SB Off(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 1,041 0.69 40.7 E 943 0.63 40.0 E ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On(Direct Loop) 1 1,500 903 0.60 22.1 C 1,211 0.81 22.5 C NB Off Loop 1 1,500 752 0.50 38.6 E 931 O�62 F ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................. NB On Direct 1 1,500 970 0.65 22.1 C 0.61 23.4 C SpringdaleStreet& ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................... SB Off Direct 1 1,500 367 1 0.24 36.8 E ?4 9i 5 9 0.29 36.5 WestminsterBoulevard ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ SB Off Loop 1 1,500 269 0.18 35.1 E 235 0.16 34.0 D . ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ SB On Direct 1 1,500 768 0.51 22.8 C 968 0.65 22.4 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.3: Alternative 3 Modified (2020) 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2020) AM Peak PM Peak Interchange Ramp Type Ramp Ramp 1.4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Lanes Capacity Traffic Traffic d/c Density' LOS"5 ' d/c Density' LOS"5 Volume' Volume NB Off Direct 1 1,500 901 0.60 40.1 E 1,252 0�83 F BolsaChica Road&Garden ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,204 1 0.40 21.6 C 1,024 0.34 19.2 B Grove Boulevard ................................................................................................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................................................................... .................. .... ................ SB On Loop 1 1,500 944 0.63 27.4 C 1,145 0.76 26.5 NB Off Direct 1 1,500 769 0.51 F» 1,096 0.73 F ...................................................... ............ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... NB On Loop 1 1,500 819 0.55 F 1,013 0.68 F Seal Beach Boulevard ........................................................................................ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB Off Loop 2 3,000 944 0.31 B 1,191 0.40 B ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. SB On Direct 1 1,500 939 0.63 25.3 C 1,119 0.75 24.5 C 1-405 Express&SR 22 NB On from WB SR 22 1 1,500 700 0.47 32.2 D 700 0.47 32.2 D Freeway-to-Freeway Branch Connectors8 NB On from NB SR-73 3 5,400 3,411 1 0.63 4,598 0.85 .................................................................................................................. ............. ............................................................ I............1................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................... 7 .. 4,500 6,064 NB On from WB SR-22 2.5 35 5,706 ... 1.27 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NB Off to WB SR-22 2 3,600 2,........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 665 1 0.74 2,937 0.82 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-405 Freeway Interchanges NB Off to NB 1-605 2 3,600 2,729 0.76 4,333 1.20 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ with SR-73,SR-22&1-605 SB On from SB 1-605 2 3,600 3,890 1.08 3,030 0.84 .............................................................................................................................................. ............................................................... .......................... SB On from EB SR-22 2 3,600 2,682 0.75 3,017 0.84 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. SB Off to EB SR-22 3 5,400 5,221 0.97 5,494 1.02 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB Off to SB SR 73 3 5,400 4,767 0.88 3,616 0.67 Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);d/c-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.*Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.As the 3 lanes on WB SR-22 are reduced to 2 lanes at 1-405 connection,2.5 lanes are assumed for increased capacity due to forced flow conditions. 8.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,d/c ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.4: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service - AM Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040)-AM Peak Condition Non-Peak Condition Ramp Ramp 1.4 (Unconstrained Mainline Volume) (Constrained Mainline Volume) Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Traffic Traffic d/c . Dens y 2 it LOS 3.5 d/c Dens it y 2 LOSS Volume' Volume' NB On Loop 1 1,500 152 0.10 36.3 E 152 0.10 30.7 D NB On Direct 1 1,500 379 0.25 1 26.0 C 379 0.25 22.2 C Bristol Street SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,347 1 0.45 F 1,347 0.45 21.7 C SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,084 0.72 F 1,084 0.72 28.3 D NB Off Direct 2 3,000 3,107 1.04 F 3,107 1.04 30.3 F 0 C NB On Direct 1 1,500 794 0.53 1 24.9 C 794 0.53 23.4 C Fairview Road 0 0 SB Off Direct 2 3,000 A820 0.27 F 820 0.27 21.7 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,444 0.96 F 1,444 0.96 23.8 C NB On Loop 1 1,500 522 0.35 34.7 D 522 0.35 30.4 D NB On Direct 1 1,500 750 0.50 F» 750 0.50 24.2 C Harbor Boulevard SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,251 0.42 F 1,251 0.42 13.8 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,007 0.67 F 1,007 0.67 22.3 B SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,393 0.93 F 1,393 0.93 24.9 C NB Off Loop 2 3,000 1,679 0.56 19.8 64 1,679 0.56 16.7 B NB On Direct 1 1,500 318 0.21 25.7 C 318 0.21 25.1 C Euclid Street&Ellis Avenue SB Off Direct 1 1,500 639 0.43 F 639 0.43 23.5 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,479 0.99 1 F 1,479 0.99 23.3 C SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,086 0.72 F 1,086 0.72 28.7 D NB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,329 0.44 B 1,329 0.44 B NB On Loop 1 1,500 867 0.58 31.1 D 867 0.58 28.1 D Brookhurst Street&Talbert NB On Direct 1 1,500 431 0.29 F 431 0.29 23.2 C Avenue SB Off Direct 1 1,500 853 0.57 F 853 0.57 36.9 E SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,379 0.92 F 1,379 0.92 28.8 ............................................................................................................................................................. ....................... ............. ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... SB On Direct 1 1,500 PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.4: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service - AM Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040)-AM Peak Condition Non-Peak Condition Ramp Ramp 1.4 (Unconstrained Mainline Volume) (Constrained Mainline Volume) Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Traffic Traffic d/c Dens y 2 it LOS 3.5 d/c Dens it y 2 LOSS Volume' Volume' NB Off Loop 1 1,500 520 1 0.35 F» 520 035 35.2 E ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NB Off Direct 1 1,500 259 1 0.17 1 39.6 E 259 0.17 33.7 D ............................................................................ I...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Magnolia Street&Warner N B On Direct(Warner) 1 1,500 556 037 F 556 037 23.0 C ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Avenue NB On Loop+Direct(Magnolia) 1 1,500 911 0.61 F 911 0.61 21.4 C ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB Off Direct 1 1,500 577 1 0.38 1 F 577 0.38 35.6 E ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,423 0.95 F 1,423 0.95 22.8 C NB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,643 O 55 F 1,643 0.55 B ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NB On Loop 1 1,500 866 1 0.58 1 F 866 0.58 29.3 D ................... ............................... ............................................................................ I.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Beach Boulevard&Edinger NB On Direct 1 1,500 301 0.20 F 301 0.20 25.0 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Avenue SB Off Direct 2 . 3,000 1,160 1 0.39 1 -- F 1,160 0.39 26.6 C ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ SB On Loop 1 1,500 813 0.54 F 813 0.54 26.3 C ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,059 0.71 F 1,059 0.71 22.7 C NB Off Loop 1 1,500 908 0.61 F 0.61 37.2 E ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................... Goldenwest Street&Bolsa NB On Loop 1 1,500 873 0.58 1 F 27,9 C .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................. Avenue SB Off(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 1,082 i 0.72 1 F 1,0 38.1 E ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................... SB On(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 960 0.64 F 960 0.64 23.0 C NB Off Loop 1 1,500 783 0.52 F 783 0.52 36.5 E ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. NB On Direct 1 1,500 1,008 0.67 F 1,008 0.67 22.2 C SpringdaleStreet& .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB Off Direct 1 1,500 382 0.25 F 382 0.25 34.5 D WestminsterBoulevard ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ SB Off Loop 1 15oo 289 0.19 F 289 0.19 34.0 D .............................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. SB On Direct 1 1,500 807 0.54 F 1 807 0.54 22.6 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.4: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service - AM Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040)-AM Peak Condition Non-Peak Condition Ramp Ramp 1.4 (Unconstrained Mainline Volume) (Constrained Mainline Volume) Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Traffic Traffic d/c Dens y 2 it LOS 3.5 d/c Dens it y 2 LOSS Volume' Volume' NB Off Direct 1 1,500 938 0.63 F 938 O�63 37.3 E BolsaChica Road&Garden .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,448 0.48 F 1,448 0.48 21.3 C Grove Boulevard ............................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,074 . 0.72 F 1,074 0.72 28.0 C NB Off Direct 1 1,500 800 0.53 F» 800 0.53 36.6 E ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NB On Loop 1 1,500 852 0.57 F 852 0.57 F SealBeach Boulevard ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... . .............................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................. SB Off Loop 2 3000 983 0.33 F 983 0.33 B ............................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Direct 1 1,500 984 0.66 F 984 0.66 23.0 C 1-405 Express&SR 22 - NB On from WB SR-22 1 11500 700 0.47 32.2 D 700 0.47 32.2 =-D Freeway-to-Freeway Branch Connectors8 NB On from NB SR-73 3 5,400 3,654 1 0.68 3,654 0.68 ........................................................................... I...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 NB On from WB SR-22 2.5 4,500 7,024 1�56 7,024 1.56 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NB Off to WB SR-22 2 3,600 2,........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 929 1 0.81 2,929 0.81 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-405 Freeway Interchanges NB Off to NB 1-605 2 3,600 3,482 0.97 31482 0.97 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ with SR-73,SR-22&1-605 SB On from SB 1-605 2 3,600 4,920 1.37 4,920 1.37 .............................................................................................................................................. ............................................................... .......................... SB On from EB SR-22 2 3,600 3,074 0.85 3,074 0.85 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. SB Off to EB SR-22 3 5,400 7,580 1.40 7,580 1.40 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB Off to SB SR 73 3 5,400 5,693 1.05 5,693 1.05 Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);d/c-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.*Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.As the 3 lanes on WB SR-22 are reduced to 2 lanes at 1-405 connection,2.5 lanes are assumed for increased capacity due to forced flow conditions. 8.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,d/c ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.5: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service - PM Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040)-PM Peak Condition Non-Peak Condition Ramp Ramp 1,4 (unconstrained Mainline Volume) ! (Constrained Mainline volume)' Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Ca` acit p y ! Ramp Ramp Junction ! Ramp Traffic Traffic d/c Density L©S3'5' 1 d/c Density LOSS Volume' Volume NB On Loop 1 1,500 348! 0.23 F ! 348 !0.23 30.7! D NB On Direct 1 1500 248' 0.17 F 248 0.17 22.2 C Bristol Street .....: SB Off Direct 2 3,000 998 0.33 22.9 C 998 0.33 19.3 B ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,476 0.98 F 1,476 0.98 28.3 D NB Off Direct !' 2 31000 3,625 1.21 F ! 3,625 >'1.21 33.8 F NB On Direct ! 1 1,500 769! 0.51 F ! 769 0.51 23.4! C Fairview Road ........! ......:.! ........! SB Off Direct 2 3,000 865 0.29 24.9 C 865 0.29 22.0 C ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,092 0.73 25.8 C 1,092 0.73 23.8 C NB On Loop 1 1,500 628' 0.42 F ! 628 >'0.42 30.4' <D NB On Direct ! 1 1,500 957! 0.64 F ! 957 0.64 24.2! C ........: ........: .......: ........: ........: ........: ........: .......: .......: ... ........: .......: ........: .......: .......: ........: ......... Harbor Boulevard SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,180 0.39 F 1,180 0.39 1 13.3 1. B ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,081 0.72 F 1,081 0.72 22.3 C ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Direct 1 1,500 777 0.52 27.6 C 777 0.52 24.8 C NB Off!Loop 2 3,000 2,395'' 0.80 F 2,395 '!0.80 21.6'' G NB On Direct !' 1 1,500 714' 0.48 28.8 D��> ���714 0.48 �� 25.2 ��>C .......:. .......:. ......:. .......:. .......:. ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ .: ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ......... ..... Euclid Street&Ellis Avenue SB Off Direct 1 1,500 504 0.34 F 504 0.34 22.9 C ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Direct 1 1,500 897 0.60 F 897 0.60 23.2 C ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,433 0.96 F 1,433 0.96 28.8 D NB Off'Direct !' 2 3,000 1,622 0.54 B !' 1,622 >'0.54 B NB On Loop 1 1,500 1,000! 0.67 F ! 1,000 0.67 28.1! D ........ ......... Brookhurst Street&Talbert NB On Direct 1 1,500 427 0.28 F 427 0.28 23.2' C ......... ........ ........ ..: ......... ........ ......... ........ ........ ......... ......... Avenue SB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,003 0.67 F 1,003 0.67 37.7 E SB On Loop 1 1,500 752 0.50 31.9 D 752 0.50 28.7 D SB On Direct 1 1,500 PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.5: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service - PM Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040)-PM Peak Condition Non-Peak Condition Ramp Ramp 1,4 (unconstrained Mainline Volume) (Constrained Mainline volume)' Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Ca` acit p y Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Traffic Traffic d/c Density L©S3'5' 1 d/c Density LOSS Volume' Volume NB Off'Loop 1 1,500 878' 0.59 F 878 ``0.59 37.0 E NB Off Direct 1 1,500 777; 0.52 F 777 >.0.52 36.4 >.E NB On Direct(Warner)`` 1 1;500 888' 0.59 F 888 ``0.59 23.1`` C Magnolia Street&Warner NB On'Loop+Direct(Magnolia) 1 1,500 595' 0.40 F 595 0.40 21.4' C Avenue SB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,178 0.79 F 1,178 0.79 38.7 E SB Off Loop 1 1,500 597 0.40 40.3 E 597 0.40 35.6 E SB On Loop 1 1,500 378 0.25 23.8 C 378 0.25 21.7 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 762 0.51 25.5 C 762 0.51 22.7 C NB Off'Direct 2 3,000 2,078" 0.69 * F 2,078 ''0.69 B NB On Loop 1 1,500 1,061 031 F 1,061 >.031 29.3 D Beach Boulevard&Edinger NB On Direct 1 1,500 291` 0.19 F 291 0.19 25.0' C Avenue SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,623 0.54 F 1,623 0.54 29.8 D SB On Loop 1 1,500 950 0.63 28.9 D 950 0.63 26.3 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 803 0.54 F 803 0.54 22.7 C NB Off'Loop 1 1,500 812`` 0.54 F 812 >0.54 36.7`` >E Goldenwest Street&Bolsa NB On Loop 1 1,500 947; 0.63 F 947 >.0.63 27.9 C Avenue SB Off(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 981 0.65 F 981 0.65 37.6 E SB On(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 1,248 0.83 F 1,248 0.83 23.1 C NB Off'Loop 1 1,500 997`` 0.66 F 997 >0.66 37.6`` >E NB On Direct 1 1,500 956; 0.64 F 956 >.0.64 22.2 C Springdale Street& SB Off Direct 1 1,500 453 0.30 F 453 0.30 34.8 D Westminster Boulevard SB Off Loop 1 1,500 245 0.16 39.3 E 245 0.16 33.8 D ..........S.B...O.n...Direct................................................................................... ...........1.......... .......... ..500..................... ...014...................0.68.......... ...............F............. .......... ..014.....................0.68.......... ..........22...fi.......... ..............C............. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.5: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service - PM Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040)-PM Peak Condition Non-Peak Condition Ramp Ramp 1,4 (unconstrained Mainline Volume) (Constrained Mainline volume)' Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Ca` acit p y Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Traffic Traffic d/c Density L©S3'5' 1 d/c Density LOSS Volume' Volume NB Off'Direct 1 1,500 1,297`` 0.86 F 1,297 ``0.86 39.2 >E Bolsa Chica Road&Garden SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,243 0.41 F 1,243 1 0.41 19.9 B Grove Boulevard SB On Loop 1 1,500 1,288 0.86 F 1,288 0.86 28.0 D NB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,140 036 F 1,140 >.036 38.4 >.E NB On Loop 1 1,500 1,072` 0.71 F 1,072 031 >F Seal Beach Boulevard SB Off Loop 2 3,000 1,343 0.45 F 1,343 0.45 B SB On Direct 1 1,500 1,170 0.78 F 1,170 0.78 23.1 C Freeway-to-Freeway Branch Connectors NB On from NB SR-73 3 5,400 5,228' 0.97 5,228 >.0.97 NB On from WB SR 22' 25 4,500 6,986 1.55 6,986 >.1.55 NB Off'to WB SR-22 2 3,600 3,535`` 0.98 3,535 ``0.98 1-405 Freeway Interchanges NB Off to NB 1-605 2 3,600 5,661' 1.57 5,661 1S7 with SR-73,SR-22&1-605 SB On from SB 1-605 2 31600 3,603 1.00 3,603 1.00 SB On from EB SR-22 2 31600 3,112 0.86 3,112 0.86 SB Off to EB SR-22 3 51400 7,520 1.39 7,520 1.39 SB Off to SB SR-73 3 5,400 4,100 0.76 4,100 0.76 Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);d/c-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.*Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.As the 3 lanes on WB SR-22 are reduced to 2 lanes at 1-405 connection,2.5 lanes are assumed for increased capacity due to forced flow conditions. 8.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,d/c ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.6 Alternative 3 Modified (2020) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway and Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour ? PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Freeway Mainline 1-405 Northbound- 33.2 D 38.3 E Seal Beach Boulevard to SR-22 Westbound 1-405 Southbound- 31.2 D 37.7 E SR-22 Eastbound to Seal Beach Boulevard 1-405 Southbound- 35.8 E 28.1 D Magnolia Street to Warner Avenue 1-405 Southbound- 43.9 F 28.5 D Harbor Boulevard to Fairview Road SR-73 Northbound- 19.7 B 24.1 C Bear Street to Fairview Road SR-73 Southbound- 25.2 C 19.8 B Fairview Road to Bear Street Collector-Distributor[C-D)Roads Goldenwest Street&Bolsa Avenue Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 22.2 B 12.6 B Katella Avenue/Willow Street Interchange at 1-605 Southbound C-D Road 53.6 F 53.2 F Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads.Refer to Table 2.1.3 for the LOS criteria. 3.Highway Capacity Software analysis worksheets are included in Appendix E1. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.7 Alternative 3 Modified (2040) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040)-AM Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040)-'PM Freeway Mainline Peak Condition Non-Peak Condition Peak Condition Non-Peak Condition Weaving Segment (Unconstrained Mainline (Constrained Mainline (Unconstrained Mainline (Constrained Mainline Volume) Volume) Volume) Volume) Density' LOS Density' LOS Density' LOS Density' LOS 1-405 Northbound- Seal Beach Boulevard to SR-22 Westbound 42.0 E 34.1 D 47.6 F 41.3 E 1-405 Southbound- SR-22 Eastbound to Seal Beach Boulevard 36.8 E 34.4 D 40.1 E 39.2 E 1-405 Southbound- Magnolia Street to Warner Avenue 48.0 F 34.9 D 33.8 D 28.7 D 1-405 Southbound- Harbor Boulevard to Fairview Road 49.1 F 41.2 E 31.4 D 29.5 D SR-73 Northbound- Bear Street to Fairview Road 21.5 C 21.5 C 27.2 C 25.2 C SR-73 Southbound- Fairview Road to Bear Street 28.9 D 28.4 D 22.3 C 22.3 C Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds for the freeway mainline are shown in Table 2.1.3. 3.Highway Capacity Software analysis worksheets are included in Appendix E2. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.8 Alternative 3 Modified (2040) Weaving Level-of-Service Collector-Distributor (C-D) Roads AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Interchange Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Goldenwest Street&Bolsa Avenue Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 24.0 B 13.4 B Katella Avenue/Willow Street Interchange at 1-605 Southbound C-D Road 56.2 F 55.7 F Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds for the C-D roads are shown in Table 2.1.3. 3.Highway Capacity Software analysis worksheets are included in Appendix E2. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.9: Level of Service and Throughput Summary Alternative 3 Modified (2040) - AM & PM Level of Service No Build Alternative Alternative 3 Modified NB SB NS SB Study Segment GP HOV GP HOV' GP HOV/ GP HOV/ Express Express SR-73 to Euclid F F F F F F F F Euclid to SR-22 East F F F F F C F C SR-22 East to 1-605 F F F F F D F D Throughput2 No Build Alternative /alternative 3 Modified Percent Increase in Throughput Study Segment NB SB NB SB (over No Build) GP HOV GP HOV' GP HOV/ GP HOW NB NB SB Express Express Lanes 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ..... SR-73 to Euclid 7200 1200 7200 1200 7200 1200 7200 1200 0% 0% Throughput 8400 8400 8400 8400 Lanes 4 1 4 1 5 2 5 2 ........ .... ..... ..... ..... .... .... .... Euclid to SR-22 East 4800 1200 4800 1200 6000 3000 6000 3000 50% 50% Throughput .... 6000 6000 9000 9000 Lanes 6 2 6 2 7 2 7 2 ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..... ......... ......... SR-22 East tot-605 7200 2400 7200 2400 8400 3400 8400 3400 23% 23% Throughput ........ 9600 9600 11800 11800 Notes: 1.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In)per Highway Capacity Manual. 2.Traffic flow throughput for each GP and HOV lane is 1,200 vehicles/hour under congested(LOS F)conditions. Traffic flow throughput for each managed Express lane is equivalent to forecast traffic(vehicles/hour). 3.LOS reported is for worst case link within each study segment. 4.GP=General Purpose;HOV=High Occupancy Vehicle;Throughput units are vehicles/hour. 5.The LOS shown above applies for both AM and PM peak periods. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.10: Speed Index and Demand-to-Capacity Ratio Summary Alternative 3 Modified (2040) - AM & PM Speed Indexl No Build Alternative '' Alternative'3 Modified NB SB NB SB Study Segment GP HOV GP HOV GP HOW GIR HOW Express Express AM 41 41 6 6 41 41 6 6 SR-73 to Euclid PM 19 19 32 32 19 19 32 32 AM 6 6 5 5 40 65 17 65 Euclid to SR-22 East PM 5 5 7 7 30 65 42 65 AM 7 15 5 10 22 65 14 65 SR-22 East to 1-605 PM 1 7 1 15 1 8 1 19 1 22 65 1 24 1 65 Demand-to-Capacity Rati02 No Build Alternative Alternative`3 Modified NB' SB NB SB Study Segment GP HOV' GP HOV GP HOW GP HOW Express ? Express? ? AM 1.23 1.23 1.63 1.63 1.23 1.23 1.63 1.63 SR-73 to Euclid PM 1.41 1.41 1.28 1.28 1.41 1.41 1.28 1.28 AM 1.64 1.64 1.89 1.89 1.34 0.78 1.72 0.86 Euclid to SR-22 East PM 1.76 1.76 1.61 1.61 1.42 0.86 1.29 0.80 SR-22 East to I-605 AM 1 1.51 1.36 1.57 1.43 1.42 0.92 1.49 0.92 PM 1.52 1.37 1.47 1.33 1.43 0.92 1.38 0.92 Notes: 1.Relative Speed Index is based on Demand-to-Capacity ratios and speed curves developed by Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2.Demand-to-Capacity ratio reported is for worst case link within each study segment. 3.GP=General Purpose; HOV=High Occupancy Vehicle. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.11:Alternative 3 Modified(2020) 1-405 Mainline Transition Areas Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline Alternative»3 Modified Condition(2020) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Direction Traffic Traffic Lanes Capacity1'4 Demand d/c Density' LOSS Demand d/c Density' LOS' Volumes' Volumes' 1-405-Harbor Blvd to Euclid St NB 7 »12,950 13`;915 1.07 34!.4 D 15,715 1.21 * F SB 7 12,950 18,067 1.40 * F 14,695 1.13 38.3 E 1-405-1-605 to End HOV Access NB 5 9,250 11,897 1.29 *' F 9,860 1.07 33.9 F SB 5 9,250 10,812 1.17 41.0 F 11,090 1.20 43.7 F SR-22-End HOV Restriction to Valley View St WB 3 5,550 6,764 1.22 * F 6,406 1.15 41.1' F EB 4 7,400 5,921 0.80 23.6 C 6,194 0.84 24.7 C 1-605-Direct Connector Separation NB 5 9,250 7,956 0.86 25.0 C 9,657 1.04 1 32.7 F to End HOV Access SB 5 9,250 8,295 0.90 26.3 D 7,046 0.76 21.9 C Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(d/c)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.12:Alternative 3 Modified(2040) 1-405 Mainline Transition Areas Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2020) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Direction Traffic Traffic Lanes Capacity''A Demand d/c' DensitJ LOSS Demand d/c Density' L053 Volumes' Volumes' 1-405-Harbor Blvd to Euclid St NB» >7 12,950 15,908 1.23» * F 18,197 1.41 * >F SB 7 12,950 21,081 1.63 * F 16,562 1.28 * F 1-405-1-605 to End HOV Access NB S 9,250` 13,845 1.50` * F 11,142 1.20 44.2 F SB 5 9,250 13,204 1.43 * F 13,025 1.41 * F SR-22-End HOV Restriction to Valley View St WB 3 5,550' 7,724 1.39? * F 7,686 1.38 * F EB 4 7,400 81280 1.12 37.8 F 8,220 1.11 37.3 F 1-605-Direct Connector Separation NB'' S 9,250'' 9,047 0.98'' 29.6 D 11,641 1.26 * F to End HOV Access SB 5 9,250 9,762 1 1.06 33.3 F 8,211 0.89 26.0 C Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(d/c)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.13 Alternative 3 Modified Intersection Level of Service 1-405 Southbound Ramps& Magnolia Street AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Project Conditions(Build Traffic) 0 Project Conditions(Build Traffic) r r No Build Conditions r No Build Conditions r N Traffic Control No Improvements With Improvements >euo No Improvements With Improvements nu ? (No Build Geometry) (Build Geometry) (No Build Geometry) (Build Geometry) a North/South ° a East/West Street r E r E m Street Avg Avg Avg a Avg Avg Avg . a WC Delay LOS U/C Delay LOS'. WC :Delay LOS d WC Delay 'LOS WC Delay LOS V/C Delay', LOS E (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec► (sec) (sec) X 1-405 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized M Magnolia St 0.66 --' __ - -- -- N/A 0.231 -- : -- --'. - -- N/A 0 (from SB Magnolia St) Loop On Ramp N C W -405 SB Off-Ramp Magnolia St Existing Traffic 88 23.0 C -- N/A 0J7'. 18.0 B --' -- -- N/A (to NB&SB Magnolia St) Signal 1-405 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized Magnolia St 0.71 0.71 - N/A 0.241 0.24 N/A (from SB Magnolia St) Loop On Ramp ' 0 0 0.77 '1j 6.9 A 0.71 10.2 S' B N 1-405 SB Off-Ramp Existing Traffic Magnolia St 0,97 36.7 D 0.99 38.7 D N 0.83 16.7 B 0,83 16.4 B N (to NB&SB Magnolia St) Signal a '; 1-405 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized Magnolia St 0.73 --' - 0.73 -- N/A 0.25' -- - 0.25 - -- -- _ N/A (from SB Magnolia St) Loop On Ramp 0 0 0.80 9.2 A 0.80 19.8 B N 1-405 SB Off-Ramp Existing Traffic Magnolia St 1.02 37.8 F* 1.15 70.4 F* N -- 0.88' 20.2 C 0.95 25.9 C N -- (to NB&SB Magnolia St) Signal Notes: 1.LOS:Level of Service per delay methodology(2000 Highway Capacity Manual). 2.Level of Service analysis worksheets are included in Appendix IB. 3.F*.Due to excessive volume-to-capacity ratio(over 1.0),the intersection is expected to operate at LOS F. 4.No Build Condition analysis is based on No Build traffic and geometry. 5.Project Condition(Build Traffic)No Improvements-Analysis is based on Project traffic under No Build Geometry. 6.Project Condition(Build Traffic)With Improvements-Analysis is based on Project traffic under Build Geometry. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.14: Alternative 3 Modified (2020) - Design Option 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 3 Modified Condition AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ra MP1,4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp TVpe Lanes Capacity' Traffic Traffic ' d/c Density' LOS 3,5 ' d/c Density' LOS 3,5 Volume Volume Magnolia Street& NB Off Loop 505 0.34 36.3 E 781 0.52 F ............ ... ....... Warner Avenue NB Off Direct(C'-'D Road) 1 1,500 236 0 D 673 0.45 38.7 E Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);d/c-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.15: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) - Design Option 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service - AM Alternative 3 Modified Condition(2040)-AM Peak Condition Non-Peak Condition (Unconstrained Mainline Volume) ! (Constrained Mainline Volume) Ramp Ramp1,4 AM Peak PM Peak Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity, Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp,Junction Traffic Traffic d/c Density' LOSS'S! 1 d/c Density' LOSS'S Volume, Volume . Magnolia Street& NB Off Loop 1 1,500 520 0.35 F 520 0.35 35.2 Warner Avenue NB Off Direct(C-D Road) 1 11500 259 0..17 39.6 E 259 0.17 33.7 D Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);d/c-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.16: Alternative 3 Modified (2040) - Design Option 1-405 Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service - PM Alternative!3 Modified Condition(2040)-PM Peak Condition Non-Peak Condition (Unconstrained Mainline Volume) ! (Constrained Mainline Volume) Ramp Ramp1,4 AM Peak PM Peak Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity, Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp,Junction Traffic Traffic d/c Density' LOSS'S! 1 d/c Density' LOSS'S Volume, Volume . Magnolia Street& NB Off Loop 1 1,500 878 0.59 F 878 0.59 37.0 Warner Avenue NB Off Direct(C-D Road) 1 11500 777 0..52 F 777 0.52 36.4 E Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);d/c-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.17 Alternative 3 Modified (2020) - Design Option Weaving Level-of-Service Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOSZ Density' LOSZ Collector-Distributor[C-D)Roads Warner Ave and Magnolia Street Interchange at 1-405 Northbound C-D Road 13.1 B 29.4 D Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads.Refer to Table 2.1.3 for the LOS criteria. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Alternative 3 Modified Table 1.18 Alternative 3 Modified (2040) - Design Option Weaving Level-of-Service Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOSZ Density' LOSZ Collector-Distributor[C-D)Roads Warner Ave and Magnolia Street Interchange at 1-405 Northbound C-D Road 14.0 B 32.5 D Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads.Refer to Table 2.1.3 for the LOS criteria. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT 1-405 PA/ED Alternative 3 Modified (2020) Freeway Traffic Volumes IMP AM/PM Peak Hours Expreaa/HOV Volume On/Off General Purpose On/Off Expreaa/HOV Volume Expreea Volume On/Off General Purpose On/Off Expreas Volume (BB) Ramp Volume Volume Ramp Volume (NB) (BB) Ramp Volume Volume Ramp Volume (NB) Match Line See Bottom Left FROM sB—soe'xa9V hC° ,e°W SEE FWY CONNECTORS ON 9692/1019,$ E SHEET 2, TOP LEFT E. Lae 9900/10,46511 2800/3000 VVFO UUO To NB 605 3,000/2,950 3E400/3,400 * 50 ��"'V axe 5oD: �a IQ: oox x�tio 3.400/3.400 X00 9Y' i SR-22 12,802{2;220 Ai 12 8724!8600 ,726f12,293 To WE SR-22 �Ax 9,611/10,18$' Jp FROM ED SR 22 1x 665 h• Beach'Blvd BEACH AH BLVD — REACH BLVD 15;484/15;237 8,783(9,186. 15391/15,230' a 9,482/9,497 x�b EDINGER ^y9 Edinger Ave AVE E e�LaLa e a,400/3 4aD �Loge 99�T;, 3,40013,400 � E.,ess�oe o 10,48040,277 10378/fl079 280013.000 Seal Beach Blvd 14 57 2114 217 SEAL BEACH ::1 SEAL BEACH BLVD BLVD \ l SSW LPS 14540/14;046 i 5 xWA °E0 9926/9,136 t O C26° o MA SNOLIA FI—I'lN y"15,479/15,165 " Magnolia St _ O = MAGNOLIA S ° 1 q 15,341M5,313" 9,404/8562 9518l105fl �r E.,ems Lase O A A.I xe606y IV, P e ,FROM WE SR 22 11 TO ER SR 22 �WW 6 02' Balsa Ghica Rd tiV 2 Valley View St s9 WARNER BOLSACHCA 9054/$,647 RD ¢277/9,607 Warner Ave AVE. `ess GI VALLEY VIEW 912(1/10128 v x ti iA voo/21oo 9998/9,792 a� 2 10,263/9,975 WARNER _ AVE � x 10,178110,659 z.IOOIY,IOO � A E en�ae � 3,200/2,900 � 2900/3200 °v 0 11,654/9,707 9,625/10,909 xoY 9208/9950 F , SPANGDALE t�. {�i IF " q V 10,834/8 757 Westminster Ave 2 WESTMINSTER 1`r� WESTMINSTER AVE O ry5� AVE RROOKH FRS sVV xFS BfOOkhUr3t St� ST RROOKHaRST 9,362/9,122 0 A,u;a. 12,159/9,480 WW E me sa, 00/2,700 TALBERT 10130/10090 oorelo0 8511/9691 9,960/#1,881', AVE GOLDENWE ST 0h �ryC v 13 266fl0,224 9,715{fl,086 CEO GGLOENWEST 9034/9696 GOIdenwest St ess, LEGENU= Math 2, See Sheet 2,Top 878$/8897 R AAd / PM 2020 General Purpose Lane Traffic Volume BOLSA eoLSA AVE AVE AM / PM 2020 HOV Traffic Volume �s ��LpM 2020 Express Lane Traffic Volume 3000/2950 \ 2800/3000 V6o* AMiPM 2020 Ramp Traffic Volume HOV High—Occupancy Vehicle Lane Match Line See Top Right 1-405/1-605/SR-22 West County Connectors Project (Currently Under Construction) Proposed General Purpose Lane WIM Proposed Auxiliary Lane ALBERT 0 Proposed Express Lane AROVP.R 4 SO,, &NS SOURCE. POST PROCESSED YEAR 2020 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ARE BASED ON OCTAM 2035 TRAFFIC MODEL&GROWTH FACTORS Figure 1.1 CONCEPTUAL LANE SCHEMATICS ONLY. REFER TO PARSONS ALT 3 LAYOUT FOR DETAILS. 01/112112 Sheet 1 of 2 DRAFT r.� 1-405 PA/ED Alternative 3 Modified (2020) Freeway Traffic Volumes IMP AM/PM Peak Hours Express/HOV Volume On/Off General Purpose OnI Express/HOV Volume (BB) Ramp Volume Volume Ramp Volume (NB) Express/HOV Volume On/Off General Purpose On/Off Express/HOV Volume (BB) Ramp Volume Volume Ramp Volume (NB) Match Line 6yo. See Sheet 1,Bottom Right hW V,, �J — 6 8 9,442/10,418 12 7921 9 795 LoLO e �9 La 94911 230 ,o 0 5,"ss 32D0/2900 _ CL D ELLIS ST Euclid St I AVE 0338/7,017.: ,,335/,,754 o fl,927/13,470 ,,988/2.245 WILLOW ST uATELLA AVE 25hv2o99 154$6/12,596 Willow St Katella Ave ss,9 y q o ryoti AVE q 09/1,938 14456111625 2 ,�s � 11,453ty2,670 � ,,eoelz.„z �A q HARBOR I. HARBOR Harbor Blvd BLVD �x BLAB GE 2zze,tazs 15604/12777 o e GO s v ti h � xx �� �9xV=t fl,023/12153 ,837 2,D26 FROM FAIRVIEW RD 6,36517,726[6 ,sev,,e3, TO HARBOR BLVD ,,a,o„lea 6;8&5/084H To SUSAN ST 97/1,919 16,775113,430 W oVa 10,386191,547 ,?3v,,9zs Fairview Rd FAIRVIEW V,,f: xeo� RD U FAIRVIEW RD TO NB-405' usuN TO FAIRVIEW RD �e �La�e zz9af,,a,3 16,OWA2,692 ,soo,,soo � ,,so0ftsoo � x� FROM SR I-40E ""911393 ^�I zzrof,,as 1134719 74 xv - FROM NB-405 x rT To wB sR-22 696517099 ,�av,ns N. FROM EB SR-22 SEE FWY CONNECTORS ON HOVLANES LAI SHEET I, TOP LEFT To sB a05 To/FROM I-405 a v,he ;. UT Bear St1 4v x eTilsno3 v ,, 9 H � 469/570 .G I � ry\h A en \6M W BEAR / -� N _ �� h SD N _ 73 P - ..... �nr, TO SOUTH COAST DR "1 ro Fa�ev ew Ro L,o ? - TO SOUTH COAST DR/ —' FAIRVIEW RD/HARBOR BLVD 550/621 t ry 8 BEAR O f sT I O 9s,,.eae r� 12,490/9 943!9734/10,322' earfzoea IF !I, LEGEND W,h of AM I PM 2020 General Purpose Lane Traffic Volume xx5 �z x. �s aM , PM 2020 HOV Traffic Volume zzav,.a33 m fl411 191,1614 ggg31101231I aaelzo2s Laee ^/ aM / pM 2020 Express Lane Traffic Volume BRISTOL ST i BRISTOL AM19M 2020 Ramp Traffic Volume gfl3tOl.St sT Hov High—Occupancy Vehicle Lane ; Proposed General Purpose Lane Lane 9 ._ ` L W` TO BRISTOL ST RNM Proposed Auxiliary 0 Proposed Express Lane oa L86v,,969 zmsf,na 12630I10,fiA1 9,320(9844 j ALBERT AROVP.R 4 SO,, &NS SOURCE. POST PROCESSED YEAR 2020 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ARE BASED ON OCTAM 2035 TRAFFIC MODEL&GROWTH FACTORS Figure 1.1 CONCEPTUAL LANE SCHEMATICS ONLY. REFER TO PARSONS ALT 3 LAYOUT FOR DETAILS. ,,/WT.” Sheet 2 of 2 DRAFT r.� 1-405 PA/ED Alternative 3 Modified (2040) Freeway Traffic Volumes IMP AM/PM Peak Hours Express/HOV Volume On/O(f General Purpose On/Off Express/fil Volume Express Volume On/Off General Purpose On/OM Express Volume (BB) Ramp Volume Volume Ramp Volume (NB) (88) Ramp Volume Volume Ramp Volume (NB) Match Line See Bottom Left FROM CE 1-605 20 Uo0 e SEE FWY CONNECTORS ON 120x1111768 E SHEET 2, TOP LEFT E.�La°e 11'$2$/12'$23', 2800/3000 WX Jso UUO TO NB 605 3,000/2,950 O F 3400/3,400 * 50 ��r'6 s°�wae 6W�': V I-605 I. ooC ,6neti 3 400/3.400 v° g s SR-22 11 224114;728 .e T1 347/10145 15,427114,903 To WE SR-22 Vox 45 11,627/12,132' FROM ED SR 22 !2 FMF9Wg` RIc BEACH ° Beach Blvd RLVD - BEACH BLVD x,29$/17;940 i � 10,781111,071 W) 118,356118,4381 12,160/11,096 ryey, ^ya Edinger Ave E D AVE Av E Lae jj 3,400/3.400 °sy '*, 3,40013400 9R� t o�1 3000/2.950 8WF £x. WW 17504{17366-dry 13219/11,898 12404113,149 aool3o00 Seal Beach Blvd SEAL BEACH x ..x SEAL BEACH 10 BLVD " BLVD \ 28 LEE, 18 518 g6A97 su / _o O �,`A^a 12 642M0,720 t y"� 0 P T MAGNOLIA 19,2991176&7 Magnolia St _ O N� MAGNOLIA S 18304/18,5(15 11952/10,123 n,493112554 p r�` o hO.v Ex ress Lane 31400 13 400 .LhryM \ ,I x 0 a ;,°s C C FROM WE SR 22 m S TO EB SR 22 x00 . 5 96 Balsa Ghlca Rd 0 x xOO xOO Valley View St WARNER � s5 BOLSA cn CA 11 719/10 147 A r RD 112801n5201 Warner AVE es8 VALLEY VIEW 11 096/12,243 "aC 1 ry voolzroo 12,793111,435 sWx 2 12,854110,551 WARNER E Lane _ AVE r.IOOIZ.IOO (2,218112,817' � � ex E en�ae � 3,200/2,900 �' 2900/3200 o5W o 14277/11,313 11,616/13,121'I V fl,210 n,861 1 f' a5 0 4 SPANGDALE I.•.•; {�iJ IF q V 13,424/10,310 Westminster Ave ti WESTMINSTER WESTMINSTER ,19� AVE AVE 12,122/10,737 o Brookhurst St BROO BROOAHUasT IT ST 00 E.E.ess LoneLone 5;, 14,805/11,062 sROOlsfoa 12,929/1 751 oo/2soo TALBERT 10,3181n694 1)993/12856' AVE , 5 ��titi GOLDENWE ST A 051. ST 'V`ti "D 4 � P 6a9L"r s 15,955/11,836 l 11,647113,316 GGLOENWEST 1),020)11,611 Match Line GoldenWest St S 95� LEGEND: See sheet 2,mp fl,5 47 110 520 AAA/PM 2040 General Purpose Lane Traffic Volume BALSA ECHIA AVE AVE nM / PM 2040 HOV Traffic Volume 58 �e E ee�Loe E eLOe nM 1 PM 2040 Express Lane Traffic Volume 3000/2950 `�S \ 2500/3000 xxa ANION 2040 Ramp Traffic Volume HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane Match Line See Top Right 1-405/1-605/SR-22 West County Connectors Project (Currently Under Construction) Proposed General Purpose Lane Proposed Auxiliary Lane ALBERT 0 Proposed Express Lane ROVP.R& ASOCIA'1'NS SOURCE: POST PROCESSED YEAR 2040 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ARE BASED ON OCTAM 2035 TRAFFIC MODEL&GROWTH FACTORS Figure 1.2 CONCEPTUAL LANE SCHEMATICS ONLY. REFER TO PARSONS ALT 3 LAYOUT FOR DETAILS. 01/112112 Sheet 1 of 2 DRAFT r.� 1-405 PA/ED Alternative 3 Modified (2040) Freeway Traffic Volumes IMP AM/PM Peak Hours Express/HOV Volume On/Off General Purpose On/Oli Express/HOV Volume (88) Remp Volume Volume Ramp Volume (NB) Express/HOV Volume On/Off General Purpose WON Express/HOV Volume F6�ry (BB) Remp Volume Volume Ramp Volume (NB) X00 Match Line See Sheet 1,Bottom Right 50. s ns�h26o2 15,a�6/n,33z 1,086 11 433 '? 3 200/2 900 tlssll,asz 2,145/5848 6162[8,566' sao/21a2 s R D ELLS s WILLOW ST uaTEUA AVE AvE Euclid S#II Wsg zzr3/zs6o Willow # Katella Ave is,635/15597 O © a.orv23ss 18,069/14,116 �� HYLAND :9 zaa3re.re3 16997713,185 AVE 12,993114,777 p ss/2as3 r O V �?. B ,a HI Harbor.Blvd SERUM t;K zsos/zoss 18232(14,405 2 ti 1 7238f9,at3 ao9/z,3ze GC �9, 12545114239 oevz3l3 2 FROM FAIR M E RD sss/1,aes 8,103 t 6,815 T _ OV cj TO HARBOR BLVD hi h O SUSAN IF xE zn9/zlss 19,451115,085 x, � 0 V,865/13580 tom/2z6a 5 tiF!r 6 TO NB aos FairviewR Boa FAIR pEw RVEW RD J nw;u TO FAIRVIEW RD FROM SB 1-aos 2srs/z,aa3 16734114,328 s e 0 1529/1.450 3nW�� � t' v FROM NB I-405 0 WE SR-22 ?; FROM EB SR-22xi C Loe 2620/2046 „} M Ho%FRUME1 40s 1,500/1,500 ,13097718229 6o/1sa➢ 815(7f8492 z636/z1z3 o IS I-aos SEE FWY CONNECTORS ON SHEET 1,TOP LEFT r Ax nn .i A. VL 56 Bear St' I�nBo v BEAR N - R, oG s m 'i BEAR 1p°�\ x TO SOUTH COAST DR sT �J� �— ...TO FAiRVi[weD Y"^� - _ P p /.- IS IF Q �"E' TD SOUTH COAST DR/ ';W o FAIRVIEW RD/HARBOR BLVD le REAR 587/653 sT BEAR O P IT zsso/zzza F 14301 1a9 11,079/11867 6/2,373 33 � ,A LEGEND AM /PM L 2040 General Purpose Lane Traffic Volume SL 8 AM / PM 2040 HOV Traffic Volume 636/2,062 13178/10307 x 10,763/11660 E.rexs Lane AM / PM 2040 Express Lane Traffic Volume �;r BR s 0L ISTOL AM1PM 2040 Ramp Traffic Volume s BR IV IT HOV High—Occupancy Vehicle Lane Bristol St Proposed General Purpose Lane RNM Proposed Auxiliary Lane r.yo0 0 Proposed Express Lane �x „,' .:;StiT TO BR STOL sT eIS 14,484111,867 10,637(11,370 2127/227a A,BERT 4 AROVP.R&so,, SOURCE: POST PROCESSED YEAR 2040 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ARE BASED ON OCTAM 2035 TRAFFIC MODEL&GROWTH FACTORS Figure 1.2 CONCEPTUAL LANE SCHEMATICS ONLY. REFER TO PARSONS ALT 3 LAYOUT FOR DETAILS. ,,/oMn Sheet 2 of 2 DRAFT This page intentionally left blank. I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Magnolia/Wamer Interchange 2.0 MAGNOLIA/WARNER INTERCHANGE Traffic operations are evaluated for two design options at the Magnolia/Warner interchange. The first design option provides a southbound auxiliary lane from the Magnolia Street on-ramp to a point south of the Warner Avenue off-ramp in lieu of the southbound braided ramps proposed in the DEIR/EIS. The second design option provides a northbound C-D road serving the Warner Avenue on-ramp to and the Magnolia Street off-ramp from northbound I-405 mainline in lieu of the braided ramps proposed in the DEIR/EIS. Analysis provided below is based on Alternative 1 traffic conditions. The analysis for Alternatives 2 and 3 are assumed to be generally similar to Alternative 1. 2.1 I-405 Southbound Auxiliary Lane for Magnolia and Warner Ramps Under this design option the weave between the on-ramp to southbound I-405 from Magnolia Street and the off-ramp from southbound I-405 to Warner Avenue would be treated with an auxiliary lane extending from the Magnolia Street on-ramp beyond the Warner off-ramp for a distance of approximately 1,688 feet where it would be dropped with a taper extending an additional 600 feet. The auxiliary lane and taper would end approximately 481 feet north of the six (6) foot separation between the Warner Avenue on-ramp and southbound I-405. The on-ramp to southbound I-405 from Magnolia Street would have two lanes from the Magnolia Street intersection to the ramp meter, a distance of 754 feet. Downstream of the ramp meter the ramp would taper to a single lane entering the freeway at the beginning of the auxiliary lane described in the preceding paragraph. In the event that the amount of storage upstream of the ramp meter limit line on the on-ramp to southbound I-405 from Magnolia Street is inadequate to contain ramp meter queuing, the Project Condition lane configuration at the intersection of the I-405 Southbound Ramps and Magnolia Street would be reconfigured from the configuration included in the DEIR/EIS. The reconfiguration would provide three exclusive northbound through lanes, two exclusive southbound through lanes, one exclusive southbound right turn lane, dual left-turn lanes eastbound and dual-right turn lanes eastbound. The intersection would be signalized. The analysis consists of two components: • Weaving analysis on southbound I-405 between the Magnolia Street on-ramp and the Warner Avenue off-ramp; and • Intersection LOS analysis of the Magnolia/SB intersection. The HCS weaving analysis worksheets and the Synchro intersection LOS analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix III A. PARSONS 2-1 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Magnolia/Wamer Interchange Weaving Analysis. Weaving analysis was conducted for the proposed auxiliary lane between the on-ramp to southbound I-405 from Magnolia Street and the off-ramp from southbound I-405 to Warner Avenue. Analysis was conducted for both AM and PM peak hours in both the opening year (2020) and the design year (2040). The traffic volumes used for the analysis are those reported in the Traffic Study in Figures 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. However, the HCS software used for the analysis is limited to a weaving section with 5 lanes. The proposed weaving section would have 6 lanes (5 mainline GP lanes and the auxiliary lane). Therefore, the volumes input to the HCS software were adjusted to remove the through volumes associated with one GP lane. The analysis shows that the weaving section is anticipated to operate at LOS E and D during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, in 2020 and LOS F and E in 2040. Figures 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 of the Traffic Study show the minimum southbound mainline peak hour volume under Alternative 1 in the vicinity of the Magnolia/Warner interchange is 9,593. A volume of 9,593 exceeds the capacity of the Alternative 1 southbound GP lanes (1,850 vehicles per lane per hour x 5 GP lanes = 9,250). Given this over capacity condition, it is unlikely that the weaving segment will operate better than LOS F. Consistent with Section 2.1.3 Weaving Analysis Methodology of the Traffic Study, an additional weaving analysis was conducted for year 2040 using mainline freeway volumes constrained to a maximum volume per lane of 1,850 vehicles per hour. By constraining the mainline volumes, the second analysis provides an evaluation of the weaving without being overshadowed by oversaturated conditions on the freeway. This analysis of constrained freeway volumes provides an analysis of how well the weaving section is anticipated to operate when the freeway mainline is congested but not oversaturated, as in shoulder hours rather than peak hours. The constrained analysis shows that the weaving segment is anticipated to operate at LOS E and D, respectively, during the AM and PM shoulder hours. Intersection LOS Anal The amount of available storage on the Magnolia Street on-ramp to southbound I-405 upstream of the ramp meter limit line is 754 feet per lane for each of the two lanes. Table 3.8.6 in the Traffic Study shows the ramp meter queues for a two lane on-ramp upstream of the ramp meter under project conditions. The table shows that a maximum queue length of approximately 25 feet per lane is anticipated with a metering rate of 650 vehicles per hour (using a meter cycle length of approximately 5.5 seconds). In the event that a metering rate is selected that causes traffic to queue beyond the ramp onto southbound Magnolia Street, intersection LOS analysis was conducted to determine if the ramp intersection with Magnolia Street would operate acceptably with the curb lane dedicated to exclusively serving ramp traffic. The analysis shows that the intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour in years 2020 and 2040. For comparison purposes, Table 2.1 summarizes LOS, v/c ratios and average delays under the No Build Condition and Project traffic under No Build lane geometries. As shown in Table 2.1, the proposed intersection geometries under Project Condition allows the I-405 Southbound Off- PARSONS 2-2 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Magnolia/Wamer Interchange Ramp/Magnolia Street intersection to operate at LOS B or better compared to LOS F under the 2040 No Build Condition. The intersection does not meet the significant impact criteria and there are no significant traffic impacts at the intersection. 2.2 Design Option for I-405 Northbound Between Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street Under this design option a C-D road serving the Warner on-ramp to and the Magnolia Street off- ramp from northbound I-405 would be provided. The off-ramp to Warner from northbound I-405 would be served by a separate ramp departing the I-405 mainline 1,000 feet upstream of the exit to the proposed C-D road. The on-ramp Magnolia Street would be served by a separate ramp entering the I-405 mainline 2,078 feet downstream of the C-D road entrance to the freeway mainline. Operationally the ramps and their volumes entering and exiting the I-405 northbound mainline are the same as those evaluated in the Traffic Study. Therefore, the ramp junction analysis presented in Tables 2.5.3, 2.5.4, and 2.5.5 of the Traffic Study apply to this design option. The only operational difference between this design option and the braided ramp design analyzed in the Traffic Study is that the traffic volumes using the Warner on-ramp and the Magnolia Street off-ramp from northbound I-405 would weave on the proposed C-D road. In the Traffic Study these ramps are braided so that there is no weaving maneuver. Weaving analysis was conducted for the volumes weaving on the proposed C-D road. The HCS weaving analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix III B. The worksheets for year 2020 show that the weaving section is anticipated to operate at LOS B and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The worksheets for year 2040 show that the weaving section is anticipated to operate at LOS B and D during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. PARSONS 2-3 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Magnolia/Warner Interchange Table 2.1 Alternative 1 Magnolia/Warner Southbound Auxiliary Lane Design Option Intersection Level of Service for 1-405 Southbound Ramps& Magnolia Street AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Project Conditions(Build Traffic) o Project Conditions(Build Traffic) o' No Build Conditions r No Build Conditions No Improvements L' Traffic Control No Improvements With Improvements With Improvements (No Build Geometry) (Build Geometry) (No Build (guild Geometry) `t East/WestStreet North/South u Geometry) C u Street Avg r> Avg Avg a Avg Avg Avg a V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS' y V/C 'Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS y' (sec)> (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) 'r ,X'r 1-405 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized rn Magnolia St 0.66 N/A 0,23 N/A °o (from SB Magnolia St) Loop On-Ramp tw X I-405 SB Off-Ramp Existing Traffic w Magnolia St 0.88 23.0 C N/A 0.77 '18.0 B N/A (to NB&SB Magnolia St) Signal 1-405 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized Magnolia St 0,71 0L71 N/A Q.24 - 0.24' N/A (from SB Magnolia St) Loop On-Ramp 0 N 0.77 619 A 0.71 10.2 B N 1-405 SB Off-Ramp Existing Traffic (to NB&SB Magnolia St) Signal Magnolia St 0.97 36.7 D 0199 38.7 D N 0.83 '16.7 B 0.83 16.4 B N' 1-405 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized Magnolia St 033 0.73 N/A 0,25 - 0.25' N/A (from SB Magnolia St) Loop On-Ramp oa C 0.80 912 A 0.$0 19.8 B N 1-405 SB Off-Ramp Existing Traffic Magnolia St L�0237 F* 1115 70.4 F* N 0,88 '20.2 C 0.95 25.9 C N' (to NB&SB Magnolia St) Signal Notes: 1.LOS:Level of Service per delay methodology(2000 Highway Capacity Manual). 2.Level of Service analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 2B. v3.F*.Due to excessive volume-to-capacity ratio(over 1.0),the intersection is expected to operate at LOS F. J7 4.No Build Condition analysis is based on No Build traffic and geometry. 5.Project Condition(Build Traffic)No Improvements-Analysis is based on Project traffic under No Build Geometry. 6.Project Condition(Build Traffic)With Improvements-Analysis is based on Project traffic under Build Geometry. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study I-405 Northbound Approaching I-605 3.0 I-405 NORTHBOUND APPROACHING I-605 An operational analysis was conducted of northbound I-405 as it approaches the Seal Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7th Street, and I-605 interchanges. The purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the potential for disruption of smooth traffic flow to occur in this area as the additional lanes proposed in the build alternatives are terminated. The additional lanes proposed in each of the build alternatives continue into receiving lanes on branch connectors to SR-22/7th Street westbound and I-605 northbound. If more motorists desire to continue northbound on I-405 into LA County than there is freeway capacity continuing northbound on I-405 into LA County, there is the potential for disruption of the traffic flow along I-405. The analysis is limited to the general purpose (GP) lanes. The study area includes northbound I- 405 from the SR-22 confluence near Valley View Street through the exit to I-605 northbound and traffic data were collected for that area. The study takes speed as the primary indicator of a disruption of the smooth flow of traffic. Based on the information presented in the Traffic Study in Tables 3.1.6-4 and 3.1.6-12, the GP lanes of I-405 within the study area are anticipated to be over capacity during peak hours in years 2020 and 2040 with or without the proposed project and operating at LOS F under severely congested conditions. Section 4 of this Supplement shows that I-405 north of the project limits is also anticipated to operate under heavily congested conditions. Accordingly, it is not possible to accurately assess peak hour congestion attributable to the termination of the proposed new lanes, because heavy congestion is anticipated to occur along the entire corridor during peak hours regardless of the proposed project. Therefore, rather than evaluating conditions during peak hours, the analysis here evaluates "shoulder" hours (hours immediately preceding or following peak hours) during which the freeway is expected to be operating at or just below capacity; mainline freeway volumes used in the analysis are constrained to values indicative of somewhat limited congestion compared to extensive congestion anticipated during peak hours. 3.1 Existing Condition Peak hour volume and speed data were collected from the California Freeway Performance Measurement System(PEMS) for Tuesdays through Fridays during the month of March, 2009 at the following locations along northbound I-405: • North of the SR-22 merge near Valley View Street; • Between the ramps serving Seal Beach Boulevard; • North of the SR-22/7 ' Street exit; and • North of the exit to I-605 northbound. PARSONS 3-1 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study I-405 Northbound Approaching I-605 From the 17 days of data in March 2009, the daily AM and PM peak traffic hours were identified for the segment of I-405 north of the SR-22 merge. The peak hours identified north of the SR-22 merge were used to determine the average AM and PM peak hour volumes that are shown in Table 3.1. The average speeds for those same peak hours are also shown and were calculated by averaging the 12 five (5)-minute interval speeds that occurred over the peak hour. Table 3.1 shows that, during the PM peak hour, the existing reduction in the number of lanes in the northbound direction at the exits to SR-22/7 ' Street westbound and I-605 northbound does not adversely affect speeds. Indeed, the data show that, as traffic and lanes exit I-405 northbound, traffic speeds through the area increase. However, during the AM peak hour the data show that traffic speeds are reduced under the existing condition as motorists travel northbound along I-405 from SR-22 near Valley View Street to the I-605 interchange. Average speeds north of the exit to I-605 northbound during the AM peak hour prior to construction of the WCC project slow to an average of 49 miles-per-hour (mph) with some stop-and-go conditions. The AM peak hour volume and speed data for the segment of I-405 north of the exit to I-605 northbound are affected by congestion from the merge into northbound I-405 of the entrance ramp from southbound I-605. PEMS data for the AM peak hour volume and speed data show an hourly volume of 7,397 with an average speed of 46 mph in this congested area. This congested area backs into the upstream segment of northbound I-405 north of the exit to I-605 northbound and disrupts the traffic flow in that segment. If the congestion at the merge into northbound I-405 of the entrance ramp from southbound I-605 did not exist, traffic volumes and speeds on the upstream segment of northbound I-405 would be substantially higher. The magnitude of the existing AM traffic flow disruption of I-405 northbound traffic approaching the Seal Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7th Street, and I-605 interchange area is limited by upstream geometries that "meter" (or limit) the maximum volume of I-405 northbound traffic approaching the area. If upstream geometries permitted a higher traffic volume per hour to approach the Seal Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7th Street, and I-605 interchange area the magnitude of the traffic flow disruption would increase. 3.2 Future 2040 Condition Forecasts of future condition general purpose lane speeds are based on the following process. Under existing conditions the segment of northbound I-405 north of the SR-22 merge near Valley View Street operates at capacity during both AM and PM peak hours. Future traffic demand for this freeway segment is over capacity. (Refer to Traffic Study Tables 3.1.6-4 and 3.1.6-12.) It is therefore assumed that the maximum existing volume per lane in this segment would represent the future maximum operating volume per lane in this segment. The forecast AM and PM peak hour general purpose lane volumes in this segment are therefore the volume per lane under existing conditions multiplied by the number of lanes in each of the proposed alternatives. The 2040 northbound forecast volumes used in this analysis are presented in Table 3.2. PARSONS 3-2 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study I-405 Northbound Approaching I-605 The volumes used in this analysis are not the forecast traffic demand volumes presented in the Traffic Study, because those volumes are the same for all of the alternatives and because those are demand volumes that the freeway may not be capable of fully serving in a single hour. A complete table showing the traffic volumes and all other values used in this analysis is presented in Appendix IV. Alternatives 1 and 3 have the same number of general purpose lanes throughout the study area; consequently their data are the same and are presented in the tables below under a common heading. For segments downstream of the segment north of the SR-22 merge, future volumes were determined by subtracting forecast exiting volumes and adding forecast entering volumes. Forecast exiting volumes to Seal Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7 ' Street westbound, and I-605 northbound presented in the Traffic Study were reduced by the percentage by which their upstream mainline freeway volumes used in this analysis are lower than the volumes in the Traffic Study for the same segment. This process maintains the proportional relationship between freeway traffic and exiting traffic. Entering traffic at Seal Beach Boulevard is assumed to be the forecast demand volume presented in the Traffic Study. The entering and exiting volumes used in this analysis are presented in the Appendix IV. Volume-to-capacity(V/C) ratios were calculated for each of the northbound I-405 freeway segments shown in Table 3.2. For the calculation a capacity of 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour (vplph) was used for the segment "North of SR-22 Merge" and a capacity of 1,850 vplph was used for the segments in the Seal Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7th Street, and I-605 interchange area. The 2,000 vplph capacity used for the segment "North of SR-22 Merge" is based on the values found in the PEMS data indicating that the current capacity of this segment is nearly 2,000 vplph (nearly 12,000 summed across the existing 6 general purpose lanes). The 1,850 vplph used in the interchange areas is consistent with the capacity used in the Traffic Study and is fully explained in Appendix Al of the Traffic Study. The V/C ratios for each segment are shown in the Appendix IV of this Supplement. Forecast speeds were calculated using the V/C ratios based on the same process used to forecast speeds in the Traffic Study. The process is documented in Appendix Al of the Traffic Study. The forecast volumes and speeds for each alternative are presented in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 shows that, during the PM peak hour in year 2040, there will be minor disruption to traffic flow in the general purpose lanes under the No Build Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 3. Under the No Build Alternative speeds will fall to 54 mph and to 58 mph under Alternatives 1 and 3. Under Alternative 2 more substantial disruption to traffic will occur with speeds decreased to as low as 42 mph. During the AM peak hour in year 2040 Table 3.2 shows that there will be substantial disruption to traffic flow under all of the alternatives. Under the No Build Alternative speeds will decrease to as low as 49 mph, as low as 36 mph under Alternatives 1 and 3, and as low as 16 mph under Alternative 2. In general, the more lanes that are added by the build alternatives the greater the PARSONS 3-3 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study I-405 Northbound Approaching I-605 magnitude of the disruption to traffic flow in the Seal Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7th Street, and I- 605 interchange area. A comparison of the No Build Alternative in Table 3.2 to the existing condition in Table 3.1 appears to show that the disruption in traffic flow will improve despite increased traffic volumes on I-405 in the area of the Seal Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7th Street, and I-605 interchanges. A direct comparison of the forecast and existing condition speeds must be made with caution, because the forecast speeds are based on modeling and existing speeds are based on field observation. It is not likely that speeds will increase with growth in traffic. The largest increases in speed from the existing condition to the No Build Alternative occur on the segment north of the exit to I-605 northbound and could be partially attributable to the forecast speed model not accounting for any back up and reduced speeds due to downstream congestion where the I-605 southbound ramp merges into northbound I-405. It is also possible that the forecast speed model is slightly overstating forecast speeds on I-405,but the forecasts across the alternatives provide an accurate relative comparison. In summary, during the PM peak hour there is not substantial disruption in traffic flow in the general purpose lanes on northbound I-405 approaching the Seal Beach Boulevard, SR-22/7th Street, I-605 interchanges, nor is any expected under the future No Build Alternative or under Alternatives 1 or 3 in year 2040. However, slowing and substantial disruption in traffic flow is anticipated during the PM peak hour under Alternative 2. During the AM peak hour substantial slowing and substantial disruption in traffic flow is anticipated during the AM peak hour under all alternatives. The magnitude of the slowing and disruption in traffic flow is least under the No Build Alternative and increases with the number of additional general purpose lanes proposed under the build alternatives. PARSONS 3-4 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study I-405 Northbound Approaching I-605 Table 3.1 Existing 2009 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Speeds Northbound on 1-405 approaching the 1-605/SR-22/7th Street Interchange AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Number of Lanes Volume Speed Volume Speed North of SR-22 Merge 6 11,758 59 11,896 59 At Seal Beach Boulevard 6 11,048 59 11,156 58 North of SR-22/7th St Exit 5 9,677 58 9,653 64 North of Exit to 1-605 Northbound 4 6,510 49 5,822 67 Notes: GP=General Purpose Note: Peak hour is defined by the location North of SR-22;other locations show the volume and speed forthat same hour. Source: PEMS PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study I-405 Northbound Approaching I-605 Table 3.2 2040 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Speeds Northbound on 1-405 approaching the 1-605/SR-22/7th Street Interchange AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Number of Lanes Volume Speed Volume Speed No Build Alternative North of SR-22 Merge 6 11,758 59 11,896 59 At Seal Beach Boulevard 6 11,048 59 11,156 58 North of SR-22/7th St Exit 5 9,677 58 9,653 64 North Exit to 1-605 Northbound 4 6,510 49 5,822 67 Alternatives 1 and 3 North of SR-22 Merge 7 13,718 61 13,879 59 At Seal Beach Boulevard 7 13,075 58 12,961 58 North of SR-22/7th St Exit 6 11,545 54 11,146 58 North Exit to 1-605 Northbound 4 8,712 36 7,097 63 Alternative 2 North of SR-22 Merge 6 15,677 61 15,861 59 At Seal Beach Boulevard 6 14,943 58 14,812 58 North of SR-22/7th St Exit 5 13,093 36 12,617 42 North Exit to 1-605 Northbound 4 9,881 16 8,033 49 Notes: Source: Parsons GP=General Purpose PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study 4.0 LONG BEACH AREA TRAFFIC STUDY 4.1 Introduction The purpose of the Long Beach Area Traffic Study is to supplement the Traffic Study with traffic information to the areas north of the limits of the proposed freeway capacity enhancements in Orange County. The objective of the Long Beach Area Traffic Study is to determine the extent of any potential traffic impacts of the proposed project alternatives north of the limits of the proposed capacity improvements. The study area for the Long Beach Area Traffic Study includes: • I-405 from I-605 to Lakewood Boulevard; • I-605 from Katella Avenue to Carson Street; and • SR-22/7t' Street from I-405 to Pacific Coast Highway. The study area includes all of the interchanges along I-405 and I-605 within the limits noted above including arterial/ramp intersections and arterial/arterial intersections in the immediate vicinity of the interchanges. Figure 4.1-1 shows the study area. The 35 intersections included in the study area are shown in Figure 4.1-2. Traffic forecasts were prepared for each of the four alternatives under study utilizing OCTAM model. The four alternatives are fully described in the Traffic Study in Section 1.6 Project Alternatives Description. The following summaries of the four alternatives are presented for reference. • No Build Alternative: Under the No Build Alternative, no improvements would be made to the I-405 corridor within the project limits by the proposed project. No additional lanes or interchange improvements would be provided. Compared to the existing condition, as recorded in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (issued August 31, 2009) and the Notice of Intent (NOI) (issued September 1, 2009), the future No Build Alternative includes completion of the SR-22 West County Connectors Project, which is currently under construction. • Alternative 1: Alternative 1 would add a single GP lane in each direction on I-405 from Euclid Street to the I-605 interchange. • Alternative 2: Alternative 2 would add one GP lane in each direction on I-405 from Euclid Street to the I-605 interchange (as in Alternative 1), plus add a second GP lane in the northbound direction from Brookhurst Street to the SR-22/7th Street interchange and a second GP lane in the southbound direction from the Seal Beach Boulevard on-ramp to Brookhurst Street. • Alternative 3: Alternative 3 would add one GP lane in each direction on I-405 from Euclid Street to the I-605 interchange (as in Alternatives 1 and 2), plus add a tolled PARSONS 4-1 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Express Lane in each direction of I-405 from SR-73 to SR-22 East. The tolled Express Lane and the existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes would be managed jointly as a tolled Express Facility with two lanes in each direction from SR-73 to I-605. The tolled Express Facility would operate so that HOV2s would be tolled and HOV3+ would either be free or receive a discount. From SR-22 to I-605, the existing HOV lane and the second HOV lane that is being built as part of the WCC Project would become part of the tolled Express Facility. Traffic forecasts were prepared for each freeway segment and each study intersection within the study area. The forecast years are the same as the forecast years in the Traffic Study: opening year 2020 and design year 2040. The forecast method uses the same OCTAM forecasts that were used in the Traffic Study and explained in Section 2.2.2 of the Traffic Study, except that the fourth step of the forecasting process, trip assignment, was rerun after additional roadway segments were coded into the highway network within the study area for the Long Beach Area Traffic Study. Additionally, separate traffic forecasts were used for each of the four alternatives under study. The analytical methods used for the freeway are the same Highway Capacity Manual methods those described in the Traffic Study in Section 2.1.1 Freeway Mainline Analysis Methodology, Section 2.1.2 Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis Methodology, and Section 2.1.3 Weaving Analysis Methodology. The analytical methods used for the arterials in the interchange areas are the same Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methods described in the Traffic Study in Section 3.1.1 Intersection Level of Service Analyses and Section 3.1.2 Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Off-Ramps. For the freeways, impacts are evaluated in terms of changes in level-of-service (LOS) and volume-to-capacity (V/C) or demand-to-capacity (D/C) ratios. For arterial intersections the City of Long Beach criteria are used to evaluate potential impacts. The City of Long Beach criteria are applied using the Highway Capacity Manual operational intersection analysis methods for signalized and unsignalized intersections. A signalized intersection operating with a LOS E or F and whose D/C ratio increases by more than 0.02 under "with project" condition compared to No Build Alternative is considered exceeds the City of Long Beach criteria. An unsignalized intersection operating with LOS E or F under "with project" conditions is to be reanalyzed assuming a traffic signal to determine if the intersection exceeds the City of Long Beach criteria. The geometric conditions and type of traffic control for years 2020 and 2040 are assumed to be unchanged from the existing conditions. There are no committed projects within the study area for the Long Beach Traffic Study. Figure 4.1-3 presents the intersection geometries and Figure 4.1-4 presents the freeway geometries. 4.2 Existing (Year 2009) Conditions This section of the report provides an analysis of the study intersections and mainline freeway as well as the freeway/ramp junction locations for Existing (Year 2009) conditions. Existing (Year 2009) conditions analyses are based on year 2009 traffic volumes and current traffic control/lane PARSONS 4-2 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study geometries at the study intersections and freeway segments and ramps within the project limits. The HCM methodology was used to analyze the LOS at all the analysis locations. Intersection analysis worksheets for Existing (Year 2009) condition are provided in Appendix V.A. Freeway analyses worksheets for Existing (Year 2009) condition are provided in Appendix V.B, V.0 and V.D. 4.2.1 Existing (Year 2009) Traffic Volumes Existing (Year 2009) peak hour intersection traffic volumes is presented in Figure 4.2-1 and peak hour freeway traffic volumes along the I-405 mainline, I-605 mainline and SR-22/7t' Street mainline and all interchange ramps within the study area are illustrated in Figure 4.2-2. 4.2.2 Existing (2009) Intersection Traffic Analysis A summary of level of service (LOS) for the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours for existing conditions, including traffic control at study intersections, is provided in Table 4.2-1. The LOS analysis conducted for existing conditions indicates that all study currently operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours except for the following intersections that are currently operating at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hours: • Willow Street/Lakewood Boulevard(PM LOS=E and V/C=0.92) • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard (AM LOS=F and V/C=0.84) • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard(PM LOS=E and V/C=0.97) • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal(PM LOS=F and V/C=0.74) • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue (AM LOS=F and V/C= 1.07) • Woodruff Avenue/Palo Verde (AM LOS=F and V/C=0.87) • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/College Park Dr (PM LOS=F and V/C=0.65) • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway(AM LOS=F and V/C=0.95; PM LOS=F and V/C= 1.03) • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=E and V/C= 1.01;PM LOS=F and V/C=0.91) • 7h Street/W. Campus Drive (AM LOS=F and V/C=0.83) A comparison of existing vehicle queuing (AM and PM peak hour 95t' percentile queues) and available queue storage (in feet) is included in Table 4.2-2. During the peak hours, most of the turn pockets at the arterial intersections currently provide sufficient queue storage except at the following locations: • Carson Street/Pioneer Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane PARSONS 4-3 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Palo Verde - Eastbound right turn lane • Stearns Street/Palo Verde - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • I-405 NB Direct On-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Northbound left turn lane • Atherton Street/Studebaker Road - Eastbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Northbound right turn lane • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Pacific Coast Highway/Bellflower Boulevard - Westbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Channel Drive - Westbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/W. Campus Drive - Southbound left/right turn lane • 7t' Street/E. Campus Drive - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane The freeway off-ramp vehicle queuing is also shown in Table 4.2-2. During the peak hours all the freeway off-ramps provide sufficient storage to accommodate the queues under Existing (Year 2009) conditions. 4.2.3 Existing (Year 2009) Freeway Traffic Analysis Findings for the northbound and southbound freeway segments under Existing (Year 2009) conditions are summarized in Table 4.2-3. The peak hour capacity, volume, V/C ratio, density and LOS for all the freeway segments are shown. PARSONS 4-4 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Under Existing (Year 2009) conditions, the northbound I-405 mainline currently operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. The southbound I-405 mainline currently operates at LOS D during both the AM and PM peak hours except at one segment location. The southbound I-405 segment between Woodruff Avenue and Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street currently operates at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound and southbound I-405 HOV lanes currently operate below capacity except during the AM peak hour in the northbound direction between Temple Avenue and Studebaker Road with D/C ratios ranging between 1.04 and 1.06. Under Existing (Year 2009) conditions, the I-605 freeway mainline segments currently operate at LOS C or D during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions except for the segments between Carson Street and Spring Street. In the northbound direction, the segments between Carson Street and Spring Street are currently operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. In the southbound direction, the segment between Carson Street and the HOV transition area is currently operating at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound and southbound I-605 HOV lanes are currently operating below capacity. Under Existing (Year 2009) conditions, the SR-22/7t' Street freeway mainline segment between Pepper Tree Lane and Studebaker Road operates from LOS A to LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions, while the segment between Studebaker Road and I-605 operates from LOS D to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis and Levels of Service The density and LOS for each of the ramps along I-405, I-605 and SR-22/7t' Street within the study area for Existing (Year 2009) conditions are based on year 2009 traffic volumes. Table 4.2-4 provides a summary of the findings from the analyses for Existing (Year 2009) conditions during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The peak hour capacity, volume, V/C ratio, density, and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under Existing (Year 2009) conditions, the I-405 ramp junction peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS B to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. Similarly, the SR- 22/7t' Street ramp junction peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS B to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. For the I-605 ramp junction peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS A to LOS E, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The freeway-to-freeway branch connectors are currently operating at under-capacity during both AM and PM peak hours except at one location. The V/C ratio for the branch connector from I- 605 southbound to 7t' Street/I-405 is currently 1.51 and 1.33 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Weaving• Weaving analysis was conducted between on-ramps and off-ramps spaced less than 2,500 feet apart. Separate analyses were conducted, as appropriate, for freeways and collector-distributor (C-D) roads. Weaving analyses for Existing (2009) conditions is based on year 2009 traffic volumes. Table 4.2-5 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for Existing (2009) conditions PARSONS 4-5 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study for both the freeway segments and the C-D roads. The density and LOS for all the weaving sections are shown. Under Existing (Year 2009) conditions, I-405 mainline freeway weaving segments operate between LOS D and LOS F. Weaving analysis was conducted for the C-D roads at the Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street interchange and the Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal interchange. The analysis shows that the weaving segments on the C-D roads currently operate between LOS A and C during the peak hours. 4.3 No Build Alternative Conditions This section of the report provides an analysis of the study intersections and mainline freeway as well as the freeway/ramp junction locations for years 2020 and 2040 No Build Alternative conditions. No Build Alternative conditions analyses are based on forecasted years 2020 and 2040 No Build Alternative traffic volumes and year 2009 traffic control/lane geometries at the study intersections and freeway segments and ramps within the project limits. As discussed in Section 4.1, geometric conditions and type of traffic control for years 2020 and 2040 are assumed to be unchanged from existing conditions (Year 2009). Intersection analysis worksheets for years 2020 and 2040 No Build Alternative conditions are provided in Appendix VI.A. Freeway analyses worksheets for years 2020 and 2040 No Build Alternative conditions are provided in Appendix VI.B. 4.3.1 No Build Alternative Traffic Volumes Year 2020 No Build Alternative intersection peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4.3-1. Year 2040 No Build Alternative intersection peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4.3-2. Years 2020 and 2040 No Build peak hour traffic volumes for the I-405 mainline, I-605 mainline and SR-22/7t' Street mainline and all interchange ramps within the study area are illustrated in Figures 4.3-3 and 4.3-4,respectively. 4.3.2 No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Intersection Traffic Analysis A summary of LOS for AM and PM peak hours for year 2020 No Build Alternative conditions, including traffic control at study intersections, is provided in Table 4.3-1. The LOS analysis conducted for year 2020 No Build Alternative conditions indicates that all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours except for the following intersections that are anticipated to operate at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hours: • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue (AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.33) • I-405 SB Direct Off-Ramp/Studebaker Rd(AM LOS=F and D/C=0.86) • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/College Park Dr (PM LOS=F and D/C=0.61) • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.04) A comparison of year 2020 No Build Alternative vehicle queuing (AM and PM peak hour 95t' percentile queues) and available queue storage (in feet) is included in Table 4.3-2. During the peak hours, most of the turn pockets at the arterial intersections are anticipated to provide sufficient queue storage except at the following locations: PARSONS 4-6 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study • Carson Street/Pioneer Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Lakewood Boulevard - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Stearns Street/Palo Verde - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Atherton Street/Studebaker Road - Eastbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Pacific Coast Highway/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/W. Campus Drive - Southbound left/right turn lane • 7h Street/E. Campus Drive PARSONS 4-7 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane The freeway off-ramp vehicle queuing is also shown in Table 4.3-2. During the peak hours, two freeway off-ramp locations are anticipated to exceed the available storage length under year 2020 No Build Alternative conditions: • Carson Street/I-605 SB Off-Ramp - Southbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Westbound right turn lane 4.3.3 No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Intersection Traffic Analysis A summary of LOS for AM and PM peak hours for year 2040 No Build Alternative conditions, including traffic control at study intersections, is provided in Table 4.3-3. The LOS analysis conducted for year 2040 No Build Alternative conditions indicates that all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours except for the following intersections that are anticipated to operate at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hours: • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.09; PM LOS=E, D/C= 1.09) • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard(PM LOS=E and D/C= 1.13) • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue (AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.44) • I-405 SB Direct Off-Ramp/Studebaker Rd(AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.02) • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/College Park Dr (PM LOS=F and D/C=0.84) • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.02; PM LOS=E, D/C= 1.03) • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.13;PM LOS=E and D/C= 1.06) • 7h Street/W. Campus Drive (PM LOS=E and D/C=0.87) • 7h Street/E. Campus Drive (AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.12) A comparison of year 2040 No Build Alternative vehicle queuing (AM and PM peak hour 95t' percentile queues) and available queue storage (in feet) is included in Table 4.3-4. During the peak hours, most of the turn pockets at the arterial intersections are anticipated to provide sufficient queue storage except at the following locations: • Carson Street/Pioneer Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Spring Street/Cerritos Ave/I-605 NB On-Ramp - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Lakewood Boulevard - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane PARSONS 4-8 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal - Southbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Woodruff Ave/Palo Verde - Eastbound left turn lane • Stearns Street/Palo Verde - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Atherton Street/Studebaker Road - Eastbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Pacific Coast Highway/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/W. Campus Drive - Southbound left/right turn lane • 7t' Street/E. Campus Drive - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane The freeway off-ramp vehicle queuing is also shown in Table 4.3-4. During the peak hours, two freeway off-ramp locations are anticipated to exceed the available storage length under year 2040 No Build Alternative conditions: PARSONS 4-9 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study • Carson Street/I-605 SB Off-Ramp - Southbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Westbound right turn lane 4.3.4 No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Freeway Traffic Analysis Findings for the northbound and southbound freeway segments under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2020 are summarized in Table 4.3-5. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density and LOS for all the freeway segments are shown. Under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2020, the I-405 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate at either LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions with few exceptions. The exceptions include the I-405 southbound segment between Studebaker Road to I-605 southbound ramp which is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. Majority of the northbound and southbound I-405 HOV lanes are anticipated to operate at over-capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2020 No Build Alternative conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.01 to 1.51. Under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2020, the I-605 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate between LOS B and LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions except for the segment between Carson Street and Spring Street, which southbound movement is anticipated to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and the northbound movement is anticipated to operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2020, the SR-22/7t' Street freeway mainline segment between Pepper Tree Lane and Studebaker Road, is anticipated to operate at LOS B or LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions, while the segment between Studebaker Road and I-605, is anticipated to operate from LOS E to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis and Levels of Service The density and LOS for each of the ramps along I-405, I-605 and SR-22/7t' Street within the study area for No Build Alternative are based on projected year 2020 traffic volumes. Table 4.3-6 provide a summary of the findings from the analysis for year 2020 No Build Alternative conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density, and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2020, the projected LOS for the I-405 ramp junctions generally ranges from LOS B to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. For the I-605 ramp junctions, the peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS A to LOS E, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The peak hour LOS expected for the SR- 22/7t' Street ramp junctions, generally ranges from LOS C to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The freeway-to-freeway branch connectors are anticipated to operate at under-capacity during both AM and PM peak hours except at two locations. The D/C ratio for the branch connector PARSONS 4-10 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study from I-605 southbound to 7t' Street/I-405 is anticipated to be 1.32 and 1.12 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The branch connector from I-605 southbound/I-405 southbound to 7t' Street is expected to have a D/C ratio of 1.13 during the AM peak hour. Weaving Analysis Weaving analysis was conducted between on-ramps and off-ramps spaced less than 2,500 feet apart. Separate analyses were conducted, as appropriate, for freeways and C-D roads. Weaving analyses for No Build Alternative are based on projected year 2020 traffic volumes. Table 4.3-7 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for year 2020 conditions for No Build Alternative for both the freeway segments and the C-D roads. The density and LOS for all the weaving sections are shown. Under year 2020 No Build Alternative condition, the I-405 freeway weaving segments are anticipated to operate at LOS E or LOS F during the peak hours except at one location during the AM peak hour. The I-405 southbound freeway weaving segment between Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street and Studebaker Road is expected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour. Weaving analysis was conducted for the C-D roads at the Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street interchange and the Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal interchange. The analysis shows that the weaving segments on the C-D roads are anticipated to operate between LOS A and C during the peak hours. 4.3.5 No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Freeway Traffic Analysis Findings for the northbound and southbound freeway segments under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2040 are summarized in Table 4.3-8. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density and LOS for all the freeway segments are shown. Under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2040, the I-405 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate at either LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions with few exceptions. The exceptions include the I-405 southbound segment between Studebaker Road to I-605 southbound ramp which is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour. The northbound and southbound I-405 HOV lanes within the project limits are anticipated to operate at over-capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2040 No Build Alternative conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.01 to 1.63. Under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2040, the I-605 freeway mainline segments are anticipated to operate between LOS C and LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions except for the freeway segment between Carson Street and Spring Street. The northbound I-605 freeway segment between Carson Street and Spring Street is anticipated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The southbound I-605 freeway segment between Carson Street and Spring Street is anticipated to operate at LOS F and E during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2040, the SR-22/7t' Street freeway mainline segment between Pepper Tree Lane and Studebaker Road, is anticipated to operate at LOS B or LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions, while the segment between Studebaker Road and I-605, is anticipated to operate between LOS E to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. PARSONS 4-11 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis and Levels of Service The density and LOS for each of the ramps along I-405, I-605 and SR-22/7t' Street within the study area for No Build Alternative are based on projected year 2040 traffic volumes. Table 4.3-9 provide a summary of the findings from the analysis for year 2040 No Build Alternative conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density, and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2040, the projected LOS for the I-405 ramp junctions generally ranges from LOS B to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. For the I-605 ramp junctions, the peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS A to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The peak hour LOS expected for the SR- 22/7t' Street ramp junctions, generally ranges from LOS C to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The freeway-to-freeway branch connectors are anticipated to operate at under-capacity during both AM and PM peak hours except at two locations. The D/C ratio for the branch connector from I-605 southbound to 7t' Street/I-405 is anticipated to be 1.43 and 1.21 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The branch connector from I-605 southbound/I-405 southbound to 7t' Street is expected to have a D/C ratio of 1.22 during the AM peak hour. Weaving• Weaving analysis was conducted between on-ramps and off-ramps spaced less than 2,500 feet apart. Separate analyses were conducted, as appropriate, for freeways and C-D roads. Weaving analyses for No Build Alternative are based on projected year 2040 traffic volumes. Table 4.3- 10 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for year 2040 conditions for No Build Alternative for both the freeway segments and the C-D roads. For year 2040 conditions, the mainline freeway weaving segments are projected to operate at LOS E to LOS F during the peak hours. Weaving analysis was conducted for the C-D roads at the Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street interchange and the Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal interchange. The analysis shows that the weaving segments on the C-D roads are anticipated to operate between LOS A and C during the peak hours. 4.4 Alternative 1 Conditions This section of the report provides an analysis of the study intersections and mainline freeway as well as the freeway/ramp junction locations for years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 1 conditions. Alternative 1 condition analyses are based on forecasted years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 1 traffic volumes and year 2009 traffic control/lane geometries at the study intersections and freeway segments and ramps within the project limits. As discussed in Section 4.1, geometric conditions and type of traffic control for years 2020 and 2040 are assumed to be unchanged from existing conditions (Year 2009). Intersection analysis worksheets for years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 1 conditions are provided in Appendix VII.A. Freeway analyses worksheets for years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 1 conditions are provided in Appendix VILB. PARSONS 4-12 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study 4.4.1 Alternative 1 Traffic Volumes Year 2020 Alternative 1 intersection peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4.4-1. Year 2040 Alternative 1 intersection peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4.4-2. Years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 1 peak hour traffic volumes for the I-405 mainline, I-605 mainline and SR-22/7th Street mainline and all interchange ramps within the study area are illustrated in Figures 4.4-3 and 4.4-4,respectively. 4.4.2 Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Intersection Traffic Analysis A summary of LOS for AM and PM peak hours for year 2020 Alternative 1 conditions, including traffic control at study intersections, is provided in Table 4.4-1. The LOS analysis conducted for year 2020 Alternative 1 conditions indicates that all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours except for the following intersections that are anticipated to operate at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hours: • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue (AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.32) • I-405 SB Direct Off-Ramp/Studebaker Rd(AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.03) • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/College Park Dr (PM LOS=F and D/C=0.73) • 7th Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.06) A comparison of year 2020 Alternative 1 vehicle queuing (AM and PM peak hour 95th percentile queues) and available queue storage (in feet) is included in Table 4.4-2. During the peak hours, most of the turn pockets at the arterial intersections are anticipated to provide sufficient queue storage except at the following locations: • Carson Street/Pioneer Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane PARSONS 4-13 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study • Stearns Street/Palo Verde - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Atherton Street/Studebaker Road - Eastbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/W. Campus Drive - Southbound left/right turn lane • 7t' Street/E. Campus Drive - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane The freeway off-ramp vehicle queuing is also shown in Table 4.4-2. During the peak hours, two freeway off-ramp locations are anticipated to exceed the available storage length under year 2020 Alternative 1 conditions: • Carson Street/I-605 SB Off-Ramp - Southbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Westbound right turn lane 4.4.3 Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Intersection Traffic Analysis A summary of LOS for AM and PM peak hours for year 2040 Alternative 1 conditions, including traffic control at study intersections, is provided in Table 4.4-3. The LOS analysis conducted for year 2040 Alternative 1 conditions indicates that all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours except for the following intersections that are anticipated to operate at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hours: • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.09; PM LOS=E, D/C= 1.10) • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard(PM LOS=E and D/C= 1.15) • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue (AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.43) • I-405 SB Direct Off-Ramp/Studebaker Rd(AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.24) • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/College Park Dr (PM LOS=F and D/C= 1.00) • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.04; PM LOS=E, D/C= 1.04) PARSONS 4-14 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.14;PM LOS=E and D/C= 1.04) • 7h Street/W. Campus Drive (AM LOS=E and D/C=0.86; PM LOS=E, D/C=0.89) • 7th Street/E. Campus Drive (AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.13) A comparison of year 2040 Alternative 1 vehicle queuing (AM and PM peak hour 95t'percentile queues) and available queue storage (in feet) is included in Table 4.4-4. During the peak hours, most of the turn pockets at the arterial intersections are anticipated to provide sufficient queue storage except at the following locations: • Carson Street/Pioneer Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Lakewood Boulevard - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Woodruff Avenue/Palo Verde - Eastbound left turn lane • Stearns Street/Palo Verde - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Atherton Street/Studebaker Road - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane PARSONS 4-15 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Pacific Coast Highway/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/W. Campus Drive - Southbound left/right turn lane • 7t' Street/E. Campus Drive - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane The freeway off-ramp vehicle queuing is also shown in Table 4.4-4. During the peak hours, two freeway off-ramp locations are anticipated to exceed the available storage length under year 2040 Alternative 1 conditions: • Carson Street/I-605 SB Off-Ramp - Southbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Westbound right turn lane 4.4.4 Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Freeway Traffic Analysis Findings for the northbound and southbound freeway segments under Alternative 1 conditions for year 2020 are summarized in Table 4.4-5. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density and LOS for all the freeway segments are shown. Under Alternative 1 conditions for year 2020, the I-405 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate at either LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions with few exceptions. The exceptions include the I-405 southbound segments between Studebaker Road to I-605 southbound ramp which is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour. Majority of the northbound and southbound I-405 HOV lanes are anticipated to operate at over- capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2020 No Build Alternative conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.07 to 1.30. Under Alternative 1 conditions for year 2020, the I-605 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate between LOS B and LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions except for the segment between Carson Street and Spring Street, which southbound movement is anticipated to operate at LOS E during both peak hours and the northbound movement is anticipated to operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Under No Build Alternative conditions for year 2020, the SR-22/7t' Street freeway mainline segment between Pepper Tree Lane and Studebaker Road, is anticipated to operate at LOS B or PARSONS 4-16 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions, while the segment between Studebaker Road and I-605 is anticipated to operate from LOS D to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis and Levels of Service The density and LOS for each of the ramps along I-405, I-605 and SR-22/7t' Street within the study area for No Build Alternative are based on projected year 2020 traffic volumes. Table 4.4-6 provide a summary of the findings from the analyses for year 2020 Alternative 1 conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density, and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under Alternative 1 conditions for year 2020, the projected LOS for the I-405 ramp junctions generally ranges from LOS B to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. For the I-605 ramp junctions, the peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS A to LOS E, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The peak hour LOS expected for the SR-22/7t' Street ramp junctions, generally ranges from LOS C to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The freeway-to-freeway branch connectors are anticipated to operate at under-capacity during both AM and PM peak hours except at two locations. The D/C ratio for the branch connector from I-605 southbound to 7t' Street/I-405 is anticipated to be 1.38 and 1.18 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The branch connector from I-605 southbound/I-405 southbound to 7t' Street is expected to have a D/C ratio of 1.19 during the AM peak hour. Weaving• Weaving analysis was conducted between on-ramps and off-ramps spaced less than 2,500 feet apart. Separate analyses were conducted, as appropriate, for freeways and C-D roads. Weaving analysis for Alternative 1 is based on projected year 2020 traffic volumes. Table 4.4-7 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for year 2020 conditions for Alternative 1 for both the freeway segments and the C-D roads. The density and LOS for all the weaving sections are shown. Under year 2020 Alternative 1 condition, the I-405 freeway weaving segments are anticipated to operate at LOS E or LOS F during the peak hours except at one location during the AM peak hour. The I-405 southbound freeway weaving segment between Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street and Studebaker Road is expected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour. Weaving analysis was conducted for the C-D roads at the Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street interchange and the Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal interchange. The analysis shows that the weaving segments on the C-D roads are anticipated to operate between LOS A and C during the peak hours. 4.4.5 Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Freeway Traffic Analysis Findings for the northbound and southbound freeway segments under Alternative 1 conditions for year 2040 are summarized in Table 4.4-8. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density and LOS for all the freeway segments are shown. PARSONS 4-17 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Under Alternative 1 conditions for year 2040, the I-405 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate at either LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions The northbound and southbound I-405 HOV lanes within the project limits are anticipated to operate at over-capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2020 Alternative 1 conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.16 to 1.41. Under Alternative 1 conditions for year 2040, the I-605 freeway mainline segments are anticipated to operate between LOS C and LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions except for the freeway segment between Carson Street and Spring Street. The northbound I-605 freeway segment between Carson Street and Spring Street is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The southbound I-605 freeway segment between Carson Street and Spring Street is anticipated to operate at LOS F and E during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Under Alternative 1 conditions for year 2040, the SR-22/7t' Street freeway mainline segment between Pepper Tree Lane and Studebaker Road, is anticipated to operate at LOS B or LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions, while the segment between Studebaker Road and I-605, is anticipated to operate between LOS D to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis and Levels of Service The density and LOS for each of the ramps along I-405, I-605 and SR-22/7t' Street within the study area for Alternative 1 are based on projected Alternative 1 year 2040 traffic volumes. Table 4.4-9 provide a summary of the findings from the analysis for year 2040 Alternative 1 conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density, and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under Alternative 1 conditions for year 2040, the projected LOS for the I-405 ramp junctions generally ranges from LOS B to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. For the I-605 ramp junctions, the peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS A to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The peak hour LOS expected for the SR-22/7t' Street ramp junctions, generally ranges from LOS C to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The freeway-to-freeway branch connectors are anticipated to operate at under-capacity during both AM and PM peak hours except at two locations. The D/C ratio for the branch connector from I-605 southbound to 7t' Street/I-405 is anticipated to be 1.49 and 1.27 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The branch connector from I-605 southbound/I-405 southbound to 7t' Street is expected to have a D/C ratio of 1.19 during the AM peak hour. Weaving• Weaving analysis was conducted between on-ramps and off-ramps spaced less than 2,500 feet apart. Separate analyses were conducted, as appropriate, for freeways and C-D roads. Weaving analysis for Alternative 1 are based on projected year 2040 traffic volumes. Table 4.4-10 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for year 2040 conditions for Alternative 1 for both the freeway segments and the C-D roads. PARSONS 4-18 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study For year 2040 Alternative 1 conditions, the mainline freeway weaving segments are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F during the peak hours. Weaving analysis was conducted for the C-D roads at the Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street interchange and the Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal interchange. The analysis shows that the weaving segments on the C-D roads are anticipated to operate between LOS A and C during the peak hours. 4.4.6 Alternative 1 vs. No Build Alternative Comparison and Proposed Roadway Improvements Intersection Table 4.4-12 presents a comparison of Year 2040 No Build Alternative and Year 2040 Alternative 1 operating conditions anticipated for the study intersections. As shown in the table, the SR-22 westbound On/Off Ramp and College Park Drive intersection is projected to operate with LOS F during the PM peak hour under the No-Build Alternative with a Demand to Capacity (D/C) ratio of 1.16. This intersection under Alternative 1 is projected to have an increase in the D/C ratio of 0.03 for a total operating D/C ratio of 1.19 during the PM peak hour. Based on the comparison above, the following roadway improvements could be considered to improve the intersection year 2040 operating condition as well as improve safety: • Widen SR-22 westbound On/Off Ramp from one lane to two lanes approximately 200 feet east of the intersection extending to Studebaker Road as shown on Figure 4.4-5. This proposed roadway improvement could be accommodated within existing right-of-way; and • Provide a traffic signal to control traffic movements instead of existing one-way stop control placed at the westbound College Park Drive. Table 4.4-11 presents a comparison of Year 2020 No Build Alternative and Year 2020 Alternative 1 operating conditions anticipated for the study intersections. As shown in the table, the above roadway improvements are necessary by year 2020 to improve the intersection operating condition, which is projected to have a D/C ratio of 1.07 and LOS F under the No- Build Alternative and D/C ratio of 1.10 and LOS F under Alternative 1. Table 4.4-12 shows intersections LOS and D/C ratio during AM and PM peak hours for Year 2040 Alternative 1 with the recommended roadway improvements. Freeway Mainline Table 4.4-13 presents a comparison of year 2020 No Build Alternative and year 2020 Alternative 1 operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway segments. The table shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No Build Alternative to Alternative 1 in many segments, with the range of increase in the GP lanes from 0.01 to 0.18 during peak hours. Higher levels of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the project improvements and diminish with increasing distance from those limits. There are several segments in which there is a decrease in the D/C ratio, shown in red on Table 4.4-13. Those segments that are anticipated to have a change in LOS are identified in the Evaluation column in the table. PARSONS 4-19 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-14 presents a comparison of year 2040 No Build Alternative and year 2040 Alternative 1 operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway segments. The table shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No Build Alternative to Alternative 1 in many segments, with the range of increase in the GP lanes from 0.01 to 0.31 during peak hours. Higher levels of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the project improvements and diminish with increasing distance from those limits. There are several segments in which there is a decrease in the D/C ratio, shown in red on Table 4.4-14. Those segments that are anticipated to have a change in LOS are identified in the Evaluation column in the table. 4.5 Alternative 2 Conditions This section of the report provides an analysis of the study intersections and mainline freeway as well as the freeway/ramp junction locations for years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 2 conditions. Alternative 2 condition analyses are based on forecasted years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 2 traffic volumes and year 2009 traffic control/lane geometries at the study intersections and freeway segments and ramps within the project limits. As discussed in Section 4.1, geometric conditions and type of traffic control for years 2020 and 2040 are assumed to be unchanged from existing conditions (Year 2009). Intersection analysis worksheets for years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 2 conditions are provided in Appendix VIII.A. Freeway analyses worksheets for years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 2 conditions are provided in Appendix VIII.B. 4.5.1 Alternative 2 Traffic Volumes Year 2020 Alternative 2 intersection peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4.5-1. Year 2040 Alternative 2 intersection peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4.5-2. Years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 2 peak hour traffic volumes for the I-405 mainline, I-605 mainline and SR-22/7th Street mainline and all interchange ramps within the study area are illustrated in Figures 4.5-3 and 4.5-4,respectively. 4.5.2 Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Intersection Traffic Analysis A summary of LOS for AM and PM peak hours for year 2020 Alternative 2 conditions, including traffic control at study intersections, is provided in Table 4.5-1. The LOS analysis conducted for year 2020 Alternative 2 conditions indicates that all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours except for the following intersections that are anticipated to operating at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hours: • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard (PM LOS=E and D/C= 1.16) • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal(PM LOS=E and D/C= 1.25) • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue (AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.41) • I-405 SB Direct Off-Ramp/Studebaker Rd(AM LOS=F and D/C=0.90) • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/College Park Dr (PM LOS=F and D/C= 1.14) • 7th Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.09) PARSONS 4-20 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study A comparison of year 2020 Alternative 2 vehicle queuing (AM and PM peak hour 95t'percentile queues) and available queue storage (in feet) is included in Table 4.5-2. During the peak hours, most of the turn pockets at the arterial intersections are anticipated to provide sufficient queue storage except at the following locations: • Carson Street/Pioneer Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Stearns Street/Palo Verde - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Atherton Street/Studebaker Road - Eastbound left turn lane • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Southbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Pacific Coast Highway/Bellflower Boulevard - Eastbound left turn lane • 7h Street/W. Campus Drive PARSONS 4-21 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study - Southbound left/right turn lane • 7t' Street/E. Campus Drive - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane The freeway off-ramp vehicle queuing is also shown in Table 4.5-2. During the peak hours, two freeway off-ramp locations are anticipated to exceed the available storage length under year 2020 Alternative 2 conditions: • Carson Street/I-605 SB Off-Ramp - Southbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Westbound right turn lane 4.5.3 Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Intersection Traffic Analysis A summary of LOS for AM and PM peak hours for year 2040 Alternative 2 conditions, including traffic control at study intersections, is provided in Table 4.5-3. The LOS analysis conducted for year 2040 Alternative 2 conditions indicates that all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours except for the following intersections that are anticipated to operate at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hours: • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard(PM LOS=E,D/C= 1.25) • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal(AM LOS=E and D/C=0.99; PM LOS=F and D/C= 1.41) • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue (AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.53; PM LOS=F,D/C=0.95) • I-405 SB Direct Off-Ramp/Studebaker Rd(AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.04) • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/College Park Dr (AM LOS=E and D/C=0.75; PM LOS=F and D/C= 1.59) • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.04; PM LOS=E, D/C= 1.07) • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.18;PM LOS=E and D/C= 1.06) • 7h Street/W. Campus Drive (AM LOS=E and D/C=0.89; PM LOS=E, D/C=0.90) • 7th Street/E. Campus Drive (AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.17) A comparison of year 2040 Alternative 2 vehicle queuing (AM and PM peak hour 95t'percentile queues) and available queue storage (in feet) is included in Table 4.5-4. During the peak hours, most of the turn pockets at the arterial intersections are anticipated to provide sufficient queue storage except at the following locations: • Carson Street/Pioneer Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Lakewood Boulevard - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane PARSONS 4-22 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Stearns Street/Palo Verde - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Atherton Street/Studebaker Road - Eastbound left turn lane • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Southbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Pacific Coast Highway/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/W. Campus Drive - Southbound left/right turn lane • 7t' Street/E. Campus Drive - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane The freeway off-ramp vehicle queuing is also shown in Table 4.5-4. During the peak hours, two freeway off-ramp locations are anticipated to exceed the available storage length under year 2040 Alternative 2 conditions: PARSONS 4-23 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study • Carson Street/I-605 SB Off-Ramp - Southbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Westbound right turn lane 4.5.4 Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Freeway Traffic Analysis Findings for the northbound and southbound freeway segments under Alternative 2 conditions for year 2020 are summarized in Table 4.5-5. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density and LOS for all the freeway segments are shown. Under Alternative 2 conditions for year 2020, the I-405 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate at either LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions with few exceptions. The exceptions include the I-405 southbound segments between Studebaker Road to I-605 southbound ramp which is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour. Majority of the northbound and southbound I-405 HOV lanes are anticipated to operate at over- capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2020 Alternative 2 conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.04 to 1.46. Under Alternative 2 conditions for year 2020, the I-605 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate between LOS B and LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions except for the segment between Carson Street and Spring Street, which southbound movement is anticipated to operate at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hour. Under Alternative 2 conditions for year 2020, the SR-22/7t' Street freeway mainline segment between Pepper Tree Lane and Studebaker Road, is anticipated to operate at LOS B or LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions, while the segment between Studebaker Road and I-605, is anticipated to operate from LOS D to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis and Levels of Service The density and LOS for each of the ramps along I-405, I-605 and SR-22/7t' Street within the study area for Alternative 2 are based on projected Alternative 2 year 2020 traffic volumes. Table 4.5-6 provide a summary of the findings from the analyses for year 2020 Alternative 2 conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density, and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under Alternative 2 conditions for year 2020, the projected LOS for the I-405 ramp junctions generally ranges from LOS B to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. For the I-605 ramp junctions, the peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS A to LOS E, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The peak hour LOS expected for the SR-22/7t' Street ramp junctions, generally ranges from LOS C to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The freeway-to-freeway branch connectors are anticipated to operate at under-capacity during both AM and PM peak hours except at two locations. The D/C ratio for the branch connector PARSONS 4-24 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study from I-605 southbound to 7t' Street/I-405 is anticipated to be 1.42 and 1.17 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The branch connector from I-605 southbound/I-405 southbound to 7t' Street is expected to have a D/C ratio of 1.14 during the AM peak hour. Weaving• Weaving analysis was conducted between on-ramps and off-ramps spaced less than 2,500 feet apart. Separate analyses were conducted, as appropriate, for freeways and C-D roads. Weaving analysis for Alternative 2 are based on projected year 2020 Alternative 2 traffic volumes. Table 4.5-7 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for year 2020 conditions for Alternative 2 for both the freeway segments and the C-D roads. The density and LOS for all the weaving sections are shown. Under year 2020 Alternative 2 condition, the I-405 freeway weaving segments are anticipated to operate at LOS E or LOS F during the peak hours except at one location during the AM peak hour. The I-405 southbound freeway weaving segment between Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street and Studebaker Road is expected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour. Weaving analysis was conducted for the C-D roads at the Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street interchange and the Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal interchange. The analysis shows that the weaving segments on the C-D roads are anticipated to operate between LOS A and C during the peak hours. 4.5.5 Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Freeway Traffic Analysis Findings for the northbound and southbound freeway segments under Alternative 2 conditions for year 2040 are summarized in Table 4.5-8. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density and LOS for all the freeway segments are shown. Under Alternative 2 conditions for year 2040, the I-405 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate at either LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. The northbound and southbound I-405 HOV lanes within the project limits are anticipated to operate at over-capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2020 No Build Alternative conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.06 to 1.58. Under Alternative 2 conditions for year 2040, the I-605 freeway mainline segments are anticipated to operate between LOS C and LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions except for the freeway segment between Carson Street and Spring Street. The southbound I-605 freeway segment between Carson Street and Spring Street is anticipated to operate at LOS F and E during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Under Alternative 2 conditions for year 2040, the SR-22/7t' Street freeway mainline segment between Pepper Tree Lane and Studebaker Road, is anticipated to operate at LOS B or LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions, while the segment between Studebaker Road and I-605, is anticipated to operate between LOS D to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. PARSONS 4-25 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis and Levels of Service The density and LOS for each of the ramps along I-405, I-605 and SR-22/7t' Street within the study area for Alternative 2 are based on projected year 2040 Alternative 2 traffic volumes. Table 4.5-9 provide a summary of the findings from the analysis for year 2040 Alternative 2 conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density, and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under Alternative 2 conditions for year 2040, the projected LOS for the I-405 ramp junctions generally ranges from LOS B to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. For the I-605 ramp junctions, the peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS A to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The peak hour LOS expected for the SR-22/7t' Street ramp junctions, generally ranges from LOS C to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The freeway-to-freeway branch connectors are anticipated to operate at under-capacity during both AM and PM peak hours except at two locations. The D/C ratio for the branch connector from I-605 southbound to 7t' Street/I-405 is anticipated to be 1.54 and 1.26 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The branch connector from I-605 southbound/I-405 southbound to 7t' Street is expected to have a D/C ratio of 1.14 during the AM peak hour. Weaving• Weaving analysis was conducted between on-ramps and off-ramps spaced less than 2,500 feet apart. Separate analyses were conducted, as appropriate, for freeways and C-D roads. Weaving analysis for Alternative 2 is based on projected year 2040 Alternative 2 traffic volumes. Table 4.5-10 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for year 2040 conditions for Alternative 2 for both the freeway segments and the C-D roads. For year 2040 conditions, the mainline freeway weaving segments are projected to operate at LOS E to LOS F during the peak hours. Weaving analysis was conducted for the C-D roads at the Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street interchange and the Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal interchange. The analysis shows that the weaving segments on the C-D roads are anticipated to operate between LOS A and C during the peak hours. 4.5.6 Alternative 2 vs. No Build Alternative Comparison and Proposed Roadway Improvements Intersection Table 4.5-12 presents a comparison of Year 2040 No Build Alternative and Year 2040 Alternative 2 operating conditions anticipated for the study intersections. As shown in the table, the majority of the intersections with an "Exceed Evaluation" are projected to operate with LOS F during the AM/PM peak hour under the No-Build Alternative. These intersections under Alternative 2 are projected to operate with LOS F during the AM/PM peak hour but with an increase in the D/C ratio. Based on the comparison analysis, the following roadway improvements could be considered to improve intersections year 2040 operating conditions: PARSONS 4-26 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Willow Street and Bellflower Boulevard intersection (during PM peak hour and under No- Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.09 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.25 and LOS F). • Add an exclusive right-turn lane to eastbound approach; and • Add a 2nd left-turn lane to westbound approach. As shown on Figure 4.5-5, these proposed roadway improvements could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Willow Street and Los Coyotes Diagonal intersection (during PM peak hour and under No- Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.18 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.41 and LOS F). • Add a 2nd left-turn lane to eastbound approach; and • Add a 2nd left-turn lane to southbound approach. As shown on Figure 4.5-6, these proposed roadway improvements could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Willow Street and Woodruff Avenue intersection-(during AM peak hour and under No-Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.44 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.53 and LOS F). ■ Add a 2nd left-turn lane to northbound approach. As shown on Figure 4.5-7, this proposed roadway improvement could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. SR-22 westbound on/off Ramp and College Park Drive intersection (during PM peak hour and under No-Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.16 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.24 and LOS F). • Widen SR-22 westbound On/Off Ramp from one lane to two lanes approximately 200 feet east of the intersection extending to Studebaker Road as shown on the figure below. This roadway improvement could be accommodated with existing right-of-way; and • Provide a traffic signal to control traffic movements instead of existing one-way stop control placed at the westbound College Park Drive. As shown on Figure 4.4-5, these proposed roadway improvements could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. 7th Street and Pacific Coast Highway intersection (during PM peak hour and under No-Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.03 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.07 and LOS F). ■ Add an exclusive right-turn lane to northbound approach. PARSONS 4-27 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study As shown on Figure 4.5-8, this proposed roadway improvement could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. 7th Street and Bellflower Boulevard intersection (during AM peak hour and under No-Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.13 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.18 and LOS F). ■ Add an exclusive right-turn lane to westbound approach. As shown on Figure 4.5-9, this proposed roadway improvement could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. 7th Street and West Campus Drive intersection (during AM peak hour and under No-Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 0.85 and LOS D, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 0.89 and LOS E). ■ Add an exclusive right-turn lane to westbound approach. As shown on Figure 4.5-10, the proposed roadway improvement could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. 7th Street and East Campus Drive intersection (during AM peak hour and under No-Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.12 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.17 and LOS F). ■ Add a right-turn lane to westbound approach. As shown on Figure 4.5-11, the proposed roadway improvement could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Table 4.5-11 presents a comparison of Year 2020 No Build Alternative and Year 2020 Alternative 2 operating conditions anticipated for the study intersections. As shown in the table, roadway improvements for four(4) intersections (out of the eight listed above) are necessary by year 2020 under both the No-Build Alternative and Alternative 2 to improve intersections operating condition that are projected to operate at LOS F during the AM/PM peak hour. Table 4.5-12 shows intersections LOS and D/C ratio during AM and PM peak hours for Year 2040 Alternative 2 with recommended roadway improvements. Freeway Mainline Table 4.5-13 presents a comparison of 2020 No Build and 2020 Alternative 2 operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway segments. The table shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No Build Alternative to Alternative 2 in many segments, with the range of increase in the GP lanes from 0.01 to 0.18 during peak hours. Higher levels of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the project improvements and diminish with increasing distance from those limits. There are several segments in which there is a decrease in the D/C ratio, shown in red on Table 4.5-13. Those segments that are anticipated to have a change in LOS are identified in the Evaluation column in the table. PARSONS 4-28 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-14 presents a comparison of 2040 No Build and 2040 Alternative 2 operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway segments. The table shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No Build Alternative to Alternative 1 in many segments, with the range of increase in the GP lanes from 0.01 to 0.19 during peak hours. Higher levels of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the project improvements and diminish with increasing distance from those limits. There are several segments in which there is a decrease in the D/C ratio, shown in red on Table 4.5-14. Those segments that are anticipated to have a change in LOS are identified in the Evaluation column in the table. 4.6 Alternative 3 Conditions This section of the report provides an analysis of the study intersections and mainline freeway as well as the freeway/ramp junction locations for years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 3 conditions. Alternative 3 condition analyses are based on forecasted years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 3 traffic volumes and year 2009 traffic control/lane geometries at the study intersections and freeway segments and ramps within the project limits. As discussed in Section 4.1, geometric conditions and type of traffic control for years 2020 and 2040 are assumed to be unchanged from existing conditions (Year 2009). Intersection analysis worksheets for years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 3 conditions are provided in Appendix IX.A. Freeway analyses worksheets for years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 3 conditions are provided in Appendix IX.B. 4.6.1 Alternative 3 Traffic Volumes Year 2020 Alternative 3 intersection peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4.6-1. Year 2040 Alternative 3 intersection peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4.6-2. Years 2020 and 2040 Alternative 3 peak hour traffic volumes for the I-405 mainline, I-605 mainline and SR-22/7th Street mainline and all interchange ramps within the study area are illustrated in Figures 4.6-3 and 4.6-4,respectively. 4.6.2 Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Intersection Traffic Analysis A summary of LOS for AM and PM peak hours for year 2020 Alternative 3 conditions, including traffic control at study intersections, is provided in Table 4.6-1. The LOS analysis conducted for year 2020 Alternative 3 conditions indicates that all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours except for the following intersections that are anticipated to operating at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hours: • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard (PM LOS=E and D/C= 1.15) • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal(PM LOS=E and D/C= 1.26) • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue (AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.30) • I-405 SB Direct Off-Ramp/Studebaker Rd(AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.04) • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/College Park Dr (PM LOS=F and D/C=0.32) • 7th Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.09) A comparison of year 2020 Alternative 3 vehicle queuing (AM and PM peak hour 95th percentile queues) and available queue storage (in feet) is included in Table 4.6-2. During the peak hours, PARSONS 4-29 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study most of the turn pockets at the arterial intersections are anticipated to provide sufficient queue storage except at the following locations: • Carson Street/Pioneer Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal - Southbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Stearns Street/Palo Verde - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Atherton Street/Studebaker Road - Eastbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Pacific Coast Highway/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/W. Campus Drive - Southbound left/right turn lane • 7h Street/E. Campus Drive PARSONS 4-30 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane The freeway off-ramp vehicle queuing is also shown in Table 4.6-2. During the peak hours, two freeway off-ramp locations are anticipated to exceed the available storage length under year 2020 Alternative 3 conditions: • Carson Street/I-605 SB Off-Ramp - Southbound left turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Westbound right turn lane 4.6.3 Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Intersection Traffic Analysis A summary of LOS for AM and PM peak hours for year 2040 Alternative 3 conditions, including traffic control at study intersections, is provided in Table 4.6-3. The LOS analysis conducted for year 2040 Alternative 3 conditions indicates that all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours except for the following intersections that are are anticipated to operate at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak hours: • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard(PM LOS=F,D/C= 1.25) • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard(PM LOS=E, D/C= 1.22) • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal(PM LOS=F and D/C= 1.41) • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue (AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.40) • I-405 SB Direct Off-Ramp/Studebaker Rd(AM LOS=F and D/C= 1.20) • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/College Park Dr (PM LOS=F and D/C=0.45) • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.04) • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard(AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.17;PM LOS=E and D/C= 1.10) • 7h Street/W. Campus Drive (AM LOS=E and D/C=0.87; PM LOS=E, D/C=0.93) • 7th Street/E. Campus Drive (AM LOS=E and D/C= 1.14) A comparison of year 2040 Alternative 3 vehicle queuing (AM and PM peak hour 95t'percentile queues) and available queue storage (in feet) is included in Table 4.6-4. During the peak hours, most of the turn pockets at the arterial intersections are anticipated to provide sufficient queue storage except at the following locations: • Carson Street/Pioneer Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Lakewood Boulevard - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane PARSONS 4-31 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study - Westbound left turn lane • Los Coyotes Diagonal/Bellflower Boulevard - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Los Coyotes Diagonal - Southbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Willow Street/Woodruff Avenue - Northbound left turn lane - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Stearns Street/Palo Verde - Northbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane - Westbound left turn lane • Atherton Street/Studebaker Road - Eastbound left turn lane • SR-22 WB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Southbound right turn lane • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Northbound right turn lane - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Pacific Coast Highway - Southbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Southbound right turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • Pacific Coast Highway/Bellflower Boulevard - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane • 7t' Street/W. Campus Drive - Southbound left/right turn lane • 7t' Street/E. Campus Drive - Southbound left turn lane - Eastbound left turn lane The freeway off-ramp vehicle queuing is also shown in Table 4.6-4. During the peak hours, two freeway off-ramp locations are anticipated to exceed the available storage length under year 2040 Alternative 3 conditions: • Carson Street/1-605 SB Off-Ramp - Southbound left turn lane PARSONS 4-32 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study • SR-22 EB On/Off-Ramp/Studebaker Road - Westbound right turn lane 4.6.4 Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Freeway Traffic Analysis Findings for the northbound and southbound freeway segments under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2020 are summarized in Table 4.6-5. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density and LOS for all the freeway segments are shown. Under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2020, the I-405 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate at either LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions except at one location. The I-405 southbound segment between Studebaker Road to I-605 northbound off- ramp which is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour. Majority of the northbound and southbound I-405 HOV lanes are anticipated to operate at over-capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2020 Alternative 3 conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.04 to 1.24. Under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2020, the I-605 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate between LOS B and LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions except for the segment between Carson Street and Spring Street, which southbound movement is anticipated to operate at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hour. Under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2020, the SR-22/7t' Street freeway mainline segment between Pepper Tree Lane and Studebaker Road, is anticipated to operate at LOS B or LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions, while the segment between Studebaker Road and I-605, is anticipated to operate from LOS D to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis and Levels of Service The density and LOS for each of the ramps along I-405, I-605 and SR-22/7t' Street within the study area for Alternative 3 are based on projected year 2020 Alternative 3 traffic volumes. Table 4.6-6 provide a summary of the findings from the analyses for year 2020 Alternative 3 conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density, and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2020, the projected LOS for the I-405 ramp junctions generally ranges from LOS B to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. For the I-605 ramp junctions, the peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS A to LOS E, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The peak hour LOS expected for the SR-22/7t' Street ramp junctions, generally ranges from LOS A to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The freeway-to-freeway branch connectors are anticipated to operate at under-capacity during both AM and PM peak hours except at two locations. The D/C ratio for the branch connector from I-605 southbound to 7t' Street/I-405 is anticipated to be 1.35 and 1.25 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The branch connector from I-605 southbound/I-405 southbound to PARSONS 4-33 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study 7t' Street is expected to have D/C ratios of 1.12 and 1.07 during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Weaving Analysis Weaving analysis was conducted between on-ramps and off-ramps spaced less than 2,500 feet apart. Separate analyses were conducted, as appropriate, for freeways and C-D roads. Weaving analysis for Alternative 3 is based on projected year 2020 Alternative 3 traffic volumes. Table 4.6-7 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for year 2020 conditions for Alternative 3 for both the freeway segments and the C-D roads. The density and LOS for all the weaving sections are shown. Under year 2020 Alternative 3 condition, the I-405 freeway weaving segments are anticipated to operate at LOS E or LOS F during the peak hours except at one location during the AM peak hour. The I-405 southbound freeway weaving segment between Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street and Studebaker Road is expected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour. Weaving analysis was conducted for the C-D roads at the Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street interchange and the Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal interchange. The analysis shows that the weaving segments on the C-D roads are anticipated to operate between LOS A and C during the peak hours. 4.6.5 Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Freeway Traffic Analysis Findings for the northbound and southbound freeway segments under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2040 are summarized in Table 4.6-8. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density and LOS for all the freeway segments are shown. Under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2040, the I-405 freeway mainline segments are projected to operate at either LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. The northbound and southbound I-405 HOV lanes within the project limits are anticipated to operate at over-capacity during the AM or PM peak hours under year 2040 Alternative 3 conditions with D/C ratios ranging from 1.02 to 1.34. Under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2040, the I-605 freeway mainline segments are anticipated to operate between LOS B and LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions except for the freeway segment between Carson Street and Spring Street. The southbound I-605 freeway segment between Carson Street and Spring Street is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. Under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2040, the SR-22/7t' Street freeway mainline segment between Pepper Tree Lane and Studebaker Road, is anticipated to operate at LOS B or LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions, while the segment between Studebaker Road and I-605, is anticipated to operate between LOS D to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Ramps and Ramp-Freeway Junction Analysis and Levels of Service The density and LOS for each of the ramps along I-405, I-605 and SR-22/7t' Street within the study area for Alternative 3 are based on projected year 2040 Alternative 3 traffic volumes. PARSONS 4-34 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-9 provide a summary of the findings from the analysis for year 2040 Alternative 3 conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The peak hour capacity, demand volume, D/C ratio, density, and LOS for each of the freeway ramps are presented. Under Alternative 3 conditions for year 2040, the projected LOS for the I-405 ramp junctions generally ranges from LOS D to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. For the I-605 ramp junctions, the peak hour LOS generally ranges from LOS A to LOS F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The ramp junctions along SR-22/7t' Street are anticipated to operate at LOS D and F, depending upon time of day and direction of travel. The freeway-to-freeway branch connectors are anticipated to operate at under-capacity during both AM and PM peak hours except at two locations. The D/C ratio for the branch connector from I-605 southbound to 7t' Street/I-405 is anticipated to be 1.46 and 1.35 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The branch connector from I-605 southbound/I-405 southbound to 7t' Street is expected to have D/C ratios of 1.12 and 1.07 during the AM and PM peak hour. Weaving• Weaving analysis was conducted between on-ramps and off-ramps spaced less than 2,500 feet apart. Separate analyses were conducted, as appropriate, for freeways and C-D roads. Weaving analysis for Alternative 3 is based on projected year 2040 Alternative 3 traffic volumes. Table 4.6-10 summarizes the weaving analysis findings for year 2040 conditions for Alternative 3 for both the freeway segments and the C-D roads. For year 2040 conditions, the mainline freeway weaving segments are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F during the peak hours. Weaving analysis was conducted for the C-D roads at the Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street interchange and the Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal interchange. The analysis shows that the weaving segments on the C-D roads are anticipated to operate between LOS A and C during the peak hours. 4.6.6 Alternative 3 vs. No Build Alternative Comparison and Proposed Roadway Improvements Intersection Table 4.6-12 presents a comparison of Year 2040 No Build Alternative and Year 2040 Alternative 3 operating conditions anticipated for the study intersections. As shown in the table, the majority of the intersections with an "Exceed Evaluation" are projected to operate with LOS F during the PM peak hour under the No-Build Alternative. These intersections under Alternative 3 are projected to operate with LOS F during the AM/PM peak hour but with an increase in the D/C ratio. Based on the comparison analysis, the following roadway improvements could be considered to improve intersections year 2040 operating conditions: Willow Street and Bellflower Boulevard intersection (during AM peak hour and under No- Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.09 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.25 and LOS F). PARSONS 4-35 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study • Add an exclusive right-turn lane to eastbound approach; and • Add a 2nd left-turn lane to westbound approach. As shown on Figure 4.5-5, these proposed roadway improvements could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Los Coyotes Diagonal and Bellflower Boulevard intersection_(during AM peak hour and under No-Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.13 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.22 and LOS F). ■ Add a 2nd left-turn lane to eastbound approach. As shown on Figure 4.6-5, this proposed roadway improvement could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Willow Street and Los Coyotes Diagonal intersection-(during AM peak hour and under No- Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.18 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.41 and LOS F). • Add a 2nd left-turn lane to eastbound approach; and • Add a 2nd left-turn lane to southbound approach. As shown on Figure 4.5-6, these proposed roadway improvements could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. 7th Street and Bellflower Boulevard intersection (during AM peak hour and under No-Build Alternative projected D/C ratio is 1.06 and LOS F, and under Alternative 2 projected D/C ratio is 1.10 and LOS F). ■ Add an exclusive right-turn lane to westbound approach. As shown on Figure 4.5-9, this proposed roadway improvement could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Table 4.6-11 presents a comparison of Year 2020 No Build Alternative and Year 2020 Alternative 3 operating conditions anticipated for the study intersections. As shown in the table, roadway improvements for three intersections (out of the four listed above) are necessary by year 2020 under both the No-Build Alternative and Alternative 3 to improve intersections operating condition that are projected to operate at LOS F during the AM/PM peak hour. Table 4.6-12 shows intersections LOS and D/C ratio during AM and PM peak hours for Year 2040 Alternative 3 with recommended roadway improvements. Freeway Mainline Table 4.6-13 presents a comparison of 2020 No Build and 2020 Alternative 3 operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway segments. The table shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No Build Alternative to Alternative 3 in many segments, with the range of increase in the GP lanes from 0.03 to 0.34 during peak hours. Higher levels of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the project improvements and diminish with PARSONS 4-36 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study increasing distance from those limits. There are several segments in which there is a decrease in the D/C ratio, shown in red on Table 4.6-13. Those segments that are anticipated to have a change in LOS are identified in the Evaluation column in the table. Table 4.6-14 presents a comparison of 2040 No Build and 2040 Alternative 3 operating conditions anticipated for the mainline freeway segments. The table shows that there is an increase in the D/C ratio from the No Build Alternative to Alternative 3 in many segments, with the range of increase in the GP lanes from 0.02 to 0.37 during peak hours. Higher levels of increase are generally found closer to the limits of the project improvements and diminish with increasing distance from those limits. There are several segments in which there is a decrease in the D/C ratio, shown in red on Table 4.6-14. Those segments that are anticipated to have a change in LOS are identified in the Evaluation column in the table. 4.6.7 Transition Areas This section summarizes the LOS expected in the transition areas associated with the Express Lanes in Alternative 3. Transition areas are along the freeways at the beginning and end of the Express Lanes and allow traffic in HOV and GP lanes to change lanes, if necessary, to access the GP and Express Lanes or vice versa. Transition areas may add new lanes and/or redesignate lanes from HOV to Express. The two proposed transition areas located within the study limits are as follows: 1. On I-605 at the I-405 interchange; and 2. On I-405 at the I-605 interchange. Limits of transition areas approaching the start of the Express Lanes are defined upstream by the termination of an HOV restriction and downstream by the solid striping used to delineate the separation between the Express Lanes and the general purpose lanes. Limits of the transition areas approaching the end of the Express Lanes are defined upstream by the termination of solid striping used to delineate the separation between the Express Lanes and the general purpose lanes and the beginning of the downstream HOV access restriction. The transition areas are anticipated to operate at a level similar to the level expected for the HOV and/or general purpose lanes in the vicinity of the transition area. The northbound transition area on I-405 from I-605 to the end of the HOV access is expected to operate at LOS F in year 2040. As shown in Table 4.6-8, the northbound GP and HOV lanes in the transition area on I-405 from I-605 to the end of the HOV access are anticipated to operate at LOS F for the GP lanes and/or HOV lanes. The northbound transition area on I-605 from the termination of the direct connector separation to the end of the HOV access is expected to operate at LOS B and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Table 4.6-8 shows that this segment of I-605 northbound is expected to operate at LOS B and C in the general purpose lanes during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. In the southbound direction the transition area is expected to operate at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. PARSONS 4-37 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Generally, the transition areas are anticipated to operate at a level similar to the level expected for the HOV and/or general purpose lanes in the vicinity of the transition area. Overall, the transition areas are not expected to degrade operations of the HOV system adjacent to the transition areas. PARSONS 4-38 Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.2-1 Existing(Year 2009)Intersection Level of Service-AM/PM Peak Hours Location Existing(2009)LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg l Avg Delay Delay,' No. East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments V/C (sec) LOS? V/C (sec) LOS ?' 1 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.58 21.9 C 0.61 17.8 B 1-605 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.15 -- 0.25 -- 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.24 0.20 -- 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 14.8 B 0.66 12.4 B 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.23 -- 0.45 -- 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.40 1 -- 0.32 -- 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.76 48.1 D 0.76 35.1 D 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 26.2 C 0.60 18.4 B 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.84 13.5 B 0.81 11.1 B 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.35 -- 0.34 -- 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.22 0.21 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.19 0.18 7 1 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.50 1 0.38 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.19 0.23 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.40 0.31 9 Willowst Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.76 31.1 C 0.92 66.2 E 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.32 -- 0.30 -- 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.26 -- 0.38 -- 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.41 9.3 A 0.48 11.9 B 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.49 -- 0.35 -- 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.28 1 -- 0.18 -- 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.84 81.2 F 0.92 40.1 D Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.63 31.3 C 0.97 72.8 E 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.06 -- 0.09 -- 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.12 -- 0.26 -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.44 14.4 B 0.45 13.4 B 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.14 -- -- 0.13 -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.72 51.5 D 0.74 102.8 F 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.07 86.8 F 0.77 30.4 C 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.15 -- 0.17 -- 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.25 0.20 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.48 0.38 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.27 0.19 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.54 11.3 B 0.45 13.7 B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde Unsignalized On Ramp 0.11 -- -- 0.20 -- -- 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.87 86.6 F 0.59 21.3 C 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.73 19.4 B 0.75 25.2 C 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.28 -- -- 0.39 -- 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.50 4.0 A 0.55 4.3 A 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Unsignalized Intersection 0.15 13.8 B 0.04 10.8 B 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.46 9.2 A 0.74 23.3 C 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.49 16.0 B 0.74 22.1 C 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.72 17.6 B 0.82 17.1 B 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr Unsignalized Intersection 0.39 18.8 C 0.65 59.9 F 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 0.95 92.9 F 1.03 82.6 F 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.01 73.6 E 0.91 90.3 F 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.47 22.3 C 0.73 22.5 C 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.72 32.9 C 0.88 30.3 C 34 7th St W.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.83 112.9 F 0.72 31.1 C 35 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.97 23.1 C 0.73 24.7 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.2-2 Existing(Year 2009)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location ss Existing(2009)Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) SBL 300 168 Yes 255 Yes 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBT 1,130 128 Yes 180 Yes SBR 300 273 Yes 225 Yes 3 Carson St 1-`605 NB Off Ramp NBL 300!(650) 165 Yes 144' Yes >NBR 300(1175) 178`` Yes 207`` Yes NBL 120 363 No 296 No SBL 140 59 Yes 65 Yes 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd SBR 140 80 Yes 61 Yes EBL 250 214 Yes 251 No WBL 80 17 Yes 17 Yes 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBL 220(1240) 250' Yes 274' Yes SBR 900 482'' Yes 314'' Yes 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp WBL 260 247 Yes 258 Yes ss NBL 180 91 ss Yes 91 ss Yes 9 Willowst Lakewood Blvd SBL 150 48 ! Yes 129! Yes EBL 1775 70 Yes 151`` Yes WBL 150 36 Yes 80' Yes WBL 1,870 123 Yes 184 Yes 11 1-405 NB Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd WBL/T/R 1,130 71 Yes 146 Yes WBR 410 47 Yes 80 Yes NBL 150 335 No 122'' Yes 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd SBL 120 109! Yes 125! No EBL 140 159`` No 280`` No WBL 110 160'! No 128'! No NBL 160 23 Yes 61 Yes 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal Bellflower Blvd NBR 230 49 Yes 244 No EBL 190 222 No 307 No WBL 150 134 Yes 245 No 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp SBL 1525(500) 258'' Yes 240'' Yes SBL 120 18 Yes 21 Yes 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal EBL 140 151 No 307 No WBL 160 376 No 452 No NBL 140 190'! No 118'! Yes NBR 60 31 Yes 22 Yes 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave SBL 120 298 No 109 Yes SBR 120 61 'Yes 36 Yes EBL 200 170'' Yes 129'' Yes WBL 180 370! No 284! No 20 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Palo Verde WBL 550 220 Yes 335 Yes WBT/R 1,155 53 Yes 55 Yes 21 Woodruff Ave Pala Verde EBL 335 272` Yes 201` Yes EBR 335 735'! No 408'! No NBL 130 104 Yes 132 No 22 Stearns St Palo Verde SBL 120 138 No 396 No EBL 90 101 No 158 No WBL 1 80 80 1 No 57 Yes �1-40S irect On Ramp Studebaker Rd NBL 100 95 ! Yes 124! No SBR 70 19 '' Yes 16'' Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.2-2 Existing(Year 2009)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location ss Existing(2009)Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) NBL 200 49 Yes 54 Yes SBL 260 4 Yes 10 Yes 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd SBR 70 60 Yes 47 Yes EBL 120 106 Yes 410 No WBL 220 40 Yes 31 Yes 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd NBR 150 31 Yes 20 Yes SBL 200 55 Yes 76 Yes NBR 300 453 No 430 No 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd SBL 150 139 Yes 94 Yes WBR 60 22 Yes 24 Yes 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway NBL 330 187! Yes 259! Yes SBL 290 195 Yes 285' Yes NBR 130 108 Yes 136 No SBL 160 125 Yes 255 No 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd SBR 160 86 Yes 400 No EBL 200 390 No 321 No WBL 200 53 Yes 120 Yes NBL 280 114'! Yes 88'! Yes SBL 240 22 `` Yes 16`` Yes 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd SBR 60 1 Yes 0 Yes EBL 110 4 Yes 60 ' Yes WBL 120 42 Yes 234'' No WBR 200 46 Yes 46 Yes EBL 270 203 Yes 33 Yes 33 7th St Channel Dr EBR 180 2 Yes 14 Yes WBL 280 82 Yes 371 No 34 7th St W.Campus Dr SBL/R 150 52 ! Yes 205! No EBL 400 261` Yes 128`` Yes SBL 150 79 Yes 208 No 35 7th St E.Campus Dr SBT/R 150 70 Yes 142 Yes EBL 150 172 No 113 Yes WBL 300 76 Yes 109 Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.2-3: Existing(Year 2009) Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline'1i Existing(2009)Conditions Lane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Direction Type i,4 Traffic Traffic Lanes Capacity 25 i Demand V 25` s Demand V/C Density' LOS: /C `Density LOS Volume'i Volume'; i 1-465 Mainline GP NB' 5 9,250 9,795 1.06 43.7 E 8,666 0.94 i 33.3 D Temple Avenue to SB 5 9;250 9,199 0.99 32.6 D 8,322,: 1 0.90 34.4 D '. Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1 1,650 1,746 1 1.06 i 1,222 1 0.74 1 SB 1 1,650 778 1 0.47 ( 1 -- 1,599 ( 0.97 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table GP' NBI Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB 5 9;250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table' Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,650 1,746 1 1.06 _. _ 1,222 0.74 SB 1 1,650 778 I 0.47 1 1,599 ( 0.97 GP' NB I 5 1 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard to SB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to ---Weave Table Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,650 1,720 1 1.04 _. _ 1,182 1 0.72 SB 1 1,650 783 1 0.47 1 1,570 0.95 1 GP' NB I 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table' Woodruff Avenue to SB'. 4 '. 1 7,400 7;907 1 1.07 1 38.7 E ': 7,175 s. € 0.97 (< 37.7 E Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB_ 1__. 1,650 1,720 1.04 _. _. 1,182__. 0.72 SB 1 1 1,650 793 ( 0.48 1 -- ( -- 1,710 1.04 ( - -- GP' NB 5 9250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to SB 5 9;250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1,650 1,720 1.04 - 1,182 0.72 1 .... ....... ......... ...... ; ....... , .... ; .... ...... .1...... e ....... SB 1 ( 1,650 830 1 0.50 i -- -- 1,560 0.95 NB I 4 1 7,400 7,240 1 0.98 1 38.2 ' E 6,030 a 0.81 ' 26.9 D GP' Studebaker Road to SB>: 5 9;250 7,884 1 0.85 26.5 D 7,733>: , 0.84 31.9 D 1-605 NBOff Ramp HOV NB 1... 1,650 1,380 11 0.84 - ( - 1,440 0.87 - SB 1 ( 1,650 830 1 0.50 -- -- 1,560 0.95 ( -- -- GPI N I 4 7,400 7,240 1 0.98 38.2 E 6,030' 1 0.81 1 269 D 1-605 NB Off Ramp to SB'. 4 '. 7,400 6,508 1 0.88 27.7 D '. 6,428'. 1 0.87 t'. 33.1 D 7th St Off Ramp HOV NB 1... 1 1,650 1,380 1 0.84 - - 1,440 ( 0.87 1 SB 1 1,650 830 ( 0.50 -- -- 1,560 0.95 ( -- -- GPI NB I 4 7,400 7,240 0.98 38.2 E 6,030,1 0.81 << 26.9 D 7th St Off Ramp to SB'1 4 7,400 6,420 1 0.87 27.2 D 6,300 ; 0.85 32.5 D 1-605 SB On Ramp HOV NB 1 1,650 1,380 0.84 -- -- 1,440 0.87 -- -- SB 1 1,650 830 0.50 -- -- 1,560 0.95 -- -- 1-605 Mainline GP NB I 4 7,400 5,997 0.81 26.3 D 7,162' 0.97 357 E CarsonSteettoHOVTransition 5B 4 r 7,400 8,066 1.09 41.1 E 7,4171 1.00 36.1 E HOV NB 1 1,650 737 0.45 -- -- 633 0.38 -- -- SB 1 1,650 1,039 0.63 -- -- 707 0.43 -- -- GP' NB' 4 7,400 5,997 0.81 26.3 D 7,162' 0.97 35.7 E HOV Transition to Spring Street SB a 5 '1i 9,250 8,066 0.87 27.9 D '1i 7,417'11 0.80 '1i 26.6 D HOV NB 1 1,650 737 0.45 -- -- 633 -- SB NB I 4 7;400 5,353 0.72 21.9 C 6,453 0.87 27.2 D Spring Street to GP 5B) 4 7,400 7,442 1.01 34.0 D 6,787 0.92 29.2 D Willow Street/KatellaAvenue HOV NB 1 1,650 737 0.45 -- -- 633 0.38 -- -- SB NB I 5 9,250 6,250 0.68 20.7 C 6,540 0.71 237 C Willow Street/Katella Avenue CD Road GP SB: 4 :' 7,400 6,290 0.8 1 D :' 5,880>s 0.79 :' 28.0 D On Ramp to 1-405 HOV NB 1 ,1,650 422 0.26 -- -- . 694 0 42 - ............... ................. ................. ................ ............ ................. ............. .............. SB 7th Street Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to GPI EB' 2 3,700 3,353 0.91 17.9 D 3,875' 1.05 20.7 C Studebaker Road WB 3 '11 5,550 3,407 0.61 18.2 C '11 1,980'11 0.36 '11 10.6 A Studebaker Road to -605 GPI' EB 2 3,700 4,598 1.24 F 5,121` 1.38 F WBI 2 'I 3;700 4;004 1.08 38:3 E 'I 3,280'1 0.89 'I 27.3 D Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(D/C)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.2-4: Existing (Year 2009) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Existing(Year 2009)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction ! Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Traffic' Traffic V/C Density2 ! LOSS'S! i V/C Density2 LOS'S Volume 1 Volume 1-405 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 2 3,000 808 0.27 13.2 B 779 >.0 26 11.0 B NB On Loop 1 1500 754 ! 0.50 47.7 F 565 0.38 43.1! F Lakewood Blvd NB On Direct; 1 1,500 323 ! 0.22 26.3 C 319 <0 21 23.0! C &Willow St SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,079 0.36 16.3 B 918 0.31 13.3 B ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Loop 1 1,500 287 0.19 40.5 F 343 0.23 36.9 F ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Direct(from Willow St) 1 1,500 393 0.26 21.0 C 567 0.38 19.7 B NB Off Direct 1 1;500 305 ! 0.20 26.5 C 494 >'0.33 26.2 C Bellflower Blvd& NB On(Direct+Loop) 2 3;000 1,162 ? 0.39 14.3 F 787 0.26 10.4 F Los Coyotes Diagonal SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,358 0.45 15.7 B 2,021 0.67 19.5 B SB On Direct Loo 1 1 500 804 33.4 D 1 326 29.6 D 0.54 0.88 NB Off Direct 1 1,500 222 0.15 21.0 C 248 »0 17 20.2 C .. ... .... .. .. NB On Direct! 1 1500 371 ! 0.25 36.2 F 296 ;A.20 35.1! E Woodruff Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 724 0.48 27.3 C 572 0,38 24.3 C SB On Direct 1 11500 400 0,27 22.5 C 279 0,19 21.6 C NB Off Direct 1 1;500 365 ! 0.24 21.6 C 511 >'0.34 21.4 C Palo Verde Ave ... p..! .... ... ... .... ... NB On Loo 1 1,500 168 0.17 524 F 304 0 20 49 3 F &Stearn St ......................................................................................................................................... ..............:: SB On Direct(from Stearn St) 1 1,500 417 0,28 24.8 C 583 0,39 23.1 C NB On Direct 1 1,500 288 0.19 53.1 F 315 0.21 51.0 F Studebaker Rd SB Off Direct 1 1,500 403 0.27 32.4 D 175 0,12 29.8 D 7th St SB Off Direct 1 1,500 88 0.06 30.6 D 128 0.09 30.5 D PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.2-4: Existing (Year 2009) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Existing(Year 2009)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction ! Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Traffic' Traffic V/C Density2 ! LOSS'S! i V/C Density2 LOS'S Volume 1 Volume 1-605 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct! 1 1,500 899 ! 0.60 32.1 D 879 <0 59 37.0! E ..... ..... .......... .......... .... .._. ..... .... ............... ................................................ ... .. NB On Loop ! 1 1,500 338 ! 0.23 20.7 C 681 0.45 24.5 C NB On Direct' 1 1;500 605 0.40 20.5 C 481 0.32 24.1> C Carson St ..... ... ... ..... SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,395 0.47 16.2 B 1,674 0.56 17.3 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 366 0.24 23.2 C 301 0.20 21.7 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 230 0.15 23.5 C 369 0,25 21.6 C NB On Loop 1 1;500 644 ! 0 43 18 6 B 709 0 47 20.5` C Spring St/Cerritos Ave �.... ... .�... ... .. .. .... ... ... :� .. .... . ..... SB Off Direct 1 11500 1,663 1.11 39.2 E 1,337 0.89 35.2 E NB Off(Direct+Loop) 1 1500 1,185 '! 0.79 3.4 A 813 0.54 2.3 '! A NB On Direct`< 1 11500 1,025 0.68 21.0 C 1,359 0.91 22.5» C Willow St/Katella Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 547 0.36 37.1 E 534 0.36 34.2 D SB Off Loop 1 11500 1,204 0.80 38.3 E 1,073 0.72 34.9 D SB On Direct(Direct+Loop) 1 11500 599 0.40 26.0 C 700 0.47 24.3 C 7th Street Ramp Junctions EB Off Loop ! 1 1;500 51 0.03 36.0 E 65 0.04 41.1» F .... ...p .... ...... ... ...... .... ..... .._. .... .... .... ..... ............ EB On Loo 1 11500 1,296 0,86 42.5 F 1,311 0.87 47.1 F Studebaker Rd WB Off Loop 1 11500 683 0.46 47.7 F 1,345 0.90 46.8 D WB On Loop 1 1,500 86 0.06 25.9 C 45 0.03 13.4 B PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.2-4: Existing (Year 2009) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Existing(Year 2009)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction ! Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Traffic' Traffic V/C Density2 ! LOSS'S! i V/C Density2 LOS'S Volume1 volume Free ay-to-Freewa y Branch Connectors'' 1-605 SB to 1-405 NB 1 1,800 848 0.47 -- -- 1,096 0.61 -- -- 1-605 S13/7th St to 1-405 NB 2 3,600 1,555 0.43 -- -- 1,864 0.52 -- -- 1-405 SB to 1-605 NB 2 3,600 1,376 0.38 -- -- 1,305 0.36 -- -- 1-405/1-605 Freeway Interchanges 1-605 S13 to 7th St/1-405 S13 2 3,600 5,442 1.51 -- -- 4,784 1.33 -- -- 1-605 S13/1-405 S13 to 7th St 1 1,800 1,754 0.97 -- -- 1,280 0.71 -- -- 7th St to 1-605 NB/I-405 NB 2 3,600 2,531 0.70 -- -- 2,253 0.63 -- -- 7th St to 1-405 NB 1 1,800 707 0.39 -- -- 768 0.43 -- -- Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In); D/C-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.* Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,D/C ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.2-5: Existing (Year 2009) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway and Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Freeway Mainline 1-405 Southbound- 42.0 E 61.6 F Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- 48.5 F 34.9 D Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street 1-405 Southbound- 38.0 E 55.3 F Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue 1-405 Northbound- 52.4 F 38.1 E Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Woodruff Avenue 44.6 F 32.6 D 1-405 Southbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Studebaker Road 29.9 D 35.5 E 1-405 Northbound- Studebaker Road to Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street 40.6 E 34.3 D Collector-Distributor(C-D)Roads Lakewood Boulveard/Willow Street Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 19.6 B 20.4 C Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 9.0 A 15.0 B Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-1 No Build Alternative(Year 2020)Intersection Level of Service-AM/PM Peak Hours Location No Build Alternative(Year 2020)LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg l Avg Delay Delay,' No. East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C (sec) LOS? D/C,' (sec) LOS ?' 1 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.57 22.3 C 0.68 23.8 C 1-605 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.22 -- 0.33 -- 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.33 0.33 -- 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.59 21.8 C 0.76 20.6 C 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 -- 0.35 -- 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.52 1 -- 0.49 -- 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 31.1 C 0.84 33.7 C 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.68 14.2 B 0.65 10.9 B 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.76 10.5 B 0.79 8.2 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.38 -- 0.38 -- 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.38 0.23 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.23 0.22 7 1 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.53 1 0.41 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.22 0.25 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.43 0.48 9 Willowst Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.75 31.2 C 0.89 43.0 D 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.35 -- 0.46 -- 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.28 -- 0.41 -- 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 10.8 B 0.53 10.6 B 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.53 -- 0.37 -- 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 1 -- 0.19 -- 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.01 48.8 D 1.01 54.4 D Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.65 26.4 C 1.00 42.1 D 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.06 -- 0.12 -- 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.12 -- 0.32 -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.52 10.0 B 0.47 16.0 B 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.16 -- -- 0.17 -- I -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.78 44.4 D 1.02 35.1 D 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.33 147.9 F 0.87 40.4 D 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.39 -- 0.19 -- 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 0.21 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.52 0.47 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.41 0.23 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.78 17.7 B 0.61 11.8 B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde Unsignalized On Ramp 0.13 -- -- 0.22 -- -- 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.84 13.6 B 0.66 10.3 B 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 18.9 B 0.83 20.5 C 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.30 -- -- 0.46 -- 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 2.6 A 0.47 4.7 A 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Unsignalized Intersection 0.86 68.4 F 0.34 16.2 C 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.54 1 9.3 A 0.78 13.8 B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.46 12.8 B 0.79 28.0 C 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.91 21.3 C 0.93 25.8 C- 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr Unsignalized Intersection 0.43 21.3 C 0.61 88.7 F 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 0.94 49.2 D 0.95 35.9 D 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.04 68.9 E 0.98 47.9 D 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.53 38.8 D 0.70 20.4 C 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.71 24.5 C 0.94 22.7 C 34 7th St W.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 31.2 C 0.81 32.0 C 35 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 1.03 35.8 D 0.87 14.6 B PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-2 No Build Alternative(Year 2020)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location ss2020 No Build Alternative Conditions` AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) SBL 300 229 Yes 341 No 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBT 1,130 122 Yes 163 Yes SBR 300 237 Yes 171 Yes 3 Carson St 1-`605 NB Off Ramp NBL 300!(650) 225 Yes 291' Yes >NBR 300(1175) 193`` Yes 125`` Yes NBL 120 245 No 271 No SBL 140 78 Yes 76 Yes 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd SBR 140 73 Yes 83 Yes EBL 250 271 No 406 No WBL 80 17 Yes 18 Yes 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBL 220(1240) 268' Yes 165' Yes SBR 900 0 Yes 0 Yes 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp WBL 260 246 Yes 174 Yes ssNBL 180 135ss ssYes 113ss ssYes 9 Willow st Lakewood Blvd SBL 150 47 ! Yes 87 ! Yes EBL 1775 69 Yes 93`` Yes WBL 150 42 Yes 151' No WBL 1,870 97 Yes 175 Yes 11 1-405 NB Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd WBL/T/R 1,130 70 Yes 171 Yes WBR 410 63 Yes 155 Yes NBL 150 366'' No 130'' Yes 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd SBL 120 142! No 96 ! Yes EBL 140 215`` No 351`` No WBL 110 127'! No 267'! No NBL 160 22 Yes 39 Yes 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal Bellflower Blvd NBR 230 49 Yes 161 Yes EBL 190 323 No 539 No WBL 150 207 No 255 No 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp SBL 1525(500) 144'' Yes 259'' Yes SBL 120 156 No 233 No 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal EBL 140 144 No 79 Yes WBL 160 328 No 586 No NBL 140 670'! No 287'! No NBR 60 33 Yes 17 Yes 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave SBL 120 132 No 59 Yes SBR 120 151' No 53 Yes EBL 200 268'' No 204'' No WBL 180 247! No 180! No 20 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Palo Verde WBL 550 401 Yes 266 Yes WBT/R 1,155 60 Yes 141 Yes 21 Woodruff Ave Pala Verde EBL 335 318` Yes 209` Yes EBR 335 228'! Yes 190'! Yes NBL 130 174 No 172 No 22 Stearns St Palo Verde SBL 120 89 Yes 161 No EBL 90 205 No 171 No WBL 1 80 38 1 Yes 118 No �1-40S irect On Ramp Studebaker Rd NBL 100 53 ! Yes 78 ! Yes SBR 70 12 '' Yes 23'' Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-2 No Build Alternative(Year 2020)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location ss2020 No Build Alternative Conditions` AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) NBL 200 42 Yes 50 Yes SBL 260 1 Yes 2 Yes 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd SBR 70 20 Yes 6 Yes EBL 120 77 Yes 222 No WBL 220 29 Yes 24 Yes 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd NBR 150 14 Yes 20 Yes SBL 200 68 Yes 169 Yes NBR 300 1069 No 970 No 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd SBL 150 331 No 318 No WBR 60 44 Yes 119 No 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway NBL 330 172! Yes 292! Yes SBL 290 253' Yes 338' No NBR 130 120 Yes 47 Yes SBL 160 195 No 243 No 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd SBR 160 80 Yes 277 No EBL 200 419 No 400 No WBL 200 39 Yes 71 Yes NBL 280 92 '! Yes 73'! Yes SBL 240 258`` No 212`` Yes 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd SBR 60 17 Yes 36 Yes EBL 110 53 Yes 100' Yes WBL 120 56 '' Yes 64'' Yes WBR 200 64 Yes 41 Yes EBL 270 109 Yes 28 Yes 33 7th St Channel Dr EBR 180 23 Yes 6 Yes WBL 280 107 Yes 264 Yes 34 7th St W.Campus Dr SBL/R 150 67 ! Yes 213! No EBL 400 88 Yes 3 Yes SBL 150 76 Yes 183 No 35 7th St E.Campus Dr SBT/R 150 68 Yes 108 Yes EBL 150 207 No 99 Yes WBL 300 74 Yes 131 Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-3 No Build Alternative(Year 2040)Intersection Level of Service-AM/PM Peak Hours Location No Build Alternative(Year 2040)LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg l Avg Delay Delay,' No. East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C (sec) LOS? D/C,' (sec) LOS ?' 1 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.62 22.4 C 0.73 24.5 C 1-605 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.24 -- 0.36 -- 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.35 0.36 -- 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.63 23.6 C 0.82 23.2 C 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.33 -- 0.37 -- 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.56 1 -- 0.53 -- 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 35.1 D 0.92 43.9 D 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.74 15.4 B 0.71 12.0 B 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.82 11.6 B 0.86 9.8 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.41 -- 0.41 -- 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.41 0.25 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.25 0.23 7 1 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.57 1 0.44 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.24 0.27 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.46 0.52 9 Willowst Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.81 33.6 C 0.93 48.4 D 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.37 -- 0.50 -- 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 -- 0.44 -- 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 11.6 B 0.58 11.3 B 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.57 -- 0.40 -- 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.33 1 -- 0.20 -- 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.09 67.3 E 1.09 70.6 E Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.70 26.9 C 1.13 56.8 E 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.07 -- 0.13 -- 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.13 -- 0.34 -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.56 10.6 B 0.51 16.8 B 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.18 -- -- 0.18 -- I -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.87 48.8 D 1.18 45.4 D 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.44 180.5 F 0.94 51.5 D 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.42 -- 0.20 -- 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.34 0.23 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.56 0.51 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.45 0.25 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.95 21.2 C 0.70 12.6 B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde Unsignalized On Ramp 0.14 -- -- 0.23 -- -- 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.91 15.9 B 0.72 11.3 B 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.94 22.0 C 0.92 24.4 C 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.33 -- -- 0.50 -- 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 2.8 A 0.51 4.9 A 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Unsignalized Intersection 1.02 98.3 F 0.33 15.7 C 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.60 10.7 B 0.85 15.7 B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.50 13.1 B 0.86 30.4 C 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.99 30.4 C 1.03 37.1 D 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr Unsignalized Intersection 0.51 25.3 D 0.84 152.1 F 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 1.02 65.8 E 1.03 58.7 E 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.13 82.4 F 1.06 63.0 E 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.57 39.1 D 0.82 32.1 C 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.77 25.7 C 1.02 50.8 D 34 7th St W.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.85 53.1 D 0.87 58.5 E 35 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 1.12 55.8 E 0.96 16.7 B PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-4 No Build Alternative(Year 2040)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location ss2040 No Build Alternative Conditions` AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) SBL 300 252 Yes 379 No 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBT 1,130 134 Yes 178 Yes SBR 300 263 Yes 187 Yes 3 Carson St 1-`605 NB Off Ramp NBL 300!(650) 246 Yes 319' Yes >NBR 300(1175) 214; Yes 135`` Yes NBL 120 270 No 299 No SBL 140 84 Yes 82 Yes 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd SBR 140 76 Yes 86 Yes EBL 250 303 No 431 No WBL 80 17 Yes 18 Yes 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBL 220(1240) 283' Yes 175' Yes SBR 900 0 Yes 0 Yes 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp WBL 260 287 No 191 Yes ssNBL 180 150 Yes 155 Yes 9 Willowst Lakewood Blvd SBL 150 52 ! Yes 101! Yes EBL 1775 76 `` Yes 100`` Yes WBL 150 45 Yes 163' No WBL 1,870 106 Yes 185 Yes 11 1-405 NB Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd WBL/T/R 1,130 83 Yes 193 Yes WBR 410 75 Yes 173 Yes NBL 150 403'' No 129'' Yes 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd SBL 120 157! No 98 ! Yes EBL 140 234; ;No 388`` No WBL 110 139'! No 274'! No NBL 160 24 Yes 43 Yes 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal Bellflower Blvd NBR 230 51 Yes 202 Yes EBL 190 347 No 599 No WBL 150 218 No 277 No 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp SBL 1525(500) 154'' Yes 275'' Yes SBL 120 185 No 272 No 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal EBL 140 155 No 79 Yes WBL 160 358 No 645 No NBL 140 730'! No 318'! No NBR 60 35 Yes 17 Yes 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave SBL 120 141 No 63 Yes SBR 120 170' No 62 Yes EBL 200 288'' No 225'' No WBL 180 272! No 196! No 20 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Palo Verde WBL 550 447 Yes 300 Yes WBT/R 1,155 74 Yes 170 Yes 21 Woodruff Ave Pala Verde EBL 335 356` No 230` Yes EBR 335 274'! Yes 223'! Yes NBL 130 189 No 188 No 22 Stearns St Palo Verde SBL 120 88 Yes 155 No EBL 90 229 No 191 No WBL 1 80 40 1 Yes 134 NO �1-40S irect On Ramp Studebaker Rd NBL 100 53 ! Yes 77 ! Yes SBR 70 12 '' Yes 26'' Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-4 No Build Alternative(Year 2040)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location ss2040 No Build Alternative Conditions` AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) NBL 200 88 Yes 61 Yes SBL 260 1 Yes 2 Yes 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd SBR 70 29 Yes 6 Yes EBL 120 84 Yes 248 No WBL 220 30 Yes 26 Yes 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd NBR 150 14 Yes 22 Yes SBL 200 74 Yes 186 Yes NBR 300 1244 No 1127 No 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd SBL 150 359 No 336 No WBR 60 46 Yes 171 No 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway NBL 330 182! Yes 324! Yes SBL 290 275' Yes 382' No NBR 130 151 No 37 Yes SBL 160 228 No 267 No 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd SBR 160 85 Yes 323 No EBL 200 435 No 372 No WBL 200 38 Yes 0 Yes NBL 280 98 '! Yes 76'! Yes SBL 240 273`` No 201`` Yes 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd SBR 60 17 Yes 35 Yes EBL 110 55 Yes 127' No WBL 120 62 '' Yes 72'' Yes WBR 200 91 Yes 42 Yes EBL 270 112 Yes 24 Yes 33 7th St Channel Dr EBR 180 20 Yes 61 Yes WBL 280 109 Yes 266 Yes 34 7th St W.Campus Dr SBL/R 150 73 ! Yes 232! No EBL 400 90 Yes 29`` Yes SBL 150 82 Yes 206 No 35 7th St E.Campus Dr SBT/R 150 71 Yes 127 Yes EBL 150 212 No 101 Yes WBL 300 78 Yes 144 Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study F177Table 4.3-5: No Build Alternative(Year 2020)Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline No Build Alternative(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Lane Type Direction Traffic Traffic Lanes Capacity 4 Demand D/C Density z LOS' Demand 1 D/C Densty LOSS Volumes '11 Volumes 1.405 Mainline Temple Avenue to G NB 5 9,250 9,530 1.03 41.5 E 9,810 1.06 41.2 E SB 5 9,250 9,720 �' 1,05 36.3 E 10,090 ( ' 1.09 F Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,860 1 1.01 2,190 �_ 1.18 SB 1 ( 1,850 1,820 ( 0.98 1,960 ( 1.06 -- ( -- '11 GP NB `. 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Lakewood Boulevard/Willow SB 5 9,250 '.Weaving Segment Refer to Weave Table Street to Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1 1,850 1,860 1 1.01 2,190 1 1.18 SB 1 1,850 1,820 0.98 -- 1,960 1 1.06 -- -- '11 GP NB `. 5 1 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard to SB 5 9,250 '.Weaving Segment Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,730 0.94 2,080 1.12 SB _.. 1 i 1,850 1,910 �. 1.03 �.2,080 i 1.12 '11 GP NB 5 i 9,250 WeavingSegment-RefertoWeaveTable Woodruff Avenue to SB 4 1 7,400 8,530 , 1,15 - F 1 8,790 1.19 J F Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1 1,850 1,730 0.94 1 -- 2,080 1.12 -- 1 SB 1 1 1,850 2,060 1 1.11 -- -- 1,990 ( 1.08 -- -- '11 GP NB `. 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street SB 5 9,250 '.Weaving Segment Refer to Weave Table to Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 i _. 1,850 1,730 0.94 2,080 1__. 1.12 SB 1 1 1,850 2,140 1 1.16 2,060 ( 1.11 `. GP NB 1 4 11 7,400 8,600 11 1.16 F 9,560 ; 1.29 F Studebaker Road to ..B 5 1 9,250 8,550 1 0,92 29.7 D 9,090 ! ,0.98 38,5 ! E 1-605 NBOff Ramp HOV NB 1 1,850 2,490 1 1.35 2,790 ( 1.51 ...... ...... ....... _;.. ... ..... �....... e.... �...... ...... SB 1 1,850 2,140 1 1.16 ; -- -- 2,060 1.11 -- -- GP NB 1 1 i 7,400 `. 6910 `. 0.93 35.9 E `.7,940 `. 107 `. 41.0 1 E 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off SB 4 7,400 7,150 11 0,97 31.8 D 7,830 1.06 43,7 E Ramp HOV NB 1 (...., 1,850_ , 2,490.._ 135 2,790._(., 1.51 -- -..... SB 1 1,850 2,140 ( 1.16 -- -- 2,060 ( 1.11 -- -- GP NB 4 1 7,400 6,910 1 0.93 35.9 E 7,940 ( ' 1.07 41.0 E ... 7th St Off Ramp to 1-605 SB On SB : 4 1 7,400 '11 7,050 1:' 0.95 :' 31.1 D 7,690 1.04 :' 42.2 E Ramp HOV NB 1 1,850 2,490 1 1.35 -- -- 2,790 1.51 -- -- SB -- 1.605 Mainline GP NB 4 7,400 `. 5,900 `. 0.80 25.8 C `.7,420 1.00 37.9 E Carson Street to Spring Street SB 4 7,400 7,750 1105 37.7 E 7,280 0.98 35,0 D NB 1 1850 1510 082 1900 103 HOV ... .. ......... .... ... SB 1 1,850 1,940 1.05 -- -- 1,740 0.94 -- -- NB 4 7,400 5,120 0.69 20.9 C 6,330 0.86 26.6 D Spring Street to GP SB 4 7,400 6,720 0,91 28.8 D 5,840 0.79 24,1 C Willow Street/KatellaAvenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 1.01 -- -- 2,450 1.32 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 -- -- 1,840 0.99 -- -- NB 5 9,250 : 5,120 0.55 17.0 B 5,740 0.62 20.8 C Willow Street/Katella Avenue CD GP SB 4 7,400 5,660 0,76 24.3 C 5,140 0.69 24,5 C Road On Ramp to 1-405 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,690 0.91 -- -- 2,220 1.20 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,660 0.90 -- -- 1,470 039 -- -- 7th Street:Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to GR EE 2 3,700 3,270 0188 17.5 B 3,160 0.85 16,9 B Studebaker Road fEB B 3 5,550 3,690 0.66 19.7 C 2,870 0.52 15.3 B Studebaker Road to -605 GP 2 3,700 4,390 1,19 * F 4,010 1.08 38,4 E B 2 3,700 3,910 1.06 36.4 E 3,900 1.05 36.2 E Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(D/C)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-6: No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service No Build alternative(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM!Peak Ramp Ram P1,4 Ramp Ramp Junction ! Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Traffic! Traffic D/C Dens LOSS'S 1 D/C Dens LOS3,s Volume Volume 1-405 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 2 3,000 870 0.29 12.6 B 880 >.0.29 14.1' B NB On Loop 1 1,500 790 ! 0.53 44.8 F ? 610 0.41 48.9! F Lakewood Blvd NB On Direct 1 1,500 570 ! 0.38 24.8 C ! 350 0.23 26.3! C &Willow St SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,160 0.39 17.9 B 1,400 0.47 20.4 F ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Loop 1 1,500 310 0.21 42.6 F 370 0.25 43.1 F .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. SB On Direct(from Willow St) 1 1,500 420 0.28 22.0 C 610 0.41 22.4 C NB Off Direct ! 1 1,500 540 ! 0.36 26.5 C 560 >'0.37 30.5' <D Bellflower Blvd& NB On,!(Direct+Loop) ! 2 3,000 1,260? 0.42 14.0 F ? 840 0.28 12.6! F Los Coyotes Diagonal SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,460 0.49 17.4 B 1,960 0.65 21.8 C SB On Direct Loo 1 1,500 860 35.0 F 1 400 33.9 F 0.57 0.93 NB Off Direct 1 1,500 580 0.39 22.6 C 280 »0.19 24.3 C ........ ......... .......... . NB On Direct ? 1 1,500 470 ? 0.31 34.1 F ? 320 0.21 39.6! F Woodruff Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 780 0.52 29.1 D 620 0.41 29.6 D SB On Direct 1 1,500 620 0.41 22.9 F 300 0.20 24.7 F NB Off Direct ! 1 1,500 690 ! 0.46 24.0 C 790 >'0.53 27.8 F Palo Verde Ave ................................... ... . NB On Loop 1 1,500 200 0.13 51.4 '! F 330 0.22 56.8 F &Stearn St ......... ......... ........ ........ ......... SB On Direct(from Stearn St) 1 1,500 450 0.30 26.2 F 630 0,42 26.3 F NB On Direct 1 1,500 330 0.22 53.5 F 330 0.22 59.8 F Studebaker Rd SB Off Direct 1 1,500 430 0,29 34.9 D 330 0,22 35.8 E 7th St SB Off Direct 1 1,500 90 0.06 33.3 D 140 0,09 36.5 E PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-6: No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service No Build alternative(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM!Peak Ramp Ram P1,4 Ramp Ramp Junction ! Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Traffic! Traffic D/C Dens LOSS'S 1 D/C Dens LOS3,s Volume Volume 1-605 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct ! 1 1,500 960 ! 0,64 32.0 D ! 940 0.63 38.4! E ..................................... .......... .................................... ..... .... ... ...... ............................... ..... .. _. .. ... NB On Loop 1 1,500 460 0.31 20.4 C ! 510 >0.34 25.0! C NB On Direct 1 1,500 780 0.52 20.7 C 730 0.49 24.1 C CarsonSt ..................................... ... ...... ... ........ SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,210 0.40 13.6 B 1,400 0.47 14.4 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 490 0.33 22.2 C 410 0.27 21.2 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 250 0.17 22.7 C 330 0,22 21.5 C NB On Loop 1 1,500 780 ! 0.52 18.5 B 1,090 0.73 20.4 C SpringSt/Cerritos Ave ... .................................................................. .�:.. ... ... ��. SB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,030 0.69 34.6 D 1,440 0.96 35.3 E NB Off,(Direct+Loop)!! 1 1,500 1,210'! 0,g1 0.2 A '! 870 0.58 1.1'! A .................................... .... .................................................. . �... ........................ ................................ NBOn`<Direct 1 1,500 1,120» 0.75 19.8 B ! 1,460 >'0,97 22.4! C Willow St/Katella Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 590 0.39 34.2 D 560 0.37 30.3 D SB Off Loop 1 1,500 1,120 0.75 34.6 D 1,030 0.69 30.5 D SB On Direct(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 650 0.43 23.6 C 890 0.59 21.5 C 7th Street Ramp Junctions EB Off>Loop 1 1,500 90 0.06 35.2 E 560 0.37 34.1' D .... .p...... .......... ...... ... ...... .... ..... .._. .... .._. .... ...._. .. .. EB On Loo 1 1,500 1,210 0.81 40.8 F 1,410 0.94 37.3 E Studebaker Rd WB Off Loop 1 1,500 740 0.49 40.5 F 1,400 0.93 40.4 F WB On Loop 1 1,500 520 0.35 28.1 D 370 0.25 20.9 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-6: No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service No Build alternative(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM!Peak Ramp Ram P1,4 Ramp Ramp Junction ! Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Traffic! Traffic D/C Dens LOSS'S 1 D/C Densityz LOS"' Volume Volume Free ay-to-Freewa Branch Connectors' 1-605 SB to 1-405 NB 1 1,800 920 0.51 -- -- 1,120 0.62 -- -- 1-605 S13/7th St to 1-405 NB 2 3,600 1,680 0.47 -- -- 1,620 0.45 -- -- 1-405 SB to 1-605 NB 2 3,600 1,400 0.39 -- -- 1,260 0.35 -- -- 1-405/1-605 Freeway Interchanges 1-605 S13 to 7th St/1-405 S13 2 3,600 4,750 1.32 -- -- 4,020 1.12 -- -- I-605 S13/I-405 SB to 7th St 1 11800 2,040 1.13 -- -- 1,360 0.76 -- -- 7th St to I-605 NB/I-405 NB 2 3,600 1,210 0.34 -- -- 1,330 0.37 -- -- 7th St to I-405 NB 1 1,800 770 0.43 1 440 0.24 -- -- Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In); D/C-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.* Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,D/C ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-7: No Build Alternative (Year 2020) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway and Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Freeway Mainline 1-405 Southbound- 45.2 F 71.1 F Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- 46.7 F 39.4 E Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street 1-405 Southbound- 40.3 E 66.9 F Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue 1-405 Northbound- 51.5 F 45.2 F Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Woodruff Avenue 45.3 F 38.3 E 1-405 Southbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Studebaker Road 32.6 D 44.2 F 1-405 Northbound- Studebaker Road to Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street 43.6 F 43.1 F Collector-Distributor(C-D)Roads Lakewood Boulveard/Willow Street Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 16.5 B 23.7 C Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 4.0 A 5.2 A Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-8: No Build Alternative(Year 2040)Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline No Build Alternative(Year 2040)Conditions Lane AM Peak Hour PM Pea kHour Location Direction Type a Traffic', Traffic Lanes Capacity' Demand 1, D/C Density', LOS' Demand D/C Density LOS' Volume'1 Volume'i 1-405 Mainline NB 5 9,250 10,300' i 1.11 F 10,610 1 1.15 1 F Temple Avenue to OP SB 5 9,250> 10,500- 1.14 §S 1 43.9 E '. 10,910 ; 1.18 F Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1 1,850 2,010 1.09 2,370 ( 128 SB 1 j 1,850 1,970 j 1.06 2,120 j 1.15 t OP NB 5 1 9,250' Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB 5 1 9,250'1 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 , 1,850 2,010 1.09 ; -- 2,370 , 1.28 SB 1 1,850 1,970 1.06 - -- 2,120 ( 1.15 -- -- OP NB 5 9,250' WeavingSegment-Referto Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard to SB 5 9,250'1 Weaving Segment Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 �._. 1,850 1,870 1.01 i 2,250 1 1.22 SB 1 i 1,850 2,060 1 1.11. - -- -.. 2,240 1.21 OP NB 5 9,250' Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue to SB >� 4 7,400'1 9,220:', ; 1.25 -- F 9,500 '; 1.28 -- F Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 1.01 ( -- -- 2,250 ( 1.22 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,230 ( 1.21 -- -- 2,150 1.16 -- -- OP NB 5 1 9,250' Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to SB 5 1 9,250' Weaving Segment Refer to Weave Table Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 1.01 2,250 ( 1.22 ......e .....a ........ .... .......a ..... SB 1 1 1,850 2,310 1 1.25 1 2,230 ( 1.21 -- -- OP NB 4 1 7,400' 9,290 1 1.26 F 10,330 140 , F Studebaker Road to SB 5 1 9,250§S 9,240 P 1 1.00 33.7 §S` D 9,830 1.06 44.1 1 E -605 NBOff Ramp HOV NB 1 1 1,850 2,700 1.46 3,020 163 ....... ....... ........ ..........ti ........ SB 1 1 1,850 2,310 ( 1.25 -- -- 2,230 1 121 - -- OP NB 1 7,400' 7,470 1 1.01 40.1 E 8,590 1.16 F SB '11 4 1 7,400'11 7,730:. j 1.04 '11 36.7 5 E 8,460 j 1.14 -- F 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp HOV NB 1 1 1,850 2,700 ( 1.46 -- -- 3,020 163 -- -- SB 1 i 1,850 2,310 ( 1.25 -- -- 2,230 1.21 -- -- GP NB 4 1 7,400' 7,470 1.01 40.1 E 8,590 1.16 * ; F 7th St Off Ramp to -605 SB On Ramp SB 4 7,400 7,630 ; 1.03 35.8 1 E 8,310 1.12 F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,700 1.46 -- -- 3,020 1.63 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 -- -- 2,230 1.21 -- -- 1-605 Mainline GP NB 4 7,400' 6,380 0.86 28.3 D 8,020 1.08 44.4 E Carson Street to Spring Street SB 4 7,400>: 8,370;1 1.13 -* F 7,870 1.06 40.6 E HOV NB 1 1,850 1,630 0.88 -- -- 2,050 1.11 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,100 1.14 -- -- 1,880 1.02 -- -- NB 4 7,400' 5,540 0.75 22.7 C 6,840 0.92 29.6 D Spring Street to GP SB 4 7,4001 7,260 0.98 32.6 D 6,310 0.85 26.5 D Willow Street/KatellaAvenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,630 0.88 -- -- 2,050 1.11 -- SB 1 1,850 2,100 1,880 -- NB 5 9,250' 5,540 ' 0.60 18.3 C 6,200 067 22.5 C Willow Street/Katella Avenue CD Road GP SB 4 7,400 6,120 0.83 26.6 D 5,560 0.75 26.5 D On Ramp to 1-405 HOV NB 1 1,850 2,020 1.09 -- -- 2,650 1.43 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 -- -- 1,990 1.08 -- -- 7th Street Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to OP EB 2 3,700' 3,540 0.96 18.9 '` C 3,420 0.92 18.3 C Studebaker Road WB 3 5,550£ 3,990` 0.72 21.4 C 3,100 0.56 16.6 B Studebaker Road to -605 GP EB 2 3,7001 4,750 1 1.28 -* F 4,340 1.17 -* F WB 2 3,700' 4,220' 1.14 43.4 E 4,210 1.14 43.1 E Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(D/C)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-9: No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service No Build Alternative(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp ' Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes ; Capacity Traffic 1 z a s Traffic z a s 1 D/C Density s LOS 1 ; D/C Density LOS ' Volume Volume 1-405 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 2 >.3,000 940 0.31 14.6 B 950 0.32 16.2 F NB On Loop 1 1,500 860' 0.57 48.0 F? 660 0.44 52.6 F Lakewood Blvd NB On Direct' 1 1,500 620' 0.41 26.6 F 370 0.25 28.4 F &Willow St SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,250 0.42 20.2 C 1,520 0.51 22.9 F ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Loop 1 1,500 330 0.22 45.9 F 400 0.27 46.4 F ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ SB On Direct(from Willow St) 1 1,500 460 0.31 23.6 C 660 0.44 23.8 F NB Off Direct 1 >.1,500 590 0.39 29.1 D 610 0.41 33.4 F Bellflower Blvd& NB On (Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 ? 1,360 0,45 16.0 ? ; F? 910 0.30 14.5 F Los Coyotes Diagonal SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,580 0.53 19.8 B 2,120 0.71 24.5 F SB On Direct Loo 1 1,500 930 37.2 F 1 520 35.5 F 0.62 1.01 NB Off Direct 1 >.1,500 630 0.42 25.2 C 300 0.20 27.0 C ................. NB On Direct' 1 1,500 ? 510 0.34 36.5 ? F? 340 0.23 42.5 F Woodruff Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 840 0.56 31.8 D 670 0.45 32.4 D SB On Direct 1 1,500 670 0.45 23.9 F 320 0.21 26.1 F NB Off Direct 1 >.1,500 750 0.50 26.8 C 860 0.57 30.9 F Palo Verde Ave P. .... ... ... . NB On Loo 1 1,500 210' 0114 55.7 F 350 0 23 61.5 F &Stearn St ... .......: ......... ........ ......... ........ ........ ....... ....... SB On Direct(from Stearn St) 1 1,500 490 0.33 27.6 F 680 0.45 27.5 F NB On Direct' 1 1,500 350' 0'.23 58.0 F 350 0.23 64..8 F Studebaker Rd SB Off Direct 1 1,500 470 0.31 37.6 E 350 0,23 38.5 F 7th St SB Off Direct 1 1,500 100 0.07 35.9 E 150 0.10 39.2 F PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-9: No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service No Build Alternative(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp ' Ramp1'4 Ramp ! Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes ; Capacity Traffic 1 z a s Traffic z a s 1 D/C Density s LOS 1 ; ! D/C Density LOS ' Volume Volume 1-605 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 1 1,500 ! 1,040 0.69 34.5 ! D! 1!',020 0.68 41.4 F ..... .._.p .......... .......... .... ..... ................................ .. ...... .... ..... ... NB On Loo 1 <1,500 500! 0[33 21.7 C 560 0.37 26.5 C NB On Direct' 1 1,500 840 0.56 21.7 C 790 0.53 '! 25..2 F Carson St ... .._. ......... .......... ... ..... SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,310 0.44 15.7 B 1,520 0.51 16.6 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 530 0.35 23.3 C 440 0,29 22.3 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 270 0.18 24.0 F 350 0.23 22.6 C NB On Loop 1 1,500 850! 0,57 19.2 B 1;180 0,79 ! 21.0 C Spring St/Cerritos Ave . ... .. ... .... .... ... .... ... SB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,110 0.74 37.2 E 1,560 1.04 38.0 E NB Off(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 '! 1,210 0.81 2.2 A'! 940 0.63 1.8 A �.. .... .. .� ... ... NB On Direct! 1 1,500 1,210 0[81 20.8 C 1,580 1.05 !' 23.3 C Willow St/Katella Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 640 0.43 36.8 E 610 0.41 32.6 D SB Off Loop 1 1,500 1,210 0.81 37.2 E 1,110 0.74 32.7 D SB On Direct(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 710 0,47 25.2 C 960 0.64 22.9 C 7th Street Ramp Junctions EB Off Loop 1 <1,500 100' 0.07 37.8 E 610 0.41 '! 36..6 E . ..... .. ....... EB On Loop 1 1,500 1,310 0.87 43.8 F 1,530 1.02 ! 40.2 F Studebaker Rd WB Off Loop 1 1,500 800 0.53 43.6 F 1,520 1.01 43.5 F WB On Loop 1 1,500 570 0.38 30.7 D 400 0.27 23.0 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-9: No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service No Build Alternative(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp ' Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes ; Capacity Traffic 1 z a s Traffic z a s 1 D/C Density s LOS 1 ; D/C Density LOS ' Volume Volume Free ay-to-Freewa'' Branch Connectors'' 1-605 SB to 1-405 NB 1 1,800 990 0.55 -- -- 1,210 0.67 -- -- 1-605 S13/7th St to 1-405 NB 2 3,600 1,820 0.51 -- -- 1,750 0.49 -- -- 1-405 SB to 1-605 NB 2 3,600 1,520 0.42 -- -- 1,360 0.38 -- -- 1-405/1-605 Freeway Interchanges 1-605 S13 to 7th St/1-405 S13 2 3,600 5,130 1.43 -- -- 4,340 1.21 -- -- I-605 S13/I-405 SB to 7th St 1 1,800 2,200 1.22 -- -- 1,470 0.82 -- -- 7th St to 1-605 NB/I-405 NB 2 3,600 1,310 0.36 -- -- 1,430 0.40 -- -- 7th St to 1-405 NB 1 1,800 830 0.46 -- -- 480 0.27 -- -- Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In); D/C-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.* Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,D/C ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.3-10: No Build Alternative (Year 2040) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway and Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Freeway Mainline 1-405 Southbound- 50.1 F 78.5 F Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- 51.2 F 43.3 F Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street 1-405 Southbound- 44.6 F 73.8 F Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue 1-405 Northbound- 57.0 F 50.2 F Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Woodruff Avenue 49.7 F 42.1 E 1-405 Southbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Studebaker Road 35.7 E 48.3 F 1-405 Northbound- Studebaker Road to Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street 48.0 F 47.7 F Collector-Distributor(C-D)Roads Lakewood Boulveard/Willow Street Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 16.5 B 23.7 C Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 4.0 A 5.2 A Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-1 Alternative 1(Year 2020)Intersection Level of Service-AM/PM Peak Hours Location Alternative 1(Year 2020)LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg l Avg Delay Delay,' No. East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C (sec) LOS? D/C,' (sec) LOS ?' 1 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.56 18.7 B 0.67 20.1 C 1-605 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.24 -- 0.38 -- 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.35 0.36 -- 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.59 20.3 C 0.76 16.6 B 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.30 -- 0.35 -- 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.51 1 -- 0.46 -- 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 30.7 C 0.87 31.6 C 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.68 14.0 B 0.64 10.3 B 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.73 9.3 A 0.78 8.1 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.43 -- 0.41 -- 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.38 0.22 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.26 0.22 7 1 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.53 1 0.41 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.23 0.25 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.41 0.46 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.74 28.9 C 0.96 46.5 D 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.33 -- 0.45 -- 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.28 -- 0.41 -- 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 10.4 B 0.53 10.9 B 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.51 -- 0.37 -- 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.29 1 -- 0.19 -- 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.00 50.1 D 1.00 51.2 D Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.64 27.5 C 1.06 44.6 D 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.08 -- 0.12 -- 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.12 -- 0.29 -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.52 10.3 B 0.47 14.0 B 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.25 -- -- 0.17 -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.77 31.7 C 1.04 36.7 D 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.32 146.2 F 0.88 40.9 D 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.39 -- 0.20 -- 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 0.21 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.51 0.45 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.43 0.23 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.78 17.0 B 0.63 12.0 B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde Unsignalized On Ramp 0.15 -- -- 0.20 -- -- 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.84 12.9 B 0.68 10.2 B 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 18.5 B 0.85 21.0 C 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.33 -- -- 0.44 -- 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 1.2 A 0.50 3.1 A 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Unsignalized Intersection 1.03 113.3 F 0.51 24.8 C 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.54 1 10.3 B 0.79 14.8 B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.53 13.0 B 0.76 27.3 C 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.97 28.9 C 0.96 28.6 C- 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr Unsignalized Intersection 0.51 24.3 C 0.73 104.8 F 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 0.96 53.2 D 0.96 37.4 D 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.06 71.4 E 0.96 42.8 D 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.50 36.6 D 0.69 19.5 B 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.74 23.2 C 0.95 25.6 C 34 7th St W.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 33.2 C 0.82 35.6 D 35 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 1.03 38.0 D 0.88 14.9 B PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-2 Alternative 1(Year 2020)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2020!Alternative 1 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) SBL 300 211 Yes 337 No 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBT 1,130 121 Yes 178 Yes SBR 300 238 Yes 186 Yes 3 Carson St 1-`605 NB Off Ramp NBL 300!(650) 234 Yes 294' Yes >NBR 300(1175) 210`` Yes 133`` Yes NBL 120 232 No 285 No SBL 140 77 Yes 76 Yes 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd SBR 140 72 Yes 84 Yes EBL 250 273 No 413 No WBL 80 17 Yes 16 Yes 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBL 220(1240) 264' Yes 160' Yes SBR 900 0 Yes 0 Yes 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp WBL 260 221 Yes 165 Yes ssNBL 180 130 Yes 130 Yes 9 Willow st Lakewood Blvd SBL 150 44 ! Yes 97 ! Yes EBL 1775 68 Yes 78`` Yes WBL 150 39 Yes 126' Yes WBL 1,870 103 Yes 175 Yes 11 1-405 NB Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd WBL/T/R 1,130 54 Yes 173 Yes WBR 410 51 Yes 156 Yes NBL 150 357'' No 135'' Yes 12 Willow st Bellflower Blvd SBL 120 135! No 113! Yes EBL 140 212`` No 342`` No WBL 110 215'! No 239'! No NBL 160 23 Yes 36 Yes 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal Bellflower Blvd NBR 230 49 Yes 163 Yes EBL 190 319 No 587 No WBL 150 206 No 263 No 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp SBL 1525(500) 140'' Yes 257'' Yes SBL 120 142 No 239 No 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal EBL 140 158 No 72 Yes WBL 160 326 No 599 No NBL 140 688'! No 288'! No NBR 60 34 Yes 18 Yes 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave SBL 120 129 No 63 Yes SBR 120 138' No 50 ' Yes EBL 200 246'' No 173'' Yes WBL 180 260! No 194! No 20 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Palo Verde WBL 550 383 Yes 259 Yes WBT/R 1,155 72 Yes 163 Yes 21 Woodruff Ave Pala Verde EBL 335 319` Yes 209` Yes EBR 335 194'! Yes 180'! Yes NBL 130 155 No 167 No 22 Stearns St Palo Verde SBL 120 95 Yes 173 No EBL 90 219 No 178 No WBL 1 80 36 1 Yes 117 NO �1-40S irect On Ramp Studebaker Rd NBL 100 1 1 Yes 58 ! Yes SBR 70 8 1 Yes 18'' Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-2 Alternative 1(Year 2020)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2020!Alternative 1 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) NBL 200 40 Yes 56 Yes SBL 260 1 Yes 3 Yes 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd SBR 70 61 Yes 21 Yes EBL 120 77 Yes 223 No WBL 220 28 Yes 26 Yes 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd NBR 150 15 Yes 21 Yes SBL 200 64 Yes 176 Yes NBR 300 1180 No 1032 No 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd SBL 150 386 No 257 No WBR 60 50 Yes 145 No 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway NBL 330 163! Yes 243! Yes SBL 290 275' Yes 364' No NBR 130 95 Yes 35 Yes SBL 160 166 No 228 No 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd SBR 160 82 Yes 250 No EBL 200 450 No 365 No WBL 200 39 Yes 74 Yes NBL 280 96 '! Yes 73'! Yes SBL 240 231` Yes 204`` Yes 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd SBR 60 21 Yes 33 Yes EBL 110 59 Yes 105' Yes WBL 120 49 '' Yes 59'' Yes WBR 200 58 Yes 39 Yes EBL 270 107 Yes 29 Yes 33 7th St Channel Dr EBR 180 22 Yes 6 Yes WBL 280 106 Yes 262 Yes 34 7th St W.Campus Dr SBL/R 150 68 ! Yes 216! No EBL 400 91 `` Yes 28`` Yes SBL 150 76 Yes 186 No 35 7th St E.Campus Dr SBT/R 150 67 Yes 109 Yes EBL 150 207 No 102 Yes WBL 300 76 Yes 135 Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-3 Alternative 1(Year 2040)Intersection Level of Service-AM/PM Peak Hours Location Alternative 1(Year 2040)LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg l Avg Delay Delay,' No. East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C (sec) LOS? D/C,' (sec) LOS ?' 1 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.61 18.8 B 0.73 20.8 C 1-605 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.26 -- 0.41 -- 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.38 0.39 -- 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.63 21.8 C 0.82 18.4 B 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.33 -- 0.37 -- 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.55 1 -- 0.49 -- 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.87 34.7 C 0.90 41.4 D 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.73 15.2 B 0.70 11.4 B 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 10.3 B 0.85 9.5 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.47 -- 0.44 -- 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.41 0.24 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.28 0.24 7 1 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.57 1 0.44 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.25 0.27 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.44 0.50 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 33.1 C 0.93 48.7 D 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.36 -- 0.48 -- 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 -- 0.44 -- 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 11.3 B 0.58 11.3 B 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.55 -- 0.40 -- 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.32 1 -- 0.20 -- 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.09 68.2 E 1.10 68.1 E Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.70 28.1 C 1.15 59.4 E 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.08 -- 0.13 -- 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.13 -- 0.32 -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.56 10.8 B 0.51 14.7 B 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.27 -- -- 0.18 -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 36.4 D 1.20 50.4 D 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.43 179.2 F 0.94 53.1 D 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.43 -- 0.22 -- 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.34 0.23 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.55 0.49 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.47 0.25 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.96 20.6 C 0.73 13.1 B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde Unsignalized On Ramp 0.17 -- -- 0.21 -- -- 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.91 15.4 B 0.74 11.2 B 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.94 21.7 C 0.93 25.1 C 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.35 -- -- 0.48 -- 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 1.4 A 0.54 3.2 A 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Unsignalized Intersection 1.24 170.6 F 0.53 25.2 D 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.58 1 11.1 B 0.86 16.9 B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.52 13.5 B 0.82 29.1 C 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 1.05 43.5 D 1.06 40.4 D 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr Unsignalized Intersection 0.61 30.2 D 1.00 184.2 F 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 1.04 71.5 E 1.04 62.4 E 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.14 84.9 F 1.04 57.2 E 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.54 36.9 D 0.81 32.0 C 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.80 24.3 C 1.03 55.3 E 34 7th St W.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 55.3 E 0.89 64.3 E 35 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 1.13 58.6 E 0.97 17.2 B PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-4 Alternative 1(Year 2040)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2040!Alternative 1 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) SBL 300 231 Yes 374 No 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBT 1,130 133 Yes 195 Yes SBR 300 267 Yes 205 Yes 3 Carson St 1-`605 NB Off Ramp NBL 300!(650) 255 Yes 322' Yes >NBR 300(1175) 234; Yes 143`` Yes NBL 120 256 No 313 No SBL 140 82 Yes 81 Yes 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd SBR 140 74 Yes 88 Yes EBL 250 307 No 452 No WBL 80 18 Yes 16 Yes 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBL 220(1240) 279' Yes 167' Yes SBR 900 0 Yes 0 Yes 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp WBL 260 239 Yes 181 Yes ssNBL 180 140 Yes 157 Yes 9 Willowst Lakewood Blvd SBL 150 52 ! Yes 103! Yes EBL 1775 80 Yes 100`` Yes WBL 150 45 Yes 152' No WBL 1,870 110 Yes 187 Yes 11 1-405 NB Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd WBL/T/R 1,130 65 Yes 196 Yes WBR 410 61 Yes 176 Yes NBL 150 394'' No 135'' Yes 12 Willowst Bellflower Blvd SBL 120 147! No 115! Yes EBL 140 230`` No 377`` No WBL 110 216'! No 247'! No NBL 160 25 Yes 39 Yes 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal Bellflower Blvd NBR 230 51 Yes 203 Yes EBL 190 344 No 647 No WBL 150 217 No 286 No 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp SBL 1525(500) 153'' Yes 274'' Yes SBL 120 173 No 279 No 16 Willowst Los Coyotes Diagonal EBL 140 167 No 71 Yes WBL 160 356 No 660 No NBL 140 753'! No 318'! No NBR 60 35 Yes 19 Yes 17 Willowst Woodruff Ave SBL 120 137 No 66 Yes SBR 120 155' No 58 ' Yes EBL 200 268'' No 193'' Yes WBL 180 289! No 212! No 20 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Palo Verde WBL 550 426 Yes 290 Yes WBT/R 1,155 90 Yes 225 Yes 21 Woodruff Ave Pala Verde EBL 335 355` No 231` Yes EBR 335 238'! Yes 204'! Yes NBL 130 169 No 181 No 22 Stearns St Palo Verde SBL 120 94 Yes 162 No EBL 90 245 No 199 No WBL 1 80 39 1 Yes 132 NO �1-40S irect On Ramp Studebaker Rd NBL 100 1 1 Yes 57 ! Yes SBR 70 9 1 Yes 20'' Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-4 Alternative 1(Year 2040)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2040!Alternative 1 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) NBL 200 67 Yes 75 Yes SBL 260 2 Yes 3 Yes 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd SBR 70 85 No 21 Yes EBL 120 81 Yes 248 No WBL 220 30 Yes 28 Yes 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd NBR 150 15 Yes 22 Yes SBL 200 77 Yes 199 Yes NBR 300 1362 No 1198 No 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd SBL 150 421 No 270 No WBR 60 51 Yes 174 No 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway NBL 330 174! Yes 269! Yes SBL 290 303' No 411' No NBR 130 127 Yes 29 Yes SBL 160 188 No 254 No 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd SBR 160 87 Yes 310 No EBL 200 473 No 345 No WBL 200 37 Yes 70 Yes NBL 280 102'! Yes 76'! Yes SBL 240 247`` No 195`` Yes 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd SBR 60 19 Yes 35 Yes EBL 110 62 Yes 127' No WBL 120 52 '' Yes 66'' Yes WBR 200 60 ` Yes 40 Yes EBL 270 107 Yes 24 Yes 33 7th St Channel Dr EBR 180 21 Yes 61 Yes WBL 280 107 Yes 264 Yes 34 7th St W.Campus Dr SBL/R 150 73 ! Yes 235! No EBL 400 85 `` Yes 28`` Yes SBL 150 82 Yes 207 No 35 7th St E.Campus Dr SBT/R 150 71 Yes 128 Yes EBL 150 212 No 104 Yes WBL 300 80 Yes 147 Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-5:Alternative 1(Year 2020)Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline Alternative 1(Year 2020)Conditions Lane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Direction Type to Traffic Traffic Lanes Capacity' Demand D/C Density L0S' Demand D/C Density2 L0S' Volume' Volume' 1.405 Mainline GP NB 5 9,250 9,540 1.03 41-6 E 10,400 1.12 F Temple Avenue to SB 5 ;9,250 9,680 1,05 36,0 E 10,050 1509 * F Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,070 1.12 -- -- 1,980 1.07 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,990 1.08 _ -- 2,140 1.16 -- -- GP 'NB '.5 19,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 2,060 1.11 -- -- 2,050 1.11 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,990 1.08 _ -- 2,140 1.16 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer toWeave Table Bellflower Boulevard to SB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 2,060 1.11 -- 2,050 1.11 SB 1 1,850 1,990 1.08 _ -- 2,140 1.16 -- -- GP NB '.5 `.9,250 WeavingSegment-Referto Weave Table Woodruff Avenue to SB 4 7,400 8,670 1.17 F 8,810 1119 F Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,070 1.12 -- -- 2,060 1.11 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,180 1.18 -- -- 2,020 1.09 -- -- GP NB S 19,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to SB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1,850 2,070 1.12 -- -- 2,060 1.11 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,240 1.21 -- -- 2,020 1.09 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400 8,810 1.19 F 10,380 1.40 F Studebaker Road to SB 5 9,250 8,740 0.94 30.7 D 9;090 0198 38.5 E 1-605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB.... 1 1,850 2,410 1.30 1,990 1.08 - SB 1 1,850 2,240 1.21 -- -- 2,010 1.09 -- -- GP NB 1 87,400 7,260 0.98 38.4 E 8,900 1.20 F 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp SB 4 7,400 7,460 1,01 34,3 D 8,030 1509 * F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,410 1.30 -- -- 1,990 1.08 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 -- -- 2,010 1.09 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400 7,260 0.98 38.4 E 8,900 1.20 F 7th St Off Ramp to 1-605 SB On Ramp SB 4 .',7,400 7,380 »1.00 33.6 >sD 7,910 1.07 44.6 E HOV NB 1 1,850 2,410 1.30 -- -- 1,990 1.08 -- -- SB 1 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 -- -- 2,010 1.09 -- -- 1-605 Mainline GP NS 4 7,400 6,140 0.83 27.0 D 7;490 1101 38.5 E Carson Street to Spring Street SB '.4 ,'7,400 7,890 '.1.07 39.1 E 7,420 1.00 36.1 E HOV NB 1 1,850 1,590 0.86 -- -- 1,980 1.07 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,900 1.03 -- -- 1,780 0.96 -- -- NS 14 17,400 5,360 0.72 21.9 IC 6,410 0.87 27.0 D Spring Street to GP SB 4 7,400 6,870 0.93 29,8 D 6,010 0581 24,9 C Willow Street/KatellaAvenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,850 1.00 -- -- 2,430 1.31 -- -- SB 1 1 1 1,850 1 2,200 1.19 -- -- 1,890 1 1.02 -- -- NB 5 9,250 5,320 0158 .17,6 B 6,630 0,72 24,0 C Willow Street/Katella Avenue CD Road GP SB a4 .',7,400 5,770 .0.78 24.8 'C 5,220 0171 24.8 C On Ramp to 1-405 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,480 ........0.80 .....1,990 .....1.08 SB 1 1,850 1,400 0.76 -- -- 980 0.53 -- -- 7th Street Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to GP EB 2 3,700 3,160 0.85 16,9 B 2,750 0,74 14,7 B Studebaker Road 'r,WS ''3 '.'.5,550 3,980 10.72 21.3 '11C 2,900 0.52 15.5 IB Studebaker Road to 1-605 GP EB 2 3,700 4,410 1.19 F 3,630 0.98 31.8 D 'I WS 'I2 ',13,700 .4,240 '.1.15 .43.9 '.E 4,030 1.09 38.8 E Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and trafficvolumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(D/C)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-6: Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 1(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type', Lanes Capacity' Traffic Traffic D/C Density2 LOS3'5 1 D/C Density LOS 3,5 Volumes Volume 1-405 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 2 3,000 990 0.33 13.8 B 950 0.32 16.0 F NB On Loop 1 >.1,500 790 0.53 44.9 F 610 0.41 52.1 F Lakewood Blvd NB On Direct; 1 1,500 ? 570? 0.38 24.8 ? C? 320 0.21 ? 28.1 D &Willow St SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,110 0.37 17.5 B 1,360 0.45 20.0 F SB On Loop 1 1,500 310 0.21 42.6 F 380 0.25 43.1 F SB On Direct(from Willow St) 1 1,500 430 0.29 22.1 C 610 0.41 22.4 C NB Off Direct' 1 1,500 520? 0,35 26.9 C 590 0.39 33.1 F Bellflower Blvd& NB On(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,200 0.40 13.9 F 830 0.28 13.8 F Los Coyotes Diagonal SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,450 0.48 17.4 B 1,960 0.65 21.8 C SB On (Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 930 0.62 35.0 F 1,410 0.94 33.9 F NB Off Direct 1 1,500 600 0.40 23.3 C 300 0.20 26.9 C NB On Direct 1 ;1,500 470 0.31 34.8 F 320 0.21 42.5 F Woodruff Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 760 0.51 29.3 D 600 0.40 29.6 D SB On Direct 1 1,500 640 0.43 23.1 F 290 0.19 24.7 F NB Off Direct 1 ;1,500 690 0.46 24.5 C 800 0.53 30.5 F Palo Verde Ave NB On Loop 1 1,500 230' 0.15 52.4 F 290 0.19 62.1 F &Stearn St SB On Direct(from Stearn St) 1 1,500 490 0.33 26.4 F 590 0.39 26.4 F NB On Direct 1 >1,500 270`` 0.18 55.1 F 280 0.19 65.5 F Studebaker Rd SB Off Direct 1 1,500 410 0.27 35.4 E 310 0.21 35.7 E 7th St SB Off Direct 1 1,500 80 0.05 34.6 D 120 0.08 37.2 F PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-6: Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 1(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type', Lanes Capacity' Traffic Traffic D/C Density2 LOS3'5 1 D/C Density LOS 3,5 Volumes Volume 1-605 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,010 0.67 33.4 D 960 0.64 38.8 E NB On Loop 1 1,500 ? 450? 0,30 21.0 ? C? 520 0.35 25.2 C NB On Direct 1 1,500 770 0.51 21.1 CC 690 0.46 24.2 C Carson St SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,210 0.40 13.7 B 1,390 0.46 14.4 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 530 0.35 22.3 C 440 0.29 21.4 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 270 0.18 22.9 C 350 0.23 21.7 C Spring St/Cerritos Ave NB On Loop 1 1,500 780 0.52 18.9 B 1,090 0.73 20.5 C SB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,020 0.68 35.0 E 1,410 0.94 35.6 E NB Off(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 1,060 0.71 0.6 A' 1,630 1.09 7.1 A NB On Direct 1 ;1,500 1,100 0.73 20.3 C 1,400 0.93 22.5 C Willow St/Katella Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 560 0.37 34.7 D 570 0.38 31.1 D SB Off Loop 1 1,500 1,120 0.75 35.3 E 1,020 0.68 31.1 D SB On Direct(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 590 0.39 24.2 C 800 0.53 21.9 C 7th Street Ramp Junctions EB Off Loop 1 >'1,500 110'' 0,07 34.1 D 610 0.41 30.1 D EB On Loop 1 >1,500 1,270 0.85 40.0 F 1,420 0.95 33.1 D Studebaker Rd WB Off Loop 1 1,500 790 0.53 43.8 F 1,440 0.96 41.7 F WB On Loop 1 1,500 550 0.37 30.3 D 390 0.26 21.0 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-6: Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 1(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type', Lanes Capacity' Traffic Traffic D/C Density LOS 3,5 1 D/C Density2 LOS3,5 Volume' Volume Freewa -to-Freewa Branch Connectors? 1-605 SB to 1-405 N13 1 1,800 800>' 0.44 -- -- 1,000 0.56 -- -- 1-605 SB/7th St to 1-405 N13 2 3,600 1,550 0.43 -- -- 1,480 0.41 -- -- 1-405 SB to 1-605 N13 2 3,600 1,290 0.36 -- -- 1,060 0.29 -- -- I-405/1-605 Freeway Interchanges 1-605 S13 to 7th St/1-405 S13 2 3,600 4,970 1.38 -- -- 41,230 1.18 -- -- 1-605 S13/1-405 SB to 7th St 1 1,800 2,150 1.19 -- -- 1,120 0.62 -- -- 7th St to 1-605 N13/1-405 N13 2 3,600 1,120 0.31 -- -- 1,230 0.34 -- -- 7th St to 1-405 N13 1 1,800 750 0.42 -- -- 430 0.24 -- -- Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);D/C-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.* Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,D/C ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-7: Alternative 1 (Year 2020) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway and Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Freeway Mainline 1-405 Southbound- 45.3 F 75.7 F Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- 47.6 F 42.5 E Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street 1-405 Southbound- 41.1 E 67.0 F Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue 1-405 Northbound- 52.6 F 49.7 F Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Woodruff Avenue 46.6 F 41.8 E 1-405 Southbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Studebaker Road 33.4 D 43.9 F 1-405 Northbound- Studebaker Road to Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street 44.2 F 45.1 F Collector-Distributor(C-D)Roads Lakewood Boulveard/Willow Street Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 18.1 B 22.5 C Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 5.0 A 5.0 A Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-8:Alternative 1(Year 2040) Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline Alternative 1(Year 2040)Conditions Lane' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Type Direction 4 Traffic) Traffic Lanes'Capacity' Demand D/C Density2 L0S' Demand D/C Density2 LOS' Volume) Volume))' 1-405 Mainline GP NB S 9,250 10,310' 1.11 F 11,240 1.22 F Temple Avenue to SB 5 9,2501 10,460' 1.13 43,5 E 10,860 1.17 * F Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,240 1.21 -- -- 2,140 1.16 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,160 1.17 _ -- 1 2,310 1.25 -- -- GP ' NB'. 5 9,2501 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB ' S 9,250' Weaving,Segment-Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 2,220 1.20 -- -- 1 2,210 1.19 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,160 1.17 _ -- 1 2,310 1.25 -- -- GP' NB' S 9,250 Weaving,Segment-Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard to SB 5 9,250 Weaving jSegment-Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 2,220 1.20 -- -- 2,210 1.19 SB 1 1,850 2,150 1.16 _ -- 2,310 1.25 -- -- GP NB 5 9,2501 Weaving,Segment-Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue to SB'1 4 7,400'11 9,370'11 1.27 F 9,530 '11 1.29 F Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,240 1.21 -- -- 2,220 1.20 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,350 1.27 -- -- 2,180 1.18 -- -- GP NB' S 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to SB 5 9,250' Weaving jSegment-Refer to Weave Table Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1,850 2,240 1.21 -- -- 2,220 1.20 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,420 1.31 -- -- 2,180 1.18 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400' 9,520 1.29 F 11,220 1.52 F Studebaker Road to SB'11 5 9,250'11 9,450'11 1.02 '11 35.1 '11 E 9,830 '11 1.06 I' 44.1 E 1-605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1 1,850 2,610 1.41 -- -- 2,150 1.16 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,420 1.31 -- -- 2,170 1.17 -- -- GP' NB' 1 7,400' 7,850' 1.06 43.9 E 9,620 1.30 F 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp SB 4 7,400 8,060' 1.09 40,2 E 8,270 1.12 * F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,610 1.41 -- -- 2,150 1.16 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,420 1.31 -- -- 2,170 1.17 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400' 7,850 1.06 43.9 E 9,620 1.30 F 7th St Off Ramp to 1-605 SB On Ramp SB 4 7,400;, 7,980 1.08 39.3 E 8,140 1.10 -* F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,610 1.41 -- -- 2,150 1.16 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 -- -- 2,170 1.17 -- -- 1-605 Mainline GP NB 4 7,400' 6,640' 0.90 29.8 D 8,100 1.09 F Carson Street to Spring Street SB'1. 4 7,400`. 8,530'. 1.15 -- F 8,020 1.08 42.4 E HOV NB 1 1,850 1,720 0.93 -- -- 2,140 1.16 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,050 1.11 -- -- 1,920 1.04 -- -- NB 4 7,4001 5,790 0.78 23.8 C 6,930 0.94 30.2 D Spring Street to GP SB 4 7,400 7,420 1.00 33,9 D 6,500 0.88 27,5 D Willow Street/KatellaAvenue HOV NB 1 1,850 2,000 1.08 -- -- 2,630 1.42 -- -- SB 1 1 1 1,850 1 2,370 1 1.28 1 -- -- 2,040 1.10 -- -- NB 5 9,250 5,750 0.62 19.0 C 7,170 0.78 26.0 D Willow Street/Katella Avenue CD Road GP SB 4 7,400.' 6,240 0.84 27.2 D 5,650 0.76 26.9 D On Ramp to 1-405 HOV NB 1 1,850 2,000 1.08 -- -- 2,630 1.42 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1 1,520 0.82 -- -- 1,060 0.57 -- -- 7th Street Mainline PepperTreeLanet0 GP EB 2 3,700 3,160 0.85 16.9 B 2,750 0.74 14.7 B Studebaker Road I WB>', 3 5,550'11 3,980'11 0.72 '11 21.3 '11 C 2,900 '11 0.52 15.5 81 Studebaker Road to 1-605 GP'11 EB' 2 3,700' 4,410 1.19 F 3,630 0.98 31.8 D WB'I 2 3,700'. 4,240'. 1.15 '. 43.9 '. E 4,030 'I 1.09 38.8 E Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(D/C)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-9: Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 1,(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp ' Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes ; Capacity Traffic 1 z a s Traffic z 1 ; D/C Density s LOS 1 ; D/C Density LOS"' Volume Volume 1-405 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 2 >.3,000 1,070 0.36 15.9 B 1,020 0.34 18.3 F NB On Loop 1 1,500 860 0.57 48.1 F? 660 0.44 56.1 F Lakewood Blvd NB On Direct' 1 1,500 610' 0.41 26.7 F 340 0.23 30.4 F &Willow St SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,200 0.40 19.7 B 1,470 0.49 22.5 F ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SB On Loop 1 1,500 340 0.23 46.0 F 410 0.27 46.4 F ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ SB On Direct(from Willow St) 1 1,500 460 0.31 23.6 C 660 0.44 23.8 F NB Off Direct 1 >.1,500 560 0.37 29.5 D 630 0.42 36.1 F Bellflower Blvd& NB On (Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 ? 1,300 0,43 15.9 ? ; F? 900 0.30 15.8 F Los Coyotes Diagonal SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,570 0.52 19.8 B 2,120 0.71 24.6 F SB On Direct Loo 1 1,500 1,010 37.1 F 1 520 35.5 F 0.67 1.01 NB Off Direct 1 >.1,500 640 0.43 25.9 C 330 0.22 29.9 F ........ .... NB On Direct' 1 1,500 ? 510 0.34 37.2 ? F? 340 0.23 45.7 F Woodruff Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 820 0.55 32.1 D 650 0.43 32.4 D SB On Direct 1 1,500 700 0.47 24.0 F 320 0.21 26.1 F NB Off Direct 1 >.1,500 750 0.50 27.3 C 860 0.57 33.8 F Palo Verde Ave ... .P. .... ... .. ... ... .... NB On Loo 1 1,500 250' 0117 56.9 F 320 0 21 67.2 F &Stearn St ... .......: ......... ........ ......... ........ ........ ....... ....... SB On Direct(from Stearn St) 1 1,500 530 0.35 27.7 F 640 0.43 27.7 F NB On Direct' 1 1,500 300' 0'.20 59.7 F 310 0.21 70..9 F Studebaker Rd SB Off Direct 1 1,500 450 0.30 38.1 E 330 0.22 38.4 F 7th St SB Off Direct 1 1,500 80 0.05 37.1 E 130 0.09 40.1 F PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-9: Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 1,(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp ' Ramp1'4 Ramp ! Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes ; Capacity Traffic 1 ; Traffic ity z sty z D/C Dens LOS"' D/C Den LOS"' s Volume Volume 1-605 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 1 1,500 ! 1,090 0.73 35.9 ! E ! 1!',030 0.69 41.8 F ... ................................p ........ .......... ......... ... ... ............... ....... ..................... .... ..... ... NB On Loo 1 <1,500 490! 0[33 22.2 C 560 0.37 26.7 C NB On Direct' 1 1,500 830 0.55 22.1 C 740 0.49 !! 25..3 F Carson St ... .._. ......... ..... ..... ..... SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,300 0.43 15.8 B 1,500 0.50 16.6 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 570 0.38 23.4 C 480 0,32 22.5 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 290 0.19 24.2 F 380 0.25 22.8 C NB On Loop 1 1,500 840! 0,56 19.6 B 1;170 0,78 ! 21.1 F Spring St/Cerritos Ave .. ... .. ... .... .... ... .... ... SB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,110 0.74 37.7 E 1,520 1.01 38.3 E NB Off(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 '! 1,140 0.76 2.6 A'! 1!',760 1.17 9.7 A �.. .... .. .� NB On Direct! 1 1,500 1,190 0[79 21.3 C 1,520 1.01 !' 23.4 C Willow St/Katella Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 610 0.41 37.3 E 620 0.41 33.5 D SB Off Loop 1 1,500 1,210 0.81 38.0 E 1,110 0.74 33.5 D SB On Direct(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 630 0,42 25.8 C 870 0.58 23.3 C 7th Street Ramp Junctions EB Off Loop 1 <1,500 120 0.08 34.1 D 660 0.44 '! 30..1 D ................................... ..... ..... .. ....... EB On Loop 1 1,500 1,370 0191 40.9 F 1;540 1.03 ! 34.0 D Studebaker Rd WB Off Loop 1 1,500 850 0.57 43.8 F 1,560 1.04 41.7 F WB On Loop 1 1,500 600 0.40 30.7 D 430 0.29 21.3 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-9: Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 1,(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp ' Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes ; Capacity Traffic 1 z a s Traffic z 1 ; D/C Density s LOS 1 ; D/C Density LOS"' Volume Volume Free ay-to-Freewa'' Branch Connectors'' 1-605 SB to 1-405 N13 1 1,800 870 0.48 -- -- 1,080 0.60 -- -- I-605 S13/7th St to I-405 NB 2 3,600 1,670 0.46 -- -- 1,600 0.44 -- -- 1-405 SB to 1-605 N13 2 3,600 1,390 0.39 -- -- 1,560 0.43 -- -- 1-405/1-605 Freeway Interchanges 1-605 S13 to 7th St/1-405 S13 2 3,600 5,380 1.49 -- -- 4,570 1.27 -- -- 1-605 S13/1-405 S13 to 7th St 1 1,800 2,150 1.19 -- -- 1,120 0.62 -- -- 7th St to I-605 NB/I-405 NB 2 3,600 1,200 0.33 -- -- 1,330 0.37 -- -- 7th St to I-405 NB 1 1,800 810 0.45 -- -- 470 0.26 -- -- Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In); D/C-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.* Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,D/C ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-10: Alternative 1 (Year 2040) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway and Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Freeway Mainline 1-405 Southbound- 49.9 F 78.5 F Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- 52.3 F 46.6 F Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street 1-405 Southbound- 45.6 F 73.7 F Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue 1-405 Northbound- 58.3 F 53.2 F Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Woodruff Avenue 51.3 F 46.2 F 1-405 Southbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Studebaker Road 36.5 E 48.0 F 1-405 Northbound- Studebaker Road to Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street 48.8 F 55.1 F Collector-Distributor(C-D)Roads Lakewood Boulveard/Willow Street Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 18.1 B 22.5 C Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 5.0 A 5.0 A Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT 1-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-11:Year 2020 Alternative 1 vs.Year 2020 No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Location No Build Alternative(Year 2020)LOS': Alternative 1(Year:2020)LOS Alternative l vs No-Build Alternative lwith Improvement(Yea,2020)LOS AM Peak Hour :PM Peak Hour. AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour : V/C Ratio Difference Comparison AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg Avg Avg:: Avg :: :Avg Avg Delay Delay Delay'. Delay : :Delay Delay No : East/West.Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments DfC (sec) :LOS D/C: (sec) :LOS D/C (sec) : LOS D/C (sec) : LOS : AM : PM Evaluation: D/C :(sec) LOS D/C (sec) LOS 1 Carson St -605 56 Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.57 22.3 C 0.68 23.8 C 0.56 18.7 B 0.67 20.1 C 1-605 SB Di rect On Ram 11- C,1,-: 021 0.11 0.24 17.31 2 Carson St 605 SB Loop On Ramp U-,-,_, G'R err^ C', 033 n 035 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.59 21.8 C 0.76 20.6 C 0.59 20.3 C 0.76 16.6 B 0.000 0.000 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp H-Fr r,^ftar-: C_'1 n 30 1 0.30 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp U-,-, C 2 0.49 C-i 0.45 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 31.1 C 0.84 33.7 C 039 303 C 0.87 31.6 C 0.000 0.030 LOS 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.68 1 14.2 B 0.65 10.9 B 0.68 14.0 B 0.64 10.3 B 0.000 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.76 1 10.5 1 B 0.79 8.2 A 0.73 9.3 A 0.78 8.1 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp W, 'ed 0.>U n.3S n,.; 0.41 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp I F, „u r,.,R,o C.:'.& 0.?3 0'; 02. 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp U _.d 0.23 0.22 025 7.22 7 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd IJ,,g," o C,Farr, 0.53 1.41 ii,> 0.4; 1-405 SB Loo On Ram U"-c.r-:<r'G'R,me 0.22 0.2� 0 2; 0.25 .. 8 -0OS SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd U is d U n,:..r'.: ,^:.1 0.=48 0=,1 0.40 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.75 31.2 C 0.89 43.0 D 034 28.9 C 0.96 46.5 D 0.070 LOS 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Un..'n, :,, 03; 0 46 0 5' 0.4, 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp I o s. tare; 0.2F. U.M 0<d 0.41 1-405NBOff Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 10.8 B 0.53 10.6 B 0.51 10.4 B 0.53 10.9 B 0.000 0.000 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp U"-c.r-:<r'G'R,fin^ 075 037 0'.i 03: 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd IJ,,g,, o C,tan, 0 31 n;17 0 29 0. 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.01 48.8 1 D 1 1.01 54.4 D 1.00 50.1 D 1.00 51.2 D Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.65 26.4 I C 1.00 42.1 D 0.64 27.5 C 1.06 44.6 D 0.060 LOS 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp IJ ,g ,I. ar te; 01"n 11.12 0 mi 0.12 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd U-1,-,Z. G'Rdrr^. 0.12 032 0 42 0.27 1-405SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.52 10.0 B 0.47 16.0 B 0.52 10.3 B 0.47 14.0 B 0.000 0.000 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp IJ-F, r;,Ra!-? 0.11 n1? 075 0.1;' 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.78 44.4 D 1.02 35.1 D 037 31.7 C 1.04 36.7 D 0.020 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.33 147.9 F 0.87 40.4 D 132 146.2 F 0.88 40.9 D 0.010 -405 NB Direct Off Ramp U-i>:;;-i zr ?;r,, C 3° I n I.9 I I 0 39 1 0 20 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave U"'1 r.r Z. G'Rdr-^ C5'i 17.21 03: 0.2 1 405 SB Direct Off Ram W, <.. I,n,> ,.57 n 47 iJ,i. 0.41 19 1405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave IJ-F, „u r,.,Rai-> ^" 1 0.23 n 0:11 1-405 NB Direct Off Ram Existing Traffic Signal 0.78 17.7 B 0.61 11.8 B 0.78 17.0 B 0.63 12.0 B 0.000 0.020 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde IJ,,g s:,R,,, ii.13 11.22 ii l2 0.10 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.84 13.6 B 0.66 10.3 B 0.84 12.9 B 0.68 10.2 B 0.000 1 0.020 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 18.9 B 0.83 20.5 C 0.86 18.5 B 0.85 21.0 C 0.000 0.020 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp IJ ,g ,o I.,Rwr, .in 1.46 ii» 0.14 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 2.6 A 0.47 1 4.7 1 A 0.51 1.2 A 0.50 3.1 A 0.000 0.030 LOS 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd I I 1 0.010 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.54 9.3 A 0.78 13.8 B 034 103 B 0.79 14.8 B 0.000 0.010 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.46 1 12.8 B 0.79 28.0 C 0.53 13.0 B 0.76 27.3 C 0.070 LOS 28 SR-22 EB On/Off R mp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.91 21.3 C 0.93 25.8 C 0.97 28.9 C 0.96 28.6 C 0.060 0.030 LOS C 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Or 0.050 0.030 Exceed 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 0.94 49.2 D 0.95 35.9 D 0.96 53.2 D 0.96 37.4 D 0.020 0.010 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.04 68.9 E 0.98 47.9 D 1.06 71.4 E 0.96 42.8 D 0.020 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.53 38.8 D 0.70 20.4 C 0.50 36.6 D 0.69 19.5 B 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.71 24.5 C 0.94 22.7 C 0.74 23.2 C 0.95 25.6 C 0.030 0.010 LOSC 34 7th St W.Campus Or Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 31.2 C 0.81 32.0 C 0.79 33.2 C 0.82 35.6 D 0.000 0.010 35 7th St E.Campus Or Existing Traffic Signal 1.03 35.8 D 0.87 14.6 1 B 1.03 1 38.0 D 0.88 14.9 B 0.000 0.010 NOTES:*the LOS results for#25 and#29 are based on signalized conditions in order to compare the V/C ratio for the entire intersections. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority 1-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-12:Year 2040 Alternative 1 vs.Year 2040 No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Location 'S'.No Build Alternatve(Year 2040)LOS Alternative((Year 20401 LOS Alternative l vs,Nor-Bui[d'. Alternative 1 with lmprovement.(Year 2040)LOS<. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak HoIB D/C Ratio Difference Comparison AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg <Avg Avg l:Avg 1.Avg Avg ? Delay SDelay Delay ':Delay ':Delay Delay Na East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C : (sec) LOS D/C :(sec) LOS: D/C (sec) LOS D/C :(sec) AM PM Evaluaton D/C :(sec) LOS D/C : (sec) LOS 1 Carson St -6055BOffRamp Existing Traffic Signal 0.62 22.4 C 0.73 24.5 C 0.61 18.8 B 0.73 20.8 0.000 tb05 SB Direct On Ram U i,q:z U n,..ia 124 0.36 0.26 001 2 Carson St -605 SB Loop On Ramp Ir i, -�, U f,.3:: 0.35 0.38 0.34 1-605 NB Off Ram Existing Traffic Signal 0.63 23.6 C 0.82 23.2 C 0.63 21.8 C 0.82 18.4 0.000 0.000 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp I 1 11,.,^a 0,i r) ,- 0 i> 0 i7 U.33 i.>7 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp ,1',.,'a ., R,1, 0 5G t,2z ii s i 49 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 35.1 D 0.92 43.9 D 0.87 34.7 C 0.90 41.4 D 0.010 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.74 15.4 B 0.71 12.0 B 0.73 15.2 B 0.70 11.4 B 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.82 11.6 B 0.86 9.8 A 0.79 103 B 0.85 9.5 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp U,;,:a i 1,, 0.41 0.41 1.47 8.4, 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Urs g-;a 30, 0.41 025 041 014 , a d , r c : ( 0.24 1-405 NB Loo Off Ram . 7 -005 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd L i,z'.a U i n,is (,27 G 44 6 .7 0=,4 1-405 SB Loo On Ram s.,^a, ,,^ 0.24 0.27 ii="> 127 8 -005 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd -d., 4 n,> 0 4G t,,22 11.44 SG 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.81 33.6 C 0.93 48.4 D 0.79 33.1 C 0.93 48.7 D 1;:: 0.000 1-405 SB Loop Off Ram na" 011f "w, C:'.% C i1 ri=.6 `148 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp t -^d i)q R.. i 31 C.d4 ri?.1 r�44 1-405 NBOff Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 11.6 B 0.58 11.3 B 0.55 11.3 B 0.58 11.3 B 0.000 0.000 1-405 NB Loo On Ramp U,g- ,a- C 7 040 175 140 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd tm_;;a zed0 a,,,, 033 0.7.0 132 110 12 Wil low St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.09 67.3 E 1.09 70.6 E 1.09 68.2 E 1.10 68.1 E 0.000 0.010 Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.70 26.9 C 1.13 56.8 E 0.70 28.1 C 1.15 59.4 E 0.000 0.020 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal -405 SB Direct On Ramp U i,z'.z U i n,..ia 007 0 13 0.03 a I 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd s.,^a P,1, II 13 0.>4 1.13 ,_>2 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.56 10.6 B 0.51 16.8 B 0.56 10.8 B 0.51 14.7 B 0.000 0.000 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal -405 SB Loop On Ram "V,-,rd R,,', 1.18 1.18 02, 018 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.87 48.8 D 1.18 45.4 D 0.86 36.4 D 1.20 50.4 D 0.020 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.44 180.5 F 0.94 51.5 D 1.43 1791 F 0.94 53.1 D 0.000 1-405 NB Direct Off Ram ^,s;ra ci V 0.42 1.20 1.4"s 112 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave t,ns:;;a,...0, C34 113 13: 113 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp d O (, 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave U i,z'.z U i n,.is 1 47 025 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.95 21.2 C 0.70 12.6 B 0.96 20.6 C 0.73 13.1 B 0.010 0.030 LOSB 20 1-405NBLoo On Ramp Palo Verde t 1",.,a,..0 R,1, 0.14 0.23 ,1.7 '21 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.91 15.9 B 0.72 11.3 B 0.91 15.4 B 0.74 11.2 B 0.000 0.020 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.94 22.0 C 0.92 24.4 C 0.94 213 C 0.93 25.1 C 0.000 0.010 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ram ,-^a i)q c n C 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 2.8 A 0.51 4.9 A 0.55 1A A 0.54 3.2 A 0.000 0.030 LOSA 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd 0.010 0.000 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.60 10.7 B 0.85 15.7 B 0.58 11.1 B 0.86 16.9 B 0.010 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.50 13.1 B 0.86 1 30.4 C 0.52 13.5 B 0.82 29.1 C 0.020 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ram p Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.99 30.4 C 1.03 37.1 D 1.05 43.5 D 1.06 40.4 D 0.060 0.030 LOS D 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Or 0.040 0.030 Exceed 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 1.02 65.8 E 1.03 58.7 E 1.04 71.5 E 1.04 62.4 E 0.020 0.010 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.13 82.4 F 1.06 63.0 E 1.14 84.9 F 1.04 57.2 E 0.010 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.57 39.1 D 0.82 32.1 C 0.54 36.9 D 0.81 32.0 C 33 7th St Channel Dr Exist in Traffic Si nal 0.77 25.7 C 1.02 50.8 D 0.80 24.3 C 1.03 55.3 E 0.030 0.010 LOS C 34 7th St W.Campus Or Existing Traffic Signal 0.85 53.1 D 0.87 58.5 E 0.86 55.3 E 0.89 64.3 E 0.010 o.ozo 35 7th St E.Campus Or Existing Traffic Signal 1.12 55.8 E 0.96 16.7 B 1.13 58.6 E 0.97 17.2 B 0.010 0.010 NOTES:*the LOS results for#25 and#29 are based on signalized conditions in order to compare the V/C ratio for the entire intersections. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority 1405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-13:Year 2020 Alternative 1 vs Year 2020 No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison lMainline Na BU Id Alternative(Year 2020)conditions Alternative l(Year 2020)conditions 2020 AItematiVe l vs.2020 No-Build AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hmy ::PM Peak Hour: D/C Ratio Difference Comparison Location :Lame Type Direction is Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Lanes Capacity :Demand D C Demand D C Remand D / Density LOSa /. Densityc LOSa /C DensitX, LOSS Demand b[C Densityc LOSa AM PM Evaluation Volume' UOlume' :Volume' ::Volume' 1-405 Makttine 1-405 Mainline 1-40SMainiine NB 5 : 9250 : 9 530 1033 41.S : E :9,810 106 41.2 E :9,S40 103 416: E :l0 400 1.12 F 0.00 : 0.06 :Decrease PM LOS(E to F) Temple Avenue to GP SB 5 9,250 9720 105 363 E 10,090 109 F 9,680 105 360 E 10,050 109 F 0.00 0.00 Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,860 1.01 - - 2190 1.18 - 2010 1.12 - - 1,980 107 - - 0.11 SB 1 1,850 1,820 0.98 _ - 1,960 1.06 - 1,990 1.08 - - 2,140 116 - - 0.09 0.10 OP ry8 5 : 9,250:: 9030 0.98 See Weaving Table ::9,730 105 See Weaving Table :9160 0,99 See Weaving Table :10420 :1,13 See.WeaVng Table : Om : 0.07 Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to :::SB 5:: 9,250:: 9,290 1:00 See Weavng Table :::9,670 105 See Weaving Table :9310 4:01 See Weav ng Table 9970 :1.08 See.Weavng Table 0.00 : 0.03 Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 1,860 1.01 - - 2,190 1.18 - 2,060 1.11 -- -- 2,050 111 - - 0.11 "'T SB 1 1,850 1,820 0.98 _ - 1,960 1.06 - 1,990 1.08 - - 2,140 116 - - 0.09 0.10 GP NB 5 91250 8320 0.90 See Weav ng Table ::9460 102 See Weaving Table :8490 0:92 See Weaving Table : 10,180 110 See Weaving Table 0.02 0.08 Bellflower Boulevard to ::SB 5:: 9250:: 8,690 0.94 See Weaving Table ::9,110 0.98 See Weaving Table ::8780 0.95 See Weavng Table :9130 :099 See:Weavng Table : Om : 0.00 Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,730 0.94 - - 2080 1.12 - 2060 1.11 - - 2,050 111 - - 0.18 SB 1 1,850 1,910 1.03 _ - 2,080 1.12 - 1990 1.08 - - 2,140 116 - - 0.04 0.03 GP NB 5 9,250 8430 0,91 See Weaving Table :9,420 102 See Weaving Table :8620 0.93 See Weav ng Table 10,160 :110 See Weav ng Table 0.02 0.08 Woodruff Avenue to :::SB 4:: 7,400:: 8530 1-15 F ::8,790 1.19 F ::8670 1:.17 F : 8,810 :1119 F 0.02 : 0.00 Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,730 0.94 - - 2080 1.12 - 2,070 1.12 - - 2,060 111 - - 0.18 SB 1 1,850 2,060 1.11 - - 1,990 1.08 - 2180 1.18 - - 2,020 1.09 - - 0.06 0.02 GP NB 5:: 9250.:: 8,930 0.97 See Weavm Table :9,890 101 See Weaving Table ::4080 0.98 See Weaving Table :10300 :111 Ice Weaving Table : 002 Palo Ve rd e Ave nue/Stearns St reet to SB 5: 9,250 8,986 0.97 See Weaving Table :9420 102 See Weaving Table :9160 0:99 See Weavng Table 9400 :102 See Weavng Table 0.02 0.00 Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1,850 1,730 0.94 - - 2,080 1.12 - 2,070 1.12 - - 2,060 111 - - 0.18 SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 2,060 1.11 2,240 1.21 2,020 109 0.05 GP NB 4 : 7,400:: 8600 1.16 F ::9,560 129 F :8810 1:.19 F :10380 1,4D F Om : 0.11 Studebaker Road to ::SB 5 9,250 8,550 0,92 297 D :::9,090 098 385 E :8740 Q.9,1 30.7: D 9090 :098 38.5 E 0.02 0.00 1-605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1 1,850 2,490 1.35 - - 2790 1.51 - 2,410 1.30 - - 1,990 108 - - SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 - - 2,060 1.11 - 2,240 1.21 - - 2,010 109 - - 0.05 GP NB 1 7,400 6,910 0.93 359 E :7940 107 410 E :7260 0:98 384: E 8,900 120 '. F 0.05 0.13 :Dec reasePM LOSE to f) 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp SB 4 : 7,400:: 7,150 0.97 31.8 : D 7,830 106 43.7 E :7,460 1.01 34.3: D : 8,030 109 * F 0.04 : 0.03 :Decrease PM LOS{E to F) HOV NB 1 1850 2490 1.35 1,790 151 .. 2,410 1.30 1990 108 SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 - - 2,060 1.11 - - 2,140 1.16 - - 2,010 1.09 - - 0.00 GP NB 4 7,400 6,910 0,93 359 E .::7,940 107 410 E :7260 0.98 38A: E 8,900 :120 F 0.05 0.13 Decrease PM LOS(E to F) 7th St Off Bar mp to 1-605 SB O n Ramp 58 4 7,400 7,050 0,95 311 D :7,00 104 42.2 E :7,380 1.00 33.6: D 7,910 107 446 E 0.04 : 0.03 NB 1 1,850 2,490 1.35 2,790 151 2,410 1.30 1,990 108 - HOV SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 - - 2060 1.11 ' - 2,140 1.16 - - 2,010 1.09 ' - - 0000 1-605 Mainline 1-605.M.I.Aine 1-605'.Mainline GP NB 4 7,400 5900 0:80 258 C 7420 100 379 E 6140 0'.83 270. D 7490 101 38.5 E 0.03 0.01 :Decr aseAM LOS(C to D) Carson Street toy Street SB 4:: 7 400.:: 7 750 1.05 37 7:: E ::7,280 0,9$ 35 0 D ::7890 I.07 391: E : 7 420 :100 36.1 E 0.02 : 0.02 ::Decrease PM LOS(D to E) Sp D, HOV NB 1 1,850 1,510 0.82 - - 1900 1.03 - 1590 0.86 - - 1,980 107 - - 0.07 0.07 SB 1 1,850 1,940 1.05 - - 1740 0.94 - 1,900 1.03 - - 1,780 096 - - 0.02 NB 4 7,400::_5,120 0:69 __20.9 : C 6,330 0.86 26.b D :5,360 0..72 219: C : b,410 :0.87 27.0 D 0.03 : 0.01 Spring Street to GP :SB 4 : 7,400:: 6,720 0.91 288 : D ::5,840 079 241 C :6870 0.93 298: D : 6010 :0,81 24.9 C Om : 0.02 Willow Street/Katella Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 1.01 - - 2,450 1.32 - 1,850 1.00 - - 2,430 131 - - SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 - - 1840 0.99 - 2,200 1.19 - - 1,890 102 - - 0.03 0.03 NB 5 : 9,250:: 5,120 0.55 17.0 : B .:5,740 0.62 __20.9 C :5 320 0:.58 17 6: B : 6,630 '.072 24.0 C Om : 0.10 Willow Street/Katella Avenue CD Road On GP SB 4 7,400 5,660 0.76 243 C :5140 0.69 24S C :5770 0:78 248: C 5220 071 24:8 C 0.01 0.01 Ramp to 11105 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,690 0.91 2,220 1.20 1,480 0.80 1,990 108 :.... :: SB 1 1,850 1,660 0.90 - - 14]0 0.]9 - 1,400 0.76 - - 980 0.53 ?.7th Street Mainline 7th Street Mainline 7th Street MaARROe Pe p pe r Tree La ne to GP : EB 1 2 :1 3700:: 3,270 1 0.88 1 175 :1 B 1 3,160 085 169 B :3160 0.85 169: B : 2,750 :074 14.7 B Studebaker Road :WB 3: 5,550 3690 0:66 197 t .'.:2$70 052 153 : B :3980 0:72 213: C 2900 052 IS.S B P0.05 0.01 Studebaker Road to :: EB 2 3,700 4390 1:19 F :4,010 108 384 : E :4410 1:19 F 3630 098 31;8 D 0.01 Improve PM LOS(E to D) -605 GP WB 2:: 3]00:: 3910 1:Ob 35*4 : E ::3,900 1.05 362 E ::4240 1.15 439: E : 4030 :109 38:8 E Om : 0.04 Notes 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(,ph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pcami/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS is based on density except when demand-topaaty(D/C)ratio isgreater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a sngle HOV lane. 5.*Density isin escessof45 pcani/In;therefore LOS is F. 6. Data Not available/Not applicable. PARSONS Change County Transportanon Authority 1405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.4-14:Year 2040 Alternative 1 vs Year 2040 No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison Mainline No Build Alternative(2040)Conditions Alternative1(Year2040)Conditions' 2040 alternative as.2040 No-Build :AM Peak Hour: :PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D/C Ratio Difference Comparison Location Lane Type Direction : Traffic : Traffic : Traffic Traffic Lanes Capacity''° :Demand D C Demand D C Demand D C Demand D C / Den6ityv LOS' { Densityr LOS'. l Densityr LOS / Den6ityr LOS' AM PM Evaluation Volume' : Volume' Volume' Volume` 1-40S Mainline 1.405 Mainline 1405 Mai aline GP NB 5 9250 10,300 111 F 10,610 115 - F 10,310 111 F 11240 1:22 F 0.00 0.07 Temple Avenue to SB 5 9,250 :: 10,500 ::114 43:9 E 10,910 : 118 F:: 10,460'. 113 435 E 10,860 1.17 - F 0.00 La Reword!Be ulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,010 1.09 - - 2,370 1.28 - - 2,240 1.21 - - 2,140 1.16 - - 0.12 SB 1 1,850 1,970 1.06 - 2,120 1.15 2,160 1.17 - 2,310 1.25 0.10 0.10 GP NB 5 9250 : 9760 :1.06 See Weaving Table 10,531 1.14 See Weaving Table: 9910: 107 : See WeaviihS Table 11,270 1;22 See Weaving Table 0.02 0.08 Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB 5 9,250 ::: 10,050 :109 See:Weaving Table : 10,460 113 Sag Weaving Table.: 1'tgal 109 : See Weaving Table ':10460 :1.13 Sea.Weaving Table : 0.00 0.00 Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 21010 1.09 - 2,370 1.28 2,220 1.20 - - 2,210 1.19 - 0.11 SB 1 1,850 1,970 1.06 - 2,120 1.15 2,160 1.17 - 2,310 1.25 0.10 0.10 GP NB 5 9,250 :: 8990 ::097 5ee Weaving Table : 10,220 : 110 See Weaving Table: 9180: 099 See Wearing Table 11,000 1.19 See Weaving Table : 0.02 0.08 Bellflower Boulevard to SB 5 9250 9,390 :102 See.Weaving Table 9850 106 See Weaving Table. 9star 103 : See Weaving Table 9,860 1.07 See Weaving Table 0.01 0.00 Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 1.01 - - 2,250 1.22 - - 2,220 1.20 - - 2,210 1.19 - - 0.19 SB 1 1,850 2,060 1.11 - 2,240 1721 2,150 1.16 - 2,310 1.25 0.05 0.04 GP NB 5 9250 9110 :098 See Weaving Table : 10,180 : 110 See Weaving Table.: 9320: 1101 See Weaving Table 10,990 1.19 See Weaving Table : 0.02 0.09 Woodruff Ave nue to SB 4 7,400 : 9,220 :125 - F 9500 1.28 F 9370: 127 : F :9530 129 F 0.02 0.00 Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 1.01 - - 2,250 1.22 - 2,240 1.21 - - 2,220 1.20 SB 1 1,850 2,230 1.21 2,150 1.16 2,350 127 2,180 1.18 0.06 0.02 GP NB 5 9250 9,640 :104 See Weaving Table 10,680 115 See Weaving Table. 9820: 106 : See Weaving Table 12,080 1.31 See Weaving Table : 0.02 0.15 Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to SB 5 9,250 :: 9,710 ::LOS See Weaving Table : 10,180 : 110 See Weaving Table.: 9900: 107 Se e Weaving Table 10,170 110 See Weav ng Table : 0.02 0.00 Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 1.01 - - 2,250 1.22 - - 2,240 1.21 - - 2,220 1.20 - - 0.20 SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 2,230 1.21 2,420 1.31 2,180 1.18 0.06 GP NB 4 7,400 9,290 1.26 * F 10,330 1.40 -* F 9,520 129 * F 11,220 1;52 * F 0.03 0.12 Studet,her Road to SB 5 9,250 9,240 :100 33.7 D 9,830 : 106 441 E : 9450: 1,02 351 E 9,830 1.06 44..1 E 0.02 0.00 Decrease AM LOS[D to E) -605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1 1850 2,700 146 - 3,020 163 2,610 141 2150 1.16 SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 - - 2,230 1.21 - - 2,420 1.31 - - 2,170 1.17 - - 0.06 NB 1 7,400 7,470 1.01 40;1 E :,5 40 : l lb -* F : 1,110 1.06 43,9 E 9,110 1:30 * F 0.05 0.14 GP SB 4 7,400 7,730 :1 04 36.7 E 460 1.14 - F 8,060 109 40.2 E 8,270 1.12 F 0.04 I-605NBOff Rampto7th St Off Ramp NB 1 1,150 2,700 146 -- 3020 163 2,610 141 2,150 1.16 - HOV SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 - - 2,230 1.21 - - 2,420 1.31 - - 2,170 1.17 - - 0.06 GP NB 4 .7400 7 470 :1 Ol 40:1 E 8,590 : 116 - F : 7,950 1106 43.g E 9,620 1.30 F 0.05 0.14 7th St Off Ra mp to 1-605 SB On Ramp SB 4 7,400 7,630 103 35.8 E 8310 : 112 - F.: 7980: 1.08 393 E :8140 110 F 0.05 HOV NB 1 1,850 2,700 1.46 - - 3,020 1.63 - - 2,610 1.41 - - 2,150 1.16 - - SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 2,230 1.21 2,310 1.25 2,170 1.17 0.00 1-605 Mainline 1-605 Mai 1-605 Mainline GP NB 4 7,400 6,380 :086 28.3 D 8D20 : 108 444 E : 6640: 090 298 D :8100 1:09 F 0.04 0.01 Dettew,PM LOSE to F) Carson Street to Spring Street SB 4 7,400 8,370 :113 - F 7,870 106 :406 E 8530: 115 : F 8,020 1:08 42:4 E 0.02 0.02 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,630 0.88 - - 2,050 1.11 - - 1,720 0.93 - - 2,140 1.16 - - 0.05 0.05 SB 1 1,850 2,100 1.14 1,880 1.02 2,050 1.11 1,920 1.04 0.02 NB 4 7400 5540 A75 22:7 C 6,840 : 492 29.6 D. 5790. 078 238 C &930 094 30:2 D 0.03 0.01 Spring Street to GP SB 4 7,400 : 7,260 :098 32;6 D 6,310 0,85 26.5 D:. 7420: 100 : 339 D 6,500 0.88 27:5 D 0.02 0.03 Willow Street/Katella Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,630 0.88 - - 2,050 1.11 - - 2,000 1.08 - - 2,630 1.42 - - 0.20 0.31 SB 1 1,850 2,100 1.14 1,880 1.02 2,370 1.28 2,040 1.10 0.15 0.09 NB 5 925D 554D 060 18.3 C 620D 067 225 C 5750 D62 190 C :2170 D..78 26.0 D 0.02 0.10 DeueacePM LOS(C to D) Willow Street/Katella Ave ue CD Road On GP SB 4 7400 6120 083 26:6 D 5560 : 075 265 D : 6240: 0$4 272 D 5650 0:76 26:9 D 0.02 0.01 Ramp to 1405 HOV NB 1 1,850 2,020 1.09 - - 2,650 1.43 - - 2,000 1.08 - - 2,630 1.42 - - SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 1,990 1.08 1,520 0.82 1,060 1 0.57 ,7th Street Mainline i7th Street Mainline 7th Street Mainline Pe p pe r Tree To ne to GP : EB 2 370D I 354D 096 18.9 C 342D 092 183 C 3160. 085 1 169 B 1 2,750 1 0.74 14:7 B Improve AM/PM LOS(Cto B). Studebaker Road W8 : 3 5550 :: 3990 ::072 21:4 C :: 3100 : 056 :166 8:: 3980: 072 :: 213 C :2900 0:52 15:5 8 :: 0.00 Studebake r Road to GP :: EB 2 3700 : 4750 :128 - F 4340 : 117 - F : 4410: 1,19 : F 3630 0:98 31:8 D : Improve PM LOS(F to D) 1� -605 WB : 2 3700 4220 :114 43:4 E : 4210 114 .431 E 4240: 115 439 E 4030 1:09 38:8 Notes 1.Peak hour cap'dty and traffic volumes are shown in vehides per hour(vph). 2 Density k hovvn in passenger.,V.ile/lane(pdmi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS k based on density except when demand-to-,ap'dty(D/C)ratio isgre'ter than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour i es cap'dti for freeway lanes indu de 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single HOV lane. sity 5.*Den 'in es-of 45 ,am/In;therefore LOS k F. 6. Data Not available/Not applicable. PARSONS Change County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-1 Alternative 2(Year 2020)Intersection Level of Service-AM/PM Peak Hours Location Alternative 1(Year 2020)LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg l Avg Delay Delay,' No. East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C (sec) LOS? D/C,' (sec) LOS ?' 1 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.58 19.1 B 0.67 20.3 C 1-605 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.24 -- 0.32 -- 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.37 0.36 -- 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.60 20.1 C 0.75 16.5 B 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.33 -- 0.36 -- 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.51 1 -- 0.46 -- 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.78 34.4 C 0.84 31.2 C 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.68 14.5 B 0.57 9.8 A 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.69 7.9 A 0.74 7.7 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.42 -- 0.42 -- 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.39 -- 0.20 -- 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.23 -- 0.23 -- 7 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.54 1 0.41 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.22 0.25 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.42 0.47 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.75 28.3 C 0.90 44.3 D 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.33 -- 0.45 -- 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 -- 0.43 -- 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.52 10.5 B 0.53 11.6 B 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.51 -- 0.36 -- 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.30 1 -- 0.18 -- 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.98 39.0 D 1.16 78.7 E Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.62 27.4 C 1.03 41.2 D 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.08 -- 0.14 -- 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.12 -- 0.25 -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.52 10.4 B 0.48 14.1 B 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 -- -- 0.20 -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.88 54.7 D 1.25 79.6 E 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.41 203.6 F 0.88 54.3 D 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.44 -- 0.23 -- 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.29 0.21 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.51 0.46 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.44 0.26 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.69 15.3 B 0.59 11.8 B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde Unsignalized On Ramp 0.10 -- -- 0.19 -- 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.82 13.8 B 0.70 11.3 B 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.83 17.9 B 0.83 20.2 C 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.29 -- -- 0.40 -- -- 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.54 3.3 A 0.52 2.7 A 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Unsignalized Intersection 0.90 61.5 F 0.61 31.4 D 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.59 1 8.5 A 0.79 15.0 B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.49 13.0 B 0.83 28.9 C 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.97 30.9 C 0.98 30.1 C 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr Unsignalized Intersection 0.62 28.6 D 1.14 172.9 F 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 0.96 51.2 D 0.99 39.9 D 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.09 74.9 E 0.98 46.3 D 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 1 39.7 D 0.64 19.3 B 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.73 24.0 C 0.96 24.8 C 34 1 7th St W.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.82 45.2 D 0.83 41.7 D 35 1 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 1.07 46.4 D 0.90 16.1 B PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-2 Alternative 2(Year 2020)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2020!Alternative 2 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) SBL 300 203 Yes 335 No 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBT 1,130 126 Yes 183 Yes SBR 300 256 Yes 195 Yes 3 Carson St 1-`605 NB Off Ramp NBL 300!(650) 230 Yes 285' Yes >NBR 300(1175) 220`` Yes 155`` Yes NBL 120 315 No 332 No SBL 140 57 Yes 72 Yes 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd SBR 140 77 Yes 85 Yes EBL 250 297 No 372 No WBL 80 15 Yes 16 Yes 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBL 220(1240) 274' Yes 155' Yes SBR 900 0 Yes 0 Yes 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp WBL 260 196 Yes 145 Yes ssNBL 180 130 Yes 137 Yes 9 Willowst Lakewood Blvd SBL 150 50 ! Yes 119! Yes EBL 1775 56 `` Yes 74`` Yes WBL 150 39 Yes 143' Yes WBL 1,870 102 Yes 181 Yes 11 1-405 NB Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd WBL/T/R 1,130 59 Yes 182 Yes WBR 410 55 Yes 165 Yes NBL 150 289'' No 79 Yes 12 Willow st Bellflower Blvd SBL 120 189! No 246! No EBL 140 147`` No 126`` Yes WBL 110 183'! No 311'! No NBL 160 23 Yes 43 Yes 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal Bellflower Blvd NBR 230 49 Yes 147 Yes EBL 190 316 No 583 No WBL 150 197 No 207 No 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp SBL 1525(500) 137'' Yes 260'' Yes SBL 120 166 No 355 No 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal EBL 140 159 No 54 Yes WBL 160 329 No 697 No NBL 140 982'! No 393'! No NBR 60 22 Yes 9 Yes 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave SBL 120 74 ? Yes 29? Yes SBR 120 211' No 56 ' Yes EBL 200 351'' No 411'' No WBL 180 191! No 108! Yes 20 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Palo Verde WBL 550 327 Yes 172 Yes WBT/R 1,155 68 Yes 236 Yes 21 Woodruff Ave Pala Verde EBL 335 257` Yes 207` Yes EBR 335 290'! Yes 227'! Yes NBL 130 161 No 165 No 22 Stearns St Palo Verde SBL 120 92 Yes 112 Yes EBL 90 168 No 164 No WBL 1 80 44 1 Yes 112 NO �1-40S irect On Ramp Studebaker Rd NBL 100 68 ! Yes 51 ! Yes SBR 70 16 '' Yes 16'' Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-2 Alternative 2(Year 2020)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2020!Alternative 2 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) NBL 200 55 Yes 56 Yes SBL 260 1 Yes 4 Yes 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd SBR 70 16 Yes 21 Yes EBL 120 79 Yes 223 No WBL 220 29 Yes 26 Yes 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd NBR 150 14 Yes 23 Yes SBL 200 81 Yes 226 No NBR 300 1212 No 1035 No 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd SBL 150 368 No 242 No WBR 60 62 No 223 No 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway NBL 330 155! Yes 239! Yes SBL 290 283' Yes 390' No NBR 130 99 Yes 40 Yes SBL 160 196 No 237 No 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd SBR 160 87 Yes 352 No EBL 200 491 No 395 No WBL 200 36 Yes 58 Yes NBL 280 88 '! Yes 70'! Yes SBL 240 226`` Yes 208`` Yes 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd SBR 60 17 Yes 31 Yes EBL 110 54 Yes 118' No WBL 120 53 '' Yes 59'' Yes WBR 200 65 Yes 41 Yes EBL 270 107 Yes 27 Yes 33 7th St Channel Dr EBR 180 22 Yes 6 Yes WBL 280 105 Yes 258 Yes 34 7th St W.Campus Dr SBL/R 150 70 ! Yes 212! No EBL 400 80 Yes 24`` Yes SBL 150 78 Yes 183 No 35 7th St E.Campus Dr SBT/R 150 69 Yes 108 Yes EBL 150 207 No 95 Yes WBL 300 77 Yes 120 Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-3 Alternative 2(Year 2040)Intersection Level of Service-AM/PM Peak Hours Location Alternative 1(Year 2040)LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg l Avg Delay Delay,' No. East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C (sec) LOS? D/C,' (sec) LOS ?' 1 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.63 19.3 B 0.73 21.0 C 1-605 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.26 -- 0.34 -- 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.40 0.39 -- 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.65 21.9 C 0.81 18.1 B 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.35 -- 0.39 -- 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.55 1 -- 0.49 -- 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 41.9 D 0.93 39.0 D 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.74 15.7 B 0.62 10.8 B 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.75 8.7 A 0.81 8.6 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.46 -- 0.45 -- 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.43 0.21 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.25 0.25 7 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.58 0.44 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.24 0.27 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.45 0.51 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 32.2 C 1.02 52.0 D 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.36 -- 0.49 -- 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.34 -- 0.46 -- 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.57 11.3 B 0.58 12.2 B 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.56 -- 0.39 -- 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.32 1 -- 0.19 -- 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.05 55.0 D 1.25 106.3 F Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.67 27.7 C 1.13 54.2 D 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.08 -- 0.15 -- 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.13 -- 0.27 -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.56 11.0 B 0.52 14.8 B 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.33 1 -- -- 0.21 -- I -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.99 60.7 E 1.41 101.4 F 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.53 242.2 F 0.95 81.3 F 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.47 -- 0.25 -- 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 0.23 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.55 0.50 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.47 0.28 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.82 17.4 B 0.72 13.3 B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde Unsignalized On Ramp 0.11 -- -- 0.20 -- -- 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.89 15.9 B 0.76 12.1 B 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.91 20.3 C 0.92 23.9 C 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 -- -- 0.43 -- 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.58 3.6 A 0.56 2.8 A 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Unsignalized Intersection 1.04 81.3 F 0.65 33.1 D 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.65 9.5 A 0.86 17.1 B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.54 13.4 B 0.89 31.8 C 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 1.06 45.2 D 1.09 43.9 D 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr Unsignalized Intersection 0.75 38.1 E 1.59 311.8 F 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 1.04 70.0 E 1.07 64.9 E 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.18 92.7 F 1.06 60.9 E 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 40.2 D 0.74 31.4 C 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 25.4 C 1.04 55.7 E 34 7th St W.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.89 68.4 E 0.90 66.0 E 35 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 1.17 68.7 E 0.99 19.0 B PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-4 Alternative 2(Year 2040)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2040!Alternative 2 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) SBL 300 223 Yes 372 No 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBT 1,130 139 Yes 201 Yes SBR 300 286 Yes 216 Yes 3 Carson St 1-`605 NB Off Ramp NBL 300!(650) 252 Yes 312' Yes NBR 300(1175) 245 Yes 167`` Yes NBL 120 348 No 366 No SBL 140 60 Yes 78 Yes 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd SBR 140 82 Yes 88 Yes EBL 250 328 No 405 No WBL 80 15 Yes 16 Yes 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBL 220(1240) 289' Yes 161' Yes SBR 900 0 Yes 0 Yes 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp WBL 260 211 Yes 159 Yes ssNBL 180 140 Yes 160 Yes 9 Willowst Lakewood Blvd SBL 150 58 ! Yes 132! Yes EBL 1775 65 `` Yes 85`` Yes WBL 150 46 Yes 167' No WBL 1,870 109 Yes 194 Yes 11 1-405 NB Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd WBL/T/R 1,130 70 Yes 209 Yes WBR 410 66 Yes 189 Yes NBL 150 314'' No 77 Yes 12 Willow st Bellflower Blvd SBL 120 206! No 268! No EBL 140 161`` No 144`` No WBL 110 186'! No 329'! No NBL 160 25 Yes 47 Yes 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal Bellflower Blvd NBR 230 50 Yes 185 Yes EBL 190 346 No 643 No WBL 150 200 No 225 No 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp SBL 1525(500) 143'' Yes 277'' Yes SBL 120 193 No 405 No 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal EBL 140 169 No 54 Yes WBL 160 358 No 762 No NBL 140 1069! No 436'! No NBR 60 23 Yes 9 Yes 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave SBL 120 81 ? Yes 31? Yes SBR 120 239' No 58 ' Yes EBL 200 379'' No 455'' No WBL 180 211! No 116! Yes 20 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Palo Verde WBL 550 366 Yes 188 Yes WBT/R 1,155 89 Yes 285 Yes 21 Woodruff Ave Pala Verde EBL 335 304` Yes 228` Yes EBR 335 329'! Yes 292'! Yes NBL 130 177 No 181 No 22 Stearns St Palo Verde SBL 120 89 Yes 102 Yes EBL 90 187 No 185 No WBL 1 80 49 1 Yes 127 NO �1-40S irect On Ramp Studebaker Rd NBL 100 68 ! Yes 51 ! Yes SBR 70 18 '' Yes 17 Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-4 Alternative 2(Year 2040)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2040!Alternative 2 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) NBL 200 99 Yes 76 Yes SBL 260 2 Yes 4 Yes 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd SBR 70 18 Yes 21 Yes EBL 120 85 Yes 248 No WBL 220 31 Yes 27 Yes 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd NBR 150 15 Yes 24 Yes SBL 200 90 Yes 250 No NBR 300 1396 No 1201 No 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd SBL 150 401 No 257 No WBR 60 64 No 312 No 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway NBL 330 165! Yes 252! Yes SBL 290 324' No 445' No NBR 130 133 No 45 Yes SBL 160 203 No 259 No 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd SBR 160 90 Yes 448 No EBL 200 509 No 366 No WBL 200 36 Yes 62 Yes NBL 280 94 '! Yes 73'! Yes SBL 240 275`` No 203`` Yes 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd SBR 60 18 Yes 34 Yes EBL 110 55 Yes 127' No WBL 120 56 '' Yes 65'' Yes WBR 200 75 Yes 42 Yes EBL 270 108 Yes 24 Yes 33 7th St Channel Dr EBR 180 20 Yes 59 Yes WBL 280 105 Yes 264 Yes 34 7th St W.Campus Dr SBL/R 150 75 ! Yes 234 No EBL 400 79 Yes 24 Yes SBL 150 84 Yes 213 No 35 7th St E.Campus Dr SBT/R 150 71 Yes 128 Yes EBL 150 210 No 99 Yes WBL 300 80 Yes 147 Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-5:Alternative 2(2020) Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline Alternative 2(Year 2020)Conditions Lane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Direction Type 4 Traffic) Traffic Lanes Capacity' Demand D/C Density2 LOS' Demand) D/C Density2 LOS' Volume) Volume))' 1-405 Mainline GP NB 5 9,250 9,600 1.04 42.1 E 10,060 1.09 43.6 E Temple Avenue to SB 5 9,250' 9,660 1,04 35.9 E 10,030 1108 * F Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,040 1.10 -- -- 2,280 1.23 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,920 1.04 -- -- 1,810 0.98 -- -- GP NB 5 9,2501 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB 5 9,250' Weaving',Segment-Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 1,980 1.07 -- 2,240 1.21 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,920 1.04 -- -- 1,810 0.98 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250. Weaving,Segment-Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard to SB 5 9,250' Weaving',Segment-Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 2,060 1.11 -- -- 2,240 1.21 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,920 1.04 -- -- 1,810 0.98 -- -- GP NB 5 9,2501 Weaving',Segment-Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue to SB '1 4 7,400'11 8,730'11 1.18 '11 F 8,920 '11 111 F Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,030 1.10 -- -- 2,060 1.11 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,160 1.17 -- -- 2,020 1.09 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to SB 5 9,2501 Weaving',Segment-Refer to Weave Table Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1,850 2,030 1.10 -- -- 2,340 1.26 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,210 1.19 -- -- 2,020 1.09 -- -- GP " NB 4 7,400' 8,850 1.20 F 10,130 1.37 F Studebaker Road to SB '11 5 9,250'11 8,740'11 0.94 '11 30.7 '11 D 9,150 '11 0.99 38.9 E 1-605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1 1,850 2,300 1.24 -- -- 2,710 1.46 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,210 1.19 -- -- 2,010 1.09 -- -- GP NB 1 7,400' 7,340 ' 0.99 39.0 E 8,700 1.18 F 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp SB 4 7,400' 7,480 1.01 34.4 D 8,160 1.10 * F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,300 1.24 -- -- 2,710 1.46 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,210 1.19 -- -- 2,360 1.28 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400' 7,340 0.99 39.0 E 8,700 1.18 F 7th St Off Ramp to 1-605 SB On Ramp SB '11 4 7,400'11 7,390'11 1.00 '11 33.7 '11 D 8,040 '11 1.09 -* F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,300 1.24 -- -- 2,710 1.46 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,210 1.19 -- -- 2,360 1.28 -- -- 1-60,5 Mainline NB 4 7,400' 5,540 0.75 24.1 C 6,490 0188 31.3 D Carson Steet to GP SB _`. 4 7,4001 8,000 1.08 40.4 E 7,400 1.00 36.0 E Spring Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,570 0.85 -- - 2,040 1.10 -- SB 1 1,850 2,020 1.09 -- -- 1,800 0.97 -- -- NB 4 7,4001 4,810 0.65 19.6 C 5,450 0.74 22.3 C Spring Street to GP SB 4 7,400' 6,960' 0.94 30.4 D 5,970 0.81 24.7 C Willow Street/KatellaAve HOV NB 1 1,850 1,850 1.00 -- -- 2,450 1.32 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,240 1.21 -- -- 2,000 1.08 -- -- NB 5 9,2501 4,8101 0,52 15.9 B 5,680 0,61 20.6 C Willow Street/Katella Ave CD Road On GP SB 4 7,400' 5,910 0.80 25.5 C 5,170 0.70 24.6 C Ramp to 1-405 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,490 0.81 - 2,000 1.08 SB 1 1,850 1,770 0.96 -- -- 1,580 0.85 -- -- 7th Streets Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to Studebaker Road GP EB 2 3,700' 3,180 0.86 17.0 B 2,770 0.75 14.8 B WB 3 5,550` 4,010' 0.72 21.5 C 3,080 0.55 16.5 B Studebaker Road to 1-605 GP EB 2 3,7001 4,350 1.18 -* F 3,530 0.95 30.4 D WB 2 3,7001' 4,200'' 1.14 42.9 E 4,120 1.11 I' 40.9 E Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane based on density except when demand-to-capacity(D/C)ratiois greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-6: Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 2(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type', Lanes Capacity' Traffic Traffic D/C Density2 LOS3'5 1 D/C Density LOS 3,5 Volumes Volume 1-405 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 2 3,000 970 0.32 13.6 B 960 0.32 15.5 B NB On Loop 1 >.1,500 800 0.53 45.0 F 610 0.41 50.5 F Lakewood Blvd NB On Direct; 1 1,500 ? 590? 0.39 24.9 ? C? 280 0.19 ? 27.3 C &Willow St SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,120 0.37 17.5 B 1,380 0.46 20.1 F SB On Loop 1 1,500 300 0.20 42.5 F 370 0.25 42.9 F SB On Direct(from Willow St) 1 1,500 470 0.31 22.0 C 640 0.43 22.3 C NB Off Direct' 1 1,500 530? 0,35 27.0 C 570 0.38 32.0 D Bellflower Blvd& NB On(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,220 0.41 14.0 F 810 0.27 13.1 F Los Coyotes Diagonal SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,420 0.47 17.2 B 1,920 0.64 21.5 C SB On (Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 930 0.62 35.2 F 1,460 0.97 33.9 F NB Off Direct 1 1,500 650 0.43 23.9 C 350 0.23 26.4 C NB On Direct 1 ;1,500 440 0.29 34.9 F 310 0.21 41.4 F Woodruff Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 750 0.50 29.4 D 620 0.41 29.9 D SB On Direct 1 1,500 660 0.44 23.1 F 350 0.23 24.7 F NB Off Direct 1 ;1,500 650 0.43 24.7 C 750 0.50 29.4 F Palo Verde Ave NB On Loop 1 1,500 150' 0.10 53.6 F 280 0.19 60.7 F &Stearn St SB On Direct(from Stearn St) 1 1,500 420 0.28 26.7 F 530 0.35 26.8 F NB On Direct 1 >1,500 350`` 0.23 55.1 F 270 0.18 63.9 F Studebaker Rd SB Off Direct 1 1,500 420 0.28 35.4 E 300 0.20 35.8 E 7th St SB Off Direct 1 1,500 90 0.06 34.7 D 120 0.08 37.8 F PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-6: Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 2(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type', Lanes Capacity' Traffic Traffic D/C Density2 LOS3'5 1 D/C Density LOS 3,5 Volumes Volume 1-605 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,030 0.69 30.9 D 980 0.65 34.7 D NB On Loop 1 1,500 ? 490? 0,33 19.2 ? B? 540 0.36 22.2 C NB On Direct 1 1,500 770 0.51 19.9 B 690 0.46 22.0 C Carson St SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,230 0.41 14.1 B 1,480 0.49 15.3 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 560 0.37 22.5 C 450 0.30 21.4 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 270 0.18 23.2 C 320 0.21 21.7 C Spring St/Cerritos Ave NB On Loop 1 1,500 720 0.48 17.9 B 1,040 0.69 19.4 B SB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,050 0.70 35.6 E 1,430 0.95 35.6 E NB Off(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 1,060 0.71 0.2 A' 1,630 1.09 5.1 A NB On Direct 1 ;1,500 1,060 0.71 19.1 B 1,400 0.93 20.8 C Willow St/Katella Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 550 0.37 35.0 E 580 0.39 31.0 D SB Off Loop 1 1,500 1,120 0.75 35.8 E 1,020 0.68 30.9 D SB On Direct(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 620 0.41 24.6 C 800 0.53 21.7 C 7th Street Ramp Junctions EB Off Loop 1 >'1,500 200'' 0,13 34.3 D 730 0.49 30.3 D EB On Loop 1 >1,500 1,280 0.85 39.5 F 1,430 0.95 32.2 D Studebaker Rd WB Off Loop 1 1,500 810 0.54 43.4 F 1,460 0.97 42.6 F WB On Loop 1 1,500 630 0.42 30.3 D 510 0.34 22.4 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-6: Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 2(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type', Lanes Capacity' Traffic Traffic D/C Density2 LOS3'5 1 D/C Density LOS 3,5 Volumes Volume Freeway-to-Freeway Branch Connectors? 1-605 SB to 1-405 N13 1 1,800 790? 0.44 -- -- 960 0.53 -- -- 1-605 SB/7th St to 1-405 N13 2 3,600 1,500 0.42 -- -- 1,440 0.40 -- -- 1-405 SB to 1-605 N13 2 3,600 1,250 0.35 -- -- 980 0.27 -- -- I-405/1-605 Freeway Interchanges 1-605 S13 to 7th St/1-405 S13 2 3,600 5,120 1.42 -- -- 41,210 1.17 -- -- 1-605 S13/1-405 SB to 7th St 1 1,800 2,050 1.14 -- -- 1,040 0.58 -- -- 7th St to 1-605 N13/1-405 N13 2 3,600 1,060 0.29 -- -- 1,230 0.34 -- -- 7th St to 1-405 N13 1 1,800 720 0.40 -- -- 420 0.23 -- -- Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);D/C-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.* Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,D/C ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-7: Alternative 2 (Year 2020) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway and Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Freeway Mainline 1-405 Southbound- 45.4 F 70.9 F Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- 47.7 F 41.3 E Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street 1-405 Southbound- 41.2 E 68.0 F Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue 1-405 Northbound- 52.4 F 47.8 F Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Woodruff Avenue 46.9 F 40.8 E 1-405 Southbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Studebaker Road 33.1 D 43.9 F 1-405 Northbound- Studebaker Road to Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street 45.1 F 45.4 F Collector-Distributor(C-D)Roads Lakewood Boulveard/Willow Street Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 16.2 B 22.5 C Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 5.0 A 3.8 A Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-8:Alternative 2(Year 2040) Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline Alternative 2(Year 2040)Conditions Lane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Direction Type Lanes ICapacity''4 Traffic Traffic Demand D/C Density LOS' Demand) D/C Density LOS s Volume' Volume'' 1-405 Mainline GP NB 5 9,250 10,370' 1.12 F 10,870 1.18 F Temple Avenue to SB 5 9,2501 10,4401 1.13 43.2 E 10,840 1.17 F Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,200 1.19 -- -- 2,460 1.33 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,070 1.12 _ -- 1,960 1.06 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB '11 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table ' Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 -- -- 2,420 1.31 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,070 1.12 _ -- 1,960 1.06 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard to SB 5 9,2501 Weaving Segment-(Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 2,220 1.20 -- -- 2,420 1.31 SB 1 1,850 2,070 1.12 _ -- 1,960 1.06 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue to SB '11 4 7,400 9,440>s 1.28 * F 9,640 1.30 * F Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,190 1.18 -- -- 2,220 1.20 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,330 1.26 -- -- 2,180 1.18 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to SB 5 9,2501 WeavingSegment-Refer to Weave Table Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1,850 2,190 1.18 -- -- 2,540 1.37 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,380 1.29 -- -- 2,180 1.18 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400 9,560' 1.29 F 10,950 1.48 F Studebaker Road to SB '11 5 9,250 9,450'11 1.02 '11 35.1 '11 E 9,890 '11 1.07 '1 44,7 E 1-605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1.... 1,850 2,490 1.35 --.... 2,930 1.58 --.... SB 1 1,850 2,380 1.29 -- -- 2,170 1.17 -- -- GP NB 1 7,400 7,940' 1.07 45.0 E 9,400 1.27 F 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp SB 4 7,4001 8,090' 1.09 40.5 E 8,830 1.19 * F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,490 1.35 -- -- 2,930 1.58 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,380 1.29 -- -- 2,560 1.38 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400 7,940' 1.07 45.0 E 9,400 1.27 F 7th St Off Ramp to 1-605 SB On Ramp SB '11 4 7,400 7,990'11 1.08 '11 39.4 '11 E 8,690 '11 1.17 '11 -* F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,490 1.35 -- -- 2,930 1.58 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,380 1.29 -- -- 2,560 1.38 -- -- 1-60,5 Mainline NB 4 7,400 5,990' 0.81 26.2 D 7,020 0.95 34.7 D Carson Steet to GP SB '. 4 7,400. 8,650'. 1.17 -* F 8,000 1.08 42.2 E Spring Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,700 0.92 -- -- 2,200 1.19 -- SB 1 1,850 2,180 1.18 -- -- 1,950 1.05 -- -- NB 4 7,400. 5,2101 0.70 21.2 C 5,900 0.80 24.4 C Spring Street to GP SB 4 7,400 7,520' 1.02 34.7 D 6,450 0.87 27.2 D Willow Street/KatellaAve HOV NB 1 1,850 2,000 1.08 -- -- 2,650 1.43 -- -- SB 1 1,850 2,420 1.31 -- -- 2,160 1.17 -- -- N8 5 9,250 5,2001 0.56 17<2 B 6,140 0.66 22<3 C Willow Street/Katella Ave CD Road On GP SB 4 7,400 6,390' 0.86 28.0 D 5,580 0.75 26.6 D Ramp to 1-405 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,610 0.87 -- 2,160 1.17 -- SB 1 1,850 1,910 1.03 -- -- 1,710 0.92 -- -- 7th Streets Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to Studebaker Road GP EB 2 3,700 3,180' 0.86 17.0 B 2,770 0.75 14.8 B WB 3 5,550 4,010'' 072 21.5 C 3,080 0.55 16.5 B Studebaker Road to 1-605 GP EB 2 3,7001 4,350'. 1.18 -* F 3,530 0.95 30.4 D WB 2 3,700 4,200'' 1.14 42.9 E 4,120 1.11 40,9 E Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(D/C)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-9: Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 2(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type', Lanes Capacity' Traffic Traffic D/C Density2 LOS3'5 1 D/C Density LOS 3,5 Volumes Volume 1-405 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,040 0.35 15.7 B 1,040 0.35 17.8 F NB On Loop 1 >.1,500 870 0.58 48.2 F 660 0.44 54.3 F Lakewood Blvd NB On Direct; 1 1,500 ? 640? 0.43 26.7 ? F? 300 0.20 ? 29.6 F &Willow St SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,210 0.40 19.7 B 1,490 0.50 22.6 F SB On Loop 1 1,500 330 0.22 45.8 F 400 0.27 46.2 F SB On Direct(from Willow St) 1 1,500 510 0.34 23.5 C 690 0.46 23.7 F NB Off Direct' 1 1,500 570? 0,38 29.5 D 620 » 0.41 35.0 F Bellflower Blvd& NB On(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,320 0.44 16.0 F 870 0.29 15.0 F Los Coyotes Diagonal SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,530 0.51 19.5 B 2,080 0.69 24.2 F SB On (Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 1,010 0.67 37.3 F 1,580 1.05 35.4 F NB Off Direct 1 1,500 710 0.47 26.6 C 380 0.25 29.4 F NB On Direct 1 ;1,500 470 0.31 37.4 F 340 0.23 44.5 F Woodruff Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 820 0.55 32.2 D 670 0.45 32.7 F SB On Direct 1 1,500 710 0.47 24.1 F 370 0.25 26.1 F NB Off Direct 1 ;1,500 710 0.47 27.5 F 810 0.54 32.6 F Palo Verde Ave NB On Loop 1 1,500 160' 0.11 58.3 F 300 0.20 65.8 F &Stearn St SB On Direct(from Stearn St) 1 1,500 460 0.31 28.1 F 580 0.39 28.1 F NB On Direct 1 >1,500 380`` 0.25 59.7 F 300 0.20 69.2 F Studebaker Rd SB Off Direct 1 1,500 450 0.30 38.1 E 330 0.22 38.6 F 7th St SB Off Direct 1 1,500 100 0.07 37.4 E 130 0,09 40.7 F PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-9: Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 2(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type', Lanes Capacity' Traffic Traffic D/C Density2 LOS3'5 1 D/C Density LOS 3,5 Volumes Volume 1-605 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,110 0.74 33.3 D 1,060 0.71 37.4 E NB On Loop 1 1,500 ? 530? 0,35 20.4 ? C? 590 0.39 23.6 C NB On Direct 1 1,500 830 0.55 20.8 CC 740 0.49 23.1 C Carson St SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,330 0.44 16.2 B 1,600 0.53 17.5 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 600 0.40 23.5 F 490 0.33 22.5 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 300 0.20 24.5 F 350 0.23 22.9 C Spring St/Cerritos Ave NB On Loop 1 1,500 780 0.52 18.6 B 1,120 0.75 20.0 B SB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,130 0.75 38.2 E 1,550 1.03 38.3 E NB Off(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 1,140 0.76 0.6 A' 1,760 1.17 7.5 A NB On Direct 1 ;1,500 1,150 0.77 20.0 C 1,520 1.01 21.8 C Willow St/Katella Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 600 0.40 37.7 E 630 0.42 33.3 D SB Off Loop 1 1,500 1,210 0.81 38.5 E 1,110 0.74 33.2 D SB On Direct(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 670 0.45 26.2 C 870 0.58 23.1 C 7th Street Ramp Junctions EB Off Loop 1 >'1,500 210'' 0,14 34.3 D 790 0.53 30.3 D EB On Loop 1 >1,500 1,380 0.92 40.3 F 1,540 1.03 33.1 D Studebaker Rd WB Off Loop 1 1,500 870 0.58 43.4 F 1,580 1.05 42.6 F WB On Loop 1 1,500 690 0.46 30.8 D 550 0.37 22.7 C PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-9: Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 2(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type', Lanes Capacity' Traffic Traffic D/C Density2 LOS3'5 1 D/C Density LOS 3,5 Volumes Volume Freeway-to-Freeway Branch Connectors? 1-605 SB to 1-405 N13 1 1,800 850>' 0.47 -- -- 1,040 0.58 -- -- 1-605 SB/7th St to 1-405 N13 2 3,600 1,630 0.45 -- -- 1,550 0.43 -- -- 1-405 SB to 1-605 N13 2 3,600 1,350 0.38 -- -- 1,060 0.29 -- -- I-405/1-605 Freeway Interchanges 1-605 S13 to 7th St/1-405 S13 2 3,600 5,540 1.54 -- -- 4,550 1.26 -- -- 1-605 S13/1-405 SB to 7th St 1 1,800 2,050 1.14 -- -- 1,040 0.58 -- -- 7th St to 1-605 N13/1-405 N13 2 3,600 510 0.14 -- -- 380 0.11 -- -- 7th St to 1-405 N13 1 1,800 780 0.43 -- -- 460 0.26 -- -- Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);D/C-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.* Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,D/C ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-10: Alternative 2 (Year 2040) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway and Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Freeway Mainline 1-405 Southbound- 50.3 F 78.3 F Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- 37.2 E 45.2 F Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street 1-405 Southbound- 45.8 F 74.9 F Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue 1-405 Northbound- 57.9 F 51.5 F Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Woodruff Avenue 51.7 F 45.1 F 1-405 Southbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Studebaker Road 36.2 E 48.0 F 1-405 Northbound- Studebaker Road to Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street 49.7 F 50.3 F Collector-Distributor(C-D)Roads Lakewood Boulveard/Willow Street Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 16.2 B 22.5 C Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 5.0 A 3.8 A Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-11:Year 2020 Alternative 2 vs.Year 2020 No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Location <No Build Alternative(Year 2020)LOS Alternative 2(Year 2020).LOS Alterative 2 vs No-Build Alternative 2wth Improvement(Year 2020)LOS AM Peak Hour:: PM:Peak Hour AM Peak Hour:: PM Peak Hour :V/C Ratio Difference Comparison AM Peak Hour :: :PM Peak Hour. Avg :Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg Delay :Delay : Delay :Delay : Delay Delay No, East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C': (sec) LOS D/C .':(sec) LOS D/C ': (sec) LOS D/C ':(sec) LO 5 AM PM :Evaluation D/C :' (sec) LOS D/C (sec) ?LOS 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Si nal 0.57 22.3 C 0.68 23.8 C 0.58 19.1 B 0.67 20.3 C 0.010 -605 SB Direct On Ram =rat: Ramp 0.21, -- -- n>3 -- -- 024 -- -- 0 3' -- -- 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ram nraii .imp '0 33 0:_,3 0.37 0:36 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.59 21.8 C 0.76 20.6 C 0.60 20.1 C 0.75 16.5 B 0.010 ,'- 1-605 NB Loop On Ram ,.rs gran On Ramp n.3i n35 n 33 n 36 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ram a„ nn 0.51 n 4E .. _. 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic signal 0.79 31.1 C 0.84 33.7 C 0.78 34.4 C 0.84 31.2 C 0.000 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.68 14.2 B 0.65 10.9 B 0.68 14.5 B 0.57 9.8 A 0.000 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.76 10.5 B 0.79 8.2 A 0.69 7.9 A 0.74 7.7 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ram -1: 3 of fiamp 0,38 -- -- 0.3P -- -- 0411 -- -- 0,42 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp U-,,,,,nahzed On Ramp 0,42 -- -- n.<3 -- -- U.>9 -- -- nzi; -- -- 1-405 NB Loo Off Ram g-.,1i 3 Ofl Ramp '�23 012 0.73 023 7 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd .,r rra1:.n e On:..p 0. 0.=?. 0,5= 0.41. 1-405 SB Loop On Ram ,.rs gr h--On Ramp _.iJ. n:25 n22 n25 8 1 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd Off:amp n.43 n,1g n 2 nrE1 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.75 31.2 C 0.89 43.0 D 0.75 28.3 C 0.90 44.3 D 0.000 0.010 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp "gnat _3 Off Ramp 0.35 -- -- 04C -- -- 0.33 -- -- 0,45 -- -- 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp On Ramp 0.20 -- -- n41 -- -- U.>7 -- -- 043 -- -- 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 10.8 B 0.53 10.6 B 0.52 10.5 B 0.53 11.6 B 0.010 0.000 1-405 NB Loop On Ram nraii :-p 0.S3 n.37 0.51 036 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd .,r vra1:. ,:i r:.-,x 031 0.19 030 0.18 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.01 48.8 D 1.01 54.4 D 0.98 39.0 D 1.16 78.7 E 0.150 Exceed 0.97 78.4 E 1.07 46.5 D Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.65 26.4 C 1.00 42.1 D 0.62 27.4 C 1.03 41.2 D 0.030 LOS D 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp gra1 am;: R n.06 n.12 n,0g 0,14 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ram p Bellflower Blvd s-ra1 .:On Ramp 0.1i -- -- 0,32 -- -- 0,15 -- -- 0,i5 -- -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.52 10.0 B 0.47 16.0 B 0.52 10.4 B 0.48 14.1 B 0.000 0.010 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp On Ramp n.16 -- -- 0.17 -- -- U.>7 -- -- n20 -- -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.78 44.4 D 1.02 35.1 D 7.88 54.7 D 1.25 79.6 E 0.100 0.230 Exceed 0.86 32.9 C 1.09 44.0 D 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.33 147.9 F 0.87 40.4 D 1.41 203.6 F 0.88 54.3 0 0.080 0.010 Exceed 1.22 136.3 F 0.77 37.4 D 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp vnahmd Ofl Ramn 0.39 0.19 0A4 0, 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Ur,-rat: 00,Ramp n.3:. 0.21 n.29 n.21 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp r.-1-1;e r off Ramp 52 n51 n.a6 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave 0,144 0-6 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.78 17.7 B 0.61 11.8 B 0.69 15.3 B 0.59 11.8 B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde =rat: On Ramp 0A, -- -- U.<? -- -- 0.1U -- -- 0.19 -- -- 21 Woodruff Ave Pa to Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.84 13.6 B 0.66 10.3 B 0.82 13.8 B 0.70 11.3 B 0.040 LOS 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 18.9 B 0.83 20.5 C 0.83 17.9 B 0.83 20.2 C 0.000 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp UrmgjrWhzed On:..r,p 030 0.46 0.29 0=10 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 2.6 A 0.47 4.7 A 0.54 3.3 A 0.52 2.7 A 0.030 0.050 LOSA 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd 0.000 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.54 9.3 A 0.78 13.8 B 0.59 8.5 A 0.79 15.0 B 0.050 0.010 LOSA 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.46 12.8 B 0.79 28.0 C 0.49 13.0 B 0.83 28.9 C 0.030 0.040 LOS C 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.91 21.3 C 0.93 25.8 C 0.97 30.9 C 0.98 30.1 C 0.060 0.050 LOSC 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ram College Park Dr 0.080 0.080 Exceed 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 0.94 49.2 D 0.95 35.9 0 0.96 51.2 D 0.99 39.9 D 0.020 0.040 LOS D 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.04 68.9 E 0.98 47.9 D 1.09 74.9 E 0.98 46.3 D 0.050 0.000 Exceed 1.00 43.6 D 0.94 42.8 D 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.53 38.8 D 0.70 20.4 C 0.51 39.7 D 0.64 19.3 B 33 7th St Channel Dr Existin Traffic Si 221 0.71 24.5 C 0.94 22.7 C 0.73 24.0 C 0.96 24.8 C 0.020 0.020 34 7th St W.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 31.2 C 0.81 32.0 C 0.82 45.2 D 0.83 41.7 0 0.030 0.020 LOS D 35 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 1.03 35.8 D 0.87 14.6 B 1.07 46.4 D 0.90 16.1 B11 0.040 0.030 LOS D NOTES:"the LOS results for#25 and#29 are based on signalized conditions in order to compare the V/C ratio forthe entire intersections. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority 1-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-12:Year 2040 Alternative 2 vs.Year 2040 No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Location ('.No BUld Al teroatwe(Year2040 LOS Alternative Year 2040)LOS Alternative 2 vs No Build Alternative 2 with mar ement Year 2040)LOS `.<. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour :D/C Ratio Difference Comparison AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg 1.Avg Avg .`.Avg 1.Avg Avg ? Delay SDelay ? Delay (Delay ':Delay ? Delay No East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Commerrts D/C.: (sec) LOS D/C :(sec) LOS: D/C : (sec) LOS D/C :(sec) to AM :PM Evaluation D/C (sec) LOS D/C :: (sec) LOS 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.62 22A C 0.73 24.5 C 0.63 19.3 B 0.73 21.0 C 0.010 0.000 -605 56 Direct On Ram ..F r C F.3 n'� 0.24 J A, 0.26 0 34 2 Carson St -605 SB Loop On Ramp �,..r c C R3+.o 37 J=u J.40 ? 9 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.63 23.6 C 0.82 23.2 C 0.65 21.9 C 0.81 18.1 B 0.020 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp .,:>=iz.u s. fi ma 0 75 0.37 7 35 7 39 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp F.^: 2S6 25.5 7'i5 2C9 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 35.1 D 0.92 43.9 D 0.86 41.9 D 0.93 39.0 D 0.000 0.010 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.74 15A B 0.71 12.0 B 0.74 15.7 B 0.62 10.8 B 0.000 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.82 11.6 B 0.86 9.8 A 0.75 8.7 A 0.81 8.6 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp U"g,^ z,i0fl("a rN 0.;4i 0.41 7.46 0.42 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp j,,rnz c j G 041 0 E 7.43 5.2L 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp U n z d 0,F F r;; 025 0.2"s J.25 JLi 7 -405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd -'I'd C 1 Fa r. _7 J.44 )58 0.44 1-405 SB Loop On Ram p fi m: ^r:F 0.77 7.74 7 77 8 1 1-405 56 Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd ,i,., ,0if to^.c 0.46 7.52 7.45 0 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.81 33.6 C 0.93 48.4 D 0.79 32.2 C 1.02 52.0 D 0.090 LOS D -405 SB Loo Off Ram I,i> 0.49 10 Willow St 1-40556 Di rest On Ramp >;�:, r, kar�:;; '7.3i 04d 0.3d '0.46 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 11.6 B 0.58 11.3 B 0.57 11.3 B 0.58 12.2 B 0.020 0.000 -405 NB Loo On Ramp j,, a c j G 40 7>6 '7 39 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd -,,-a"'d G,F,, 0.3 0.20 0.32 r 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.09 67.3 1 E 1.09 70.6 E 1.05 55.0 D 1.25 106.3 F 7 0.160 Exceed 1.11 58.6 E 1.11 60.3 E Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.70 26.9 C 1.13 56.8 E 0.67 27.7 C 1.13 54.2 D 0.000 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal -40556 Direct On Ramp r....rrC F.3 n'r X07 0'3 .I 14 1-405 SB Loop Off R mp Bellflower Blvd .,:>;iz.c s.,fi i5 7.34 71.5 7.77 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.56 10.6 B 0.51 16.8 B 0.56 11.0 B 0.52 14.8 B 0.000 0.010 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ram ii,. r!, F",o 0 0'*; 0'1 0 2 1 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagona l Existing Traffic Signal 0.87 48.8 D 1.18 45A D 0.99 603 E 1.41 101.4 F 0.120 0.230 Exceed 0.88 39.6 D 1.17 73.4 E 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.44 180.5 F 0.94 51.5 D 133 242.2 F 0.95 81.3 F 0.090 0.010 Exceed 138 167.9 F 0.85 64.1 E 1-405 N B Direct Off Ram Ljn.:;^a« Ofl Pamp 042 0.20 0.47 02 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave ,.^,.a e G 23 J31 0.23 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp U n d Orr R,,� n,, I 0 i7 J i0 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave -'I'd C 1 F.3 n, 045 J.27 0.47 0.2F3 -405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.95 21.2 C 0.70 12.6 B 0.82 17.4 B 0.72 13.3 B 0.020 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp PaloVerde :>;-z. !C F. 'r: i4 0.7.5 0.11. 0.70 21 Woodruff Ave PaloVerde Existing Traffic Signal 0.91 15.9 B 0.72 11.3 1 B 0.89 15.9 B 0.76 12.1 B 0.040 LOS 22 Stearns St PaloVerde Existing Traffic Signal 0.94 22.0 C 0.92 24.4 C 0.91 203 C 0.92 23.9 a 0.000 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ram ">n,."'-d r, k nc 0 i. 0.31 ;743 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 2.8 A 0.51 4.9 A 0.58 3.6 A 0.56 2.8 A 0.030 0.050 LOS 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd 0.000 0.000 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.60 10.7 B 0.85 15.7 E 0.65 9.5 A 0.86 17.1 B 0.050 0.010 LOS B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.50 13.1 B 0.86 30.4 C 0.54 13' B 0.89 31.8 C 0.040 0.030 LOS 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Sig nal 0.99 30A C 1.03 37.1 D 1.06 45.2 D 1.09 43.9 D 0.070 0.060 LOS D 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Or 0.080 0.080 Exceed 30 7th St Pacfic Coast Highway Existi Traffic Signal 1.02 65.8 E 1.03 58.7 E 1.04 70.0 E 1.07 64.9 E 0.020 0.040 Exceed 1.02 58.8 E 1.05 51.3 D 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.13 82A F W63.0 1.18 92.7 F 1.06 60.9 E 0.050 0.000 Exceed 1.08 68.5 E 1.02 45.8 JA 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.57 39.1 D 0.55 40.2 D 0.74 31.4 C 33 7th St Channel Or Existi Traffic Si nal 0.77 25.7 C 0.79 25.4 C 1.04 55.7 E 0.020 0.020 34 7th St W.Campus Or Existing Traffic Signal 0.85 53.1 D 0.89 68.4 E 090 66.0 E 0.040 0.030 Exceed 0.75 3.9 A 0.84 8.6 35 7th St E Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 1.12 55.8 E 1.17 68.7 E 0.99 19.0 B 0.050 0.030 Exceed 1.11 59.8 E 0.99 24.5 NOTES:*the LOS results for#25 and#29 are based on signalized conditions in order to compare the V/C ratio for the entire intersections. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority 1405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-13:Year 2020 Alternative 2 vs.Year 2020 No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison Mainline No Build AHernatiae(Year 2020)Conditions Afternanee2(Year 202o)Cenditims 2020Altematiw2 as.2o2ONo-Build AM Peak Hour. PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour.. PM Peak Hour. D/C Ratio Difference Comparison Location Lane Type Direction Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Lanes Cepecity''0. Demand D/C Density` LOS* Demand D/C Density` LOS Demand D/C Density LOSa Demand D/C Density3 LOS AM PM Evaluation Volume' Volume' Volurnel Volumes 1405 Maihiine 1-405 Mainline 1.405 Mainline OP NB __S_ 9,250 9,530 103 41S: E 91810 106 412 E9600 1:04 421: E 10,060 109 436 E 0.01 0.03 Temple Ave nue to SB 5'. 9,250. 9,720 105 363'. E 10,090 1.09 F 9,660 I.04 35.9 E 10,030 :108 F La Retell Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,860 1.01 - - 21190 1.18 - - 2,040 1.10 - - 21280 123 - - 0.10 0.05 SB 1 1,850 1,820 0.98 _ - 1,960 1.06 - - 1,920 1.04 - - 1,810 098 - - 0.05 GP NB 5: 9,250 9,030 :098 See Weaving Table 9730 105 See Weaving Table 9170 0.99 See Weaving Table 10,140 1110 See Weaving Table 0.02 0.04 Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB 5 9,250 9,290 1,OD See Weaving Table 9,670 1:05 See Weavng Table 9,310 1,01 Sec Weaving Table 9,650 :1,04 See Weaving Table 0.00 0.00 Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 1,860 1.01 -- - 2,190 1.18 - - 1,980 1.07 -- - 2,240 121 -- - 0.06 0.03 SB 1 1,850 1,820 0.98 _ - 1,960 1.06 - - 1,920 1.04 - - 1,810 0.98 - - 0.05 GP NB 5'. 9,250. 9,320 090 See Weaving Table 9,460 102 See Weaving Table 8480 0.92 See Weavmg Table 9,890 107 See Weaving Table 0.02 0.05 Bellflower Boulevardto SB S 9250'. 8,690 094 See Weaving Table 9,110 098 See Weaving Table 8,820 0.95 See Weaving Table 9,190 .099 See Weaving Table 0.01 0.01 Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,730 0.94 - - 2,080 1.12 - - 2,060 1.11 _ - - 2,240 121 - - 0.18 0.09 SB 1 1,850 1,910 1.03 - - 2,080 1.12 1,920 1.04 1,810 098 0.01 GP NB 5 9,250 8,430 0191 See Weaving Table 9,420 1.02 See Weaving Table .8690 0,94 See Weavmg Table 9,940 107 See Weaving Table 0.03 0.06 Woodruff Avenueto SB 4 7,400 8,530 .115 * F 8790 119 * F 8,730 1.18 * F 8,920 1,21 * F 0.03 0.02 Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,730 094 2,010 1.12 2,030 1.10 2,060 111 0.16 - . SB 1 ' 1,850 2,060 1.11 - I - 1,990 1.08 - - 2,160 1.17 I - - 2,020 1.09 - - 0.05 0.02 ' GP NB 5 9250'. 8,930 097 See Weaving Table 9,890 107 See Weaving Table 9,200 099 See Weaving Table 10,400 1,12 See Weaving Table 0.03 0.06 Palo Ve rde Aven ue/Stea rns Street to SB 5. 9,250. 9,986 097 See Weaving Table 9,420 162 See Weavng Table 9,150 0.99 See Weaving Table 9450 102 See Weaving Table. 0.02 0.00 Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1850 1730 094 2080 1.12 2030 1.10 2340 126 0.16 0.14 1111 1111 1111 1111 _. _... _... - _. 1111 - 1111 SB 1 ' 1,850 2,140 1.16 2,060 1.11 1 2,210 1.19 2,020 1.09 ' 0.04 ' GP NB 4 74D0. 8,600 116 * F 9,560 129 * F 8,950 1.20 * F 10,130 137 * F 0.03 0.08 Studebaker Road to SB 5 9,250 8,550 0,92 297 D 9,090 0.98 385 E8740 0,94 307 D 9,150 099 38.9 E 0.02 0.01 1-605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1 1850 2490 135 2790 1.51 2300 1.24 2710 146 - 1111 1111 1111 1111. _. _... _1111 _.. _. 1.111 - _. 1111. SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 = 2,060 1.11 2,210 1.19 = 2,010 1.09 0.04 GP NB 1. 7,400. 6,910 '.093 359'. E 7,940 1,07 41,0 E 7340 099 390. E 8,700 1.18 F 0.06 010 -605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp SB 4 7400'. 7,150 097 318. D 7,830 106 437 E 7480 £:01 344'. D 8,160 £10 F 0.04 O.DA .Decrease PM LOS(E to F) HOV NB 1 1,850 2,490 1.35 - _ - 2,790 1.51 - - 2,300 1.24 - - 2,710 146 - - SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 - 2,060 1.11 2,210 1.19 - 2,360 128 0.04 0.16 GP NB 4 7,400 6,910 0.93 35 9 E 7,940 1.07 41,0 E 7,340 0:99 39 D E 8,J00 1,18 F 0.06 0.10 Decrease PM LOS(E W F) 7th St Off Ramp to l-605 SB On Ramp SB 4'. 7,400.. 7,050 0.95 31.1 7,690 1,04 42.2 E 7390 I:00 337. D 8,040 1.09 F 0.05 0.05 Decrease PM LOSE to F) HOV NB 1 1,850 2,490 1.35 - - 2,790 1.51 - - 2,300 1.24 - - 2,710 146 - - SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 = 2060, 1.11 2,210 1.19 = 2,360 128 0.04 0.16 1-605 Mafniine 1405 Mainline 1-605Mainline GP NB 4. 7,400 5900 080 258 C 7,420 100 379 1 .5540 0.75 241. C 6490 088 313'. ❑ Improve PM LOS(Era D) Carson Street to Spring Street SB 4 7400'. 7,750 105 377 E 7,280 098 35.0 1) 8,000 1.08 404. E 7,400 1,00 360 E 0.03 0.02 Decrease PM LOS(D to E) HOV NB 1 1,850 1510 082 1900 103 1570 0.85 2040 110 0.03 0.08 0111 1111 1111 _ -. _ 1111 1111 SB 1 ' 1,850 1,940 1.05 - - 1,740 0.94 -- -- 2,020 1.09 - - 1,800 0.97 - - 0.04 0.03 NB 4 7,400 5,120 069 209 C 6,330 08b 2b.6 1) 4,810 0.65 196 C 5,450 0.74 223 C "" Improve PM LOS(D to O) Spring Street to GP SB 4 7400. 6,720 091 288. D 5,840 079 241 C 6%0 0.94 304. D 5,970 081 247 C 0.03 0.02 Willow Street/Katella Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 1.01 - _ - 2,450 1.32 - - 1,850 1.00 _ -- - 2,450 132 -- - 0.00 SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 1,840 0.99 2,240 1.21 2,000 108 0.05 0.09 NB 5 9250. 5,120 055 1]0. B 5,740 052 208 C 4,910 0.52 159. B 5,680 661 206 C Willow Street/Katella Avenue CD Road On GP SB 4'. 7,400. 5660 '.076 243. C 5,140 069 245 C 5,910 0.80 255. C 5170 070 24.6 0.03 0.00 Rampto l-405 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,690 0.91 -- - 2,220 1.20 - - 1,490 0.81 -- -- 2,000 108 ' SB 1 1,850 1,660 0.90 -- - 1,470 0.79 - - 1,770 0.96 - - 1,580 085 - - 0.06 0.06 7th Street Maibaliae M Street Mainline 7th street Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to GP EB 2'. 37D0. 3,270 088 175 6 3,160 085 169 B 3180 0'.86 170 B 2,770 075 148 B Studebaker Road WB 3. 5,550. 3590 '.0.66 19].. C 28]0 0,52 153 B 4010 0.32 215. C 3080 055 15,5'. B 0.06 0.04 Studebaker Road to EB 2 3,700 4,390 1,19 * F 4,010 1.08 38,4 E 4350 1:.18 * F 3,530 0,95 304 -605 GP WB 2 3]DO. 3,910 106 364'. E 3,900 105 362 E 4200 1':14 429'. E 4,120 111 409 E 0.08 0.06 Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and trafficvolumesare shown in vehides per hou r(vph). z.De-sty is shown in passenger-Vaide/lane(pdmi/ln1. 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)1ane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-paaty(D/C)ratio isgreater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes indude 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single HOV lane. 5.*Densty isin-essof 45 pc/mi/ln;therefore LOS is F. 6. Data Not available/Not ppliable. PARSONS Change County Transportation Authority 1405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.5-14:Year 2040 Alternative 2 vs.Year 2040 No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison Mainline:: NoB.ulid Alternative,(year 2040)Conditions Alternative2(Year 2040)Conditions 2040 Alternative 2-2040 No-Build AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour : AM Peak Hour.: PM Peak Hour.: D/G Ratio Difference Comparison Location Lane Type Direction iA Traffic : : Traffic : :Traffic : : :Traffic Lanes Capacity pemand. D C Denst LOS' Demand D/C Density LO53 :Demand D. /C Density LOSa AM PM Evaluation Volume': Volume' :Volume' Volume' 1-405 Mainline 1-445 Mainline 1-405 Mainline GP NB 5 9,250 103D0 111 - F 10,610 115 F 10370 112 F 10,970 118 F 0.01 0.03 Temple Ave nue to SB �: 5 9,250 10,500�: 114 43.9 E : 10,910 :118 ° F �:10440 .113 43;2 E :10840 :117 * F La Reword Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,010 109 - 2,170 128 2,200 119 2,460 133 - 0.10 0.05 SB 1 ' 1,850 1,970 1.06 ' ' 2,120 1.15 ' 2,070 1.12 - 1,960 1.06 ' 0.05 NB : 5 9,250 9,760 : 106 So,Warng Table: 10,531 114 See WeemgTable 6,20 075 See Weaving Table :10950 118 See W vng Table k :O.OS Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to GP SB 5 9,250 10,050 109 See Weaving Table 10,460 113 See WeavmgTable :10070 109 See Weaving Table ::10440 113 See Weaving Table 0.00 Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 2,010 109 - 2,370 128 2140 116 2420 131 - 0.03 - - SB 1 ' 1,850 1,970 1.06 ' - ' 2,120 1.15 ' 2,070 1.12 - 1,960 1.06 ' GP NB : 5 9,250 8990 : 097 See Weavng Table.: 10,220 :110 See WeavmgTable :9160 d99 See Weav ng Table :1A700 :116 See Weav ng Table :0.05 Bellflower Boulevardto SI3 5 9,250 9,390 102 See Weavng Table. 9,850 .106 See 'e 0'700 9540 .203 See Weavng Table 9,940 :y07 See Weavng Table 0.01 Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 101 - - 2,250 1.22 - - 2,220 1.20 - - 0.09 SB 1 1,850 2,060 111 2,240 1.21 2,070 1.12 - 1,960 106 GP NB 5 9,150 9110 098 See Weavng Table:: 10180 1.10 See WegvingTeble ::9400 102 See Weav ng Table ::10740 116 See Weav ng Table . ::0.06 Woodruff Avenue to SI3 :: 4 7,400 9,220:: 125 F 9,500 :128 F 9 44 .128 F :: 9,640 :130 F 0.03 ::0.02 Pa In Ve rd e Ave n ue/Stea rns St re et HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 101 - - 2,250 1.22 - - 2,190 1.18 - - 2,220 120 - - 0.17 SB 1 1,850 2,230 121 2,150 1.16 2,330 1.26 2,180 118 0.05 0.02 NB 5 9250 9,640 104 SeeW vng Table 10680 115 See Weamg7able 9940 407 See Weav ng Table 11250 :122 See .vi ng Table 0.03 0.06 Pa In Ve rd e Ave n ue/Stea rns St re et to GP SB : 5 9,250 9,710 : 105 See Weavi an Table.: 10,190 :110 See Weaving Table :9990 107 See Weaving Table :10220 110 See Weaving Table 0.02 :0.00 Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 101 - - 2,250 1.22 - - 2,190 1.18 - - 2,540 137 - - 0.17 0.16 SB 1 1,850 2,310 125 2,230 1.21 2,380 1.29 2,180 118 0.04 GP NB :: 4 7,400 9,290 126 - F : 10,330 :140 F :::9560 1Z9 F :::10,950 :148 F 0.04 :::0.08 Studebaker Road to SB 5 9,250 4240 100 337 0 4830 106 441 E 90.50 .102 351 E 9,890 107 44.7 E 0.02 0.01 Daprease AM LOS:(Dto E) 1-605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1 1,850 2,700 146 - - 3,020 1.63 - - 2,490 1.35 - - 2,930 158 - - SB 1 1,850 2,310 125 2,230 1.21 2,380 1.29 2,170 117 0.04 GP NB : 1 7,400 ]470 : 101 40A E 8 590 :11(i F :]940 1 07 45 0 E : 9 490 :1 27 F 0.06 :0.11 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp SI3 4 7;400 7,730 104 36.7 E 8,460 114 F 8,090 .1 09 40.5 E 8,830 119 F 0.05 0.05 NB 1 1,850 2,700 146 - - 3,020 1.63 - - 2,490 1.35 - - 2,930 158 - HOV SB 1 1,850 2,310 125 2,230 1.21 2,380 1.29 2,560 138 0.04 0.18 NB 4 7,400 7,470 101 40.1 E 8,590 1.16 ' F 7,940 1.0 45 0 F 9,101 127 ' F 0.06 ::0.11 6P 7th St Off Ramp to l-60558 On Ramp SB : 4 7,400 7,630 : 103 .358 E 8,310 112 ' F :7,990 108 394 E : 8690 117 * F 0.05 :0.05 HOV NB 1 1,850 2700 146 - 3020 163 2490 135 - 2930 158 - - _ - - SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 2,230 1.21 2,380 1.29 2,560 1.38 0.04 0.18 1-605 Mainline 1-645 Mainline 1-605 Mainline GP NB : 4 7400 6,380 : 086 283 D 8020 108 444 : E :5990_ _081 262 D_ : 7,OZ0 _095 34_7 D Improve PM LOSE to D) Carson Street toy Street SB 4 7;400 8,370 113 - F 7,870 106 406: E 8,650 .117 FY. 8,000 108 421 E 0.04 0.02 Spring NB 1 1,850 1,630 088 -* - 2,050 1.11 - - 1,700 0.92 -* - 2,200 119 -- - 0.04 0.08 HOV SB 1 1,850 2,100 114 1,880 1.02 2,180 1.18 1,950 105 0.04 0.04 NB 4 7400 5,540 075 227 C 6,840 092 296 D 5,210 070 212 C 5,900 080 24.4 C Improve PM LOS(OtoQ Spring Street to GP SI3 : 4 7,400 7,260 :: 098 326 D 6,310 :0,85 265 : D :7520 102 347 D : 6450 :087 27.2 D 0.04 ::0.07 Willow Street/Kate Ila Aven ue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,630 088 - - 2,050 1.11 - - 2,000 1.08 - - 2,650 143 - - 0.20 0.32 SB 1 1,850 2,100 114 1,880 1.02 2,420 1.31 2,160 117 0.17 0.15 NB : 5 9250 5,540 : 060 18.3 C 5,200 :067 225 : C :5200 056 ll2 B : 6149 065 22:3 C improve AM L05lOto B) Willow Street/Kate Ila Aven ue C D Road On GP SB : 4 7,400 6,120 : 083 266 D 5,560 :075 26S : D :6390 986 280 D :S580 :975 26:6 D 0.04 :0.00 Ra mp to 1405 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,010 109 -- 2650 143 1610 087 - 2160 117 - - - - - SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 1,990 1.08 1,910 1.03 1,710 0.92 7th street M.1 Lljpa 7th,5tleai Makallne, 7th Streat Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to GP : EB 2 3700 3,540 096 189 C 3,420 0.92 183 C 3180 086 170 B 2,770 075 148 B Improve AM/PM LOS(O to B) Studebaker Road WB :: 3 5,550 3,990:: 072 :214 C :: 3,100 .:056 166:: 8 ::4010 .072 21.S C :: 3,080 .:055 16.5 8 : 0.00 :0.00 Studebaker Road to GP EB 2 3,700 4750 128 -* F 4340 11] ' F : 4350 118 * F 3,530 095 39.4 D Improve RM LOS(F toD) -605 WB :: 2 3,700 4,220:: 114 43,4 E :: 4,210 114 431.: E :4200 114 42:9 E : 4120 :111 40:9 E Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and trafficvolumesare shown in vehides per hour(vph1. 2.Density is shown in passenger.,V.ile/lane(peani/Im. 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS isbased on density except when demand-to�apaaty(D/C)ratio isgreater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour c.pacitiesfo,freeway lanesind.de 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single HOV lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/nni/ln;therefore LOS is F. 6. Data Not available/Not appli,.ble. PARSONS Change County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-1 Alternative 3(Year 2020)Intersection Level of Service-AM/PM Peak Hours Location Alternative 3(Year 2020)LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg l Avg Delay Delay,' No. East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C (sec) LOS? D/C,' (sec) LOS ?' 1 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.64 11.1 B 0.74 13.0 B 1-605 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.24 0.32 -- 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.33 0.37 -- 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.61 20.9 C 0.75 17.6 B 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.28 -- 0.30 -- 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.51 1 -- 0.46 -- 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.76 31.7 C 0.83 31.8 C 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.70 14.4 B 0.60 9.8 A 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.74 6.1 A 0.75 4.9 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.44 -- 0.43 -- 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.38 -- 0.23 -- 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.28 -- 0.26 -- 7 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.52 1 0.41 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.23 0.27 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.44 0.46 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.72 31.1 C 0.96 44.3 D 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.36 -- 0.45 -- 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.30 -- 0.43 -- 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.41 9.1 A 0.53 11.1 B 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.54 -- 0.36 -- 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.32 1 -- 0.18 -- 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 32.9 C 1.15 76.5 E Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.64 25.8 C 1.12 50.2 D 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.09 -- 0.12 -- 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.12 -- 0.37 -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.53 10.2 B 0.52 9.8 A 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.32 1 -- -- 0.17 -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.75 1 40.9 D 1.26 66.5 E 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.30 137.0 F 0.87 37.1 D 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.40 -- 0.22 -- 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 0.22 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.52 0.41 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.43 0.24 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.84 17.0 B 0.69 11.8 B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde Unsignalized On Ramp 0.14 1 -- -- 0.22 -- -- 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.84 13.8 B 0.69 9.7 A 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.94 22.1 C 0.92 22.9 C 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized Intersection 0.35 -- -- 0.46 -- 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.63 4.1 A 1 0.52 4.0 A 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Unsignalized Intersection 1.04 80.0 F 0.44 20.4 C 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.57 8.8 A 0.81 14.6 B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 12.8 B 0.87 30.2 C 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.93 25.8 C 0.97 29.0 C 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr Unsignalized Intersection 0.12 19.7 C 0.32 92.6 F 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 0.92 35.7 D 1 0.96 36.9 D 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.09 66.4 E 1.01 49.6 D 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.54 1 30.2 C 0.75 22.1 C 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.75 8.2 A 0.95 25.4 C IL34 7th St W.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.80 34.6 C 0.86 47.4 D 35 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 1.05 45.2 D 0.90 16.0 B PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-2 Alternative 3(Year 2020)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2020!Alternative 3 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) SBL 300 136 Yes 193 Yes 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBT 1,130 78 Yes 95 Yes SBR 300 170 Yes 107 Yes 3 Carson St 1-`605 NB Off Ramp NBL 300!(650) 229 Yes 280' Yes >NBR 300(1175) 232 Yes 141`` Yes NBL 120 244 No 270 No SBL 140 77 Yes 78 Yes 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd SBR 140 74 Yes 83 Yes EBL 250 284 No 405 No WBL 80 17 Yes 18 Yes 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBL 220(1240) 281' Yes 159' Yes SBR 900 0 Yes 0 Yes 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp WBL 260 217 Yes 109 Yes ssNBL 180 134 Yes 137 Yes 9 Willowst Lakewood Blvd SBL 150 43 ! Yes 119! Yes EBL 1775 82 `` Yes 74`` Yes WBL 150 31 Yes 143' Yes WBL 1,870 71 Yes 175 Yes 11 1-405 NB Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd WBL/T/R 1,130 56 Yes 179 Yes WBR 410 50 Yes 162 Yes NBL 150 362'' No 82 Yes 12 Willow st Bellflower Blvd SBL 120 0 ! Yes 252! No EBL 140 125`` Yes 153`` No WBL 110 246'! No 338'! No NBL 160 27 Yes 37 Yes 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal Bellflower Blvd NBR 230 50 Yes 159 Yes EBL 190 267 No 630 No WBL 150 160 No 163 No 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp SBL 1525(500) 139'' Yes 120'' Yes SBL 120 166 No 367 No 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal EBL 140 87 Yes 51 Yes WBL 160 346 No 673 No NBL 140 628'! No 207'! No NBR 60 36 Yes 26 Yes 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave SBL 120 149 No 110 Yes SBR 120 149' No 70 ' Yes EBL 200 292'' No 161'' Yes WBL 180 241! No 167! Yes 20 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Palo Verde WBL 550 376 Yes 283 Yes WBT/R 1,155 63 Yes 147 Yes 21 Woodruff Ave Pala Verde EBL 335 289` Yes 202` Yes EBR 335 286'! Yes 169'! Yes NBL 130 184 No 179 No 22 Stearns St Palo Verde SBL 120 86 Yes 136 No EBL 90 231 No 214 No WBL 1 80 40 1 Yes 115 NO �1-40S irect On Ramp Studebaker Rd NBL 100 82 1 Yes 63 ! Yes SBR 70 16 1 Yes 21'' Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-2 Alternative 3(Year 2020)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2020!Alternative 3 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) NBL 200 44 Yes 58 Yes SBL 260 1 Yes 2 Yes 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd SBR 70 14 Yes 13 Yes EBL 120 79 Yes 223 No WBL 220 29 Yes 26 Yes 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd NBR 150 14 Yes 27 Yes SBL 200 66 Yes 131 Yes NBR 300 1110 No 1004 No 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd SBL 150 377 No 271 No WBR 60 52 Yes 208 No 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway NBL 330 189! Yes 252! Yes SBL 290 323' No 354' No NBR 130 81 Yes 27 Yes SBL 160 211 No 269 No 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd SBR 160 96 Yes 362 No EBL 200 498 No 403 No WBL 200 39 Yes 58 Yes NBL 280 98 '! Yes 79'! Yes SBL 240 267`` No 218`` Yes 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd SBR 60 21 Yes 33 Yes EBL 110 33 Yes 131' No WBL 120 56 '' Yes 60'' Yes WBR 200 65 Yes 41 Yes EBL 270 105 Yes 27 Yes 33 7th St Channel Dr EBR 180 1 Yes 7 Yes WBL 280 85 Yes 204 Yes 34 7th St W.Campus Dr SBL/R 150 67 ! Yes 248! No EBL 400 109`` Yes 48`` Yes SBL 150 76 Yes 183 No 35 7th St E.Campus Dr SBT/R 150 68 Yes 108 Yes EBL 150 196 No 94 Yes WBL 300 76 Yes 120 Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-3 Alternative 3(Year 2040)Intersection Level of Service-AM/PM Peak Hours Location Alternative 3(Year 2040)LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg l Avg Delay Delay,' No. East/West Street North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C (sec) LOS? D/C,' (sec) LOS ?' 1 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.69 113 B 0.80 14.1 B 1-605 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.26 -- 0.34 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.36 0.39 -- 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.66 22.9 C 0.81 19.4 B 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.31 -- 0.33 -- 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.55 1 -- 0.49 -- 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.84 37.3 D 0.92 44.5 D 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.75 15.5 B 0.64 10.7 B 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.80 7.1 A 0.81 6.0 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.47 -- 0.46 -- 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.41 0.25 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.30 0.28 7 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.57 0.45 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.25 0.29 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.48 0.50 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.77 32.4 C 1.02 52.0 D 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.38 -- 0.49 -- 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.33 -- 0.46 -- 1-405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.45 9.7 A 0.58 11.7 B 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.59 -- 0.39 -- 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.34 1 -- 0.19 -- 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.93 37.7 D 1.25 105.9 F Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.69 26.0 C 1.22 65.5 E 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.09 -- 0.13 -- 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd Unsignalized On Ramp 0.13 -- 0.40 -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.58 11.4 B 0.56 10.2 B 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp Unsignalized On Ramp 0.35 -- -- 0.19 -- I -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 42.0 D 1.41 92.7 F 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.40 166.5 F 0.88 42.2 D 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.43 -- 0.24 -- 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.34 0.23 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Unsignalized Off Ramp 0.56 0.45 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave Unsignalized On Ramp 0.46 0.26 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 1.02 22.9 C 0.80 14.0 B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde Unsignalized On Ramp 0.15 -- -- 0.23 -- I -- 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.92 16.9 B 0.75 10.3 B 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 1.02 30.8 C 1.02 29.9 C 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Unsignalized Intersection 0.38 -- -- 0.50 -- -- 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.68 4.5 A 1 0.56 3.9 A 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Unsignalized Intersection 1.20 116.8 F 0.45 20.1 C 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.62 9.7 A 0.88 17.1 B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 13.2 B 0.94 35.2 D 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 1.02 37.5 D 1.10 44.4 D 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr Unsignalized Intersection 0.15 22.8 C 0.45 158.2 F 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 1.04 55.9 1 E 1.04 49.7 D 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.17 72.3 E 1.10 57.0 E 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.58 26.9 C 0.88 26.8 C 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.77 10.2 B 1.04 39.1 D 34 7th St W.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.87 60.0 E 0.93 71.3 E 35 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Signal 1.14 59.3 E 0.99 18.9 B PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-4 Alternative 3(Year 2040)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2040!Alternative 3 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 95th' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) SBL 300 150 Yes 215 Yes 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBT 1,130 85 Yes 104 Yes SBR 300 212 Yes 119 Yes 3 Carson St 1-`605 NB Off Ramp NBL 300!(650) 246 Yes 307' Yes >NBR 300(1175) 255`` Yes 153`` Yes NBL 120 277 No 302 No SBL 140 82 Yes 84 Yes 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd SBR 140 77 Yes 86 Yes EBL 250 309 No 453 No WBL 80 17 Yes 18 Yes 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp SBL 220(1240) 310' Yes 174' Yes SBR 900 0 Yes 0 Yes 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp WBL 260 234 Yes 138 Yes ssNBL 180 141 Yes 160 Yes 9 Willowst Lakewood Blvd SBL 150 51 ! Yes 132! Yes EBL 1775 90 Yes 85`` Yes WBL 150 36 Yes 167' No WBL 1,870 72 Yes 194 Yes 11 1-405 NB Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd WBL/T/R 1,130 60 Yes 209 Yes WBR 410 54 Yes 189 Yes NBL 150 416'' No 81 Yes 12 Willow st Bellflower Blvd SBL 120 109! Yes 262! No EBL 140 123`` Yes 144`` No WBL 110 265'! No 356'! No NBL 160 28 Yes 41 Yes 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal Bellflower Blvd NBR 230 51 Yes 194 Yes EBL 190 260 No 701 No WBL 150 175 No 158 No 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp SBL 1525(500) 150'' Yes 128'' Yes SBL 120 197 No 405 No 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal EBL 140 116 Yes 94 Yes WBL 160 368 No 762 No NBL 140 710'! No 240'! No NBR 60 39 Yes 29 Yes 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave SBL 120 157 No 116 Yes SBR 120 161' No 76 ' Yes EBL 200 328'' No 165'' Yes WBL 180 265! No 199! No 20 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Palo Verde WBL 550 430 Yes 329 Yes WBT/R 1,155 78 Yes 179 Yes 21 Woodruff Ave Pala Verde EBL 335 334` Yes 241` Yes EBR 335 333'! Yes 194'! Yes NBL 130 202 No 197 No 22 Stearns St Palo Verde SBL 120 84 Yes 113 Yes EBL 90 250 No 239 No WBL 1 80 42 1 Yes 132 NO �1-40S irect On Ramp Studebaker Rd NBL 100 83 ! Yes 66 ! Yes SBR 70 19 '' Yes 22'' Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-4 Alternative 3(Year 2040)Intersection Queues vs Storage-AM/PM Peak Hours Location 2040!Alternative 3 Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Available No. Movement 9Sth' Adequate 95th Adequate East/West Street North/South Street' Storage(ft) Percentile Storage? Percentile Storage? Queue(ft) (Yes or No) Queue(ft) (Yes or No) NBL 200 100 Yes 66 Yes SBL 260 1 Yes 2 Yes 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd SBR 70 11 Yes 21 Yes EBL 120 86 Yes 249 No WBL 220 31 Yes 27 Yes 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd NBR 150 14 Yes 32 Yes SBL 200 71 Yes 169 Yes NBR 300 1288 No 1154 No 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd SBL 150 418 No 302 No WBR 60 55 Yes 316 No 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway NBL 330 200! Yes 302! Yes SBL 290 369' No 406' No NBR 130 63 Yes 35 Yes SBL 160 220 No 306 No 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd SBR 160 126 Yes 502 No EBL 200 495 No 421 No WBL 200 44 Yes 64 Yes NBL 280 107'! Yes 84'! Yes SBL 240 263`` No 81`` Yes 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd SBR 60 7 ! Yes 2 ! Yes EBL 110 S4 Yes 253' No WBL 120 54 '' Yes 67'' Yes WBR 200 61 Yes 42 Yes EBL 270 116 Yes 28 Yes 33 7th St Channel Dr EBR 180 1 Yes 7 Yes WBL 280 107 Yes 213 Yes 34 7th St W.Campus Dr SBL/R 150 73 ! Yes 276! No EBL 400 90 Yes 5 Yes SBL 150 82 Yes 213 No 35 7th St E.Campus Dr SBT/R 150 71 Yes 128 Yes EBL 150 224 No 99 Yes WBL 300 80 Yes 147 Yes PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-5:Alternative 3(Year 2020) Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline Alternative 3(Year 2020)Conditions Lane AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location . Direction Type Lanes Gapacityl'4i Traffic Traffic Demand) D/C Density2i LOS s Demand D/C Density2` LOS Volume) Volume'' 1-405 Mainline GP NB 5 9,250' 9,930 1.07 F 10,550 1.14 F Temple Avenue to SB 5 9,250' 9,910 1,07 37.9 E 10,290 1.11 * F Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,850 1.00 -- -- 2,040 1.10 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,660 0.90 -- -- 1,960 1.06 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving,Segment-Refer to Weave Table Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB 5 9,250'1 Weaving',Segment-Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 1,820 0.98 -- -- 2,060 1.11 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,660 0.90 -- -- 2,130 1.15 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving,Segment-Refer to Weave Table Bellflower Boulevard to SB 5 9,250' Weaving',Segment-Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 1.01 -- -- 1,870 1.01 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,680 0.91 -- -- 2,130 1.15 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving',Segment-Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue to SB 4 7,400'11 8,890 110 F 9,110 " 1.23 F Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,820 0.98 -- -- 1,850 1.00 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,740 0.94 -- -- 2,130 1.15 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to SB 5 9,250 Weaving',Segment-Refer to Weave Table Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1,850 1,660 0.90 -- -- 1,850 1.00 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,740 0.94 -- -- 1,970 1.06 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400 9,090 1.23 F 10,480 1.42 F Studebaker Road to SB 5 9,250'11 9,000 '11 0.97 '11 32.2 '11 D 9,470 1.02 41.1 E 1-605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1 1,850 2,070 1.12 --.... 2,290 1.24 -- SB 1 1,850 1,770 0.96 -- -- 1,970 1.06 -- -- GP NB 1 7,400' 9,090 1.23 F 10,480 1.42 F 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp SB 4 7,400' 7,690 1,04 36.3 E 8,350 1.13 * F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,070 1.12 -- -- 2,290 1.24 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,770 0.96 -- -- 1,970 1.06 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400 7,640 1.03 41.7 E 9,040 1.22 F 7th St Off Ramp to 1-605 SB On Ramp SB 4 7,400'11 7,600 '11 1.03 '11 35.5 '11 E 8,190 1.11 -* F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,070 1.12 -- -- 2,290 1.24 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,770 0.96 -- -- 1,970 1.06 -- -- 1-60,5 Mainline NB 4 7,400 5,740 0.78 25.0 C 6,530 0.88 31.5 D Carson Steet to GP SB 4 7,400 7,730 1.04 37.4 E 7,600 1.03 37.8 E Spring Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,490 0.81 -.... 1,760 0.95 SB 1 1,850 1,490 0.81 -- -- 1,400 0.76 -- -- NB 4 7,4001 4,990 0.67 20.3 C 5,500 0.74 22.5 C Spring Street to GP SB 4 7,400' 6,670 0190 28.5 D 6,190 0.84 25.8 C Willow Street/KatellaAve HOV NB 1 1,850 1,840 0.99 -- -- 1,870 1.01 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,490 0.81 -- -- 1,400 0.76 -- -- NB 5 9,2501 5,010 0,54 16.6 B 5,750 0.62 20.9 C Willow Street/Katella Ave CD Road On GP SB 4 7,400 5,660 0.76 24.3 C 5,500 0.74 26.2 D Ramp to 1-405 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,370 0.74 -- 1,800 0.97 SB 1 1,850 1,360 0.74 -- -- 1,400 0.76 -- -- 7th Streets Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to Studebaker Road GP EB 2 3,700 2,950 0.80 15.8 B 2,730 0.74 14.6 B WB 3 5,550 3,860 0.70 20.7 C 3,830 0.69 20.5 C Studebaker Road to 1-605 GP EB 2 3,700 4,140 1.12 41.3 E 3,560 0.96 30.8 D W B 2 3,700'' 4,120 1.11 40.9 E 4,850 1.31 * F Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane based on density except when demand-to-capacity(D/C)ratiois greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-6: Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 3>.(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak' Ramp Ramp1'4' Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity' Traffic z a 5 Traffic a s 1 'D/C 'Density LOS ' 1 D/C' Density 'LOS ' Volume Volume 1-405 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,000 0.33 14.7 B 990 0.33' 16.7 F NB On Loop 1? 1,500 790 0.53 46.9 ? F 620 ? 0.41' 52.8 F Lakewood Blvd NB On Direct 1? 1,500 560 0.37 25.9 ? C 340 ? 0.23' 28.4 F &Willow St SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,190 0.40 18.5 B 1,370 0.46 20.6 F SB On Loop 1 1,500 320 0.21 43.4 F 410 0.27 44.1 F SB On Direct(from Willow St) 1 1,500 450 0.30 22.4 C 620 0.41 23.0 C NB Off Direct 1' 1,500 520 0.35 28.1 D 570 0.38' 33.4 F Bellflower Blvd& NB On (Direct+Loop) 2' 3,000 1,290 0.43 15.2 F 860 0.29' 14.3 F Los Coyotes Diagonal SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,450 0.48 17.7 B 1,990 0.66 22.6 F SB On(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 980 0.65 35.6 F 1,410 0.94 34.6 F NB Off Direct 1`` 1,500 600 0.40 24.5 C 330 0.22' 27.6 C NB On Direct 1 1,500 470 0.31 36.0 F 320 0.21' 43.0 F Woodruff Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 780 0.52 35.6 E 570 0.38 38.8 F SB On Direct 1 1,500 640 0.43 23.5 F 300 0.20 25.3 F NB Off Direct 1 1,500 660 0.44 25.4 C 800 0.53' 30.9 F Palo Verde Ave NB On Loop 1' 1,500 210 0.14 54.8 F 320 0.21' 62.7 F &Stearn St SB On Direct(from Stearn St) 1 1,500 530 0.35 26.7 F 630 0.42 26.9 F Studebaker Rd NB On Direct 1 1,500 310 0.21 56.8 F 310 0.21', 66.0 F SB Off Direct 1 1,500 410 0.27 36.2 E 260 0.17 36.5 E 7th St SB Off Direct 1 1,5001 90 0.06 35.6 E 160 0.11 38.8 F PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-6: Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 3>.(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity' Traffic z a 5 Traffic a 5 1 'D/C 'Density LOS ' 1 D/C' Density 'LOS ' Volume Volume 1-605 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 1`` 1,500 1,020 0.68 31.7 D 940 0.63 34.6 D NB On Loop 1 1,500 430 0.29 19.7 B 460 0.31' 22.4 C NB On Direct 1 1,500 730 0.51 20.2 C 690 0.46' 22.0 C Carson St SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,220 0.41 13.6 B 1,410 0.47 15.0 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 500 0.33 22.1 C 460 0.31 21.8 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 280 0.19 22.6 C 320 0.21 22.2 C Spring St/Cerritos Ave NB On Loop 1 1,500 760 0.51 18.3 B 1,030 0.69' 19.4 B SB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,070 0.71 34.8 D 1,410 0.94 36.2 E NB Off(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 1,070 0.71 0.4 A 1,660 1.11' 5.5 A NB On Direct 1 1,500 1,040 0.69 19.4 B 1,420 0.95', 20.9 C Willow St/Katella Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 530 0.35 33.7 D 500 0.33 31.5 D SB Off Loop 1 1,500 1,070 0.71 34.4 D 1,010 0.67 32.1 D SB On Direct(Direct+Loop) 1 1,5001 590 0.39 23.7 C 810 0.54 22.8 C 7th Street Ramp Junctions EB Off Loop 1? 1,500 130 0.09 32.0 ? D 660 ? 0.44 29.9 D EB On Loop 1' 1,500 1,230 0.82 373 F 1,420 0.95' 32.3 D Studebaker Rd WB Off Loop 1 1,500 780 0.52 42.6 F 1,430 0.95 49.7 F WB On Loop 1 1,500 540 0.36 29.1 D 490 0.33 3.0 A PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-6: Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 3>.(Year 2020)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Ramp1'4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity' Traffic z a 5 Traffic a 5 1 'D/C 'Density LOS ' 1 D/C' Density 'LOS ' Volume Volume Freeway-to-Freeway Branch Connectors 1-605 SB to 1-405 NB 1 1,800 790 0.44 -- -- 1,000 0.56 -- -- 1-605 SB/7th St to 1-405 NB 2;, 3,600 1,460 0.41 -- -- 1,430 0.40 -- -- 1-405 SB to 1-605 NB 2 3,600 1,310 0.36 -- -- 1,130 0.31 -- -- I-405/1-605 Freeway Interchanges 1-605 SB to 7th St/1-405 SB 2 3,600 4,860 1.35 -- -- 4,500 1.25 -- -- 1-605 SB/1-405 SB to 7th St 1 1,800 2,020 1.12 -- -- 1,930 1.07 -- -- 7th St to 1-605 NB/1-405 NB 2; 3,600 1,340 0.37 -- -- 1,170 0.33 -- -- 7th St to 1-405 NB 1' 1,800' 720 0.40 -- -- 430 0.24 -- -- Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);D/C-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.* Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,D/C ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-7:Alternative 3 (Year 2020) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway and Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ? Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Freeway Mainline 1-405 Southbound- 46.4 F 73.4 F Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- 50.2 F 43.5 F Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street 1-405 Southbound- Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue 42.8 E 68.6 F 1-405 Northbound- Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard 55.0 F 50.3 F 1-405 Northbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Woodruff Avenue 48.6 F 42.8 E .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-405 Southbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Studebaker Road 34.5 D 45.6 F ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-405 Northbound- Studebaker Road to Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street 46.1 F 47.8 F Collector-Distributor(C-D)'Roads Lakewood Boulveard/Willow Street Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 16.2 B 22.5 C Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 5.0 A 3.8 A Notes: 1.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different forthe freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-8:Alternative 3(Year 2040) Mainline Peak Hour Level of Service Mainline Alternative (Year 2040)Conditions Lane'' AM Peak Hour '1i PM Peak Hour Location Direction Type' Lanes ICapacity"4 Traffic Traffic Demand D/C Density LOS s Demand) D/C Density LOS s Volume' Volume' 1-405 Mainline GP NB 5 9,250 10,7301 1.16 * F 11,410 1.23 * F Temple Avenue to SB '. 5 9,250 10,7101 1.16'. -* '' F 11,130'. 1.20 '. -* F Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,000 1.08 -- -- 2,200 1.19 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,800 0.97 _ -- 2,120 1.15 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer toWeaveTable Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment Refer toWeaveTable ' Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1.... 1,850 1,970 1.06 -- 2,220 1.20 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,800 0.97 _ -- 2,300 1.24 -- -- NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to WeaveTable Bellflower Boulevard to GP SB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer to Weave Table Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1.... 1,850 2,020 1.09 - 2,020 1.09 SB 1 1,850 1,820 0.98 _ -- 2,300 1.24 -- -- NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer toWeaveTable Woodruff Avenue to GP SB 4 7,400 9,610 1.30 -* F 9,850 1.33 --* F Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,970 1.06 -- -- 2,000 1.08 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,880 1.02 -- -- 2,300 1.24 -- -- GP NB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment-Refer toWeaveTable Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to SB 5 9,250 Weaving Segment Refer to Weave Table Studebaker Road HOV NB 1.... 1,850 1,800 0.97 - 2,000 1.08 SB 1 1,850 1,880 1.02 -- -- 2,130 1.15 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400 9,830>s 1.33 * F 11,330 1.53 * F Studebaker Road to SB '1i 5 9,250 9,730'11 1.05'1i 37.2 '1i E 10,240'1i 1.11 '1i -- F 1-605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1.... 1,850 2,240 1.21 - 2,480 1.34 -- SB 1 1,850 1,910 1.03 -- -- 2,130 1.15 -- -- GP NB 1 7,400 9,830' 1.33 F 11,330 1.53 F 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp SB 4 7,400 8,320'. 1.12 43.4 E 9,030 1.22 --* F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,240 1.21 -- -- 2,480 1.34 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,910 1.03 -- -- 2,130 1.15 -- -- GP NB 4 7,400 8,260>s 1.12 * F 9,780 1.32 * F 7th St Off Ramp to 1-605 SB On Ramp SB '11 4 7,400 8,220'11 1.11'11 42.1 '11 E 8,850 '11 1.20 '11 --* F HOV NB 1 1,850 2,240 1.21 -- -- 2,480 1.34 -- -- SB 1 1,850 1,910 1.03 -- -- 2,130 1.15 -- -- 1.605 Mainline NB 4 7,400 6,210' 0.84 27.4 D 7,060 0.95 35.0 D Carson Steet to GP SB 4 7,400 8,360` 1.13 F 8,220 1.11 F Spring Street HOV NB 1.... 1,850 1,620 0.88 1,900 1.03 SB 1 1,850 1,620 0.88 -- -- 1,520 0.82 -- -- NB 4 7,400 5,390' 0.73 22.0 C 5,950 0.80 24.6 C Spring Street to GP SB 4 7,400 7,2101 0.97 32.2 D 6,690 0.90 28.7 D Willow Street/KatellaAve HOV NB 1 1,850 1,990 1.08 -- -- 2,020 1.09 -- -- SB 1 1 1,850 1 1,620 0.88 -- -- 1,520 0.82 -- -- NB 5 9,250 5,4201 0.59 18.0 B 6,210 0.67 22.5 C Willow Street/Katella Ave CD Road On GP SB 4 7,400 6,120' 0.83 26.6 D 5,940 0.80 28.3 D Ramp to 1-405 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,490 0.81 -- 1,950 1.05 -- SB 1 1,850 1 1,480 0.80 -- -- 1,520 0.82 -- -- 7th Street Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to Studebaker Road GP EB 2 3,700 2,950' 0.80 15.8 8 2,730 0.74 14.6 B WB 3 5,550 3,860'1 0.70 20.7 C 3,830 0.69 20.5 C Studebaker Road to 1-605 GP '11 EB 2 3,700 4,140`. 1.12`. 41.3 `. E 3,560 . 0.96 `. 30.8 D WB 2 3,700 4,120' 1.11 40.9 E 4,850 1.31 * F Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-capacity(D/C)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane. 5.*Density is in excess of 45 pc/mi/In;therefore LOS is F. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-9: Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 3(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp RampI',4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Traffic 'Traffic D/C Densityz LOS3'5 D/C' DensjitY2 LOS3'5 Volume 1 Volume 1-405 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct 2 3>,000 1,080 0.36 16.8 F 1,070 0.36`` 19x0 F NB On Loop >1 1,500 850 0.57 50.3 >.F 670 0.45 56.7 F Lakewood Blvd NB On Direct 1 1,500 610 0.41 27.8 F 360 0.24 30.8 F &Willow St SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,290 0.43 20.9 F 1,480 0.49 23.1 F SB On Loop 1 1,500 340 0.23 46.7 F 440 0.29 47.5 F SB On Direct(from Willow St) 1 1,500 490 0.33 24.0 C 680 0.45 24.4 F NB Off Direct ;'1 1,500 560 0.37 30.7 D 620 0.41'1 36.5 F Bellflower Blvd& NB On(Direct?+Loop) 2 3,000 1,390 0.46 17.3 F 930 ? 0.31;, 16.3 F Los Coyotes Diagonal SB Off(Direct+Loop) 2 3,000 1,560 0.52 37.7 F 2,160 0.72 25.5 F SB On(Direct+Loop) 1 1 1,500 1,060 0.71 37.7 F 1,530 1.02 36.3 F NB Off Direct 1 1>,500 650 0.43 27.2 C 360 0.24 30x6 F NB On Direct >.1 1,500 510 0.34 38.5 F 350 0.23'' 46.1 F Woodruff Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 840 0.56 33.0 D 620 0.41 33.1 F SB On Direct 1 1,500 690 0.46 24.5 F 330 0.22 26.7 F NB Off Direct 1 1,500 710 0.47 28.3 F 860 0.57> 34.2 F Palo Verde Ave NB On Loo >1 1;500 220 59.5 F 350 &Stearn St p " 0.15 0.23;' 67.9 F SB On Direct(from Stearn St) 1 1,500 570 0.38 28.1 F 680 0.45 28.1 F NB On Direct 1 1„500 330 0.22 61.6 F 340 0.23'' 71A F Studebaker Rd SB Off Direct 1 1,500 440 0.29 39.0 E 280 0.19 39.3 F 7th St SB Off Direct 1 1,5001 100 0.07 38.4 E 170 0.11 41.8 F PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-9: Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 3(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak ! PM Peak Ramp Rampl',4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Traffic ! !Traffic D/C ! Densityz LOS3'5 D/C' DensjitY2 LOS3'5 Volume 1 ! Volume 1-605 Ramp Junctions NB Off Direct »1 1;500 1,100 0.73 !! 34.2 »D » 1,020 0.68 37.3 E NB On Loop ! 1 1!,500 460 0.31 ! 20.9 C 490 0.33 23.7 C NB On Direct '! 1 1,500 830 0.55 21.1 C 740 '! 0.49 2351 C Carson St SB Off Direct 2 3,000 1,320 0.44 15.6 B 1,530 0.51 17.3 B SB On Loop 1 1,500 540 0.36 23.2 C 500 0.33 22.9 C SB On Direct 1 1,500 300 0.20 23.8 F 350 0.23 23.3 F Spring St/Cerritos Ave NB On Loop ! 1 1,500 820 0.55 19.0 B 1,110 ! 0.74 20.0 C SB Off Direct 1 1,500 1,150 0.77 37.4 E 1,520 1.01 38.9 E NB Off(Direct!+Loop)! 1 1!,500 1,160 0.77 ! 1.5! A 1,800 1.20``, 6.6 A NB On Direct 1 1;500 1,130 0.75 !! 20.2 C 1,530 1.02!! 21.9 C Willow St/Katella Ave SB Off Direct 1 1,500 570 0.38 36.2 E 540 0.36 33.8 D SB Off Loop 1 1,500 1,150 0.77 36.9 E 1,090 0.73 34.6 D SB On Direct(Direct+Loop) 1 1,500 630 0.42 25.3 C 880 0.59 24.3 C 7th Street Ramp Junctions EB Off Loop >'1 1,500 140 0.09 !! 32.0 D 720 0.48'1 29.9 D EB On Loop 1 1,500 1,330 0.89 38.5 F 1,540 ? 1.03 33.3 D Studebaker Rd WB Off Loop 1 1,500 840 0.56 42.6 F 1,550 1.03 49.7 F WB On Loop 1 1,500 590 0.39 29.6 D 540 0.36 29.4 D PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-9: Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Ramp Junction Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative 3(Year 2040)Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Ramp Rampl',4 Ramp Ramp Junction Ramp Ramp Junction Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Traffic 'Traffic D/C Densityz LOS3'5 D/C' DensjitY2 LOS3,5 Volume 1 Volume Freeway-to-Freeway Branch Connectors 1-605 S13 to 1-405 N13 >1 1,800 860 0.48 1,080 0.60 1-605 S13/7th St to 1-405 N13 2 3,600 1,570 0.44 1,550 0.43 1-405/1-605 1-405 S13 to 1-605 N13 2 3,600 1,410 0.39 1,220 0.34 Freeway Interchanges 1-605 S13 to 7th St/1-405 S13 2 3,600 5,260 1.46 4,870 1.35 1-605 S13/1-405 S13 to 7th St >1 1,800 2,020 1.12 1,930 1.07 7th St to 1-605 N13/1-405 N13 2 3,600 1,450 0.40 1,260 0.35 7th St to 1-405 N13 >1 1,800 770 0.43 460 0.26 Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and traffic demand forecast volumes are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In);D/C-demand-to-capacity ratio. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway ramps include 1,500 vph for each freeway ramp lane and 1,800 vph for each freeway-to-freeway branch connector lane. 5.LOS F as the total flow of the merge/diverge area exceeds the capacity of the freeway segment;the density is not applicable in this case. 6.*Per Highway Capacity Manual,as the impact area of merge and diverge is primarily focused on an influence area of 1,500 ft,the density was not calulated for areas exceeding 1,500 ft in length. 7.For freeway-to-freeway branch connectors,D/C ratios are provided. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-10: Alternative 3 (Year 2040) Weaving Level-of-Service Freeway and Collector-Distributor Roads AM Peak Hour? PM Peak Hour Weaving Segment Density' LOS Density' LOS Freeway Mainline 1-405 Southbound- 51.3 F 81.2 F Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street to Bellflower Boulevard 1-405 Northbound- 55.1 F 47.7 F Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard Willow Street 1-405 Southbound- Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue 47.3 F 75.7 F 1-405 Northbound- Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard 60.9 F 56.1 F 1-405 Northbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Woodruff Avenue 53.4 F 47.3 F 1-405 Southbound- Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to Studebaker Road 37.7 E 49.8 F 1-405 Northbound- Studebaker Road to Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street 50.8 F 53.0 F Collector-Distributor(C-D) Roads Lakewood Boulveard/Willow Street Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 16.2 B 22.5 C Bellflower Boulevard/Los Coyotes Diagonal Interchange at 1-405 Southbound C-D Road 5.0 A 3.8 A Notes: 1. Density is shown in passenger cars/mile/lane(pc/mi/In). 2. Level of Service(LOS)is based on density(pc/mi/In).The density LOS thresholds are different for the freeway mainline and collector-distributor roads. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority DRAFT I-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-11:Year 2020 Alternative 3 vs.Year 2020 No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Location <No Build Alternative(Year 2020)LOS Alternative3(Year202O)LOS Alternative 3 vs No-Build Altemative3 with Improvement(Year202O)LOS AM Peak Hour:: PM'.Peak Hour AM Peak Hour:: PM Peak Hour ::V/C Ratio Difference Comparison AM Peak Hour :: :PM Peak Hour. Avg :Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg Delay :Delay : Delay :Delay : Delay Delay No East/West Street North South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C'< (sec) LOS D/C <.(sec) LOS`. D/C 1. (sec) LOS D/C 1.(sec) LOST AM PM Evaluation :' D/C (sec) LOS D/C (sec) :I LOS 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.57 22.3 C 0.68 23.8 C 0.64 11.1 B 0.74 13.0 B 0.070 0.060 LOS C 1-605 SB Direct On Ram Frali 'smp 0.2?_ 0..3 0.2'11 O:..Z 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ram 0,3' 03" 0+% 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.59 21.8 C 0.76 20.6 C 0.61 20.9 C 0.75 17.6 B 0.020 1-605 NB Loop On Ram ,.rs gr au On Ramp n.,2 0.35 n n.36 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp ,.r,gral zeu 0,9amp 0.52 n%,.g 0.51 0,4E 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.79 31.1 C 0.84 33.7 C 0.76 31.7 C 0.83 31.8 C 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.68 14.2 B 0.65 10.9 B 0.70 14.4 B 0.60 9.8 A 0.020 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.76 10.5 B 0.79 8.2 A 0.74 6.1 A 0.75 4.9 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp -h,ed Off Rama 038 -- -- 039, -- -- n4=H -- -- 013 -- -- 1-405 NB Direct On Ram p On a,= p 035 0,13 030 0,13 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp „ t„nah,f d Ofl Ramp 0,73 0,12 0,2p 026 7 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd 0,52 n„l 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp ,. ,gr au d On Ra,p 0.22 `?:25 023 n?7 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd (gnali_5 Off Ramp 0 3 048 0,144 046 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.75 31.2 C 0.89 43.0 0 0.72 31.1 C 0.96 44.3 0 0.070 LOS D -405 56 Loo Off Ram ^:al: 3 ^f Ramp 0, .- .- 0A6 -- .- n.>b -- -- 015 - .. 10 Willow St -40556 Direct On Ramp_ =ra: Ramp 0.20 -- -- 0A -- -- 030 -- -- 043 -- -- -405 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.51 10.8 B 0.53 10.6 B 0.41 9.1 A 0.53 11.1 B 0.000 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp On Ra,r, 0.>0 0. t 0,5a 036 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd .,r vrah d ,:R-p 031 0.19 0.32 US 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.01 48.8 D 1.01 54.4 0 0.86 32.9 C 1.15 76.5 E 0.140 Exceed 0.92 33.2 C 1.10 48.8 D Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.65 26.4 C 1.00 42.1 D 0.64 25.8 C 1.12 50.2 0 0.120 LOS D 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ram si-na d On Ramp 0,36 -- -- 0.12 -- -- 0.09 -- -- 0.12 -- -- 14 -40556 Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd s„ra riOn Ra:r:p 6.S- -- -- 6.32 -- -- 0,12 -- -- 037 -- -- 1-405 SB Direct Off Ram Existing Traffic Signal 0.52 10.0 B 0.47 16.0 B 0.53 10.2 B 0.52 9.8 A 0.010 0.050 LOS B 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp =ra: Ramp 0.16 -- -- 0.17 -- -- 0311 -- -- 0.17 -- -- 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existin Traffic Si nal 0.78 44.4 D 1.02 35.1 0 0.75 40.9 D 1.26 66.5 E 0.240 Exceed 0.71 32.5 C 0.96 25.4 C 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.33 147.9 F 0.87 40.4 D 1.30 137.0 F 0.87 37.1 0 0.000 1-405 NB Direct Off Ram -g, h r off Rsm,p 039 0.19 n.4n 022 18 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave n.,1 n:22 1-405 SB Direct Off Ram p -g-h2ed 0{"a-P 0.52 -- -- 047 -- -- 0S2 -- -- 041 -- -- 19 1 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave si>na d On Ramp 0,41 -- -- 0.23 -- -- u'.3 -- -- 0.20 -- -- 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.78 17.7 B 0.61 11.8 B 0.84 17.0 B 0.69 11.8 B 0.060 0.080 LOS B 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde On Ramp n.la -- -- 0,22 - 21 Woodruff Ave Pa to Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.84 13.6 B 0.66 10.3 B 0.84 13.8 B 0.69 9.7 A 0.000 0.030 LOS 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 18.9 B 0.83 20.5 C 0.94 22.1 C 0.92 22.9 C 0.080 0.090 LOS 23 Stearns St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp gr.�ii '.=.mp 0,30 0.=6 0,35 046 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ram Studebaker Rd Existin Traffic Si gnal 0.51 2.6 A 0.47 4.7 A 0.63 4.1 A 0.52 4.0 A 0.120 0.050 LOSA 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd 0.040 0.010 LOSA 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.54 9.3 A 0.78 13.8 B 0.57 8.8 A 0.81 14.6 B 0.030 0.030 LOS B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.46 12.8 B 0.79 28.0 C 0.51 12.8 B 0.87 30.2 C 0.050 0.080 LOS 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.91 21.3 C 0.93 25.8 C 0.93 25.8 C 0.97 29.0 C 0.020 0.040 LOS C 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr 0.010 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 0.94 49.2 D 0.95 35.9 13 0.92 35.7 D 0.96 36.9 0 :... 0.010 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.04 68.9 E 0.98 47.9 D 1.09 66.4 E 1.01 49.6 0 0.050 0.030 Exceed 0.98 46.4 D 0.97 44.1 D 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.53 38.8 D 0.70 20.4 C 0.54 30.2 C 0.75 22.1 C 0.010 0.050 LOS C 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.71 24.5 C 0.94 22.7 C 0.75 8.2 A 0.95 25.4 C 0.040 0.010 LOS C 34 71h St W.Campus Dr Existin Traffic Si nal 0.79 31.2 C 0.81 32.0 C 0.80 34.6 C 0.86 47.4 D 0.010 0.050 LOS D 35 7th St E.Campus Dr Existing Traffic Si nal 1.03 35.8 D 0.87 14.6 B 1.05 45.2 D 0.90 16.0 B 0.020 0.030 LOS B NOTES:"the LOS results for#25 and#29 are based on signalized conditions in order to compare the V/C ratio forthe entire intersections. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority 1-405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Study Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-12:Year 2040 Alternative 3 vs.Year 2040 No Build Alternative Intersection Comparison Location ::No Build Alternative(Year 2040)LOS : Alternative3(Year204O)LOS : Alternative.3 vs No-Build Alternative 3wth improvement(Year 2040)LOS:. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D/C Ratio Difference Comparison AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg <Avg Avg .`.Avg 1.Avg Avg ? Delay 'Delay Delay ':Delay (Delay Delay No East/WestStreet North/South Street Traffic Control/Comments D/C : (sec) LOS D/C :(sec) LOS: D/C (sec) LOS D/C (sec) LOS: AM PM Evaluation : D/C :{sec) LOS D/C : {sec) LOS 1 Carson St 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.62 22.4 C 0.73 24.5 C 0.69 11.7 B 0.80 14.1 B 0.070 0.070 LOS C 1-605 SB Direct On Ramp _ , , ter.;- 024 0 6 025 034 2 Carson St 1-605 SB Loop On Ram 1-605 NB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.63 23.6 C 0.82 23.2 C 0.66 22.9 C 0.81 19.4 B 0.030 LOS C 1-605 NB Loop On Ramp U Ana<. ., R W„ 0.33 037 U3t i33 3 Carson St 1-605 NB Direct On Ramp U ha,,; C 55 0:i3 4 Carson St Pioneer Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.86 35.1 D 0.92 43.9 D 0.84 37.3 D 0.92 44.5 D =, ,: 0.000 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 SB Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.74 15.4 B 0.71 12.0 B 035 153 B 0.64 10.7 B 0.010 6 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 1-605 NB On Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.82 11.6 B 0.86 9.8 A 0.80 7.1 A 0.81 6.0 A 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp c;:na d rl .a-rc C 4 0.47 C.4f1 -005 NB Direct On Ramp ter..; �.1' (,25 (,4' n, -005 NB Loop Off Ramp ..,d f n: 2" 0.23 0 30 in L� 2E: 7 1-405 NB Loo On Ramp Lakewood Blvd R i 0.4q C 57 1-405 SB Loop On Ram ., Ana<. ., RWW, 8 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd 1 Cl .,1 0.4c 057 0.48 0:iii 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.81 33.6 C 0.93 48.4 D 0.77 32.4 C 1.02 52.0 D 0.090 LOS 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp ,-F,,. ° n, 0.37 0:0 0.?s 0 10 Willow St 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp zE ,ai„> S. [L44 G.33 -ii 1-405NBOffRamp Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 11.6 B 0.58 11.3 B 0.45 9.7 A 0.58 11.7 B 0.000 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp ^,y...a "I" '^pd,Pp 039 11 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd ,c'.a--d'),". 0.34 LL- 12 Willow St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.09 67.3 E 1.09 70.6 E 0.93 37.7 D 1.25 105.9 F 0.160 Exceed 0.99 46.2 D 1.11 61.8 E Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 0.70 26.9 C 1.13 56.8 E 0.69 26.0 C 1.22 65.5 E 0.090 Exceed 0.70 22.8 C 1.10 53.4 D 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Direct On Ram p Q R:,,; G.07 0.13 0.0^> 013 14 1-405 SB Loop Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd -.j Q R:,,, 0.13 034 0.i3 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.56 10.6 B 0.51 16.8 B 0.58 11.4 B 0.56 10.2 B 0.020 0.050 LOS B 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal 1-405 SB Loop On Ramp -," .,a i„> (i lh Gbh 0 16 Willow St Los Coyotes Diagonal Existing Traffic Signal 0.87 48.8 D 1.18 45.4 D 0.86 42.0 D 1.41 92.7 F ;"':.. 0.230 Exceed 0.73 40.9 D 1.19 61.7 E 17 Wil low St Woodruff Ave Existing Traffic Signal 1.44 180.5 F 0.94 51.5 D 1.40 1663 F 0.88 42.2 D 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp c,-Ea d 0.42 C 21 0.43 0.24 18 1-405 N B Direct On Ra mp Woodruff Ave >c na 0.34 023 034 L23 1-405 SB Direct Off Ram p U,,r r?.,d C( n,rc f,�5 (,7' (,rI ',45 19 1-405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave u,rc,, d 01,ter:- (_45 (,25 (,45 025 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Existing Traffic Signal 0.95 21.2 C 0.70 12.6 B 1.02 22.9 C 0.80 14.0 B 0.070 0.100 LOS C 20 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Palo Verde 1., RWI, 8.14 023 0.15 023 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.91 15.9 B 0.72 11.3 B 0.92 16.9 B 0.75 10.3 6 0.010 0.030 LOS 22 Stearns St Palo Verde Existing Traffic Signal 0.94 22.0 C 0.92 24.4 C 1.02 30.8 C 1.02 29.9 C 0.080 0.100 LOS 23 Stearns St -405 SB Direct On Ramp hai,:; d.33 C:J G.3h J 24 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.55 2.8 A 0.51 4.9 A 0.68 4.5 A 0.56 3.9 A 0.130 0.050 LOS 25 1-405 SB Direct Off Ram p Studebaker Rd 0.030 0.010 LOS 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.60 10.7 B 0.85 15.7 B 0.62 9.7 A 0.88 17.1 B 0.020 0.030 LOS B 27 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.50 13.1 B 0.86 30.4 C 0.55 13.2 B 0.94 35.2 D 0.050 0.080 LOS C 28 SR-22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd Existing Traffic Signal 0.99 30.4 C 1.03 37.1 D 1.02 37.5 D 1.10 44.4 D 0.030 0.070 LOS 29 SR-22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Or 0.010 30 7th St Pacific Coast Highway Existing Traffic Signal 1.02 65.8 E 1.03 58.7 E 1.04 55.9 E 1.04 49.7 D 0.020 0.010 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd Existing Traffic Signal 1.13 82.4 F 1.06 63.0 E 1.17 723 E 1.10 57.0 E 0.040 0.040 Exceed 1.06 70.9 E 1.05 53.4 D 32 Pacific Coast Highway Bellflower Blvd Existin Traffic Si nal 0.57 39.1 D 0.82 32.1 C 0.58 26.9 C 0.88 26.8 C 0.010 0.060 LOSC 33 7th St Channel Dr Existing Traffic Signal 0.77 25.7 C 1.02 50.8 D 037 10.2 B 1.04 39.1 D 0.000 0.020 34 7th St W.Campus Or Existing Traffic Signal 0.85 53.1 D 0.87 58.5 E 0.87 60.0 E 0.93 71.3 E 0.020 0.060 Exceed 35 7th St E.Campus Or Existing Traffic Signal 1.12 55.8 E 0.96 16.7 B 1.14 59.3 E 0.99 18.9 6 0.020 0.030 LOS B NOTES:*the LOS results for#25 and#29 are based on signalized conditions in order to compare the V/C ratio for the entire intersections. PARSONS Orange County Transportation Authority Table 4.6-13:Year 2020 Alternative 3 vs.Year 2020 No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison 'Mainline No Build AlternatBre(year 2020)conditions Alternative 3(Year 2020)COnditions 202DAHernative3 vs.202ONo-Build AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour. D/C Ratio Difference Comparison Location Lane Type Direction Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Lanes Capacity''0. Demand D C Demand D C / Density` L03 / Density` LOS Demand D/C Density' LDS' Demand D/C Density LDS AM PM E�reluetion volume' Volume, Volumel Volumel 4405 Mainline I-405 Mainline 1-405 Mainline OP NB 5 9,250.. 9530 103 41S E 91810 106 412 E ".9930 1.07 1, 10,550 114 F 0.04 0.08 Deuea.AM/PMLOS(Eto F) Temple Ave nue to SB 5'. 9250. 9,720 105 363. E 10,090 1.09 F 9,910 1:07 379'. E 10,290 .111 F 0.02 0.02 La kewood Boulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1,860 1.01 - - 21190 1.18 - - 1,850 1.00 - - 2,040 110 - - SB 1 1,850 1,820 0.98 _ - 1,960 1.06 - - 1,660 0.90 - - 1,960 106 - - 0.00 1111... 1111..... 1111..... 1111. 1111 1111..... 1111..... 1111..... 1111..... '... 1111..... 1111..... NB 5 9,250 9,030 0198 See Weaving Table 9,]30 1105 See Weaving Table 9%0 1,04 See Weaving Table 10,590 114 See Weavng Table 0.06 0.09 OP Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB 5: 9,250 9,290 :100 See Weav ng Table 9670 105 See Weavng Table 9490 2.03 See Weaving Table 9,960 1108 See Weav ng Teble 0.02 0.03 Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 1,860 1.01 - - 2,190 1.18 -- - 1,820 0.98 -- -- 2,060 111 SB 1 1,850 1,820 0.98 - 1,960 1.06 1,660 0.90 2,130 1.15 0.09 OP NB S 9250'. 8,310 090 See Weaving Table 9,420 102 See Weavng Table 8,810 0:95 See Weaving Table 10,300 111 See Weaving Table 0.05 0.10 Bellflower Boulevard to SB 5. 9,250. 8530 092 See Weaving Table 8,790 095 See Weav Og Table 9,030 0.98 See Weaving Table 9,380 101 See Weavng Table 0.05 0.06 Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1730 094 2,080 112 1870 1.01 _ 1870 101 0.08 SB 1 1,850 1,910 1.03 - - 2,080 1.12 - - 11680 0.91 - - 21130 115 - - 0.03 GP NB 5 9,250 8,430 091 See Weavng Table 9,420 102 See Weaving Table 8,950 0.97 See Weaving Table 10,310 111 See Weaving Table 0.06 0.10 Woodruff Avenueto SB 4 7,400 8,530 1,15 * F 8,]90 1119 * F 8890 1:.20 * F 9,110 123 * F 0.05 0.04 Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1,850 1730 094 2,080 112 1,820 0.98 _ 1850 100 0.05 SB 1 1,850 2,060 1.11 = 1,990 1.08 1,740 0.94 = 2,130 1.15 ' 0.08 ' NB 5'. 9,250 8,930 097 See Weaving Table 9,890 1,07 See Weav Og Table .9400 1.02 See Weaving Table 10,790 1.17 See Weaving Table 0.05 010 Palo Ve rde Aven ue/Stea rns Street to OP SB S 9250. 8,986 097 See Weaving Table 9,420 102 See Weaving Table 9,410 1:02 See Weaving Table 9,730 105 See Weaving Table 0.05 0.03 Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1850 1730 094 2080 1.12 1660 0.90 1850 100 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 - 1111 1111 _ _ 1111 SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 - - 2,060 1.11 - - 1,740 0.94 - - 1,9]0 1.06 - - GP NB 4. 7,400. 8600 .116 F 9,56f1 129 F 9090 1..23 F 10,480 142 F 0.07 0.12 Studebaker Road to SB 9,250. 8,550 p 9Z 297. D 9,090 095 38s E 9000 j 97 322.: D 9/170 1,02 411: E 0.05 0.(A 1-605 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1 1,850 2,490 1.35 - - 2,790 1.51 - - 2,070 1.12 = - - 2,290 124 - SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 - - 2,060 1.11 - - 1,]]0 0.96 - - 1,970 106 GP NB 1, 7400'. 6,910 093 359. E 7,940 107 41.0 E '090 1.23 F 10,480 1.42 F 0.29 0.34 DecreaseAM/PM'.LOSE to F) 1-605 NB Off Ramp to 7th St Off Ramp SB 4'. 7,400. 7,150 '.097 318'. D 7,830 106 437 E 7,690 I.04 363. E 8350 :113 F 0.07 0.07 Deuease AM/PM LOS HOV NB 1 1,850 2,490 1.35 - - 2,790 1.51 - - --2,070 1.12 SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 - - 2,060 1.11 - - 1,]]0 0.96 -- - 1,9]0 106 - - 1111 1111. 1111.. 1111.. GP NB 4: 7,400 6,910 :093 359 E 7940 107 41,0 E 7640 1.03 417 E 9A40 1,22 F 0.10 0.15 Deuease PM LOSE to F) 7th St Off Ramp to 1-605 SB On Ramp SB 4 7400. 7,050 095 311. D 7,690 104 422 E 7000 1103 355'. E 8,190 .1.11 F 0.07 0.07 Deuease AM/PM LOS HOV 2,070 1.12 - - 2,290 124 - - SB 1,]]0 0.96 4605 Mainline 1-665 Mainline 1605..Mainline 6P NB 4 7400. 5,900 1 080 1 258 C 74211 100 379 E 5740 078 250 C 6,530 088 315 D knprove PM LOSE to D) Carson Street to Spring Street SB 4'. 7,400.. 7750 LOS 377. E 7,280 0;98 359 D 7730 1:04 374. E 7600 :1.03 37.8'. E 0.00 O.Q4 Deuease PM LOS(pro EI HOV NB 1 1850 1,510 0 82 1,900 1.03 1,490 0.81 1111 1,7 60 0.95 1111. _ _... 1111 _. 1111. SB 1 1,850 1,940 1.05 - - 1,740 0.94 - - 1,490 0.81 - - 1,400 0.76 ' - NB 4'. 7,400 5,120 0.69 209 C 6,330 0,86 26,6 D 4,990 O.b7 203. C 5,500 0,74 225'. C :'�" :Improve PM LOS(DL C) Spring Street to GP SB 4'. 7,400 6,720 091 288 D 5,840 079 241 C '.6670 0.90 285'. D 6,190 084 258'. C 0.05 W illow St re et/Kate l la Aven ue HOV NB 1 1850 1870 101 2450 1.32 1840 0.99 1,8 70 101 - " 1111 1111 1111 1111 _. -... -... -.. -. -.. - -. 1111 - 1111 - _ 1111 SB 1 1,850 2,140 1.16 - - 1,840 0.99 - - 1,490 0.81 - - 1,400 0.]6 - - 1111. 1111 1111... 1111... 1111.. 1'111 NB 5'. 91250 5,120 055 170 B 5,740 Ofi2 208 C .5010 0..54 166'. B 1,710 062 209'. C 0.00 Willow Street/Katella Avenue CD Road On GP SB 4 7400'. 5,660 076 243'. C 5,140 069 24.5 C 5660 0.76 243'. C 5,500 0.74 262 D 0.00 0.05 Decrease PM LOS PC to to Ramp to l-405 HOV NB 1 1,850 1,690 0.91 - - 2,220 1.20 - - 1,370 0.74 - - 1,800 097 -- - SB 1 1,850 1,660 0.90 - - 1,470 0.79 - - 1,360 0.74 - - 1,400 076 ?.7th Sven 10.1.11me 7th Sheet;Ma9nlli re 7th street Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to GP EB 2'. 3,790 3270 088 175 B 3,16- 085 169 B 2,950 0.80 158. B 2730 074 146'. B Studebaker Road WB 3. 5550'. 3,690 056 19.7 f 28]0 042 153 B 3,86 0 0:70 207'. C 3,830 0.69 205 C 0.03 0.17 Decrease PM LOS(B to CI Studebaker Road to EB 2 3,700 4,390 119 F 4,010 108 3814 E 4140 112 413 E 3,560 0,96 308 D Improve AMJPM LOS -605 GP WB 2. 3,700. 3,910 .105 364 E 3,900 105 362 E 4,120 1.11 409. E 4850 131 F 0.06 0.26 )--se PM LOSE to F) Notes: 1.Peak hour capacity and bafficvol umes are shown in vehicl-per hour(vph). 2.Density is shown in passenger cars/m&/lane(pc/mi/In). 3.Level of Service(LOS):General Purpose(GP)lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to�apaaty(D/C)ratio isgreater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capacities for freeway lanes include 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single NOV lane. 5.*Density isin--sof 45 pc/mi/In;therefore Los is F. 6. Data Not available/Not applicable. 1405 Improvement Project Supplemental Traffic Report Long Beach Area Traffic Study Table 4.6-14:Year 2040 Alternative 3 vs.Year 2040 No Build Alternative Mainline Comparison :Mainline No Fluid Alternative(Year 2040)Conditions Alternative 3(Year 2040)Conditions: 2040.AIternative 3.vs.2040 No Build AM Peak Hour: PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour D/C Ratio Difference Comparison Location : Lane Type.Direction Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Lanes Capacity'0. Demand D C Demand D C Demand D C Demand D C / Density LDSa }: Density LDS / : Density; LOS / Density: LDSa AM PM Evaluation Volume' Volume' Volume` Volume' 1405Mai0lioe ? 140SMaintine 1-405Mainine NB 5 9,250 10300 111 * F 111610 115 F 10;730 116 F 11,410 123 F 0.05 0.09 Temp le Ave nue to GP SB 5: 9,250: 10,500 114 439: E 10'910 1.18 : F 10;710 116: F 11130 120 F :0.02 0.02 Deer e-AM LOSE to F) La kewood Be ulevard/Willow Street HOV NB 1 1,850 2,010 1.09 - - 2,370 1.28 - - 2,000 1.08 - 2,200 1.19 - - SB 1 1,850 1,970 1.06 - 2,120 1.15 1,800 0.97 2,120 1.15 0.00 OP : NB 5: 9,250:: 9,770 :1,06 See Weaving Table :10520 114: See Weavng Table 10;3b0 1,12: See Weaving Table 11,450 124 See Weaving Table :::0.06 0.10 La kewood Boulevard/Willow Street to SB 5 9250: 10040 109 See Weaving Table :10450 11.3 See Weav tag Table 10,260 L11 See Weaving Tabfe 10.770 1:1b See Weaving Table 0.02 9:03 Bellflower Boulevard HOV NB 1 1,850 2,010 1.09 - - 2,370 1.28 - - 1,970 1.06 - 2,220 1.20 SB 1 1,850 1,970 106 - 2,120 1.15 1,800 0.97 2,300 1.24 0.30 OP NB S: 9,250: 8990 097 See Weaving Table :10220 110: See Weav ng Table 9;530 103. See Weaving Table 11140 120 See Weaving Table :0.06 0:10 Bellflower Boulevard to SB S 9,250: 9390 :102 See Weaving Table :9850 106 See Weaving Table 9,760 106 See Weaving Tabfe 10,140 110 See Weaving Table : O.M 0.03 Woodruff Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,870 1.01 - - 2,250 1.22 - - 2,020 1.09 - 2,120 1.09 - - 0.08 SB 1 1,850 2,060 1.11 - 2,240 1.21 1,820 0.98 2,300 1.24 0.03 OP NB 5 9,250: 9,110 098 See Weaving Table :10180 110 See Weaving Table 9,670 1,05 See Weaving Table 11150 121 See Weaving Table ::0.06 0..10 Wood ruff Avenueto : SB 4'. 7400:: 9220 :L25 F ::9500 128'. : F 9,610 L30: F 9,850 133 F :::0.05 4.05 Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street HOV NB 1 1850 1870 101 2250 122 1,970 106 2,000 108 0.05 _ _. SB 1 1,850 2,230 1.21 2,150 1.16 1,880 1.02 2,300 1.24 0.08 NB 5 9,250 9,650 104 See Weaving Table 111690 116 S Weavng Tbl ae 10;160 110 5 Weaving Table 11;660 126 See Weaving Table 0.06 0.10 Palo Verde Avenue/Stearns Street to OP : SB 5: 9,250: 9,710 Los See Weaving Table 10,180 110: See Weaving Table 10,170 110: See Weaving Table 10,520 114 See Weaving Table :0.05 0.04 Studebaker Road HOV NB 1 1850 1870 101 2250 122 1,800 097 2,000 108 -. - - SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 2,230 1.21 1,880 1.02 2,130 1.15 OP NB 4 7400. 9,290 .126 F 10330 140 F 9,830 1.33 F 11;330 153 F 0.07 0.14 Studebaker Road to SB 5 9,250: 9,240 :100 33.7:: D :8830 106 441 E 9,730 1,05 372 E 10,240 1.11 _ F : 0.05 O:Q4 Dec-aie PM:LOS 1£05 NB Off Ramp HOV NB 1 1850 2,700 146 3020 163 2,240 121 2,480 134 - -. - - - SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 2,230 1.21 1,910 1.03 2,130 1.15 GP NB 1'. 1,400: 1,411 101 401'. E 8,191 116: * : 1, 9,830 133: * F 11,,330 153 * F :0.32 037 Decrease AM LOSE to F) 1£05 NB Off Rampto 7th St Off Ramp SB 4 7,400 7,730 :104 367: E :8,460 114 F 8,320 112 43.4 E 9,030 122 F 0.08 0.08 HOV NB 1 1,850 2,700 1.46 -- - 3,020 1.63 - - 2,240 1.21 - 2,480 1.34 - - SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 2,230 1.21 1,910 1.03 2,130 1.15 OP NB 4: 7,400:: 7,470 :101 401: E 8590 lib F 81260 L12: F 9,780 1.32 F : 0.11 0.16 Decrease AM LOS(E to F) 7th St Off Ramp to l£OS SB On Ramp : SB 4: 7,400:: 7,630 :103 358: E :8310 112. : F 8,220 111: 421 E 8,850 12f1 F ::0.08 0.07 HOV NB 1 1,850 2,700 1.46 - - 3,020 1.63 - - 2,240 1.21 - SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 2,230 1.21 1,910 1.03 2,130 1.15 1-605 Mainline k I-605 Mainline 1-605Maintine OP : NB 4: 7,400: 6,380 0.86 283: D 8,020 108: 444 : E 6,210 084: 274 D 7,060 095 35.0 D :. Improve PM LOSEto D) Carson Street to Spring Street SB 4 7,400: 8,370 :113 F :7870 106 406 E 8,360 113 F 8,220 111 F : 0.00 0-OS Decrease PM LOBE to F) HOV NB 1 1,150 1,630 088 2050 111 1,620 088 1,900 103 ;. _. �. - - SB 1 1,850 2,100 1.14 1,880 1.02 1,620 0.88 1,520 0.82 NB 4 7,400. 5540 07S 227. C :6840 092 296 D 5,380 073 220 C 5',950 080 246 f lmprovePM LOB(O to C) Spring Street to OP 5B 4 7,400: 7,260 .:098 32,6: D :6310 085: 2&5 D 7,210 0,97 322 D 6;690 0,90 Z87 : D 0.05 Willow Street/Katella Avenue HOV NB 1 1,850 1,630 0.88 - - 2,050 1.11 - - 1,990 1.08 - 2,020 1.09 - - 0.19 SB 1 1,850 -27-- 100 1.14 1,880 1.02 1,620 0.88 1,520 0.82 NB 5 9,250 5540 :060 183 C :6200 067 22.5 C 5,420 059 180 B 6,210 0,67 225 C 0.00 Decrease AM LOS(C to B) Willow Street/Kate Ila Ave nue CD Road O n GP SB 4'. 7,400: 6120 083 266: D 5560 075: 265 : D 6,120 083: 266 D 5,940 080 283 D :0.00 0.05 Ramp to 11l05 HOV NB 1 1,850 2,020 1.09 - - 2,650 1.43 - - 1,490 0.81 - 1,950 1.05 - - SB 1 1,850 2,310 1.25 1,990 1.08 1,480 0.80 1,520 0.82 :7th Street Mainline :7th street Mainline 7th street Mainline Pepper Tree Lane to OP : EB 2 3700 3540 096 189 C 3420 09Z 18.3 C 2950 080 158 8 2730 074 146 B ImPf AM}PM LOS(C to B) Studebaker RoadWB 3 5,5503990 .:072214 1 :3100 05616b : 83,860 070. 207 . f3,830 0:69 ....205...... C 013 Decease PM LOS(B to C) Studebaker Road to OP EB 2. 3,700:: 4750 :128 F :4340 117 F 4,140 L12 413 E 3',560 0.46 308 D Improve AM LOS:(F to E) -605 WB 2. 3J00: 4220 :114 43,4: E :4210 114 43.1 E 4,120 1,11 409 E 4;850 1,31 F 0.17 Decrease PM LOS:(E to F) Notes: 1.Peak hour c,padry and traffic volu are,are shown in vehicles per hour(vph). 2.Denty is shown in passenger-Saaae/lane(pdmi/1n). 3.Level of Service(LO S):General P.-pose(GP)lane LOS is based on density except when demand-to-padty([VC)ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0,which is LOS F. 4.Peak hour capad ties for freeway lanes indude 1,850 vph for each GP lane and a single NOV Zane. 5.*Density is in exeessof 45 pc/mi/m;therefore LOS is F. 6.-Data Not available/Not a pplicable. PARSONS Change County Transportation Authority r - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- i I wxxnnxxv = I I I I x I STUDY AREA �a �vxxwuvuvxx,. x7nx ih x. k xxnx xry wx x x Kx I N. I STUDY. AREA NOT TO SCALE PROJECT STUDY AREA L ---- -- --- --- -- --- -- - -- --- -- --- --- j ---- -,.. . I. . I Project .. NOT TO SCALE 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study Location PROJECT FIGURE 4.1-1 LOCATION MAP PROJECT STUDY AREA I PROJECT LOCATION MAP DRAFT LEGEND Location ;i cnasoN St, East(West Street North/South Street 1 Carson St 605 SB Off Ramp ai 2: Carson St '1 605 SB Direct On Ramp '. 1 2r 3 4 Carson St li 605 SB Loop On Ramp: Carson St 1-605 NB Off Ramp 3 Carson St 605 NB Loop On Ramp Carson St 605 NB Direct On Ramp r 4 Carson St >IPioneer Blvd 5 Spring St/Cerritos Ave 605 SB Off Ramp w 6.. Spring,St/Cerritos Ave ',605 NB On Ramp --_'"gnorGW as o.. 1-405 NB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd --- 7 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp Lakewood Blvd 1-405 NB Loop Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd 1-405 NB Loop On Ramp Lakewood Blvd 8. 1405SB Loop On:Ramp ',Lakewood Blvd 1 405 SB Direct Off Ramp Lakewood Blvd ° 5 9 Willow St Lakewood Blvd m ° 00 > O m m ry SPRING St CERRITOSA- Willow:St 1-405 SB Loo Off Ram 3 a' 10 p p 7 s 12 11 16 17 LL 18 w w Willow',St ',I 405 SB Direct On Ramp 1-405 NB Off Ramp Bellflower Blvd a °°o n 6 11 1 405 NB Loop On Ramp Bellflower Blvd 405 NB Direct On Ramp Bellflower Blvd ........w"ecGw :APO° Iv2rOWSl ! 12: Willow'.St 'Bellflower Blvd Bellflower Blvd $' KATELLA AVe 13 Los Coyotes Diagonal 405 SB Direct On Ramp .cGyo26si 2Q J` 14 1 405 SB Loop Off Ramp (Bellflower Blvd 15 Los Coyotes Diagonal p 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp 8 9 10 15 405 SB Loop On Ramp 19 16 Willow'.St '.Los Coyotes Diagonal STEARNS.S 17 Willow St Woodruff Ave 21 1 18 1 405 NB Direct OFf.Ramp Woodruff Ave 22 2 1-405 NB Direct On Ramp (Woodruff Ave 19 1-405 SB Direct Off Ramp Woodruff Ave 23 405 SB Direct On Ramp Woodruff Ave 20 1 405 NB Direct Off:Ramp Palo Verde 25 _. ATHERTON St ; 1 405 NB Loop On Ramp .Palo Verde f , 21 Woodruff Ave Palo Verde 26 22 Stearns St Palo Verde 26 23 Stearns St 405 SB Direct On Ramp 24 1 405 NB Direct On Ramp Studebaker;Rd 25 405 SB Direct Off Ramp Studebaker Rd 31 34 1 ` 35 i I 26 Atherton St Studebaker Rd 27 SR 22 WB On/Off Ramp Studebaker Rd 27 29 T 28 SR 22 EB On/Off Ramp Studebaker:Rd Li 29 SR 22 WB On/Off Ramp College Park Dr 7m SI COLLEGE : 30 7th St> >PaclFic Coast Highway> PARK /L nn sl _.,.....,,..M�.�. 31 7th St Bellflower Blvd •. _ � --° ....,..........�........�m.�.,m..,�. 32 Pacific Coast Highway 1Bellflower Blvd 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study 33 7th St Channel Dr 34 7th St> w Campus'>Dr 30 32 33 28 FIGURE 4.1-2 35 7th St E Campus Dr INTERSECTION NOT TO SCALE STUDY AREA �r111:.111 11 t eef 16 5 O O 111 111 111♦ � ="�tt�,r �_" 111 ,:,:; MATCH LINE BELOW SPRINGS[ CERRITOSA LL 1 � W m °°?� Ou WILLOW Sf O ... 20 11.r 23 i= KATELLA Ave ... 11 11 . 7 L 0 . .. .� 111111 J1111 r �� STEARNS St 1.: 11 (15 14 � � � _ ..................., ® �u. � u � . -J, ATHERTON St p�0a: 31 33 34 27 29 II III II II _ II ; J14 YYY;:r 11Y ` i' WARbL OR, Rd ° LEGEND f r o z � o x ; Traffic Signal Stop Sign ,cost s ;, MATCH LINE ABOVE .... w Free-Right Turn /f nn St COLLEGE PARK Dr ...................... def Defacto Right Turn Turning Lanes t 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study Through Lanes ® FIGURE 4.1-3 Intersection Number NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTION ... ..... LANE CONFIGURATION R''.. MATCH LINE BELOW Ay SPRING St + CERRITOS All �^ � a w � to Y OP LL v A 3 o w p w ° p LL w ry. �5 A Wp�pwst :: O1 O1 WILLpIyS d1 ...........' .' ....', ........... ............... .. .. .. .. KATELLAA�e b.......... 5y 5y O R ° �s �s 1 A'4 ✓ ,R � �� �1 O7 A- STEARNS St CARSON 6 t 9 ............... .............. V.2 » " ay d Or �0 O4 �1 R sy4 'y pRp h :tcp ATHERTONSt 0^A ^ } R ............................ d ( 4-3 N'9RU.pI,y Rtl vaILLGm.. +. ...... ......... ........ ... .............. � . ..z 4-z 2 a zy y 2-0- '� y ► a� ORs MATCH LINE ABOVE . c 4� m 5y COLLEGE PARK D, if w :..:...... .. 2y 2y 2y 2.► 7O 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study FIGURE 4.1-4 NOT TO SCALE FREEWAY LANE CONFIGURATION i lz_4.s. 12 =. " = 8 t 42011 1301122� q 87accrsl5 m e �2C21C�5301505 fr :4g ;.'8891738 4 4-136238 4-121173 d 4 4 4-2171173 ......................... 1 911167). f 84169) 70611 270, MATCH LINE BELOW 2'812747 32121 7 4631124 962/1001 45961467 159411 c 5511447 goo - a a v W m v m 161 SPRINGS[ CERRITOSA 15511727 z \ m d � 631 z4 . d 4 -211259 4-4531329 LL r p 86/244) f r w y 4 m 152411704, 50111071~ 1117 72415727' o 19113807 m m LL WILLOW Sf gyp:Sf ,. K4TELLA AVe n =t 2751276 ,; 5 °t 96118C 605/481 m r 748/632 G� 11 1987 .0 y 4 4-551118 p0, 14 o , 4-�f 25 0`/9 26 ., ~458/357 dyb' .O h re' 1549/2317 6 141712513 41715837 338168161511567 1091255 1771395 1249110E3 7 1 a tz1v1s1' [013 4'8381801 .♦838/801 5571565 *. z d y 4-1591262 1782/814 o 10 95111161, 2471972 �f 88511351- °i sTeARNSSt 24 - x,:x,:: 100411629� I' 5 a 9311357 49014431 ;' :''6051589 .. '� ... ,... w .. CHRSON St.. 44v12a1 22 393/5671 y w t 85198 �/. f \ 21 , '2651247 °o O391179) f P N o 2861231 J ,10514241 m f 124011093 . y 4 4-717791863 63114561 HTHERTON81 1 141712523 ' J ° 3 - 25 230/3691 8151 3905/5 �a 386137 34 �. 33 , �. X '' y w 6./231 e'196811611 w :f ti y Lr 4-1201268 334115 1' �91125J °.d X415/92 _ 741217E f ' 41245611849 M;[184168 3311041 2031112) ♦2910/2093 26 m 225612466, ~4 4-38162 " m �2113 112608) ' 581/7 [25135 581171 -43127 m 31 a 3341125`, 27 d y 29) gRbLpW na 4-zsz1 '167711504' iC1132fiJ 4)f r• � 4 m 15136 l W y Lr 4-42150 2 s r o x d s m y 4 t 8211541 a m _ 1°142/ 95 1293 -15i9LEGEND /1 26783 2693 141251:: 4-52311070 ##/##=AM/PM � N — sM ms e ® Intersection Number MATCH LINE ABOVE COLLEG RARK D, nn St 4461402 = 378/372' r, � 1C29/1044 `f° 133144 142211453 d y 4 J y 4 4-431135 16121 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study 44%13 n f ES711. ss4noss FIGURE 4.2-1 �- 21/711" < :,' o EXISTING(2009) .. 30 m 32 28 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..o. NOT TO SCALE AMIPM PEAK HOUR MATCH LINE BELOW i�>t�t• Q SPRING St CERRITOS Ale � 4 O w w ' OPG c w m L p O p m � h�LLOwS ,t ` 1� WILLpIy SI '~ .....` .. y..._... — a ...4 1 I�� ._ g jj T � 343, j '���7 - db KATELLA AVe 2,137'YA3^l,� JJ ,W a3K 0 y Q STEARNS St T,,,' y M _ CARSONSt HTHERTON St Ny R- $ W0 JO ti (@ 1' 2: J .I�aRpLOW 1 .. ........... ....... LEGEND ` AM/PM t4 44<> =HOV Volumes �44� =GP Lane Volumes 3 MATCH LINE ABOVE ' COLLEGE P K D ' Ott i XU' nh st G. ,.. n-11 5 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study FIGURE 4.2-2 EXISTING(2009) NOT TO SCALE FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR 12 1211 , 8 371137 t 17 ♦17721810 5711570 1601229 1 9 X 1871178 1s2r1a8 131311239 14808 MATCH LINE BELOW 21125) ..10512631. _ 1301147) m 123111783, 3491326 5 L148 1392/1374 63B1715 1421378 13012947 - c, m o a 161 SPRINGS[ CERRITOSA 19 '96/211 233111086' - -133311215' a > 4-3231419 a a -2531170 LL m ' a o 75/i6fiJ ?/h � `w iLr m 1 81 211 9 3 9 r 62811364 y ti ' 77717047': 53319217 m > a m W/LLOW Sr °QG°?� WILLOW St ... 09 � 20 23 KATELLAAVe 3) °t 235/249 t 144/350', t 777/731 v Y 970/835 Gp pt0 14 24110 -117011126 ..... . 4)y 4-525/436 - 3412977 11 4011441 10611561 ° .17.. h r♦ 1738/2724 . h?�.... h?� 4616887 46315187 12711856 187474 °mc M e dib 1138711375.0 1 m M '244/e54 '016 a 4-8861956 .-886/956 -57CIfi17 m 117311735 P d i X1541267 -601/896 a, 60/1 1 7 STEARNS St ocnl8� 30214071 h?_ ssvl4oc 24 1 Q 83'11074 o g3118C 7 45413212 m2 :'-7791710 575/1562, 22 " -m .. 426/6117 ,,, ' 77185 - -2581321 i :- c diV 4-361113 0 13911931 h T P i1 0 M i 3 m ° i ' '-45/r 12 2 1155110 60 1fi24231491 1 64901501 61 3393877 ; i6 7112E17�". 4 771- 1 him.... � 7 13'611375 ATHERTON St 11377/24525 335/493 3) 34 '380137 y 1w :, e-189111620 m 16611651: i 4 x 1181269 35 : 2691159 Z o fie- „✓! 971241 ,,, '523/173 2350/2301 h?P -241111957' 3511017 aWO 101132J w�v-3068/2113 m :" 235CI2657 1 -4163 "' 26 -' 134'11EJ h 61119 ? 31 zzzelz9az� �2s13' mo 2 o i. °� 50129 1 i 29) Wq b x'3551155 27 d i "I r X33122 R LoW na e -161811485 1171253) di4 x32140 19131 u, °.. ... . 0 LEGEND 39513751 ..... m 9411207 v� \ -148/102" T F W 245133 - y 4-133/49 2130/1993 r o 4- 131'267 �m o iV 53711146 3 .' m ##/##=AM/PM ? ' 7th St o 5 m N m ® Intersection Number °° °° °° w m MATCH LINE ABOVE COLLEGE PARK Dr mm �� ., 7th St ................ �.. a'4811475 .' -434/373 '' i di4-144811510 «M.-1. 1031 �w'621349 J y �441ac y 4 r311216 i 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study 2085/1791~h T I� 3311661 h? 16111627 6841724 �� ?�' _. FIGURE 4.3-1 14/907 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE(2020) NOT TO ISCALE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR �2 05 42 1 12, T A7 0 7,,�53 0 :4 Z-, 5541215 0� '�6218 2 , -" I p— �;-, 143 -19161876 1285711295 1731248 1141911339 -2021192 1-2081149 -1601117 4) MATCH LINE BELOW 23127,' + 1141284!'4) AW59J 133111928, 11411 3771352 32117� 64061C 1"' 69CI773 154149 14 o S 5� (16) .....................................m 4") 4-349A53 17 144111314', �:252'0'11 17�� 99 H41218 -2741134 LL o 1"7' 195e/206 67111411� CIO O o 84086 57619967 W/LLOW Sr OQGO?� WILLOW................................................. .............. ) ........................ KATELLA A- 3 2 'k-254/269 'k-156/376 'k-840/790 1265il 217 5 81471 1649Y3 C14) 6 4331477 �7 1222 4) 187513218-4)r' 1879/2945- 4 11511 4) r� 721210- 5001560-,. 4901744 v2 -2021512 149911487 '264/275' .............. -9581104—958/1034 1116'6 12681181 -i-P 1r6 .7 866/969 a 65/1857 SS1� 5 111111277, 11�1114M STEARN ............. t 44) 1111195 4911347 4) 8421768 622/1689, 460/660-'* 202 83192 4) -2791347 391122 2151209J 2 ............... �2:112871114C "2 4 2-!k: 1�115 4 5 36614187 5301542 b x616 148811487 72 71 ATHERTON St 1 M613045 421�1'2 (D25 0 / 362/533 O 33 i �2 �993-:k411140 44 204411751 iCr -1281291 305 '�565/157 29111722 �T 1[26021W 17 2541102542 j 3318/2284 ...... 206 2 5 4112 8 7 2 i V:,1-43168 14511281 �41 'l 4 66121 �-36124 C29),� v On, 1411 3 H IQ�i 1,"l " ", 4 KI 12704�� 4) -35143 l 20134, mm 'lx M C 211 2651367 -144/53 m m 4271 5 LEGEND 3C 40 -58CI1239 .............. 2 3/2155 66 ##/##=AM/PM 14128 T, T, 7th St Intersection Number H MATCH LINE ABOVE........ COLLEGE PARK D, 7th St ......................... 4%/403 5201514 117011115 671377 1156511632 4) 48187 1-40$PA/ED Long Beach Study 225411936 .............................. t ............. 6 4-331233 7�1��� FIGURE 4.3-2 17411757 8 15/577 2 'I NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE(2040) 30 32 28 . .......... NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR MATCH LINE BELOW SPRING St CERRITOS AVe r o ...... ... 4 lip u O O LL O ti 4 ` O .. ..... ? i 3C.� r 2 Ii7i4 Tie' 1 .,32 KATELLAAV. - �q, •460 � y(}<+ t wi15BU y� � Q STEARNS St _a .. T f. r CARSON St a ri' J ATHERTON St - SO p! vG»'Q-i n r„ e 2: waRO�GW Ra LEGEND AM/PM uuivao =HOV Volumes 1,2c3•c ': IL� =GP Lane Volumes c °. " MATCH LINE ABOVE \\\\ /{COLLEGE P K D ' 8 7th St 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study FIGURE 4.3-3 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE(2020) NOT TO SCALE FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR MATCH LINE BELOW 0 SPRING St CERRITOS e AV .. ° ..AI. GC Ap i e i' o OP w m .. J 0 0 v u m ti x.H«O�y St x 1 t WILL OW Sf y Q "k '�... t .err � •� "^ it t � f x.. l v STEARNS St k�� �•• �!� �` CARSON St ATHERTON St O3 r t JO v 3 .waaO�GW Rd } ..... ..... LEGEND AM/PM } uui44 =HOV VoluVolumes mes �� � GP Lane= °.' MATCH LINE ABOVE � ,J�COLLEGE P K � .... 7th St & 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study FIGURE 4.3-4 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE(2040) SCALE FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR D 01', 12 -- e �M 3211 7" ,,,?t5081181 --e X56188 a� �`�° ri/40 m�x17511785 mmo�,1261811195 ° �= 6491611 Jy X1961178 dyV X2081119 dyV-1611122 Jy.�i6s1224 -132311215 MATCH LINE BELOW 1041253 1201137 J' 121611813, .11141 3861332 31117 m ,5 1363411 761316J2 787 ? 13312 N � 161 SPRINGS[ CERRITOSA O ° 189/225 $ x 2317110281 - x 13401119 1. m em d z M� 4 b-3171434 a ,,;�;. ' w -2231163 LL r 0 7s/is4� ? w y m 177111922, 62211372 y 7591679 54919197 w J � Wi<<OwSr oP°°?� WILCO,,St e 3 KATELLA... m ° 'k253/240 ,{, "'t 168/374 t 768/685 U 982/826 c° 14 2311, x 114911149 �.y 4-681190. 0 M y -498/411 x4011457 81712951 1111158) 16 41 r♦ 1737/2709 �1?�.... 115 .. N h?� 490166 7 45315187 '3111874 N _ :� N 12512877 N y 11851441 ^�y�x 136711369.0 1 a n '373/254 4 x 8331959 ,x 833/959 x'73 17 011 9 9 - y -1531273 x835/932 , STEARNS S[ Le 10 114211191, sas2i as ? s5sn4os .........- 24 7s r' s � 0 `- 116118C 7 44913152 o, g;o .. a :'x 8071712 570/1573, .. .... 22 426/6117 84190 21 e -2531336 h? dyV-351111 N 2 ' - � y 7 21811914 8) 33113517 s 0 7 ..�. � . 48/115 413141C� 19 95 b 95 X5217 302 368 ATHERTON St ( 3 12�9 .1128134, 135711369 1 33) 25 / 358/564-. ° T� 34 �376136 y x191611636 0 16711781:? t� 1171272 ? 35 2491123 _931251 �,; 524/17' . a,: .„......, 2317/2333 ?I' x 243611979' e "' 4' u'M;L1961fi8 �, 3311037 a °61311 x 30s9/2136 ,�°o' r _ 2 31 512 6 9 8, y V-41164 26 w 21981297E �� m�[29140 # 31 901192 Mo v°�-48134 M 3301146 ' 27 y 4-azlzs 29) AIR n OR,�n °'x 164811492 11512531' d y lr-31142 18135 o, o 4431371 �� ' m � 9311237 m C 1 �'148/13 2 LEGEND 2165/2355 [2021409 -- y�j148/55 151297 a, o y V-62511381 z o o ##/##=AM/PM 7th St U 5 .n°J ® MATCH LINE ABOVE Intersection Number °° °° °° w TT COLLEGE P4RK Dr f ., 7th S[ ................ �.. -61-_:X5091494 .' g e -401/344 X14 x145311487 «N.x 1166/1034 �_�[791310 -y b-42177 321301 i 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study 2115/1825~�1 T P 37116'1�? 5v15z� 67v6as�M ' FIGURE 4.4-1 16/937 M N 1 ALTERNATIVE 1(2020) NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR 3471375 t 5491196 7021661 6119 2- S -1/43 m�-18931849' SSA:-283011292 5 y °' 1791242 m -1 42 711 3 1 3 . i f J i "�zlzns2 d i j2251129 y r1,'41132 J i.• ....... b. MATCH LINE BELOW �- 21128)h f 'f P 31121273 . 1301148)7 a 131511960, 4171359 3612 1470525 33118 16631748 1661374 14430 ��N - o ry a o \ o m ° \\\\ m m f 161 SPRINGS[ CERRITOSA O ° �i o �N 19 O '96/243 6 250511111' 144911288'. m w o d z v w d i b j3431469 w �° ' w -2461176 LL y p 85/177) 191512078, 67211483 y CI07 o o 0 82017347 0 59419947 w � F Wi<<OWSr oPO°?� WICCOw 3) O".pn 20 23 KATELLA AV m ° m t 273/259' ,{, t 182AC4 830/740 a 1062893 p°t� 14 -30112 x124211242 i b j7412C5 p O W 4)i j538/444 -4331494 1fi1319C zcrnlJ hf ' 15 0 h? ' smz47�'`, 8. h ' 1E7Enszs�. _ �� .5301715 49015607 9012026 ; - : �., 7 - 13513107 ,.1016 i ,22601477 a O N "m" t4C3/e 5 a -6191fi67 f *..,.,,:� 128671192 0 .r' -147811480 4-90011037.-900/1037 - d i �1fi51295 -870/9 5 ", /1947 10 N 123511256, 31614551 h f r' 103311520 sT... . t 24 91411173 v 12511957 48513402 ;' e 8721759 460/660-'* 22 y MN / h x2731363 f �. 381120 O " 2361214) i 3581556 52/124 4461443) f 12213407 e °-129311076 32613987 N 'Q s '5'01580 7dyb x715 _. ATHERTON St ( 12181/875) -146711480 r f -- -- 17fiE13c25,' 33) 25 / 387/610 8/2087 f� O 34 �" 0 r o `n'406141 8 MU.-20 7 111 7 6 9 a 1E11192Ji f i b -12612 94 ,'m?'566/91 (3 : 100127 �b 163339 25C5/2522 26911382 = 0a�ae 3611117 �� 10234) -='='212173 ° 26 # ter° -3350/2309 ,�° # 31 0 250312917 217611119�h f4'9 5 31143 / o a 651212 f w o - n�o -5213 <3571158 X35127 ? 29) ARbCOW Ra -1'8211613 1241273)h f 2, dib x33145 13136 W , LEGEND 47914av f • m con 33 ` 2330/2222 :, 6 m W 2181441 j160/59 -67611169 xt 161317 V o b AM PM M m 1� 7m S ® Intersection Number MATCH LINE ABOVE COLLEGE PAR K Dr :' ° n 7th St ................ �.. >' co 5501534 .' a e -434/372 ....` "` dib-157111608 «N.-11 5 211 1 1 5 �`7[851335 Jib X45183 y 4 j351325 i 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study 2286/1973 h f r' �4CI18CJ h f 16311647: 7251745� f r' FIGURE 4.4-2 ° 1711007 _ '' 'rv' - ALTERNATIVE 1(2040) NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR MATCH LINE BELOW o +`;. • Q SPRING St CERRITOS Ale C'L O e Aft'A , •'i o o y" VVIL m r ;e u t .,�O1V .. ... ...... t j .. .. ... f : 3L( . �' � ?� KATELLA AVe .. ,.,6 14 Is, Tp \y y� Q ft & STEARNS.St '{ CARSON.. r i ATHERTON St .4A. r / rr y0: Ylly P yG p� �o ti jd (@ 2: J,' waRO�oW Ra ........ LEGEND AM/PM t4tuao =HOV Volumes "C3 r `/COLLEGE P K a D :tt =GP Lane Volumes MATCH LINE ABOVE St. 16 t. 41.330 »•... 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study FIGURE 4.4-3 ALTERNATIVE 1(2020) NOT TO SCALE FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR MATCH LINE BELOW SPRING St CERRITOS Ale Lt• y�° � 2y LL s w �,J � P GO J I t ., 11'11'cIG 6R� o ° .x w[tow c,. W14o St IN r .. ' u .. .. ... St... j KATELLAAve Ilk QLSSf0 � wi15� 3 Y Jsr O 7I x fJ�, .YEARNS St b - uu, CARSON 61 a ), U rj)T ATHERTON St - O o; u? ...... ....... LEGEND ##/##=AM/PM uulaao =HOV Volumes snc c � � =GP Lane Volumes Pc ¢ ° MATCH LINE ABOVE COLLEGE P K D ' �t.. t9l, m i nn St & G. m 16 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study FIGURE 4.4-4 ALTERNATIVE 1(2040) NOT TO SCALE FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR . d r. O 9-17'17 3HInou . :. . it tr9tr - ^ice -— -�• �, "�i I M➢; 1 .... .� qD Of ` mo JL fill III- �m 3CI4= 6231331137 t 273 12 6321624 ♦<26673 11 158 1951178 -2551204 105153 c 1761228 129111169 4) 65196!'. 651961 4) P 170221 47rvsa, MATCH LINE BELOW n 34413497 ?P 321192 .568116641 W 1299/1316 S N ..624170 12 -� :` aN 95115C7.,,. f'm "..24815837 Q 0, .m - m e a 161 SPRINGS[ CERRITOSA 4)� o m 19 m m-t259611 18 d a0 M \ 14 K 4 95/27 6' j3231464 x1991147 .....; a a p 7811471 ?r w i Cr m 172C11853 r "64611781 y > CI07 °^ 0 0 75916927 0 . 52318897 W/LLOW Sr °QG WILLOW Sf .. KATELLA Ave m 'k246/240 t 190/428'. t 768/685 a 997/869 Cp�o"(E 14 31112 -116711129 4 j7C12C9 � -436/308 -4151423 8712958 351149) ° m "i6 41.� 1733/2'36-" �1�r♦..._ M 4,,t 7 1611312~ .44316037 4901546 5711968 _ 11312587 21781368 c, N m vv M t463/295 : 1015 4-7801986 .-780/986 -5591fi35 m *. 1207117! 4 P - X1441255 1783/901 63/1 7 STEARNS St x::x: .' 111711214, 29014141 ? 85311391 -- 24 10 85211104 11612037 43913392 �:'-8271735 m � "' NQ � cHRSON St 61vv1z� 21 m 47638 7/ 7 22° 70181 �+ h? O o_ -2701311 ' O -441108 ^ 2 o = � -" 1651189J r r m 3591500 ° 0831 3801416!k: 13013207 10831915 38314417 M ° ? 74/723 b x515 �5551538 0 ATHERTON St 11280 1U 105/2,1 _ 7�'- 3 011330 x 33) 25 e / 359/4»� O a. r 7 -198211383137 615 m 18811941;? w x1271269 ? 35 2281111 Z: - m 547/180 9 31211 2524119 56 274 15 0128 " 13202/2121 6 3410 e392. X42164 12 - 13711221'�?r' 31 zvv3ozc� tim I.W a 6212cZ -51134 7 a A!, XT 34 124 t. 2 ) Wq R°OW 3521137 120231 27 168511490 4) 31136 19135 Ra 0 V C 9123 1 1981363 j 176178 LEGEND 4531393 j61111128 21892090 5128 m � ##/##=AM/PM St s s - ® Intersection Number °° °°'_ °° w MATCH LINE ABOVE ,s ^ COLLEGE PARK Dr zz 7th St ................ . �.. m o,n 428/364 N -52 41529 d L,1149911532 «M-10271993 w t 1371380 J 1 b X42175 y 4 -571351 i 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study 11 2143/1823~�1 T r' 3111541�? 13311347:m W� so4r665�«� fir' FIGURE 4.5-1 S .1 ,,, - ALTERNATIVE 2(2020) NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR 12 NN" 7 8 3581375 ; 7 3214 3 a x 1882 6831675 1/4 41844 28836 11252 -- 1901246 m x 139611264 214152 d i -nsrz2l i x114157 J i. ........ b. MATCH LINE BELOW 221261 4) - 1701104.4 f( 19048),. e 124011906, 3'213777 61 1404/1423 3512C 16751758 6 0317�ik65 26816307E2 - o a 161 SPRINGS[ CERRITOSA �i o 19 ° °'103199 0 280711263' x e as > v w dib-3491502 w °. w x2151159 14171123c LL r 0 64n5sJ 1859x2003, "69811925~ CI07 W O o 82017487 0 5651°617 w J � WICCOwst e _. 3) NA-11A AV , t t 830 /740 266/259 t 205/463 34113 170781929 112 20 61226 4 4) -471/334 4491457 10113 11 J-ti 182413198 h rl 1874/2 958 41337 4681652 12 8341590 8182122127 c 1921398 7 N m f y b x 144811438' 1 130 - 4 , 511 8 9 6�L P ... -604 130x84311C66x843/146fi 1586 68/191 7 10 128311334, _ 9 21 41493 1 f r' 103011544- sTEHRNSSt 24 O " M 12612197 - a 47513662 " 4)x8941795 ti„8 �., cHRSON St 22 m di 510/6907 "N r•? 176188 'l f N /. \\\ 21 -2921336 \" -481117 - ^ 17812041�f r _ '' - O n S i 3881540 4111454 f 14413461 e j m x11711989 '6001582 41414777 °iS°' ' x143811438 4 620/7821�1f P c c Y ATHERTON St # 351- 11113/229 33) 25 8/5167 — 85130 O 38 'k-42011 i '214 311746 �- 20312101:f i b-1311291 591/95 ' e 2471120 0127)� b x27292115 25255 16917 4371113 ^ 2/2 2293 Z' ,�gym 25861261 26 �.... .. _ 121'211') 31 1�ov e i 7 b.,'-o .......' m r 6 2 a �' m^ ' 2 7 • 32 114.,3 24563265 35513'67122 2 t 2 ) o R /gq4 AIR ROGW 38cnae 1182211611 13023��f� x�`34139 2CI36,d 425 101337' 1 2141414 441LEGEND 236/226159 n w z o o ib}66011219 #i v v AM/PM 7th St U 5 ® Intersection Number °° °°'_ °° w N MATCH LINE ABOVE oo "� ,.COLLEGE P4RK Dr :' ., 7th S[ ................ . �.. '4631333 «„8 -56271572 «n x1105/10'4 d i b x 16011656 M'1481411., . Jib-45181 i 4-62139 i 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study 2317/1971 �1 f r' �331166J f 1441145 6531715 M f r' FIGURE 4.5-2 M< 13/857 �� t ALTERNATIVE 2(2040) NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR MATCH LINE BELOW o } - SPRINGS, CERRITOS AVe ?� O ...... .... "lip A• 4 L' OP w m �5 t, I t _ `Ir"6 o o y" ;,TC1 240 m u :. � .. .. y a"? a .. .. .. '4 KATELLAAV. �? ,u. .,•340 I 142Q try 2, I,L '182f, �& 'n + _a .YEARNS St o- I 4 r r %.. s'. '� =' y .ARSONS, ..... gym- ,5 f ATHERTON St O / Ylt�.�yG p� M �5D P- W0' JO ti > p: I3 .I�aRO�OW Rd ............................ LEGEND ##/##=AM/PM t4 44o =HOV Volumes �3c lc 20 =GP Lane Volumes as MATCH LINE ABOVE COLLEGE P K D ' SCI, �t^. 7th St T. ti= = 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study FIGURE 4.5-3 ALTERNATIVE 2(2020) SCALE FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR MATCH LINE BELOW SPRING St CERRITOS All ................................................... �j/r 4 y�0 2y LL 3 4 lip w 4 5r i Y o pP � w a a; Hf4G�'sr r i t "V; Wlrloly st 5 .... ................ 5C s 1 ,d(<} KATELLA AVe m )44 61 x 06 Y. c s t w t . .YEARNS St I CARSON St T,a ATHERTON St - fO / ` a n sp 5: k (@ O J � waRO�oW o ........... ....... LEGEND ##/##=AM/PM t4 44 =HOV Volumes puiuuy _ 20 MATCH LINE ABOVE GP Lane Volumes COLLEGE P K D ' CI, yin St & ¢ � 1i"' 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study FIGURE 4.5-4 ALTERNATIVE 2(2040) SCALE FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR This page intentionally left blank. 0' 1 llaiE91Hr•nn�LV �s�e��N(t.J l✓If'��1%'3.^C'+L-- .....,. 1�c =.71 - � �. -�.r r- .n 9-917 3Hnou -— — 4� ff;- 7. oc 1.: I I soft 40 a r 1 - - 041 } I w 1J 09 1• _ 9-9'17 ElHnou - - - - - - - - `.n - - - -r"" - - rm Ab '1 a ", i4, Ilk, s ;r� ���►•,.� �.. ' xi - •!M;W r(->"sue. - = .( n - i+n [ •I - AOL 1" r -r -1@39 As of ILIA at T N� R a • - k � _ �� � t"� +� - ,mow t . 1 J'� WIMI it '' ly,, � � \ � 4i J•' 'a ' '_� f l • � ,}`` '� }�1 1, 1 -�.5=...W '� � 1. \ \� \ ; ''� � � � � I r �� ��.�' � f�• . t �1� 0 � t _c or fwW CTM - ff n L :. Can _ 1 '•� �- - v`• �� f 10 �_�• :13 ,,��• 7y 9;t�' v 1 ... r_� r�_ �, .� •�I 7� 7 r fir.. - ',•. .V_ _ {V ` 'ay{�••, ` � v -� —� I i .. �'S. � _ -�,�,�,U�',''�'—' •.ir'..-*'.1 ' - '� 1 y � ?fir— ��` �� �\ - - - - !• - Y � S it 1 1 �`�l.t� 4n'. h \ ", .\ " �l• ._. i .. - _. — - � �i • �- � ` � 4�� 1, 0 � � ♦� �wy , ♦ �� � 1 � r }a-�, wn rip „tit all nrr- ., -�,• Full . - - y low- too s,4�f r .rir IYhL 'I • - •-- i -�— - a% US wwo R - rwp fml [Q1 - - - _ TY1 as - 7 �) - —.. -- - *71 r-V11 --.. - - -- _- all 'L•..m -n•- _ `nom 4-, Jr `�,��t��_ .� � 'F'1. :'_: - ir,sE's - .: �� t j � � �,1. " �f~ �!�• y+.i b� T i�r-.c".r T�►.yy � � � � '7 =1 t'a= �.. i'y"'' '�I.air !'•~' +r ' 14 t h• •r"!� I Jar �� r j rr>' �-,� - �` i ��' ,5 ..• 1,I J � . - �� + - - _ y �r`. }•� -d> y _ �`'L - f� S� '6 1u.1�1�� '-. - ie� _ � -_ �� -_—ter _ �� ' !�j��/) � _ � '� err. � •� `� "�' _ .-- ry��� r+. 'D` .. - - - ` - �'1� �„rth r■—i mss sri ..- � - �. �4. I "`L��'ia., r 314,:._`• :L �..:b 1 � "' T - 'i4. ��.• �, .. t f_ rw tip r-. This page intentionally left blank. 05 8 12 = 6312783 1 400137 t 33 9 a o 6551642 -2/40 159217 57111 11721225 j 2841204 145112 - -135811226 1171178 MATCH LINE BELOW 251241 50196!'501961 f 14711101 f P f "123011854, 42113927'f P 191192 ,60211664, 1446/1316 66CI697Z — 14111507.E — '..11911487 — — e E5 � O a 161 19 SPRINGS[ CERRITOSA O o i 6 x'114177 \ 2106111fi8' — 137911203' d z M� 4 dib 4-3341464 � a w ��:. ' w x2201131 a o 73/1471 f w i m 18mr1s3ab r 64611781 y a > o G 77716217' o . 53818957 w G J F m > a m W/LLOW Sr OQG WILLOW Sf / .. KATELLA Ave m 23 . t 2C4/240' ,{. o t 150/343'. t 768/685 v 784/856 Gn�O"(0 14 -26110 -1151W84 i b j5112C9 O "� 4)i j481/442 -4101477 29x11 J hf ' ° h? ' sv1s1�'`, 99512942 h 'Slacczn e4�: 68011968 e 42614537 azrzsa� = 15 13 z71ss3� 11831549 zz 137011367 " �M 5 m '48'/260" 1016 : .7 .. 4-82111018.-821/1018 -59816252 117211717 P j1381262 -615/919 ", : 60/1'1 7 STEARNS St 121611219 : 28914651 fr' 96811349 ........-- 24 — 10 86¢110741 °�' 19011847 _ M 46213152 4) 5461735 w„�, " 473/1712, "" m 453/6387 i "N 22 � 78193 41 f \\\ N m O 316,11354 92651354 21911091 s f P fJ i 3531552 —144/124 37613891 f 136213587 e j "-115111058 g IS _ '5001541 i b x616 36013397 ° ; 1777 ATHERTON St # 11582/2CU1 -136111367 r 163612789 ° o 33) 25 365/4737 " O 34 �" 1 o :1381137 .' i ...,. ',,... 194211624 19212051:f f i b j11E127C 6'? 215/54 35 : 931251 ^ 525/209 2345/2364 �f I' ..-2 4 6 611 9 91' '° b. 11981627 3411057 -3137/2119 26 # m : 233612720, y b j41164 331122) 31 z211413ozc� m '30139 ary 61120 -52134 .'3941156 ' : 27 b j341z4 29)" o. .h e -158711499 ,,, m o z m m o i b j59811319, k 121121 x35137 7112 'q 1 xi 2151236 b 36124 4471 31, f a LEGEND 32/225 141247 m f r♦ r1 m f I� n ##/##=AM/PM LT. U S cl v.Ian 7th S[ U 5 °m ® Intersection Number °°"'`' " °° °° w N MATCH LINE ABOVE , -"� ,.COLLEGE PARK Dr :' `F 7th St ................ �.. m -45 31507 v 1416/365 ..'` X14-146011546 «M.-1073/1001 777 931401 Jib j43n5 y 4 4-361265 i 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study 2142/1813~41 f r' 3911861 f 15111617::- 6551694 ° f FIGURE 4.6-1 M s/95 a - ALTERNATIVE 3(2020) NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR 0 12 17 ' 8 CS ' 2 4 3921 5r 943 172844 o,26611237081694 1 1861243 1261192 3n z21 157a146811325 m— ^ MATCH LINE BELOW 271261 f 5411041 4)f 15911 19) f r' f "133012004, 45514247 f r 211202 ,651117991 1563/1423 71317532 - _ 152116 12911607 - - 4, 161 SPRINGS[ CERRITOSA �i ° 19 0 r :2277o 1126' M1231 9 . \\\ 14911130' 6 z d i b j3611502 w ' w 12391142 LL r p 79/153) f r w i Lr m 19531201) 5 69811 CI07 ° 0 0 8401671 5899687 ° W J F W/LLOw SI ('e WILLOWS, ... s 09 .. � 20" 23 : KATELLA AVe 3) ,N t 22C/259 ° t 830/740 t 848/929 14 28111 ,124411280 i b-551226 � M 4 i -520/478 14431516 138113 J h f r♦..._ (1.5 ..° ''.. h f 881207 y 180013181 h.� 1948/3C10�. .57017497 46014907 '3512128, N V 143127 7 i 11981594 / r' " �m o -..i/ A v� o�, N f.. d1b,148111478 1 ° 'sz/e1' 1a1s a 4 - , 705 o; 1267118!646,88811100 ,888/1100 14283 X 65/18 57 r' " 131711318, 938 fi1�4)f r' 104611458- E:: STEARNSSt 24 10 " `n 14111997 49913412 4) 59CI795 490/6907 21 ,m 22 841101 �-2871383 M /'. e� r i�j421120 � 2 -' m 2371255) i 3821597 ',. v+ O - 148/134 40614201 f 14713877 77 c ( °,124411144 38913fi67 A° s 15401592 i b x616 ATHERTON St # fi913C1 12589/x561 176913015, 147111478 4 33) �. (25 m 395/511 f� 34 Ok41214 i i\ 20991 756 :- 20812221:f 7 2181°12 92 2 232/58 568/226 10112 26662152 2 2535/2556 21417 3711137 a 1101611 ter° ,3381/2291 Jo' °n 252512941 i b X44169 "~" 26 - ' 1441132)�fr' 31 239413265 '32142 a 661222 ,,,'�"o,,56137 / yyq ,<<�14261169 X3'126 RoLGW Ra 29) ,1'1611620 1311274) f 0 i b 138140 2C137� 'q LEGEND 4931411; m 051387 m Mg'1sm1 2306/2189 :, 6 `W 12321255 - i -3912610 151'267 -64611426 xi f rr ##/##=AM/PM m _ m 7th St o 5 ® Intersection Number "'`' " .... °° w N MATCH LINE ABOVE -"� ��,.COLLEGE PARK Dr :' 7th St ................ �.. 1,4901548 Jo°ib X450//95 157 1 , -y '1011434 46181 4 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study 1601082 r3s128s 2316/1960 �l f r' 421211 16311747: �� 708nsc�;� f r' FIGURE 4.6-2 a c" 1711037 -I ALTERNATIVE 3(2040) NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR MATCH LINE BELOW } �o } SPRIN. CERRITOS All `... " •.iii' O° O GC . w Ap a'�'. l 0 wst { 4owst � KATELLAAVe i t 9 r /l ..j .YEARNS St • j ' +r f K. �✓ r� �� �\ �f �7 4� CARSON.. r ATHERTON St - 3 a LEGEND ##/##=AM/PM } naiaao =HOV VoluVolumes mes � � = �� MATCH LINE ABOVE GP Lane \\\'y COLLEGE P K D ' 71h St 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study FIGURE 4.6-3 ALTERNATIVE 3(2020) SCALE FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR MATCH LINE BELOW SPRING St CERRITOS Ale O ... gg o GC rm w r„ st 0 w J / ... f ..; 3,( a KATELLA AVe ..ud_.._..� rf Is H t _� 9 ?n Y sTEARNS Sr a .....CARSON 6t x..U. Y c. ........ xkl�'... ......... r i z ATHERTON St - 9 / 4 O / G ¢ tiro' � R J�� waRO�oW R a LEGEND AM/PM t4 44-co =HOV Volumes wui m C �� MATCH LINE ABOVE O uy _GP Lane Vl LLEG 7th 51 A 1-405 PA/ED Long Beach Study FIGURE 4.6-4 ALTERNATIVE 3(2040) SCALE FREEWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AMIPM PEAK HOUR - F+ S310A03 S01 9 , I I r 10, I Fl AO�• t o - _ i _ '" Naomi .� - =x.� — _ �Ss�i�97!!/4�4!i*F;w��aes�c �9fiP;itRi['t=�LlL`�i�;-...:.:�1SSC'l'.;,L;.�`_-71Y�,[:..� f5.1�:�':'-,J°.�..^•, , �kM rr. I , R This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 2 Correspondence from Jim Beil OCTA Executive Director June 25, 2013 This page intentionally left blank. June 25, 2013 Mr. Sean Crumby Director of Public Works City of Seal Beach 211 Bight Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Mr. Crumby: As the environmental phase of the Interstate 405 (1-405) Improvement Project (Project) moves forward, staff continues to study issues previously raised by the 1-405 corridor cities and other stakeholders. One of these issues relates to the existing soundwall along 1-405 that parallels Almond Avenue in the City of Seal Beach (City) constructed in the 1970s. Project plans for the three build alternatives have differing impacts to the soundwall: Project Alternatives 1 and 3 would not necessitate the reconstruction of the soundwall as both alternatives provide just one additional general purpose (GP) lane at this location. Alternative 2, however, does necessitate reconstruction of the existing soundwall as this alternative provides two additional GP lanes on 1-405 along Almond Avenue, thus requiring some minimal additional right-of-way to accommodate the second GP lane. Previously, the City proposed that the Project include non-standard features such as reduced widths for lanes and shoulders in order to reduce the Project footprint and eliminate the need to reconstruct the soundwall. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) staff and consultants have met with the California Department of Transportation (Caitrans), City staff, and consultants to review these proposals. Based on discussions with Caltrans, there is no justification to substantiate approval for any of the three proposed design exceptions to the mandatory design safety standards that would be required to leave the soundwall in place with Alternative 2. Approval of the design exceptions must consider the tradeoffs between meeting the mandatory design safety standards on 1-405 and the impacts to Almond Avenue. The 1-405 in the vicinity of the Almond Avenue soundwall currently carries approximately 370,000 vehicles per day at speeds of up to 65 miles per hour or greater. Almond Avenue carries less than 5,000 vehicles per day at speeds of up to 30 miles per hour. Almond Avenue is 40-feet wide and has one lane in each direction and a parking lane on each side of the street. On-street parking on the north side of Almond Avenue is light to non-existent. and non-existent on the south side of Almond Avenue. Mr. Sean Crumby June 25, 2013 Page 2 F State approvals of mandatory design safety standard exceptions are contingent upon implications to safety when not meeting standards. There are no safety implications related to the removal of parking on the south side of Almond Avenue. In comparison, this section of 1-405 has the highest accident concentrations in Orange County. Maintaining design standards on 1-405 significantly outweighs the minimal impacts to Almond Avenue when it comes to safety. Attachment A provides a summary of the City proposals for Alternative 2 and reasoning why Caltrans has determined there is no justification to accept the proposed design exceptions to mandatory design safety standards. Almond Avenue is approximately 5,500-feet long from Violet Street to Aster Street, including diversions around Almond Park. Alternative 2 will maintain one lane of traffic in each direction and parking on both sides of the street with the exception of approximately 100 feet where parking will only be feasible on one side of the street. This appears to be in general compliance with the City's Municipal Code. Attachment B is a copy of the City Municipal Code, Title 10, page 43, which provides the required travel lane and parking lane width for Almond Avenue, which is a residential collector street. OCTA looks forward to working closely with City staff as the Project progresses to address all City concerns. OCTA holds regularly scheduled technical working group meetings. which include representatives from the City, and will work towards amenable solutions with the City and Caltrans. OCTA and Caltrans staff are preparing the supplemental draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement that is scheduled to be circulated for public review and comments in summer 2013- We look forward to the City's comments during the public revievv period. Please feel free to contact me at (714) 560-5646 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Beil, P.E. Executive Director, Capital Programs JB:nb Attachments c: Ms. Jill ingram, Seal Beach City Manager Attachment A 1-405 Alternative 2 Proposed Design Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards To Avoid Relocation of the Almond Avenue Sound Wall This document summarizes the three Highway Design Manual (HDM) Mandatory Design Standards and the proposed Design Exceptions to an Interstate 405 [1-405} Improvement Project Alternative 2 design to avoid impacting the existing sound wall between the 1-405 and Almond Avenue in the City of Seal Beach, as well as safety implications of approval of these design exceptions- Deviation from the three Mandatory Design Standards requires approval of Design Exceptions by State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12 design staff in Irvine, Caltrans Headquarters design staff in Sacramento, and the Federal Highway Administration. Proposed Design Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards Reference! Highway Design Location and Description HDM Notes' Manual {HDM:1 (Length of Exception in Feet) Standard Proposed Section & Feature 201-1 —Sight Northbound 1-405 '@ 401 U radius curve 50 feet 590 fee` Distance adjacent to west SR-22/North 1-405 connector at right-of-way pinch point (615 fee',) INorthbound 1-4C5 west of SR-22 East ..(Total 5,565 ft) j' I 11-foot-w;de lanes for 2 HOV and 5 I 301.1 —Traveled general purpose lanes 11.665 ft.' 12 feet 11 =eet 2 Way Width 11-foo'-wide lanes for 2 HdV and 2 j general purpose lanes (3.200 ft) 11-foot-wide lanes far 1 HOV and 2 general purpose lanes (700 ft) 302.1 —Shoulder Wid"h & 309.1(.3)(a NB 1-405 Left Median Shoulder;4.303 ft) 10 feet 3 feet 3 - Minimum Horizontal Clearance 1 Attachment A *Notes With respect to the three design exceptions identified in the table above, none of the proposals below are acceptable: 1. Sight Distance - Reducing sight distance below the standard has the potential to result in a driver's inability to see an object or stopped vehicle in time to stop or take evasive action before colliding with the object or stopped vehicle, resulting in a higher number of rear-end collisions. 2. Traveled Way Width - Proposed nonstandard narrow lanes may increase the potential for sideswipe accidents, since drivers have less room between themselves and vehicles in adjacent lanes. 3. Shoulder Width 1 "Minimal Horizontal Clearance - Narrow shoulders decrease the protection of disabled and other stopped vehicles from traffic moving in the travel lanes and reduce the protection of motorists, police officers. service patrol workers. and others who must be outside their vehicles. City of Seal Beach Municipal Code The following page is taken from the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code; Title 10, Page 43, Table 10.40.010.A, (the Code) which outlines the Street Design Standards for a Residential Collector street such as Almond Avenue. For Almond Avenue. the Code calls for a 36 foot minimum street width (curb-to-curb) to accommodate two travel lanes of 10 feet each and two parking lanes of 8 feet each. if the Mandatory Design Standards for lane and shoulder width on the 1-405 are met, the sound wall would be relocated narrowing Almond Avenue from its current 40 foot width to approximately 36 feet west of Almond Park, allowing the two existing travel lanes and two existing parking lanes to be retained. East of Almond Park, for approximately 100 feet, Almond Avenue would be narrowed to between 40 and 34 feet. Two travel lanes and one parking lane would be provided along this 100 ft. stretch. As for the remaining 250 feet of impact, Almond Avenue would still provide two travel lanes and two parking lanes. In summary, Almond Avenue is approximately 5,500 feet from Violet Street to Aster Street. including diversions around Almond Park. Per Table 10.40-01 O.A. the project viii maintain one lane-of traffic in each direction and parking on both sides of the street with the exception of approximately 100 feet where parking will only be feasible on one side of the street per the City of Seal Beach's Municipal Code. I 2 Table 10.40.01 O-A Street Design Standards I Travel Number Parking Pedestrian Supplemental I y P0 0,�l f", ("C.);b Lane of Ttavel Larry P)VV Regulations (f!) wido Widll�M Loca' Res,aert;a' S'r P e D 6 2 Carnmercia' st-ee! 6'r 12 2 1 1.12 S r eat D vi-ed 1 8-12 4 8 Na.-r:D,.,)e.r Pa:-kwg lanes anc bub outs c-ai- Lc ccnsicere'-, c•i a cnse,-v-cas.-_- ha5:� On stree:s -g cormo,z a cistricts soli S J•j�-tee g ates are rep- rid. F--_-.Y _4 c-Ii,T-ia*P_d a_ Ll „z=c as based C- le i el anic i)a,.ea --edest.,ian ac',,v.ty, uless re,,u;,c.-1: -rSLJant Ic fe�eral or Sete -,%Te..-e on sl.,eel paF<.r,,q i,,; -3t ICD,a-e Carkir;g a)e%Ivil,h• 3ed*:-1- a-c. C,ass I �� ke p;an as v) Cen'o.,!Fr r-ed a- '.0 e C'Ov!CeJ. reEF.Ier tna,,) fe id- B Intersectior.s. Intersection design shall not compromise public safety or emergency vehicle access. F',.,.al _ntersection design approval shat! be by the Director of Public V,,`OFks/City Engi:ieer. 1 . Additional Streets should have turn lanes or more than I travel lane In each cl'rectio • only J it can be demonstrated, through Todeling cr ot"er reliab'e means. that more '-'.an Temporary congestion s anticipated ',Level af Service E or greale-r'l 'Nhere a total of 4 OF Mo.re travel lanes are planned, a minimum 15-foot wide planted r,ediar should be provided o reduce v.sual impacts of t1he navemeW. 2, Curb-to-Curb Distances- Curb-to-curb distances at intersections should be minimized to reduce vehicular speeds and pedestrian crossing distances. At typical intersect,crs. on-street parking shou!d be replaced by corner bulb outs that minimize curb-to-curb distances and slow traffic. (See Figure 10.40.010.E.2: CoT-,-.e.rBoJb Cuts.) Title 10 — Pace 43 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 3 Orange County Transportation Commission High-Occupancy Vehicle Degradation Study Powerpoint April 8, 2013 This page intentionally left blank. TA ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY High-Occupancy Vehicle Degradation Study Powerpoint This page intentionally left blank. DISTRICT 12 HOVO r Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors Meeting April 8, 2013 DISTRICT 12 HOV ............................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................. ...................................................... ... ......................................................... ...................................................... . I .. I . ...................................................... ...................................................... ...... . ....................................................... .................................................... . ...................... ........................ Enacted on July 6, 2012 Requires a degradation study per 23 USC § 166 (d) Requires State DOTs to remedy degraded HOV/HOT lanes (180 days) Potential sanctions: Loss of Federal funding and project approvals High-Occupancy Vehicle lane, or carpool lane Speed falls below 45 mph for 10% or more of the morning or evening weekday peak hour periods over a consecutive 180-day period '•7xh- DISTRICT 12 HO VO Y Y • 1 GP lane carries 1 ,400 vehicle per hour per lane (vphpl) (2,000 at free flow) - AVO*is 1.1 • 1 HOV lane carries 1 ,500 vphpl - A VO is 2.2 • 2 HOV lanes carry 1 ,700 vphpl - A VO is 2.2 • 1 GP lane = 1 ,540 people/hour/lane • 1 HOV lane = 3,300 people/hour/lane • 2 HOV lanes = 3,740 people/hour/lane *AVO = Average Vehicle Occupancy '•7xh- DISTRICT 12 HOVO Vehicle Production No. of Occupancy Lane Type Lane(s) (Throughput) Rate People/hr (veh/hr) 1 1,500 2.2 3,300 1 1,400 1. 1 1,540 2 1,700 2.2 7,480* 2 1,400 1. 1 3,080 3 1,400 1. 1 4,620 4 1,400 1. 1 6, 160 5 1,400 1. 1 7,700 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DISTRICT 1 HOVO ... ........................................ ........................................ ... .... N District sz Managed Lanes ' - E [High occupancy Vehicle/Tall(HOV/HOT)] Existing&Planned Facilities Existing HOV Facility Express Lanes Planned HOV Facility Existing Direct HOV Connector Planned Direct HOV Connector '•7x DISTRICT 12 HO�11 us District•,1Z w f �; r Managed lanes [High Occupancy Vehiciefroll(HOV/HOT)l 5 (AM&PM)Peale Periods Degraded Segments --------- � - - July-Decenn6u 2012 r r- ` MCI f i end: Peak Periods Degraded Segments r Express Lanes ; .............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................... DISTRICT 12 HOV .............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................... SOLUTION PRA CON Address perceived lack of Limited congestion relief enforcement by public Require supplemental funding Serves as deterrent to violators for periodic enforcement Reduce violation Limited congestion relief Minimal congestion relief in Increase congestion in GP lanes the HOV lanes Counter to air quality strategies Reduce weaving maneuver Remove pressure on nearby Additional capital costs interchages Relieve congestion in the HOV Empty lane syndrome lanes Increase congestion in GP lanes Implementation challenges '.7xh- DISTRICT 12 HOV ........................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................ ........ . ......... ........ ........ .... .... ............. ...... ... ............ .............. ..... .............. ....... . ....... .. ........ . .... ... . ........... ...... ... .. ............. ............. .... ............... DISTRICT 12 HOV ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ........ . ....... .. . ...... I........ .... ..... ................... ... .. ............. .............. .... ................ ........ . ...... .. 11. . ...... . ........ .... .... ............. ...... ....... ............ .............. ... . ............... . . . . . . .. ... .. . . . . ........ ... S©LU'TI©N PRO CON Empty lane syndrome Eliminate degradation Near-term congestion in GP lanes Perceived take-away Same as (1) Improved travel time reliability Same as (1) Move more vehicles May eliminate future ML options Manages congestion Tolling resistance Potential revenue for corridor Limited funding Same as (1) Improved travel time reliability Limited funding Improved incident response Potential right-of-way impact Move more people and vehicles Near-term empty lane sydrome Allows 2+ to stay in lanes Same as (2) and (3) Same as (3) Allows 2+ to stay in HOT lanes Tolling resistance Same as (1) and (2) Improved incident response Move more people Same as (1), (3) and (4) Greater options for single occupant vehicles DISTRICT 12 HO O .................. ................................ .... . .............. ....... .... ... ............................... ................... .I.. ... .. .. .... .. . . . . ... .. .................... .................. .. . . . . . . . . . ... ... .. . . .................. ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ................... .................. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . ................... ............... .................. Long-Term As project opportunities arise Subject to funding availability Short-Term Where long term options are not feasible Where GP capacity is added to corridor (ideal) Create a two-lane system when available DISTRICT 12 HOVO . . . . . . .. . . . ... .... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... ... ... ... . ... ... James Pinheiro, PE Deputy District Director, Caltrans District 12 Operations & Maintenance Email: James—Pinheiro@dot.ca.gov Additional information: www.dot.ca.gov/Dist12 facebook.com/CaltransDl 2 twitter.com/@caltrans1 2 This page intentionally left blank. TA ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY High-Occupancy Vehicle Degradation Study Handout This page intentionally left blank. Item 15 California Department of Transportation, District 12 High Occupancy Vehicle Degradation Study Responses to Committee Comments At the April 1, 2013 Regional Planning and Highways Committee (Committee) meeting the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) made a presentation on the status of High Occupancy Vehicle Lane (HOV) operations on Orange County freeways. They also outlined possible near—term and long-term solutions to address degraded HOV facilities. The impetus for the effort is related to changes in transportation funding legislation. This presentation also is being provided to the full Board of Directors (Board) on April 8, 2013. A list of Committee questions and preliminary responses are provided below. Director Donchak Question: Is there anything that would prohibit HOV violation fines from matching the cost of added enforcement in order to be revenue neutral? Response: HOV enforcement is typically performed on an overtime basis by the California Highway Patrol and as such there are limited resources. In addition, this approach would only provide a partial solution as it could address no more than five percent of the degradation issues. Director Miller Question: Do we have degradation data by freeway segment? Response: Yes. Caltrans is expected to provide this information within the next several weeks. Question: By what percentage will the proposed solutions fix degradation? Response: It is unknown precisely what percentage reduction each proposed solution would provide. However, solutions have been generally characterized as "least effective" and "most effective." Question: What is the Traffic and Revenue projection for one High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane? Response: This analysis has not been completed and would require an amendment to the Parsons Transportation Group agreement. It would take approximately four months to complete. Director Murray Question: When does the clock start ticking for the 180 days? Response: Once Caltrans Director, Malcolm Dougherty, signs the HOV Degradation Study report and transmits it to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Caltrans has 180 days to identify a plan and begin implementing solutions to address degradation. Vice Chairman Nelson Question: How will the degradation solutions be paid for? Response: Degradation solutions are subject to funding availability and would be implemented as project opportunities arise. Director Spitzer Question: What is the State of California's position on where excess revenues should be spent? Response: SBx4 indicates excess toll revenues may be paid to the regional transportation agency for use in improving public transportation in and near the project boundaries. Question: How is Caltrans Headquarters handling the degradation findings statewide? Response: Caltrans Headquarters is encouraging each district to explore remedies and districts are looking at similar solutions to those presented to the Committee. FHWA would like to see degradation remedies within 180 days, but if not feasible a plan must be submitted within the 180 day timeframe. 2 Attachment 4 City of Long Beach 1-405 Freeway Improvement Project Letter and Memorandum July 17-18, 2012 This page intentionally left blank. .: City of Long Beach Memorandum Working Together to Serve Date: July 18, 2012 To: rick H. West, City Managd From: Michael P. Conway, Director ublic Works For: Mayor and City Council Subject: 1-405 Improvement Project Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Caltrans are implementing a highway improvement project known as the 1-405 Improvement Project. The proposed project will widen the San Diego Freeway (1-405) between the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR-73) and the San Gabriel River Freeway (1-605). Several build options are under consideration. Options range from addition of one lane at various locations, to addition of two lanes in each direction. The project is currently in the environmental phase. The draft EIR I EIS was released for public review May 18, 2012. The public comment period ended July 17, 2012. On July 3, 2012, the Long Beach City Council adopted a motion to address potential impacts to the City of Long Beach from this Caltrans project. Staff has reviewed the draft EIR/ EIS and has determined the document does not address traffic impacts in City limits, as requested by the City in a letter dated October 22, 2009 in response to the Notice of Preparation. Furthermore, the document fails to demonstrate any inter - county coordination between OCTA and the Metropolitan Transportation Agency, and Caltrans Districts 12 and 7. The City submitted the attached letter dated July 17, 2012 to Caltrans to describe the City's concerns with the draft EIR 1 EIS. Staff will continue to work with OCTA and Caltrans staff to assure potential traffic impacts in City limits are identified and mitigated. Additional information regarding the project may be found at: http://www.octa.net/1-405/1PO.aspx If you have any questions about the information contained in this memorandum, please contact Derek Wieske, Assistant City Engineer, at extension 6386. P1cm/fy121mayor and city counc111f-405 improvement 7-18-12.doe i �IONG CITY OF LONG Vic• A�� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS �PORAT 333 WEST OCEAN BOULEVABD a LONG BFACH,CA 90802•(562)570.6383•FAX(562)570-6012 July 17, 2012 Smita Deshpande Caltrans District 12, Branch Chief Attn: 405 DEIR - DEIS Comment Period 2201 Dupont Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92692 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the San Diego Freeway (1-405) Improvement Project Dear Ms. Deshpande: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the San Diego Freeway (1-405) Improvement Project (Project). On July 3, 2092, the Long Beach City Council adopted a motion to address potential traffic impacts to the City of Long Beach from this Caltrans Project. After careful review of the draft EIRIS, as well as a recent meeting with Caltrans and OCTA staff to discuss the City's concerns, the City of Long Beach respectfully submits the attached comments. As a Participating Agency of the Project, Long Beach submitted comments in 2009, in response to the original Notice of Preparation. The City is disappointed that many of the issues raised at that time are not addressed in the current draft EIRIS. The 2009 comment letter, dated October 22, is attached for reference, and notes the City's request that regional traffic impact evaluations, including traffic movements at arterial ramps in the City of Long Beach, be included in the draft EIRIS, Since the release of the draft EIRIS, Long Beach sees the document is noticeably silent on traffic impacts immediately north of the project area, and in the City of Long Beach. Given the importance that traffic impact studies immediately north of the project area be included in the EIRIS, Long Beach is reiterating the City's request for Caltrans to conduct and publish traffic impact evaluations consistent with those described in the attached comments. Additlonally, the Project proposes signage and striping changes in the County of Los Angeles, but the draft EIRIS fails to provide evaluation of traffic flow and potential impacts within the City of Long Beach, By not studying traffic flow north of the county-line, this draft EIRIS is inadequate. The draft EIRIS also does not demonstrate that the proposed Project has been planned in coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Caltrans District 7, The draft EIRIS fails to acknowledge previous intercounty planning efforts, including the Orange and Los Angeles Intercounty Transportation Study, which was completed jointly by the DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL FLEET SERVICES ASSET MANAGEWNT PUBLIC SERVICE BUDGET&PERSONNEL 333 W.Ocean Bfvd,9°i Floor SERVICES 2600 Temple Avenue 333 W.Ocean Blvd.,3rd Floor 1651 San Francisco Avenue 333 W.Ocean Blvd.,9�Floor Lang Beach,CA 90602 2929 E.Wil!ow Streal tong Beach.CA 93806 Long Beach,CA 94802 tong Beach,CA 94613 Long Beach,CA 90802 Ph.(562)510-6634 Long Beach,CA 90806 Ph.(562)570.5400 Ph.(562)570-6099 Ph.{562)570-2782 Ph.(562)570.6393 Fax(562)570-60$2 Ph.(562)5702850 Fax(562)570-5414 Fax(562)570.6380 Fax(562)510-2729 Fax(582)570-6012 Fax{562}570-2861 Smita Deshpande July 17, 2012 Page 2 Orange County Transportation Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Agency in 2005. The study proposes several conceptual alternatives, including the addition of one general-purpose lane in each direction to the 1-405 freeway from the 1-605 freeway to the 1- 710 freeway. On behalf of the City, Iteris, Inc. was contracted to conduct a review of the City's 2009 comment letter on the NOP and of the DER / EIS document. Iteris' written summary of its technical review, dated July 17, 2012, is attached for reference. The City of Long Beach recognizes the need for improvements to mitigate congestion along the 1-405 freeway, and looks forward to working with Caltrans and OCTA to ensure that potential traffic impacts within Long Beach boundaries are identified and mitigated, and that intercounty planning and coordination can be effectively performed. In the spirit of improving transportation through Southern California, Long Beach respectfully submits the attached comments. Sincerely, Mike Conway, Director of Pu lic orks City of Long Beach cc: Mayor and Members of the City Council OF toN�s CITY OF LONG DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ORpDR � 333 WEST OCEAN BOULEVARD•LONG BEACH,CA 90802.(562)570.6383•FAX(562)570.6012 October 22, 2009 Smita Deshpande Branch Chief Caltrans District 12 Attn: 405 Scoping 2201 Dupont Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92612 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Caltrans San Diego Freeway (1-405) Improvement Project Dear Ms. Deshpande: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation for the San Diego Freeway (1- 405) Improvement Project. The following comments are submitted for your consideration in the preparation of the Draft EIR. 1. The City of Long Beach respectfully requests the Draft EIR evaluate both operational and construction-related impacts to traffic on the freeway system and adjacent arterial streets. 2. It's the City of Long Beach's understanding Caltrans currently does not plan to add lanes to the 1-- 405 freeway north of the I-605 freeway. It's unclear how the proposed additional lanes would integrate thru the interchange with the existing freeway segments that won't be widened. The proposed project could create potential significant traffic flow impacts due to capacity constraints and the creation of a bottleneck thru the interchange. 3. The City of Long Beach respectfully requests that Caltrans consider the combined impacts of the West County Connectors project and the proposed new project, which would result in the addition of up to three lanes in each direction beyond what exists today. 4. The City of Long Beach respectfully requests that Caltrans use regional modeling software to determine the potential diversion of traffic on freeway segments within Los Angeles County resulting from any bottlenecks created by the project alternatives, 5. The City of Long Beach respectfully requests the study area be expanded to include the 1- 405 corridor from Lakewood Boulevard to the 1-605 freeway and the study include evaluation of impacts to traffic movement in the expanded study area, including movements at the Lakewood Boulevard, Bellflower Boulevard, Woodruff Avenue and Palo Verde Avenue ramps. DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL FLEET SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICE BUDGET 3 PERSONNEL 333 W'Ocean Blvd.,a Floor SERVICES 2800 Temple Avenue 1601 San Frandsca Avenue 333 W.Ocean Bhd.,a Floor Lang Beach,CA 90802 . 2829 E.Wflorr Street L.g Bpych,CA 90$46 Long Reach,CA 90813 Lag Beach,CA 90992 Ph.(562J 570-M34 Loag Beach,CA 96806 ptti{562J 570-5400 Ph.(662)5742782 Ph.($62)570-6393 Fax[562)579-b012 Yh_(562)fi742850 Fax(662)570-2729 Fax(%21670-6012 Fax(5621570-2861 Fax(552)670-5414 I Smita Deshpande Page 2 of 2 6, The City of Long Beach respectfully requests the study area be expanded to include CA-22 from the 1-405 freeway to CA-1. It's possible that CA-22 into Long Beach could become a diversion around the bottleneck created thru the interchange. ` 7. The City of Long Beach respectfully requests the study area be expanded on the 1-605 freeway from the 1-405 to Carson Street. It's possible that traffic currently using the 1-405 could divert to the 1-605 to avoid the bottleneck created thru the interchange. 8. The proposed project may create a potential significant impact in the form of substantial traffic disruption on streets within Long Beach during construction. Traffic mitigation may be required in Long Beach to accommodate additional traffic on arterial streets and to keep commuter traffic out of neighborhoods during the construction phase. The City of Long Beach respectfully requests that a preliminary Traffic Management Plan be developed as a part of the BIR process. Thank you again for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation for the San Diego Freeway (1-405) Improvement Project. The City of Long Beach looks forward to working with Caltrans and OCTA staff to resolve the outstanding issues identified in this comment letter. Sincerely, David Roseman City Traffic Engineer cc: Mark Christoffels Michael Conway ITEMS- 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS Comments,July 17, 2012 July 17,2012 David Roseman City Traffic Engineer City of Long Beach 333 W.Ocean Boulevard Long Beach,CA 90802 Re:Review of OCTA San Diego Freeway(1-405)Improvement Project DEIR/EIS and Supporting Documentation Dear Mr.Roseman, Iteris, Inc. has completed the review of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) San Diego (1-405) Freeway Improvement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental impact Statement. Our comments are focused in two sections; 1) how the DEIR/EIS documentation responds or fails to adequately respond to the City of Long Beach's 2009 Notice of Preparation(NOP)comment letter,and 2)other general review of the DEIR/EIS and supporting materials with respect to issues of interest to the City of Long Beach. In this letter we first summarize our review of the comment letter and associated issues, and then we summarize our overall comments on other DEIR/EIS-related issues and analyses. 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS — 2009 CITY OF LONG BEACH NOTICE OF PREPARATION COMMENTS In October of 2009, a comment letter was submitted to Caltrans District 12 by the City of Long Beach in response to the NOP of the Draft EIR for the Caltrans San Diego Freeway (I-405) Improvement Project (herein known as "proposed project"). In that letter, the City of Long Beach expressed several concerns with respect to the limits of the proposed project and its potential impact on the City of Long Beach. With respect to the City of Long Beach's 2009 NOP comments, Iterls, Inc., on behalf of the City, has reviewed the May 2012 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS, and has evaluated whether or not the comment was taken into consideration partially or in its entirety. The City's NOP comments from 2009 are listed below, along with a description of how the comment was addressed in the 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS. 1. The City of Long Beach respectfully request the Draft EIR evaluate both operational and construction- related impacts to traffic on the freeway system and adjacent arterial streets. This comment was only partially addressed in the DEIR/EIS. Additional information regarding how the 2009 City of Long Beach NOP Comment 1 was not adequately addressed is provided below. Construction-related impacts associated with the proposed project were not evaluated in detail on the freeway system or on adjacent arterial streets in the proposed project study area or in the City of Long Beach. Rather, a Transportation Management Plan (TMP)was prepared to present the overall framework for traffic management during construction. The TMP includes general topics such as construction staging, closures and lane restrictions, demand management, alternate route strategies, and contingency plans,to name a few.Although the Draft TMP provides a list of ramp/street closures and lane restrictions, it does not evaluate construction-related level of service impacts in the proposed project study area or in the City of Long Beach. .[ ' f 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS Comments,July 17, 2012 As discussed under Chapter 3.1,Section 3.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Comment 9,the 1-405 southbound off-ramp at Seal Beach Boulevard is expected to be closed between 10 to 30 days during construction. Closure of the Seal Beach Boulevard off-ramp will likely result in cut- through traffic in the City of Long Beach. The DEIR/EIS for the proposed project states that tentative detours for the ramp closures are identified in the Ramp Closure Study (RCS), but when the RCS was reviewed, detours associated with the Seal Beach Boulevard southbound ramp were not provided. Detour routing analysis is critical to ensure efficient mobility through the City of Long Beach and should have been performed,as previously requested. It should be noted that before construction of the northbound 1-405/Westbound SR-22/7`h Street Connector closure associated with the West County Connectors project,OCTA presented information at a neighborhood association meeting related to traffic detours through parts of east Long Beach. During construction of the 1-405/7'h Street connector bridge, four detours were provided, as shown In Figure 1 below. In addition, OCTA helped mitigate traffic associated with the detour route via signal synchronization and various improvements to the Stearns Street freeway on-ramp, the 2nd Street and !North Studebaker Road intersection, and the southbound 1-405 and westbound SR-22 ramps. The DEIR/EIS should, at a minimum, provide preliminary detour routes and projected traffic impacts associated with the 1-405 Seal Beach Boulevard southbound off-ramp closure during construction. Operational impacts on the freeway system and on a limited number of arterial streets were addressed in the DEIR/EIR. However,only a limited number of Interchanges and arterial street Intersections along 1-405 between SR-73 and 1-605 were evaluated. No Interchanges or arterlal Intersections were evaluated on 1- 405 north of 1-605 in the City of Long Beach. Figure k:West County Connectors Project,Detours and Alternative Routes for 1-405/7`h Street Connector � �tj• vu l: f' }t a .-. _.... .! � _ -- SF SSSS x 'i" t.e-� Rrr-r�lsra , rod Ao�iia�nd 1 an3+}S"xtn7cd 53 7+s nh 4-rc�Cc�ro7v 6.::.•at?ie yrt ls9 Ek3iLT?�FIC.P{{L1 E5 2. It's the City of Long Beach's understanding Caltrans currently does not plan to add lanes to the 1-405 freeway north of the 1-605 freeway.It's unclear how the proposed additional lanes would Integrate thru the Interchange with the existing freeway segments that won't be widened.The proposed project could create potential significant traffic flow impacts due to capacity constraints and the creation of a bottleneck thru the interchange. This comment was not taken into consideration in its entirety in.,the..DEIR/EIS. Additional information regarding how.the 2009 City of Long Beach NOP Comment 2 was not adequately addressed is provided below. ITERIS'- "' " 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS Comments,July 17, 2012 The proposed project extends along 1-405 between SR-73 and i-605. The DEIR/EIS did not evaluate the impacts associated with the drop of one to two general purpose lanes(Alternatives 1 or 2), or the drop of two Express Lanes (Alternative 3) on 1-405 north of 1-605 in the City of Long Beach. It remains unclear how the added lanes will transition beyond the Orange County tine into Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach and the operational impacts associated with the lane transitions. An additional detailed review relating to this comment is provided under the discussion of Chapter 2, Project Alternatives, Comment 1 and Chapter 3.1, Section 3.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Comment 4. 3. The City of long Beach respectfully requests that'Caitrans consider the combined Impacts of the West County Connectors project and the proposed new project, which would result In the addition of up to three lanes in each direction beyond what exists today. This comment was addressed In the DEIR EIS. The West County Connectors project was incorporated into the proposed project. The Traffic Study explains that the No Build Alternative represents"baseline"conditions.With this alternative no additional lanes or interchange improvements would be constructed. Two projects were assumed to be complete under all future conditions;the SR-22 Freeway West County Connectors project from SR-22 east to 1-605 (will add a second HOV lane in each direction and HOV direct connectors between 1-605 and 1-405 to/from the south and also between SR-22 east and 1-405 to/from the north), and continuous access HOV lanes along 1-405 throughout the study area(p.1-8). 4. The City of long Beach respectfully requests that Caltrans use regional modeling software to determine the potential diversion of traffic on freeway segments within Los Angeles County resulting from any bottlenecks created by the project alternatives. This comment was not taken into consideration in its entirety in the DEiR/EIS. Additional information regarding how the 2009 City of Long Beach NOP Comment 4 was not adequately addressed Is_provided below. Traffic forecasts for the proposed project were developed using the OCTA Model (OCTAM). However, OCTAM was not used to evaluate the potential diversion of traffic associated with the proposed project in Los Angeles County or in the City of Lang Beach. The modeling methodology Is also flawed in that it does not Include model runs for each alternative. An additional detailed review relating to this comment is provided under the discussion of Chapter 3.1, Section 3.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities,Comment 4. 5. The City of Long Beach respectfully requests that the study area be expanded to include the 1-405 corridor from Lakewood Boulevard to the 1-605 freeway and the study include evaluation of impacts to traffic movement in the expanded study area, including movements at the Lakewood Boulevard, Bellflower Boulevard,Woodruff Avenue and Palo Verde Avenue ramps, This comment was not taken into consideration in the DEIR/EIS.Additional information regarding how the 2009 City of Long Beach NOP Comment 5 was not adequately addressed isprovided below. The study area was not extended west to include the 1-405 corridor from Lakewood Boulevard to the I- 605 freeway, and movements at Lakewood Boulevard, Beliflower Boulevard, Woodruff Avenue and Palo Verde Avenue ramps were not considered,per the City of Long Beach's request. I ITEPJ , n S'I. i-405 improvement Project DEIR/EI5 Comments,July 17, 2012 .mss -'- 6. The City of Long Beach respectfully requests that the study area be expanded to include CA-22 from the 1-405 freeway to CA-1, it's possible that CA-22 Into Long Beach could become a diversion around the bottleneck created thru the interchange. This comment was not taken Into consideration in its entirety in the DEIR/EIS. Additional information regarding how the 2009 City of Long Beach NOP Comment 6 was not adequately.addressed is provided below. The study area extends to the intersection of the 1-405 and 1-605 freeway. It was not extended west to include SR-22 from the 1-405 freeway to SR-1,per the City of Long Beach's request. 7. The City of Long Beach respectfully requests that the study area be expanded on the 1-605 freeway from the 1-405 to Carson Street. It's possible that traffic currently using the 1-405 could divert to the 1-605 to avoid the bottleneck created thru the interchange. This comment was not taken into consideration in the DEIR/EIS.Additional information reearding_how the 2009 City of Lone Beach NOP Comment 7 was not adequately addressed is provided below. The study area extends along 1-605 to Katella Avenue. It was not extended north to Carson Street,per the City of Long Reach's request. Additional comments regarding the lack of appropriate level of analysis in Long Beach is provided in the detailed comments. 8. The proposed project may create a potential significant impact in the form of substantial traffic disruption on streets within Long Beach during construction.Traffic mitigation may be required in Long Beach to accommodate additional traffic on arterial streets and to keep commuter traffic out of neighborhoods during the construction phase. The City of Long Beach respectfully requests that a preliminary Traffic Management Plan be developed as a part of the EIR process. This comment was only partially addressed in the DEiR/EiS. Additional information regarding how the 2009 City of Long Beach NOP Comment 8 was not adequately addressed_is provided below. A Draft Traffic Mitigation Plan (TMP) was prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Guidelines Deputy Directive 60 to minimize motorist delays when performing work activities on the State Highway System, The Draft 1-405 Improvement Project TMP was prepared to present the overall framework for traffic management during construction. The Draft TMP includes general topics such as construction staging, closures and lane restrictions,demand management,alternate route strategies,and contingency plans,to name a few.Although the Draft TMP was prepared,it does not address traffic mitigation issues in the City of Long Beach. 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS--TECHNICAL COMMENTS In addition to a review of the City's 2009 NOP comment letter, Iteris, Inc.also conducted a technical review of the complete environmental document as it pertains to traffic and other issues of interest to the City of Long Beach. The following provides a chapter-by-chapter summary of the technical comments and observations from the DEIR/EIS and its supporting documents. Note, the Traffic Study (Appendix L), the Draft Transportation Management Plan (TMP), and the Ramp Closure Study (RCS) are intermittently referenced throughout the technical review. llanocmn 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS Comments,July 17,2012 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EiS,SUMMARY CHAPTER I. Project description Includes the City of Long Beach, but the DEIR/EIS fails to conduct any technical analysis within the City. As stated in the Project Description (p.S-2), "The approximately 16-mile-long project corridor is primarily located in Orange County on 1-405 and traverses the cities of Cost Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Westminster, Garden Grove, Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Long Beach and the community of Rossmoor."The Project Description also describes the proposed project's limits as "...in Los Angeles County from the county line to 1.4 miles north of 1-605 (p.S-2)." The project clearly acknowledges that the northern terminus of the project is located in the City of Long Beach. However, evaluation of the project clearly terminates at the Orange County/Los Angeles County line. The project description states, "Encroachments into Los Angeles County and work on SR-22 are associated with signing and striping (p.S-2)" only, and do not include any analysis in the City of Long Beach. Missing analyses in Long Beach Los Angeles County must be added to the document. 2. Project description acknowledges the antra/inter-regional significance of 1-405, but the DEIR/EIS fails to conduct any technical analysis of 1-405 through the City of Long Beach beyond the Orange County/Los Angeles County line, As stated in the Project Description, 1.405 is part of the National Highway System and is considered a bypass route to 1-5(the Santa Ana/Golden State Freeway)providing intra-regional and inter-reg€onal access between Orange and Los Angeles Counties. i-405 also serves as a critical goods movement corridor connecting the San Diego and U.S./Mexico border region with the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles (p.S-3)." Despite these statements concluding the significance of€-405 as an intra/inter- regional corridor between Orange and Los Angeles County,no evaluation of 1-405 north of the Orange/Los Angeles County line was conducted. An additional detailed review relating to this comment is provided under the discussion of Chapter 1, Proposed Project, Comment 3. Missing analyses in Long Beach/Los Angeles County must be added to the document. 3. Project description states the northern terminus of the project(1-605)was chosen "to ensure adequate response to transportation deficiencies", but the"transportation deficiencies"along 1.405 clearly don't end at 1-605.As stated in the Project Description,"the north and south termini of the project,at the 1-605 and SR-73 respectively, are locations where multiple freeways converge, generating congestion and causing delay. The termini have been logically chosen based on geography and transportation needs to ensure adequate response to transportation deficiencies at and around these points of intersection (p.S- 3)." The northern terminus of the proposed project is clearly based on the location of the Orange County/Los Angeles County line. The DEIR/EIS should take into consideration the effect of the proposed project on the adjacent segments of 1-405, north of 1-605 In Los Angeles County. An additional detailed review relating to this comment is provided under the discussion of Chapter 1, Proposed Project, Comment 5. The statements regarding beneficial effects on neighborhoods, even if correct, only would apply in the Orange County communities since no capacity enhancements are proposed In Long Beach. Within Long beach, the opposite effect could occur, and the possibility of Impacts in Long Beach must be investigated. Missing analysis of possible neighborhood Impacts within Long Beach must be added. 4. The DEIR/EIS assumes the proposed project will result in a "beneficial effect on neighborhoods by reducing cut-through traffic" without providing any technical analysis or modeling results. Table 5-1 (Project Impact Summary Table) states under Community Impacts, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, "Implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in a beneficial affect on neighborhoods and community cohesion by reducing cut-through traffic within the adjacent neighborhoods.At present, motorists traveling along 1-405 often exit the freeway and seek less-congested alternative routes within the adjacent neighborhoods when freeway conditions deteriorate (p.S-14)." A discussion on how the ITERIS'f b,n,,-4 7.-.q 1-405 improvement Project DLIR/EIS Comments,July 17, 2012 analysis revealed that proposed project will result In a benefit to the community by reducing cut-through traffic in adjacent neighborhoods should be provided. An additional detailed response relating to this comment is provided under the discussion of Chapter 3.1,Section 3.1.4 Community Impacts,Comment 1. Missing analysis of possible neighborhood impacts within Long Beach must be added. 5. The DEIR/EIS fails to provide a detailed analysis of how the additional anticipated 13 to 2S percent Increase in vehicle throughput on 1-405 will transition beyond 1-605 through the City of Long Beach. Table 5-1 (Project Impact Summary Tabie)states under Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, the proposed project will result in a permanent increase in vehicle throughput on the freeway by 13 to 25 percent between SR-22 East and 1-605 (p.S-19). How will the additional throughput transition beyond the Orange County line into Los Angeles County?An additional detailed review relating to this comment is provided under the discussion of Chapter 2, Project Alternatives,Comment 1 and Chapter 3.1,Section 3.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Comment 4. Missing analysis of€mpacts of added vehicle throughput in the City of Lon Beach each must be added. 1-405 improvement Project DEIR/EIS:Chapter 1—PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Project map Includes portions of the City of Long Beach, but the DEIR/EIS fails to conduct any technical analysis within the City. According to Figure 1-2 (Project Location map), the proposed project area extends approximately one mile north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County line to Palo Verde Avenue in Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach(p.1-3).While that study area presented extends into Long Beach, analysis was not performed for the proposed project area north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County fine.Interchanges along 1-405 north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County line should be evaluated, as well as arterial Intersections In the City of Long Beach based on the Project Location map.An additional detailed review relating to this comment is provided under the discussion of Chapter 3.1, Section 3.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Comment 1. Missin anal sis in Long Beach must be added to the document. 2. 2009 ADT volumes in the I-405 Improvement Project Traffic Study may have been underestimated near the City of Long Beach. In the Capacity,Transportation Demand, and Safety section of Chapter 1(p.1-6 to 1-8), 2009 traffic volumes were discussed. As stated in the footnote of Table 2,2.1 of the 1-405 Improvement Project Traffic Study conducted by Albert Grover &Associates, existing 2009 ART volumes were based on 2008 Caltrans published data, "adjusted down by one percent in accordance with similar measured decreases throughout the area" (p.2.2-1). However, Caltrans peak hour and AADT data was reviewed (Source: http://www,dot.ca.gov/hg/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/index.htm) near the City of Long Beach and the data indicates that when 2008 and 2009 AADT volumes are compared on 1-405 near the City of Long Beach, there is no measureable decrease in traffic volume between 2008 and 2009. Conversely, as shown in Table 1 below, the Caltrans 2008 and 2009 data indicates a slight increase in traffic volumes (between 0.77 and 1.55 percent) during the peak hour, peak month, or for AADT. Adjusting the 2008 traffic volumes down by one percent to calculate existing 2009 traffic volumes may have underestimated the existing 2009 mainline,ramp and weaving level of service near the City of Long Beach. The noted methodology must be reviewed and corrected, if required. Table 1:2008 and 2009 Caltrans Traffic Volumes Near the City of Long Beach District Route County Post Mile OescripOon Back Pk Hr Back Pk Sack Ahead Pk Ahead Ahead Me AADT Hr Pk Mo AADT 2008 F12 405 ORA 22.643 SEAL BEACH,SEAL BEACH BLVD INTERCHANGE 26,500 381,000 1 374,000 26,500 392,000 366,000 `�" °'ate 1-405 improvement Project DEiR/EIS Comments,July 17, 2012 r 2 405 ORA 24.044 SEALBEACH,JCT.RTE.605 26,500 392,000 366,000 17,900 261,000 253,000 2 405 ORA 24,178 ORANGE LOS ANGELES COUNTY LINE 17,900 261,000 253,000 7 405 LA 0.266 ORANGE/LOS ANGELES COUNTY LINE 18,300 258,000 253,000 7 405 LA 0.448 LONG BEACH,STUDEBAKER RD INTERCHANGE 18,300 258,000 253,000 16,900 265,000 261,000 7 405 LA 1.112 LONG BEACH,PALO VERDE AVE INTERCHANGE 16,900 265,000 261,000 17,100 258,000 254,000 2009 12 405 ORA 22.643 SEAL BEACH,SEAL BEACH BLVD INTERCHANGE 26,500 381,000 374,000 26,500 392,000 366,000 12 405 ORA 24,044 SEAL BEACH,ICT,RTE,605 26,500 392,000 366,000 18,100 263,000 255,000 12 405 ORA 24.178 ORANGE LOS ANGELES COUNTY LINE 18,100 263,000 255,000 07 405 LA 0.265 ORANGE/LOSANGELESCOUNTYLINE 18,500 262,000 253,000 07 405 LA 0.448 LONG BEACH,STUDEBAKER RD INTERCHANGE 18,500 262,000 253,000 17,100 269,000 261,000 07 405 LA 1.112 LONG BEACH,PALO VERDE AVE INTERCHANGE 17,100 269,00D 261,000 17,300 261,000 254,000 %Change 12 405 ORA 22.643 SEAL BEACH,SEAL BEACH BLVD INTERCHANGE 0.00% 0.00% 0100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12 405 ORA 24.044 SEAL BEACH,JCT.RTE.605 0100% 0.00% 0.00% 1.12% 0.77% 0.79% 12 405 ORA 24,178 ORANGE LOS ANGELES COUNTY LINE 1112% 0.77% 0,79% 07 405 LA 0,266 ORANGE/LOSANGELES COUNTY LINE 1.09% 1.55% 0.06 07 405 LA 0.448 LONG BEACH,STUDEBAKER RD INTERCHANGE 1.09% 1.55% 0.00% 1.18% 1.51% 0.00% 07 405 LA 1.112 LONG BEACH,PALO VERDE AVE INTERCHANGE 111851. 1.51% O.D096 1.17% 1 1.16% 0.00% Source:Caltrans Traffic Volumes,2008 and 2009. 3, The DEIR/EIS fails to analyze any freeway segments or report any population/growth/employment projections in the City of Long Beach. Under Section 1.2.2.5 (Modal Inter-Relationships and system Linkages), the DEiR/EiS states that 1-405 is part of the National Highway System and Is considered a bypass route to 1-5 (the Santa Ana/Golden State Freeway) providing Intra-regional and inter-regional access between Orange and Los Angeles Counties (p.1-19)." The City of Long Beach is also listed as a "significant employment center"along the proposed project corridor(p.1-12),and the"northern segment (of 1-405),between Valley View Street and the 1-605,is considered one of the heaviest traveled sections of freeway in the nation(p. 1-20)."Despite these statements concluding the significance of 1-405 as a heavily traveled regional access route, the DEiR/EIS fails to analyze any freeway segments or report any population/growth/employment projections within the proposed "project area" (theoretically 1-405 to Palo Verde Avenue in the City of Long Beach)on 1-405 in the City of Long Beach. Examples of tables in the DEIR/EIS that omit the City of Long Beach Include: a. Table 1-2 and 1-3 (Existing and Projected 2020 and 2040 LOS and V/C Northbound and Southbound General Purpose Lanes); b. Table 1-4 (Existing and 2040 No Build Travel Time on 1-405 from SR-73 to 1-605 for Existing Condition and Year 2040 No Build Alternative); c. Table 1-6 Existing and Projected 2020 and 2040 Daily and Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes on 1-405 within the Project Limits); d. Table 1-7(Population Projections and Growth Trends),and e. Table 1-8(Employment Projections and Growth Trends). missinp,information and analysis in the City of Long Beach must be added to the document. 4. The DEIR/EIS fails to explain how the added lanes associated with the proposed project on 1.405 will transition beyond the Orange County line Into Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach. Section 1.2.2.2, Roadway and Operational Deficiencies, states that "operation problems occur on 1-405 primarily because of physical bottlenecks(p.1-14)".However, it remains unclear how the added lanes will transition beyond the Orange County line into Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach.An additional detailed review relating to this comment is provided under the discussion of Chapter 2, Project Alternatives, ITERIS11- fi`b""` � 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR EIS Comments,July 17, 2012 Comment 1 and Chapter 3.1, Section 3.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrlan and Bicycle Facilities, Comment 4. Missing analysis of Impacts in the City of Long Beach, including traffic volumes, added lane transitions traffic diversion level of service and all other relevant issues must be added. 5. The DEIR/EIS fails to provide sufficient evidence supporting the claim that the proposed project would not result in a chokepoint north of 1-605 in the City of Long Beach.In addition,the northern terminus of the proposed project does not meet the Logical Termini requirement of the FHWA. Under the discussion of logical termini, the DEiR/EIS states with respect to the northern terminus, "the proposed additional lanes would enhance lane continuity along 1-405 and terminate new lanes into available lanes on these other freeways (p.1-23)." The DEIS/EIS also states, "Carrying lanes north to the 1-405/1-605/SR-22 interchange would not result in a chokepoint (p.1-24)." if the proposed project's northern most study interchange is the 1-405/1-645/SR-22 interchange, how was it determined that the proposed project alternatives would not result in a chokepoint north of the northern termini? The 1-405/1-605/SR-22 interchange does not seem like a "logical termini" for the northern segment of the 1-405 Improvement Project. Traffic should be further evaluated after the termination of the proposed project's additional lanes to ensure that a choke point does not occur north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County line in the City of Long Beach. The City of Long Beach does not feel that the northern terminus of the proposed project meets the "logical termini" requirement of the FHWA, as stated in the DEIR/EIS (p.1-24), thus resulting in an issue of "segmentation". The FHWA's discussion on logical termini and segmentation is provided below(The Development of Logical Project Termini,November 1993). "in developing a project concept which can be advanced through the stages of planning, environment, design, and construction, the project sponsor needs to consider a "whole" or integrated project. This project should satisfy an Identified need,such as safety,rehabilitation, economic development,or capacity improvements, and should be considered in the context of the local area socioeconomics and topography, the future travel demand,and other infrastructure improvements in the area. Without framing a project In this way,proposed improvements may miss the mark by only peripherally satisfying the need or by causing unexpected side effects which require additional corrective action.A problem of"segmentation"may also occur where a transportation need extends throughout an entire corridor but environmental issues and transportation needs are inappropriately discussed for only a segment of the corridor." Missing analysis of impacts in the City of Long Beach including traffic volumes added lane transitions traffic diversion level of service and all other relevant issues must be added. 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS;Chapter 2--PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 1. The DEIR/EiS falls to provide an illustration of how the additional lanes associated with the proposed project on 1-405 will transition beyond Orange County into Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 (Lane Configurations, Northbound and Southbound)graphically illustrate the proposed lane configurations on 1-405 between SR-73 and 1-605 (p.2-6 and 2-7),but fail to show how the lanes will transition beyond Orange County into Los Angeles County. Proper evaluation of 1-405 north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County line needs to be conducted to ensure that a choke point does not occur north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County line in the City of Long Beach. Missing analysis of impacts In the_Qlty_qf.Lo.ng Beach including traffic volumes added lane transitions traffic diversion level of service and all other relevant issues must be added. 2. Alternative 2 lacks consistency with the current RTP and FTIP. In the discussion of Alternative 2, the DEIR/E15 states that Alternative 2 is "considered a viable project alternative because it would achieve the I iII 1 kll m+F Aty ITERIS'fl-'�,`�`� ' I-405 Improvement Project D!~Ift/EIS Comments,July 17, 2012 project's purpose and need(p.2-10)." However, as stated in the Summary section of the DEIR/EIS,one of the proposed project's main purposes is to "be consistent with regional plans (p.S-1)."Table S-1(Project Impact Summary Table) clearly states that Alternative 2 Is "not consistent with the current RTP or FTIP. OCTA is currently pursuing revisions to both documents(p.5-13)." Discussion of the pursuit of Alternative 2's inclusion in the RTP or FTIP amendment should be discussed. Further coordination with regional plans and other regional and local planning agencies is required In order to assess the viability of this alternative. 3. Alternative 3 lacks consistency with the current RTP and FTIP. In the discussion of Alternative 3, the DEIR/EJS states that Alternative 3 is "considered a viable project alternative because it would achieve the project's purpose and need (p.2-14)." However,as stated In the Summary section of the DEIR/EIS,one of the proposed project's main purposes is to "be consistent with regional plans (p.S-1)."Table S-1 (Project Impact Summary Table) clearly states that Alternative 3 is "not consistent with the current RTP or FTIP. OCTA is currently pursuing revisions to both documents (p.S-13)." Further coordination with regional plans and other regional and local planning agencies Is required In order to assess the viability of this alternative. 4. The DEER/EIS lacks consistency between its chapters with respect to anticipated ramp closures.Table 2- 1 (1-405 improvement Project Alternatives Comparison) indicates that the northern-most ramp to be closed during construction is the Bolsa Chica Road southbound off-ramp (p.2-30). However, in Section 3.1.6,Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, it states that the southbound off-ramp at Seal' Beach Boulevard will be closed between 10 and 30 days (p.3.1.6-106). Please confirm as the closure of the 1-405 Seal Beach Boulevard southbound off-ramp will likely impact the City of Long Beach. Closure of a ramp for this duration warrants further evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with detour routes.An additional detailed review relating to this comment is provided under the discussion of Chapter 3.1, Section 3.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Comment 9. Missing analysis of the aotential ramp closure im acts on Long Beach must be added. 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS.Chapter 3.1--Human Environment,Section 3.1.4—COMMUNITY IMPACTS 1. The DEIR/EIS assumes the proposed project will result in a "beneficial effect on neighborhoods by reducing cut-through traffic" without providing any technical analysis or modeling results. Under the discussion of permanent Build Alternative impacts, the DEiR/EIS states that "implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in beneficial effects on community cohesion by reducing cut- through traffic within the adjacent neighborhoods. Currently, motorists traveling along 1-405 often exit the facility and seek less congested alternative routes within the adjacent neighborhoods when freeway conditions deteriorate. Community members living within the vicinity of the 1-405 corridor and people commuting between Los Angeles County and Orange County would benefit from the reduced congestion and the improved freeway operations (p. 3.1.4-19)". How was it determined that the proposed project would reduce cut-through traffic in adjacent neighborhoods? Is there empirical evidence (i.e. OCTAM modeling results, peak hour/AADT LOS, V/C analysis) supporting the reduction in cut-through traffic, specifically through the City of Long Beach? Please provide quantitative support that cut-through traffic exists and the magnitude of the cut-through activity. Haw will the cut-through activity be reduced through implementation of one of the proposed project alternatives?As future volumes increase through the corridor and level of service degrades, what is the impact on Long Beach due to cut-through traffic under future conditions? Additional explanation and supporting documentation of claims made regarding cut-through-traffic must be added. Missing anal sis of cut-through impacts in Long Beach must be added. i I I,� 'ff,- ax y "�' 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/E15 Comments,July 17, 2012 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS: Chapter 3.1 -- Human Environment, Section 3.1.6 — TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION/PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES 1. Project map Includes portions of the City of Long Beach, but the DEIR/EIS fails to conduct any technical analysis within the City.According to Figure 1-2 (Project Location map) in Chapter 1, Proposed Project, the proposed project area extends approximately one mile north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County line to Palo Verde Avenue in Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach (p.1-3). However, in Section 3.1.6.2,Affected Environment, the traffic study area is defined as "16 miles along 1-405 between 5R-73 and 1-605 (p.3.1.6-3)." As shown in Figure 3.1.6-1 (Traffic Study Area) (p.3.1.6-5), the study area does not include any Interchanges on 1-405 within Los Angeles County or the City of Long Beach. In addition,Table 3.1.6-1 lists the study intersections Included in the DEIR/EIS (p.3.1.6-7 to 3.1.6-9), and no arterial Intersections in the City of Long Beach were included in the analysis. Missing analysis of freeway and arterial intersections in the City.of Long Beach must be added. 2. The DEIR/EIS fails to provide an Illustration of how the additional lanes associated with the proposed project on 1-405 will transition beyond Orange County into Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach. Figures 3.1.6-3 and 3.1.6-4 (I-405 Lane Schematic, Northbound and Southbound) graphically illustrate the proposed lane configurations on 1-405 between SR-73 and 1-605 (p.3.1.6-16 and 3.1.6-17). Same comment as Chapter 2, Project Alternatives,Comment 1. Missing analysis of impacts in the City of Long Beach, including traffic volumes, added lane transitions, traffic diversion, level of service and all other relevant issues must be added. 3. 2009 ADT volumes In the 1.405 Improvement Project Traffic Study may have been underestimated near the City of Long Beach. The freeway mainline discussion used Caltrans-published traffic data from the Caltrans website to calculate their 2009 freeway volumes (p.3.1.6-21). 2009 traffic volumes are also shown in Table 3.1.6-2 (1-405 Mainline Average Daily Traffic) (p.3.1.6-22), Same comment as Chapter 1, Proposed project,Comment 2. The noted methodology must be reviewed and corrected if reciulred. 4. The DEIR/EIS fails to provide a detailed analysis of how the additional anticipated increase in vehicle throughput associated with the project alternatives will transition beyond 1-605 through the City of Long Beach. Table 3.1.6-2 (1-405 Mainline Average Daily Traffic) shows that the proposed alternatives have the potential to increase the mainline ADT up to 142,000 additional daily vehicles (28 to 38 percent Increase) beyond existing 2009 conditions on 1-405 between SR-22 East and 1-605 by 2040(see Table 2A). Similarly, Table 3.1.6-2 also shows that the proposed alternatives have the potential to generate up to 108,000 additional daily vehicles (18 to 27 percent increase) beyond the No Build scenario on 1-405 between SR-22 East and 1-605 by 2040(see Table 28). It is unclear how the increase in vehicle throughput will be addressed north of the Orange County/Las Angeles County line (specifically in the City of Lang Beach) after the proposed project ends. Additional impact analyses need to be evaluated in Los Angeles County and in the City of Long Beach to address the increase in throughput associated with the proposed project alternatives, and the potential for chokepoints and traffic diversion onto adjacent freeways and arterials. Table 2A:2009 vs.Alternatives Segment zazo 2040 2009 No Build Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt.3 Nil Alt 1 Aft 2 1 Alt 3 SR-22 East to 1-605 370,000 404,000 433,000 453,000 455,000 427,000 475,000 509,000 1 512,000 Increase In ADT over 2009 34,000 63,000 83,000 85,000 57,000 105,000 139,000 142,000 Percent Increase over 2009 9% 17% 224 23% 15% 28% 38% 1 38% Source:Table 3.1.6-2,f-405 Mainline Average Daily Traffic,p.3.1.6-22 ten.`_S1" 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/E15 Comments,July 17, 2012 Table 2B;No Build vs.Alternatives Segment 2020 2040 2009 No Build Alt 1 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 NB Alt 1 I Alt 2 1 Alt 3 SR-22 East to 1-605 370,000 404,000 433,000 453,000 455,000 427,000 475,000 509,000 512,000 Increase in ADT over No Build 29,000 49,004 51,000 23,000 71,000 105,000 108,000 Percent Increase over No Build 7% 12% 13% 6% 18% 26% 1 27% source:Table 3.1.6-2,1-405 Mainline Average Daily Traffic,p,3.1.6-22 Missing analysis of impacts in the City of..Long Beach including traffic volumes added lane transitions traffic diversion level of service and all other relevant issues must be added. 5. As discussed in the DEIR/E15 Traffic Forecasting Model discussion, "A single demand forecast was prepared for the proposed project area. Freeway mainline forecasts for each of the alternatives utilize the same total traffic volumes on a segment but redistribute volumes among the different lane types, as necessary(p.3.1.6-39)." It also states that, "Because of a very small variation in projected traffic volumes during the peak hours at the freeway interchanges among the three proposed project alternatives, it was jointly agreed by Caltrans, OCTA, and the Project Consulting Team that only one set of future traffic volumes would be used for analyzing the proposed project condition on the arterials (p.3.1.6-39)." The following comments are related to the aforementioned assumptions: a. The DEIR/EiS assumes travel demand Is fixed through the corridor, irrespective of actual corridor capacity.The traffic study indicates that OCTAM was applied to generate future forecast volumes for the corridor. However,it has been noted that one future model run was prepared to generate future corridor forecast volumes and the traffic volumes were distributed across the various lane assumptions for each alternative. This approach is flawed in that it assumes travel demand is fixed through the corridor and irrespective of actual corridor capacity. Which future scenario was run with OCTAM to determine corridor travel demand and how was that determination made? b. The DEIR/EIS should provide further justification for using a single forecast to develop future forecast volumes. Application of OCTAM for other congested corridors in Orange County has revealed a sensitivity to capacity with traffic demand varying based on the amount (i.e. number of lanes) and type (general purpose, HOV, toll) of capacity provided. For the congested 1-405 corridor,Table 3.1.6-12 reveals that every segment of i-405 is significantly over capacity for each proposed project alternative (p.3.1.6-73). With congestion levels of this magnitude, OCTAM would be expected to generate different levels of traffic demand for each proposed project alternative which would result in a more appropriate comparative analysis between the proposed project alternatives. It is not understood, nor explained, how a single forecast model run could generate the demand volumes for the various future project alternatives.Justification for using a single forecast to develop future forecast volumes should be provided. OCTAM has been applied to evaluate various HOV,toll and express lane projects throughout the County;why would it not be applied for each alternative? c. The DEIR/EiS should provide clear documentation of future year model network assumptions. Future year model assumptions that were applied to generate the future corridor traffic volumes are not clearly defined. The recently adopted Regional Transportation Plan includes Express Lanes on 1-405 in Los Angeles County and the traffic study does not clearly define network assumptions incorporated into the model run that was performed to generate the future forecasts.The alternative lane schematics seem to indicate that Express Lanes were not assumed in Los Angeles County. Regional projects could impact traffic demand on 1-405 including capacity on i-5 in Orange and Los Angeles County, Express Lanes on 1-405 in Los Angeles County, implementation of High Speed Rail and other regional multi-modal projects. It has been noted },vuah'ov 1-405 Improvement Project DEER EIS Comments July 17 2012 elsewhere in the document that 1-405 serves as a bypass route to 1-5 (the Santa Ana/Golden State Freeway) providing intra-reglonal and inter-regional access between Orange and Los Angeles Counties and as such improvements to 1-5 would impact 1-405 traffic demand. Clear documentation of future year model network assumptions based on the adopted Regional Transportation Plan should be provided to appropriately assess future forecast volumes. d. Clarification should be provided documenting why a 2020 scenario was not modeled directly to generate the opening year volumes.Year 2020 traffic volumes were interpolated from the 2009 and 2040 forecast volumes. Clarification should be provided as to why a 2020 scenario was not modeled directly to generate the opening year volumes. As noted in the study, the OCTAM horizon year is 2035 and post-processing was applied to generate 2040 forecasts.Since 2040 is a post-processed volume, why would the interpolation not be performed between 2009 and the actual model horizon year of 2035 to generate a more accurate interim year forecast volume if a 2020 scenario is not directly modeled? Interpolating volumes for a corridor of this magnitude may not provide accurate results as interpolation does not appropriately consider network assumptions and timing of those infrastructure improvements that may impact forecast volumes. Consistent with the 2040 forecast volumes, corridor capacity assumptions for the alternatives would likely result in varying levels of demand across alternatives. Forecasts for Alternative 3 are suspect since the Express Lane volumes appear to be rounded to 100's while HOV volumes for all alternatives along with mainline volumes are presented as exact numbers with no rounding.The rounded Express Lane volumes appear inconsistent with the methodology applied to generate the volumes for the other alternatives. e. High future forecast volumes in the City of Long Beach raise concerns regarding future traffic operations. Traffic should be evaluated north of the Orange County/Los Angeles County line. The magnitude of future forecast volumes approaching the City of Long Beach are very high,thus concerns exist about haw the future forecast volumes are generated and ultimately impact traffic operations in and through the City of Long Beach. A significant amount of information Is missing and must be provided in the sections of the EIR EIS describing the traffic modeling,methodology and results. Missing information relating to several key modeling issues must be provided. Much more detailed information describing how one future model run could adequately capture future travel,what would be the differences in corridor travel demand and travel demand in Long Beach if OCTAM was run with the actual alternatives coded in the model, what would be the differences if a 2020 model run was conducted versus "Interpolating' model results what would the resu.ItIng travel demand be If Express Lanes were coded into the model within Oran e Count as well as within Los Angeles County,and other similar Issues. 6. The UEIR/E1S lacks a sufficient discussion regarding the travel demand forecasts assumptions under Alternative 3. As discussed under Alternative 3, the travel demand forecasts for Alternative 3 use the same travel demand forecasts as the other alternatives. No discussion is provided regarding the effect that toll lanes may have on the travel demand In the study area, nor outside of the study area into the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County. Recent work undertaken in the City of Long Beach and the Gateway Cities reveals that tolling assumptions can have a significant impact on travel demand forecasts and allocation of traffic among the types of lanes an the facility. In addition,coordination of assumptions across county fines Is critical to this analysis. For example,assumptions such as peak/off-peak tolling rates and the decision to charge or not charge vehicles with various vehicle occupancy thresholds (such as 3+ carpools)can significantly affect the results in terms of Express Lane usage. The amount of demand in the Express Lanes not only affects the corridor under study but also could significantly affect local arterials and the State Highway System in the City of Long Beach. As of now, there is not a consistent policy regarding how to handle Express Lane toll rates and operations across county lines. All of these issues ITERIS'— 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR EIS Comments,July 17, 2012 are ignored within the traffic study and the resulting travel demand and associated analysis could be significantly affected. Discussion of these issues must be included in the analysis of Alternative 3 along with detailed analysis of the affects that the tolling will have on travel demand and operations into the City of Long Beach on both 1-405 and f-605, The following important questions are raised: a. What happens if the proposed project is built but the Express Lanes are not continued into Los Angeles County? b. How would the lanes transition and operate in the City of Long Beach if the proposed project is built? c. Metro is currently considering Express Lanes on 1-405 in Los Angeles County. What happens if the proposed project is built and the Express Lanes are carried into the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County? How would that not only affect freeways in Los Angeles County, but how would that affect the travel forecasts for the proposed project in Orange County as well? With the modeling conducted as described, there is no way to understand the variation in the proposed project area volumes that would occur under these scenarios and thus the EIR does not disclose the true impacts of the proposed project either in the study are nor in the area that should have additionally been studied in the City of Long Beach. d. What types of coordination would be required and how would the lanes operate,specifically as a result of implementing the proposed project? e. What are the differences in travel demand in the City of Long Beach for the scenarios with and without Express Lanes carried across the county line? Significant additional information and analysis is required to understand potential impacts of the alternatives in both Orange County as well as into Long Beach. Model run tests are needed to test impacts of alternative scenarios in the pro€ect area as well as in the m€ss€ng affected areas in Long Beach ft€s a propriate to test potential extensions of Express Lanes into Los Angeles County,as well as If Ex ress Lanes were ended at the county line. If Express lanes are not extended into Los Angeles Count significant additional analvs€s of operational and geometric issues in Lone Beach must be included so that there is documentation of potential Impacts in Long Beach under all alternatives, with and without Express lanes. 7. The DEIR/EIS lacks analysis regarding possible increases the general purpose lanes or diversion to other routes In the City of Long Beach due to Increased congestion. It is known that Express Lanes will likely result in some shifting of traffic from the Express Lanes (prior HOV lanes) to the General Purpose lanes. This could either increase the general purpose lane volume in the City of Long Beach,or result in diversion to other routes in the City of Long Beach due to increased congestion in the general purpose lanes, or both. These possible significant Impacts have not been considered or analyzed in the traffic study. Missing Information on Express Lane im acts on the freeway system must be added. S. The DEIR/EIS falls to provide details regarding the transition area beyond the Orange County line into Los Angeles County and the City of Long Beach.Table 3.1.6-17 (Transition Area LOS)summarizes the AM and PM LOS in each of the transition areas anticipated in 2020 and 2040 under Alternative 3 and iVo Build (p.3.1.6-97). However, no transition areas were evaluated on 1-405 north of the 1-605/1-405/SR-22 intersection in Los Angeles County or the City of Long Beach. Missing information and analysis of impacts in the City of Long Beach must be added. k., ITEMS'- 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/EIS Comments,July 17, 2012 01�40P 9. The DEIR/EIS lacks consistency between its chapters and associated reports with respect to anticipated ramp closures, As discussed under Temporary Build Alternative Impacts (p. 3.1.6-106), the 1-405 southbound off-ramp at Seal Beach Boulevard is expected to be closed between 10 to 30 days during construction. Closure of the Seal Beach Boulevard off-ramp will likely result in cut-through traffic in the City of Long Beach, The DEIR/EIS for the proposed project states that tentative detours for the ramp closures are Identified in the Ramp Closure Study (RCS) (Appendix C of the Community Impact Assessment). When the RCS was reviewed, Table 1 (Local Service Interchange Ramps and Anticipated Closure within the 1-405 improvement Project) indicated that the Seal Beach Boulevard southbound off- ramp has an AAUT of 10,500 and will be closed for up to 30 days. However, in the "Description of Prolonged Closure Sites and Proposed Detour Route" section of the RCS, all ramps with anticipated long- term ramp closures (10 or more days)were listed and described in detail,with the exception of the Seal Reach Boulevard southbound ramp. The"Bolsa Chica Road Southbound Off-Ramp"was described where the "Seal Beach Boulevard Southbound Off-Ramp" description should have been. The alternate route maps in the report's attachment also omit the Seal Beach Boulevard Southbound Off-Ramp. This is a noteworthy discrepancy because closure of the Seal Beach Boulevard southbound off-ramp could significantly impact construction-related traffic in and around alternate 1-405 ramps and adjacent arterials . in the City of Long Beach. a. The "Ramp Closure"list in the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for the proposed project is also inconsistent with the DEIR/EIS and Table 1 of the RCS.The DEIR/EIS and Table 1 of the RCS indicate that the southbound off-ramp at Seal Beach Boulevard will be closed for up to 30 days and the list of ramp closures from the TMP (p.11) indicates that Balsa Chica Road southbound off-ramp will be closed. Missing analysis of potential ramp closures in Long Beach must be added. 1-405 Improvement Project DEiR/EIS:Chapter 3.6--CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1. The DEIR/EIS falls to analyze the cumulative impact of future growth in the City of Long Beach. As discussed in Section 3.6.2 of the Cumulative impact section, Methodology, future growth was considered within "the Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Los Alamitos, Westminster, and Seal Beach as well as the County of Orange unincorporated community of Rossmoor (p.3.6-2)."The list of cities and unincorporated areas included in the cumulative analysis Includes all of the cities and areas listed in the proposed Project Description (p.S-2) in the DEIR/EIS Summary, with the exception of the City of Long Beach.The growth In City of Long Beach should be included in the proposed project's cumulative analysis.The proposed project description in the DEIR/EIS Summary is as follows: "The approximately 16-mile-long project corridor is primarily located in Orange County on 1-405 and traverses the cities of Cost Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Westminster, Garden Grove,Seal Beach, Cos Alamitos,Long Beach and the community of Rossmoor." Missingcumulative analysis must be added. This concludes our summary of comments on the EIR/EIR documents. There are likely other comments that will be appropriate following receipt of responses. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Iteris, Inc. would be happy to meet with City staff to discuss the results of the review and technical memorandum. �Ad !4J �'brmr�r RYry .; 1-405 Improvement Project DEIR/E15 Comments,July 17, 2012 Sincerely, Gary Hamrick Vice President Transportation Systems Iteris, Inc. Attachment 5 Kenneth A. Small and Chen Feng Ng Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1 , 2013 This page intentionally left blank. Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Optimizing Road Capacity and Type Kenneth A. Small Chen Feng Ng June 1, 2013 Small: Dept. of Economics, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA 92612-5100, USA; ksmall@uci.edu Ng: Dept. of Economics, California State University at Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840-4607, USA; chen.n (acsulb.edu Keywords: Capacity, free-flow speed, highway design, optimal highway investment, congestion JEL codes: L91, R42 Abstract We extend the traditional road investment model, with its focus on capacity and congestion as measures of capital and its utilization, to include free-flow speed as another dimension of capital. This has practical importance because one can view free-flow speed as a continuous proxy for road type (e.g. freeway, arterial, urban street). We derive conditions for optimal investment in capacity and free-flow speed, and analyze the optimal balance between the two. We then estimate cost functions for capital and user costs and apply the resulting model using parameters representing large US urban areas. We show that providing high free-flow speed may be quite expensive, and there is sometimes a tradeoff between it and capacity. We find suggestive evidence that representative freeways in most large urban areas provide too high a free-flow speed relative to capacity, thus making the case for reexamination of typical design practice. Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Optimizing Road Capacity and Type Kenneth A. Small Chen Feng Ng 1. Introduction The economic analysis of congestion and investment in road capacity is well developed. The research literature contains an abundance of optimality conditions, implications for pricing, and policy implications including such practical matters as second-best pricing, investment under conditions of suboptimal pricing, and financial balance between pricing revenues and investment costs.1 In such analyses, roads are generally taken to be sufficiently characterized by a single dimension, capacity, with other issues such as safety or aesthetic ride quality dealt with as separate side issue S.2 part, this emphasis is justified by the apparent dominance of congestion among the costs of urban road trip S.3 Yet some of the most serious practical issues in road policy involve other aspects of roads such as their safety, environmental impacts, aesthetics, and impacts on neighborhoods and other considerations of urban design. As a result, passionate debates arise about not only the amount of road space to provide, but its type. In particular, the penetration of dense urban development by high-speed and high-capacity expressways has always been controversial. Transportation economists have had less to say about these latter issues, and a major reason is the single capital dimension in the standard economic models of road investment. Yet it is entirely possible to build very different looking urban road networks of equal capacities, one using high-speed freeways and another using well-engineered arterials. These design tradeoffs require other measures of road capital than capacity. The goal of this paper is to provide an expanded investment model that lends itself to analyzing such issues, by including free-flow speed as an additional design variable describing road capital. While naturally not every issue of interest can be captured with just one additional ' Examples include Mohring and Harwitz (1962), Strotz(1965),Keeler and Small(1977),and Janson(1984).For reviews see Lindsey and Verhoef(2000)and Small and Verhoef(2007, ch. 5). 2 In two cases,however,these other road characteristics are explicitly modeled either as a type of scale economy (Jason 1984,ch. 10)or as a quality variable(Larsen 1993). s Small and Verhoef(2007),sect. 3.4.6. Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 variable, the advantages of tractability and transparency make this an attractive way to begin bringing the analysis of road types into mainstream transportation economics. To implement the model, we use empirical data to estimate both investment costs and user costs as functions of the two design variables (capacity and free-flow speed). We estimate a construction-cost function using data on costs of various road types along with their free-flow speeds and capacities. We estimate a user-cost function from information about speeds and flows of different road types, differentiated by free-flow speed,4 which we supplement with a queuing analysis to account for situations where input flow exceeds capacity. The result is a continuous, differentiable total cost function which permits standard investment analysis. The model produces the familiar criterion for incremental investment in capacity, and a new criterion for incremental investment in free-flow speed. We combine these criteria to examine how to recognize under what conditions a given road is well balanced between these two dimensions: i.e., when does a given road design provide too high or low a free-flow speed relative to its capacity? We examine this balance condition for 24 standard road types under hypothetical conditions, and for representative freeways and arterials for 47 US urban areas under actual conditions. While our goal here is not primarily policy analysis, the model does permit another look at a question considered by Ng and Small (2012). Given that many high-speed urban expressways operate under severe congestion for several hours each day, is the extra expense of providing such high-speed service under more moderate traffic justified? In the extreme case where all traffic occurred during a peak period impacted by queues behind fixed-capacity bottlenecks, there would be no advantage to high free-flow speed. In more realistic cases, there are tradeoffs involving the duration of peak periods and the relative traffic volumes in peak and off-peak periods. Our earlier paper considers this question by comparing a few specific road types chosen to illustrate the tradeoff between free-flow speed and capacity, or between free- flow speed and construction cost. Here, we develop a more general model of road investment where both capital costs and user costs can vary depending on free-flow speed and capacity, each of which lies along a continuum. 4 Such information is compiled in the Highway Capacity Manual(Transportation Research Board 2000)from decades of engineering research. Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 We do find some evidence that typical freeways in large urban areas are over-designed for free-flow speed at the expense of capacity. This arises largely from the finding that the cost elasticity for increasing free-flow speed is, on average, more than three times that for expanding capacity (roughly 1.4 vs. 0.4); as a result even modest amounts of congestion favor incremental investments in capacity relative to free-flow speed. While the optimal road configuration is very case-specific, we can state a more general policy conclusion: road design needs to allow for variety and flexibility, rather than being constrained to meet a predetermined set of standards such as those for US Interstate Highways. There are probably many situations where urban areas are well served by parkways, high-type arterials, or urban streets with well-engineered intersections as a means of carrying large traffic flows efficiently. 2. Long-run cost functions with two dimensions of infrastructure Total costs of road travel in our model consist of amortized capital cost and user costs. We adopt simple formulations for each, in order to emphasize what is new in this paper, namely the role of free-flow speed as a design variable. Thus, for example, we ignore road maintenance costs (assuming they would not affect design), accident costs (as there is mixed evidence in the literature regarding the impact of design speed on accident rates),5 other user costs aside from time (assuming they are proportional to vehicle flow and therefore also do not affect design), and environmental costs (which are best dealt with using other tools). Annualized capital cost is composed of initial costs of structures and land, each amortized at a constant rate over its lifetime. These costs depend on road design via the variables measuring capacity and free-flow speed: P(V"S ) 1-e-r1 K(VK,Sf)+rA(VK,Sf) (1) where VK and Sfare design capacity and free-flow design speed, respectively,K is construction cost,A is right-of-way acquisition cost, r is the interest rate, and A is the road life in years, i.e. s As discussed in Ng and Small(2012), some of the design features that could result in lower free-flow speeds (like narrower lanes or a lower type of road such as a highway instead of a freeway) do not necessarily lead to higher accident rates, especially if the roads are accompanied by lower speed limits. Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 the time after which the structures and improvements (but not the land) have lost all their value. We assume that K and A are increasing in both VK and Sf. This formulation assumes the annualized cost is constant over the road's lifetime. Total user cost Ut during time interval t consists solely of time costs measured at a constant value of time, a. User time depends both on free-flow speed and on congestion, the latter via the volume-capacity ratio: U,(V, I V,Sf)= V'C' = Vt V (z) St Vt ,Sf K where t is a time interval (of duration qt), Vt is traffic volume, ct is average user time cost, and St is average speed. The latter is assumed to be increasing in Sf, and to be decreasing and concave in volume-capacity ratio. The short-run total cost function, including agency costs, is therefore: C(V I VKISf)= p(VK,Sf)+Iq,Ut(Vt I VK,Sf) t 1_e-Yn K(VK,Sf)+rA(VK,Sf)+ay q,V, (3) V t S Vt Sf K where V={Vt} is the time pattern of vehicle flows. The long-run cost function is obtained by choosing the design variables so as to minimize short-run total cost: C(V)= min C(V IVK,Sf) VK,SO = min p(VK,S f)+ay q,V, VK,Sf V t S Vt Sf K )- Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 The conditions for this minimization constitute the investment rules governing capacity and free- flow speed. Assuming interior solutions, they are: OP — V act 4a —�gt t ( ) aVK t aVK OP = —Y asf �gtVt oSf (4b) which state that each type of investment should be undertaken to the point where the resulting marginal saving in user cost equals its incremental annualized capital cost. The first of these investment rules is standard.6 The second is new to this paper, but obviously follows the same logic. Equations (4a) and (4b) may be simplified by taking advantage of our assumption that user cost is a function of volume and capacity only through their ratio, an assumption which also underlies the analysis of self-financing by Mohring and Harwitz (1962, pp. 84-87).' This assumption implies that V act = —V act K aVK t aV from which we can rewrite (4a) and (4b)in elasticity terms as: ep vK = gtVt •(mecc)t = R (5a) P t P 6 This investment rule is given in various forms by Mohring and Harwitz(1962,p. 84), Strotz(1965,eq. 1.17),and Keeler and Small(1977),eq(5). See Small and Verhoef(2007,eq. 5.3)for a concise derivation. 'This assumption is sometimes described as constant returns to scale in congestion technology: see Small and Verhoef (2007,p. 165). Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 EP,sf = I gtV ct '(Es,sf)t (Sb) P where (mecc)t= V OctlXt)is the marginal external congestion cost of a trip, EpVK and Epsf are the elasticities of annualized capital cost with respect to capacity and free-flow speed, respectively, and Essf is the elasticity of the function S(•)with respect to Sf. (This last elasticity may vary by time period.) The quantity R is imputed revenues from a hypothetical congestion toll set equal to mecct in each period when traffic is given by vector V.8 Therefore (5a) expresses the self-financing theorem, which states that annual revenues from such a toll would equal annualized capital costs times the cost elasticity of capital cost with respect to VK. Equation (5b) has no comparable interpretation, since there is no efficiency reason to impose a toll for free- flow speed. The quantities in equations (5a) and (5b) are likely to be quite case-specific, making it difficult to draw general conclusions from these investment criteria. However, we are more confident in their ratio, which is based on the relative costs of the two kinds of investment and the relative cost savings they provide to users. Therefore, we primarily consider what we call "investment balance," defined by dividing (5a)by (5b): YgtVt •(mecc)t Ep,vK R t (5c) EP,sf gtVtct ' -cs,, t I gtVtct ' _C7 t t This implication of the first-order conditions makes clear that if congestion is large, so that mecc exceeds c•Essffor a large portion of the time, investment in capacity will be favored relative to that in free-flow speed. On the other hand, if peak traffic congestion is not severe and off-peak travel is extensive, the ratio on the right-hand side will tend to be small, favoring investment in free-flow speed. In what follows, we refer to the left-hand side (LHS) of equation (5c) as the "ratio of construction cost elasticities," and the right-hand side (RHS) as the "ratio of marginal user costs" (i.e., the ratio of incremental user-cost savings from expanding capacity versus s As is well known, such a toll can be derived by maximizing the difference between consumers'valuation of their travel(the area under their inverse demand curve)and total costs. See Keeler and Small(1977). Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 increasing free-flow speed). Our measure of"investment balance" is LHS —RHS; a positive number means that marginal investment in Sfis favored relative to that in VK. Intuition is aided by an example. First, suppose travel time is given by the free-flow travel time plus a queuing time applicable only if capacity is exceeded: 1 1 +max qt • V` —1 0 (6) S S f 2 VK ), This piecewise-linear cost function describes the time-averaged user cost for a deterministic bottleneck of constant capacity, assuming there is no queue at the beginning of the time period. We then have mecc=a•[(1 1S)-(1 1Sf)], ,ssf=S/Sf, and the first-order investment conditions are: Ug U° _ £P,VK Ug p,sf where total user cost U over all time periods has been divided into that due to free-flow travel time U° =ay gtVt/S f , and that due to congestion, V— U-U°. This example makes clear that a r marginal increase in capacity is valuable when user costs of congestion (U) are high, whereas an increase in free-flow speed is valuable when user costs of free-flow travel (U°) are high.9 With more realistic models of speed determination, the more general equations (5) can be used to assess current or proposed planning for road capacity and type. A hypothesis motivating this paper is that current planning guidelines for urban areas may place too much emphasis on free-flow speed relative to capacity. This could take the form either of designing a give type of roadway for unnecessarily high speeds, or of choosing a higher type of roadway than necessary. Empirical measurements suggesting that the cost ratio on the right-hand side of(5c) exceeds the elasticity ratio on its left-hand side would provide evidence for this hypothesis. 9 Another example is when time spent in congestion is modeled,as is common,as a power function of the volume- capacity ratio with power b. Then mecc=ab•[(I1S)-(I1Sf)] and cs,sf=1;the optimization conditions are cpvK=bPlp and spsT Ulp. In this case cost added by congestion is affected by Sf,which is why the numerator of the second equation includes total user cost U and not just the uncongested portion U°as it did in the other example. Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Alternatively, one can consider the tradeoff between free-flow speed and capacity inherent in any particular set of incremental plans or planning guidelines by rewriting (5c) as: dSTf K 1'lSTf R (Sc') d 1' K l q,V c �5, t t Suppose, for example, a particular road design could be modified at no change in cost so as to increase free-flow speed 2 percent by sacrificing one percent of capacity. This change would be beneficial if the ratio on the right-hand side of(5c') (computed with the proposed design in place)is less than 2, whereas a trade in the opposite direction would be beneficial if that ratio is greater than 2. As a reminder, all these types of statements presume that there is a continuum of possible designs and that the resulting costs are smooth functions. 3. Empirical estimation of cost functions 3.1 Data for costs, free-flow speeds, and capacities We wish to estimate construction costs as a function of capacity and free-flow speed, while holding constant other factors such as terrain, climate, and input prices. Since we are more interested in the relative costs of different types of roads than their absolute costs, we are not too concerned about whether we have representative values for those other factors, but do want detailed differences among road types. Such data are provided by the Specifications and Estimates Office of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). These data contain estimated quantities and prices of inputs needed for various types of roads in urban areas, while holding other factors constant. The basic data, shown in Table 1, tell us about the tradeoffs among alternative road designs discussed in previous sections. For example, as we shall see shortly, a 4-lane divided urban street has the same free-flow speed as an undivided 5-lane urban street with a center turn lane, but the former costs more and has higher capacity. Meanwhile a 4-lane Interstate offers greater free-flow speed but lower capacity than a 6-lane multilane highway, with only a small Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 cost difference. Thus, capacity and free-flow speed show sufficient independent variation that we expect to see some possibilities for substitution of the type highlighted in equation (5c'). Table 1. FDOT cost estimates (in 2011 prices) No. Bike Median Shoulders Cost per lanes lane (width) (inside & mile Description (width) outside) (mill. $) Undivided arterial 2 4 ft --- --- 4.794 Undivided arterial with center lane 3 4 ft --- --- 4.769 Undivided arterial 4 4 ft --- --- 5.132 Undivided arterial with center lane 5 4 ft --- --- 5.814 Divided arterial 4 4 ft 22 ft --- 7.123 Divided arterial 6 4 ft 22 ft --- 7.986 Divided Interstate, closed median 4 --- 22 ft loft 8.875 with barrier wall Divided Interstate, closed median 6 --- 22 ft loft 9.858 with barrier wall Source: Statewide cost estimates published in January 2012 by the Specifications and Estimates Office of the Florida Department of Transportation(http://www.dot.state.fl.us/s pecificationsoffice�. These cost estimates are even more useful because they contain detailed information on individual components such as embankment, pavement, pipe culverts, lighting, etc. This additional information enables us to double our sample size by estimating, for each road type, the cost of an otherwise identical road but with 11-foot lanes instead of the default lane width of 12 feet. This is done by reducing the relevant costs (embankment, stabilization and pavement costs) proportionately, while keeping other costs (such as the costs of pipe culverts, curbs and gutters, pavement markings, lighting and signage) constant. Since 11-foot lanes are recognized in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board 2000), we will be able to measure the deterioration of service quality and capacity that accompanies the lower costs and, as we shall see, these two dimensions are not degraded proportionally. In order to calculate free-flow speeds and capacities for each road type, we use the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, supplemented where necessary by the FDOT road descriptions and HCM default values; see Appendix A for other assumptions and the equations.10 The HCM has separate procedures for freeways, urban streets, and"highways" (which have design standards 10 Although there is a newer edition of the HCM(the 2010 version),we use the 2000 version so that the results in this paper are consistent with those presented in Ng and Small(2012). Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 between those of freeways and urban streets).'1 We are therefore able to further expand our data set by assuming that FDOT's "arterial" can be either an urban street with traffic signals or a highway (except we assume only an urban street can have a center lane). We assume that highways have grade-separated intersections at all major crossings and there are no signals but like urban streets, there are some at-grade access points (e.g., driveways). It is further assumed that urban streets have one signal per mile while highways and freeways have an interchange with an urban street every two miles. We use the cost estimates for traffic signals and interchanges included in the FDOT dataset and add them to the costs shown in Table 1 (see Appendix B for more detail). Urban streets require several further assumptions. We assume they have limited parking and little pedestrian activity. We assign speed limits of 45 mi/h and 40 mi/h for the roads with 12-foot lanes and 11-foot lanes, respectively (since free-flow speed depends on, though is not equal to, the speed limit). We also must make assumptions about the number of turn lanes and signal phasing for left-turn lanes (see Appendix A).12 For each assumed turn-lane and signal configuration, we calculate the saturation flow rate, i.e., the highest flow rate that can pass through a signalized intersection while the light is green, and from that we calculate capacity following the HCM. The assumptions just described lead to 24 road types, each with its unique cost, capacity, and free-flow speed. From these 24 observations, summarized in Table 2, we fit function K(VK,Sf) describing initial construction cost. 11 In deference to this distinction,we use"road"as a general term encompassing all three types, so as to avoid the ambiguity of the term"highway"that exists in the HCM(even in its title)between the general or specific meaning of"highway." 12 Signal phasing means the types of turns permitted on successive parts of a complete cycle for a traffic signal. The two categories of phasing of primary concern to us are permitted versus protected left turns: "permitted" means left turns are allowed whenever the light is green and there is a gap in oncoming traffic,whereas"protected"means left turns are allowed only with a green arrow during which oncoming traffic is stopped with a red signal. 10 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Table 2. Road types and construction cost per mile Signal/ No. of Lane Unim- Free- Two- Road inter- Total lanes (two- Road width peded flow directional cost per change cost per directional) type (feet) speed speed capacity mile cost mile (mi/h) (mi/h) (veh/h) (thousands of$) Urban 12 42.1 35.8 1,277.6 4,794 155 4,949 2lanes street 11 40.2 34.4 1,245.1 4,647 155 4,802 undivided Two-lane 12 52.5 52.5 3,112.4 4,794 6,716 11,510 highway 11 47.1 47.1 3,112.4 4,647 6,511 11,158 3 lanes, ctr Urban 12 42.1 35.8 1,637.0 4,769 155 4,924 turn lane street 11 40.2 34.4 1,582.4 4,581 155 4,736 Urban 12 43.1 36.5 1,930.2 5,132 195 5,328 4lanes street 11 41.2 35.1 1,891.9 4,909 195 5,104 undivided Multilane 12 51.8 51.8 7,306.1 5,132 7,190 12,323 highway 11 49.9 49.9 7,169.7 4,909 6,877 11,786 5 lanes, ctr Urban 12 43.1 36.5 3,273.1 5,814 195 6,009 turn lane street 11 41.2 35.1 3,164.0 5,537 195 5,732 Urban 12 43.1 36.5 3,745.7 7,123 195 7,318 street 11 41.2 35.1 3,620.9 6,854 195 7,050 4 lanes, Multilane 12 53.4 53.4 7,421.0 7,123 9,979 17,102 divided highway 11 51.5 51.5 7,284.6 6,854 9,603 16,457 Freeway 12 65.5 65.5 8,455.0 8,875 12,433 21,308 11 63.6 63.6 8,386.8 8,353 11,702 20,055 Urban 12 43.5 36.8 5,618.6 7,986 236 8,222 street 11 41.6 35.4 5,431.3 7,639 236 7,876 6 lanes, Multilane 12 53.4 53.4 11,131.6 7,986 11,189 19,175 divided highway 11 51.5 51.5 10,926.9 7,639 10,703 18,342 Freeway 12 67.0 67.0 12,763.3 9,858 13,811 23,668 11 65.1 65.1 12,661.0 9,215 12,910 22,125 Note: We use"free-flow speed"to designate the speed at very low traffic levels,as does Schrank et al. (2012b). The HCM defines it the same way for freeways and highways.But for urban streets,the HCM defines free-flow speed to exclude the effects of "control delay",which is the delay caused at intersections by stopping and/or waiting behind other stopped vehicles while they start up and proceed through the intersection;here we call this the"unimpeded speed."Formulas for calculating both unimpeded speed and control delay are provided by Zegeer et al. (2008)and the HCM(see Appendix A),and used here to compute"free-flow speed"as well as,in the next section, speed as a function of traffic volume. These estimates imply construction costs per lane-mile, for 12-foot lanes, of roughly $4.0-5.3 million for freeways and $1.3-2.5 million for urban streets, with multilane highways in between. As a comparison, Schrank et al. (2012a) estimate that new construction can cost 11 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 between $5-20 million per lane-mile for freeways, and around $1.5 million for"major surface streets," although their numbers likely include land acquisition costs. 3.2 Estimation of capital cost function We use a translog function to estimate the relationship between construction cost per mile (denoted by K, measured in thousands of dollars), free-flow speed (Sf), and capacity (VK), with the right-hand-side variables as ratios to their sample means: InK = ,(30 +,(31ln(Sf /Sf)+, 2ln(VrK /VrK)+0.5,(331n(Sf /Sf)2 (8) +0.5,8 In(VK /VK)2 +,85 In(J f /iJ f)In(VK /VK)+E The sample means for free-flow speed and capacity are 45.80 mi/h and 5,589 veh/h, respectively. The regression results, using ordinary least squares on 24 observations, are shown in Table 3. Although none of the second-order terms are statistically significant(at a five-percent level), we prefer the second specification because it allows for varying elasticities, even though the estimated extent of variation is not large. Using that specification, the implied elasticities of construction cost with respect to free-flow-speed and capacity are £K,Sf - / 1 +/ 3ln(SO /Sf)+/ 5lri(VK /VK) £K,VK - / 2 +/ 4ln(VK /VK)+/ 5ln(Sf /S f). As indicated by the first two coefficients of the right column, these elasticities are 1.36 and 0.40, respectively, when calculated at the sample means. Thus increasing capacity—for example, by building more lanes of a given road type—is subject to strong scale economies, a finding consistent with evidence in Meyer et al. (1965) and Kraus (1981).13 What is new here, and potentially important, is the finding of scale diseconomies with respect to free-flow speed. Our estimate suggests that increasing free-flow speed is quite expensive, even holding capacity constant. 13 Kraus finds scale economies are substantially reduced,though not eliminated,by considering the effects produced by the high cost of enlarging intersections as an entire network of roads is expanded. Such costs are not considered here,at least not explicitly. 12 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Table 3. Construction cost regression results Variables In K In K 1nS f —1nS f 1.4401*** 1.3552*** (0.136) (0.153) 1nVK -1nVK 0.3314*** 0.3997*** (0.044) (0.068) 0.5(1nS f -1nS f)2 0.7975 (1.797) 0.5(1nVK -1nVK)2 0.3800* (0.218) (In S f —In S f)(ln VK —In VK) -0.8708 (0.520) Constant 9.3192*** 9.3261*** (0.021) (0.038) Observations 24 24 R-squared 0.976 0.982 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. ***, ** and*indicate statistical significance at the 1, 5 and 10 percent levels, respectively. The regression results can be used to predict construction costs for a range of free-flow speeds and capacities. Figure 1 shows these predicted costs as well as a scatter plot of the actual 24 data points. It provides an illustration of how construction costs increase as both free-flow speed and capacity increase. An exception occurs at extremely low capacities combined with high free-flow speeds, situations that are unrealistic and for which we neither have observations nor wish to do simulations. 13 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Figure 1. Contour plot of predicted costs using translog coefficient estimates and scatterplot (in black) of observed data points 75 40 -' cast 70 . $25.30 mil 65- r '-.. � 30 6a - t 25 m 55- ._ - 4 mil - � ` 0 50 x 20 ai u- 45 - 15 4a - 10 35 - x000 4000 0000 0000 loom 12000 1X000 M90 Two-dirsdarrr wp (vW" &MF=s of To estimate the annualized capital cost of building a road, we combine the construction costs (K)from equation (8)with some assumptions on right-of-way acquisition cost(A), the interest rate (r), and the road life in years (A), in order to calculate equation (1). Based on Ng and Small (2012), variable A typically ranges from about 3 to 6 percent of total capital cost for urban areas with a population of 0.2 to 1 million people, and is about 18.3 percent for urban areas with one million people or more.14 Denoting these percentages as x(expressed as a decimal), we can express the right-of-way acquisition cost as a fraction of construction cost:A =K[x/(1-x)]. The annualized capital cost per mile from equation (1) can therefore be rewritten as: P(V"S f)— r-Yn + rx �K(VK,S f) . (9) 1—e 1—x 14 These statements from Ng and Small(2012)are in turn based on cited figures from Alam and Ye(2003)and Alain and Kall(2005). 14 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Given exogenous values of r, A and x, the factor in parentheses on the right-hand side of (9)is a constant, which we denote as x. Taking the natural logarithm of equation (9) and substituting in equation (8) (without the error term)yields: lnp(VK,Sf)=1nx+, , +,8,ln(Sf/Sf)+ 82In(VKIVK)+0.5,1331n(Sf/Sf)2 (10) +0.5,84 ln(VK /VK)2 +,8,ln(S f /S f) ln(VK /VK) Therefore the capital cost elasticities are the same as those from the construction cost function. 4. Speeds and travel times To determine travel times on the road types described in the previous section, we consider four factors: (1)free-flow-speed; (2) slower speeds, based on the HCM speed-flow curves, when traffic flow increases but is still below capacity; (3) control delay due to traffic signals, applicable only to urban streets; and (4) congestion delay from queuing when demand exceeds capacity. The first three components are based on the HCM procedures described in Appendix A. The fourth component of travel time, congestion delay, is based on the bottleneck queuing model, which with some minor modifications is the same as that in Ng and Small (2012) as well as in the first example in Section 2. We assume that the bottleneck occurs at the entry to the road, and there are two time periods for one-directional traffic: a"peak" period of duration P (in hours)with constant demand Vp, and an "off-peak" period of duration F with constant demand V, A queue (assumed to have zero physical length)builds up if demand exceeds capacity VK. The model of Ng and Small assumes that the queue gradually discharges when demand falls below capacity, and so if Vo<VK<Vp, off-peak travelers typically experience some queuing delay. However, this would be inconsistent with the assumptions of the theoretical model in Section 2 where it is assumed that travelers in one time period do not affect the travel times of travelers in other time periods (i.e., user cost, ct, depends only on traffic conditions in time period t and not on those in any other time period). Therefore, when calculating travel times 15 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 in this section we simplify by ignoring the queuing delay experienced by some off-peak travelers; thus off-peak travel times are underestimated when peak volumes exceed capacity. We assume that the road is 10 miles in length, which is close to the average vehicle trip length of 9.72 miles reported in the National Household Travel Survey (Federal Highway Administration 2009, Table 3). The durations of the time periods are assumed to be P 4 hours and F= 12 hours, respectively. (Under our assumptions the value of F does not affect travel time, but it is used later when calculating aggregate travel times for all travelers.) Average travel times incorporating all four components just described are calculated for each of the 24 road types listed in Table 2 at volume-capacity ratios ranging from 0 to 1.5 (at 0.01 increments). This results in a panel dataset with 3,624 observations of average travel time in minutes, avgtt,, , where i indexes road type and j indexes the volume-capacity ratio. We shall refer to these data as the HCM data. However, these calculations depend explicitly on the road type. Noting that the speed function in equation (3) can be expressed in terms of travel time (T)for a road of length L, Tt—L/St, we need travel time to depend only on free-flow speed (Sf) and volume-capacity ratio (v=V/VK)in order to apply the theory developed in Section 2. We therefore seek a functional form that can adequately represent the results of our more detailed calculations. The most realistic fit is obtained using a variation of the function proposed by Ak�elik(1991)for the purpose of representing both normal flow (volume less than capacity) and queued now in a single function, as described by Small and Verhoef(2007, eq. 3.11). The original Ak�elik travel time function is: T = Tf +o.25P (v-1)+ (V_lY V P (11) K where Tf L/Sfis free-flow travel time and Ja is a constant taking on different values depending on the type of road, ranging from 0.1 for freeways to 1.6 for high-friction secondary arterials. The term under the square root provides for a modest increase in travel time with v when v<l, 16 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 and for an increase approaching that from deterministic queuing behind a bottleneck when incoming flow is significantly greater than capacity.15 To fit with our theoretical model, however, the function cannot depend on road type except through Sf, nor can it depend on capacity except through the ratio v--V/VK. We therefore estimate a variant, motivated by two facts: (i)in Ak�elik's derivation, the first term depends on the length of the road L but the second does not since it represents queuing delay at the a single choke point; and (ii) empirically, Sfis positively correlated with(J IVK). The modified Ak�elik function is: T-s= y,P[(v-1)+ (v-1Y +(yz /P)exp()/3 -S f) v� . (12) f We estimate the equation holding constant P=4 hours and L=10 miles, which are the parameters we use to compute the HCM travel times that are the observations in the estimation. Each observation consists of one of our 24 road types and one of 151 values of v distributed evenly between zero and 1.5. Our estimates, using nonlinear least squares, are given in Table 4. We note that our estimate of yi is close to the value of 0.25 derived by Ak�elik on theoretical grounds, as shown in equation (11). Table 4. Estimates of modified Ak�elik function Parameter Estimate Standard error yi 0.2929 0.0010 2/2 126.3 38.0 2/3 -0.1726 0.0085 Note:Based on 3,624 observations.R-squared=0.9866. Figures 2 through 4 compare the predicted travel times from equation (12)with those from which it was fitted (what we call "the HCM procedure," which means the HCM supplemented by our queuing model). They do this for a variety of road types with 12-foot lanes. 15 When the"delay parameter"J,is zero,this equation simplifies to T=Tffor v<_1 and T=Tf+(112)P•[v-1]for v>l. 17 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 For convenience, travel times are given in minutes. Figures 2 and 3 graph these travel times as a function of volume-capacity ratio v, whereas Figure 4 graphs them as a function of free-flow speed Sf. Figure 2. Travel times for selected streets and highways 100 90 80 / in 70 S 60 ... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... d 50 / d 40 L 30 �. d 20 .__ ..: ......... ......... ............. ------ -�.�... . 10 L ...:: ........ ........ . ........ ........ .. ................ ... d a o 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Volume to capacity ratio HCM 4-lane div st: Sf=36.49 mi/h — —HCM 4-lane undiv st: Sf=36.49 mi/h HCM 2-lane hwy: Sf=52.45 mi/h -----Predicted: Sf=36.49 mi/h Predicted: Sf=52.45 mi/h 18 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Figure 3. Travel times for a four-lane divided highway and freeway 90 ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................. 80 ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ., 70 ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... w = 60 d 50 1= 40 2 30 a� 20 ... ca �� > 10 a 0 ..... ........ ....... ........ ........ ........ ........ ....... . ........... 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Volume to capacity ratio HCM 4-lane fwy: Sf=65.5 mi/h HCM 4-lane div hwy: Sf=53.5 mi/h =Predicted: Sf=65.5 mi/h -----Predicted: Sf=53.35 mi/h Figure 4. Travel times as a function of free-flow speed, for selected values of volume-capacity ratio 90 80 x x _- 70 ___- x d 60 .. .. .. .. .. ... E --------- d 40 d a� 30 cc > 20 10 �., .tai 0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Free-flow speed, Sf(mi/h) ❑ HCM: V/V K= 0.3 HCM: V/V K= 0.9 x HCM: V/V K= 1.3 Predicted: V/V K= 0.3 Predicted: V/V K= 0.9 -----Predicted: V/V K= 1.3 19 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 In general, the modified Ak�elik function reproduces the shapes of the relationships quite well, while eliminating the kinks at v=1 that are an unrealistic artifact of the use of different procedures for v<1 and v>l. Especially helpful is that the modified function eliminates the unrealistic non-convexity at v=1 that occurs in our HCM procedure for urban streets, seen in Figure 2. The modified Ak�elik function also captures the feature, arising directly from the HCM, that the travel time function is very flat almost up to v= 1 for higher road types. However, it underestimates travel times for two-lane highways because it interprets their relatively high free-flow speed as indicating a high road type, whereas actually traffic slows noticeably on two- lane highways even for moderate traffic levels. When queuing occurs (e.g., at v =1.3 as seen in Figure 4), predicted travel times are slightly underestimated for urban streets and two-lane highways, and overestimated for multilane highways and freeways. Figures 2 through 4 show that our modified Ak�elik function is convex in both traffic level (v) and free-flow speed (Sf). This guarantees that second-order conditions for cost minimization are met, so we do not need to explicitly derive and calculate values for those conditions. The derivatives of the modified Ak�elik function lead to the following values needed to calculate equations (5c): L Y�YzY3vS f exp0y3S f (L/akEs,sf = TEs sf =__S 2z (13) f (L/a)mecc - v OT = y,Pv 1+ v—1 + )'2 exP(Y3S f) (14) av z 2Pz where vz Z = 1(V—1)2 + Ya P v exp(2'3S f)i . 20 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 The asymptotic slope of(14) is proportional to P,just as for a simple bottleneck.16 5. Numerical results for investment balance We now apply the model to some examples of roads to see under what conditions these roads embody the optimal balance between Sfand VK indicated by equations (5c). In Section 5.1 we consider a wide selection of roads and traffic levels, in order to explore the range of conditions when each type of road is appropriate. In Section 5.2 we look at empirical data to see whether representative roads in various cities would better serve their areas with a different type of design. In Section 5.3, we go further and examine the absolute criteria for investing in capacity or free-flow speed, i.e. equations (5a-b), for the same sample of cities and for a hypothetical example illustrating the possibility of trading off free-flow speed against capacity. 5.1 Sampling the universe of urban road conditions We first consider the investment balance condition for the specific road types we have been analyzing, shown in Table 2. We do so for peak volume-capacity ratios ranging from 0.1 to 1.25, holding constant the peak and off-peak durations (P=4 hours and F=12 hours, respectively), the ratio of peak to off-peak volume (Vp1Vo l.25), and other assumptions taken from Ng and Small (2012).17 We believe these assumptions are relatively favorable to investment in free-flow speed; in particular, many congested cities probably have considerably higher values of Vp/V,.1s 16 As v—oc,the second term in parentheses in(14)approaches 1 while the third term disappears,so that 8T/8V-2 y1P/VK. If yl were equal to 0.25 as in the original Akgelik formula,this would be exactly the asymptotic slope of the average wait through a bottleneck of capacity VK over period P when that capacity is exceeded,as in equation(6). This is why our predicted travel-time curves rise nearly linearly with traffic at high traffic levels in Figures 2 and 3;their slopes are slightly higher than for the"HCM procedure"because our estimate of yl slightly exceeds 0.25. " These are:Peak period(in a given direction)occurs 310 days per year;off-peak period occurs for 12 hours/day on those same 310 days,and also occurs for 16 hours/day on the other 55 days. "According to Hu and Reuscher(2004), 59 percent of all national person trips occur during the twelve off-peak hours defined by 9 a.m.– 1 p.m. and 4-10 p.m. If it is evenly divided in direction,this amounts to about 5 percent of trips per hour on a one-directional roadway.Another 37 percent,or 6 percent per hour,occur within the six peak hours 6-9 a.m. and 1-4 p.m. This would imply a national average peaking ratio of VplV,=6/5=1.2 if the peak trips 21 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Some results are shown in Figure 5 (Appendix C has further details). The thick line shows the left-hand side of equation (5c) (the ratio of construction cost elasticities); whereas the thin and the dashed lines show the right-hand side (the ratio of marginal user costs)for three values of peak volume-capacity ratio (Vp/VK). Incremental investment in Sfis more favorable than investment in VK when the ratio of construction cost elasticities exceeds the ratio of marginal user costs, i.e., when the thick line lies above the thin or dashed line. We can see that when Vp/VK= 0.3, investing in Sfis more beneficial for all types of roads except two-lane urban streets. But under highly congested conditions, as when Vp/VK= 1, investment in Sfis never favored: rather, it is always better at the design stage to sacrifice some free-flow speed in order to increase capacity. The intermediate case where Vp/VK= 0.8 is illuminating. With this level of peak traffic, all the highways and expressways of four lanes or more offer inefficiently high free-flow speeds relative to their capacity; whereas two-lane highways and two-to five-lane urban streets would benefit relatively more from expanding free-flow speed. A corollary is that if peak traffic congestion is at this level and if capacity is being optimized as called for by (4a), then (4b) indicates that the most highways and expressways exhibit over-investment in free-flow speed under the design standards embedded in the Florida cost data. are distributed evenly across directions,or 9/5=1.8 if half of the peak trips are concentrated in one direction (inbound in the morning,outbound in the afternoon). 22 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Figure 5: The investment balance condition (5c) for 24 road types 1.80 1.60 r- 1.40 < 1.20 + t � O 1.00 W 0.80 : 3 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 N ri N ri N ri N ri N ri N ri N ri N ri N ri N ri N ri N ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri to to cc to to to to to to w w w w f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 0.1 61 61 61 Q -2 dA dA Q Q Q -2 dA dA Q Q Q -2 dA dA 0.7 61 Q -2 dD to OA 61 7 7 L L 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 L L cF cF 7 7 L L cF cF 7 7 61 61 61 61 7 7 7 7 61 61 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 61 61 61 61 61 61 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 f6 rr"I fr"I v'I �'I —LHS of eq. 5c RHS of eq. 5c (Vp/VK=0.3) — —RHS of eq. 5c (Vp/VK=0.8) -----RHS of eq. 5c (Vp/VK=1) Note: Investment in Sfis favored relative to that in VK when the LHS (ratio of construction cost elasticities:thick line)exceeds the RHS (ratio of marginal user costs:thin and dashed lines). While these results are computed for a particular ratio of peak to off-peak traffic volume (Vp/Vo 1.25), they are quite insensitive to that ratio.19 As we shall see, however, the analysis of a large discrete change can be more sensitive to this assumed ratio. 19 This is because,as V IV,increases,both the marginal external congestion cost and the average user cost of peak travelers rise relative to those of off-peak travelers;but since one is in the numerator and the other in the denominator of the ratio of marginal user costs,that ratio,which is the right-hand side of(5c),remains relatively constant. The left-hand side of the equation does not depend on traffic volumes at all;thus,the relationship between the two sides of the equation is relatively unaffected. 23 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Figure 6 broadens the computations to a wide range of free-flow speeds and capacities. For each combination of these two investment variables, it displays the "critical traffic level," defined as the maximum value of Vp/VK for which the ratio of construction cost elasticities exceeds the ratio of marginal user costs (a situation favoring investment in free-flow speed relative to that in capacity). In other words, for any given road type, investment balance is realized when peak traffic congestion is described by the critical traffic level; if congestion is less the road is too slow at low flows, whereas if congestion is greater the road is over-invested in free-flow speed. Figure 6. Critical traffic levels for various free-flow speeds and capacities, and scatter plot (in black) of FDOT road types 7a 12 65 • - r r` � 1 + r 0.8 E 55 2L 50 0.6 45 U_ I 0.4 I 4a - � I 35 - I I 2000 4004 4000 4000 14400 12000 14000 Cddcd T -dmMorW a paM PjdM WIN lend Note: The critical traffic level is the maximum VpIVK for which incremental investment in Sf is more favorable than investment in VK,according to equation(5c). It is calculated for 0.5 mi/h increments of free-flow speed and 20 veh/h increments of two-directional capacity. 24 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 In the upper left portion of the figure, with high free-flow speed but low capacity, the critical traffic level is zero: investment in capacity instead of free-flow speed is strongly preferred. As free-flow speeds and capacities rise, in general the critical traffic level increases; for many types of roads, it is between 0.9 and 1.0 (just before queuing begins), which is intuitive because queuing causes the marginal external congestion cost to rise significantly, making the case for capacity investment much more compelling. In the unshaded lower right portion of the figure, the critical traffic level is not calculated but is probably greater than 1.25;20 these are high-capacity roads with low free-flow speed that would strongly benefit from incremental investment in free-flow speed. For the road types in our sample, shown as black dots in the figure, the critical traffic levels range from 0.1 to 0.5 for urban streets of less than five lanes, and from 0.6 to almost 1.0 for all other road types. Corresponding average peak speeds for these critical traffic levels, shown in Appendix C, range from 28 to 36 mi/h for urban streets and two-lane highways, and from 47 to 56 mi/h for multilane highways and freeways. It is apparent that whenever there is substantial peak congestion, a reconfiguration of these roads to extract more capacity at the expense of free-flow speed would be beneficial if it could be done at the design stage. 5.2 Investment balance for typical urban roads in the United States We now examine the investment balance condition for some road conditions observed in US urban areas in 2011. We use the average free-flow speed and average peak speed for "freeways" and"arterials", as compiled by the Schrank et al_ (2012b), for"very large" and "large" urban areas.21 To compute the investment balance condition, we also need to know road capacity and peak volume-capacity ratio. We combine data on road mileage from the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Statistics (2013)with lane-miles data from Schrank et al_ (2012b)to obtain the average number of lanes for freeways and arterials in each urban area and use this to 20 The critical values are not calculated explicitly here because this region violates our model's assumption that VJVK< 1 (i.e.,off-peak volumes do not encounter queuing). 21 These areas are defined as having population more than 3 million and 1-3 million,respectively. The data are from Schrank et al. (2012b),Appendix A,Exhibit A-8. 25 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 estimate capacity, assuming that arterials are equivalent to urban streets with signals (see Appendix C for details). Knowing both free-flow speed and peak speed, we can solve (12) iteratively to determine the peak volume-capacity ratio vp, we then assume vp/vo 1.25, as before, to get the off-peak ratio. Thus, for each urban area we have a representative "average" road (either a freeway or arterial)with unique free-flow speed, capacity, and peak/off-peak volume- capacity ratio; we use this information to calculate the two sides of the investment balance condition (equation [5c]). Note that because our calculations are highly non-linear, the investment balance for a representative road does not necessarily apply to the entire urban area. We present the results of a sample of seven urban areas, chosen to cover most of the range of observed speeds on each road type, in Table 5. 26 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Table 5. Investment balance for average road conditions in seven urban areas, 2011 Very large areas Large areas Los Dallas- St. Jackson- Angeles Fort Miami Miami Boston Denver Louis Ville Freeways: Average no. of lanes 8.7 5.8 6.7 6.4 5.8 6.5 5.8 Free-flow speed,Sf 64.6 64.1 64.0 63.4 62.3 56.0 63.4 (mi/h) Peak speed,Sp(mi/h) 48.6 54 56.7 54.2 50.9 44.4 58.9 Peak volume-capacity 1.016 1.003 0.994 0.999 1.004 0.993 0.976 ratio, VpIVK Ratio of construction 0.95 0.43 0.58 0.54 0.48 0.77 0.45 cost elasticities Ratio of marginal user 2.55 1.67 1.12 1.42 1.66 0.99 0.46 costs Imbalance (+favors -1.60 -1.23 -0.54 -0.88 -1.18 -0.21 -0.01 investment in Sf) Arterials: Average no. of lanes 3.6 3.7 4.6 2.3 3.5 3.2 3.7 Free-flow speed,Sf 43.7 39.1 39.2 36.0 38.0 34.9 43.3 (mi/h) Peak speed,Sp(mi/h) 37.4 33.1 31.7 29.5 32.1 29.8 37.4 Peak volume-capacity 0.811 0.695 0.758 0.639 0.662 0.534 0.788 ratio, VpIVK Ratio of construction 0.13 0.20 0.30 0.06 0.20 0.21 0.15 cost elasticities Ratio of marginal user 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.19 costs Imbalance (+favors -0.08 0.04 0.08 -0.12 0.04 0.08 -0.04 investment in Sf) Note: The imbalance is calculated as the ratio of construction cost elasticities minus the ratio of marginal user costs. Sources: Schrank et al. (2012b),FHWA(2013),and authors' calculations;see text and Appendix C for more details. From Table 5, we can see that the overall picture is that freeways demonstrate an over- investment in free-flow speed relative to capacity, whereas for arterials these two dimensions of investment are quite well-balanced. For example, despite its already high capacity, a representative Los Angeles freeway would benefit more from further capacity expansion than from further investment in free-flow speed, due to heavy congestion (second-lowest peak freeway speed among all urban areas). Peak freeway speed is lowest in St. Louis; but so is its 27 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 free-flow speed, and as a result its investments are much closer to balance although still favoring capacity expansion. To put it differently, the case for giving up some free-flow speed in exchange for more capacity (for example by restriping for narrower lanes)is less strong in St. Louis than in Los Angeles.22 For arterials, the imbalance is generally quite close to zero. The biggest imbalance is in Boston, for which an unusually small average lane width and high congestion imply a relative preference for capacity. In Miami and St. Louis, there is a slightly greater incremental benefit from improving arterial free-flow speeds than for expanding arterial capacity. Increasing free- flow speed for arterials—which here are assumed to be urban streets with signals—need not necessarily imply upgrading to a higher road type, but could involve targeted upgrades to reduce delays from traffic signals. Such upgrades are analyzed by Samuel (2006, ch. 4), who describes a number of innovative intersection designs that improve both free-flow speed and capacity with modest cost and land requirements. Since these improvements also increase capacity, it is unclear without more detailed analysis what their availability implies for investment balance as defined here. 5.3 Absolute investment criteria In addition to examining the relative investment criterion, we can analyze the absolute investment criterion for either capacity or free-flow speed, each holding the other constant. The criteria are contained in equations (4a) and (4b), respectively, or equivalently (5a) and (5b). We summarize by calculating the benefit-cost ratio as the travel time savings from an incremental increase in free-flow speed divided by the corresponding incremental capital cost. From equation (5a), investment in VK is warranted if the benefit-cost ratio exceeds one: zz We perform a sensitivity analysis by assuming P=2 and F=14 instead and reestimating the travel time function. Since there are now fewer vehicles affected by congestion and for a given value of vP,there is also less congestion, many road types now have a higher critical traffic level(defined in Section 5.1),i.e.,there are now more instances where incremental investment in Sf rather than VK is beneficial. As a result,in many urban areas,the freeway imbalance becomes positive though very close to zero,in contrast to the case of P=4 where nearly all of the imbalances were negative;whereas the arterial imbalance is still fairly similar(close to zero).We consider the assumption of P=4 for one-way travel to be more realistic and it is in line with Schrank et al.'s(2012b)definition of peak hours as 6-10 a.m. and 3-7 p.m.,but it is useful to keep in mind that the"balance"for a real road depends quite sensitively on the peaking characteristics. 28 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 B Y q,V, •(mecc) > 1. (15a) C PeP VK Similarly, equation (5b)yields the investment criterion for free-flow speed: B a�gtVrT,��s,sf)t > 1. (15b) C pLEP,Sf The components of these equations can be computed using equations (10), (13), and (14) along with assumptions about amortization, land acquisition, value of time, duration of travel periods, capacities, volume-capacity ratios, and trip length.23 One can alternately view this calculation as the maximum cost multiplier that could justify the investment under consideration, where by "cost multiplier" we mean the incremental cost of expanding either Sf or VK for a given hypothetical project, divided by the corresponding incremental cost as observed in our Florida cost data. Even so, this calculation should not be taken too literally, because it does not account for induced traffic: the tendency of greater capacity to attract new users. As a result, it will exaggerate the benefit-cost ratio that could be achieved in reality, as demonstrated by SACTRA (1994). In addition, we reiterate that we have less confidence in the absolute than in the relative calculations. Table 6 shows the results for the sample of cities already discussed in Section 5.2. Using these figures, the case for investment is strong in both dimensions, in all areas. The variations across cities are not surprising. The case for investment in freeway capacity is extremely strong in Los Angeles, with its low average peak freeway speed, and much less so in relatively uncongested Jacksonville. For arterials, the case for capacity investment is strongest in Boston and weakest in St. Louis. The case for investment in greater free-flow speed is strongest for St. "In addition to the assumptions mentioned in previous sections,we need values for the interest rate(r),lifetime of the road(A)and land acquisition costs as a percentage of total capital cost(x)to calculate p using equation(10). Based on Ng and Small(2012),we set r=0.07,A=25 years and x=0.183 (since the urban areas in our sample have populations of 1 million or more). We use the same value of time per vehicle as Schrank et al. (2012b),namely $16.79/hr,who base their figure on McFarland and Chui's (1987) estimate, updated to 2011 dollars, and on assumed average vehicle occupancy of 1.25. 29 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Louis freeways and Miami arterials, while weakest for Jacksonville freeways and Boston arterials. Table 6. Absolute benefit-cost ratios from incremental investments, assuming Florida capital costs and no induced traffic Very large areas Large areas Los Dallas- St. Jackson- Angeles Fort Miami Miami Boston Denver Louis Ville Freeways: Free-flow speed,Sf 64.6 64.1 64.0 63.4 62.3 56.0 63.4 (mi/h) Capacity, VK(veh/h) 18,519 12,307 14,268 13,616 12,382 13,736 12,322 Capital cost,p (1000 $ 2,789 2,278 2,426 2,356 2,224 2,147 2,256 per year per mi) B/C: incr. invest. in VK 49.2 37.0 23.4 30.8 37.8 25.0 9.4 B/C: incr. invest. in Sf 18.3 9.6 12.0 11.7 10.9 19.6 9.2 Arterials: Free-flow speed,Sf 43.7 39.1 39.2 36.0 38.0 34.9 43.3 (mi/h) Capacity, VK(veh/h) 3,216 3,337 4,284 1,589 3,123 2,751 3,393 Capital cost,p (1000 $ 879 732 810 522 682 563 877 per year per mi) B/C: incr. invest. in VK 8.6 5.9 8.4 11.4 5.6 3.9 7.1 B/C: incr. invest. in Sf 5.4 7.2 11.4 3.8 7.0 6.2 5.7 Note:B/C is the benefit cost ratio from incremental investment in capacity(VK)and free-flow speed(Sf)calculated using equations(15a)and(15b),respectively. Finally, we present an example of a situation where one can trade off an increase in capacity for a decrease in free-flow speed by choosing among two road types. Here we depart from our incremental analysis using continuous functions, and instead perform straightforward cost-benefit calculations. Each calculation considers replacing plans for a standard six-lane freeway by instead building two undivided four-lane highways with below-standard lane widths. The two highways combined are slightly more expensive to build and provide 12 percent more capacity, but at a cost of 26 percent lower free-flow speed. For this example, we assume the freeway would encounter peak travel time of just under 30 minutes for a 10-mile trip, which is 30 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 associated with a peak volume-capacity ratio of 1.15. Having the same number of vehicles distributed evenly across the two highways would give each of these roads a peak volume- capacity ratio of 1.02. Results are shown in Table 7. Using the same peaking assumption as before, that the ratio of peak to off-peak volume is 1.25, building the two highways instead of the freeway saves more than 10 minutes per peak trip, but adds nearly 4 minutes per off-peak trip. Thus, the six-lane freeway is preferred since both its capital cost and total user time cost are lower. However, if we assume instead that Vp/Vo 1.5, i.e., we have the same peak volume as before but there are now fewer vehicles during off-peak hours, then off-peak travel time on the highways increases by just 3.5 minutes relative to that on the freeway and total user time actually decreases. As it happens, the value of this time savings is worth more than the extra capital cost, yielding a benefit-cost ratio of 2.64. Table 7. Example of tradeoff between free-flow speed and capacity VpIV,= 1.25 VpIV,= 1.50 6-lane Two 4-lane 6-lane Two 4-lane freeway undiv hwys freeway undiv hwys (12 ft) (11 ft) (12 ft) (11 ft) Free-flow speed,Sf(mi/h) 67.0 49.9 67.0 49.9 Capacity, VK(veh/h) 12,763 14,339 12,763 14,339 VpIVK 1.15 1.02 1.15 1.02 V,IVK 0.92 0.82 0.76 0.68 Average peak travel time, Tp(min) 29.6 19.0 29.6 19.0 Average off-peak travel time, To (min) 9.1 12.9 9.0 12.5 Capital cost,p (million $per mi) 2.41 2.78 2.41 2.78 Total user time cost(million$per mi) 28.66 29.10 26.29 25.30 Total cost(million$per mi) 31.07 31.88 28.69 28.08 Incremental benefits, B (million $per mi) -0.43 0.99 Incremental capital cost, C(million $per mi) 0.37 0.37 B/C -1.15 2.64 Note: All benefits and costs are per year,and the incremental benefits/capital cost are calculated based on building two four-lane undivided highways instead of one six-lane freeway. 31 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Intuitively, because the two highways offer more total capacity at the expense of free- flow speed, they are beneficial to peak travelers at the expense of off-peak travelers. In general, we would expect that this type of tradeoff would be more favorable to the higher-capacity option when VplV,is high. This example is motivated in part by Samuel (2006), who argues that most US cities have major roads that are too wide and too sparsely spaced. Samuel argues the point from a different perspective, involving the engineering inefficiencies of intersections between very wide roads. Our approach, which recognizes explicitly the tradeoff between the needs of peak and off-peak travelers, thus complements his. While our earlier analysis of investment balance does not strictly apply to this discrete example, it does give some clues. In this example, the "investment balance" for the freeway (not shown in the table) is -4.5 at the higher ratio of peak-to off-peak traffic; that is, at the margin, the freeway offers too high a free-flow speed relative to capacity. The highway, by contrast, is much closer to balance, with value -1.0. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that the freeway investment turns out unfavorable in this case.24 6. Conclusion When free-flow speed is distinguished as an additional dimension of road investment, it becomes possible to analyze some important questions about road design within an optimization framework familiar to economists. Specifically, we can analyze criteria for investment not only in road capacity but in free-flow speed, which effectively means choosing among road types and/or specific design criteria such as lane widths. There is sufficient independence between these two dimensions that one can not only analyze each individually, but consider the optimal balance between them. Empirically, we find that despite the discreteness of road types, it is feasible to approximate the range of possibilities by analytical functions describing capital cost and user time costs as functions of capacity and free-flow speed. Doing so will not answer a specific design question for a specific road, but it is useful for broad-brush analyses of road policy, such as occurs in discussions about what type of road network a city needs. Our empirical analysis 24 However,the investment balance,an incremental criterion,is not nearly as sensitive to Vp V.as is the benefit-cost criterion for this discrete investment example: at Vp V,=1.25,the balance is-3.7 for freeways and-0.8 for arterials. 32 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 provides suggestive evidence that in many large congested cities, standard expressway designs are unbalanced in the sense of providing more free-flow speed than is desirable relative to capacity; whereas the same is not true for urban streets and arterial highways. This observation in turn suggests giving greater attention to the possibilities of more low-footprint roads which offer considerable capacity even though speeds are only moderate even at low traffic levels. There are numerous factors not considered here that would be beneficial to add to this type of analysis. We mention a few here. First, as emphasized by Ng and Small (2012), these design features have implications for safety which are potentially important but not well understood empirically. Furthermore, these safety implications could change dramatically as technologies, social customs, and legal environments evolve. Second, some design features that reduce free-flow speed, such as reduced lane or shoulder widths, would be easier to undertake if large trucks are excluded from the road. Therefore, if one wants to use our analysis to reexamine policy toward road design, it would be a good time to also reexamine policy toward separating trucks and cars onto different roads. Third, a broad policy analysis is likely to affect networks of roads, not just individual roads, which raises the question of how intersections affect costs. Kraus (1981)finds that accounting for the cost of intersections substantially decreases the measured scale economies with respect to capacity, because intersection costs tend to rise more than proportionally to the capacities of the intersecting roads. Whether any similar conclusion would apply for the elasticity of road costs with respect to free-flow speed would be extremely interesting and potentially important to discover. Fourth, applications to particular road investments need to distinguish a finer time pattern of demand, to reduce inaccuracies caused by applying nonlinear relationships to averages. Doing so could also necessitate accounting for demand shifts across times of day. Alternatively, one might consider continuous-time models, such as the "bottleneck model" of Vickrey (1969) and Arnott et al. (1991), which deal with both issues simultaneously. Fifth, our analysis does not include induced demand, i.e., the tendency of a road improvement to attract new traffic. This might well affect investment balance as well as the absolute investment criteria. To analyze this, one would need to have a more microscopic picture 33 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 of induced demand than is common, relating it specifically to increases in average speed by time period. Finally, the potential for road pricing to reduce congestion would substantially change the optimal balance analyzed here, probably in favor of less capacity and more free-flow speed. Thus, our model suggests another potentially important long-run implication of road pricing: changing the nature as well as the capacity of a desirable urban road network. With these and other improvements, we believe our approach to modeling road investment offers the potential for expanding insights and increasingly sophisticated practical analysis, all of which could enhance the efficiency with which roads are provided. 34 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 References Ak�elik, Rahmi, 1991. Travel time functions for transport planning purposes: Davidson's function, its time-dependent form and an alternative travel time function. Australian Road Research 21, pp. 49-59. Alam, Mohammed and David Kall, 2005. Improvement Cost Data: Final Draft Report. Prepared for the Office of Policy, Federal Highway Administration. Alam, Mohammed and Qing Ye, 2003. Highway Economic Requirements System Improvement Cost and Pavement Life: Final Report. Prepared for the Office of Policy, Federal Highway Administration. Arnott, Richard, Andre de Palma, and Robin Lindsey, 1990. Economics of a bottleneck. Journal of Urban Economics 27: 111-130. Federal Highway Administration, 2011. Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf Federal Highway Administration, 2013. Highway Statistics 2011. http://www.fhwa.dot.Gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/ Jansson, Jan Owen, 1984. Transport System Optimization and Pricing. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Hu, Pat S. and Timothy R. Reuscher, 2004. Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf. Keeler, Theodore E. and Kenneth A. Small, 1977. Optimal peak-load pricing, investment, and service levels on urban expressways, Journal of Political Economy 85, 1-25. Kraus, Marvin, 1981. Scale economies analysis for urban highway networks, Journal of Urban Economics, 9, 1-22. Larsen, Odd I., 1993. Road investment with road pricing: Investment criteria and the revenue/cost issue. In: A. Talvitie, D. Hensher, and M. E. Beesley (eds.), Privatization and deregulation in passenger transportation: Second International Conference on Privatization and Deregulation in Passenger Transportation. Espoo, Finland: Viatek Ltd., pp.273-281. Lindsey, Robin and Erik T. Verhoef, 2000. Congestion modelling. In: David A. Hensher and Kenneth J. Button (eds.), Handbook of Transport Modelling. Amsterdam and New York: Pergamon., pp. 353-373.McFarland, William F. and Margaret Chui, 1987. The Value of Travel Time: New Estimates Developed Using a Speed Choice Model. Transportation Research Record, No. 1116, pp. 15-21. Meyer, John R., John F. Kain and Martin Wohl, 1965. The Urban Transportation Problem, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 35 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Mohring, Herbert, 1965. Urban highway investments. In: Robert Dorfman (ed.) Measuring Benefits of Government Investments, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, pp. 231-275. Mohring, Herbert, and Harwitz, Mitchell, 1962. Highway Benefits: An Analytical Framework, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Ng, Chen Feng and Kenneth A. Small, 2012. Tradeoffs among Free-flow Speed, Capacity, Cost, and Environmental Footprint in Highway Design, Transportation, 39, 1259-1280. SACTRA (Standing Committee on Trunk Road Assessment), 1994. Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Samuel, Peter, 2006. Innovative Roadway Design: Making Highways More Likeable. Reason Foundation Policy Study 348. http://reason.or /news/show/innovative-roadway-design Schrank, David, Bill Eisele, and Tim Lomax, 2012a. Adding New Lanes or Roads. h ://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strate„i es pdfs/added-capacity/technical-summary/addingg-nay- lanes-or-roads-4-p . ddf. Schrank, David, Bill Eisele, and Tim Lomax, 2012b. Urban Mobility Report 2012. ht ://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/ Skabardonis, A., and Dowling, R., 1996. Improved speed-flow relationships for planning application. Transportation Research Record 1572, 18-23. Small, Kenneth A., 1992. Urban Transportation Economics. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur Switzerland, now Routledge. Small, Kenneth A., and Verhoef, Eric T., 2007. The Economics of Urban Transportation. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York. Strotz, Robert H., 1965. Urban transportation parables. In: Julius Margolis (ed.), The Public Economy of Urban Communities, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, pp. 127-169. Transportation Research Board (2000)Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. Vickrey, William S., 1969. Congestion theory and transport investment. American Economic Review 59(2): 251-260. Zegeer, John D., Mark Vandehey, Miranda Blogg, Khang Nguyen and Michael Ereti, 2008. Default Values for Highway Capacity and Level of Service Analyses. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 599. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. 36 Small & Ng: Optimizing Road Capacity and Type June 1, 2013 Notation t Index for time periods, t= 1,2,...,n qt Duration of time period t Vt Traffic volume at time t VK Capacity vt Volume-capacity ratio (Vt/VK) Sf Free-flow speed (including control delay at zero traffic volume for urban streets) St Average speed Tt Average user time (entire trip) P Annualized road capital cost(per mile) r Interest rate A Lifetime of road in years L Trip length K(•) Road construction cost(per mile) A(•) Right-of-way acquisition cost(per mile) ct Average user cost per vehicle-mile at time t Ut Total user cost per road-mile per hour at time t C Total agency plus user cost(short run)per road-mile C Total agency plus user cost(long run)per road-mile a Value of time 37 Attachment 6 City of Seal Beach Studebaker Road/College Park Drive Alternative Street and Ramp Configuration July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. ,,,3:8g a.'}'..•p �`. �.h� :� ,�,•,'� f -'`tC*t`:"`�53""ti�a -�"jt�'� j, i� - }1 +y ,�r` � IN 'k7 Mr- �,1fc-it-'�� •_:S: � �-Y� - �. - �yfsta:�I I �,..i � i� ����J"'� — F � r'.. Y• it-mod�, .• \ `,�� I ., ,a •, r J �� r�rr i': r 1�'� � l� � Ty'. �f�� �- �a� • .'1: ti s,�. _�'� of $ VIA �C p L y Mph 3` r o ;` r: - i•, J ' ';i - tw • �;. .rS�.' '-fie ii \Y i_ C Wo o 41 0 ;. L _ Of+�� O c L �\MMMNMM x 0" O W ''. This page intentionally left blank.