study session #1 the project, alternatives and traffic...
TRANSCRIPT
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Study Session #1The Project, Alternatives and Traffic
July 19, 2012
Study Session Format and Tools
• Presentation– Brief background on freeway design and traffic
analysis– Spending most of our time on Questions and Answers
• Display Boards– Project Alternatives Concept Designs – Appendix O of
the Draft EIR/EIS– Drawings of cross-sections– Photo Simulations of the freeway alternatives –
Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR/EIS
2
Study Session Goals
• Project Design Alternatives– What are “geometrics”?– What are the project alternatives and operational features?– What do the project alternatives look like?– How will access to the freeway change?
• Project Alternatives Traffic Impacts– What happens to freeway congestion?– How does traffic change on the local streets near the
freeway? – Are there changes to intersections in my neighborhood?– What type of mitigation measures are proposed?
3
• Improve air quality and public health
• Improve traffic safety
• Provide a modern design for the I-710
• Address projected traffic volume increase
• Address projected growth in population, employment and economic activity related to goods movement
Project Purpose and Need
44
Project Alternatives
5
No Build Improvements•Planned and Committed Projects in 2008 RTIP•Enhanced Goods Movement by Rail•Clean Trucks Program•Expanded Night Gate Ops at Ports•I-710 Pavement Rehabilitation•Traffic Signal coordination
TSM/TDM and ITS•Ramp Metering•Improved Arterial Signage•Peak Period Parking Restrictions•Increased Transit Service•Upgraded Traffic Signals (ITS)
Arterial System Improvements•Signal Timing Improvements•Local Arterial Intersection Improvements at 42 Locations
I-710 Widening•Widen the I-710 up to 10 Lanes•Modernize Geometric Design of the Local I-710 Interchanges
Freight Corridor•Separate Four-Lane Freight Corridor
Build Alternative Design Options
• Design Option 1 (6A/B/C): access to Washington Blvd using three ramp intersections
• Design Option 2 (6A/B/C): access to Washington Blvd using two ramp intersections
• Design Option 3 (6B only): removes general purpose access to Washington Blvd at its current location with modified freight corridor ramps serving the rail yards
• Zero Emission Extension Design Option (6B/C): continues zero emission electric power supply system beyond the proposed Freight Corridor end near Washington Blvd to the SR 60 interchange via the general purpose lanes (ZEE Option)
6
Zero Emission Electric Truck Concept
What is Zero Emissions Technology?
Alternatives 6B/C– Hybrid Trucks:
Freight Corridor powered through overhead electric wires (catenary system), elsewhere use conventional (diesel) fuel
– ZEE Option
7
Geometrics
What are “geometrics”?•Roadway & highway designs that consider
• Traffic Operations• Accidents• Design deficiencies
•Geometric standards change over time• I-710 has designs from the 1950’s and 60’s which
need updating• For both local interchanges and freeway-to-freeway
interchanges
8
9
Current Local Interchange Geometrics
• Cloverleaf– Low Capacity– Weaving
• Diamond– High Delay– Low Turn Storage
10
Build Alts. Local Interchange Geometrics
• Partial Cloverleaf– High Capacity– Larger ROW
• Single Point– High Capacity– Smaller ROW
Geometric Plans In the Draft EIR/EIS
11
Compare plans Compare plans for the Build for the Build AlternativesAlternatives
Alternative 5AAlternative 5A
Geometric Plans In the Draft EIR/EIS
12
Compare plans Compare plans for the Build for the Build AlternativesAlternatives
Alternative 6A/B/CAlternative 6A/B/C
What Do The Alternatives Look Like?
1313
What Do the Alternatives Look Like?
Urban Design & Aesthetics Toolbox•Unified corridor theme concept: color, materials, structural elements, landscaping
•Unique branding for individual communities
•Conceptual Enhancements shown in Section 3.6 Visual Key Views
14
What Do The Alternatives Look Like?
Cross-section drawings along the I-71015
16
Where Are Changes in Freeway Access?
17
Traffic Studies and Analysis
Traffic Forecasting Inputs and Assumptions
18
Key Modeling Input: Socio-Economic Factors
Socio-Economic InputsYear 2008 Year 2035
Numeric Change
Percent Change
PopulationRegion-Wide 18,905,000 24,050,000 5,145,000 27%I-710 Study
Area 1,487,000 1,653,000 166,000 11%
EmploymentRegion-Wide 8,115,000 10,284,000 2,169,000 27%I-710 Study
Area 594,000 637,000 43,000 7%
Population and Employment
Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Travel Demand Forecast Model for Year 2035.
19
Key Growth Assumptions: Port Activity
• Cargo Growth and Railroad Mode Share
– 43 Million Annual Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs)
– 40% Direct Intermodal Rail
– 26% On-Dock Rail
– No Near Dock Intermodal Yard Expansion (ICTF and SCIG projects)
Freeway Operations Analysis
• Travel time savings realized on freeway with all Build Alternatives
• Measurable improvement in general purpose lanes flow and level of service with Build Alternatives
• Freight corridor alternatives (6A/B/C) shift truck traffic out of general purpose lanes
• Geometric improvements and separation of trucks and cars reduces accident rate
20
Freeway Travel Time Savings
21
Level of Service Criteria
22
Traffic Analysis Results
• Section 3.5 in the Draft EIR/EIS has the traffic study information
• Evaluates both freeway operations and intersections
• Tables show how traffic congestion changes for each Alternative
23
Preliminary Analysis – Subject to Change
24PicoAnaheim
PCH
Willow
Del Amo
Long Beach
Alondra
Rosecrans
Imperial
Firestone
Florence
Washington
Atlantic-Bandini
Slauson
Whittier
91
Alt. 1 PicoAnaheim
PCH
Willow
Del Amo
Long Beach
Alondra
Rosecrans
Imperial
Firestone
Florence
Washington
Atlantic-Bandini
Slauson
Whittier
91
Alt. 5A PicoAnaheim
PCH
Willow
Del Amo
Long Beach
Alondra
Rosecrans
Imperial
Firestone
Florence
Washington
Atlantic-Bandini
Slauson
Whittier
91
Alt. 6A
I-710 General Purpose Lanes
PM Peak Hour
2035
Level of Service
LOS D or Better
LOS E
LOS F
Level of Service
Preliminary Analysis – Subject to Change
25PicoAnaheim
PCH
Willow
Del Amo
Long Beach
Alondra
Rosecrans
Imperial
Firestone
Florence
Washington
Atlantic-Bandini
Slauson
Whittier
91
Alt. 6A PicoAnaheim
PCH
Willow
Del Amo
Long Beach
Alondra
Rosecrans
Imperial
Firestone
Florence
Washington
Atlantic-Bandini
Slauson
Whittier
91
Alt. 6B PicoAnaheim
PCH
Willow
Del Amo
Long Beach
Alondra
Rosecrans
Imperial
Firestone
Florence
Washington
Atlantic-Bandini
Slauson
Whittier
91
Alt. 6C
I-710 General Purpose Lanes
PM Peak Hour
2035
Level of Service
LOS D or Better
LOS E
LOS F
Level of Service
Arterials & Intersections Analysis
• Travel time savings on arterials with Freight Corridor build alternatives
• Project build alternatives shift truck traffic to I- 710
• Project build alternatives have an impact and increase delay at 20 intersections
• Mitigation measures improve all but 5 intersections to the No Build condition or better
26
Study Area Arterial Travel Time Savings
27
Preliminary Analysis – Subject to Change
Arterial Traffic Congestion No Build Alternative
28
Preliminary Analysis – Subject to Change
Arterial Traffic Congestion Alternative 5A
29
Preliminary Analysis – Subject to Change
Arterial Traffic Congestion Alternative 6A
30*Alt 6A/B/C have similar results
30
31
Intersections Impacted by Project Build Alternatives
Intersections
with project
related impacts
that cannot be
mitigated
Intersections
with project
related impacts
that can be
mitigated
Potential Arterial Traffic Mitigation Measures
• Build Alternatives include improvements to 42 intersections
• Improve Intersections to the No Build condition or better
• Typical Mitigation Measures Include– Add new and extra left and right turn lanes– Add through lanes– Restripe lanes– Widen selected arterials– Remove on-street parking in selected areas
32
Questions and Answers
33
Wrap Up & Next Steps
34
• Additional Study Sessions– Aug. 2: Air Quality and Health Risk
Assessment– Aug. 16: Community Impacts
• Public Hearings– Aug. 7 in Paramount– Aug. 8 in Long Beach– Aug. 9 in Commerce
• Public Comment Period until Aug. 29