October 2016 - Factsheets -- I-605 Corridor “Hot Spots” Projects · 2016-10-24 · FEASIBILITY REPORT Page 1 Metro and GCCOG SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots 1.0 EXECUTIVE

FEASIBILITY REPORT

Page ii Metro and GCCOG SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 PURPOSE OF STUDY ............................................................................................................... 7

2.3 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 STUDY PROCESS / STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................... 8

3.0 Summary of Freeways Congestion Analysis and Improvement Concepts ..................... 11

3.1 IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS A, B AND C .................................................................................... 11

3.2 HOV CONNECTOR RAMP IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS .................................................................. 38

3.3 I-105/ALAMEDA STREET IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT .................................................................... 41

3.4 COST ESTIMATES FOR FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS .......................................................... 41

4.0 Summary of Arterial Intersections Congestion Analysis and Improvement Concepts ... 51

4.1 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 51

4.2 COST ESTIMATES FOR ARTERIAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS ...................................... 55

5.0 Preliminary Environmental Review ............................................................................ 59

5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 59

5.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................... 59

5.3 ANALYSIS APPROACH ........................................................................................................... 59

5.4 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 60

5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION LIKELY REQUIRED ............................................................... 64

5.6 WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................... 65

6.0 Congestion Hot Spot Problem and Improvement Travel Demand Model Analysis ....... 67

6.1 MODEL RUN SUMMARY NOTEBOOK ....................................................................................... 67

6.2 MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 68

6.3 APPLICATION & ASSESSMENT OF OTHER TRAVEL MODEL SCENARIOS ............................................ 69

7.0 Freeways Congestion Hot Spot Problem & Improvement Project Analysis & Definition73

7.1 INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................... 73

7.2 SR-91 WESTBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT PROBLEM ANALYSIS ............................................... 75

7.3 SR-91 WESTBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION................................ 85

7.4 SR-91 EASTBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT PROBLEM ANALYSIS ................................................. 90

7.5 SR-91 EASTBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION ................................. 98

7.6 I-605 NORTHBOUND CONGESTION PROBLEM ANALYSIS ........................................................... 111

7.7 I-605 NORTHBOUND CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION ........................................... 120

7.8 I-605 SOUTHBOUND CONGESTION PROBLEM ANALYSIS ............................................................ 127

7.9 I-605 SOUTHBOUND CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION ............................................ 135

7.10 I-405 NORTHBOUND CONGESTION PROBLEM ANALYSIS ........................................................... 159

FEASIBILITY REPORT

Page iii Metro and GCCOG SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots

7.11 I-405 NORTHBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION ............................. 162

7.12 I-405 SOUTHBOUND CONGESTION PROBLEM ANALYSIS ............................................................ 166

7.13 I-405 SOUTHBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION ............................. 169

7.14 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 177

8.0 Recommended Improvement Projects & Next Steps ................................................ 183

8.1 FREEWAYS ........................................................................................................................ 183

8.2 ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS .................................................................................................... 185

8.3 FUNDING ......................................................................................................................... 185

APPENDICES (Located in Separate Binders)

APPENDIX A: EXISTING FREEWAY LANE SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS

APPENDIX B: CONCEPT A FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS

APPENDIX C: CONCEPT B FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS

APPENDIX D: CONCEPT C FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS

APPENDIX E: HYBRID FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS AND SCHEMATIC LANE DIAGRAMS

APPENDIX F: HOV CONNECTOR CONCEPT PLANS

APPENDIX G: I-105/ALAMEDA STREET CONCEPT PLANS

APPENDIX H: ARTERIAL INTERSECTION CONCEPT PLANS

APPENDIX I: DATA FOR FREEWAY COST ESTIMATES

APPENDIX J: DATA FOR ARTERIAL INTERSECTION COST ESTIMATES

APPENDIX K: FREEWAY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION PLANS

APPENDIX L: ARTERIAL INTERSECTION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION PLANS

APPENDIX M: WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: NB I-605 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL ......................................... 18

TABLE 2: SB I-605 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL .......................................... 20

TABLE 3: EB SR-91 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL ......................................... 22

TABLE 4: WB SR-91 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL........................................ 23

TABLE 5: NB I-405 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL ......................................... 24

TABLE 6: SB I-405 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL .......................................... 25

TABLE 7: NB I-605 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAILS ..................................... 26

TABLE 8: SB I-605 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL ........................................ 28

TABLE 9: WB SR-91 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL ..................................... 30

TABLE 10: EB SR-91 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL ..................................... 31

TABLE 11: NB/WB I-405 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL .............................. 32

TABLE 12: SB/EB I-405 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL ................................ 33

TABLE 13: FUTURE FORECAST 2035 CONNECTOR PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND .................................... 39

TABLE 14: HISTORICAL BID/ESTIMATE PROJECT COST COMPARISONS ...................................................... 45

TABLE 15: FREEWAY CONGESTION HOT SPOTS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARIES .......................................... 50

FEASIBILITY REPORT

Page iv Metro and GCCOG SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots

TABLE 16: “TOP 40” INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED ........................................................................................ 52

TABLE 17: COST ESTIMATES FOR ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS...................................................................... 55

TABLE 18: ARTERIAL INTERSECTION CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL .............................. 56

TABLE 19: FREEWAY CONGESTION HOT SPOT SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............ 179

TABLE 20: SR-91/I-605/I-405 HYBRID CONCEPT GENERAL DESCRIPTION................................................. 180

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................... 10

FIGURE 2: CONCEPT A IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY .................................................................................. 13

FIGURE 3: CONCEPT B IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY .................................................................................. 14

FIGURE 4: CONCEPT C IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY................................................................................... 15

FIGURE 5: I-605 CUMULATIVE CONGESTION ANALYSIS SCORE COMPARISON .......................................... 35

FIGURE 6: SR-91 CUMULATIVE CONGESTION ANALYSIS SCORE COMPARISON ......................................... 36

FIGURE 7: I-405 CUMULATIVE CONGESTION ANALYSIS SCORE COMPARISON .......................................... 37

FIGURE 8: 40 TOTAL INTERSECTIONS SELECTED FOR IMPROVEMENT EVALUATION ................................. 53

FIGURE 9: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR WB SR-91 ..................................................................................... 75

FIGURE 10: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR EB SR-91 ..................................................................................... 90

FIGURE 11: SR-91 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DEFINITION ......................................................................... 103

FIGURE 12: SR-91 2035 NO-BUILD CONGESTION ANALYSIS PLAN (1 OF 7) .............................................. 104

FIGURE 13: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR NB I-605 ................................................................................... 111

FIGURE 14: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR SB I-605 .................................................................................... 127

FIGURE 15: I-605 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DEFINITION .......................................................................... 142

FIGURE 16: I-605 2035 NO-BUILD CONGESTION ANALYSIS PLAN (1 OF 16) ............................................. 143

FIGURE 17: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR I-405 NB .................................................................................. 159

FIGURE 18: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR I-405 SB ................................................................................... 166

FIGURE 19: I-405 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DEFINITION .......................................................................... 172

FIGURE 20: I-405 2035 NO-BUILD CONGESTION ANALYSIS PLAN (1 OF 4) ............................................... 173

FIGURE 21: FREEWAY CONGESTION HOT SPOT SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY MAP (HYBRID CONCEPT) ................................................................................................................................... 182

FIGURE 22: FREEWAY CONGESTION AREA PSR-PDS SUMMARY MAP ...................................................... 186

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots Freeway Congestion Analysis Report

SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots Arterial Intersection Congestion Analysis Report

SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots Multi-Modal Analysis Report

SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots Model Run Summary Notebook

Includes SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots Final Travel Demand Model Methodology and

Validation Report

Gateway Cities Transportation Strategic Plan – Phase I

FEASIBILITY REPORT

Page 1 Metro and GCCOG SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In November 2008, Measure R was approved by a significant two-thirds majority, committing a projected $40 billion to traffic relief and transportation upgrades throughout Los Angeles County over the next 30 years. Metro has committed to the delivery of $7.2 billion in highway improvements as a significant component of the Measure R program, with $590 million specifically identified for improvements within the Gateway Cities SR-91/I-605/I-405 area. The SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots Feasibility Report (Feasibility Report) has been prepared to achieve four principle objectives:

1. Identify freeway and arterial transportation projects that most effectively reduce existing and forecast congestion in the SR-91/I-605/I-405 corridor (See Figure 1);

2. Develop a recommended hybrid master plan of proposed freeway improvement concepts to identify congestion “hot spots” freeway improvement projects that can deliver the maximum benefit with a good cost/benefit assessment;

3. Recommend freeway transportation improvement projects for immediate advancement to the first phase of the formal Caltrans project development process, the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase; and

4. Provide Metro and the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) a long-range transportation planning and project development management tool.

To achieve these objectives, the Feasibility Report executed the following analytical steps:

1. Use of Geometric Plan Concepts: The direction (guiding principles) of the Corridor Cities Committee of elected officials with respect to the freeway was to improve the freeways but stay within the existing State R/W. Therefore, as a starting point geometric plans for the freeways in the study area were developed as follows.

Concept A: Conceptual geometric improvements plans were developed that added (1) general purpose lane in each direction for each study corridor. Concept A geometry was analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology providing 2035 Level of Service (LOS) results. No-Build and Concept A 2035 HCM LOS results were analyzed and compared; existing accident areas assessed; existing speed profiles from PeMS reviewed; and geometric deficiencies evaluated to formulate ideas on further refinement for Concept B

Concept B: Freeway corridor locations that resulted in limited congestion relief with the Concept A improvements were further evaluated for congestion relief strategies. Concept B conceptual geometric improvement plans were developed building upon the Concept A geometry. Concept B geometry was analyzed using

FEASIBILITY REPORT


HCM methodology providing 2035 LOS results. No-Build, Concept A and Concept B 2035 HCM LOS results were analyzed and compared; existing accident areas assessed; existing speed profiles from PeMS reviewed; and geometric deficiencies evaluated to formulate ideas on further refinement for Concept C.

Concept C: Freeway corridor locations that continued to show opportunities for further congestion relief were further evaluated. Concept C conceptual geometric improvement plans were developed building upon both Concept A and Concept B geometry effectively creating a hybrid of all recommended geometric improvement concepts. Concept C geometry was analyzed using HCM methodology providing 2035 LOS results. No-Build, Concept A, Concept B and Concept C 2035 HCM LOS results were analyzed and compared; existing accident areas assessed; and existing speed profiles from PeMS reviewed. In select locations where studied freeway improvements were determined to be of limited value to congestion relief, Concept A and/or Concept B freeway improvements were removed from Concept C, thereby reflecting the existing freeway facility or no-build condition.

Traffic models were prepared and run to analyze the effectiveness of these proposed concept improvements. Meetings were then held with the TAC members to review, provide input and comments and to finalize these concepts. These geometric plan concept improvements were used to systematically assess traffic operations improvements and reduction in the levels of congestion compared to 2035 No-Build results.

2. Confirmation of the Congestion “Hot Spots” & “Root Cause” Analysis: Each of the congestion “hot spots” for the existing and no-build alternative were identified, located and quantified using all of the congestion and accident analyses contained in the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Freeway Congestion Analysis Report (Congestion Analysis Report). The magnitude and specific congestion characteristics of these “hot spots” were quantified through a comprehensive comparison and contrast of all the traffic analysis results contained in the Congestion Analysis Report (Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service (LOS), volume to capacity, Caltrans PeMS data, and accident data). For each congestion “hot spot” location, a map and congestion explanation was prepared outlining the following:

Type, characteristic, “root cause” and specific details of the congestion problem;

Limits and logical terminus of the congestion problem area; and

Contribution (exacerbation) of adjacent congestion problem areas on the congestion area being examined.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


3. Effectiveness Analysis of Improvement Concepts: An effectiveness analysis of the freeway improvement concepts (Concepts A, B and C) was performed to determine how each concept improves (or provides a solution for) the specific congestion problem area, and the magnitude (or extent) of the congestion improvement. The magnitude (or extent) of the improvement will be based upon the following elements: 1) the effectiveness (as specific as possible) of the “solutions”, 2) the volume of traffic that benefits from the improvement, 3) improvement of a high accident location, 4) complete or partial improvement of the congestion problem, 5) interaction of this congestion problem with those of adjacent congestion problem areas, 6) cost of congestion problem solution, and 7) qualitative cost/benefit analysis.

4. Preparation of Preliminary Cost Estimates: Preliminary cost estimates were prepared for Concepts A, B, and C, which provide a breakdown of cost data in terms of roadway, bridge structures and right of way. The preliminary cost estimates were developed by freeway corridor and by segment within each freeway corridor to estimate rough order of magnitude cost estimates of individual component parts of the freeway corridors. A general assessment of costs (qualitative costs/benefits) was performed in relation to congestion improvement benefit for the specific congestion problem areas described in Section 7.

5. Application of Other Traffic Model Run Scenarios: Model runs and HCM analyses have been performed for 2035 No-Build, and Concepts A, B and C within the Congestion Analysis Report. Model runs without detailed HCM studies have also been completed for other scenarios which combine the geometric improvements with a series of multi-modal improvements. A comprehensive summary of these analyses is provided in the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Freeway Congestion Hot Spots Traffic Model Summary Notebook. Those model run results provide quantitative data available for comparative analysis of the corridor improvement Concepts assuming other transportation programs and projects within; through or adjacent to the project study area. The other model runs and associated data compiled as part of the Congestion Analysis Report were used to support qualitative assessments of future congestion hot spots in specific locations. In many locations, the choice of the geometric improvement will not necessarily be affected by the results of the other model runs – the geometric improvement is mostly needed with or without the other multi-modal improvements. However, in other locations the other model runs were consulted as needed to assess the need for specific improvements. The information for the other transportation programs and projects that were used in the traffic models was obtained from the Gateway Cities Transportation Strategic Plan - Phase I. This is a compilation of all the planned or known transportation projects that are in or go through Gateway Cities.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


6. Recommended PID Project Development Packages: The previous steps were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the proposed improvements from each concept and determine which "portions" of each concept to recommend for the "hybrid" improvement master plan for review by the 605 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and 605 Corridor Cities Committee (CCC). From this "hybrid" geometric plan for all three corridors, individual congestion hot spot "relief" projects were developed and then analyzed together. This analysis was then used to develop a list of recommended projects for PID project development packages based upon the following key elements:

Specific congestion “hot spots” locations;

“Root causes” for congestion problem areas;

Effectiveness of improvements concepts (from Concepts A, B and C);

Magnitude of the problem that is improved;

General qualitative cost to improvement benefit assessment;

Qualitative assessment of affects of other available traffic model runs; and

Overall freeway concept (hybrid)

The recommended PID-phase project development packages include:

SR-91/I-605 (Congestion PSR No. 1 on Figure 22); and

I-605/I-105/I-5 (north to the Gateway Cities boundary) (Congestion PSR No. 2 on Figure 22).

The PID for each of these packages will be a Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) as defined by Appendix S of the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual. The estimated total project cost to improve the three freeway concepts and the combined hybrid concept are as follows:

Concept A: $1.9 billion

Concept B: $2.8 billion

Concept C: $ 2.7 billion

Hybrid: $2.2 – 2.8 billion Measure R only provides $590M for these improvements, which is well short of the total project costs. Also, these costs do not include the 33 initial arterial intersection improvements, which have a total estimated project cost for all these intersections of $77.1 million.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


The Transportation Strategic Plan- Phase I - includes a list of, and analysis of, potential funding sources. A financing plan to access these funding sources (and any subsequent ones) will be developed from the forthcoming Transportation Strategic Plan - Phase II. For now, the TAC and the CCC will be requested to select the initial list of congestion relief "hot spots" projects (both freeway and arterial highway intersections) to move forward with into the PID project development process for more detailed planning, environmental analysis and/or initial design.

7. Additional Studies: In addition to the freeway corridor, additional studies and traffic analysis were conducted for HOV carpool lane connections as follows:

I-605 SB to SR-91 EB

SR-91 WB to I-605 NB

I-605 NB to I-105 WB

I-105 EB to I-605 SB

I-605 NB to SR-60 EB

SR-60 WB to I-605 SB Based on traffic modeling results for the preceding HOV carpool lane connections, geometric plans were prepared for the following HOV connectors with the most significant volume (See Appendix F):

SR-91/I-605/I-105 (from east of I-605 on SR-91)

I-605/I-105 (from south of I-105 on I-605) Conceptual geometric plans were prepared to illustrate right of way (R/W) impacts for these HOV carpool lane connections relative to creating a wider geometric footprint for accommodating these potential HOV carpool lane connectors. These HOV carpool lane connectors are not included in the Concept A, B or C plans, but will be evaluated for incorporation at a later date.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 BACKGROUND

The I-605 Congestion “Hot Spots” Feasibility Analysis is a corridor improvement planning effort that built on all of the previous study investments made by Metro and the Gateway Cities COG. The need for I-605 corridor planning was initially identified in 2005 within the I-710 Major Corridor Study, which cited that as many as 1,000 trucks per hour could be traveling north on the I-710 in the proposed truck lanes and then heading east on the SR-91. Recognizing this as a significant mobility issue, the Gateway Cities COG launched the SR-91/I-605 Needs Assessment Study, which formally initiated the planning effort momentum. The SR-91/I-605 Needs Assessment Study was significant in that it confirmed continued and substantial growth in general purpose, carpool and truck volumes for both the SR-91 and I-605 freeways due to the combination of increasing population for Southern California and increasing cargo volumes at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The study yielded the critical conclusion that congestion reduction combined with congestion management was needed for both the freeways and arterial highways to deal with the increasing traffic volumes. The study also identified that the SR-91 and I-605 freeways have many existing design, capacity and operational deficiencies that should be addressed on both a near-term and long-term basis through a combination of capacity/operational improvements and implementation of an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategy. Also critical to effort would be expansion of the planning coordination between the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Metro for needed improvements of I-405. With the planning foundation firmly established, the Gateway Cities COG committed to maintaining the momentum by initiating the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Initial Corridor Studies, which was required for a more focused evaluation of the freeways. The SR-91/I-605/I-405 Initial Corridor Studies prepared in 2007 included an update of the traffic model results from the SR-91/I-605 Needs Assessment Study, identified the transportation system congestion hot-spots, and developed the ITS Integration Plan. Initial freeway improvement concepts and associated right of way constraints were developed and city consultation process was initiated, which very importantly yielded the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Guiding Principles approved by the Gateway Cities COG Board of Directors in 2007 (see Section 2.2). Similar to the SR-91/I-605 Needs Assessment Study, it was concluded that significant growth in traffic volumes were going to generate severe congestion hot-spots throughout the Gateway Cities corridor and that substantial transportation system improvements would be necessary to mitigate the capacity and operational deficiencies. Further, added insight was developed as to the physical and community constraints on how future improvement projects would be delivered. The SR-91/I-605/I-405 Initial Corridor Studies provided a foundation for understanding the mobility demands of the three freeway corridors, the complete range of

FEASIBILITY REPORT


multi-modal improvement needs, and how the improvement projects should be shaped to accommodate the needs and concerns of the Gateway Cities. In addition to the previous Gateway Corridor Studies the following studies were used as a part of this study:

I-710 Major Corridor Study (MCS)

I-710 EIR/EIS

I-5 EIR/EIS (I-605 south to county line)

I-5 EIR/EIS (I-605 to I-710)

Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

SR-60 Car-pool Addition

Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan & Implementation Strategy

Orange and Los Angeles Intercounty Transportation Study

Orangeline Studies

ITS Integration Plan for Goods Movement

2.2 PURPOSE OF STUDY

There are 15 separate communities in the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Corridor (see Figure 1) and each has unique needs, concerns, and culture of community involvement and consultation. There are also similarities regarding certain concerns – such as impact of future freight growth on mobility, air quality and economic viability of the individual communities, potential property impacts for any freeway widenings and the Gateway Cities as a whole. In order to address community concerns in advance of engineering studies that were prepared as part of this Feasibility Study, the Gateway Cities SR-91/I-605/I-405 Guiding Principles that were developed and unanimously endorsed and adopted by the Gateway Cities COG Board of Directors on November 1, 2007 were considered throughout preparation of the Feasibility Study:

Confine new freeway construction (including adding lanes) to existing State right of way in order to preserve and enhance local economies and environments. New construction will not involve double-decking on any part of the freeway.

Address freeway operational deficiencies, relieve freeway congestion “hotspots” and decrease the impact of truck bypass traffic on communities as soon as possible.

Secure funding for major corridor studies and improvements as soon as possible without affecting the funding for the I-5 or I-710 Freeway improvements.

Support a separate freight movement corridor provided it is evaluated and constructed along non-freeway (e.g., rail or utility) alignments using minimally or non-polluting technologies.

Implement additional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements in the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Corridor and advocate a broader regional approach to support this initiative.

Continue Metro/OCTA/GCCOG inter-county transportation planning efforts.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Collaborate with SGVCOG to engage Metro in immediate development of Los Angeles County Goods Movement Strategy.

Aggressively advocate with all responsible agencies to preserve and enhance health and quality of life in the corridor.

Engage corridor cities in an ongoing process of city consultation and interactive communication.

2.3 STUDY AREA

The overall study area is shown on Figure 1 at the end of this section and includes the I-605 from SR-60 to I-405, SR-91 from west of I-710 to the Orange County/Los Angeles County boundary and I-405 from south of the Cherry Street interchange to I-605.

2.4 STUDY PROCESS / STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

The first work element in the Feasibility Study was traffic model development and model projections for existing, no-build and future conditions. Essential to this effort was the establishment of a well-founded model baseline. A comprehensive traffic data research effort was prepared at the beginning of the study which included compilation of existing traffic and accident data. This data was then supplemented with an extensive traffic count program that is documented in the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots Final Travel Demand Model Methodology and Validation Report. Concurrent with this work effort on the area wide traffic analysis, base information of freeway facilities was compiled including aerial photography, right of way and schematic lane diagrams. An initial corridor wide traffic analysis was conducted to validate the model for existing conditions and also identify existing congestion “hot spots”. A model run was conducted for the year 2035 for the study area that included committed projects but no additional improvements to the freeway system. This analysis was used to identify long range congestion hot spots. Conceptual geometric improvement plans were developed by means of an interactive approach between the project team transportation operation engineers and the highway designers. This interactive process resulted in 3 basic scenarios for study area improvements described as follows:

Concept A – One lane mainline addition throughout study area.

Concept B – Additional mainline improvements based upon deficiencies remaining after Concept A improvements.

Concept C – Additional mainline and interchange improvements based upon deficiencies remaining after Concept B improvements. Concept C also includes elements of Concept A and No-Build which generally yields a hybrid of improvements that provide a balanced, cost effective approach to corridor improvements.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Corridor-wide improvements were then evaluated with respect to environmental issues, costs, and operations and then grouped into logical project segments that would improve or eliminate identified congestion hot spots as presented in Section 7.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA

FEASIBILITY REPORT

Page 11

Metro and GCCOG SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots

3.0 SUMMARY OF FREEWAYS CONGESTION ANALYSIS AND IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

3.1 IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS A, B AND C

The Congestion Analysis Report established the future congestion baseline for the No-Build scenario for the SR-91/I-605/I-405 freeway corridors. Utilizing that analysis, three corridor improvement concepts (A, B & C) were developed, in sequence, to systematically assess traffic operation improvements and reduction in the levels of congestion. In general terms, the development of the corridor improvement concepts took the following incremental steps:

Concept A: Conceptual geometric improvements plans were developed that added (1) general purpose lane in each direction for each study corridor. Concept A geometry was analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology providing 2035 Level of Service (LOS) results. No-Build and Concept A 2035 HCM LOS results were analyzed and compared; existing accident areas assessed; existing speed profiles from PeMS reviewed; and geometric deficiencies evaluated to formulate ideas on further refinement for Concept B.

Concept B: Freeway corridor locations that resulted in limited congestion relief with the Concept A improvements were further evaluated for congestion relief strategies. Concept B conceptual geometric improvement plans were developed building upon the Concept A geometry. Concept B geometry was analyzed using HCM methodology providing 2035 LOS results. No-Build, Concept A and Concept B 2035 HCM LOS results were analyzed and compared; existing accident areas assessed; existing speed profiles from PeMS reviewed; and geometric deficiencies evaluated to formulate ideas on further refinement for Concept C.

Concept C: Freeway corridor locations that continued to show opportunities for further congestion relief were further evaluated. Concept C conceptual geometric improvement plans were developed building upon both Concept A and Concept B geometry effectively creating a hybrid of all recommended geometric improvement concepts. Concept C geometry was analyzed using HCM methodology providing 2035 LOS results. No-Build, Concept A, Concept B and Concept C 2035 HCM LOS results were analyzed and compared; existing accident areas assessed; and existing speed profiles from PeMS reviewed. In select locations where studied freeway improvements were determined to be of limited value to congestion relief, Concept A and/or Concept B freeway improvements were removed from Concept C, thereby reflecting the existing freeway facility or no-build condition.

Figures 2 through 4 illustrate the general type and limit of improvements for Concepts A, B and C. The developed improvement concepts also reflect design inputs obtained from the SR-91/I-605/I-405 TAC cities through a series of four Sub-TAC meetings during the months of

FEASIBILITY REPORT

Page 12


February, March, May and July 2012. At these meetings, the corridor improvement concepts were presented to the TAC members and refinements discussed, modified and/or included.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 2: CONCEPT A IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 3: CONCEPT B IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 4: CONCEPT C IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY

FEASIBILITY REPORT


To establish and evaluate congestion “hot spots” in the Congestion Analysis Report, a cumulative congestion analysis scoring methodology for the No-Build scenario was developed, presented and used. For Concepts A, B and C, a similar but modified methodology was developed to generate “adjusted” cumulative congestion analysis scores to reflect the anticipated changes in congestion areas. The key sets of analyses include:

1. Performance Measurement System (PeMS) results (existing conditions) 2. 2035 No-Build Highway Capacity Manual analysis results 3. 2035 No-Build Travel Demand Model Results 4. Existing accident locations requiring further investigation

Tables 1 through 6 present a summary of the results of the combined congestion analysis for the four key 2035 scenarios: No-Build, Concept A, B, and C. The tables provide concept improvement descriptions and summarizes three critical sets of analysis results:

Accident analysis AM/PM cumulative congestion analysis score for No-Build, Concepts A, B and C AM/PM 2035 HCM LOS for No-Build, Concepts A, B and C

For the purposes of combining the various analyses into a single “adjusted cumulative congestion analysis score” for Concepts A, B and C, the No-Build scoring methodology was followed with the following modifications:

1. PeMS Results – under 35 mph = 3 points, 35 to 45 mph = 2 points, 45 to 55 mph = 1 point, over 55 mph = zero points / Modification: If either HCM LOS or Model LOS (or both) improved by one or more LOS level, the speed was assumed to improve one category and one point was removed. If the “new” LOS values went in opposite directions (i.e., Model may have improved one LOS value and HCM may have degraded one LOS value), the PeMS score was not changed.

2. HCM and Travel Model LOS Results – LOS F = 3 points, LOS E = 2 points, LOS D = 1 point, LOS A through C = zero points / Modification: No modification was made since the same scale was used for scoring and the “new” (Concept A, B or C) LOS values were used to determine the score.

3. Accident Locations Requiring Further Investigation Results (55 locations generally 30% or greater than the statewide average) – Yes for further investigation location = 3 points, No = zero points / Modification: Same scale was used. If there was a geometric improvement for a given segment, it was assumed to change from YES to NO and the score moved from 3 to zero. If no geometric improvement was proposed, then no change in score.

The points were then totaled for each freeway analysis segment and the highest point totals represent the segments with the highest congestion problems and need for improvement. The “Congestion Score” point totals range from zero for the best scoring segments up to 12 for the

FEASIBILITY REPORT


highest (worst) scoring segments. For purposes of this summary, point totals of 6 and higher are shaded to demonstrate the segments with the overall greatest congestion problems, representing the areas that are most in need of detailed review for improvements. Tables 7 through 12 present a summary of LOS results through each of the freeway system to system interchanges on the studied corridors. This includes the I-605/SR-91; I-605/I-105; I-605/I-5; I-605/SR-60; SR-91/I-710 and I-405/I-605. For the I-405/I-605 interchange, OCTA is preparing a separate Project Report/Environmental Document to add one or two lanes (various alternatives for Express Lanes and/or mainline widening) in each direction. These tables highlight the LOS for the various weaving segments and ramp merge/diverge points through the system interchange starting and ending at the adjacent arterial interchanges on each side of the system interchange for No-Build and Concepts A, B and C. Notes/comments are included for certain segments to summarize special comparison information for No-Build and Concepts A, B and C.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 1: NB I-605 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 1 (CONT.): NB I-605 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 2: SB I-605 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 2 (CONT.): SB I-605 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 3: EB SR-91 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 4: WB SR-91 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 5: NB I-405 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 6: SB I-405 FREEWAY CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 7: NB I-605 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAILS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 7 (CONT.): NB I-605 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 8: SB I-605 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 8 (CONT.): SB I-605 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 9: WB SR-91 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 10: EB SR-91 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 11: NB/WB I-405 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 12: SB/EB I-405 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE CONGESTION ANALYSIS LOS DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Figures 5 through 7 present a graphical comparison of the AM peak hour and PM peak hour cumulative congestion analysis scores for 2035 No Build and Concepts A, B and C as documented in the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots Freeway Congestion Analysis Report. The effectiveness of these figures are their ability to clearly show freeway locations that are most benefiting from the proposed freeway improvements through significant congestion reduction. Each figure reflects preliminary limits of freeway segments that show significant congestion reduction and would be target locations for freeway improvements. While the cumulative congestion analysis score figures are representative of a largely quantitative evaluation process, qualitative judgment is also a key component of this analysis. As such, minor variations in the analysis results are observable; however this does not undermine the validity of the results in identifying locations of severe congestion and the operational benefits associated with the proposed freeway improvements shown for Concepts A, B and C. Of special note are the following key points:

1. Cumulative congestion analysis results for SR-91 west of I-710 are not included for the Concept A scenario as this area was not included in the project study area at the time this scenario was being evaluated.

2. Geometric improvement Concepts A, B and C should not be viewed as three separate and distinct alternatives. Rather, it was the project team’s approach to start with Concept A as the baseline improvement, assess its performance, and then improve upon it as necessary to achieve acceptable levels of service in Concept B. In some locations, Concept A improvements were adequate and were not modified in Concept B. This process was again repeated as Concept B was refined in Concept C. Ultimately, Concept C reflects a set of freeway improvements as a hybrid of all three geometric alternatives, including the existing freeway facility or no-build condition where applicable.

3. In various locations, the cumulative congestion analysis scores between Concepts A, B and C show only minor differences. The principle reason for this is that additional improvements, beyond those proposed in Concept A, were deemed unnecessary, and those improvements remained unchanged in Concepts B and C generally yielding the same operational performance.

4. In various locations, the cumulative congestion analysis score of Concepts A, B and C are nominally higher than the score for the 2035 No Build scenario. The principle reason for this is typically a redistribution of higher traffic volumes to those freeway segments due to freeway capacity improvements that draw higher traffic volumes to the freeway for Concepts A, B and C compared to 2035 No Build.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 5: I-605 CUMULATIVE CONGESTION ANALYSIS SCORE COMPARISON

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 6: SR-91 CUMULATIVE CONGESTION ANALYSIS SCORE COMPARISON

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 7: I-405 CUMULATIVE CONGESTION ANALYSIS SCORE COMPARISON

FEASIBILITY REPORT


3.2 HOV CONNECTOR RAMP IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

An analysis was performed to assess the performance of a potential SR-91/I-605/I-105 HOV connector system, using data from the Gateway Cities SR-91/I-605/I-405 project travel demand model. The system was reviewed at the following locations:

SR-91 to I-605

I-605 to I-105

I-605 to SR-60 Traffic model runs were developed to assess how these HOV connector ramps would operate. Based on those results the following HOV connector locations were evaluated further with conceptual geometric plans:

WB SR-91 to NB I-605

SB I-605 to EB SR-91

NB I-605 to WB I-105

EB -105 to SB I-605

NB I-605 to EB SR-60

WB SR-60 to SB I-605 The HOV connector ramps at the SR-91/I-605/I-105 location can be generally described as follows:

SR-91 widens out to a 4 lane HOV in the vicinity of Pioneer to allow for start of elevated connector

A 2 lane connector elevates from SR-91 to I-605

I-605 widens out to a four lane HOV in the Alondra vicinity to allow for the 2 lane connector join

I-605 is 4 lane HOV up to elevated 2 lane connector in the Rosecrans/105 area to allow for weaving for 605/105 HOV

A 2 lane connector elevates from I-605 to I-105

I-105 widens out to a 4 lane HOV to allow for I-105 connector join.

I-105 4 lane HOV merges to existing 2 lane HOV (if it was an HOT facility then it would continue as a 4 lane HOT rather than merging – for the purpose of this Feasibility Report at this time it was only evaluated as an HOV).

The system allows for vehicles to connect directly between I-105 and SR-91 via I-605. This system would provide for operational efficiencies by improving operational bottleneck issues at the SR-91/I-605 and I-605/I-105 interchanges by reducing mainline general purpose ramp connector volumes and shifting volume into the HOV system. Weaving between the HOV lane on SR-91 east of I-605 and the mainline connector ramps would be eliminated for HOV traffic. Likewise, weaving on I-105 between the HOV lanes and the mainline connector ramps for

FEASIBILITY REPORT


activity to and from the south would be eliminated from the mainline and connector ramps. Weaving activity currently degrades peak period operations of the SR-91, I-605 and I-105 facilities. The HOV system identified above would provide for a direct connection for HOV activity between the heart of Orange County and Downtown Los Angeles. Existing connectors between I-5 to SR-91 and I-110 and I-105 would indicate that the HOV system between SR-91, I-605 and I-105 may be a logical component to close the gap in the regional HOV system network. Table 13 presents 2035 HOV and total vehicle volumes that are forecast to utilize the existing general purpose lane freeway to freeway connectors under future year No-Build project conditions. A key conclusion from the data presented in the table is that the HOV demand between I-605 and I-105 is much higher than HOV demand between I-605 and SR-91 (approximately two times higher HOV peak period volumes projected between I-605/I-105 than I-605/SR-91). HOV volumes that are forecast to use the existing mainline connectors under 2035 conditions reach up to approximately 45% of the mainline connector volumes between I-605 and I-105. The highest evening peak hour HOV volume forecast on the connectors is 1,200 vehicles, close to the maximum allowable connector volume of 1,500 for a 2-lane connector (1-lane each direction). While 100% of this volume may not be able to utilize the HOV system due to specific travel patterns and the potential that the HOV system will not serve a local interchange that users must access, the inference can be made that a large proportion of the HOV traffic on these connectors is likely to shift into an HOV system if it is implemented. The evening peak hour HOV volumes at SR-91 range from approximately 400 to 600 vehicles. Based on the future No-Build forecasts, it may be difficult to justify the connector at SR-91 due to potential underutilization of these particular HOV connectors. However, implementation of the connectors may increase demand for the overall HOV system, thereby increasing the HOV activity between SR-91 and I-605.

TABLE 13: FUTURE FORECAST 2035 CONNECTOR PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DEMAND

Connector AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

HOV Total % HOV HOV Total % HOV

I-605 SB to SR-91 EB 350 1,400 25% 400 1,400 29%

SR-91 WB to I-605 NB 200 1,500 14% 600 1,800 33%

I-605 NB to I-105 WB 600 2,400 26% 1,100 2,500 44%

I-105 EB to I-605 SB 1,050 2,700 39% 1,200 2,900 42%

Allowing at-grade access from I-605 into the elevated HOV connector structures to both SR-91 and I-105 further increases local and regional mobility and expands the market of users for the HOV system. The at-grade access on I-605 between I-105 and SR-91 also provides direct HOV system access from coastal Orange County communities to Downtown Los Angles with the HOV connectors soon to be completed at I-405 and I-605. Table 13 reveals that HOV demand exists

FEASIBILITY REPORT


on the I-605 corridor that does not necessarily come from the SR-91 corridor (as noted the HOV volumes are much higher at I-105 than at SR-91). During the morning peak hour, approximately 200 HOV vehicles are forecast on the SR-91 westbound to I-605 northbound connector while the subsequent connection from I-605 northbound to I-105 westbound is approximately 600 vehicles. It is unlikely many of the 600 vehicles access the I-605 corridor from SR-91 west of I-605 as these vehicles would be backtracking if they then take the I-605 connector to westbound I-105. Therefore, while some of the 600 HOV vehicles using the I-605 northbound to I-105 westbound connector come from SR-91 east of I-605, many come from I-605 south of SR-91. This could be due to the new I-605 HOV connection with I-405 that the travel demand model takes into consideration. Central Orange County HOV users likely are forecast to take the I-5 corridor to Downtown Los Angeles since a comprehensive HOV network between Orange County and Downtown Los Angeles does not exist. Implementation of the full HOV system by connecting SR-91 with I-105 via the HOV system would likely pull demand from other corridors (notably I-5) onto this system thereby improving local and regional traffic operations. As noted, consideration must be given to the fact that if such an HOV system were implemented connecting SR-91 and I-105, additional traffic demand would be attracted to the facility due to the regional connectivity provided by a comprehensive HOV system connecting Orange County with Downtown Los Angeles. In addition, as congestion increases region-wide, additional carpools are likely to be formed and with continued job growth in Downtown Los Angeles, access to downtown will continue to increase. An HOV system that provides a more reliable commute travel time should attract additional users. This HOV analysis is based on a general assessment utilizing available data from the SR-91/I-605/I-405 travel demand model. More precise modeling techniques utilizing select link analysis would be required in a subsequent project development phase to better assess the HOV volumes that may be realized, along with appropriate HOV connector movements. In addition, a previous Technical Memo prepared by the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Consultant Team for a conceptual evaluation of HOT lane facilities in the area also provided key conceptual findings that would also need to be jointly taken into consideration from a technical, as well as a policy, standpoint. Traffic model runs or analysis were not performed for the potential I-605 to SR-60 HOV connector ramps. The geometric plan was prepared to show how this pair of HOV connector ramps would fit in with the proposed other improvements to the SR-60/I-605 interchange. Decisions whether to build this pair of HOV connector ramps is a regional decision to be evaluated and made by other agencies. Conceptual geometric plans were prepared for HOV connectors for three scenarios: SR-91/I-605/I-105, I-605/I-105 and I-605/SR-60. These plans are presented in Appendix F. These concepts were prepared to illustrate impacts to right of way relative to creating a wider geometric footprint for accommodating the potential HOV connectors. These connectors are not included as part of the traffic analysis and geometric plans for Concepts A, B and C. Further study of the HOV connectors will be evaluated in the subsequent project development phase.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


3.3 I-105/ALAMEDA STREET IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT

The City of Compton views Alameda Street as a critical entry arterial into the city from I-105. To enhance direct access to the downtown city area, the City of Compton requested the Project Team develop a full service interchange concept at Alameda Street and I-105. The concept plan is provided in Appendix G. Traffic analyses were not performed for this concept at this time.

3.4 COST ESTIMATES FOR FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

Cost Estimating Methodology for Freeway Improvements

A lane-mile cost estimating methodology for freeway improvements has been developed and will serve as the basis for the preparation of project cost estimates for the Feasibility Report. The lane-mile cost estimate includes all costs related to construction, right of way, utilities, project support, and contingencies. The lane-mile cost estimate methodology was based upon an analysis of freeway project bid tabulation data from the years 2006 through 2012. A key assumption is that the freeway project bid tabulation data captures all construction costs associated with the widening of a freeway (structure widening, retaining walls, sound walls, signs, drainage improvements, ITS, etc). Costs for utilities, project support, and contingencies were established as a percentage of the lane-mile construction cost estimate. The percentages are also based upon historical project cost data. Costs for right of way are based on recent land valuations in the project boundary area.

The following procedure was applied:

Freeway Project Cost Data Research

1. From the Caltrans web site:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/planholders/awarded_csv.php

a list of freeway improvement projects in Caltrans Districts 7 and 12 from years 2006 – 2012 was developed:

EA Contract No. 12-0F0314 - Northbound SR-57 from Orangethorpe Avenue to Yorba Linda Blvd. (PM 16.2 to PM 18.8)

EA Contract No. 12-0F0324 - Northbound SR-57 from Yorba Linda Blvd. to Lambert Road (PM 18.4 to PM 20.9)

EA Contract No. 12-071624 - Northbound and Southbound I-405 from Bolsa Chica Road to Seal Beach Blvd. (PM 20.4 to PM 22.3); and Westbound and Northbound SR-22 from Bolsa Chica Road to SR-22/I-405 Separation (PM R0.7 to PM R2.9)

EA Contract No. 12-071634 - Northbound and Southbound I-405 from Seal Beach Blvd. to I-605/I-405 Separation (PM 22.3 to PM 24.0); Southbound I-605 from I-405/I-605 Separation to Los Angeles County Line (PM 3.0 to PM R1.6); and from SR-22/I-605 Separation to SR-22/I-405 Separation (PM R0.3 to PM R0.9)

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/planholders/awarded_csv.php

FEASIBILITY REPORT


EA Contract No. 12-071674 - Northbound I-5 and Southbound I-5 from Orangethorpe Avenue to Artesia Avenue (PM 42.1 to PM 44.4

EA Contract No. 12-0G0404 - Eastbound SR-91 from SR-91/SR-241 Separation to SR-91/SR-71 Separation (PM 15.9 to PM 18.9)

EA Contract No. 12-0G3304 - Eastbound SR-91 and Westbound SR-91 from SR-55/SR-91 Separation to SR-91/SR-241 Separation (PM 9.1 to PM 15.1)

EA Contract No. 07-121844 - Northbound I-5 and Southbound I-5 from I-5/SR-134 Separation Magnolia Blvd. (PM 26.7 to PM 29.4)

EA Contract No. 07-1218V4 - Northbound I-5 and Southbound I-5 from Cohasset Street to Sheldon Street (PM 31.6 to PM 36.0)

EA Contract No. 07-1219U4 - Northbound and Southbound I-405 from Sheldon Street to I-5/SR-118 Separation (PM 36.0 to PM 39.4); and Northbound and Southbound SR-170 from Arleta Ave./Sheldon St. to I-5/SR-170 Separation (PM 32.3 to PM 33.1)

EA Contract No. 07-215934 - Northbound I-5 and Southbound I-5 from Carmenita Road to Silverbow Avenue (PM 2.4 to PM 4.0)

EA Contract No. 07-215944 - Northbound I-5 and Southbound I-5 from San Antonio Drive to Pioneer Blvd. (PM 4.0 to PM 5.9)

2. From the Draft Project Report, prepared by Parsons Transportation Group dated May 7, 2012:

EA Contract No. 12-OH1000 (Alternative 1) - Northbound I-405 and Southbound I-405 from Euclid Street to I-605 (PM 12.1 to PM 23.9, PM R0.6 to PM R0.7, PM R0.7 to PM R1.0)

EA Contract No. 12-OH1000 (Alternative 2) - Northbound I-405 and Southbound I-405 from Euclid Street to I-605 (PM 12.1 to PM 23.9, PM R0.6 to PM R0.7, PM R0.7 to PM R1.0)

3. Project bid summaries were obtained from:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/planholders/bidsum.php

4. Project plans were obtained from:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/

5. Project plans were reviewed to confirm that the project scope is comparable to the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Corridor freeway improvement projects and that the application of the project cost data is appropriate.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/planholders/bidsum.php

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Freeway Project Bid Tabulation/Cost Estimate Evaluation

Bid tabulations were evaluated as follows:

1. A total of (14) freeway widening projects were evaluated.

2. Established overall project length & general scope of work.

3. Determined length of new mainline lanes provided.

4. Determined high bid, low bid and engineer’s estimate.

5. Calculated overall average cost per lane mile for new mainline lane (with bridge structural costs excluded) based on the average of the high bid, low bid and engineer’s estimate.

6. Utilized the Draft Project Report Cost Estimate for Alternative I (1 new lane each way on I-405) and Alternative 2 (2 new lanes each way on I-405) for the I-405 widening project currently in the environmental phase by OCTA. To maintain consistency in the use of this cost data for comparative purpose with actual construction bid data, the contingency and supplemental work dollar amounts shown in the Draft Project Report Cost Estimate were removed.

Lane-mile Cost Estimate Determination

The per mainline lane-mile cost was determined through the following steps:

1. Construction bids or engineer’s estimates for the (14) projects ranged from $28M to $807M and per lane-mile costs ranged from $6.0M to $16.4M

2. Average lane-mile cost was derived from the following analysis:

An average of all projects listed, except I-5 Gateway (EA 12-101674) and I-405 PR (EA 12-0H1000) = $8.5M.

An average of all projects listed, except I-5 Gateway (EA 12-101674); I-405 PR (EA 12-0H1000); I-405/I-605 West County Connectors (EA 12-071624 and EA 12-071634); and I-5/SR-118/SR-170 (EA 07-1219U4) = $7.6M.

An average of all projects listed, except I-5 Gateway (EA 12-101674) and I-405 PR (EA 12-0H1000, Alt 1) = $8.7M.

An average of all projects listed, except I-5 Gateway (EA 12-101674) = $9.2M.

Average of these four scenarios is $8.5M/lane-mile.

The I-5 Gateway was excluded from the four average scenarios due to the significant costs for "Boat Section" construction and peak high market bid climate at the time of bidding in 2006.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


All comparisons of per lane-mile costs include arterial interchange ramps, as well as arterial street modifications that may have been required due to the freeway construction.

3. Conclusion: Table 14 reflects the results of the lane-mile cost determination. All of the bid tabulation projects included significant quantities of retaining walls and sound walls and included modifications of both bridge structures and interchanges, which makes for a strong correlation for the SR-91/I-605/I-405 corridor freeway projects. For this project, a cost of $8.5M per mainline lane-mile will be used, inclusive of ramp alignments and minor arterial street modifications. System interchange connector ramps are estimated at approximately 50% of the mainline lane-mile cost utilizing a $4.0M lane-mile cost.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 14: HISTORICAL BID/ESTIMATE PROJECT COST COMPARISONS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 14 (CONT.): HISTORICAL BID/ESTIMATE PROJECT COST COMPARISONS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 14 (CONT.): HISTORICAL BID/ESTIMATE PROJECT COST COMPARISONS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Mainline and Ramp Cost Estimate Development

Appendix I represent the detailed breakdown of costs for Concepts A, B, and C and also serve as the basis for defining cost ranges associated with individual, or segment, congestion hot spot areas. Table 15 at the end of this section presents a Summary of Costs for Concepts A, B and C.

The primary cost per mainline lane-mile of $8.5 M is generally inclusive of arterial interchange on/off ramps and minor arterial street modifications that are typically associated with mainline widening and ramp reconstruction. For more significant arterial street modifications associated with the freeway widening lane (e.g. Bellflower, Downey, Paramount and Cherry) lane-mile distances were added to the total freeway mainline lane distance to account for this cost. There are certain locations, within Concept A, B, or C, that contain CD Roads or longer braided ramps that parallel the freeway for some distance. At these locations an additional number of “equivalent” mainline lanes, representing the CD Roads and longer braided ramps are added to the actual number of mainline lanes.

Connector ramps for system interchanges are quantified by lane-miles separately from the mainline lanes. The number of lanes typically varies throughout a connector ramp’s length, thus a designation of the number of lanes (e.g. 1, 2, 3 etc.) was applied to derive an equivalent lane-mile value.

Bridge, Right of Way and Utility Cost Estimate Development

1. Bridge structure costs were evaluated based on the type of modification and calculated separate from the mainline lane-mile costs on a $/SF basis.

2. Right of way costs were evaluated based on land use/square footage of acquisition and quantified separately. Per square foot acquisition costs were established for various classifications of acquisition (e.g. residential, commercial, park, etc.) and based upon recent land valuations in the project boundary area.

3. Major utilities were calculated based on 5% of the total estimated construction costs, inclusive of the 30% contingency.

Contingencies

1. Caltrans guidance for appropriate percentages to be used for contingencies was reviewed and a 30% contingency applied to capital construction cost and right of way cost.

Project Support Cost Calculation

Project support costs were estimated as a percentage of the total construction cost or total right of way cost, and consist of the following elements:

1. Project Study Report (PSR): 2.5% of total estimated construction cost with 30% capital construction contingency

FEASIBILITY REPORT


2. Project Approval / Environmental Document (PA/ED): 5% of total estimated construction cost with 30% capital construction contingency

3. Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E): 12% of total estimated construction cost with 30% capital construction contingency

4. Construction Management and Inspection (CM): 15% of total estimated construction cost with 30% capital construction contingency

5. Public Awareness/Outreach (PAC): 1% of total estimated construction cost with 30% capital construction contingency

6. LAMTA Project Management: 2% of total estimated construction cost with 30% capital construction contingency

7. Right of Way Support: 35% of total estimated right of way capital cost with 30% right of way capital contingency

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 15: FREEWAY CONGESTION HOT SPOTS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARIES

FEASIBILITY REPORT


4.0 SUMMARY OF ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS CONGESTION ANALYSIS AND IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

4.1 SUMMARY

The Arterial Intersection Congestion Analysis Report, dated May 29, 2012, was approved by the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting on May 29, 2012. That report summarized the results of the arterial intersection analysis for the SR-91/I-605/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots project, including intersection ranking methodology and corresponding analysis results and suggested arterial intersection improvements. A total of 97 study arterial highway intersections and 118 freeway ramp intersections (total of 215 study intersection locations) were included within the SR-91/I-605/I-405 study area for analysis. From that list of study intersections, 40 locations were designated for further analysis as described in the Arterial Intersection Congestion Analysis Report, including the development of concept improvements to improve existing and future operating deficiencies. The “Top 40” intersections selected for initial improvement evaluation are listed in Table 16 and shown graphically in Figure 5. Note that the intersections of I-405 Northbound at Seal Beach Boulevard and I-405 Southbound at Seal Beach Boulevard have already been identified as part of the I-405 West County Connector Project, thus additional improvements were not identified at this time. The proposed improvements have been analyzed and are shown to result in improved LOS conditions. For clarity, the locations are shown with strikethrough on the table, and similarly marked in the graphics. Similarly, as the proposed intersection improvements were reviewed in the sub-TAC meetings with city representatives in February and March 2012, another small group of intersections were removed from consideration for improvement. These locations were requested to be removed by the city, GCCOG and Metro representatives for various reasons, and included:

I-605 NB Ramps and Valley View/Temple Ave.

Carmenita Road and Artesia Boulevard

Carmenita Road and Rosecrans Avenue

Lakewood Boulevard and Carson Street

Bellflower Boulevard and Carson Street This resulted in a total of 33 initial intersections that ultimately moved forward with the development of conceptual improvement plans (see Table 16). Additional intersections improvements will be identified in later phases of work.

FEASIBILITY REPORT

Page 52


TABLE 16: “TOP 40” INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED

Intersection Number

Intersection Jurisdiction

83 Santa Fe Springs Rd and Whittier Blvd (Pickering Ave/Washington Blvd) Whittier

12 Lakewood Blvd and Telegraph Rd Downey/Pico Rivera

92 Painter Rd and Whittier Blvd Whittier

4 Lakewood Blvd and Del Amo Blvd Long Beach/Lakewood

R66-R67 I-605 SB Ramps and Washington Boulevard Santa Fe Springs

16 Rosemead Blvd and Beverly Blvd Pico Rivera

25 Studebaker Rd and Rosecrans Ave Norwalk

91 Painter Rd and Mulberry Rd Whittier/LA County (South Whittier)

R87 I-405 SB Ramps and Seal Beach Boulevard Seal Beach

42 Colima Rd and Whittier Blvd Whittier

15 Rosemead Blvd and Whittier Blvd Pico Rivera

80 Bloomfield Ave and Imperial Hwy Santa Fe Springs/Norwalk

46 Valley View Ave and Imperial Hwy LA County (South Whittier)/La Mirada

57 Los Alamitos Blvd and Katella Ave Los Alamitos

39 & 110 Orr and Day Rd and Florence Ave (I-5 NB Ramp) Santa Fe Springs

7 Lakewood Blvd and Alondra Blvd Bellflower/Paramount

1 Lakewood Blvd and Spring St Long Beach

9 Lakewood Blvd and Imperial Hwy Downey

71 Norwalk Blvd and Whittier Blvd Whittier/LA County (West Whittier-Los Nietos)

48 Bellflower Blvd and Spring St Long Beach

36 Pioneer Blvd and Imperial Hwy Norwalk

10 Lakewood Blvd and Firestone Blvd Downey

R88 I-405 NB Ramps and Seal Beach Boulevard Seal Beach

13 Rosemead Blvd and Slauson Ave Pico Rivera

11 Lakewood Blvd and Florence Ave Downey

45 Valley View Ave and Rosecrans Ave La Mirada/Santa Fe Springs

14 Rosemead Blvd and Washington Blvd Pico Rivera

R86 I-605 NB Ramps and Valley Boulevard and Temple Avenue LA County/Industry

70 Norwalk Blvd and Washington Blvd Santa Fe Springs

90 Carmenita Rd and Telegraph Rd Santa Fe Springs/LA County (South Whittier)

R61 I-605 NB Ramps and Telegraph Road Santa Fe Springs

44 Valley View Ave and Alondra Blvd Santa Fe Springs/La Mirada

R60 I-605 SB Ramps and Telegraph Road Santa Fe Springs

77 Bloomfield Ave and Artesia Blvd Cerritos

85 Carmenita Rd and Artesia Blvd Cerritos

24 Studebaker Rd and Alondra Blvd Norwalk/Cerritos

87 Carmenita Rd and Rosecrans Ave Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs

3 Lakewood Blvd and Carson St Long Beach/Lakewood

50 Bellflower Blvd and Carson St Lakewood/Long Beach

84 Carmenita Rd and South St La Palma/Cerritos

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 8: 40 TOTAL INTERSECTIONS SELECTED FOR IMPROVEMENT EVALUATION

FEASIBILITY REPORT


The proposed arterial intersection improvements were reviewed with the staff of all affected jurisdictions during special sub-TAC focus meetings and one on one meetings as required. Comments were received and reviewed and concept improvement drawings revised as appropriate. The final concept plans are presented in Appendix H. Table 18 displays the arterial intersection location, the jurisdiction it falls within, the 2035 No-Build level of service (before improvement), and the 2035 level of service for the “Build” condition on the freeways with the proposed improvements for each intersection. This LOS value is representative of the volume analysis for Concept B, as discussed in the approved Arterial Intersection Congestion Analysis Report. It is labeled as the “Build” condition to reflect the fact there would be no appreciable change in the intersection volumes for the subsequent Freeway Improvement Concept C, which will have a combination of freeway improvements from Concept A, B, and new or modified improvements for Concept C, or the existing No-Build condition. In summary, most of the locations were found to improve at least one level of service and in many cases the locations improve by multiple service levels. A summary of the results is as follows, and these are recommended as the initial intersections to be improved: AM Peak Hour Arterial Intersection Level of Service Summary

No-Build AM Peak – 11 LOS F, 9 LOS E, 12 LOS D or better

2035 Concept B with Improvements AM peak – 1 LOS F, 3 LOS E, 28 LOS D or better PM Peak Hour Arterial Intersection Level of Service Summary

No-Build PM Peak – 21 LOS F, 9 LOS E, 2 LOS D or better

2035 Concept B with Improvements AM peak – 4 LOS F, 7 LOS E, 21 LOS D or better These results indicate significant overall improvement with Concept B conditions combined with proposed intersection improvements. During the AM peak hour, 10 LOS F locations are improved with only one LOS F condition remaining, and during the PM peak hour, 17 LOS F conditions are improved with only 4 remaining. The number of LOS D or better locations improves from 12 in the AM peak hour to 28, and it improves from only 2 in the PM peak hour to 21.

The Gateway Cities Council of Governments, in partnership with LA Metro, is proceeding with a Phase II Transportation Strategic Plan that will further examine all the arterial highways in Gateway Cities. The analysis completed for the Arterial Intersection Congestion Analysis Report will served as the foundation for identifying and evaluating additional intersections and/or arterial highway segments/highways for further improvements. Table 17 includes the preliminary estimated cost for each of the 33 locations for which improvement concepts were prepared. Appendix I provides the detailed back-up for the preliminary cost estimates for the individual intersection locations. The costs were estimated

FEASIBILITY REPORT


utilizing current bid data for similar local street improvement projects in 2012 dollars and are not escalated to any particular year of future construction. For ease of reference the same template was utilized for each location. At the request of the affected cities (Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, and Downey) the preliminary cost estimates include widening of the Washington Boulevard and Telegraph Road bridges over the San Gabriel River to their respective master plan width for these streets. This cost has been included within the I-605 SB Ramp/Washington Boulevard and I-605 SB Ramp/Telegraph Road arterial intersection locations.

4.2 COST ESTIMATES FOR ARTERIAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS

Planning level cost estimates were prepared for each of the arterial intersection improvement concepts. Refer to Appendix J for detailed cost estimate data for arterial intersections.

TABLE 17: COST ESTIMATES FOR ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 18: ARTERIAL INTERSECTION CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 18 (CONT.): ARTERIAL INTERSECTION CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 18 (CONT.) – ARTERIAL INTERSECTION CONGESTION ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT DETAIL

FEASIBILITY REPORT


5.0 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

5.1 INTRODUCTION

A preliminary environmental review was performed on the proposed freeway improvements that form Concept C, which encompasses the three freeway corridors (SR-91, I-605 and I-405) under study. This environmental review also covers proposed conceptual transportation improvements that have been developed for 33 intersections within the study area.

5.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this environmental review was to identify and disclose potential environmental impacts relatively early in the conceptual design process in order to help inform study decision-making and the level of environmental clearance that may ultimately be required. It is understood that the conceptual design of the proposed improvements will continue to evolve based on additional technical studies; trade-offs associated with project benefits, environmental concerns and cost; and stakeholder feedback. Likewise, the nature and extent of potential environmental impacts would also change in accordance with future changes made to the conceptual design.

5.3 ANALYSIS APPROACH

The main effort of the analysis was devoted to identifying localized, direct impacts to sensitive environmental resources in close proximity to the proposed transportation improvements. For the freeway sections, environmental concerns were mapped using environmental reference numbers that tie to accompanying tables that list and describe the key environmental considerations. Within the tables, identified environmental issues and considerations were generally grouped based on the specific transportation element of Concept C responsible for generating the potential environmental impacts. This was done to provide needed flexibility because certain transportation elements may be modified, added, or dropped as Concept C moves forward into further study. For the intersections, environmental considerations were mapped and described directly on the plan sheets. The results of the freeway and arterial intersection environmental analyses are presented in detail in Appendices K and L. The analyses identify and briefly describe environmental concerns and considerations related to the proposed improvements on a site-specific basis, focusing on direct and indirect physical impacts. Information is portrayed geographically for each freeway section for I-605, SR-91 and I-405 as well as for each of the 33 study area intersections. The primary input that was used as the basis for the environmental review were the conceptual plans that were developed for the 33 arterial intersections and for the I-605, SR-91, and I-405 freeway corridors (Concept C) in June / July 2012. The environmental review was performed using aerial imagery and photography provided by Google Earth, supplemented by available

FEASIBILITY REPORT


databases including assessor’s parcel mapping, Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (FIRMs), and the environmental constraints mapping that was performed earlier in the Hot Spot Study. Preliminary findings were then reviewed with the engineering teams that developed the conceptual designs for each of the freeway corridors and the intersections to ensure that the proposed project features and related details were fully understood by the environmental team.

5.4 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES

Based on the results of the site-specific analysis presented in Appendices K and L, many of the proposed transportation improvements have similar environmental consequences throughout the study area. This analysis matches the conceptual plans that were developed for Freeway Concept C and the selected priority arterial intersections (33 total) prepared in June/July 2012. These key environmental issues are highlighted and summarized below for both Freeway Segments and Arterial Intersections. FREEWAY SEGMENTS The proposed improvements are anticipated to cause direct and indirect physical impacts upon implementation. Key issues of environmental concern related to proposed freeway segment improvements are highlighted below. As previously stated, site-specific impacts have been identified and detailed in Appendix K. Mainline Freeway Widening Adjacent to Residential Areas 1. Existing soundwalls that currently line the edge of shoulder would be displaced and thus

would need to be reconstructed as part of the proposed improvements in close proximity to existing residential structures and other sensitive receptors.

Detailed noise studies will need to be performed to determine changes in noise exposure levels to adjacent sensitive receivers post construction. However, these changes in noise levels are anticipated to be less than significant with noise abatement (soundwalls) in place.

2. Visual impacts will be experienced by some residences where new walls will be closer and/or taller than the current structures.

These potential visual impacts could be minimized by landscaping, hardscape, and context sensitive design solutions.

3. Mature trees and existing landscaping along the edge of the freeway also would be displaced in several sections.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


These potential impacts created by removal of existing landscaping could be minimized by landscaping, hardscape, and context sensitive design solutions.

Bridge Widening over Existing Streets and Rail Corridors 1. Bridge widening will cause temporary impacts to street and pedestrian circulation during

construction.

Potential impacts can be mitigated through a traffic control plan to be prepared and coordinated with the affected jurisdictions.

2. Bridge widening will cause temporary impacts to rail service during construction over and immediately adjacent to tracks.

Potential impacts can be mitigated through coordination with rail service providers to schedule trains in coordination with construction scheduling to allow for minimal disruption to service during bridge construction.

3. Hazardous waste contamination has been known to occur on railroad-owned ROW

A Phase 1 ISA will be prepared to identify the potential contaminated properties.

Bridge Widening(s) over Rivers and Channels 1. Substantial bridge widening at certain locations, which may require the installation of new

piers for structure support, would affect hydrology/ hydraulics within the channel and would be subjected to additional regulatory procedures.

Any reconstruction of the existing pier structures would be designed so as not to significantly affect hydrology/ hydraulics.

Potential impacts would be less than significant with application of standard design/construction methods, including best management practices (BMPs).

2. Bridge widening improvements and construction activities within and surrounding water channels may require certain permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Game.

Additional technical studies will need to be prepared to determine the potential effects to water quality and to Species of Special Concern (e.g., preliminary jurisdictional delineation).

FEASIBILITY REPORT


3. The recreational trail along the San Gabriel River would be temporarily impacted during bridge widening construction activities.

Potential impacts would be mitigated through a transportation management plan to be prepared and coordinated with the affected local and regional agencies.

Widening and Realignment of Freeway Interchange Ramps and Connectors 1. Interchange widening and realignment will require the removal of existing mature trees,

landscaping, improvements and facilities (including existing BMP's), which would be permanently disturbed within the ROW.

Permanent project related impacts would be mitigated by replacement of improvements and facilities using current standards.

2. Circulation would be temporarily disrupted during the construction period.

Potential impacts can be mitigated through a traffic control plan to be prepared and coordinated with the affected local and regional agencies.

Stormwater Treatment 1. New and evolving requirements for storm water runoff from the freeway will need to be

evaluated in future phases of project development.

Requirements will need to be evaluated to identify impacts to design. Coordination with local communities will be needed.

2. Circulation Caltrans BMPs will have to be evaluated and incorporated which could impact the extent (or footprint) of a project.

Impacts will be assessed during future phases of project development to determine the need for modifications to the project.

Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs) 1. During construction, property would be occupied on a temporary basis to accommodate

construction activities. TCEs will be required in many sections along the freeway corridors, particularly where the mainline traffic lanes and ramping are on retained fill. These TCEs are not depicted on the conceptual plans because additional engineering detail and topographical information is needed to define the TCE boundaries. However, a good rule of

FEASIBILITY REPORT


thumb to use to identify potential TCE areas would be all those parcels that lie within a 10-foot buffer area of the proposed edge of improvement will be impacted where the freeway is at a markedly different elevation than the surrounding properties.

2. TCEs are less likely to be needed where the roadway improvements are proposed at grade (i.e., at ramp termini locations or at arterial intersections.)

3. TCEs will not be required directly adjacent to new structures or bridge widenings, which are

supported by columns. However, since many of the proposed bridge widenings also include sections of retaining fill on the approaches, TCE’s will be necessary for those properties in direct proximity (10-foot buffer) where existing retaining walls are being replaced or where new retaining walls need to be built.

ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS The proposed improvements to relieve congestion at the 33 arterial intersections within the study area generally consist of the addition of turning lanes or the extension of existing turning lanes to provide for additional queuing/storage capacity for certain turning movements that are undersized. In a few cases, roadway modifications related to access management are also proposed to improve traffic flow through the intersection or address potential safety issues. Where possible, these improvements would occur within the existing street right of way by removing and rebuilding the existing roadway median and/or modifying on street parking and/or restriping the roadway to provide the additional space needed within the existing street for the turning lane modifications. However, many of the proposed intersection improvements involve modifications to the existing street width from curb face to curb face on the approach and/or departure legs. And, while every attempt was made to accommodate the proposed improvements within existing street rights of way, additional right of way would need to be acquired from property owners for some of these intersections. An initial review indicates that very few, if any, of the proposed intersection improvements rise to the level of a significant adverse impact if “best practices” construction procedures are followed and if steps are taken to minimize, avoid, or mitigate potential impacts. However, there are some instances, such as where a gas station property may be directly impacted by a partial acquisition along the edge of the parcel, when additional investigation, such as an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) and perhaps a follow on Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI), would need to be performed to identify (or discount) the presence of hazardous materials and thus the extent and severity of a potential impact. In these cases, additional environmental study would be required during the environmental phase of project development. In addition, this initial environmental review was conducted based on what was observable from the conceptual plans and available parcel mapping and aerial photography. As the proposed improvements advance into more detailed engineering studies, other or additional

FEASIBILITY REPORT


environmental impacts may be revealed. For example, proposed street modifications may affect underground utilities, which in turn, may need to be relocated outside of existing street right of way.

5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION LIKELY REQUIRED

FREEWAY SEGMENTS Environmental documentation that would likely be required during the environmental analysis phase for proposed freeway improvements would be dependent upon the source of funding assistance utilized for the project. A Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) will be needed for state highway projects and a Preliminary Environmental Study (PES), will be prepared for local assistance projects. Documents needed to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) include Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or Environmental Impact Statement. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review and documentation includes Categorical Exemption, Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report. The projects will also require further environmental documentation to satisfy the requirements of Federal and State agencies. It is anticipated that most of the proposed freeway improvements will require a PEAR which will determine the specific type of environmental document. The PEAR is developed during the Project Study Report – Project Development Support (PSR (PDS)) phase of project development for state highway projects, which will be recommended for many of the freeway segments analyzed in this Feasibility Study. ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS The type of environmental document that would likely be required during the environmental analysis phase to clear the proposed intersection projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA presumes that only local (non-federal) funds would be utilized for project construction and that few, if any of the proposed intersection improvements rise to the level of significant, adverse impacts if “best practices” construction procedures are followed and if steps are taken to minimize, avoid or mitigate potential impacts. It is reasonable to assume that the local jurisdiction, the City or the County, would serve as the environmental lead agency, with the possible exception of the freeway ramp intersections. It is important to note that much is left to the discretion of the lead agency as to what type of environmental process, and thus environmental document, would need to be pursued. The intersection projects fall into the following groups:

Those intersection projects that consist of restriping or of only minor geometric modifications to existing street infrastructure to provide additional queuing storage would likely qualify for a Categorical Exemption (CE) under CEQA.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Some intersections, such as those projects that would result in sliver acquisitions of private property and yet where there is no substantial evidence to indicate that a significant adverse impact would occur, can be addressed with either a CE or an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) dependent upon the discretion of the CEQA lead agency.

Yet other proposed intersection projects would require additional study to determine the severity and extent of the potential impacts and to identify what actions would be necessary to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential impacts below significance. Examples include those intersections where additional capacity is proposed, and where a proposed acquisition would directly impact the use of a protected resource (i.e., community park) or where hazardous materials may be present, or where a partial acquisition may impact the existing use of the parcel such that a full acquisition would be triggered. In these cases an IS/ND or an IS/MND (Mitigated Negative Declaration) would be recommended.

Lastly, there are a few arterial intersections which are functionally tied into the operations of freeway on-ramps and off-ramps. At this early stage in the project development process it would be difficult to demonstrate logical termini and independent utility from the proposed freeway concepts that show major modifications to these interchange ramps. It is therefore recommended that the environmental evaluation of these intersections be packaged with the preliminary environmental review process conducted for the associated freeway improvements, so that the full potential environmental effects can be evaluated, disclosed, and understood.

5.6 WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS

A preliminary evaluation was performed of potential water quality considerations associated with the development of freeway improvements along the SR-91/I-605/I-405 freeway corridor. The potential water quality considerations for the study area are important to address to meet water quality regulations governing surface waters and to prevent contamination of local water resources. Potential water quality considerations are summarized in Table 1 of Appendix M. The information presented in this table is based upon the potential Best Management Practices (BMPs) proposed in the Stormwater Management Corridor Studies (Corridor Studies), as prepared by Caltrans, within the SR-91/I-605/I-405 study area. The evaluation was principally based on the completed Corridor Studies that identifies 146 potential BMP sites within the study area. The implementation of BMPs will treat and reduce pollutants carried in storm water runoff from the construction and operation of the project. The State of California and Regional Water Quality Control Boards assess water quality data for California's waters every two years to determine if they contain pollutants at loads that exceed the pollutant limits required under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. The

FEASIBILITY REPORT


information in Table 1 (Appendix M) lists these bodies of water that are on the 303(d) list, which includes rivers, creeks, and lakes within their city and watershed jurisdictions. For water bodies on this list the state has to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for pollutants that cause the water to be listed. Moreover, various environmental permits that may be required to protect water quality during the construction and operation of the BMPs are identified in the table. The drinking water reservoirs and/or recharge facilities within the project limits that these BMPs will be discharging into are identified in the table with respect to its city jurisdiction. The potential BMPs that will utilize reuse of soils containing Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL) are identified in the table with respect to its corresponding city. A compilation of this data is categorized with respect to its location within its city jurisdiction of the potential BMPs because the project area extends across multiple city jurisdictions. The results of the preliminary water quality evaluation will be included in the preparation of Caltrans Storm Water Data Reports in support of the development of each Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) during the next phase of project development; the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


6.0 CONGESTION HOT SPOT PROBLEM AND IMPROVEMENT TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL ANALYSIS

6.1 MODEL RUN SUMMARY NOTEBOOK The Model Run Summary Notebook (under separate cover) provides documentation of the multiple travel demand model runs and resulting forecasts that have been developed during the course of the Congestion Hot Spots Study for the SR-91/I-605/I- 405 in the Gateway Cities. The forecasts are the output of a travel demand model that estimates traffic volumes by vehicle class (e.g., drive-alone, shared-ride, and trucks) for a network of highway and roadway links of interest in the study area. The computer model is based on the TransCAD platform and it produces traffic forecasts for four different time periods, which together constitute average daily traffic volumes. Additional techniques outside of the model are applied to estimate peak-hour traffic volumes for different times of the day. The traffic forecasts provided critical inputs for a number of subsequent engineering and analysis tasks:

The traffic forecasts are inputs to traffic operations analysis that characterizes traffic

flow conditions and is used by the design engineers to evaluate the geometric design of

different alternatives for freeway, ramp, and arterial improvements.

The traffic forecasts form the basis of defining traffic circulation impacts and benefits of

improvement alternatives.

Forecasts were used to assess implications of other improvements and programs

including multi-modal projects, travel demand management, intelligent transportation

systems and all other known or foreseeable transportation projects that could affect the

study area’s transportation system.

A separate report was reviewed and approved by the project Technical Advisory Committee entitled “I-605/SR- 91/I-405 Congestion Hot Spots Travel Demand Model Methodology and Validation Report”. That report described the model components, key input assumptions, as well as the validation of the model to ensure that it accurately replicates area traffic conditions. The purpose of the Notebook is to provide further detailed description of the model run history and to help the reader understand the relationship of the various runs to each, and what types of information the runs produced. In addition to these two reports, the model results have been documented in a series of detailed technical memorandum on various subjects including the impacts and benefits of added freeway mainline capacity, realigned and modified arterial ramp interchanges, potential freight corridors, multi-modal improvements, express lanes, HOV to HOV connectors and other transportation projects within and adjacent to the study area. The appendix to the Notebook includes various technical memos on these topics that were developed during the course of the study, along with the model validation report which describes the model validation process and model runs conducted during validation.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


The model data has also been used throughout the study by the geometric team to help assess congestion hot spots as well as to assess the benefits of a series of geometric improvements as part of Concepts A, B, C and variations of those Concepts. The travel model was used to forecast demand levels for all of the roadways and highways in the study area, providing input to the design of freeway, arterial intersection, and ramp improvements. Travel forecast data are also used by traffic engineers to determine whether the various design concepts will be sufficient to relieve bottlenecks and resolve safety hazards (and to what extent). The Notebook documents 18 model runs that were undertaken during the course of the project. The model runs are numbered 1 through 20, however, a total of 18 unique runs are included in the documentation. Two of the runs were deferred and not used until later in the process, however for clarity the numbering scheme remained consecutive since all of the models were assigned their unique model run during the course of the analysis. It should be noted that many other model runs were also made, such as numerous model validation runs as well as numerous runs conducted during the development of geometric Concepts A, B and C. Those are not documented herein because they are considered “testing” runs and were conducted for purposes of interim analysis leading up to the final Concept design recommendations. The Notebook provides a summary of each model run, its application, and key run assumptions for the highway network, transit network and modal split.

6.2 MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS The objectives of the Multi-Modal Analysis Report (under separate cover) are to assess the existing, future, or potential capabilities of alternative modes of transportation to reduce or relieve or impact traffic on freeway and arterial facilities within the SR-91/I-605/405 Congestion Hot Spots study area, as well as to understand the relationships between various multi-modal improvements. To set the stage for this multi-modal analysis, existing and proposed transit system and other modes of transportation data and information were collected and summarized for the study area, for the Gateway Cities and in some cases beyond the Gateway Cities. This includes an in-depth review of existing, future or potential transit capacities, seats, ridership, demographics, trip share, system constraints, and capabilities. The following modes of transportation and transportation programs were evaluated as part of this effort:

Local and Regional Bus Transit Services

Non-Motorized Facilities

Rail Transit

High Speed Rail

Park and Ride Facilities

High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

Toll Facilities

Goods Movement

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Intelligent Transportation Systems

Trip Reduction Programs/ Travel Demand Management

Arterial Highways

A maximum investment scenario analysis has been developed, which includes all of the planned transportation improvements in and around the Gateway Cities, in order to determine the potential effect on the transportation system of investment in other modes and programs beyond those already funded (No-Build conditions). The potential for other modes to affect travel and reduce congestion in the study area was examined for three types of outcomes:

1) Reducing study area internal auto trips via shifting them to other modes 2) Reducing through auto trips via shifting them to other modes 3) Other mobility improvements such as shifting trips to other facilities (e.g.

truck/freight corridors, HOV lanes) from general purpose freeway lanes and reducing vehicle delay (Intelligent Transportation Systems or Toll facilities)

As noted, two types of trips are studied as part of the multi-modal analysis; 1) “internal” trips which have an origin or destination (or both) within the Gateway Cities and 2) “external” trips that “pass-through” the area but have neither a beginning nor end in the Gateway Cities (such as a freeway trip from Orange County to Downtown Los Angeles). It is important to understand that some multi-modal projects and improvements mainly affect trips with one or both ends of the trip inside the Gateway Cities, while others primarily affect through trips and some affect both internally generated trips as well as through trips. Information and data for specific improvements were obtained from project study documents including alternatives analysis, environmental documents, feasibility studies and regional plans. The data was compiled and quantified in terms of the number of person trips each improvement could transport in lieu of vehicle trip, and to the extent feasible the information is presented for internal trips versus through trips.

6.3 APPLICATION & ASSESSMENT OF OTHER TRAVEL MODEL SCENARIOS The geometric concept levels of service (both HCM and travel demand model) are based on prior model runs which include the concept geometric improvements plus selected (mostly funded and foreseeable) multi-modal transportation improvements in the study area and that affect the study area. They do not, however, reflect the results of the final multi-modal model runs (runs 19 and 20). The final runs estimate the benefits of the “Maximum Investment” scenario for multi-modal improvements and programs on study area freeways. Model Runs 19 and 20, the Maximum Multi-modal Investment Scenario model runs, add many potential multi-modal projects beyond what is included in the Concept A, B and C model runs

FEASIBILITY REPORT


and associated analyses. Specifically, for Model Run 19, additional highway system improvements include HOV connectors, I-405 Express lanes, and Intelligent Transportation System improvements throughout the study area. Also included in Model Run 19 beyond Concepts A, B and C is assumed maximum investment in transit services including the potential Pacific Electric Right of way/West Santa Ana Branch rail line, High Speed Rail and maximum increases in Metrolink, Amtrak and local bus services. Model Run 20 includes the same assumed maximum investments as Model Run 19, plus the potential East/West Freight Corridor project, the proposed Southern California Intermodal Gateway (SCIG) project and the proposed Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) capacity improvement project. These potential projects were tested using the model to determine what additional benefit they would have if implemented together on the local area freeway and roadway system in terms of reduction in automobile travel in the system, and commensurate reduction in vehicle miles travelled, motorist delay and vehicle hours of travel and increases in system operating speeds. For the entire study area, the Maximum Multi-modal investments would be expected to benefit the freeway and arterial system via reductions in vehicle miles travelled and vehicle delay during peak hours. On the freeway system, an aggregate reduction in VMT (beyond Concept B) of two percent is projected. That is, the effects of the Maximum Multi-modal investments would result in a “net” reduction of approximately two percent of the volume on the study area freeway system overall. It is important to note that the actual “gross” overall reduction in volume due to Multi-modal investments would be greater than two percent, but there would then be diversion of trips back to the study area freeways, thus resulting in a lower net reduction in volumes. This is because by 2035 most of the freeways in the vicinity of the study area would operate at very poor levels of service (and many arterials as well), and thus removing traffic from the study area freeways would “free-up” roadway capacity that would then be used by trips shifted from other parallel routes. In terms of motorist delay, the Maximum Multi-modal investments would be expected to result in an additional incremental benefit of about ten percent reduction delay on the freeways. The reduction in freeway delay is much larger than the reduction in VMT because delay is already high on congested facilities and removing even some VMT will result in a disproportional benefit in reduced delay on the system. On the arterial highway system, the vehicle miles travelled would also be expected to decrease. This is due to the effects of the multi-modal improvements as well as the additional freeway capacity which can then serve some of the arterial traffic. On the arterial system, the VMT is expected to decrease about three percent beyond Concept B. As with freeway conditions, the vehicle delay is expected to be reduced by about ten to eleven percent beyond the level of reduction due to the Concept B improvements alone. In terms of specific freeway locations, the assigned traffic volumes will decrease by different amounts due to the effects of the Maximum Multi-modal investments. For example, the

FEASIBILITY REPORT


PEROW will affect some freeway segments more than others, and increases in other transit services will affect some areas more than others. Route by route descriptions of the affects of the Maximum Multi-modal scenario are provided below. The SR-91 problem definition areas have been reviewed against the final model runs to determine if the run results would significantly affect the problem definition and thus ultimately the recommended improvements. The final model run results indicate the following for SR-91:

East of I-605 the final multi-modal analysis indicates that an additional reduction of

approximately 6,000 daily vehicles from the mainline due to the maximum multi-modal

investments (a reduction of two percent of 2035 volume). Peak period average speeds

on this portion of SR-91 are expected to increase by one to two miles per hour.

Between I-605 and I-710 up to approximately 13,000 vehicles (a reduction of four

percent of the 2035 volume) per day could be reduced due to multi-modal investments.

Peak period average speeds on this portion of SR-91 are expected to increase by about

two to three miles per hour.

The I-605 problem definition areas have been reviewed against the final model runs to determine if the run results would significantly affect the problem definition and thus ultimately the recommended improvements. The final model run results indicate the following for I-605:

South of SR-91 the final multi-modal analysis indicates that an additional reduction of


investments (a reduction of two and one half percent of 2035 volume). Peak period

average speeds on this portion of I-605 are expected to increase by up to one mile per

hour.

Between SR-91 and I-5 up to approximately 15,000 vehicles (a reduction of four percent

of the 2035 volume) per day could be reduced due to multi-modal investments. Peak

period average speeds on this portion of I-605 are expected to increase by up to three

miles per hour.

North of I-5 the final multi-modal analysis indicates that an additional reduction of


investments (a reduction of two percent of 2035 volume). Peak period average speeds

on this portion of I-605 are expected to increase by up to two miles per hour.

The I-405 problem definition areas have been reviewed against the final model runs to determine if the run results would significantly affect the problem definition and thus ultimately the recommended improvements. The final model run results indicate the following for I-405:

FEASIBILITY REPORT


The final multi-modal analysis indicates that an additional reduction of approximately

9,500 daily vehicles from the mainline due to the maximum multi-modal investments (a

reduction of three percent of 2035 volume). Peak period average speeds on this portion

of I-605 are expected to increase by up to three miles per hour.

In summary, with the maximum potential investment in other multi-modal projects and programs it is expected that the hot spots on all freeway segments would be improved. Daily volume reductions are projected to range from about 5,000 up to 15,000 vehicles per day, depending on freeway location and how each location is affected and benefits from the Maximum Multi-modal investments scenario. This equates to a percentage reduction in ADT of one to four percent, again varying by location. The greatest benefits are seen on I-605 north of SR-91 and on SR-91 west of I-605. The level of improvement is not sufficient to eliminate significant congestion points or eliminate the need for physical improvement via the any of the corridor concepts (Concept A, B & C), but it would likely cause improvements in the final level of service, operating speeds and other conditions. Implementation of the full range of multi-modal improvements could also affect the final design once the refined volumes and further detailed analyses are completed.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


7.0 FREEWAYS CONGESTION HOT SPOT PROBLEM & IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS & DEFINITION

7.1 INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY

Congestion “hot spot” problem locations have been assessed using the data and analysis that was developed and presented in the Congestion Analysis Report. The information used to assess the congestion problems include existing speed profile data (Caltrans PeMS), 2035 No-Build level of service results from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis, 2035 No-Build level of service results from the travel demand model, existing accident history, plus the Combined Congestion Score which includes a combination of these data sources to generate a numerical value representing a common comparison of congestion through freeway segments spanning from interchange to interchange. A critical engineering review of existing geometric conditions and deficiencies along each freeway corridor is also used to help identify the specific congestion locations. All of this data is then used to identify the magnitude and specific congestion characteristics of these “hot spots.” All analyses have been based on maintaining existing non-standard lane and shoulder configurations with new lane widening proposed at current lane and shoulder width standards. The effects of full standard widening may change the assessment of congestion problem areas, potential solutions and the various impacts of those solutions related to right of way, environmental considerations and cost. To assess the larger footprint of using full standards, a line is included on the conceptual geometric plans to show the extent of additional widening that would be required. Full standards will be evaluated in any subsequent work. The congestion hot spot analysis is presented by individual freeway corridor in the direction of travel to enable the reader to follow and track the analysis in the direction they would be driving on the freeway. A map and congestion explanation for each congestion hot spot location is included herein outlining the following items:

Type, characteristic, “root cause” and specific details of the congestion problem;

Contribution (exacerbation) of adjacent congestion problem areas on the congestion area being examined; and

Limits and logical terminus of the congestion problem area An effectiveness analysis of components of Concepts A, B and C, as well as No-Build, has been performed to determine how each concept improves (or provides a solution for) the specific congestion problem area, and the magnitude (or extent) of the congestion improvement. The magnitude (or extent) of the improvement and the effectiveness (as specific as possible) of the “solutions” will be based upon the following elements: 1) the volume of traffic that benefits from the improvement, 2) improvement of a high accident location, 3) complete or partial improvement of the congestion problem, 4) interaction of this congestion problem with those of adjacent congestion problem areas, 5) preliminary cost of the congestion problem solution, and 6) general cost/benefit assessment. Information is also provided for right of way impact

FEASIBILITY REPORT


assessment and environmental considerations and issues to provide an additional basis for qualitative assessment. While no further traffic model runs and HCM traffic analyses were performed for this Feasibility Report, other traffic model runs and associated data compiled as part of the Congestion Analysis Report and the Traffic Model Run Summary Report were used to support qualitative assessments of congestion hot spots in specific locations. As discussed in Section 5.0, the choice of the geometric improvement was not significantly affected by the results of the other model runs – the geometric improvement is mostly needed with or without the other multi-modal improvements. However, in other locations the other traffic model runs were consulted as needed to assess the need for specific improvements on a case-by-case basis. This was assessed through a qualitative analysis consisting of a review of model output data such as change in volume on the mainline segments and change in speeds from the model due to the other (non-geometric improvements).

FEASIBILITY REPORT


PostMile SR-91 Location 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

15.229 ORANGETHORPE 68 66 66 66 70 68 50 38 53 56 62 64 66 66 65 61 58 48 63 68 69 69 69 69

14.138 183RD 65 63 64 63 65 63 46 29 44 51 56 59 60 60 58 52 50 40 55 64 65 65 65 65

13.498 ARTESIA 66 63 63 63 66 65 44 25 38 49 56 59 61 61 58 50 46 35 54 65 66 67 66 66

13.398 SHOWMAKER 67 65 65 65 68 66 44 25 40 50 57 60 62 63 60 51 48 37 55 66 67 67 67 67

13.058 BLOOMFIELD 66 64 64 64 67 66 42 24 35 47 56 59 61 62 57 47 43 32 50 65 67 67 67 67

12.698 NORWALK 2 64 62 62 62 63 62 45 34 41 49 55 56 58 59 56 50 47 42 51 62 64 64 63 63

12.498 NORWALK 1 66 64 64 64 67 64 42 28 34 44 52 55 58 59 54 46 45 40 49 63 66 66 66 66

12.208 PIONEER 2 66 64 64 64 66 63 41 28 33 42 50 53 55 57 52 45 44 39 47 61 66 66 66 67

11.958 PIONEER 1 66 65 65 65 69 66 51 38 40 49 54 57 58 59 57 53 54 52 55 64 67 67 67 68

11.368 STUDEBAKER 64 61 62 63 64 62 50 30 37 49 52 52 53 53 54 54 56 56 56 59 59 60 61 62

10.798 W OF 605 63 58 58 60 63 62 47 24 34 51 55 55 56 56 57 58 59 60 58 60 60 61 61 61

10.218 CALIFORNIA 69 67 67 68 71 68 45 22 31 54 60 60 61 62 62 63 65 65 64 67 69 70 70 70

9.758 BELLFLOWER 2 67 65 65 66 69 66 45 24 31 54 59 57 57 56 56 57 59 62 63 66 67 67 67 67

9.538 BELLFLOWER 1 62 59 59 60 64 60 41 23 29 49 54 54 55 55 55 55 57 58 57 60 61 62 62 61

9.218 CLARK 57 52 52 52 57 57 41 23 29 50 54 54 55 55 56 56 58 59 57 58 58 59 58 56

8.648 LAKEWOOD 2 68 67 67 68 72 67 46 25 30 56 60 62 63 64 65 65 66 67 67 70 71 71 71 70

8.548 LAKEWOOD 1 62 57 57 59 64 63 46 27 32 53 56 56 56 56 56 57 60 62 62 63 62 63 62 60

7.998 DOWNEY 1 63 61 62 64 65 60 49 35 34 51 54 55 56 57 57 57 59 59 59 61 62 62 61 61

7.508 PARAMOUNT 73 73 74 76 80 79 72 45 41 68 69 70 71 71 72 73 74 75 75 75 75 76 75 74

7.008 CHERRY 69 67 68 70 72 69 62 36 30 60 62 63 65 66 66 67 69 70 69 70 70 70 69 68

6.568 ORANGE 68 66 67 68 70 67 59 38 35 58 61 61 62 63 64 64 66 67 68 68 69 70 69 69

6.198 ATLANTIC 2 68 68 69 70 72 71 65 41 38 62 65 65 66 67 67 68 69 70 70 71 70 70 70 69

5.778 ATLANTIC 1 62 58 59 61 64 60 51 22 23 53 57 57 57 58 58 59 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 61

5.028 LONG BEACH 71 70 70 72 74 69 52 25 25 50 57 57 58 59 60 62 64 67 68 69 70 72 72 72

Hour of the day

7.2 SR-91 WESTBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT PROBLEM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

The location and duration of existing congestion along SR-91 westbound (WB) are illustrated in using the PeMS Speed Contour Exhibit in Figure 9. Segment speeds less than 25 mph are shown as red, 25 to 35 mph are shown as orange/brown. Less than 35 mph is typically used to define severe congestion on most maps and reports showing freeway speeds. Thus, both the red and orange/brown colors indicate significant congestion/delay on the freeway systems, and the yellow segments indicate slowing and areas that are nearing the point of significant congestion/delay. Figure 9 shows that existing congestion occurs throughout the entire study area for over three hours in the AM and east of I-605 for two hours in the PM.

FIGURE 9: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR WB SR-91

Eleven locations have been documented as the areas that represent significant congestion problem areas for purposes of detailed analysis. The following discussion and the corresponding Figures 11-12 display the eleven congestion problem hot spot locations along with a description of the congestion issues at each location. The eleven hot spot locations for SR-91 WB are as follows (labeled 91 WB-1 through 91 WB-11 for hot spot locations 1 through 11):

FEASIBILITY REPORT


91 WB-1: Artesia Boulevard to Norwalk Boulevard

91 WB-2: Norwalk Boulevard to Pioneer Boulevard

91 WB-3: Pioneer Boulevard to N/S 605 Connector Ramp Diverge

91 WB-4: N/S 605 Connector Ramp Diverge

91 WB-5: S 605 – W 91 Connector Ramp Merge

91 WB-6: Clark Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard

91 WB-7: Mainline Lane Addition at Downey Avenue

91 WB-8: Paramount Boulevard to Cherry Avenue

91 WB-9: Atlantic Avenue Off-Ramp Diverge to N/S 710 Connector Ramp Diverge

91 WB-10: N 710 – W 91 Connector Ramp/Atlantic Avenue On-Ramp Merge

91 WB-11: S 710 – W 91 Connector Ramp Merge to Long Beach Boulevard Based on a careful review of the detailed congestion problem analysis results, each of these locations is determined to experience congestion that warrants some type of improvement and is thus designated as a congestion hot spot. The eleven specific congestion locations are further described in terms of why they were identified as hot spots, including a summary of the analysis results, plus descriptions of the causes of congestion at each location. It has also been determined that although SR-91 WB east of Bloomfield Avenue to the Los Angeles/Orange county line does experience congestion, it is largely the result of downstream congestion west of Bloomfield Avenue that spills back into this segment and not specific freeway deficiencies.

CONGESTION HOT SPOT 91 WB-1

Location: Artesia Boulevard to Norwalk Boulevard

Performance Measures

PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph during the AM peak and during the PM peak.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period for the mainline weave. The model V/C LOS D in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.

Accident History: Accident history does not exceed statewide average by 30 percent or more.

Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 7 in the AM and 9 in the PM indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Cause of Congestion

Westbound SR-91 volumes begin to increase (causing slow down and congestion) in the vicinity of the Bloomfield Avenue entrance ramp. Upstream entrance ramp volumes (516 AM/ 723 PM) are greater than exit ramp volumes (294 AM/421 PM) resulting in mainline congestion. A short weaving distance of approximately 1,000 feet between Bloomfield Avenue and Norwalk Boulevard and between Norwalk Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard contributes to congestion in this area. In the vicinity of Bloomfield/Artesia is the first overhead sign indicating the I-605 connector is 1 ¾ mile ahead. Due to short spacing of the arterial street interchanges from this point to the I-605, some WB 91 vehicles heading to NB 605 will start moving to the right lanes to get positioned to exit. Congestion at this location is also interrelated to Hot Spot WB-2, WB-3 and WB-4.


Location: Norwalk Boulevard to Pioneer Boulevard


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph during the AM peak and 35 to 45 mph during the PM peak.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS E in the PM peak period for the mainline weave. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.

Accident History: Accident history exceeds statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location with a predominance of rear end accidents.

Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 10 in the AM and PM peak periods indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

The mainline volumes (6750 AM/8081 PM) approach full capacity. A short weaving distance of approximately 1,000 feet between Norwalk Boulevard and Pioneer Boulevard contributes to congestion in this area. Overhead signs continue in this area indicating the I-605 connector is ahead. Due to short spacing of the arterial street interchanges from this point to the I-605, WB 91 vehicles heading to NB 605 continue moving to the right lanes to get positioned to exit. Congestion at this location is also interrelated to Hot Spot WB-1, WB-3 and WB-4.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Location: Pioneer Boulevard to N/S 605 Connector Ramp Diverge Performance Measures

PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speed of 35 mph during the AM peak and 45-55 mph during the PM peak.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period for the mainline weave. The model V/C LOS D in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.

Accident History: Accident history exceeds statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location with a predominance of rear end accidents.

Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 10 in the AM peak period and 9 in the PM peak period indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volume (791 AM / 685 PM) of traffic entering the mainline at Pioneer Boulevard and exiting to I-605 (3208 AM / 3421 PM) and mainline weaving distance of approximately 2,400 feet results in congestion in this segment between Pioneer Boulevard entrance and I-605 exit. Due to short spacing of the arterial street interchanges from this point to the I-605, any remaining WB 91 vehicles heading to NB 605 move to the right lanes to get positioned to exit. Congestion at this location is interrelated to Hot Spots WB-1, WB-2 and WB-4. As a result, westbound SR-91 volumes typically back up at this location on a daily weekday basis to the east past WB-1 and WB-2.


Location: W 91 – N/S 605 Connector Ramp Diverge Performance Measures

PeMS Existing Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph during the AM peak period. During the PM peak period the speeds are between 45 and 55 mph which also is an indication of congestion.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in

FEASIBILITY REPORT


the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period for the mainline weave. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.

Accident History: Accident history exceeds statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location, which is an indication of congestion at this location.


Cause of Congestion

The 2035 No-Build freeway mainline volumes (7233 AM/8342 PM) are approaching full capacity. The high 2035 No-Build volume (3208 AM / 3421 PM) approaches capacity of the two-lane WB 91-N/S 605 connector ramp and the 2035 No-Build volume (2199 AM / 2126 PM) exceeds capacity of the one lane connector to NB 605.

The weaving distance of 2,400 feet between the Pioneer Boulevard entrance ramp (2035 No-Build volume 791 AM/685 PM) and the two lane N/S 605 connector ramp exit (3208 AM / 3421 PM) is not sufficient for the high volume of weaving vehicles.

The two lane connector ramp splits one lane to SB 605 and one lane to NB 605. The high volume of NB 605 traffic exceeds the capacity of a one lane ramp which causes backup that affects WB 91 operations upstream of this point. The NB 605 connector transitions to two lanes shortly after the one lane diverge movement, allowing the traffic congestion to disperse on the NB 605 connector downstream of this point.

Nonstandard existing shoulder widths (2 feet LT and 8 feet RT) and non-standard existing superelevation rate (6-8%) on the N/S 605 connector ramp also contribute to reduced capacity and congestion at this location.

As a result of the congestion described above, the westbound SR-91 volumes typically back up to the east at this location on a daily weekday basis past WB-1, WB-2 and WB-3.


Location: S 605 – W 91 Connector Ramp Merge


PeMS Existing Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph during the AM peak period. During the PM peak period the speeds are 45-55 mph.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates congestion during both AM and PM peak periods. While the 2035 No-Build HCM of LOS C/D in the AM and PM peak indicates moderate congestion, the model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS E in the PM peak period indicates extreme congestion.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Accident History: Accident history exceeds statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location with a predominance of accidents hitting a fixed object.


Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volume (1884 AM / 2267 PM) exceeds the capacity of the two-lane ramp that merges to one-lane prior to the entrance into the mainline, which also has high volumes (5510 AM/6656 PM). Nonstandard existing left shoulder width of 2 feet and nonstandard existing 8 percent superelevation on the connector ramp also contribute to reduced capacity and congestion at this location.


Location: Bellflower Boulevard to Clark Avenue


PeMS Speed Data: This segment experiences extremely slow mainline speeds with current average speed of less than 35 mph during the AM peak period. During the PM peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph, indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour.


Congestion Score: This segment experiences a combined congestion score of 9 in the AM peak period, indicating severe congestion from multiple causes, and 6 in the PM peak period, indicating moderate congestion problems.

Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volumes on the Bellflower Boulevard on-ramp (1281 AM / 758 PM) and the mainline (7353 AM / 7842 PM) contribute to congestion. The Clark Avenue off-ramp (268 AM / 556 PM) has moderate volumes.

A short weaving distance of approximately 650 feet exists between the Bellflower Boulevard on-ramp and the Clark Avenue off-ramp. This creates an operational issue that backs up westbound traffic due to the very short weaving distance in combination with the large volume of vehicles using the Bellflower Boulevard on-ramp and the

FEASIBILITY REPORT


mainline. For instance, the high volumes entering the freeway on the Bellflower Boulevard on-ramp are required to weave over one lane to enter the freeway. Clark Boulevard is a half-diamond (partial) interchange, with ramps only on the easterly side.


Location: Mainline Lane Addition at Downey Avenue


PEMS Speed Data: The segment immediately upstream of the lane addition at Downey Avenue experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph during the AM peak and over 55 mph in the PM peak, indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour.


Congestion Score: This segment experiences a combined congestion score of 8 in the AM peak period, indicating severe congestion from multiple causes, and 6 in the PM peak period, indicating moderate congestion problems.

Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volumes on the mainline (7846 AM / 7934 PM), Lakewood Boulevard loop on-ramp (633 AM / 520 PM), Lakewood Boulevard diamond on-ramp (504 AM / 601 PM) and Bellflower Boulevard on-ramp (1281 AM / 758 PM) contribute to congestion.

A 5th general purpose lane is added westbound via the Downey Avenue on-ramp. Upstream of this added lane (where there are only 4 general purpose lanes) has considerable congestion due to restricted capacity of the mainline.

The high volumes on the mainline and on-ramps east of Downey Avenue are greater than the capacity of the freeway at this location. This causes congestion between Downey Avenue and I-605 where the four mainline general purpose lanes do not provide enough capacity.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


CONGESTION HOT SPOT WB-8

Location: Paramount Boulevard to Cherry Avenue Performance Measures

PeMS Speed Data: This segment experiences slow mainline speeds with current average speed of 35-45 mph during the AM peak period. During the PM peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph, indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour.


Congestion Score: This segment experiences a combined congestion score of 7 in the AM peak period, indicating severe congestion from multiple causes, and 4 in the PM peak period, indicating limited congestion problems.

Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volume on the mainline (8,876 AM / 8,471 PM) and the moderate volumes on Paramount Boulevard on-ramp (592 AM / 776 PM) and Cherry Avenue off-ramp (432 AM / 672 PM) contribute to the congestion at this location.

A short weaving distance of approximately 700 feet exists between the Paramount Boulevard on-ramp and the Cherry Avenue off-ramp. This creates an operational issue due to the very short weaving distance in combination with the large volume of vehicles on the mainline and moderate volumes on the on- and off-ramps.


Location: Atlantic Avenue Off-Ramp Diverge to N/S 710 Connector Ramp Diverge Performance Measures

PeMS Speed Data: This segment experiences extremely slow mainline speeds with current average speed of less than 35 mph during the AM peak and greater than 55 mph in the PM peak, indicating that the congestion issue is exclusively during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: – The level of service analysis indicates congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS D

FEASIBILITY REPORT


in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour.


Congestion Score: This segment experiences a combined congestion score of 5 in the AM peak hour, indicating moderate congestion and 3 in the PM peak period, indicating limited congestion problems.

Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volume on the mainline (9,590 AM / 9,397 PM), W 91 – N/S 710 connector off-ramp (3,741 AM / 3,640 PM) and Atlantic Avenue off-ramp (960 AM / 945 PM) are all nearing capacity and contribute to the congestion at this location.

The high volumes mentioned above on the mainline and on the two closely spaced successive off-ramps create a situation where the vehicles extensively utilize the outside lanes to “get ready” to exit. The two successive off-ramps are approximately 740 feet apart. This natural movement to the outer right lanes causes a significant operational deficiency that is not necessarily captured by HCM.


Location: N 710 – W 91 Connector Ramp/Atlantic Avenue On-Ramp Merge Performance Measures

PEMS Speed Data: The segment immediately upstream from this merge experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speed of less than 35 mph during the AM peak and greater than 55 mph in the PM peak, indicating that the congestion issue is exclusively during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The 2035 No-Build HCM LOS is F during the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour for this merge junction.



Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volume on the N 710 – W 91 Connector Ramp/Atlantic Avenue On-Ramp (1,446 AM / 1,307 PM) is above capacity for a one-lane ramp and the mainline has moderate volume (4,889 AM / 4,812 PM) at this location.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


The N 710 to W 91 connector loop on-ramp joins with the Atlantic Avenue WB on-ramp to create a two-lane on-ramp to WB 91. This two-lane ramp immediately drops to one lane as it joins the freeway (which has three general purpose lanes prior to the on-ramp merge). This lane drop is the primary cause of the LOS F at this merge junction.

As a result of the congestion described above, the westbound SR-91 typically backs up to the east at this location past WB-8 and WB-9.


Location: S 710 – W 91 Connector Ramp Merge to Long Beach Boulevard Performance Measures

PEMS Speed Data: This segment experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speed of less than 35 mph during the AM peak and greater than 55 mph in the PM peak, indicating that the congestion issue is exclusively during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates significant congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour.



Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volume on the mainline (9,432 AM / 7,616 PM) and the S 710 – W 91 connector on-ramp (3,366 AM, 1,844 PM) are approaching capacity. The Long Beach Boulevard off-ramp (332 AM / 440 PM) has moderate volumes at this location.

A short weaving distance of approximately 1,100’ between the S 710 – W 91 connector on-ramp and the off-ramp to Long Beach Boulevard creates an operational issue due to the large volume of vehicles using the connector and the mainline in the AM peak hour. A mainline lane drop occurs immediately west of the off-ramp to Long Beach Boulevard, which further exacerbates the operations in this area.

The relatively short distance between the Long Beach Blvd. ramps and the ramps serving Alameda St. and Santa Fe Avenue also contribute to congestion at WB-11.

The congestion resulting from WB-10 and WB-11 in the AM backs up the westbound freeway into WB-8 and WB-9 (or even further east on a frequent daily basis). Once past WB-11 (and alameda St./Santa Fe Interchange) westbound SR-91 generally appears to open up.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


7.3 SR-91 WESTBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION

SUMMARY

The eleven congestion hot spot locations along SR-91 WB were further assessed and compared to determine how the congestion problem areas interrelate to one another. While some hot spots may stand alone in terms of their unique congestion and operational issues, others experience problems which are clearly related to upstream or downstream locations. The assessment of hot spot interconnectivity leads to a logical grouping of project definition segments that is then used to define a “hybrid” master plan of proposed freeway improvements that can provide the best investment for the maximum improvement benefit. In the case of SR-91 in the westbound direction, the eleven hot spot locations are combined into three logical “project definition” segments. The data and review of these segments show that they share operational issues and/or geometric issues. The three combined project definition segments for SR-91 westbound are as follows:

WB-1 – WB-4: Artesia Boulevard to W 91 - N/S 605 Connector Ramp Diverge

WB-5 – WB-7: S 605 – W 91 Connector Ramp Merge - Downey Avenue

WB-8 – WB-11: Paramount Boulevard to Long Beach Boulevard

CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION FOR SR-91 WB HOT SPOTS 91 WB-1 TO 91 WB-4

Location: Artesia Boulevard to W 91 - N/S 605 Connector Ramp Diverge Congestion Problem: This two mile segment is characterized by existing average speeds of less than 35 mph in the AM peak period and 45 to 55 mph in the PM peak period. Four local interchanges are spaced approximately ½ mile apart to the east of the SR-91/I-605 system interchange. Caltrans and FHWA standard for spacing between a system interchange and a local interchange is two miles and the standard spacing between local interchanges is one mile. The closely spaced interchanges do not meet Caltrans and FHWA Standards and contributes to mainline congestion as a result of merging and weaving of vehicles entering and exiting the freeway. Traffic volumes on westbound SR-91 begin to increase in the vicinity of the Artesia Boulevard entrance ramp, as more vehicles enter the freeway mainline than exit at the following Norwalk Blvd. interchange. This is also the location where vehicles begin to merge right to access mainline SR-91 WB mainline lanes 4 and 5 which exit on the N/S 605 connector. The two lane N/S 605 connector experiences congestion as the one lane NB 605 connector is over capacity. Congestion at this location results in queuing that backs up to the location where the N/S connector ramp diverges from the SR-91 mainline and also creates a long queue of congestion in mainline lanes 4 and 5 upstream of the N/S 605 connector ramp through the closely spaced local interchanges. The four localized hot spots result in a continuous, highly

FEASIBILITY REPORT


congested 2 mile segment of westbound SR-91. Future projected mainline freeway volumes will contribute to making congestion in this segment worse in the future too. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable congestion improvement as summarized below:

Add 1 mainline lane from Artesia Boulevard to I-605 and widen N/S 605 connector ramp diverge from 2 lanes to 3 lanes.

Maintain existing auxiliary lanes from Bloomfield Avenue to Norwalk Boulevard; Norwalk Boulevard to Pioneer Boulevard; and Pioneer Boulevard to I-605 connector exit.

Remove existing Norwalk Boulevard to WB-91 direct on-ramp and convert to “D” ramp configuration. A “D” ramp configuration involves converting the existing uncontrolled, high speed movement onto the ramp to a signal-controlled, slow right-turn movement.

Remove existing Pioneer Boulevard to WB-91 direct on-ramp and convert to “D” ramp configuration.

Widen existing WB 91 Pioneer Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard exit ramps to provide 2-lane exits.

Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of the WB-1 to WB-4 reach include:

Preliminary Cost Range: $ 50 M - $ 60 M (assuming modification of the full 91/605 system interchange is not included and would be a separate project)

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is generally LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS E in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is generally LOS D in the AM peak period and LOS D in the PM peak period. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 7,500 AM/9,000 PM in this reach.

Accidents: Existing accident history generally exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent or more in this reach, particularly at the N/S 605 connector, which is expected to decrease with the proposed improvements.

Environmental/Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this reach of improvements are anticipated to be of moderate significance. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of low significance.

Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score range of 2-3 in the AM peak period and 3-4 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 5-10 in the AM and 7-10 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a high significance of reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 91 WB-1 to WB-4 is considered to be of high value based on the significance of the improvement

FEASIBILITY REPORT


benefit gained for the cost invested and the significant reduction in the future congestion.


Location: S 605 – W 91 Connector Ramp Merge – Downey Avenue Congestion Problem: This three mile segment is characterized by existing average speeds of less than 35 mph in the AM peak period and over 55 mph in the PM peak period. The lane drop from two to one lane on the S 605 – W 91 connector ramp, combined with the heavy volumes on this connector ramp, result in congestion at the merge with westbound SR-91. A short weaving distance of approximately 650’ between the Bellflower Boulevard on-ramp and the Clark Avenue off-ramp, combined with the large volumes using Bellflower Boulevard on-ramp and the mainline, result in congestion at this location. A general characteristic of this segment is a lack of capacity on the mainline. West of Downey Avenue the freeway has five general purpose lanes; however, there are only four general purpose lanes between Downey Avenue and I-605. This lack of capacity and other issues within this segment causes considerable congestion and backups in the westbound direction. The three localized hot spots result in a continuous highly congested 3 mile segment of westbound SR-91.

Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable congestion improvement as summarized below:

Reconstruct S 605 connector ramp to be two lanes as it merges onto WB SR-91. One of these lanes will be an additional general purpose lane extending to Downey Avenue (to join the existing 5th general purpose lane near Downey Avenue) and one lane will be for maintaining the existing auxiliary lane to Bellflower Boulevard.

Provide two-lane exit ramp to Bellflower Boulevard.

Eliminate the Clark Boulevard off-ramp.

Maintain existing auxiliary lane between Bellflower Boulevard on-ramp and Lakewood Boulevard off-ramp (connect auxiliary lane through the closed Clark Boulevard interchange).

Maintain existing auxiliary lane between Lakewood Boulevard on-ramp and Downey Avenue off-ramp.

Provide two-lane exit ramp to Downey Boulevard.


Preliminary Cost Range: $ 75 M - $ 85 M

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is generally LOS E

FEASIBILITY REPORT


in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is generally LOS D in the AM peak period and LOS E in the PM peak period. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 7,500 AM/8,500 PM in this reach.

Accidents: Existing accident history generally does not exceed the statewide average by 30 percent or more in this reach, except at the S 605 connector ramp, which is expected to decrease with the proposed improvements.

Environmental/Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this reach of improvements are anticipated to be of moderate significance. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of moderate significance (primarily related to Bellflower Blvd widening).

Congestion Score: This reach experiences a future combined congestion score range of 5-6 in the AM peak period and 3-5 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 7-9 in the AM and 5-6 in the PM for 2035 No-Build, indicating a high significance of reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 91 WB-5 to WB-7 is considered to be of moderate value based on the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested and that some congestion is only moderately improved.


Location: Paramount Boulevard – Long Beach Boulevard Congestion Problem: This two mile segment is characterized by existing average speeds of generally less than 35 mph in the AM peak period and over 55 mph in the PM peak period. The segment between Paramount Boulevard and Cherry Avenue has a short weaving distance of 700’. This creates an area of congestion due to the short weaving distance in combination with the large volumes on the mainline, Paramount Boulevard on-ramp and Cherry Avenue off-ramp. Approaching the I-710 interchange, there are two closely spaced successive off-ramps (one to Atlantic Avenue and the other to N/S 710) with very heavy volumes associated with each off-ramp and the mainline. This creates a situation where vehicles extensively use the outside lanes to “get ready” to exit. In the future, a third off-ramp will potentially be added in this area to access the S 710 Freight Corridor as part of the I-710 Corridor Project. Another cause of congestion is where the N 710 – W 91 connector/Atlantic Avenue on-ramp merges with the mainline. The heavy volumes associated with this on-ramp and the mainline and the reduction to a one-lane ramp create a merge junction that is operating at LOS F. Lastly, a short weaving distance of approximately 1,100’ between the S 710 – W 91 connector on-ramp and the Long Beach Boulevard off-ramp, in combination with the large volumes on the mainline and connector, causes congestion at this critical area. A mainline lane drop occurs immediately west of the off-ramp to Long Beach Boulevard, which further exacerbates the operations in the westbound direction (plus congestion related impacts associated with the ramps to Alameda St./Santa Fe Ave. west of Long Beach Blvd.). The four localized hot spots result in a continuous highly congested 2 mile segment of westbound SR-91.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Braid Paramount Boulevard on-ramp and Cherry Avenue off-ramp.

Provide new auxiliary lane from Cherry Avenue on-ramp to Atlantic Avenue off-ramp.

Maintain existing auxiliary lane prior to N/S 710 off-ramp.

Add one general purpose lane from N/S 710 off-ramp (near Atlantic Avenue) to Santa Fe Avenue.

Provide two-lane exit to Long Beach Boulevard.

Relocate N 710 – W 91 connector ramp as shown for the I-710 Corridor Project.



2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates some reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is generally LOS D-F in the AM peak period and LOS D-F in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is generally LOS D-E in the AM peak period and LOS D-E in the PM peak period. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 9,000 AM/8,500 PM in this reach.

Accidents: Existing accident history does not exceed the statewide average by 30 percent or more in this reach.

Environmental/Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this reach of improvements are anticipated to be of moderate significance. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of moderate significance.

Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score range of 2-7 in the AM peak period and 1-4 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 5-7 in the AM and 3-5 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a moderate significance of reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 91 WB-1 to WB-4 is considered to be of moderate value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested and the moderate improvements in congestion scores.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


PostMile SR-91 Location 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

5.028 LONG BEACH 1 70 68 68 69 71 71 71 71 68 65 64 64 66 66 57 36 32 29 37 59 72 73 72 72

5.778 ATLANTIC 1 68 67 67 67 68 68 67 66 66 66 65 65 65 64 52 38 36 33 38 54 65 67 67 67

6.198 ATLANTIC 2 69 67 67 69 72 72 71 68 69 67 66 66 68 67 57 46 44 41 45 56 69 71 71 71

6.568 ORANGE 65 63 63 65 67 67 64 60 62 60 60 60 61 60 51 42 41 38 41 51 65 66 67 67

7.258 CHERRY 68 67 67 68 72 72 68 62 65 63 62 61 63 61 49 38 37 34 38 52 68 71 71 71

7.688 PARAMOUNT 63 60 60 63 67 66 62 58 60 58 57 57 58 57 53 47 46 45 47 53 63 64 64 65

8.208 DOWNEY 2 52 50 50 51 52 53 52 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 48 45 44 43 45 48 52 53 52 52

8.588 LAKEWOOD 1 62 57 57 59 64 62 56 48 49 48 47 45 46 45 40 33 31 28 32 41 51 54 56 59

8.798 LAKEWOOD 2 56 50 50 50 52 52 49 44 45 45 45 44 45 44 41 36 34 33 35 41 49 51 51 51

9.218 CLARK 68 65 65 67 70 71 68 64 63 63 63 62 64 64 61 56 51 48 50 59 68 70 70 70

9.538 BELLFLOWER 1 76 77 77 78 78 78 76 72 71 73 72 72 73 73 70 58 50 43 46 63 76 78 78 78

9.758 BELLFLOWER 2 68 66 66 68 70 70 67 61 60 61 61 61 62 63 59 47 40 34 37 52 66 70 70 70

10.218 CALIFORNIA 67 64 64 66 69 69 67 59 59 62 61 61 62 63 58 46 41 37 38 49 65 69 69 69

10.798 W OF 605 63 59 59 62 65 65 62 46 49 58 58 57 58 58 50 34 26 22 25 40 59 64 64 65

11.368 STUDEBAKER 66 64 64 65 67 67 64 48 52 61 61 60 61 60 52 40 34 32 34 46 61 65 65 65

11.958 PIONEER 1 65 64 64 64 65 65 63 55 57 61 61 60 60 59 56 50 47 47 49 55 62 64 64 65

12.208 PIONEER 2 61 56 55 57 60 61 57 49 52 55 55 54 53 53 48 44 42 42 44 49 57 60 60 60

12.538 NORWALK 1 63 62 62 63 65 64 61 55 57 59 58 56 55 55 52 50 49 51 52 56 62 63 64 64

12.768 NORWALK 2 63 62 62 63 65 65 63 61 60 59 59 59 60 61 61 60 58 58 58 59 62 64 63 64

13.108 BLOOMFIELD 66 65 64 65 68 69 66 63 61 62 63 63 64 64 63 62 59 58 58 61 65 67 67 67

13.408 SHOEMAKER 67 65 64 65 68 69 66 63 61 61 62 62 62 63 62 60 56 54 56 60 65 67 67 68

13.498 ARTESIA 65 63 62 63 66 66 63 61 59 61 61 61 62 63 62 60 56 54 56 59 64 65 65 65

14.208 183RD 61 57 57 57 59 59 57 55 53 52 53 54 54 55 55 54 51 49 50 53 58 59 59 59

15.339 ORANGETHORPE 67 65 65 66 69 69 66 53 54 61 63 63 63 64 61 54 47 44 45 55 64 68 68 68

Hour of the day

7.4 SR-91 EASTBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT PROBLEM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

The location and duration of existing congestion along SR-91 eastbound (EB) are illustrated in the PeMS Speed Contour Exhibit (Figure 10). Congestion occurs from Long Beach Boulevard to Norwalk Boulevard. The time period is over four hours in the PM. In the vicinity of the Lakewood Boulevard interchange, congestion is observed throughout the AM and PM periods.

FIGURE 10: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR EB SR-91

Ten locations have been documented as the areas that represent significant congestion problem areas for purposes of detailed analysis. The following discussion and corresponding Figures 11-12 display the ten congestion hot spot locations along with a description of the congestion issues at each location. The ten hot spot locations for SR-91 EB are as follows (labeled 91 EB-1 through 91 EB-10 for hot spot locations 1 through 10):

91 EB-1: N 710 – E 91 Connector Ramp Merge to Atlantic Avenue On-Ramp Merge

91 EB-2: Cherry Avenue to Paramount Boulevard

FEASIBILITY REPORT


91 EB-3: Mainline Lane Drop at Lakewood Boulevard

91 EB-4: Clark Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard

91 EB-5: N/S 605 Connector Ramp Diverge

91 EB-6: S 605 – E91 Connector Ramp Merge

91 EB-7: N 605 – E91 Connector Ramp Merge

91 EB-8: Mainline Lane Drop at Pioneer Boulevard

91 EB-9: Pioneer Boulevard to Norwalk Boulevard

91 EB-10: Norwalk Boulevard to Bloomfield Avenue

Based on a careful review of the detailed congestion problem analysis results, each of these locations is determined to experience congestion that warrants some type of improvement and is thus designated as a congestion hot spot. The specific congestion locations are further described in terms of why they were identified as hot spots, including a summary of the analysis results, plus descriptions of the causes of congestion at each location. It has also been determined that SR-91 EB east of Bloomfield Avenue to the Los Angeles/Orange County line does not experience a level of congestion to warrant improvements.

CONGESTION HOT SPOT 91 EB-1

Location: N 710 – E 91 Connector Ramp Merge to Atlantic Avenue On-Ramp Merge Performance Measures

PeMS Speed Data: This segment experiences extremely slow mainline speeds with current average speed of less than 35 mph during the PM peak period. During the AM peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph, indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the PM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS D and model V/C LOS F during the AM peak hour, as well as the LOS E/E, respectively, during the PM peak hour. The N 710 – E 91 connector on-ramp merge and the S 710 – E 91 connector on-ramp merge both operate at LOS F/F in the AM and PM peak hours in the 2035 No-Build condition. The Atlantic Avenue on-ramp operates at LOS E in the PM peak hour in the 2035 No-Build condition.

Accident History: Accident history does not exceed statewide average by 30 percent or more; thus, it does not appear that accidents contribute significantly to the congestion at this location.

Congestion Score: This segment experiences a combined congestion score of 4 in the AM peak period, indicating moderate congestion problems, and 7 in the PM peak period, indicating severe congestion problems.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volumes for the mainline (8,398 AM, 9,046 PM), N 710 to E 91 on-ramp (1,244 AM / 1,642 PM) and S 710 to E 91 on-ramp (1,816 AM, 1,931 PM) are all approaching or above capacity. The moderate Atlantic Avenue on-ramp volume (519 AM / 552 PM) adds additional traffic into an already congested area.

Three successive on-ramps with significant volumes enter the eastbound freeway at this location. In the future, a fourth on-ramp is proposed in this area as part of the I-710 Corridor Project (fourth on-ramp is N 710 to E 91 Freight Corridor on-ramp). The N 710 – E 91 connector on-ramp merge and the S 710 – E 91 connector on-ramp merge both operate at LOS F/F in the AM and PM peak hours in the 2035 No-Build condition. The Atlantic Avenue on-ramp operates at LOS E in the PM peak hour in the 2035 No-Build condition. This situation causes significant congestion and backup on eastbound SR-91.


Location: Cherry Avenue to Paramount Boulevard Performance Measures

PeMS Speed Data: This segment experiences slow speeds with current average speeds of 35-45 mph during the PM peak and over 55 mph in the AM peak, indicating that the congestion issue is exclusively during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: – The level of service analysis indicates severe congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour.



Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volume for the mainline (8,450 AM / 9,018 PM) is approaching capacity. The moderate volumes of the Cherry Avenue on-ramp (837 AM / 781 PM) and the Paramount Boulevard off-ramp (666 AM / 512 PM) contribute to the congestion in the area.

A short weaving distance of approximately 500 feet exists between the Cherry Avenue on-ramp and the Paramount Boulevard off-ramp. This creates an operational issue due to the very short weaving distance in combination with the large volume of vehicles on the mainline and moderate volumes on the on- and off-ramps.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


The 5th mainline general purpose lane drops at the Cherry Avenue off-ramp and a 5th mainline general purpose lane is added at the Paramount Boulevard on-ramp; therefore, a mainline “gap” is created from Cherry Avenue to Paramount Boulevard where there are only 4 mainline general purpose lanes in the eastbound direction.


Location: Mainline Lane Drop at Lakewood Boulevard Performance Measures

PeMS Speed Data: The segment immediately upstream of the mainline lane drop experiences extremely slow mainline speeds with current average speed of less than 35 mph during the PM peak period. During the AM peak period, speeds are 45- 55 mph.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS D in the AM peak hour, as well as the LOS E in the PM peak hour.

Accident History: The accident history between Lakewood Boulevard and Clark Avenue (a portion of this segment has one less general purpose lane) exceeds statewide average by 30 percent or more with a predominance of rear end accidents.

Congestion Score: This segment experiences a combined congestion score of 7 in the AM peak period and 9 in the PM peak period, indicating severe congestion problems in both peak periods.

Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volume on the mainline at lane drop (7,548 AM / 8,288 PM) are over capacity for the four lanes that exist after the lane drop.

The 5th mainline general purpose lane drops immediately after the Lakewood Boulevard off-ramp and a 5th mainline general purpose lane is added at the Lakewood Boulevard diamond on-ramp; therefore, a mainline “gap” is created for this short distance where there are only 4 mainline general purpose lanes in the eastbound direction.

CONGESTION HOT SPOT EB-4

Location: Clark Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard Performance Measures

PeMS Speed Data: This segment experiences extremely slow mainline speeds with current average speed of less than 35 mph during the PM peak period. During the AM

FEASIBILITY REPORT


peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph, indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the PM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS E in the AM peak hour LOS F in the PM peak hour.



Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volumes on the mainline (8,628 AM / 9,473 PM) and Bellflower Boulevard off-ramp (933 AM / 688 PM) and the moderate volume on the Clark Avenue on-ramp (430 AM / 429 PM) contribute to congestion in the area.

A short weaving distance of approximately 850 feet exists between the Clark Avenue on-ramp and the Bellflower Boulevard off-ramp. This creates an operational issue due to the short weaving distance in combination with the large volume of vehicles using the Bellflower Boulevard off-ramp and the mainline. For instance, the high volumes exiting the freeway onto the Bellflower Boulevard off-ramp are required to weave over one lane to exit the freeway. Clark Boulevard is a half-diamond (partial) interchange, with ramps only on the easterly side. This situation causes congestion and backup on eastbound SR-91.


Location: N/S 605 Connector Ramp Diverge


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences speeds of 45 to 55 mph in the AM peak and extremely slow speeds of less than 35 mph in the PM peak.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM and PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.

Accident History: Accident history exceeds statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location with a predominance of rear end and sideswipe accidents.


FEASIBILITY REPORT


Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline is at capacity (9042 AM/10003 PM) at the N/S 605 connector ramp diverge. After the connector ramp diverge, the freeway mainline is at capacity and congestion builds as a result of successive on-ramps to the east. Congestion at this location is inter-related to Hot Spot EB-6 and EB-7.


Location: S 605 – E91 Connector Ramp Merge


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences slow speeds with current average speed of 45 to 55 mph in the AM peak and less than 35 mph in the PM peak.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM and PM for the ramp merge. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.

Accident History: Accident history does not exceed the statewide average by 30 percent or more.


Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline is at capacity with 2035 No-Build volumes (5146 AM/5933 PM) at the S 605 connector ramp merge. The 2035 No-Build volume (1864 AM/1797 PM) exceeds the capacity of a single lane loop ramp. The existing ramp geometrics merge from two lanes to one lane as the ramp joins the freeway mainline. Congestion at this location is inter-related to Hot Spot 91 EB-5 and 91 EB-7.


Location: N 605-E91 Connector Ramp Merge Performance Measures:

PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences slow speeds with a current average speed of 45 to 55 mph in the AM peak and 35 to 45 mph in the PM peak.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS D in the AM and LOS F in the PM for the ramp merge. The model V/C LOS E in the AM and PM peak also indicates extreme congestion.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Accident History: Accident history exceeds statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location with a predominance of read end and sideswipe accidents.


Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline is at capacity with a 2035 No-Build volume (7010 AM/7730 PM) at the connector ramp merge. The one lane ramp volume (1093 AM/1498 PM) added to the Studebaker ramp merge volume (391 AM/534 PM) results in a lane that is over capacity which is compounded by vehicles (867 AM/898 PM) exiting at Pioneer. Congestion at this location is inter-related to Hot Spot EB-6 and EB-8.


Location: Mainline Lane Drop at Pioneer Boulevard


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences slow speeds with a current average speed of 45 to 55 mph in the AM peak and 35 to 45 mph during the PM peak.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM and PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM and PM peak periods also indicate extreme congestion.

Accident History: Accident history exceeds statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location with a predominance of rear end and sideswipe accidents.


Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline is at capacity with a 2035 No-Build volume of 8494 AM/9762 PM. Existing single lane exit ramp volumes (867 AM/898 PM) are approaching need for a two-lane exit. The mandatory exit at Pioneer creates a mainline chokepoint. The mainline volumes (7626 AM/8864 PM) after the Pioneer exit are over capacity. Congestion at this location is inter-related to Hot Spot EB-7 and EB-9.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Location: Pioneer Boulevard to Norwalk Boulevard Performance Measures

PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences slow speeds with a current average speed of 45 to 55 mph in the AM and PM peak.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion in both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period for the mainline weave. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.


Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 6 in the AM and 7 in the PM indicating some severe congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline is at capacity (8494 AM/9762 PM). Existing single lane exit ramp volumes (867 AM/898 PM) are approaching the need for a two-lane exit. The mandatory exit at Pioneer creates a mainline choke point. The mainline volumes (7626 AM/8664 Pm) after the Pioneer exit are over capacity. Congestion at this location is interrelated to Hot Spot EB-8 and EB-10.


Location: Norwalk Boulevard to Bloomfield Avenue Performance Measures

PeMS Existing Speed Data: Although PeMS data was not available for this freeway segment, the freeway segments to the west and to the east experience slow speeds with an average speed of 45 to 55 mph in the AM and PM which is an indication of congestion.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both AM and PM peak periods. This is based on 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM and PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.


Congestion Score: This location received a congestion score of 6 in the AM and PM peak period indicating some severe congestion from multiple causes.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Cause of Congestion

The mainline volumes (8312 AM/8997 PM) approach full capacity. A short weaving distance of approximately 1,000 feet between Norwalk Boulevard and Bloomfield Avenue contributes to congestion in this area. The high exit volumes (935 AM/878 PM) at Bloomfield Avenue are approaching capacity of a single lane exit.

7.5 SR-91 EASTBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION

SUMMARY

The ten congestion hot spot locations along SR-91 EB were further assessed and compared to determine how the congestion problem areas interrelate to one another. While some hot spots may stand alone in terms of their unique congestion and operational issues, others experience problems which are clearly related to upstream or downstream locations and congestion issues. The assessment of hot spot interconnectivity leads to a logical grouping of project definition segments that is then used to define a “hybrid” master plan by linking the congestion areas together of proposed freeway improvements that will lead to the best investment for the maximum improvement benefit. In the case of SR-91 in the eastbound direction, the ten hot spot locations are combined into three “project definition” segments. The data and review of these segments show that they share operational issues and/or geometric issues. The combined project definition segments for SR-91 eastbound are as follows:

EB-1 – EB-2: N 710 – W 91 Connector Ramp Merge – Downey Avenue

EB-3 – EB-4 Lakewood Boulevard to Bellflower Boulevard

EB-5 - EB-10: E 91/N-S 605 Connector Diverge to Bloomfield Avenue

CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION FOR SR-91 EB HOT SPOTS 91 EB-1 TO 91 EB-2

Location: N 710 – E 91 Connector Ramp Merge – Downey Avenue Congestion Problem: This two mile segment is characterized by existing average speeds of less than 35 mph in the PM peak period and over 55 mph in the AM peak period. Three successive on-ramps with significant volumes from northbound 710, southbound 710 and Atlantic Boulevard enter the eastbound freeway immediately east of I-710. In the future, a fourth on-ramp is proposed in this area as part of the I-710 Corridor Project (fourth on-ramp is a N 710 to E 91 Freight Corridor on-ramp). The high volumes on the connector ramps from I-710 and the mainline cause the merge junctions to fail, which results in eastbound backups stretching to Santa Fe Avenue in the PM peak hour. The two localized hot spots result in a continuous highly congested segment of eastbound SR-91.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Add 1 mainline lane from approximately Long Beach Boulevard to N 710 – E 91 on-ramp (connect 4th lane through the I-710 interchange area).

Provide two-lane entrance for N 710 – E 91 on-ramp with no lane drops (adds 5th and 6th general purpose lanes; 6th lane drops as an auxiliary lane at Cherry Avenue/Paramount Boulevard).

Maintain one-lane entrance for S 710 – E 91 on-ramp with no lane drops (adds 7th general purpose lane which drops as an auxiliary lane to Cherry Avenue/Paramount Boulevard).

Realign Atlantic Avenue on-ramp to join N 710 – E 91 Freight Corridor ramp as a CD road. This CD road is braided with the off-ramp to Cherry Avenue and Paramount Boulevard.

Braid Cherry Avenue on-ramp with the off-ramp to Cherry Avenue and Paramount Boulevard.

Provide new auxiliary lane between Paramount Boulevard and Downey Avenue.

Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of the EB-1 to EB-2 reach include:


2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is generally LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS E in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is generally LOS D in the AM peak period and LOS E in the PM peak period. A more significant LOS improvement is at the I-710 connector on-ramp merge junctions, which generally improve from LOS F in the 2035 No-Build HCM to LOS D or better in the 2035 Build HCM. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 8,500 AM/9,000 PM in this reach.


Environmental/Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this reach of improvements are anticipated to be of high significance. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of high significance.

Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score range of 2-3 in the AM peak period and 4-8 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 4-6 in the AM and 7-8 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a moderate significance of reduced congestion.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 91 EB-1 to EB-2 is considered to be of moderate value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested based on the moderate improvement in congestion score.


Location: Lakewood Boulevard – Bellflower Boulevard Congestion Problem: This segment is characterized by existing average speeds of less than 35 mph in the PM peak period and 45 to 55 mph in the AM peak period. In the eastbound direction, the 5th general purpose lane drops immediately after the Lakewood Boulevard off-ramp and a 5th general purpose lane is added at the Lakewood Boulevard diamond on-ramp; thus, a mainline “gap” is created for this short distance with only four general purpose lanes. This results in congestion in the area and backups to approximately Downey Avenue in the PM peak hour. Further east, a short weaving distance of 850’ exists between the Clark Avenue on-ramp and the Bellflower Boulevard off-ramp. This short weaving distance in combination with the high volumes on the mainline and Bellflower Boulevard off-ramp creates an operational issue in this area. The two localized hot spots result in a continuous highly congested segment of eastbound SR-91. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable congestion improvement as summarized below:

Add 1 mainline lane from the existing lane drop immediately after Lakewood Boulevard off-ramp to Lakewood Boulevard diamond on-ramp (“gap” closure).

Maintain existing auxiliary lane between Lakewood Boulevard diamond on-ramp and Bellflower Boulevard off-ramp.

Eliminate the Clark Boulevard on-ramp.

Provide two-lane exit to Bellflower Boulevard off-ramp.



2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates similar congestion conditions. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is generally LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS E in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is generally LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS E in the PM peak period. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience similar congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 9,000 AM/9,500 PM in this reach.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Accidents: Existing accident history generally exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent or more in this reach, which is expected to decrease with the proposed improvements.

Environmental/Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this reach of improvements are anticipated to be of low significance. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of moderate significance (primarily related to the widening of Bellflower Blvd).

Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score range of 4-5 in the AM peak period and 7 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 4-7 in the AM and 8-9 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a high significance of reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 91 EB-3 to EB-4 is considered to be of high value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested.


Location: E 91/N-S 605 Connector Diverge to Bloomfield Avenue Congestion Problem: This two mile segment is characterized by existing average speeds of 45 to 55 mph in the AM peak period and less than 35 mph in the PM peak period. Four local interchanges are spaced approximately ½ mile apart to the east of the SR-91/I-605 system interchange. Caltrans and FHWA standard for spacing between a system interchange and a local interchange is two miles and the standard spacing between local interchanges is one mile. The closely spaced interchanges do not meet Caltrans and FHWA Standards and contributes to mainline congestion as a result of merging and weaving of vehicles entering and exiting the freeway. Beginning at the 605 system interchange, the reduction to three lanes in eastbound 91 after the 605 ramp connector diverge, the mainline is at capacity and congestion occurs. Congestion builds as a result of successive on-ramps to the east including the S 605 – E 91 Connector Loop Ramp, the N 605 – E 91 Connector Ramp and Studebaker On-ramp. Congestion is further exacerbated by the mainline lane drop at Pioneer Boulevard. The six localized hot spots result in a continuous highly congested 2 mile segment of eastbound SR-91. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable congestion improvement as summarized below:

Convert the SR-91 3-lane lane drop at N/S 605 to a 2 lane drop with optional through/exit movement and continue Lane No. 4 through the system interchange.

Reconstruct S 605 loop ramp connector and join E 91 as Lane No. 5 and No. 6.

Reconstruct N 605 direct ramp connect and join E 91 as Lane No. 7.

Continue E 91 Lane No. 7 to Pioneer Boulevard and drop as part of two-lane exit.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Remove existing Pioneer Boulevard to E 91 direct on-ramp and convert to “D” ramp configuration.

Maintain existing auxiliary lane between Pioneer Boulevard entrance and Norwalk Boulevard exit.

Improve Norwalk Boulevard off-ramp to two-lane exit.

Remove existing Norwalk Boulevard to E 91 direct on-ramp and convert to “D” ramp configuration.

Maintain existing auxiliary lane between Norwalk Boulevard entrance and Bloomfield Avenue exit.

Improve Bloomfield Avenue off-ramp to a two-lane exit and drop Lane No. 6.

Merge Lane No. 5 to existing E 91 general purpose four lane section prior to Artesia Boulevard Overcrossing.


Preliminary Cost Range: $ 100 M - $ 125 M (assuming modification of the full 91/605 system interchange is not included and would be a separate project)

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is generally LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS E/F in the PM peak period for the mainline to the 2035 Build HCM which is generally LOS D in the AM peak period and LOS D/E in the PM peak period. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 9,000 AM/11,000 PM in the reach.

Accidents: Existing accident history generally exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent or more in this reach, particularly at the 605 system interchange, which is expected to decrease with the proposed improvements.

Environmental/Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this reach of improvements are anticipated to be of moderate significant. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of low significance.


Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 91 EB-5 to EB-10 is considered to be of high value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested and the significant reduction in congestion scores.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 11: SR-91 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DEFINITION

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 12: SR-91 2035 NO-BUILD CONGESTION ANALYSIS PLAN (1 of 7)

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 12: SR-91 2035 NO-BUILD CONGESTION ANALYSIS PLAN (2 OF 7)

FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT


PostMile I-605 Location 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

26.204 ARROW 2 66 63 62 62 62 66 66 68 67 64 64 63 63 64 62 56 63 68 69 68 68 68 68 68

26.004 ARROW 1 68 65 64 65 67 69 69 70 69 67 66 66 65 65 64 59 65 70 70 68 69 69 69 70

25.352 LIVE OAK 66 64 64 64 65 66 66 67 66 64 64 63 63 63 63 60 64 66 66 66 67 67 67 67

24.418 LOWER AZUSA 72 71 71 71 72 73 73 72 71 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 69 68 69 71 73 73 73 73

23.283 RAMONA 70 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 68 67 67 67 67 68 66 66 67 65 67 69 70 70 70 71

22.042 N OF 10 64 62 62 61 61 62 62 61 58 59 59 59 57 55 53 50 51 51 51 55 60 64 65 65

21.554 VALLEY 2 64 61 61 60 61 62 63 59 53 58 59 56 52 46 37 29 30 32 32 43 55 62 64 65

21.417 VALLEY 1 56 54 54 52 53 54 55 52 47 51 51 49 45 40 31 25 27 29 30 38 48 55 56 57

19.152 S OF 60 66 63 63 63 64 66 65 62 60 61 60 60 59 58 53 42 34 30 34 53 63 66 66 66

18.812 PECK 2 68 66 66 65 67 69 67 65 63 63 63 64 64 63 57 43 35 29 34 56 68 69 69 69

18.632 PECK 1 67 66 65 65 67 68 67 64 62 63 63 63 63 62 56 43 34 29 34 56 67 68 68 68

17.712 ROSE HILL2

17.508 ROSE HILL1

16.942 NOYES 68 65 64 64 67 69 67 67 64 62 60 60 59 60 59 58 56 56 61 64 67 68 69 70

16.562 BEVERLY 2 68 65 64 65 68 69 67 67 64 61 61 59 59 58 57 56 54 55 59 62 67 69 70 70

16.359 BEVERLY 1 67 65 65 65 67 68 66 66 63 61 61 59 59 58 56 55 52 52 57 59 65 67 68 69

15.7 WHITTIER 2 68 65 64 64 67 69 67 65 62 61 61 58 59 58 56 55 54 53 60 63 65 68 69 69

15.532 WHITTIER 1 67 64 63 63 66 69 67 64 62 61 60 58 59 58 55 54 53 53 59 63 68 69 69 71

15.052 ROSEHEDGE 68 65 65 65 67 69 67 65 62 60 59 57 58 57 56 56 54 54 59 62 67 68 69 70

14.532 SARAGOSA 66 62 62 62 65 67 66 64 60 58 58 56 57 58 55 55 54 53 59 62 67 69 70 71

14.042 S OF WASHINGTON 62 59 59 59 60 62 61 60 57 55 54 53 54 55 54 55 55 56 58 59 61 63 63 64

13.562 SLAUSON 67 64 64 64 67 69 67 67 64 62 61 60 61 62 60 61 61 62 61 63 67 69 70 71

12.962 PLACITA 63 60 60 61 63 64 62 60 58 56 56 55 56 57 56 57 58 58 58 59 62 64 65 66

12.447 TELEGRAPH 64 61 61 62 66 68 66 63 60 58 58 57 57 58 56 57 59 57 57 60 66 68 69 70

11.802 N OF 5 62 59 59 60 63 63 60 55 52 53 54 53 53 54 52 52 53 53 53 56 61 63 65 65

11.352 FLORENCE 63 60 60 62 66 67 59 35 30 46 57 54 53 54 42 35 32 33 35 51 64 66 67 66

10.552 FIRESTONE 67 66 66 68 71 70 62 29 22 45 60 59 57 59 45 32 28 27 31 52 68 70 72 71

10.252 FM 105 EB 70 71 71 71 72 72 67 36 26 55 65 65 65 65 54 41 35 36 46 61 72 73 73 72

9.852 IMPERIAL 61 58 58 58 59 60 58 33 23 50 55 55 54 54 48 40 34 36 46 52 57 58 59 58

9.382 FOSTER 71 69 69 69 71 72 67 45 35 60 65 64 64 64 58 56 56 59 63 65 70 72 73 72

8.982 ROSECRANS 2 69 67 67 67 70 71 69 55 48 64 67 66 67 67 63 62 64 66 67 67 70 71 71 71

8.902 ROSECRANS 1 67 65 65 64 68 69 65 48 40 61 64 63 64 64 59 58 61 64 65 65 69 69 70 69

8.342 FAIRTON 70 68 68 67 71 72 67 53 48 64 67 66 67 67 63 62 65 67 68 68 72 72 73 72

7.972 ALONDRA 2 69 68 68 68 69 69 65 54 51 62 64 63 64 64 61 60 62 64 64 65 69 70 70 70

7.822 ALONDRA 1 70 69 69 69 70 71 65 50 49 64 67 66 66 67 63 62 64 66 67 67 70 71 72 72

7.482 N OF 91 (3) 72 71 71 71 73 73 68 51 52 66 69 68 69 70 65 63 66 67 68 69 72 73 73 73

6.852 ARTESIA 69 69 69 68 69 69 67 58 59 67 68 67 67 68 66 65 66 67 67 67 69 70 70 70

6.362 183RD 72 72 72 71 72 71 67 51 57 67 68 67 67 67 65 64 65 65 66 67 70 71 71 72

5.872 SOUTH 2 68 68 68 67 69 70 67 48 56 67 67 67 66 67 67 66 66 65 67 67 69 69 69 69

5.732 SOUTH 1 68 68 67 66 69 69 66 48 56 66 67 67 67 67 68 67 66 66 67 67 68 69 68 69

4.982 DEL AMO 2 69 68 68 67 69 70 67 46 58 67 67 67 67 66 66 65 64 63 66 68 69 70 69 70

4.842 DEL AMO 1 69 69 68 68 70 70 68 48 59 68 68 66 66 66 66 65 64 63 66 68 70 71 71 71

4.332 CENTRALIA 69 69 68 68 70 72 71 52 62 69 69 68 68 68 68 66 64 63 67 68 69 71 71 70

3.902 CARSON 2 65 65 65 64 65 66 67 55 61 64 63 62 62 62 63 62 59 58 62 63 65 66 66 66

3.732 CARSON EB 65 65 64 64 65 65 65 55 59 64 64 63 63 63 63 62 61 60 62 63 64 66 66 65

3.082 WARDLOW 66 64 63 63 65 66 66 61 63 64 64 63 63 64 63 62 62 61 62 63 65 66 66 65

2.282 SPRING 1 63 61 61 60 60 62 63 62 62 61 60 60 60 60 60 59 59 59 60 61 62 62 62 62

Hour of the day

No Data Available

7.6 I-605 NORTHBOUND CONGESTION PROBLEM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY The location and duration of existing congestion along I-605 northbound (NB) are illustrated in the PeMS Speed Contour Exhibit in Figure 13. Congestion occurs from generally Rosecrans Boulevard to I-5 for two hours in the AM and at the SR-60 interchange throughout the day with the highest congestion during a period of four hours in the PM.

FIGURE 13: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR NB I-605

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Eleven locations have been documented as the areas that represent significant congestion problem areas for purposes of detailed analysis. The following discussion and the corresponding Figures 15-16 display eleven congestion problem hot spot locations along with a description of the congestion issues at each location. The eleven hot spot locations for I-605 NB area as follows (labeled 605 NB-1 through 605 NB-11 for hot spot locations 1 through 11):

605 NB-1: Cerritos Avenue to Carson Street

605 NB-2: Del Amo Boulevard to South Street

605 NB-3: N605 – E91 Ramp Connector Merge

605 NB-4: W91 Ramp Connector to Alondra Boulevard

605 NB-5: Alondra Boulevard to Rosecrans Avenue

605 NB-6: E 105 Ramp Connector to Firestone Boulevard

605 NB-7: Firestone Boulevard and 605/5 System Interchange

605 NB-8: N 5 – N 605 Ramp Connector to Slauson Avenue

605 NB-9: Rose Hills Road to Peck Road

605 NB-10: Peck Road to N 605 – E/W 60 Connector Ramp

605 NB-11: E/W 60 – N 605 Connector Ramps to Valley Boulevard

Based on a careful review of the detailed congestion problem analysis results, each of these locations is determined to experience congestion that warrants some type of improvement and is thus designated as a congestion hot spot. The specific congestion locations are further described in terms of why they were identified as hot spots, including a summary of the analysis results, plus descriptions of the causes of congestion at each location.

CONGESTION HOT SPOT 605 NB-1

Location: Cerritos Avenue to Carson Street


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway experiences current average speeds during the AM peak period of 55 mph. During the PM peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates moderate congestion in the PM peak period. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E and model V/C LOS D.


Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 1 in the AM and 3 in the PM peak period indicating limited congestion.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Cause of Congestion

The 2035 No-Build mainline traffic volumes (5888 AM/7391 PM) are approaching capacity. The high exit volumes (1071 AM/944 PM) at Carson Street are also approaching capacity of a one-lane exit ramp. The combination of these two factors contributes to some congestion in this area.


Location: Del Amo Boulevard to South Street


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway experiences current average speeds during the AM peak period of between 45 - 50 mph which is an indication of congestion. During the PM peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph, indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates moderate congestion in the PM peak period. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E and Model V/C LOS D.


Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 1 in the AM and 2 in the PM peak period indicating limited congestion.

Cause of Congestion

The 2035 No-Build mainline traffic volumes (6727 AM / 7338 PM) are approaching capacity. The high ramp exit volumes (1136 AM/ 965 PM) at Del Amo Boulevard are also approaching capacity of a one-lane exit ramp. The combination of these two factors contributes to some congestion in this area.


Location: E 91 – N 605 Ramp Connector Merge


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway experiences moderate slow speeds with current average speeds during the AM peak period of between 45 - 55 mph which is an indication of congestion. During the PM peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph,

FEASIBILITY REPORT


indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates moderate congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM and PM peak period.


Congestion Score: This location received a moderate congestion score of 5 in the AM and PM peak period indicating moderate congestion.

Cause of Congestion

The 2035 No-Build mainline traffic volumes (6538 AM/7124 PM) are approaching capacity. The high ramp entrance volumes (2250 AM/2280 PM) exceed the capacity of a one-lane entrance ramp. The combination of these two factors contributes to congestion on 605 as traffic queues on the ramp back to the 605 diverge.


Location: W 91 – N 605 Ramp Connector to Alondra Boulevard


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway experiences slow speeds with current average speeds during the AM peak period between 45 and 55 mph which is an indication of moderate congestion. During the PM peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph, indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates moderate congestion during both AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS E in the PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.


Congestion Score: This location received a moderate congestion score of 5 in the AM and PM peak period indicating moderate congestion.

Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline is at capacity (6538 AM/7124 PM). The W 91 two-lane ramp connector to N 605 NB has a high volume (2199 AM/2280 PM) that merges with the mainline. A short weaving distance of approximately 1,600 feet exists between the

FEASIBILITY REPORT


connector ramp merge and mandatory one-lane exit at Alondra Boulevard which contributes to congestion at this location.


Location: Alondra Boulevard to Rosecrans Avenue

Performance Measures:

PeMS Speed Data: The freeway experiences slow speeds with current average speeds during the AM peak period between 45 and 55 mph which is an indication of congestion. During the PM peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph, indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates moderate congestion in the AM and PM peak period. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS D in the AM and PM peak period. The model V/C LOS F in the AM and PM peak period indicates extreme congestion.


Congestion Score: This location received a moderate congestion score of 5 in the AM peak period and 4 in the PM peak period indicating moderate congestion.

Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline volume (9031 AM/9523 PM) is within the capacity of the six general purpose lane section. This segment of freeway is congested as a result of multiple weaves which include the exit to Rosecrans Avenue with a volume (598 AM/844 PM) approaching the capacity of a one-lane exit and the exit to I-105 with a volume (3302AM/3132PM) approaching the capacity of a two-lane exit. This weave contributes to congestion in this location.


Location: E 105 Ramp Connector to Firestone Boulevard


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph during both the AM and PM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates overall satisfactory freeway operations with 2035 No-Build HCM and Model V/C LOS C.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Accident History: Accident history exceeds statewide average by 30 percent or more with a predominance of rear-end and sideswipe accidents.

Congestion Score: This location received a congestion score of 6 or greater in the AM and PM peak periods indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline volume (6833 AM/7278 PM) provides LOS C in the 6-lane general purpose segment which drops to LOS D when the No. 6 lane drops in the vicinity of Firestone Boulevard. This causes congestion to the N 605 mainline operations and also to the E 105 ramp connector.


Location: Firestone Boulevard and 605 / 5 System Interchange


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph during the AM and PM peak periods.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM and PM peak period. The model V/C LOS is LOS F in the AM and PM peak period (with the exception of the Florence Ave to I-5 segment, which is LOS E in the AM peak period) also indicates extreme congestion.

Accident History: Accident history exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location with a predominance of sideswipe accidents.

Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 10/11 in the AM and PM peak periods indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline volume (7490 AM/7929 PM) provides LOS D in the 6-lane segment north of Firestone Avenue. The mainline reduces to 3 lanes north of the combined 2-lane Florence Avenue and I-5 connector ramp exit. Congestion is caused at this location as a result of the reduction in freeway mainline lanes (one lane drop in the 605/5 interchange is a significant congestion issue) and the close proximity of the Firestone Boulevard on-ramp with entrance volumes (658 AM/651 PM) weaving with I-5 connector ramp exit volumes (2523 AM/2794 PM) in a distance of approximately 2,000 feet. Congestion at this location is interrelated to Hot Spot 605 NB-6 and Hot Spot 605 NB-8.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Location: N 5 – N 605 Ramp Connector to Telegraph Road


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences moderately slow speeds with current average speeds of 45 to 55 mph in the AM and PM peak periods.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM and PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.

Accident History: Accident history does not exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location.


Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline volumes (6011 AM/5760 PM) provide LOS D in the segment south of the I-5 connector. The N I-5 connector volumes (1712 AM/2651 PM) exceed the capacity of a one-lane ramp. The short weaving distance of approximately 1,000 feet is inadequate for the merging the N I-5 traffic volume and the volume (1127 AM/993 PM) exiting the one-lane exit ramp to Telegraph Road.


Location: Rose Hills Road to Peck Road Performance Measures

PEMS Speed Data: This segment experiences extremely slow mainline speeds with current average speed of less than 35 mph during the PM peak period. During the AM peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph, indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the PM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour.

Accident History: Accident history exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location with a predominance of rear end and sideswipe accidents.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Congestion Score: This segment experiences a combined congestion score of 8 in the AM peak period, indicating severe congestion from multiple causes, and 11 in the PM peak period, indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

The 2035 No-Build volume on the mainline (7181 AM / 7340 PM) is approaching capacity and the volumes on Rose Hills Road on-ramp (703 AM / 605 PM) and Peck Road off-ramp (482 AM / 560 PM) are moderate in nature.

The two local interchanges are relatively closely spaced. The relatively closely spaced interchanges in combination with the high volumes on the mainline contribute to the congestion in this area. This is also the beginning of the traffic backup related to subsequent hot spot locations at the I-605/SR-60 interchange.


Location: Peck Road to N 605 – E/W 60 Connector Ramp



2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour.

Accident History: Accident history does not exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location.

Congestion Score: This segment experiences a combined congestion score of 3 in the AM peak period, indicating limited congestion, and 8 in the PM peak period, indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

The 2035 No-Build volumes on the mainline (3476 AM / 3776 PM) and the N 605 – E/W 60 connector off-ramp (3476 AM, 3776 PM) are high and approaching capacity. The Peck Road on-ramp volume (241 AM / 202 PM) is relatively low.

A short weaving distance of approximately 1,800’ between the Peck Road on-ramp and the N 605 – E/W 60 connector off-ramp currently exists. This short weaving distance in combination with the very high volume of vehicles using both the mainline and the connector ramp to SR-60 creates an operational issue at this

FEASIBILITY REPORT


location. Although the volumes on the Peck Road on-ramp are low, they still must weave over three lanes to travel north on I-605, which exacerbates the congestion in the area.

NB congestion on I-605 is also contributed to by the EB congestion on SR-60 east of its connector ramps.


Location: E/W 60 – N 605 Connector Ramps to Valley Boulevard



2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour.

Accident History: Accident history exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent or more at this location with a predominance of rear end and sideswipe accidents.

No-Build Cumulative Congestion Analysis Score: This segment experiences a combined congestion score of 5 in the AM peak period, indicating moderate congestion, and 10 in the PM peak period, indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volumes on the E 60 – N 605 connector on-ramp (1516 AM / 1444 PM) and the W 60 – N 605 connector on-ramp (1163 AM / 1028 PM) contribute to congestion in this area. The volumes on the mainline (6228 AM / 6,576 PM) and the Valley Boulevard off-ramp (789 AM / 843 PM) are moderate in nature.

The two connector on-ramps are closely spaced and have less than ideal geometrics and lane drops associated with them. The two successive on-ramps are approximately 600’ apart. The E 60 – N 605 connector joins the mainline and then quickly drops from two lanes to one lane in the same vicinity that the W 60 – N 605 connector merges directly to the mainline (with no auxiliary lane). Additionally, effects of congestion at the I-605/I-10 interchange can backup traffic to this area.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


7.7 I-605 NORTHBOUND CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION

SUMMARY

The eleven congestion hot spot locations along I-605 NB were further assessed and compared to determine how the congestion problem areas interrelate to one another. While some hot spots may stand alone in terms of their unique congestion and operational issues, others experience problems which are clearly related to upstream or downstream locations. The assessment of hot spot interconnectivity leads to a logical grouping of project definition segments that is then used to define a “hybrid” master plan of proposed freeway improvements that can provide the best investment for the maximum improvement benefit. In the case of I-605 in the northbound direction, the eleven hot spot locations are combined into five logical “project definition” segments. The data and review of these segments show that they share operational issues and/or geometric issues. The five combined project definition segments for I-605 northbound are as follows:

605 NB-1: Cerritos Avenue to Carson Street

605 NB-2: Del Amo Boulevard to South Street

605 NB-3 – 605 NB-5: N 605 – E 91 Ramp Connector Merge to Rosecrans Avenue

605 NB-6 – 605 NB-8: E 105 Ramp Connector to Slauson Avenue

605 NB-9 NB-11 Rose Hills Road to Valley Boulevard

CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION FOR 605 NB HOT SPOT 605 NB-1

Location: Cerritos Avenue to Carson Street Congestion Problem: The 2035 No-Build mainline traffic volumes (5888 AM/7391 PM) are approaching capacity. The high exit volumes (1071 AM/944 PM) at Carson Street are also approaching capacity of a one-lane exit ramp. The combination of these two factors contributes to congestion in this area.


Reconfigure N 605/Cerritos Avenue loop on-ramp as “D” ramp and join mainline as an auxiliary lane.

Construct N 605 auxiliary lane between Cerritos Avenue and Carson Street. End auxiliary lane at Carson Street as part of two-lane ramp exit improvements.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of NB-1 include:

Preliminary Cost Range: $ 15 M – 20 M

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build Level of Service indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS D in the AM and LOS E in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS C in the AM and LOS D in the PM. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are 5752 AM and 7144 PM.

Accidents: Accident history does not exceed the statewide average by 30 percent or more which is expected to be maintained with the proposed improvements.

Environmental/Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this reach of improvements are anticipated to be of low significance. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of low significance.

Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score of 0 in the AM peak period and 2 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 1 in the AM and 3 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 605 NB-1 is considered to be of low value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the low cost invested. This improvement would be considered more of an operational improvement in that the limited congestion in this area is not a major hot spot compared to other congestion segment locations.

CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION FOR 605 NB HOT SPOT 605 NB-2

Location: Del Amo Boulevard to South Street Congestion Problem: The 2035 No-build mainline traffic volumes (6727 AM/7338 PM) are approaching capacity. The high ramp exit volumes (1136 AM/965 PM) at Del Amo Boulevard are also approaching capacity of a one-lane exit ramp. The combination of these two factors contributes to congestion in this area. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable congestion improvement summarized below:

Construct N 605 auxiliary lane between Del Amo Boulevard and South Street. End auxiliary lane at South Street as part of two-lane ramp exit improvements.


FEASIBILITY REPORT



2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build Level of Service indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS D in the AM and LOS E in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS C in the AM and LOS D in the PM. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are 6727 AM and 7338 PM.


Environmental/Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this reach of improvements are anticipated to be of low significance. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of low significance.


Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 605 NB-2 is considered to be of low value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the low cost invested. This improvement would be considered more of an operational improvement in that the limited congestion in this area is not a major hot spot compared to other congestion segment locations.

CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION FOR 605 NB HOT SPOT 605 NB-3 TO 605 NB-5

Location: E 91 – N 605 Ramp Connector Merge to Rosecrans Avenue

Congestion Problem: Congestion is created in this reach by two successive freeway connector entrance ramps from E SR-91 (2250 AM/2280 PM) and W SR-91 (2199 AM/2280 PM) that join N I-605. A short weaving distance of approximately 1,600 feet exists between the connector ramp merge and mandatory one-lane exit at Alondra Boulevard. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable congestion improvement summarized below:

Eliminate merge on E 91 ramp connector and join 605 as two-lane ramp with an additional general purpose lane as Lane No. 5.

Reconstruct W 91 ramp connector and join N 605 as two-lane ramp with general purpose lane No. 6 and maintaining the existing auxiliary lane to the two-lane ramp exit to Alondra Boulevard.

Continue new general purpose Lane 6 to existing Lane No. 6 at Alondra Boulevard and NB direct on-ramp and drop Lanes 5 and 6 at two-lane exit to WB 105.

Add new auxiliary lane from Alondra Boulevard and provide two-lane ramp exit to Rosecrans Avenue.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of NB-3 to NB-5 include:


2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM which is LOS E in the AM and PM peak period for the mainline. The HCM LOS for the E 91 ramp connector improves from LOS F to LOS B. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 8,500 AM/9,500 PM in this reach.




Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 605 NB-3 to 605 NB-5 is considered to be of moderate value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested, but only results in an improvement from a moderate congestion location.


Location: E 105 Ramp Connector to Slauson Avenue Congestion Problem: The 605 mainline reduces from 6 lanes to 5 lanes in the vicinity of Firestone Boulevard resulting in congestion which builds in advance of the I-5 system interchange. The close proximity of local interchanges at Firestone Boulevard, Florence Avenue and Telegraph Road in combination with the I-5 system interchanges results in significant congestion. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable congestion improvement as summarized below:

Eliminate mainline lane drop in the vicinity of Firestone Boulevard with an additional general purpose lane as Lane No. 6. Maintain existing auxiliary lane at Firestone Boulevard on-ramp. Lane No. 6 and auxiliary lane become 2 lane trapped exit to N/S I-5.

Begin a new northbound collector/distributor road with exit located north of I-5 branch connector exit.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Reconstruct Florence Avenue on-ramp to merge with proposed collector/distribution road.

Reconstruct S I-5 to N 605 connector ramp to merge with proposed collector/distributor road.

Reconstruct N I-5 to N 605 connector ramp to join proposed collector/distributor road as two additional lanes.

Eliminate direct off-ramp for eastbound Telegraph Road and combine with reconstructed loop 2-lane off-ramp.

Proposed collector-distributor road merges with mainline as additional general purpose Lanes No. 5 and 6. The 6th lane drops at Slauson Avenue as a 2 lane exit (with optional through/exit) and the 5th general purpose lane merges with the existing mainline just north of Slauson.

Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvements to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of NB-6 to NB-8 include:

Preliminary Cost Range: $ 275 M - $ 320 M (includes proportional assumption of 1 mile I-5 widening to the south of I-605)

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM which is LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour for the S I-5 ramp connector merge and LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour for the 605 mainline from I-5 to Telegraph Road. The HCM LOS for the S I-5 ramp connector improves to LOS C. The 605 mainline improves to LOS C in the AM and LOS D in the PM peak period. The new collector/distributor road operates at LOS D in the AM and LOS E in the PM peak period.

Accidents: Existing accident history generally exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent of more in this reach, which is expected to decrease with the proposed improvements.


Congestion Score: this reach experiences a combined congestion score range of 0-5 in the AM peak period and 2-7 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 6-11 in the AM and 7-11 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a high significance of reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 605 NB-6 to NB-8 is considered to be of high value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested with these significant improvements in congestion scores.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Location: Rose Hills Road to Valley Boulevard Congestion Problem: The northbound 605 mainline is approaching capacity in this reach and congestion is related to mainline capacity and relatively close interchange spacing between Rose Hills Road and Peck Road and between Peck Road and N 605 - E/W 605 connector ramps. Congestion is also a result of the fact that the E 60 - N 605 and the W 60 - N 605 connector ramps are closely-spaced successive on-ramps to northbound I-605 and have poor geometrics related to lane drops. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable congestion improvement as summarized below:

Add one mainline general purpose lane between Rose Hills Road and Valley Boulevard.

Reconfigure the N 605 – E/W 60 diverge to a three-lane exit with one lane as a choice to exit to E/W 60 or stay on N 605.

Realign the N 605 – E/W 60 connector ramps.

Realign the E 60 – N 605 and W 60 – N 605 connector ramps to enter into the mainline as additional lanes (Lane No’s 5 and 6) with Lane No. 6 merging into the 5th general purpose lane. The 5th general purpose lane drops as a trapped lane at Valley Boulevard.

Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvements to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of NB-9 to NB-11 include:

Preliminary Cost Range: $ 125 M - $ 150 M (excluding any mainline widening on SR-60)

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM which is generally LOS E in the AM and PM peak hour for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is generally LOS D in the AM and PM peak hour.

Accidents: Existing accident history generally exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent of more in this reach, which is expected to decrease with the proposed improvements.


Congestion Score: this reach experiences a combined congestion score range of 0-3 in the AM peak period and 4-6 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 3-8 in the AM and 8-11 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a high significance of reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 605 NB-9 to NB–11 is considered to be of high value based on the significance of the

FEASIBILITY REPORT


improvement benefit gained for the cost invested based on the significant reduction in congestion score and is a recommended project to be undertaken by Caltrans or another agency.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



26 ARROW 1 66 63 63 65 67 67 67 67 66 66 65 65 66 67 67 68 69 70 69 68 68 69 68 67

25.4 LIVE OAK 65 62 62 63 65 65 66 65 63 63 62 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 67 67 67 68 67 66

24 LOWER AZUSA 67 64 64 65 66 64 62 61 57 59 60 61 63 63 63 64 64 63 64 66 67 68 68 67

22.93 RAMONA 67 65 65 65 67 67 66 62 60 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 64 65 67 68 68 68 68

22.04 N OF 10 69 68 68 68 69 69 68 66 66 67 68 68 68 68 67 67 67 65 66 69 70 70 70 70

21.35 VALLEY 2 72 71 71 71 72 72 70 68 68 69 69 70 70 70 70 69 69 67 69 71 72 73 72 72

21.26 VALLEY 1 70 69 69 68 69 69 69 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 66 64 66 68 70 70 70 70

19.15 S OF 60 69 68 68 67 68 68 63 59 59 62 64 65 65 65 65 64 64 61 63 68 70 71 70 70

18.81 PECK 2 69 68 68 67 68 68 63 59 59 62 64 65 65 65 65 64 64 60 63 67 70 70 70 70

18.63 PECK 1 69 68 68 67 68 68 63 59 59 62 64 65 65 65 65 64 64 60 63 67 70 70 70 70

17.71 ROSE HILL2

17.53 ROSE HILL1

16.94 NOYES 68 67 67 68 71 71 67 64 62 62 63 64 65 65 66 67 69 69 71 72 73 72 72 70

16.49 BEVERLY 2 65 63 63 65 68 63 52 46 44 45 49 53 53 53 52 53 55 56 60 65 67 68 68 67

16.44 BEVERLY 1 67 66 66 67 69 66 57 53 52 54 58 62 63 62 60 61 61 61 64 67 69 69 69 68

15.66 WHITTIER 2 66 63 63 65 68 63 49 44 43 45 50 55 55 54 52 50 51 51 60 66 66 68 69 69

15.53 WHITTIER 1 66 64 65 66 68 62 49 43 43 44 49 53 53 52 51 49 49 49 58 65 68 68 68 67

15.05 ROSEHEDGE 61 60 61 62 65 60 46 40 40 42 47 51 51 50 49 45 45 43 55 62 66 66 67 65

14.63 WASHINGTON 3 64 62 62 64 67 64 50 41 42 44 50 55 54 53 51 44 43 42 55 64 67 67 68 66

14.17 WASHINGTON 2 63 60 61 62 66 63 43 30 34 40 47 55 54 51 48 36 31 30 48 62 67 67 67 65

14.01 WASHINGTON 1 65 64 65 66 68 63 38 27 32 38 46 54 52 50 44 32 29 26 42 61 66 67 67 67

13.56 SLAUSON 65 64 65 66 68 63 38 27 32 38 46 54 52 50 44 32 29 26 42 61 66 67 67 67

12.96 PLACITA 56 56 57 56 57 53 33 23 27 30 37 43 41 39 35 24 20 20 33 50 56 56 57 56

12.41 TELEGRAPH 64 62 62 63 66 59 36 29 31 34 40 47 47 44 38 25 22 23 34 57 67 67 67 66

11.8 N OF 5 64 62 63 64 69 59 36 30 34 36 42 48 49 46 39 27 24 24 35 55 68 69 69 66

11.22 FLORENCE 66 65 66 66 68 61 51 46 47 47 49 52 52 52 48 42 41 41 45 56 66 67 68 67

10.39 FIRESTONE 69 68 69 67 69 68 66 66 66 63 62 62 63 63 64 65 65 66 66 67 69 70 70 71

9.95 IMPERIAL 69 68 69 68 70 69 67 66 66 64 63 63 64 64 64 65 64 65 65 67 70 70 70 71

9.35 FOSTER 45 38 38 39 49 58 59 59 59 58 57 58 57 57 59 59 59 59 60 59 58 57 53 50

9.25 FM 105 EB 69 68 68 67 69 68 66 64 64 65 64 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 65 69 69 69 69

8.89 ROSECRANS 2 69 68 68 67 69 68 66 64 64 65 64 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 65 69 69 69 69

8.77 ROSECRANS 1 67 67 68 67 69 69 66 63 64 64 64 63 63 64 65 64 64 64 64 64 68 69 68 68

8.34 FAIRTON 62 59 59 58 60 59 58 57 56 54 55 56 55 56 57 58 58 58 57 56 58 59 59 60

7.93 ALONDRA 2 70 68 69 68 70 69 66 65 66 66 65 65 65 66 65 66 65 63 64 64 69 69 70 70

7.79 ALONDRA 1 71 71 71 70 72 71 70 68 69 69 69 68 68 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 72 72 72 72

7.48 N OF 91 (3) 69 68 68 67 68 68 66 66 65 65 65 64 65 65 66 66 67 67 66 65 68 69 69 70

6.95 ARTESIA 68 67 67 67 67 68 67 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 66 66 66 68 69 69 69

6.36 183RD 70 68 69 69 70 71 69 67 67 67 67 66 67 67 67 67 66 65 64 65 68 69 69 69

5.88 SOUTH 2 68 68 68 68 69 69 68 67 68 69 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 68 68 68 68 68

5.73 SOUTH 1 68 67 67 67 69 69 67 66 67 67 66 66 66 66 67 66 66 64 64 66 68 68 69 69

4.98 DEL AMO 2 68 67 67 67 68 69 67 65 67 66 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 65 67 69 69 69 69

4.84 DEL AMO 1 63 58 58 58 57 57 54 53 54 53 53 53 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 55 58 58 59 59

4.33 CENTRALIA 65 64 65 65 65 66 63 61 62 60 60 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 64 64 66 66 67 67

3.9 CARSON 2 70 69 69 69 70 70 67 64 66 66 66 65 66 67 67 68 69 69 68 68 70 70 70 71

3.72 CARSON EB 68 67 67 67 69 69 66 63 65 66 65 65 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 68 69 69 69

3.08 WARDLOW 75 76 77 77 78 78 78 72 74 76 76 75 75 76 76 76 76 76 76 77 78 78 79 78

2.25 SPRING 1 64 62 62 62 63 65 62 55 57 59 60 60 61 61 61 59 58 56 59 61 63 63 63 63

Hour of the day

No Data Available

7.8 I-605 SOUTHBOUND CONGESTION PROBLEM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

The location and duration of existing congestion along I-605 southbound are illustrated in the PeMS Speed Contour Exhibit in Figure 14. Congestion is concentrated in the reach between Beverly Avenue and Florence Avenue with duration of 5 hours in the AM and 5 hours in the PM periods.

FIGURE 14: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR SB I-605

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Ten locations have been documented as the areas that represent significant congestion problem areas for purposes of detailed analysis. The following discussion and the corresponding Figures 15-16 display ten congestion problem hot spot locations along with a description of the congestion issues at each location. The ten hot spot locations for I-605 SB are as follows (labeled 605 SB-1 through 605 SB-10 for hot spot locations 1 through 10):

605 SB-1: S 605 to E/W 60 Connector Ramp Diverge

605 SB-2: W 60 – S 605 Connector Ramp Merge

605 SB-3: Peck Road to Rose Hills Road

605 SB-4: Whittier Boulevard to Telegraph Road

605 SB-5: Telegraph Road to Florence Avenue

605 SB-6: Florence Avenue to Firestone Boulevard

605 SB-7: W105 Ramp Connector Diverge

605 SB-8: W105 Ramp Connector Merge

605 SB-9: Alondra Boulevard to SR-91

605 SB-10: E 91 Connector Merge to Del Amo Boulevard

Based on a careful review of the detailed congestion problem analysis results, each of these locations is determined to experience congestion that warrants some type of improvement and is thus designated as a congestion hot spot. The specific congestion locations are further described in terms of why they were identified as hot spots, including a summary of the analysis results, plus descriptions of the causes of congestion at each location.

CONGESTION HOT SPOT 605 SB-1

Location: S 605 to E/W 60 Connector Ramp Diverge


PeMS Speed Data: The segment immediately upstream from this diverge junction experiences good mainline speeds of over 55 mph in both the AM and PM peak hours, indicating that congestion is not present in the mainline segment immediately upstream of the diverge junction based on speed measurements.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service of this diverge junction is LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours based on the 2035 No-Build HCM. The 2035 HCM No-Build HCM and model V/C of the mainline segment immediately upstream of this diverge junction is LOS D/D in the AM peak hour and LOS D/C in the PM peak hour. This appears to indicate a spot congestion issue.


Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 2 in the AM and 1 in the PM peak period indicating very limited congestion.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Cause of Congestion

The 2035 no-build mainline traffic volumes (6210 AM/5813 PM) are approaching capacity. The high exit volumes (2477 AM/3002 PM) at the S 605 – E/W 60 connector are beyond the capacity of a two-lane exit ramp. This lack of capacity on the connector ramp causes localized congestion at this location.


Location: W 60 - S 605 Connector Ramp Merge



2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service of this merge junction is LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours based on the 2035 No-Build HCM. The 2035 HCM No-Build HCM and model V/C of the mainline segment immediately upstream of this diverge junction is LOS D/D in the AM peak hour and LOS D/C in the PM peak hour. This appears to indicate a spot congestion issue.


Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 2 in the AM and 1 in the PM peak period indicating very limited congestion.

Cause of Congestion

The 2035 no-build mainline traffic volumes (3692 AM/3171 PM) are not approaching capacity. However, the high entrance volumes (2902 AM/3141 PM) at the W 60 – S 605 connector are beyond the capacity of a two-lane entrance ramp that drops to one lane at the merge with the mainline. This lack of capacity on the connector ramp causes localized congestion on I-605 and more extended congestion backups on westbound SR-60.


Location: Peck Road to Rose Hills Road


PEMS Speed Data: This segment experiences extremely slow mainline speeds with current average speed of less than 35 mph during the AM peak period. During the

FEASIBILITY REPORT


PM peak period, speeds are greater than 55 mph, indicating that the congestion issue based on speed measurements occurs only during the AM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 no-build HCM LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour.


No-Build Cumulative Congestion Analysis Score: This segment experiences a combined congestion score of 8 in the AM peak period, indicating severe congestion from multiple causes, and 5 in the PM peak period, indicating moderate congestion.

Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build volume on the mainline (7181 AM / 7340 PM) is approaching capacity. The volumes on the Rose Hills Road on-ramp (703 AM / 605 PM) and the Peck Road off-ramp (482 AM / 560 PM) are moderate in nature.

The two local interchanges are relatively closely spaced. The relatively closely spaced interchanges in combination with the high volumes on the mainline contribute to the congestion in this area.


Location: Whittier Boulevard to Telegraph Road


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph during the AM and PM peak hours.

2035 No-build Level of Service: The level of service analysis indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak hours. This is based on the 2035 no-build HCM LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. The model V/C is LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. Additionally, the 2035 No-Build level of service of the Washington Boulevard/Slauson Avenue CD road off-ramp diverge junction is LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour.

Accident History: The segment of freeway between Whittier Boulevard and Washington Boulevard and the segment of freeway between Slauson Avenue and Telegraph Road have accident histories that exceed the statewide average by 30 percent of more at this location with a predominance of sideswipe and rear end accidents in both segments.

Congestion Score: In this segment the congestion score ranged from 7-11 in the AM peak hour and from 7-10 in the PM peak hour, indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Cause of Congestion

The high 2035 No-Build mainline volumes in this segment (7000 AM / 6500 PM) are approaching capacity, which is causing congestion in this area.

The high 2035 No-Build volume for the off-ramp to Washington Boulevard/Slauson Avenue CD road (1379 AM / 1275 PM) is contributing to congestion. The one-lane exit is insufficient for the amount of volume using the off-ramp to the CD road.

This is also the beginning of the backup associated with the congestion at the I-605/I-5 interchange.


Location: Telegraph Road to Florence Avenue


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph in the AM and PM peak periods.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 no-build HCM LOS F in the AM and PM peak period. The model V/C LOS F in the AM and in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.

Accident History: Accident history exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent of more at this location with a predominance of rear-end and sideswipe accidents.

Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 9-12 in the AM peak period and 8-9 in the PM peak period indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline volumes (8383 AM/7340 PM) are at or over capacity. The Telegraph Road entrance ramp is a one-lane entrance with a volume (1218 AM/1391 PM) that is over capacity. These volumes weave with the N/S 605 connector ramp exit volumes (2464 AM/2301 PM) in a distance of approximately 1,500 feet which operates at LOS F. The three lane section of S 605 south of the I-5 ramp connector diverge is at or over capacity with volumes of 5920 AM/5039 PM. The N I-5 connector merge operates at LOS F at this location. The S I-5 ramp connector merge operates at LOS F at this location. The S I-5 two-lane ramp connector with volumes (1904 AM/2276 PM) merges to one lane as it joins S 605 which creates another congestion chokepoint. Multiple connections to and from the 605 freeway mainline contribute to extreme congestion in this area.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Location: Florence Avenue to Firestone Boulevard


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of 45 mph to 55 mph in the AM peak period and 35 to 45 mph in the PM peak period.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 no-build HCM LOS E in the AM and PM peak period. The model V/C LOS F in the AM and PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.


Congestion Score: This location received a congestion score of 7 in the AM and 8 in the PM peak periods indicating severe congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline volume (8855 AM/8902 PM) is approaching capacity. The Florence Avenue one-lane on-ramp volume (918 AM/1219 PM) is over capacity with a merge LOS F in the AM and PM peak that contributes to congestion at this location.


Location: W 105 Ramp Connector Diverge



2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates moderate congestion in the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS D in the AM and PM peak periods. The model V/C LOS C in the AM and PM peak period indicates acceptable freeway operations.


Congestion Score: This location received a congestion score of 1 in the AM and PM peak period indicating low congestion.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline volume (8469 AM/8390 PM) is approaching capacity. The W 105 freeway branch connector volume (3177 AM/3219 PM) is also approaching capacity of a two-lane ramp. Congestion at this location is interrelated to congestion upstream at the 605/5 system interchange.


Location: W 105 Ramp Connector Merge


PeMS Speed Data: The segment immediately upstream from this merge junction experiences good mainline speeds of over 55 mph in both the AM and PM peak hours, indicating that congestion is not present in the mainline segment immediately upstream of the merge junction based on speed measurements. However, the PeMS data also indicates an isolated speed drop of 7-10 MPH in the vicinity of the Foster Rd undercrossing for both the AM and PM peak hours, indicating some level of congestion occurs in this area.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The HEM level of service indicates congestion during both AM and PM peak periods. The 2035 No-Build connector ramp volumes (2667 AM/2404 PM) exceed the capacity of a one-lane ramp which results in LOS F at this location.


Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 3 in the AM and 5 in the PM indicating moderate congestion.

Cause of Congestion

The 2035 No-Build mainline traffic volumes (7060 AM/ 7304 PM) are approaching full capacity. The E 105 two-lane ramp connector merges to one-lane as it joins the 605 mainline.


Location: Alondra Boulevard to SR-91


PeMS Speed Data: The segment experiences good mainline speeds of over 55 mph in both the AM and PM peak hours, indicating that congestion is not present in the

FEASIBILITY REPORT


mainline segment based on speed measurements. However, the PeMS data also indicates an isolated speed drop of 7-10 MPH in the vicinity of the Fairton Rd undercrossing for both the AM and PM peak hours, indicating some level of congestion occurs in this area.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM and V/C LOS F for the AM and PM peak periods.


Congestion Score: This location received a congestion score of 6 in the AM and PM peak period indicating moderate congestion.

Cause of Congestion

The 2035 No-Build mainline traffic volumes (9182 AM/9235 PM) are approaching full capacity. The Alondra Boulevard entrance volume (460 AM/394 PM) has a weaving distance of approximately 2,000 feet which is insufficient for the 91 branch connector exit volumes of 3748 AM/ 4063 PM. This segment of I-605 has an HCM LOS F which indicates extreme congestion.


Location: E 91 Connector Merge to Del Amo Boulevard


PeMS Speed Data: The segment experiences good mainline speeds of over 55 mph in both the AM and PM peak hours, indicating that congestion is not present in the mainline segment based on speed measurements. However, the PeMS data also indicates an isolated speed drop of 7-12 MPH in the vicinity of Del Amo Boulevard for both the AM and PM peak hours, indicating some level of congestion occurs in this area.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates congestion in both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM and PM peak period. The model V/C is LOS D in the AM and LOS E in the PM peak period.


Congestion Score: This location received a congestion score of 1-3 in the AM peak period and 3-4 in the PM peak period indicating moderate congestion.

Cause of Congestion

The freeway mainline has mainline volumes of 6443 AM/ 6466 PM. The 2035 No-Build volume (1646 AM/1790 PM) exceeds the capacity of the one-lane E91 branch connector merge. This results in the HCM LOS F in the AM and PM peak period at this location. The South Street exit ramp volume (1236 AM/1488 PM) diverge also results in a HCM

FEASIBILITY REPORT


LOS F in the AM and PM peak period. The mainline volume (7542 AM/7835 PM) between South Street and Del Amo Boulevard is approaching full capacity. The high exit volume (685 AM/1170 PM) for the one-lane exit at Del Amo Boulevard results in LOS D in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period. Each of these issues contribute to congestion in this segment.

7.9 I-605 SOUTHBOUND CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION

SUMMARY

The ten congestion hot spot locations along I-605 SB were further assessed and compared to determine how the congestion problem areas interrelate to one another. While some hot spots may stand alone in terms of their unique congestion and operational issues, others experience problems which are clearly related to upstream or downstream locations. The assessment of hot spot interconnectivity leads to a logical grouping of project definition segments that is then used to define a “hybrid” master plan of proposed freeway improvements that can provide the best investment for the maximum improvement benefit. In the case of I-605 in the southbound direction, the ten hot spot locations are combined into five logical “project definition” segments. The data and review of these segments show that they share operational issues and/or geometric issues. The five combined project definition segments for I-605 southbound are as follows:

605 SB-1 – 605 SB-3: S 605 to E/W 60 Connector Ramp Diverge to Rose Hills Road

605 SB – 4: Whittier Boulevard to Telegraph Road

605 SB-5 – 605 SB-7: Telegraph Road to W 105 Ramp Diverge

605 SB-8 – 605 SB-9: W 105 Ramp Merge to SR-91

605 SB-10: E 91 Connector Merge to Del Amo Boulevard

CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION FOR 605 SB HOT SPOT 605 SB-1 TO 605 SB-3

Location: S 605 to E/W 60 Connector Ramp Diverge to Rose Hills Road Congestion Problem: A spot congestion issue is first noted at the S 605 to E/W 60 connector off-ramp diverge junction. The high exit volumes at this location are beyond the capacity of a two-lane exit ramp, thus causing congestion. Similarly, at the W 60 – S 605 connector on-ramp merge junction, the high entrance ramp volumes are beyond the capacity of a two-lane entrance ramp that drops to one lane at the merge with the mainline. Lastly, the mainline segment between Peck Road and Rose Hills Road is approaching capacity with two relatively closely spaced interchanges contributing to congestion.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable improvement as summarized below:

Create a three-lane exit ramp for the S 605 to E/W 60 connector off-ramp by developing an auxiliary lane prior to the diverge.

Maintain the W 60 – S605 connector on-ramp as two lanes (eliminate lane drop and create 5th general purpose lane) as it enters the mainline.

The 5th southbound general purpose lane would exit at Rose Hills Road as part of a two-lane exit.

Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of the 605 SB-1 to SB-3 reach include:

Preliminary Cost Range: $ 50 M - $ 60 M (excludes any widening of SR-60)

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour for the S 605 to E/W 60 connector off-ramp diverge, to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS B/C in the AM and PM peak hours. This is also based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour for the W 60 – S 605 connector on-ramp merge, to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS C in the AM and PM peak hours. Lastly, this is also based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS E in the AM and PM peak hour for the mainline segment between Peck Road and Rose Hills Road, to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS D in the AM and PM peak hours.



Congestion Score: The reach between Peck Road and Rose Hills Road experiences a combined congestion score range of 5 in the AM peak period and 4 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 8 in the AM and 5 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a moderate significance of reduced congestion. The other locations are spot locations where the congestion score is not applicable.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 605 SB-1 to SB-3 is considered to be of moderate value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested and modest reduction in congestion scores.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION FOR 605 SB HOT SPOT 605 SB-4

Location: Whittier Boulevard to Telegraph Road Congestion Problem: Congestion in the segment of I-605 is a result of the mainline volumes approaching capacity and an over-capacity one-lane exit ramp to the Washington Boulevard/Slauson Avenue CD road. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable improvement as summarized below:

Add one southbound I-605 general purpose lane beginning at Whittier Boulevard to Slauson Avenue and two general purpose lanes from Slauson Avenue extending past Telegraph Road to I-5. (Note that the one additional southbound I-605 general purpose lane may need to extend back to Beverly Boulevard from Whittier Boulevard based on further assessment in the PSR-PDS phase)

Eliminate Washington Boulevard East off-ramp (Saragosa Street off-ramp).

Replace Washington Boulevard/Slauson Avenue CD Road with two-lane exit to Washington Boulevard/Slauson Avenue and braid Washington Boulevard on-ramps with off-ramp to Slauson Avenue. Add new auxiliary lane in advance of the two-lane exit.

Modify off-ramp to Washington Boulevard to allow left and right turns.

Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of the 605 SB-4 reach include:

Preliminary Cost Range: $ 100 M - $ 125 M (includes proportional assumption of 1 mile I-5 widening to the north of I-605).

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is generally LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS D in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is generally LOS D in the AM peak period and LOS D in the PM peak period. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 7,000 AM/6,500 PM in this reach. Additionally, the level of service for the Washington Boulevard/Slauson Avenue CD road off-ramp diverge junction improves from LOS F/E in the AM/PM peak hours in the 2035 No-Build HCM analysis to LOS C/B in the 2035 Build HCM analysis.

Accidents: Existing accident history generally exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent or more in this reach, which is expected to decrease with the proposed improvements.


FEASIBILITY REPORT



Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 605 SB-4 is considered to be of high value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested and the significant reduction in congestion scores.


Location: Telegraph Road to W 105 Ramp Diverge Congestion Problem: Congestion in this segment of I-605 is a result of mainline capacity deficiencies and four closely spaced local freeway interchanges at Telegraph Road, Florence Avenue, Firestone Boulevard and Imperial Highway and two system interchanges with I-5 and I-105 in a distance of approximately two miles. Congestion is also caused by a mainline lane drop that occurs within the I-605/I-5 interchange. The three localized hot spots result in a continuous, highly congested 2 mile segment of southbound I-605. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable improvement as summarized below:

Continue two southbound I-605 general purpose lanes (Lane No’s 5 and 6) from Telegraph Road (Hot Spot 605 SB 4). Maintain existing auxiliary lane from Telegraph Road to N/S I-5 branch connector.

Widen N/S I-5 branch connector ramp to provide 3-lane exit (drop Lane No’s 5 and 6).

Eliminate existing lane drop south of the N/S I-5 connector and add one general purpose lane (Lane No.4) through the I-5 system interchange.

Modify N I-5 loop branch connector ramp to add Lane No. 5 to southbound I-605.

Modify S I-5 direct branch connector ramp to add two lanes to southbound I-605 (Lane No’s 6 and 7). Lane No. 6 joins the existing Lane No. 6 addition just south of Cecilia Street.

Eliminate Florence Avenue diamond ramp to southbound I-605 and replace with “D” ramp and add a new auxiliary lane to Firestone Boulevard.

Modify Firestone Boulevard off-ramp to provide two-lane exit and drop auxiliary lane.

Continue additional general purpose Lane No. 7 and drop three lanes (Lane No’s 5, 6 and 7) as part of W I-105 branch connector that is widened to provide a 3 lane exit.

Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of SB-5 to SB-7 include:


FEASIBILITY REPORT


2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build Level of Service indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS F in the AM and LOS F in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS D in the AM and LOS D in the PM. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 8000 AM/8000 PM.

Accidents: Accident history exceeds the statewide average by 30 percent or more which is expected to be improved with the proposed improvements.


Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score of 3-7 in the AM peak period and 4 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 7-12 in the AM and 8-12 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 605 SB-5 to SB-7 is considered to be of high value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the high cost invested and the significant reduction in congestion scores.


Location: W 105 Ramp Merge to SR-91 Congestion Problem: Congestion in this segment of I-605 is a result of mainline capacity deficiencies in the segment between Imperial Avenue and Alondra Boulevard. The weaving distance is insufficient and results in congestion in this segment of I-605. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable improvement as summarized below:

Eliminate merge of Firestone southbound I-605 on-ramp and widen mainline to 5 lanes.

Maintain existing auxiliary lane between Imperial Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue.

Modify W 105 branch connector ramp to add 2 lanes to southbound I-605 (eliminate existing lane drop and provides for new Lane No. 6 and new Lane No. 7).

Modify Rosecrans Avenue interchange to improve local street operations.

Drop Lane No. 7 as part of a two lane exit to Alondra Boulevard.

Modify Alondra Boulevard interchange to improve local street operations. Eliminate southbound direct on-ramp.

Continue 6th general purpose lane and maintain existing auxiliary lane from Alondra Boulevard and provide three lane ramp exit to N/S 91 (two trapped and one optional through/exit).

Continue one additional general purpose lane (Lane No. 5) through the I-605/SR-91 interchange.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Preliminary Cost Range: $ 80 M – 90 M (assuming modification of the full 91/605 system interchange is not included and would be a separate project).

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build Level of Service indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS D/F in the AM and LOS D/F in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Building HCM which is LOS D in the AM and LOS D in the PM. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 9000 AM and 9000.



Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score of 1-3 in the AM peak period and 2-3 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 3-6 in the AM and 5-6 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 605 SB-8 to SB-9 is considered to be of moderate value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the high cost invested and that it resulted in limited reduction in the moderate congestion scores.

CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION FOR 605 SB HOT SPOT 605 SB-10

Location: E 91 Connector Merge to Del Amo Boulevard

Congestion Problem: Congestion problem in this segment of I-605 is a result of insufficient capacity of the E 91 branch connector merge and mainline capacity deficiencies from SR-91 to Del Amo Boulevard.

Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measurable improvement as summarized below:

Continue one additional southbound I-605 general purpose lane through the I-605/I-5 system interchange to Del Amo Boulevard and drop as part of the two-lane exit ramp improvements. Maintain existing auxiliary lane between the E 91-S 605 connector and South Street.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of 605 SB-10 include:

Preliminary Cost Range: $ 50 M- 60 M

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM which is LOS E in the AM and PM peak period for the mainline to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS D in the AM and PM peak.


Environmental/Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this research of improvements are anticipated to be of low significant. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of low significance.

Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score of 1 in the AM peak period and 2 in the PM period for 2035 Build compared to 3 in the AM and 4 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of SB-10 is considered to be of low value based on the significant of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested. This improvement would be considered more of an operational improvement in that the limited congestion in this area is not a major hot spot compared to other congestion segment locations.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 15: I-605 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DEFINITION

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 16: I-605 2035 NO-BUILD CONGESTION ANALYSIS PLAN (1 OF 16)

FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 16: I-605 2035 NO-BUILD CONGESTION ANALYSIS PLAN( 3 OF 16)

FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT


7.10 I-405 NORTHBOUND CONGESTION PROBLEM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

The location and duration of existing congestion along I-405 northbound (NB) are illustrated in the PeMS Speed contour Exhibit shown in Figure 17. Congestion occurs throughout the study area from I-605 to Spring Street approximately three hours in the AM period.

FIGURE 17: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR I-405 NB

Four locations have been documented as the areas that represent congestion problem areas for purposes of detailed analysis. The following discussion and the corresponding Figures 19-20 display the four congestion problem hot spot locations along with a description of the congestion issues at each location. The four hot spot locations for I-405 NB are as follows (labeled 405 NB-1 through 405 NB-4 for hot spot locations 1 through 4):

405 NB-1: I-605 to Woodruff Avenue

405 NB-2: Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard

405 NB-3: Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard

405 NB-4: Lakewood Boulevard to Spring Street Based on a careful review of the detailed congestion problem analysis results, each of these locations is determined to experience congestion that warrants some type of improvement and is thus designated as a congestion hot spot. The four specific congestion locations are further described in terms of why they were identified as hot spots, including a summary of the analysis results, plus descriptions of the causes of congestion at each location.


23.39 SALMON 71 71 71 70 75 73 57 56 60 65 67 66 67 68 68 66 66 67 69 71 72 72 72 72

23.69 S OF 605 69 67 67 66 69 69 55 53 57 63 66 66 66 67 67 66 67 68 68 69 69 69 69 69

23.89 N OF 605 65 60 59 59 62 63 43 38 44 54 60 60 61 62 62 62 64 65 64 63 63 63 62 62

24.058 N. OF 605 77 78 78 78 79 76 51 47 55 66 75 75 76 77 76 76 77 79 78 79 80 79 79 79

24.548 STUDEBAKER 67 66 65 64 68 65 44 41 47 56 62 62 63 64 63 64 65 67 66 66 68 67 67 67

25.048 PALO VERDE 68 66 66 65 69 65 45 41 47 57 63 62 64 65 64 64 66 67 66 67 68 67 67 68

25.678 WOODRUFF 68 66 66 66 69 65 44 36 44 55 62 62 63 64 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 68 68

26.398 BELLFLOWER 2 69 67 67 66 67 63 50 40 46 55 61 61 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 66 67 67 67 67

26.688 CLARK 69 68 67 67 70 68 56 47 52 60 64 64 66 66 66 66 67 67 68 69 70 70 70 70

27.228 LAKEWOOD 1 71 69 69 69 72 70 59 48 53 61 65 65 66 66 66 66 68 68 70 70 71 71 71 71

27.388 LAKEWOOD 2 68 65 66 66 68 66 54 41 46 56 61 61 63 63 63 64 65 64 67 67 67 67 67 67

27.768 REDONDO 73 73 72 73 76 73 60 47 52 63 69 69 70 70 70 69 70 70 72 73 74 74 75 74

Hour of the day

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Location: I-405 to Woodruff Avenue


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences slow speeds in the morning with current average speeds of 35-45 mph during the AM peak, and greater than 55 mph in the PM peak.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM peak period and LOS E/F in the PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and E/F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.


Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 7 in the AM and 4-5 in the PM indicating extreme congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

Northbound I-405 volumes (9785 AM/ 8204 PM) exceed mainline capacity. The S 605 branch connector volume (1455 AM/ 1786 PM) merge results in LOS F in the AM and PM peak.

The mainline segment between Studebaker Street and Palo Verde Avenue operates at LOS F in the AM and PM peak as a result of the high mainline volumes (10091 AM/ 8586 PM).

The mainline segment between Palo Verde Avenue and Woodruff Avenue operates at LOS F in the AM peak and LOS E in the PM peak as a result of the high mainline volumes (10187 AM/8469 PM)


Location: Woodruff Avenue to Bellflower Boulevard



2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 7 in the AM and 6 in the PM indicating extreme congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

Northbound I-405 mainline volumes (10187 AM/ 8469 PM) exceed the mainline capacity which results in congestion. The Woodruff Avenue interchange is located only one half mile from the Bellflower Boulevard interchange which also contributes to congestion in this area.


Location: Bellflower Boulevard to Lakewood Boulevard



2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM peak period and LOS E in the PM peak period. The model V/C LOS F in the AM and in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.



Cause of Congestion

Northbound I-605 mainline volumes (10591 AM/8602 PM) exceed mainline capacity which results in congestion.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Location: Lakewood Boulevard to Spring Street


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences slow speeds in the morning with current average speeds of 40-50 mph during the AM peak, and greater than 55 mph in the PM peak

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS F in the AM peak period and LOS E-D in the PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and F in the PM period also indicates extreme congestion.


Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 6 in the AM and 4 in the PM indicating congestion from multiple causes.

Cause of Congestion

Northbound I-605 mainline volumes (10,950 AM/8,840 PM) exceed mainline capacity which results in congestion.

7.11 I-405 NORTHBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION

SUMMARY

The four congestion hot spot locations along I-405 NB were further assessed and compared to determine how the congestion problem areas interrelate to one another. While some hot spots may stand alone in terms of their unique congestion and operational issues, others experience problems which are clearly related to upstream or downstream locations. The assessment of hot spot interconnectivity leads to a logical grouping of project definition segments that is then used to define a “hybrid” master plan of proposed freeway improvements that can provide the best investment for the maximum improvement benefit. In the case of I-405 in the northbound direction, the four hot spot locations are combined into two logical “project definition” segments. The data and review of these segments show that they share operational issues and/or geometric issues. The two combined project definition segments for I-405 northbound are as follows:

405 NB-1 – 405 NB-2: I-605 to Bellflower Boulevard

405 NB-3 – 405 NB-4: Bellflower Boulevard to Spring Street

FEASIBILITY REPORT


CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION OF I-405 NB HOT SPOTS 405 NB-1 TO 405 NB-2

Location: S605/N405 to Bellflower Boulevard Congestion Problem: This two mile segment is characterized by existing average speeds of 35 to 45 mph in the AM peak period. The northbound traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the existing mainline facility. In addition, four local interchanges are spaced approximately ½ mile apart to the east of the I-405/I-605 system interchange. Caltrans and FHWA standard for spacing between a system interchange and a local interchange is two miles and the standard spacing between local interchanges is one mile. The closely spaced interchanges do not meet Caltrans and FHWA Standards and contribute to mainline congestion as a result of merging and weaving of vehicles entering the existing freeway. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measureable congestion improvement as summarized below:

Widen northbound I-405 from the County Line (over San Gabriel River) to provide a 5th general purpose lane.

Widen the S 605 branch connector ramp to two lanes and I-405 north of the merge to provide a 6th general purpose lane and to provide a new auxiliary lane (7th lane) that drops at Bellflower Boulevard exit ramp (new portion of auxiliary lane is from S 605 connector to Studebaker Road; existing auxiliary lane is from Studebaker Road to Bellflower Boulevard).

Eliminate the Studebaker Road partial interchange and convert to an undercrossing.

Modify Palo Verde Avenue interchange to provide a two-lane exit ramp (drop 7th lane) and “D” ramp configuration to provide full access to I-405.

Eliminate Woodruff Avenue interchange and convert to a 2-way local road undercrossing.

Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of the 405 NB-1 to 405 NB-2 reach include:

Preliminary Cost Range: $ 160 M - $ 200 M.

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS F in the AM peak period and LOS E-F in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS D in the AM peak period and LOS C-D in the PM peak period. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 10,000 AM/8,500 PM in this reach.

Accidents: Existing accident history does not exceed the statewide average by 30 percent or more in this reach which is expected to be maintained with the proposed improvements.

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score range of 4-6 in the AM peak period and 2-4 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 7 in the AM and 4-6 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a high significance of reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 405 NB-1 to NB-2 is considered to be of high value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested and the reduction in congestion scores.

CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION OF I-405 NB HOT SPOTS NB-3 TO NB-4:

Location: Bellflower Boulevard to Spring Street Congestion Problem: This two mile segment is characterized by existing average speeds of 35-45 mph in the AM peak period. The freeway mainline is over capacity and congested during the AM peak period. Congestion Solution:

Widen mainline to provide 5th and 6th general purpose lanes to Spring Street.

Reconstruct Bellflower Boulevard interchange based on existing geometric configuration to accommodate mainline widening.

Reconstruct Lakewood Boulevard interchange based on existing geometric configuration to accommodate mainline widening.

Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of the 405 NB-3 to 405 NB-4 reach include:


2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS F in the AM peak period and LOS E-D in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS D-E in the AM peak period and LOS D in the PM peak period. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 10,500 AM/8,500 PM in this reach.


FEASIBILITY REPORT


Environmental Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this reach of improvements are anticipated to be of moderate significance. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of moderate significance.

Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score range of 4-5 in the AM peak period and 2-4 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 6-7 in the AM peak period and 4-5 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a moderate significance of reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 405 NB-3 to NB-4 is considered to be of moderate value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested and the reduction in congestion scores.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


7.12 I-405 SOUTHBOUND CONGESTION PROBLEM ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

The location and duration of congestion along I-405 southbound (SB) are illustrated in the PeMS Speed contour Exhibit in Figure 18. Congestion occurs throughout the study area from Spring Street to I-605 approximately three hours in the PM period.

FIGURE 18: PEMS SPEED CONTOUR FOR I-405 SB

Four locations have been documented as the areas that represent congestion problem areas for purposes of detailed analysis. The following discussion and the corresponding Figures 19-20 display the four congestion problem hot spot locations along with a description of the congestion issues at each location. The four hot spot locations for I-405 SB are as follows (labeled 405 SB-1 through 405 SB-4 for hot spot locations 1 through 4):

405 SB-1: Spring Street to Lakewood Boulevard

405 SB-2: Lakewood Boulevard to Bellflower Boulevard

405 SB-3: Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue

405 SB-4: Woodruff Avenue to I-605 Based on a careful review of the detailed congestion problem analysis results, each of these locations is determined to experience congestion that warrants some type of improvement and is thus designated as a congestion hot spot. The four specific congestion locations are further described in terms of why they were identified as hot spots, including a summary of the analysis results, plus descriptions of the causes of congestion at each location.


27.768 REDONDO 71 68 68 69 71 72 71 70 71 70 69 67 69 69 66 55 39 36 45 62 71 72 72 71

27.318 LAKEWOOD 1 66 64 64 66 67 67 65 64 66 65 64 62 64 64 61 46 28 25 36 56 66 67 67 67

26.918 WILLOW 74 73 72 74 75 76 75 74 74 73 72 72 73 73 70 55 40 37 47 68 75 76 76 76

26.398 BELLFLOWER 2 70 70 70 70 70 70 68 65 67 68 68 66 68 68 64 48 30 26 35 55 68 70 70 70

26.138 BELLFLOWER 1 68 65 63 65 67 66 64 61 62 64 64 62 64 64 61 43 25 22 31 53 66 68 68 68

25.448 WOODRUFF 68 66 65 67 68 69 67 62 64 65 64 63 65 65 61 41 27 23 31 50 66 68 69 69

24.848 STEARNS 67 66 65 66 67 68 66 61 63 65 64 63 64 64 62 51 38 33 40 54 65 67 68 68

24.548 STUDEBAKER 68 66 65 66 68 68 66 61 63 64 64 63 64 65 63 53 37 31 40 56 66 68 69 69

24.058 N. OF 605 74 73 73 73 74 74 73 65 68 71 72 71 72 72 71 60 37 31 43 61 73 74 75 75

23.89 N OF 605 70 68 68 69 70 70 69 58 62 65 66 65 65 65 63 48 28 22 32 49 66 70 69 70

23.69 S OF 605 68 68 67 68 69 69 68 56 60 65 66 66 67 67 66 53 38 35 42 53 68 70 70 70

23.39 SALMON 68 67 65 66 68 70 69 53 60 66 67 67 68 68 66 46 25 22 32 50 68 71 71 70

Hour of the day

FEASIBILITY REPORT



Location: Spring Street to Lakewood Boulevard


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of 35 mph during the PM peak. For the AM peak period speeds exceed 55 mph.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.



Cause of Congestion

Southbound I-405 volumes (7925 AM/ 9349 PM) exceed mainline capacity which operates at LOS E in the AM and LOS F in the PM peak period.


Location: Lakewood Boulevard to Bellflower Boulevard


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph during the PM peak. For the AM peak period speeds exceed 55 mph.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.



FEASIBILITY REPORT


Cause of Congestion

Southbound I-405 mainline volumes (8773 AM/ 10278 PM) exceed the mainline capacity which results in congestion.


Location: Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences extremely slow speeds with current average speeds of less than 35 mph during the PM peak. For the AM peak period speeds exceed 55 mph.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM and LOS F in the PM peak period also indicates extreme congestion.



Cause of Congestion

Southbound I-605 mainline volumes (9067 AM/11475 PM) exceed mainline capacity which results in congestion.


Location: Woodruff Avenue to I-605


PeMS Speed Data: The freeway mainline experiences slow speeds with current average speeds of 45-55 mph during the AM peak. For the AM peak period speeds exceed 55 mph.

2035 No-Build Level of Service: The level of service indicates extreme congestion during both the AM and PM peak periods. This is based on the 2035 No-Build HCM LOS D-E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period. The model V/C LOS E in the AM peak period and E-F in the PM period also indicates extreme congestion.


FEASIBILITY REPORT


Congestion Score: This location received a combined congestion score of 4 in the AM and 8-9 in the PM indicating congestion from multiple causes.

7.13 I-405 SOUTHBOUND CONGESTION HOT SPOT SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION

SUMMARY

The four congestion hot spot locations along I-405 SB were further assessed and compared to determine how the congestion problem areas interrelate to one another. While some hot spots may stand alone in terms of their unique congestion and operational issues, others experience problems which are clearly related to upstream or downstream locations. The assessment of hot spot interconnectivity leads to a logical grouping of project definition segments that is then used to define a “hybrid” master plan of proposed freeway improvements that can provide the best investment for the maximum improvement benefit. In the case of I-405 in the northbound direction, the four hot spot locations are combined into two logical “project definition” segments. The data and review of these segments show that they share operational issues and/or geometric issues. The two combined project definition segments for I-405 northbound are as follows:

405 SB-1 – 405 SB-2: Spring Street to Bellflower Boulevard

405 SB-3 – 405 SB-4: Bellflower Boulevard to I-605

CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION OF I-405 SB HOT SPOTS 405 SB-1 TO 405 SB-2

Location: Spring Street to Bellflower Boulevard Congestion Problem: This two mile segment is characterized by existing average speeds of less than 35 mph in the PM peak period. The freeway mainline is over capacity and congested during the PM peak period. Congestion Solution: To address the congestion problem the following improvements provide a measureable congestion improvement as summarized below:

Add 6th general purpose lane at Spring Street on-ramp.

Eliminate Lakewood Boulevard C/D Road and Cloverleaf ramps. Construct new southbound direct off-ramp. Construct new “D” on-ramp and mainline auxiliary lane.

Reconstruct Bellflower Boulevard interchange with existing configuration.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of the 405 SB-1 to 405 SB-2 reach include:

Preliminary Cost Range: $ 100 M-$ 125 M.

2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS D in the AM peak period and LOS D-E in the PM peak period. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 9,000 AM/11,000 PM in this reach.



Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score range of 1-2 in the AM peak period and 1-5 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 4 in the AM and 8-9 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a high significance of reduced congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 405 SB-1 to SB-2 is considered to be of high value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested and the significant reduction in congestion scores.

CONGESTION SOLUTION PROJECT DEFINITION OF I-405 SB HOT SPOTS 405 SB-3 TO 405 SB-4

Location: Bellflower Boulevard to I-605 Congestion Problem: This two mile segment is characterized by existing average speeds of less than 35 mph in the PM peak period. The freeway mainline is over capacity and congested during the PM peak period. Congestion Solution:

Eliminate Woodruff Avenue interchange and convert to a 2-way local road undercrossing.

Widen I-405 mainline to provide 6 general purpose lanes and to provide a new auxiliary lane (7th lane) that drops at Palo Verde Avenue (new portion of auxiliary lane is continuing the existing auxiliary lane through the eliminated Woodruff Avenue interchange).

Eliminate the Studebaker Road partial interchange and convert to an undercrossing.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Construct 6 general purpose lane section, with existing auxiliary lane from SB Palo Verde on ramp (7th lane), to I-605 branch connector and drop lanes 6 and 7.

Merge lane No. 5 to mainline at 405/605 system interchange.

Congestion Improvement and Benefit/Cost Assessment: The improvement to congestion conditions and other key performance assessments relative to the cost for the improvements of the 405 SB-3 to 405 SB-4 reach include:


2035 Level of Service: The 2035 Build level of service analysis indicates reduced congestion. This is based on comparing the 2035 No-Build HCM, which is LOS D-E in the AM peak period and LOS F in the PM peak period for the mainline, to the 2035 Build HCM which is LOS C-D in the AM peak period and LOS D in the PM peak period. The 2035 mainline peak hour volumes that experience improved congestion conditions with the improvements are approximately 9,500 AM/12,000 PM in this reach.


Environmental Right of Way: Environmental considerations for this reach of improvements are anticipated to be of high significance. Right of way acquisition requirements are anticipated to be of moderate significance.

Congestion Score: This reach experiences a combined congestion score range of 1-4 in the AM peak period and 4-7 in the PM peak period for 2035 Build compared to 2-4 in the AM peak period and 8-9 in the PM for 2035 No-Build indicating a significant reduction in congestion.

Low/Moderate/High Qualitative Benefit/Cost Assessment: The assessment of 405 SB-3 to SB-4 is considered to be of high value based on the significance of the improvement benefit gained for the cost invested and the reduction in congestion scores.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 19: I-405 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DEFINITION

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 20: I-405 2035 NO-BUILD CONGESTION ANALYSIS PLAN (1 of 4)

FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT



FEASIBILITY REPORT


7.14 SUMMARY Table 19 provides a detailed summary of the Congestion Hot Spot Segment Improvement Analysis for each of the three freeway corridors (SR-91, I-605, I-405). An overview of the segment improvement analysis methodology is provided below: 1. Average Segment Congestion Score is the general average of congestion scores spanning

the defined Congestion Hot Spot Improvement Segment.

2. Preliminary cost range is derived from the preliminary cost estimate tables.

3. Right of way needs assessment is categorized as: High = Property impacts that require significant areas of permanent acquisition, including

possible full 'takes'. Moderate = Property impacts that require some areas of permanent acquisition, but not to

the extent of possible full "takes", or significant permanent acquisition of useable commercial/residential property

Low = Little or no permanent property acquisition

4. Environmental considerations are generally categorized as: High = Several key considerations related to more critical environmental factors are

anticipated Moderate = Several key considerations may be anticipated, but not to a significant extent in

the more critical environmental factors Low = A limited impact to less critical environmental features is expected

5. Qualitative benefit/cost assessment is generally categorized as follows: High Value = Significant improvement in congestion scores are realized with moderate or low

R/W needs and environmental consideration, at a cost range within the Measure R Programmed budget.

Moderate Value = Significant or moderate improvement in congestion scores are realized with significant or moderate R/W needs and environmental consideration, at a cost range within the Measure R programmed budget.

Low Value = Minor improvement in congestion scores are realized. R/W needs and environmental considerations may be at high, moderate or low. Cost range may or may not be within the Measure R programmed budget.

6. Costs are in 2012 dollars and are not escalated for any specific construction year.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


The freeways congestion hot spot problem and improvement project analysis and definition was performed to determine the effectiveness of the proposed improvements from each concept and determine which "portions" of each concept to recommend for the "hybrid" improvement concept. Table 20 provides a general description of the primary improvements for each segment of the “hybrid” improvement concept. Figure 21 provides a graphical summary of the Congestion Hot Spot Segment Improvement Analysis and delineates both the qualitative benefit/cost assessment results and freeway improvements proposed under the “hybrid” concept. Two alternatives are noted within the Hybrid Concept for I-405 illustrating two additional lanes in each direction (Alternative 1) and one additional lane in each direction (Alternative 2). “Hybrid” freeway improvement concept plans and corresponding Freeway Lane Schematic Diagrams are provided in Appendix E.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 19: FREEWAY CONGESTION HOT SPOT SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 20: SR-91/I-605/I-405 HYBRID CONCEPT GENERAL DESCRIPTION

LOCATION PRIMARY IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT

SR-91 Westbound

Artesia Blvd. W91-605 N/S Connector Ramp Diverge

Add one general purpose lane

Reconfigure Pioneer Blvd and Norwalk Blvd. direct on-ramps to “D” ramps

Widen 605 N/S Connector ramp from 2 to 3 lanes

C

S605 / W91 Connector Merge – Downey Ave.


Widen S605/W91 Connector merge to 2 lanes

Eliminate Clark Ave. interchange

C

Paramount Blvd. – Long Beach Blvd. Braid Paramount Blvd. on-ramp and Cherry Ave. off-ramp

Add auxiliary lane between Cherry Ave. and Atlantic Ave.

Add one general purpose lane from near Atlantic Ave. to Santa Fe Ave.

C

SR-91 Eastbound

N71-/E-91 Connector Ramp Merge – Downey Ave.


Add new auxiliary lane from N710/E91 connector merge to Cherry Ave.

Add new collector-distributor road from Atlantic Ave. to Paramount Blvd.

Add new auxiliary lane from Paramount Blvd. to Downey Ave.

C

Lakewood Blvd. Bellflower Blvd. Add one general purpose lane

Eliminate Clark Ave. interchange

B/C

E91/ S/N 605 Connector Diverge – Bloomfield Ave.

Convert E91-N/S 605 from a 3 lane trapped exit to 2-lane trapped exit with optional through/exit lane

Add 2 general purpose lanes

Reconfigure Pioneer Blvd. and Norwalk Blvd. direct on-ramps to “D” ramps

B/C

I-605 Northbound

Cerritos Ave. – Carson St. Add auxiliary lane

Reconfigure Cerritos Ave. loop on-ramp to “D” ramp

B/C

Del Amo Blvd. – South St. Add auxiliary lane C

E91/N605 Connector Ramp Merge – Rosecrans Ave.

Add one general purpose lane to Alondra Ave.

Add new auxiliary lane from Alondra to Rosecrans Ave.

B/C

E105/N605 Connector Ramp Merge – Slauson Ave.

Add one general purpose lane from Firestone Blvd. to Florence Ave.

Add new collector-distributor road from Florence Ave. to Telegraph Road

Add two general purpose lanes from Telegraph Road to Slauson Ave.

C

Rose Hills Rd – Valley Blvd. Add one general purpose lane A/B/C

FEASIBILITY REPORT


TABLE 20 (CONT.): SR-91/I-605/I-405 HYBRID CONCEPT GENERAL DESCRIPTION

LOCATION PRIMARY IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT

I-605 Southbound

S605-E/W 60 Connector Ramp Diverge – Rose Hills Road

Add new auxiliary lane to E/W 60 connector to create three-lane exit

Add one general purpose lane to Rose Hills Road

A/B

Whittier Blvd – Telegraph Road Add one general purpose lane from Whittier Blvd. to Slauson Ave. (Note that the one additional southbound I-605 general purpose lane may need to extend back to Beverly Boulevard from Whittier Boulevard based on further assessment in the PSR-PDS phase)

Add new auxiliary lane for Washington Blvd./Slauson Ave. exit

Braid Washington Blvd. on-ramps with Slauson Ave. off-ramp

Add two general purpose lanes from Slauson Ave. to Telegraph Road

Eliminate Saragosa Ave. interchange

C

Telegraph Rd. – S605/W105 Connector Ramp Diverge

Add two general purpose lanes from Telegraph Rd. to near Firestone Blvd.

Add one general purpose lane from new Firestone Blvd. to W105 connector

Reconfigure Florence Ave. direct on-ramp to “D” ramp

Add new auxiliary lane from Florence Ave. to Firestone Blvd.

C

W105/S605 Connector Ramp Merge – SR-91 Add one general purpose lane C

E91/S605 Connector Ramp Merge – Del Amo Blvd.

Add one general purpose lane B/C

I-405 Northbound

S605/N405 Bellflower Blvd. Add two general purpose lanes

Eliminate Studebaker Ave. interchange

Modify Palo Verde Ave. interchange to provide full access movements

Eliminate Woodruff Ave. interchange

C

Bellflower Blvd. – Spring St. Add two general purpose lanes C

I-405 Southbound

Spring St. – Bellflower Blvd. Add one general purpose lane to Lakewood Blvd.

Add two general purpose lanes from Lakewood Blvd. to Bellflower Blvd.

Eliminate Lakewood Blvd. collector – distributor road and clover leaf ramps and modify to a direct off ramp and “D” on-ramp.

C

Bellflower Blvd. – I-605 Add two general purpose lanes C

SR-60 Westbound

Crossroads Pkwy. – Peck Road Add new auxiliary lane

I-605/SR-60 interchange reconfiguration to accommodate lane addition

C

SR-60 Eastbound

Peck Road – Crossroads Pkwy. Add new auxiliary lane from Peck Road to I-605/SR-60

Add new general purpose lane from I-605/SR-60 to Crossroads Pkwy

I-605/SR-60 interchange reconfiguration to accommodate lane addition

C

HOV Connectors

N605 – W105 and E105 – S605 1. Potential addition of HOV Connector for 2 traffic movements noted N/A

N605 – E60 and W60 – S605 1. Potential addition of HOV Connector for 2 traffic movements noted N/A

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 21: FREEWAY CONGESTION HOT SPOT SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY MAP (HYBRID CONCEPT)

SR-91 / I-605 / I-405 Congestion Hot Spots Hybrid Concept Improvement Summary

FEASIBILITY REPORT


8.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS & NEXT STEPS

8.1 FREEWAYS Caltrans Project Initiation Document (PID) Phase of Project Development The Caltrans Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) process has recently (September 2011) had modifications in the approach and objectives of a PSR-PDS document. It is also Caltrans policy that a PSR-PDS shall be completed prior to listing any project in the STIP. The PSR-PDS allows Caltrans and local agencies to:

Defines the purpose and need for the project;

Gets input from stakeholders;

Identifies alternatives;

Develops a plan of action to deliver the project; and

Estimates the project cost and schedule.

Program only the support costs if the project life cycle is longer than the STIP programming period;

Maximize the use of finite PID-phase resources by delaying the development of detailed environmental studies and engineering studies until the PA/ED phase;

Proceed with engineering and environmental studies and evaluate the merits and feasibility of alternative before a preferred alternative is selected for programming right of way and construction costs;

Accurately plan resources needed to complete the environmental document project approval process;

To advance the programming of Project Approval / Environmental Documents (PA/ED) elements of future STIP projects, if there are adequate funds in the State Highway Account.

Caltrans is not currently funded to provide oversight and Independent Quality Assurance (IQA) for PSR’s or PSR-PDS’s. This function requires that a local agency either 1) enter into an agreement to reimburse Caltrans for this activity; 2) or prepare the PSR-PDS independent of their oversight, and submit to Caltrans for their review and approval. Initiating preparation of PSR-PDS will capture the value of the work done to date and facilitate the early delivery of physical improvements within the study area. During preparation of the PSR-PDS’s it will be important to identify projects that have independent utility that may be advanced quickly to the next project development phase (PA/ED).

FEASIBILITY REPORT


Recommended Freeway Improvement Projects & Next Steps The analysis described in Section 7.0 was performed to determine the effectiveness of the proposed improvements from each concept and determine which "portions" of each concept to recommend for the "hybrid" improvement master plan for review by the 605 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and 605 Corridor Cities Committee (CCC). From this "hybrid" geometric plan for all three corridors, individual congestion hot spot "relief" projects were developed and then analyzed together. This analysis was then used to develop a list of five recommended projects for PSR-PDS project development packages based upon the following key elements:

Specific congestion “hot spots” locations;

“Root causes” for congestion problem areas;

Effectiveness of improvements concepts (from Concepts A, B and C);

Magnitude of the problem that is improved;

General qualitative cost to improvement benefit assessment;

Qualitative assessment of affects of other available traffic model runs; and

Overall freeway concept (hybrid) Figure 22 is the Freeway Congestion Area PSR-PDS Summary Map, which identifies the limits, proposed improvements and qualitative benefit/cost assessment for each of the five recommended PSR-PDS project development packages. Of the five recommended PSR-PDS project development packages, two have been recommended for immediate advancement to the PID-phase:

SR-91/I-605 (Congestion PSR No. 1); and

I-605/I-105/I-5 (north to the Gateway Cities boundary) (Congestion PSR No. 2). The two PSR-PDS areas will overlap. For the Congestion Area No. 2 PSR-PDS, an alternative will be developed that includes HOV connector ramps at the I-605/I-105 interchange (in both directions). Each PSR-PDS will be developed in accordance with Appendix S of the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual. The PSR-PDS for Congestion Area PSR No. 5 (I-605/SR-60 interchange) will be developed by other agencies (Caltrans, MTA or SGVCOG). GCCOG will coordinate with the developing agencies and the material prepared for this Congestion Area will be provided to those agencies. The PSR-PDS for the SR-91/I-710 interchange (PSR No. 3) will be deferred until a decision is made on the I-710 project and this PSR-PDS will be a joint effort between the I-710 and I-605 TACs.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


The PSR-PDS for the I-405 will be deferred pending on-going coordination with the OCTA I-405 Widening project, as well as Metro’s I-405 HOT Express Lane Study. The PSR-PDS cost ranges are as follows:

PSR-PDS No. 1: $450 - $540 million




PSR-PDS No. 5*: $250 - $295 million *Range is $175 - $210 million without SR-60 mainline improvements.

The estimated total project cost to improve the three freeway concepts and the combined hybrid concept are as follows:

Concept A: $1.9 billion

Concept B: $2.8 billion

Concept C: $2.7 billion

Hybrid: $2.2 – 2.8 billion

8.2 ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS The next project development steps for the 33 arterial highway intersections will be subject to future TAC and CCC deliberations and coordination with LA Metro. The estimated total project cost to improve the 33 arterial highway intersections is $77.1 million.

8.3 FUNDING Measure R only provides $590M for these improvements, which is well short of the total project costs for improvement of the freeways and 33 initial arterial intersection improvements. The Transportation Strategic Plan - Phase I includes a list of and analysis of potential funding sources. A financing plan to access these funding sources (and any subsequent ones) will be developed from the forthcoming Transportation Strategic Plan - Phase II.

FEASIBILITY REPORT


FIGURE 22: FREEWAY CONGESTION AREA PSR-PDS SUMMARY MAP

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX A: EXISTING FREEWAY LANE SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX B: CONCEPT A FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX C: CONCEPT B FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX D: CONCEPT C FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX E: HYBRID FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS AND

FREEWAY SCHEMATIC LANE DIAGRAMS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX F: HOV CONNECTOR CONCEPT PLANS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX G: I-105/ALAMEDA STREET CONCEPT PLANS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX H: ARTERIAL INTERSECTION CONCEPT PLANS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX I: DATA FOR FREEWAY COST ESTIMATES

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX J: DATA FOR ARTERIAL INTERSECTION COST ESTIMATES

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX K: FREEWAY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION PLANS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX L: ARTERIAL INTERSECTION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION PLANS

FEASIBILITY REPORT


APPENDIX M: WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS