portlaandlbtransport .pdf



Nom original: portlaandlbtransport.pdfTitre: Microsoft Word - Final Transp Study Report 7.docAuteur: Pritam Deshmukh

Ce document au format PDF 1.4 a été généré par Acrobat PDFMaker 7.0 for Word / Acrobat Distiller 7.0 (Windows), et a été envoyé sur fichier-pdf.fr le 03/03/2016 à 16:25, depuis l'adresse IP 64.238.x.x. La présente page de téléchargement du fichier a été vue 448 fois.
Taille du document: 6.6 Mo (179 pages).
Confidentialité: fichier public


Aperçu du document


PORTS OF LONG BEACH/LOS
ANGELES TRANSPORTATION
STUDY

Submitted to:

The Port of Long Beach
and

The Port of Los Angeles
Submitted by:

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
An Iteris Company

In Association with:
Fredric R. Harris, Inc.
Moffatt & Nichol Engineers
The Kingsley Group

June, 2001

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... I
1.0

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................1

1.1

PURPOSE OF POLB/POLA TRANSPORTATION STUDY ..................................................................................1

1.2

SCOPE OF WORK/TASKS ...............................................................................................................................1

1.3

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ...................................................................................................................2

2.0

EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS ......................................3

2.1

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA .....................................................................................................................3

2.2

OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................8

2.3

EXISTING (1999) INTERSECTION CONDITIONS ANALYSIS .............................................................................8

2.4

EXISTING (1999) HIGHWAY/FREEWAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS ........................................................................13
Ramp Junction Analysis ............................................................................................................................13
Weaving Section Analysis.........................................................................................................................14
Roadway/Freeway Segment Analysis .......................................................................................................18

2.5

EXISTING RAIL ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................20
Rail Data Collection and Terminal Operator Surveys/Interviews .............................................................20
On-dock Container Terminal Rail Operations and Capacity Analyses......................................................21
Off-dock Rail Terminal Capacity Analysis ...............................................................................................22

3.0

MARINE TERMINAL TRIP GENERATION .....................................................................................24

3.1

INTERMODAL LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND OVERVIEW ................................................................................24

3.2

CONTAINER TERMINAL TRIP GENERATION ................................................................................................29

3.3

NON-CONTAINER TERMINAL TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................................38

4.0

MARINE TERMINAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION...................................................................................39

4.1

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................39

4.2

TRUCK DRIVER SURVEYS ...........................................................................................................................39

4.3

ORIGIN/DESTINATION SURVEY RESULTS ...................................................................................................39

4.4

TERMINAL WORKERS/EMPLOYEES DISTRIBUTION .....................................................................................40

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
ii

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

5.0

PORT AREA TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL .........................................................44

5.1

MODEL DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................................................44

5.2

MODEL VALIDATION SUMMARY ................................................................................................................50

6.0

2010 AND 2020 TRIP GENERATION/TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS ..................................................54

6.1

BACKGROUND 2010 AND 2020 TRAFFIC FORECASTS .................................................................................54

6.2

CARGO GROWTH FORECASTS .....................................................................................................................56

6.3

INTERMODAL MODE SPLIT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................57

6.4

CONTAINER TERMINAL TRUCK TRIP FORECASTS .......................................................................................64

6.5

NON-CONTAINER TERMINAL TRIP GENERATION FORECASTS ....................................................................69

6.6

TOTAL PORTS AREA TRIP GENERATION .....................................................................................................70

7.0

YEAR 2010 AND 2020 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS................................................................73
Year 2010 Level of Service Analysis ........................................................................................................73
Ocean Boulevard/Seaside Avenue.............................................................................................................86

8.0

PORT OF LONG BEACH TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS..109

8.1

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................................................109

8.2

PORT AREA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.......................................................................................109
GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT...............................................................................109
PIER B STREET ON-RAMP TO TERMINAL ISLAND FREEWAY ..................................................111
PIER B STREET WIDENING/REALIGNMENT ..................................................................................111
PICO AVENUE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO TRAFFIC CONTROL
(New traffic signals) ................................................................................................................................112
NEW DOCK STREET/SR-47 SB OFF-RAMP AND NB ON-RAMP SIGNALIZATION
IMPROVEMENT....................................................................................................................................114
ANAHEIM STREET/9TH STREET/I STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT ...........................115
ANAHEIM STREET/FARRAGUT AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL ......................................................116
PORTS OF LONG BEACH AND LOS ANGELES ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION SYSTEM (ATMIS) PROJECT............................................116
Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS) .......................................................................117
Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) .....................................................................................118
Backbone Communication System..........................................................................................................121
Project Milestones and Deliverable .........................................................................................................123
Potential Mid-Term or Long Term Enhancements to ITS Project...........................................................124

9.0

FUNDING SOURCES AND PROCESSES .........................................................................................126

9.1

DISCRETIONARY FEDERAL PROGRAMS.....................................................................................................126

9.2

PRINCIPAL STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS ...............................................................................................130

10.0

REGIONAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................133

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
iii

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Study Area..................................................................................................................................... 4
Exhibit 2 Study Intersection.......................................................................................................................... 5
Exhibit 3 Traffic Count Location.................................................................................................................. 9
Exhibit 4 Terminal/Trip Generation Count Locations ................................................................................ 31
Exhibit 5 Container Terminal Trip Generation Model Structure................................................................ 33
Exhibit 6 Driver Survey Trip Origin (Total POLB and POLA) ................................................................. 42
Exhibit 7 Driver Survey Trip Destination (Total POLB and POLA) ......................................................... 43
Exhibit 8 Port Focus Travel Demand Model Generalized Flow Chart ....................................................... 45
Exhibit 9 Travel Demand and Model Focus Network ................................................................................ 46
Exhibit 10 Travel Demand Model Focus Zone System .............................................................................. 47
Exhibit 11 Existing and Future (2010 and 2020) Port Truck Trip Distribution.......................................... 74
Exhibit 12 AM Existing and Forecast Link Volumes................................................................................. 75
Exhibit 13 Mid-Day Existing and Forecast Link Volumes......................................................................... 76
Exhibit 14 PM Existing and Forecast Link Volumes.................................................................................. 77
Exhibit 15 2010 Base Projected Deficiency Locations............................................................................... 83
Exhibit 16 2010 Alternative 1 Projected Deficiency Locations.................................................................. 89
Exhibit 17 2020 Base Projected Deficiency Locations............................................................................... 96
Exhibit 18 2020 Alternative 1 Projected Deficiency Locations................................................................ 102
Exhibit 19 2020 Alternative 2 Projected Deficiency Locations................................................................ 108
Exhibit 20 Recommended Port and Regional Improvement Locations.................................................... 110
Exhibit 21 Proposed ITS Field Elements.................................................................................................. 119

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
iv

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Existing (1999) Intersection Level of Service Analysis.......................................................... 11
TABLE 2 Existing Conditions Analysis Ramp Merge/Diverge Area Analysis Results.......................... 15
TABLE 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Weaving Section Analysis Results .......................................... 17
TABLE 4 Existing Conditions Analysis Roadway/Freeway Segments................................................... 19
TABLE 5 Existing On-dock Railyard Inventory ..................................................................................... 23
TABLE 6 Container Terminal Operating Parameters (as applied in the QuickTrip Generation Model). 34
TABLE 7 QuickTrip Truck Generation Model Validation Summary ..................................................... 35
TABLE 8 Truck Driver Origin/Destination Survey Results Summary.................................................... 41
TABLE 9 POLB/POLA Transportation Study Model Screenline Analysis Results................................ 52
TABLE 10 2010 On-Dock Railyard Capacity Analysis (16 Million TEU Scenario ) ............................... 60
TABLE 11 2020 On-Dock Railyard Capacity Analysis (36 Million TEU Scenario) ................................ 61
TABLE 12 Inland Rail Facilities Capacity for International Cargo Existing Conditions.......................... 62
TABLE 13 2010 Marine Container Terminal Truck Trip Generation Estimates POLB and POLA
Combined (average day during peak month using Quicktrip model)...................................... 66
TABLE 14 2020 Container Terminal Truck Trip Generation POLB and POLA Combined..................... 68
TABLE 15 Port Area 2010 Truck and Auto Trip Generation Forecasts.................................................... 71
TABLE 16 Port Area 2020 Truck and Auto Trip Generation Forecasts.................................................... 72
TABLE 17 2010 Base Scenario Intersection Level of Service .................................................................. 78
TABLE 18 2010 Base Scenario Ramp Merge/Diverge Area Analysis Results ......................................... 80
TABLE 19 2010 Base Scenario Weaving Section Analysis Results ......................................................... 81
TABLE 20 2010 Base Scenario Roadway/Freeway Segments.................................................................. 82
TABLE 21 2010 Alternative 1 Intersection Level of Service.................................................................... 84
TABLE 22 2010 Alternative 1 Ramp Merge/Diverge Area Analysis Results........................................... 86
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
v

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

TABLE 23 2010 Alternative 1 Weaving Section Analysis Results ........................................................... 87
TABLE 24 2010 Alternative 1 Roadway/Freeway Segments.................................................................... 88
TABLE 25 2020 Base Scenario Intersection Level of Service .................................................................. 91
TABLE 26 2020 Base Scenario Ramp Merge/Diverge Area Analysis Results ......................................... 93
TABLE 27 2020 Base Scenario Weaving Section Analysis Result........................................................... 94
TABLE 28 2020 Base Scenario Roadway/Freeway Segments.................................................................. 95
TABLE 29 2020 Alternative 1 Intersection Level of Service ................................................................... 97
TABLE 30 2020 Alternative 1 Ramp Merge/Diverge Area Analysis Results........................................... 99
TABLE 31 2020 Alternative 1 Weaving Section Analysis Results ......................................................... 100
TABLE 32 2020 Alternative 1 Roadway/Freeway Segments.................................................................. 101
TABLE 33 2020 Alternative 2 Intersection Level of Service Analysis................................................... 103
TABLE 34 2020 Alternative 2 Ramp Merge/Diverge Area Analysis Results......................................... 105
TABLE 35 2020 Alternative 2 Weaving Section Analysis Results ......................................................... 106
TABLE 36 2020 Alternative 2 Roadway/Freeway Segments.................................................................. 107
TABLE 37 Regional Analysis (2020 Base Scenario) .............................................................................. 138
TABLE 38 Regional Analysis (I-710 Improvement Alternative – 2020 Base Scenario) ........................ 139
TABLE 39 Regional Analysis (I-710 Improvement Alternative – 2020 Alternative 1 “best case”
Scenario)................................................................................................................................ 140
TABLE 40 Regional Analysis (SR-47/103 Improvement Alternative – Extension to I-405).................. 141
TABLE 41 Regional Analysis (SR-47/103 Improvement Alternative – Extension to I-710).................. 142
TABLE 42 Regional Analysis (New Off-Dock Railyard Alternative) .................................................... 143

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
vi

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles (POLB/POLA) Transportation Study process was the work of the
Technical Advisory Committee made up of port staff and other technical experts from both the Port of
Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. The following individuals contributed to the development of
the POLB/POLA Transportation Study:
Port of Long Beach
Geraldine Knatz, Ph.D., Managing Director of Development
Kerry Cartwright, P.E., Manager of Transportation Planning,
POLB/POLA Transportation Study Project Manager
Robert Kanter, Ph.D., Director of Planning
Lou Rubenstein, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer
Ron Everett, Senior Planner
Tony Shotwell, Market Research Economist
Rovelle Federico, Planning Intern
Port of Los Angeles
Larry Cottrill, former Acting Director, Planning and Research
Gerald G.K. Lum, P.E., Assistant Chief Harbor Engineer of Design
Linden Nishinaga, Civil Engineer/Project Manager
Ron Groves, Civil Engineer Associate
Dave Matheson, Assistant Director of Marketing/Planning and Research
Technical Consulting Team Staff
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
Abbas Mohaddes, Principal
Gary Hamrick, Principal
Bob Cheung, Senior Transportation Planner
Viggen Davidian, P.E., Principal
Abi Mogharabi, Ph.D., P.E., Principal
Bryan Loo, Associate Transportation Engineer
Albert Felix, Assistant Transportation Engineer
Ramin Massoumi, Senior Transportation Engineer
Raymond Lee, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer
Leticia Rubalcava, Administrative Assistant
FR Harris, Inc.
Mike Leue, P.E., Vice President
Jeff Khouri, P.E., Associate Vice President
Chris Poli, P.E., Project Manager
Moffat & Nichols, Engineers
Larry Nye, P.E. Vice President
The Kingsley Group
Rich Campbell
Steven Lautsch
Aldaron, Inc.
Don Camph
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
vii

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.

PURPOSE OF POLB/POLA TRANSPORTATION STUDY

The existing transportation system within and adjacent to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles is
becoming constrained. Expected increases in cargo throughput in the next five to twenty years will
generate a considerable amount of rail and vehicular traffic to the transportation system within and
adjacent to the Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles. A comprehensive POLB/POLA Transportation Study
was prepared to: determine future rail and vehicular traffic demand; identify the transportation system
deficiencies and necessary improvements; and develop an implementation plan (i.e., Port Transportation
Improvement Program). The need for the POLB/POLA Transportation Study was identified as part of the
recently completed Port Strategic Plan.
This report describes the methodology, findings and recommendations of the POLB/POLA
Transportation Study. The purposes for undertaking the Transportation Study include:


Identify the growth in truck traffic that will occur as a result of growth in imports and export cargo
moving through the Ports



Develop transportation planning tools to address the technical challenges associated with the Ports’
growth



Identify existing and future transportation system deficiencies in and around the Ports



Recommend physical and operational strategies to mitigate future system deficiencies

II.

SCOPE OF WORK/TASKS

The POLB/POLA Transportation Study project included the following tasks:


Trip Generation Methodology - This included methodologies to estimate: container terminal truck
trips by type (bobtail, chassis, container loads, empties), container terminal auto trips, and noncontainer terminal auto and truck trips.



Trip Distribution Patterns - This included development of detailed truck and auto trip distribution
patterns for all port terminals.



System Operating Conditions - This included a detailed analysis of existing and future transportation
system operating conditions for key intersections, roadways, freeway segments, and freeway ramps.



Port Area Travel Demand Model - This included development of a computer-based travel demand
model for use in producing future travel volumes.



Rail System Analysis - This included existing and future rail system analyses to determine capacities
and forecast mode split by rail versus truck.



Port of Long Beach Transportation Improvements– This included recommended physical
transportation system improvements, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements, in the
Port of Long Beach only (the Port of Los Angeles did not participate in this task.).

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
I

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary

III. STUDY AREA AND TECHNICAL APPROACH
The POLB/POLA Transportation Study area includes the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles plus the
roadway system surrounding the ports. In addition, the regional analysis extends beyond the port area to
include key freeway facilities that carry port traffic. A total of 38 intersections have been analyzed within
the study area. Exhibit ES-1 illustrates the study area while Exhibit ES-2 illustrates the focus area for the
POLB/POLA Transportation Study and the location of the 38 study intersections. In addition to
intersections, key roadways freeway ramps and weaving sections operations have been analyzed. The
level of service for all of those facilities has been assessed for current (1999) conditions.

IV. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATING
CONDITIONS
The analysis is based upon traffic counts conducted in August and October 1999. For all roadway system
analysis locations, the morning peak (8 to 9 A.M.), Mid-Day peak (2 to 3 P.M.), and afternoon peak (4 to
5 P.M.) hours have been assessed. The intersection level of service (LOS) analysis indicates that all study
intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS D or better. The LOS analysis for the freeway
system (ramp merge/diverge areas and weaving sections) indicate that the following locations currently
operate at a poor LOS E or F during peak hours:


PCH southbound on-ramp to I-710 (LOS E during the AM peak hour)



Anaheim Street southbound off-ramp at I-710 (LOS E during the AM peak)



I-710 southbound, from the westbound Anaheim Street off-ramp to the eastbound Anaheim Street
off-ramp during the AM peak hour



I-710 northbound from the eastbound Pacific Coast Highway off-ramp to the westbound Pacific Coast
Highway off-ramp



I-710 southbound north of Anaheim Street (LOS E during the AM peak hour)



Uphill, eastbound Gerald Desmond Bridge (LOS E during Mid-Day and PM peak hours)

V.

MARINE TERMINAL TRIP GENERATION
METHODOLOGY

Future trip generation for the Ports area was estimated based on a comprehensive model developed from
extensive empirical data. Trip generation methodology and results are explained in this section.
Container Terminal Truck Trip Generation
The development of the container terminal trip generation model entailed extensive research and data
collection related to all facets and entities of the intermodal supply chain (e.g., steamship lines, terminal
operators, cargo consolidators, trucking companies, warehouse/distribution facility operators, etc.). The
following key issues related to intermodal logistics were accounted for in the trip generation
methodology:




container drayage (who controls the move, timing/peaking, & gate hours)
intermodal mode split (on-dock, off-dock rail, & transloading)
empty container logistics
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
II

III

IV

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary
Several alternative approaches to developing trip generation estimates for marine container terminals
were examined in the POLB/POLA Transportation Study. These included development of single and
multiple variable regression equations and trip rates for predicting truck trips. Alternatively, a modelbased approach was considered and developed. After carefully examining potential trip generation
equations to predict truck trips, it was determined that the equations could not adequately explain the
terminal characteristics today or into the future. Therefore, a more flexible and comprehensive
spreadsheet model was developed to forecast future container terminal truck trips. The methodology used
to develop the truck model, called “Quicktrip” is described in more detail below. The trip generation
model was developed and validated using actual gate transactions, terminal throughput data, and traffic
counts. The model includes the following input factors:










Peak week/average week ratio within the peak month (derived from gate transaction data)
Peak day/average day ratio within the peak week - dependent upon number of days the terminal is
open per week (derived from gate transaction data)
Annual or monthly TEU throughput
TEU-to-lift conversion factor (derived from throughput data)
Cargo “splits” – percent via on-dock rail, off-dock rail, local, and empties across the wharf
Number of operating days during the week
Percent of throughput moved each shift (for the day, second & hoot shifts)
Local and empty container leakage (from throughput data)
Percent street turns and chassis re-use (estimated)

The trip generation model produces total monthly, peak week and hourly peakday trips for all truck types
(bobtails, chassis, loaded containers, and empty containers), and by direction (inbound/outbound). The
results of the validation indicated that the model was able to accurately simulate peak day and peak hour
trips.
Container Terminal Automobile Trip Generation
Peak hour and daily auto trip rates were empirically derived using traffic counts at all terminals. The trip
generation rates for autos (in terms of trips per thousand monthly TEU) were applied to the container
forecasts. Expected changes in shifts were also accounted for in the trip generation estimates for future
scenarios.
Non-Container Terminal Trip Generation
Non-container, terminal trip generation estimates were also developed for the Ports. This includes trips to
and from all other types of marine terminals (automobile terminals, dry bulk terminals, liquid bulk
terminals and break-bulk terminals). In addition, there are many non-terminal land uses located
throughout the two ports (e.g., administrative offices, recreation, commercial, and government buildings)
that generate automobile traffic.
With the exception of container, automobile, and petroleum coke terminals, relatively low growth is
expected in most other types of terminals. Additionally, little or no change is expected to the other
miscellaneous land uses in the Ports. Therefore, trip generation rates were not developed for these
terminals/facilities (with the exception of automobile, and petroleum coke terminals), and cargo growth
factors were derived and applied to existing non-container traffic counts. Automobile and coke terminal
truck trip rates were empirically derived based upon peak hour and daily traffic counts, and applied to
their respective cargo forecast to estimate future trips.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
V

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary

VI. MARINE TERMINAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Truck Distribution
The distribution of Port automobile and truck trips is one of the most critical factors in the transportation
analysis. To develop Port truck trip distribution patterns, a detailed truck-driver user survey was
conducted at marine container terminals. Approximately 10,000 driver surveys were issued to truck
drivers at 13 container terminals with over 3,300 valid returns. The survey requested the following
information from the drivers for both the inbound and outbound trip:






Truck type (bobtail, chassis, container, other)
Container status (full or empty)
Origins/destinations (e.g. off-dock railyard, warehouse, another port terminal, etc)
Origin/destination location (city or major cross streets)
Specific streets/freeways that were used for the trip

The surveys were used to develop detailed origin-destination trip tables for use in the Port area travel
demand model. The trip tables included not only trips from marine terminals to locations outside the
ports, but also “inter-terminal” trips from one marine terminal to another marine terminal. These interterminal trips are primarily bobtail trips that occur after a load or empty has been dropped at another
terminal.
The results of the O-D surveys indicated that about 65% of container terminal truck trips (including
chassis and bobtail trips) have origins and destinations within about 20 miles of the Ports (i.e., bounded
by the SR 60 on the north, I-110 on the west, and I-605 on the east). Exhibits ES-3 and ES-4 illustrate the
distribution of origins (inbound truck trips to the Ports) and destinations (outbound truck trips from the
Ports) within the metropolitan Los Angeles area.
Terminal Workers/Employees Distribution
Place of residence zip code data for longshore workers was obtained from the International Longshore
and Warehouse Union (ILWU). The ZIP codes were correlated with the port travel demand model TAZ
system. Using traffic counts conducted at the union halls, those workers that are dispatched from the hall
were distinguished from those that report directly to the terminals. Hence, the dispatched workers are
reflected in the model as “linked” trips: one trip from their home to the hall, and then to the marine
terminal.

VII. YEAR 2010/2020 TRIP GENERATION/TRAFFIC
PROJECTIONS
Background Traffic Projections and Port Area Travel Demand Model
The POLB/POLA Transportation Study roadway system traffic forecasts were produced using a travel
demand forecasting (TDF) model for the Ports study area. The Transportation Study model is a focus
model of the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) regional model. The model
produces peak hour, peak period, and daily traffic forecasts for all roadways, intersections, and terminal
gates within the Port area. The model also produces traffic forecasts for all major arterial streets and
freeways serving the Ports.
For purposes of subregional transportation analysis, the SCAG model provides the most comprehensive
and dynamic tool to forecast the magnitude of trips and distribution of travel patterns anywhere in the
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
VI

VII

VIII

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary
region. However, by virtue of its design and function, the Regional Model is not (and cannot be) very
detailed and precise in any specific area of the region. This is also the case in the Ports of Long Beach
and Los Angeles focus area. Therefore, the model has been comprehensively updated and detailed in the
Port focus area. The model focus area is generally bounded by State Route 91 to the north, the Pacific
Ocean to the west, and the Los Angeles/Orange County line to the east.
Model Trip Tables
The unique travel characteristics of the Port area were incorporated into the model via separate Port area
trip tables for the following vehicle types: autos, bobtails, chassis, container trucks, and all other types of
port-generated trucks (e.g., tanker, flatbed, double-hauler coke, etc.). The port trips were distributed to all
areas identified in the truck driver surveys, which include key locations such as off-dock rail-yards and
warehouse/industrial facilities. The Port trip tables are not part of the gravity model distribution process,
but are overlaid on top of the background SCAG regional model. Trip generation refinements to provide
more accurate assignment of special generator trips such as those in downtown Long Beach and San
Pedro were also included in the model.
Relationship with the Regional Heavy Duty Truck Model
This regional model also includes trip tables for non-port truck trips generated throughout the entire
southern California, five-county area. These non-port truck trip tables were developed as an adjunct
component to the SCAG regional model. The resulting model is defined as the Heavy Duty Truck (HDT)
model. The HDT model entails explicit forecasts for heavy-duty vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
(GVW) of 8,500 pounds and higher.
Passenger-Car-Equivalency
Heavy vehicles in the traffic stream affect traffic flow in two ways: (1) they occupy more roadway space
than passenger cars; (2) the operational capabilities of heavy vehicles, including acceleration and
deceleration, are generally inferior to passenger cars. Detailed passenger-car-equivalent (PCE) factors
were developed and applied.
Intermodal Rail Analysis
The Transportation Study included a detailed intermodal facility capacity analysis in order to determine
future on-dock/off-dock rail mode splits. As discussed in the trip generation methodology section, the ondock/off-dock mode splits are key inputs in the container terminal trip generation model.
Intermodalism
Expected increases in container truck trips to/from off-dock railyards will be offset by expanded and
increased use of on-dock rail. As part of both Ports’ container terminal expansion plans, new on-dock
railyards will be constructed, and existing railyards will be expanded. These Ports rail improvements, in
concert with the Alameda Corridor, will facilitate increased on-dock rail use. In 2010 and 2020, it is
estimated that about 50 percent of all containers that move through the Ports will be transported by rail to
inland destinations via on-dock and off-dock railyards. Therefore, the maximum theoretical level of ondock use is 50 percent of the total number of containers that are discharged and loaded. However, it is
expected that this level of on-dock use will not be reached for various reasons. Several factors effect use
of on-dock rail, such as: shipper and steamship line logistics (e.g. transloading, transportation costs, etc.),
railroad operations (equipment availability, train schedules, and steamship line contracts/arrangements),
terminal operations/congestion, rail infrastructure outside the terminals within the Ports area, and on-dock
railyard capacity. On-dock rail capacity and transloading have been accounted for in the trip generation
analysis.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
IX

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary
2010 On-Dock Capacity. Both ports combined are expected to have capacity to move approximately 9.9
million TEUs per year via on-dock rail, the equivalent of 61 percent of total throughput via on-dock rail.
At individual terminals with future on-dock-rail facilities, all terminals would be able to handle at least 36
percent of the cargo throughput via on-dock rail.
2020 On-Dock Capacity. Both ports combined are expected to have capacity to move approximately 10.8
million TEUs per year via on-dock rail, the equivalent of 30 percent of total throughput. At individual
terminals with future on-dock-rail facilities, all but two terminals would be able to handle at least 30
percent of the cargo throughput via on-dock rail. It should be emphasized that the capacity estimates are
conservative, and it is conceivable that 35 percent on-dock mode split could be achieved at some of the
terminals given optimal operating procedures. Based on these analyses, 30 percent on-dock rail was
chosen for the base scenario and 35 percent for the modified operations “best case” scenario (except for
those terminals that have less physical capacity).
2010 and 2020 Off-Dock Railyard Capacities. Using the capacity model and information provided by the
UP and BNSF railroads, existing and future off-dock railyard capacity for “international” (port-generated)
containers were estimated.
The inland railyards are expected to have an approximate capacity of 393,000 TEU per month or 4.3
million TEU annually, which represents about 26 and 12 percent of the total Ports throughput in 2010 and
2020, respectively. The forecast inland rail yard capacity would be deficient by 265,000 TEU/month in
2020 (there is an expected surplus in 2010 of 88,695 TEU). Hence, the inland yards would only be able
to accommodate 60 percent of their expected international cargo demand in 2020. This capacity
deficiency finding is predicated on two key assumptions, as follows: 1) the capacity allocated by the two
Class I railroads to international versus domestic lifts in the off-dock railyards would not significantly
change, and 2) domestic intermodal volume growth is similar to international growth. However, over the
past several years, both UP and BNSF have expanded existing facilities, and they are both currently
contemplating the construction of new railyards for additional capacity. To be conservative in the
estimate of truck trips on the regional roadway system, it was assumed that the future demand would be
accommodated. Hence, for the purposes of yielding conservative future truck trips and truck miles
traveled, the off-dock railyard trips were proportionately distributed to the three main railyards that serve
the Ports (ICTF, UP East Los Angeles facility, and the BNSF Hobart Yard).
2010 and 2020 Train Movements
Container/Double Stack. Based upon the railyard capacity analysis and forecast TEUs, the number of
intermodal trains per day to be generated by the ports was estimated. The number of double-stack, oneway train movements (inbound and outbound) per day is estimated to be 30 and 66, in 2010 and 2020,
respectively. It should be noted that some of these trains would have between 20 and 28 railrcars.
Non-Container. The Port of Long Beach auto terminal is expected to generate four and five one-way
train movements/day in 2010 and 2020, respectively. The Port of Los Angeles auto terminal is also
expected to generate four and five one-way train movements/day in 2010 and 2020, respectively. The
LAXT terminal is expected to generate four train movements in 2010 and eight train movements in 2020.
It should be noted that all of the trains from both Ports would use the Alameda Corridor.
Cargo Growth Forecasts
Container Terminals
The TEU forecast contained in the 1998 “San Pedro Bay Ports Long-Term Cargo Forecast” (Mercer
Management Consulting, Inc.) was used in the Transportation Study. To be conservative, the “HighMeyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
X

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary
Growth” scenarios for 2010 and 2020 were used in the Study. The containerized forecasts were increased
to account for recent changes in empty container logistics that have occurred since the container forecasts
were developed. Specifically, the empty return factors for local and intermodal containers were
increased. The resulting adjusted forecasts are as follows: 16,720,055 TEUs for 2010 and 36,151,213
TEUs for 2020. This represents a growth of approximately 7.1 million TEUs (74% increase) between
2000 and 2010, and 26.5 million TEUs (276% increase) between 2000 and 2020.
For both 2010 and 2020, the total TEUs were allocated equally between the two ports i.e., 50 percent was
allocated to each Port. The 50 percent share was then allocated proportionately to the terminals based
upon planned/proposed acreages. The planned/proposed total acreages in both Ports is as follows:
Planned/Proposed Container Terminal Acreage

Port of Long Beach
Port of Los Angeles

2010

2020

1,991
2,037

2,376
2,295

Non-Container Cargo Forecasts
The non-containerized “High Growth” forecasts contained in the 1998 “San Pedro Bay Ports Long-Term
Cargo Forecast” (Mercer Management Consulting, Inc.) were used in the POLB/POLA Transportation
Study. Like the container forecasts, 50% of each commodity type was allocated to both Ports.
Subsequent to the allocation to both Ports, metric tonnage forecasts of specific commodities or
commodity categories were allocated to as many individual terminals as possible.
Ports Area Trip Generation
The truck trip generation model was used to develop year 2010 and 2020 container terminal truck trip
volumes for various operating scenarios. These scenarios were defined by changing operating parameters
as follows: increased weekend activity; expanded terminal operating hours (more second shift and hoot
shift activity); increased on-dock rail use; increased street turns as a result of the use of eModal; and
increased dual transactions within the terminal. Two scenarios were analyzed for 2010, and three were
analyzed for 2020 as listed below.

Scenario

2010 Analysis Scenarios
OnWeekend
Shift Percentages
Dock
Throughput
Day/Night/Hoot
Rail

2010 Base

30%

15%

80%10%10%

2010 Alt. 1

30%

15%

60%20%20%

The 2010 Base scenario entails moderate changes to terminal operations and intermodal logistics
parameters to produce conservative traffic forecasts. However, it should be noted that the parameters for
Alternative 1 are considered more realistic given actual current terminal operations. Furthermore, as the
peak season has expanded out the last ten years, and as cargo volumes have increased, more terminals
have extended their hours of operation. It is expected that terminals and other entities in the supply chain
will continue to extend their gate hours to accommodate the increase in containers. Regarding intermodal
logistics, it is expected that the eModal appointment system would facilitate the shifting of truck trips to
off-peak periods in concert with the extended gate hours.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
XI

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary
2020 Analysis Scenarios
OnWeekend
Shift Percentages
Dock
Throughput
Day/Night/Hoot
Rail

Scenario
2020 Base

30%

15%

60%/20%/20%

2020 Alt. 1

35%

20%

40%/40%/20%

2020 Alt. 2

30%

15%

80%/10%/10%

Considering the expected cargo growth in the next twenty years, it highly conceivable that many entities
in the supply chain will expand their hours of operations. Also, the terminals will need to extend their
gate hours simply to handle the expected volumes because of limits on gate sizes. Consequently, the
2020 Base Scenario, which is considered the most likely scenario, entails more changes in terminal
operations and intermodal logistics from the 2010 Base scenario. Specifically, the weekday gate
movements were modified and the dual terminal moves were increased beyond 2010 Base levels. All
other parameters remain the same as 2010. Alternative 1 represents the most changes assumed in
operations and is the “best case,” in terms of reduced truck trips. Alternative 1 entails additional spreading
of the gate movements throughout the entire day (almost representing a 24-hour weekday operation) and
20 percent weekend operations. As stated previously, Alternative 1 was analyzed to determine if the I710 would still have a capacity deficiency even with the most optimal terminal operations and intermodal
logistics practices. Alternative 2 represents the fewest operational changes and represents the “worst
case” in terms of truck trip making. This scenario was analyzed merely for comparative purposes to
present an extremely conservative “what-if” scenario, and is considered unlikely.
Non-Container Terminal Trips
Using forecast growth in throughput by commodity type, specific growth rates were developed and then
applied to existing terminal driveway truck counts. The non-container cargo forecasts indicate that the
shipment of many types of commodities will actually decline or experience very little growth. For a few
commodities, positive growth is forecast and has been allocated to specific terminals. For each of those
commodities, a growth rate has been developed based on 2010 and 2020 forecasts and applied to the
driveway or adjacent roadway segment traffic counts. Because the growth rate and overall level of
throughput in automobiles and petroleum coke are expected to be more significant than for other
commodity types, specific truck trip rates were developed and applied to the automobile and coal
terminals.
Total Ports Area Trip Generation
Tables ES-1 and ES-2 summarize Ports area truck and auto trip generation for all facilities. It should be
noted that the non-container terminal facilities include all facilities within the Ports’ districts, which is
generally defined as follows: Harbor Scenic Drive/I-710 on the east, Anaheim Street/Alameda
Street/Harry Bridges Boulevard on the north, and John S. Gibson Boulevard/Harbor Boulevard on the
west. The non-container terminal facility trip generation forecasts listed in the tables exclude the
following facilities: Cabrillo Marina, Ports of Call Village, Los Angeles World Cruise Center, Queen
Mary Seaport Development, proposed new Carnival Cruises Terminal adjacent to the Queen Mary, Ports
of Long Beach and Los Angeles Administration Buildings. These facilities are accounted for in the
model, but are merely not listed in the summary tables because of the manner in which the model was
developed.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
XII

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary
Table ES-1
Port Area 2010 Truck and Auto Trip Generation Forecasts
Trip Type

AM Peak
Vehicles
PCE

Mid-day Peak
Vehicles
PCE

PM Peak
Vehicles
PCE

Daily
Vehicles

PCE

Existing
Container Truck (1)
Container Auto
Non-Container Truck
Non-Container Auto
Total Existing Trips

2140
1020
850
3715
7725

3795
1020
1700
3715
10230

3210
610
840
3810
8470

5690
610
1680
3810
11790

2015
1480
1280
4835
9610

3575
1480
2560
4835
12450

27550
12750
4980
18995
64275

48895
12750
9960
18995
90600

3265
1645

5840
1645

4560
990

8155
990

2880
2390

5125
2390

42000
20570

74720
20570

2585
1230

4650
1230

3355
740

6045
740

2095
1790

3770
1790

41375
20570

74150
20570

1330
2135

2660
2135

1110
2325

2220
2325

800
2850

1600
2850

8510
18995

17020
18995

2010 Base Truck
2010 Base Auto
Total 2010 Base

4595
3780
8375

8500
3780
12280

5670
3315
8985

10375
3315
13690

3680
5240
8920

6725
5240
11965

50510
39565
90075

91740
39565
131305

2010 Alt. 1 Truck
2010 Alt.1 Auto
Total 2010 Alt. 1

3915
3365
7280

7310
3365
10675

4465
3065
7530

8265
3065
11330

2895
4640
7535

5370
4640
10010

49885
39565
89450

91170
39565
130735

2010 Base
Container Truck (1)
Container Auto
2010 Alternative 1
Container Truck (1)
Container Auto
2010 Non-Container Truck
2010 Non-Container Auto

Note: (1) Container truck trip forecasts exclude inter-terminal trips.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
XIII

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary
Table ES-2
Port Area 2020 Truck and Auto Trip Generation Forecasts
Trip Type
Existing
Total Existing Trips (1)

AM Peak
Vehicles
PCE

Mid-day Peak
Vehicles
PCE

PM Peak
Vehicles
PCE

Daily
Vehicles

PCE

7725

10230

8470

11790

9610

12450

64275

90600

5235
2665

9490
2665

6645
1600

12050
1600

4290
3870

7785
3870

82645
44480

148740
44480

3105
1775

5675
1775

3775
1065

6900
1065

2370
2580

4340
2580

70310
44480

127955
44480

6345
3555

11410
3555

8940
2130

16100
2130

6085
5160

11105
5160

83500
44480

149640
44480

2020 Non-Cont. Truck
2020 Non-Container Auto

1485
2135

2970
2135

1265
2325

2530
2325

870
2850

1740
2850

9010
18995

18020
18995

Total 2020 Base Truck
Total 2020 Base Auto
Total 2020 Base Trips

6720
4800
11520

12460
4800
17260

7910
3925
11835

14580
3925
18505

5160
6720
11880

9525
6720
16245

91655
63475
155130

166760
63475
230235

Total 2020 Alt 1 Truck
Total 2020 Alt. 1 Auto
Total 2020 Alt. 1 Trips

4590
3910
8500

8645
3910
12555

5040
3390
8430

9430
3390
12820

3240
5430
8670

6080
5430
11510

79320
63475
142795

145975
63475
209450

Total 2020 Alt. 2 Truck
Total 2020 Alt. 2 Auto
Total 2020 Alt. 2 Trips

7830
5690
13520

14380
5690
20070

10205
4455
14660

18630
4455
23085

6955
8010
14965

12845
8010
20855

92510
63475
155985

167660
63475
23135

2020 Base
Container Truck (1)
Container Auto
2020 Alternative 1
Container Truck (1)
Container Auto
2020 Alternative 2
Container Truck (1)
Container Auto

Note: (1) Container truck trip forecasts exclude inter-terminal trips

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
XIV

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary

VIII. YEAR 2010 and 2020 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
The travel demand model was used to produce the future forecasts. Exhibit ES-5 illustrates the
distribution of Port trucks from the model for the existing, 2010 Base and 2020 Base Scenarios. Exhibits
ES-6 through ES-10 illustrate the locations that are projected to operate at poor (deficient) levels of
service for the 2010 and 2020 scenarios.

IX. PORT OF LONG BEACH TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Transportation system improvement recommendations have been developed to mitigate the future
deficiencies in the Port of Long Beach only (as stated previously, the Port of Los Angeles did not
participate in this task). The types of projects include: intersection re-striping/widening, intersection
signalization, roadway re-alignment, roadway widening, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS)
measures. Exhibit ES-11 illustrates the locations of the recommended transportation improvements,
which are described below.
Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement
The Gerald Desmond Bridge is part of Interstate/State Route 710, and links the Ports of Long Beach/Los
Angeles facilities on Terminal Island to the Long Beach Freeway (Interstate 710), which is the primary
Ports access route. The planned improvement to provide three lanes on both upgrade sections would
improve operations, but not sufficiently to accommodate Year 2010 and 2020 traffic volumes. The
Project entails replacement of an existing four-lane bridge with a six-lane (or eight-lane) bridge, and also
reconstruction of the Seaside Boulevard interchange. (Estimated Cost - $280,000,000)
Pier B Street On-Ramp to Northbound Terminal Island Freeway
The subject project is to construct an on-ramp from Pier B Street to the northbound Terminal Island
Freeway. With the proposed closure of Edison Street west and extensive blocking of the 9th Street rail
crossing in the North Harbor area, access to the Terminal Island Freeway from terminals south of Pier B
Street will be severely impeded. Access to the Terminal Island Freeway from those terminals will only be
via two circuitous routes: Henry Ford Avenue/Anaheim Street/I Street and Anaheim Way/Anaheim
Street/I Street. The proposed improvement will enable safe and efficient access to the northbound
Terminal Island Freeway. This project will also require Caltrans approval. (Estimated Project Cost $1,000,000)
Pier B Street Widening/Realignment
The realignment of Pier B Street is required for the Port’s proposed expansion of the Pier B Street
Railyard. Pier B Street is a key east-west collector street in the Port, which connects the Terminal Island
Freeway (via another Port roadway Pier A Way) with the Long Beach Freeway. When trains block Pico
Avenue/9th Street, the only route out of the Port to the north and west is via Pier B Street. Thus, Pier B
Street is a critical, alternative route to 9th Street, and also would provide access to the proposed Terminal
Freeway northbound on-ramp discussed above. (Estimated Project Cost - $6,500,000)

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
XV

XVI

XVII

XVIII

XIX

XX

XXI

XXII

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary
Pico Avenue Widening and Traffic Signalization
The redevelopment of Piers D/E/F and G/J, and overall cargo growth will add traffic to Pico Avenue and
intersecting roadways. As a result of this traffic growth, signals are required at the following intersections
on Pico Avenue: Pier D Street, Broadway, Ocean Boulevard westbound ramps, Pier E Street, and Harbor
Plaza. In addition to signalization, widening would be required on the west side of Pico Avenue from
Pier E Street to Pier D Street to facilitate an additional northbound, left-turn turn lane at the intersection
with the Ocean Boulevard westbound ramps.
It should be noted that Pico Avenue improvements are contingent upon the redevelopment of Piers D and
E (possibly F) and G. Depending upon the redevelopment, the recommended Pico Avenue improvements
will need to be revisited. (Estimated Project Cost- $3,250,000)
New Dock Street/SR-47 SB off-Ramp and NB on-Ramp Signalization
The intersections of Henry Ford Avenue and Terminal Island southbound off-ramp and northbound onramp would directly serve traffic to and from the new Pier S container terminal as well as other terminals.
In addition to the signalization at both ramp terminal intersections, a second eastbound left-turn lane is
recommended at the on-ramp intersection. This second lane can be accommodated by restriping New
Dock Street. (Estimated Project Cost - $300,000)
Anaheim Street/9th Street/I Street Intersection Improvement
Under the 2020 Base Scenario, the intersection of Anaheim Street/9th Street/I Street is projected to operate
at level of service E. The proposed improvement at this location is to restripe the westbound intersection
approach to provide a shared through/right turn lane in place of the existing right-turn-only lane. This
improvement will require the removal and reconstruction of the existing raised concrete island in the
intersection. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at LOS D or better during the peak
hours. The need for these improvements will be re-evaluated in the Port of Long Beach’s North Harbor
Area Study, to be completed in late 2001. This project will not be needed until sometime between 2010
and 2020. (Estimated Project Cost: $40,000)
Anaheim Street/Farragut Avenue Traffic Signal
The subject project is to install a signal at the intersection of Anaheim Street/Farragut Avenue. With the
proposed closure of Edison Street west and extensive blocking of the 9th Street rail crossing in the North
Harbor area, access to Anaheim Street from terminals south of Pier B street will be severely impeded and
via only one circuitous route; Anaheim Way/Farragut Avenue/Anaheim Street/I Street. The proposed
improvement will enable safe and efficient access to Anaheim Street. The intersection of Anaheim
Street/Farragut Avenue would operate at a good level of service with the signal (see Appendix for LOS
results). This project will also require City of Los Angeles approval. (Estimated Project Cost : $120,000)
Ports Advanced Transportation Management and Information System (ATMIS)
The focus of the Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles ATMIS is the application of proven ITS technologies
within the Ports area. The Ports ATMIS will provide truckers, dispatchers, terminal operators, and traffic
engineers with seamless traffic surveillance along the Ports’ access points to better assist travel, manage
incidents, and effectively divert truck traffic to various entrance and exit points of the two Ports. Truck
drivers will be informed on a "real-time" basis of the traffic conditions in the Ports area and vicinity, and

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
XXIII

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary
will receive advanced warning about incidents in the Ports and on all freeways. The key components are
described below.
Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS)
The ATMS will control field elements, monitor traffic signals, and monitor the freeways’ traffic through a
links to various traffic management centers (TMC). The ATMS includes the following specific
components:




Terminal Gate Queue Detection Cameras at all container terminals
Closed Circuit Television Surveillance at container terminal gates and key roadway locations
Links to Long Beach TMC, Caltrans TOC & LADOT ATSAC Center

Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS)
The ATIS will provide reliable, accurate, and timely information to assist both all motorists within, and in
proximity of the two Ports. The ATIS will exchange data and information with: Caltrans, local and
subregional TMCs, Southern California Priority Corridor (Showcase), the Priority Corridor CVO ATIS,
and private information providers. The ATIS includes the following specific components:





Changeable Message Signs (CMS) at gate exits
Link to Caltrans Traveler Information System
Interface with the Southern California Priority Corridor (Showcase)
Link to eModal

The Port CMS message, queue detector, and CCTV camera video data will be transmitted to eModal.
This type of information sharing will reduce truck trips and enable the shifting of some peak truck traffic
to off-peak hours. By having real time freeway and terminal conditions information, truck drivers can
better plan their drayage trips. (Estimated Project Cost: $10,237,500)

X.

REGIONAL ANALYSIS

An analysis of regional transportation facilities adjacent to and serving the Ports has been conducted to
determine potential future operating conditions and possible regional improvements. The regional
analysis study area is bounded by SR-91 on the north, I-110 on the west, and I-710 on the east. The 2020
Base Scenario deficiency analysis indicates the need for improvements to the regional transportation
system serving the Ports, including I-710 north of the Ports.
The primary purpose of the regional analysis is to identify long-term improvement recommendations
within the I-710 “corridor”, which also includes the Terminal Island Freeway, for use in the Caltrans/Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LACMTA I-710 Major Corridor Study. The I710 Major Corridor Study has begun, and will be completed in 2003. The regional alternatives and
potential I-710 improvements will be examined in much greater detail in the Major Corridor Study. The
regional alternatives analyzed in the POLB/POLA Transportation Sudy are described below, along with
the analysis results for the major regional facilities (I-710, I-110, SR-47/103, and Alameda Street).
In response to the identified regional deficiencies, the following regional alternative scenarios were
analyzed:


Year 2010 and 2020 Terminal Operational Scenarios (for several container terminal operational
scenarios – discussed previously in Section VIII)
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
XXIV

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary


Year 2020 Base Scenario (60%/20%/20% gate movement distribution) with I-710 Improvements
The deficiency analysis of the I-710 revealed the need for additional capacity north of the Shoemaker
Bridge Complex. The I-710 Major Corridor Study will investigate the addition of mixed flow lanes
and also truck lanes. In the regional analysis, the effect of adding a mixed flow lane in each direction
between the Shoemaker Bridge Complex and SR 60 was evaluated. The evaluation of truck lanes is
very complex and requires an extensive evaluation of local street access and right-of-way. Such
analyses are beyond the scope of the POLB/POLA Transportation Sutdy, and will be addressed in the
I-710 Major Corridor Study.

In addition to testing the added lanes in the model, the physical feasibility of adding lanes was assessed
between the Shoemaker Bridge Complex and PCH. A fourth lane could be provided in each direction by
reconfiguring the cloverleaf interchanges at Anaheim Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The
reconfiguration of these interchanges would also eliminate substandard weaving sections between these
two interchanges, which cause excessive delay and congestion. The freeway mainline would need to be
widened between Anaheim Street and PCH, and also between PCH and Willow Street. This widening
may require right-of-way acquisition on the both sides. The actual physical feasibility of adding lanes
north of this point, and reconfiguring the PCH interchange is beyond the scope of the Transportation
Sudy.
Year 2020 Base Scenario with the extension of the Terminal Island Freeway to I-405
The assumed connection of the extended Terminal Island Freeway entails a “half” freeway-to-freeway
interchange with I-405 (i.e., direct northbound SR-47 to northbound I-405 and southbound I-405 to
southbound SR-47 connector ramps). A preliminary assessment of this project was conducted by SCAG
and described in Potential Terminal Island Freeway – San Diego Freeway Connector (SCAG, February
1999). Although physical feasibility was not assessed as part of POLB/POLA Transportation Study, this
project would most likely be cost-prohibitive and/or physically infeasible
Year 2020 Base with the extension of the Terminal Island Freeway to I-710
The assumed connection of the extended Terminal Island Freeway with I-710 entails a full freeway-tofreeway interchange south of Del Amo Boulevard. This scenario also assumes no interchange with I-405
(i.e., it is assumed to fly over I-405). Although physical feasibility was not assessed as part of
Transportation Study, this project would most likely be cost-prohibitive and/or physically infeasible
Year 2020 Base Scenario with new off-dock railyard adjacent to Ports (north of Anaheim Street)
The off-dock railyard analysis indicated that by 2010 there would be insufficient capacity in the off-dock
railyards within the Los Angeles basin area. Over the past several years, both UP and BNSF have
expanded existing facilities and are currently contemplating the construction of new railyards for
additional capacity. A new railyard located between the Ports and the East Los Angeles yards would
have the greatest benefit in terms of congestion reduction on the I-710, particularly for BNSF, which does
not currently have a near-dock facility. Thus, such a scenario was tested for its beneficial impact on the I710. This scenario entailed the construction of a hypothetical railyard located south of I-405, and
between I-110 and I-710.
Year 2020 Alternative 1 Scenario (40%/40%/20% gate movement distribution) with I-710 Improvements
This scenario was analyzed because as indicated in the results, the lane additions alone are not sufficient
to provide acceptable operating conditions on the I-710 (i.e., LOS D or better). Hence, the container
terminal operational scenario with gate movements more evenly spread throughout the entire day (and
additional weekend gate movements) was analyzed with the I-710 improvements.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
XXV

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Executive Summary
Results
The results of the regional alternatives analyses indicate the following:


The most effective regional improvement is an additional lane in each direction from north of the
Shoemaker Bridge complex to the vicinity of the downtown railyards. This improvement will be
reviewed in much greater detail as part of the I-710 Major Corridor Study, which has commenced.
The preliminary analysis of this improvement alternative indicates that it would significantly improve
operating conditions on I-710 north of the Ports.



Neither of the two SR-47/103 extension alternatives would significantly improve traffic operating
conditions on the regional system. While the extensions would result in additional truck and auto
traffic using the Terminal Island Freeway (compared to the 2020 Base Scenario), the shift in traffic
would not be large enough to significantly improve operations on I-710. The I-710 Freeway would
continue to be the major route for Port truck traffic even with either of the extension alternatives, and
it would continue to operate at a poor level of service with the SR-47/103 extension. Given these
results, the extension of the Terminal Island Freeway would not be recommended. These alternatives
may be analyzed in the I-710 Major Corridor Study.



The new off-dock railyard would reduce longer distance truck trips to the downtown railyards;
however, it would not significantly improve traffic operating conditions on the major routes serving
the Ports including I-710.



The I-710 improvements combined with additional spreading of container terminal gate movements
throughout the day (and also additional weekend gate movements) would significantly reduce portrelated truck trips on I-710. However, despite the reduction in port-generated truck trips on the
freeway, LOS D traffic conditions would not be attained. This is due to the shifting of other non-port
trips that would occur as a result of the freeway improvements and also the additional capacity made
available by the reduction in port trucks. The modeling analysis indicates that port bobtails, chassis
and containers would be reduced by 30 to 50 percent on I-710 compared to the base scenario.
However, non-port regional trips (primarily autos plus some non-port trucks) would shift from
parallel arterial routes in Long Beach and Los Angeles back to the freeway as a result of the capacity
made available by the reduction in port trucks. The resulting LOS on the freeway would be LOS E,
with a demand/capacity ratio that would be slightly lower than the 2020 Base Scenario with I-710
improvements. However, traffic operations on adjacent arterial streets would be improved as a result
of the traffic shifting.

Despite these results, it should be stressed that extended terminal hours and the associated spreading of
truck movements throughout the entire day is needed today, and will be needed whether physical
improvements are implemented. Furthermore, given the expected cost of the improvements that will be
needed for the I-710 ($2+ billion), the scarcity and uncertainty of public funds, and the lengthy timeframe
required for development/implementation which is estimated between seven and ten years (assuming
funding is obtained), transportation management strategies such as extended hours for all entities in the
supply chain is absolutely necessary. This is absolutely necessary to ensure efficient mobility for all users
of the transportation system (and not just for the truck drivers), and to ensure the overall economic vitality
of Southern California, the State, and the nation. This assertion is affirmed by the results of the 2020
Alternative 1 analysis, which indicated that even with the spreading of truck traffic throughout the day,
the I-710 would be deficient. If nothing is done, adequate mobility for all freeway users would be
difficult to achieve.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
XXVI

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1

Purpose of POLB/POLA Transportation Study

The existing transportation system within and adjacent to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles is
constrained under present conditions. Expected increases in cargo throughput in the next five to twenty
years will generate a considerable amount of rail and vehicular traffic to the transportation system within
and adjacent to the Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles. To address existing and future deficiencies, a
comprehensive transportation study has been conducted and is described in this report. It includes
analysis of existing and future rail and vehicular traffic demand; transportation system deficiencies and
necessary improvements; and development of an implementation plan. Both transportation planning and
detailed traffic engineering analyses have been conducted as part of this study. The study included
analyses within and immediately adjacent to the Ports area. Regional transportation system analyses have
also been performed.
This report describes the methodology, findings and recommendations of the POLB/POLA
Transportation Study. The purposes for undertaking the Transportation Study include:


Determine the growth in truck traffic that is projected to occur as a result of the forecast growth in
cargo moving through the Ports



Develop transportation planning tools to address the technical challenges associated with Port growth



Identify existing and future transportation system deficiencies in and around the Ports



Recommend physical and operational strategies to mitigate future system deficiencies

1.2

Scope of Work/Tasks

The POLB/POLA Transportation Study project included the following tasks:


Trip Generation Methodology - This included methodologies to forecast container terminal truck trips
by type (bobtail, chassis, container loads, empties) as well as container terminal auto trips and noncontainer terminal auto and truck trips.



Trip Distribution Patterns - This included development of detailed trip distribution patterns for all
port terminals to all local and regional distribution locations such as off-dock rail terminals and local
warehouse and distribution centers. Trip distribution patterns for marine terminal employee auto trips
were also developed.



Transportation System Operating Conditions – This included the analysis of existing and future
(Years 2010 and 2020) transportation system operating conditions for key intersections, freeway
segments and freeway ramps.



Port Focus Area Travel Demand Model – This included the development of a comprehensive,
detailed and fully dynamic computer-based travel demand modeling tool for use in assessing future
travel patterns and projecting future deficiencies.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
1

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report



Rail System Analysis – This included existing and future rail system analyses to determine rail
system capacity and forecast mode split by rail versus truck.



Deficiency Analysis - Future transportation system deficiencies were identified at intersections and
highway/freeway segments.



Port of Long Beach Improvement Recommendations – This included recommended physical
transportation system improvements and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements, in
the Port of Long Beach only (the Port of Los Angeles did not participate in this task of the study).



Regional Analysis – This included the identification of deficiencies on the key regional access routes
to both Ports, and the evaluation of regional improvements and strategies.

A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to oversee the progress of the POLB/POLA
Transportation Study project. The TAC consisted of representatives of both Ports plus the consulting
team. Regular meetings were held throughout the project to discuss progress and to make decisions
regarding analytical procedures.

1.3

Organization of the Report

The POLB/POLA Transportation Study report contains sections which describe the technical
methodology, findings and conclusions regarding trip generation, trip distribution, existing transportation
system operating conditions, rail analysis, travel demand model development and 2010 and 2020 truck
and auto forecasts. It also includes 2010 and 2020 deficiency forecasts, as well as the transportation
improvement and mitigation program recommendations and cost estimates.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
2

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

2.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATING
CONDITIONS
2.1

Description of Study Area

The POLB/POLA Transportation Study area includes both the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles plus
the roadway system surrounding the ports. In addition, the regional analysis extends beyond the port area
to include key freeway facilities that carry port traffic. A total of 38 intersections have been analyzed
within the study area. Exhibit 1 illustrates the study area while Exhibit 2 illustrates the focus area for the
POLB/POLA Transportation Study and the location of the 38 study intersections. In addition to
intersections, key roadways and freeway ramps and weaving sections operations have been analyzed.
The level of service for all of those facilities has been assessed for current (1999) conditions. A
description of the analysis methodology and results is provided in this section of the report.

Key Roadway and Freeway Facilities
Long Beach Freeway (I-710) and Harbor Freeway (I-110) - The Long Beach Freeway (I-710) and the
Harbor Freeway (I-110) both provide regional access to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Both
freeways are north-south highways that extend from the port area to downtown Los Angeles. They each
have six lanes in the vicinity of the harbor and widen to eight lanes to the north. Both provide regional
freeway connections to the following freeways: San Diego Freeway (I-405), Riverside Freeway (SR-91),
Century Freeway (I-105), the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) and the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5).
Ocean Boulevard/Seaside Avenue. - Ocean Boulevard runs east-west from downtown Long Beach, over
the Gerald Desmond Bridge and connects to the terminus of the Terminal Island Freeway (SR 47/SR
103). Ocean Boulevard is designated State Route 710 between I-710 and SR 47. Ocean
Boulevard/Seaside Avenue. is designated State Route 47 between I-110 and the Terminal Island Freeway.
Ocean Boulevard is constructed with six travel lanes and left-turn lanes at intersections.
At the west city boundary, Ocean Boulevard is renamed Seaside Avenue in Los Angeles and continues to
the west to the Vincent Thomas Bridge with six travel lanes. West of the approach to the Vincent Thomas
Bridge, Seaside Avenue continues as a four lane surface roadway and connects to Ferry Street under the
Vincent Thomas Bridge structure.
Terminal Island Freeway (SR 47/SR 103) – The Terminal Island Freeway runs north-south, and connects
Terminal Island with Wilmington, Carson and western Long Beach. It also provides direct access to the
Intermodal Container Transfer Facility located north of Sepulveda Boulevard in the City of Carson. This
freeway connector is constructed with six travel lanes between Ocean Boulevard and the Commodore
Schyler F. Heim draw bridge. The Terminal Island Freeway is designated State Route 47 between Ocean
Boulevard and the Henry Ford Avenue ramps. North of the Henry Ford Avenue ramps, it is designated
State Route 103.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
3

4

5

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

Harbor Scenic Way/Drive – Harbor Scenic Drive runs north-south and connects directly into the Long
Beach Freeway. It has from one to three lanes in each direction with limited access and no parking.
Harbor Scenic Drive also connects to Queensway Drive/Queens Highway and provides access to the
Queen Mary complex.
Harbor Plaza – Harbor Plaza has two lanes in each direction and connects Harbor Scenic Drive with Pico
Avenue/Pier G Avenue.
Pico Avenue – Pico Avenue runs north-south from Harbor Plaza to Pier B Street and has two through
lanes in each direction.
Pier G Avenue – Pier G Avenue runs north-south from Pier G to Harbor Plaza, and has two through lanes
in each direction.
Pier F Avenue – Pier F Avenue connects Pier F with Harbor Plaza, and has two through lanes in each
direction (plus truck queuing lanes).
Pier D Street – Pier D Street runs east-west and has one lane in each direction.
Pier T Avenue – Pier T Avenue runs north-south, has two lanes in each direction, and connects to Ocean
Boulevard via the Seaside Boulevard interchange.
Navy Way – Navy Way runs north-south, has two lanes in each direction, and connects with Ocean
Boulevard and Terminal Way.
New Dock Street - New Dock Street runs east-west between the YTI terminal in the Port of Los Angeles
and the Terminal Island Freeway (southbound off and northbound on-ramps to SR-47 are provided), and
it has two lanes in each direction.
Henry Ford Avenue – On Terminal Island, Henry Ford Avenue connects New Dock Street with Ocean
Boulevard and has two lanes in each direction. North of Terminal Island, Henry Ford Avenue connects
the Terminal Island Freeway with Alameda Street. This segment of Henry Ford Avenue is presently under
construction, and will be widened to provide three lanes in each direction. Upon completion of the
widening project and the Alameda Corridor, Henry Ford Avenue and Alameda Street will be officially
designated State Route 47.
Alameda Street – Alameda Street is a north-south street that runs parallel to the Union Pacific railroad
tracks connecting the Port of Los Angeles to Downtown Los Angeles and several rail yards. By about
2004, Alameda Street will have three lanes in each direction between Henry Ford Avenue and SR-91.
Several segments have already been completed. Alameda Street turns into Harry Bridges Boulevard near
the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in Wilmington. Upon completion of the widening project and the
Alameda Corridor, Henry Ford Avenue and Alameda Street will be officially designated State Route 47.
Harry Bridges Boulevard – Harry Bridges Boulevard is a four-lane, east-west street on the southern edge
of Wilmington. It is a designated truck route providing key access from the Port of Los Angeles West
Basin terminals to I-110, Alameda Street and the various rail yards along Alameda Street. Currently,
Harry Bridges Boulevard becomes John S. Gibson Boulevard to the west at Figueroa Street, and turns
into Alameda Street to the east at the Union Pacific Railroad crossing. In the future, Harry Bridges
Boulevard will be realigned to the north to provide direct access to the Harbor Freeway at the C Street
ramps.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
6

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

John S. Gibson Boulevard – John S Gibson Boulevard is a four lane, north-south street that runs on the
western edge of the Port of Los Angeles. John S. Gibson Boulevard becomes Pacific Avenue to the south
at Channel Street, and turns into Harry S Bridges Boulevard to the north at Figueroa Street. In the future,
John S. Gibson Boulevard will be realigned as part of the Harry S. Bridges Boulevard realignment
project.
Sepulveda Boulevard/Willow Street – Sepulveda Boulevard is an east-west street with four lanes. It
provides direct access to the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF), and links ICTF to the Harbor
Freeway, Alameda Street, and the Terminal Island Freeway. Sepulveda Boulevard becomes Willow
Street at the Terminal Island Freeway. Willow Street is a four lane east-west street in Long Beach.
Trucks are not permitted on Willow Street between the Terminal Island Freeway and the Long Beach
Freeway. Sepulveda Boulevard/Willow Street has interchanges with the Terminal Island Freeway, the
Long Beach Freeway, and also the Harbor Freeway.
Pacific Coast Highway – Pacific Coast Highway is a four-lane, east-west street through Wilmington and
Long Beach. Pacific Coast Highway has interchanges with the Terminal Island Freeway, the Long Beach
Freeway, and also the Harbor Freeway.
Anaheim Street – Anaheim Street is a four-lane, east-west street through Wilmington and Long Beach.
Anaheim Street has interchanges with the Long Beach Freeway and the Harbor Freeway.
9th Street/I Street – 9th Street is an east-west, four-lane street that connects Pico Avenue to Anaheim
Street. 9th Street becomes I Street at Anaheim Street. I Street connects Anaheim Boulevard to the
Terminal Island Freeway. 9th Street/I Street provides a direct connection between Piers B-E to the
Terminal Island Freeway.
Pier B Street – Pier B Street is a two-lane, east-west street that runs parallel to Anaheim Street and 9th
Street. Pier B Street becomes Pico Avenue at the I-710 Ramps. It provides direct access to several
terminals in the Port of Long Beach.
Santa Fe Avenue – Santa Fe Avenue is a four-lane, north-south street that parallels the Long Beach
Freeway to the west. It terminates at 9th Street and provides direct access to many industrial land uses
north of the Port.
Earle Street – Earle Street is a two-to four-lane, north-south street on Terminal Island in the Port of Los
Angeles, which provides access to several terminals. It becomes Seaside Avenue at the Vincent Thomas
Bridge structure.
Terminal Way – Terminal Way is a four-to six-lane, generally east-west street providing, access to Pier
300 and the US Coast Guard Base. It turns into Ferry Street on its west end, and Navy Way on its east
end, at Reeves Avenue.
Ferry Street – Ferry Street is a four-lane, north-south street providing direct access to the Vincent Thomas
Bridge and Seaside Boulevard.
Figueroa Street – Figueroa Street is a four-lane, north-south street paralleling the Harbor Freeway from
the Port of Los Angeles into Downtown Los Angeles. It is a designated truck route within the City of Los
Angeles. Currently, Figueroa Street terminates at the Trans Pacific Container Terminal (TRAPAC).

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
7

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

Front Street/Harbor Boulevard/Miner Street – Front Street is a four-lane, east-west street from Pacific
Avenue to the Vincent Thomas Bridge Ramps. At the ramps, Front Street becomes Harbor Boulevard.
Harbor Boulevard is a north-south four-lane street that runs along the west side of the Port of Los
Angeles. It provides access to the Catalina Terminal, the World Cruise Center and Ports ‘O Call further
south. Harbor Boulevard becomes Miner Street at Crescent Avenue. Miner Street is a two-to four-lane
street running north-south. Miner Street provides access to the southwestern portion of the Port of Los
Angeles.

2.2

Overview of Analysis Methodology

The following roadway systems levels of service were analyzed:


Intersections



Highway/Freeway Ramp Junctions



Highway/Freeway Weaving Sections



Roadway/Freeway Segments

The analysis is based upon traffic counts conducted in August and October 1999. For intersections, ramp
merge/diverge areas and freeway weaving sections, the morning peak (8 to 9 A.M.), Mid-Day peak (2 to
3 P.M.), and afternoon peak (4 to 5 P.M.) hours have been assessed. A description of the analysis
methodology, findings and conclusions is provided below. Exhibit 3 illustrates the locations of
intersection and machine traffic counts and study segment locations.

2.3

Existing (1999) Intersection Conditions Analysis

The existing intersection conditions analysis for signalized locations was conducted using the Intersection
capacity utilization (ICU) methodology. Unsignalized intersections were analyzed using methodologies
contained in the "Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209", Third Edition (Transportation
Research Board, 1997). Basic input data for the intersection existing conditions analysis include: number
of lanes by type, signal control or stop sign control, and peak hour traffic volumes (auto and truck). A
series of exhibits in the appendix illustrate existing AM, Mid-Day and PM peak traffic volumes (total
auto and truck).
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative indication of an intersection's operating conditions as represented
by traffic congestion, delay, and volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. For signalized intersections, it is
measured from LOS A (excellent conditions) to LOS F (extreme congestion), with LOS D (V/C of 0.90)
typically considered to be the threshold of acceptability. The relationship between V/C ratio and LOS for
signalized intersections is as follows:

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
8

9

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
V/C Ratio

LOS

Traffic Conditions

0 to 0.60

A

0.61 to 0.70

B

Little
or
delay/congestion
Slight congestion/delay

0.71 to 0.80

C

Moderate delay/congestion

0.81 to 0.90

D

Significant delay/congestion

0.91 to 1.00

E

Extreme congestion/delay

1.01 +

F

Intersection failure/gridlock

no

Stop-controlled intersections were analyzed using methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual
in which level of service is based on average vehicular delay. The relationship between delay and level of
service is as follows, for stop-controlled intersections (two-way and multi-way stops):

Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Level of Service

Average Delay
(sec/vehicle)

A

≤10

B

>10and ≤15

C

>15and ≤25

D

>25and ≤35

E

>35and ≤50

F

>50

The following special assumptions and methodology have been used to conduct the existing intersection
analysis:


Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factors for intersection operations have been assumed using
previously applied factors used in Port studies of 2.0 for container trucks, 2.0 for chassis and 1.1 for
bobtails. These factors account for the greater capacity used by trucks and their slower acceleration
rates.



Table 1 summarizes the LOS results. The results indicate that all study intersections are currently
operating at acceptable LOS D or better, with many at LOS A, B or C.

The appendices to this report (provided under separate cover) contain the traffic volumes and LOS
worksheets.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
10

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report
TABLE 1
Existing (1999) Intersection Level of Service Analysis

Intersection

Pico Ave. & Pier C St.
Harbor Ave. & Anaheim St.
Pico Ave. & Pier B St.
9th St. & Anaheim St.
Santa Fe Ave. & Anaheim St.
Santa Fe & 9th St.
Henry Ford Ave. & Hanjin Way
Henry Ford Ave. & Ocean Blvd.
SR-47 & Ocean Blvd.
Pier S Access Road & Seaside Blvd.
SR-103 & Willow St./ Sepulveda Blvd.
Santa Fe Ave. & Pacific Coast Hwy
Harbor Plaza & Queens Way
Pico Ave. & Pier E St.
Pico Ave. & Pier D St.
Henry Ford Ave. & New Dock St.
Harbor Plaza & Harbor Scenic Drive
Pier G Ave. & Harbor Plaza
Pico Ave. & Ocean Blvd. WB Ramps
Edison Ave. & Pier B St.
SR-47 SB Ramp & New Dock St.

AM Peak Hour
(8-9 AM)
Type of Traffic
Jurisdiction Volume / LOS
Control
Capacity
or Delay
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
All-Way Stop
All-Way Stop
All-Way Stop
All-Way Stop
All-Way Stop
All-Way Stop
Two-Way Stop
Two-Way Stop
Two-Way Stop

LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB

0.30
0.41
0.53
0.44
0.36
0.21
0.54
0.54
0.56
0.13
0.41
0.57
9
10
10
3
11
17
10
11
11

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
11

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
C
B
B
B

Mid-day Peak
Hour (2-3 PM)
Volume / LOS
Capacity
or Delay
0.30
0.45
0.56
0.38
0.42
0.25
0.55
0.71
0.52
0.14
0.44
0.65
12
12
11
10
12
19
21
12
10

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
A

PM Peak Hour
(4-5 PM)
Volume / LOS
Capacity
or Delay
0.32
0.48
0.55
0.43
0.48
0.27
0.61
0.54
0.60
0.15
0.51
0.69
22
15
11
11
13
20
13
10
10

A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
C
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
A

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report
Table 1
Existing (1999) Intersection Level of Service Analysis

Intersection

Alameda St. & Anaheim St.
Henry Ford Ave. & Anaheim St.
John Gibson Blvd. & I-110 NB Ramp
Ferry St. & Terminal Way
Ferry St. & Ocean Blvd. Ramps
Earle St. & Terminal Way
Navy Way & Seaside Blvd.
Navy Way & Reeves Ave.
Harbor Blvd. & SR-47 EB
Miner St & 22nd St.
Alameda St. & Pacific Coast Hwy
Avalon Blvd. & Harry Bridges Blvd
Henry Ford Ave. & Alameda St.
Carrack Ave. & Pier B St.
Figueroa St. & C St.
Sampson Way & 22nd St.
Harbor Blvd & SR-47 WB Ramp
ICTF & Sepulveda Blvd.

AM Peak Hour
(8-9 AM)
Type of Traffic
Jurisdiction Volume / LOS
Control
Capacity
or Delay
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
All-Way Stop
All-Way Stop
Signal
All-Way Stop
All-Way Stop
Signal

LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA

0.44
0.54
0.53
0.38
0.30
0.43
0.52
0.25
0.60
0.34
0.55
0.43
10
9
0.49
8
9
0.34

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
12

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A

Mid-day Peak
Hour (2-3 PM)
Volume / LOS
Capacity
or Delay
0.40
0.60
0.48
0.48
0.41
0.47
0.48
0.31
0.39
0.29
0.69
0.46
11
9
0.60
8
9
0.44

A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
A

PM Peak Hour
(4-5 PM)
Volume / LOS
Capacity
or Delay
0.59
0.69
0.50
0.33
0.33
0.34
0.50
0.30
0.61
0.36
0.64
0.45
14
8
0.55
8
9
0.45

A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

2.4

Existing (1999) Highway/Freeway System Analysis

Ramp Junction Analysis
The existing highway/freeway ramp junction (where ramps merge onto the freeway or diverge from the
freeway) analysis was conducted using methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. The
following 18 locations have been analyzed:

Ramp Junctions (merge/diverge)
Ocean Bl./Seaside Bl.

Pico Av. eastbound on-ramp

Pico Av. westbound on-ramp

Eastbound connector ramp (diverge) to Harbor Scenic Dr. NB

Westbound connector ramp (merge) from Harbor Scenic Dr. SB

Seaside Bl. Westbound off-ramp (Gate 5)
Terminal Island Freeway

New Dock St. northbound on-ramp

Henry Ford Av. Southbound on-ramp

New Dock Street southbound off-ramp

I St. northbound on-ramp

I St. southbound on-ramp
Harbor Scenic Dr./I-710

PCH northbound on-ramp

PCH southbound on-ramp

Anaheim St. northbound on-ramp

Anaheim St. northbound off-ramp

Anaheim St. southbound off-ramp

Anaheim St. southbound on-ramp

Pier B St./Pico Av. Northbound on-ramp

Pier B St./Pico Av. Southbound off-ramp

This analysis produces LOS for ramp-freeway merges and diverges. Basic input data for the ramp
junction analysis includes: number of lanes on the study ramp and freeway mainline section, ramp
volumes and percent trucks, freeway mainline volumes and percent trucks, upstream and downstream
ramp volumes and percent trucks, distance to nearest upstream and downstream ramps, grade, peak hour
factor, and speeds. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) computer model is used to conduct the
highway/freeway ramp merge/diverge and weaving section analyses.
Level of service for ramp-freeway junctions is based on the density of traffic in the influence area of the
ramp and the expectation that no breakdown will occur, and is graded from LOS A to F. LOS F signifies
that a breakdown condition exists or is expected to exist at this level. It represents conditions where
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
13

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report
approaching demand flows exceed the discharge capacity of the downstream freeway. The table below
displays level of service criteria for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence.

Level of Service Criteria for
Ramp-Freeway Junction Areas of Influence
Level of
Service

Maximum Density
(pc/mi/ln)

Minimum Speed

A

10

58

B

20

56

C

28

52

D

35

46

E

>35

42

F

(a)

A

Note: a) demand flows exceed capacity limits
The results of the ramp junction analysis are summarized in Table 2. The results indicate that all
analyzed ramp merge/diverge areas are estimated to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the
PCH southbound on-ramp to I-710 (LOS E during the AM peak hour), and the Anaheim Street
Southbound off-ramp at I-710 (LOS E during the AM peak). The appendix to this report contains the
LOS worksheets

Weaving Section Analysis
The weaving section analysis for Harbor Scenic Drive, I-710 and Ocean Boulevard was conducted using
methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. The following locations were chosen for
analysis because they represent critical segments of the transportation system serving the Ports (note the
first four locations are analyzed for existing and future conditions and the last three for future conditions
only):
Weaving Sections






Harbor Scenic Dr./I-710 northbound: EB Anaheim St. on-ramp to WB Anaheim St. off-ramp
Harbor Scenic Dr./I-710 southbound: WB Anaheim St. on-ramp to EB Anaheim St. off-ramp
I-710 southbound: WB PCH on-ramp to EB PCH off-ramp
I-710 northbound: EB PCH on-ramp to WB OCH off-ramp
Ocean Bl. westbound: Seaside Blvd./Gate 5 to Terminal Island Freeway off-ramp/frontage road
(future conditions)
• Seaside Av./Ocean Bl. Eastbound: Navy Way to Henry Ford Avenue off-ramp (future conditions)

• Ocean Bl. westbound: Henry Ford Av on-ramp to Navy Way (future conditions)

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
14

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report
TABLE 2
Existing Conditions Analysis
Ramp Merge/Diverge Area Analysis Results
AM Peak
Ramp

Midday Peak

PM Peak

Density
(pc/mi/ln)

LOS

Density
(pc/mi/ln)

LOS

Density
(pc/mi/ln)

LOS

Pico Ave. EB on-ramp

6

A

7

A

11

B

Pico Ave. WB on-ramp

18

B

15

B

17

B

EB to NB Connector to I-710

21

C

20

C

22

C

I-710 SB to WB Connector

17

B

12

B

14

B

Seaside Blvd. WB off-ramp

16

B

13

B

15

B

New Dock St. NB on-ramp

6

A

7

A

10

A

New Dock St. SB off-ramp

9

A

6

A

5

A

Henry Ford Av SB on-ramp

8

A

7

A

6

A

I St. NB on-ramp

6

A

9

A

12

B

I St. SB on-ramp

9

A

6

B

5.0

A

PCH NB on-ramp

28

C

29

D

30

D

PCH SB on-ramp

39

E

31

D

30

D

Anaheim St. NB on-ramp

27

C

29

D

30

D

Anaheim St. NB off-ramp

9

A

15

B

16

B

Anaheim St. SB off-ramp

37

E

32

D

32

D

Anaheim St. SB on-ramp

20

B

17

B

12

B

Pier B St./Pico Ave. NB on-ramp

11

B

16

B

17

B

Pier B./St/Pico Ave. SB off-ramp

20

B

18

B

10

A

Ocean Boulevard/Seaside Avenue

Terminal Island Freeway

Harbor Scenic Drive/I-710

Notes:

Criteria for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence is density (pc/mi/ln):
LOS: Maximum Density: LOS A: 0 - 10, LOS B: 10.1 - 20, LOS C: 20.1 - 28, LOS D: 28.1 - 35, LOS E: >35.1, LOS
F: ** (the density exceeds the limits of HCM Table 5-1).

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
15

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report
Level of service in weaving areas is related to the average density of all vehicles in the section. Average
density in the weaving area is computed by finding the average (space mean) speed of all vehicles in the
weaving section and then estimating density as total flow divided by average speed. The table below
indicates level of service criteria based on density in the weaving area. Note that criteria are shown for
freeways as well as multilane highway and collector-distributor roadways.

Level of Service Criteria for Weaving Areas
Level of Service

Maximum Density for Freeway
Weaving Area
(pc/mi/ln)

A
B
C
D
E
F

10
20
28
35
<43
>43

Maximum Density for
Highways and
collector/distributor Areas
(pc/mi/ln)
12
24
32
36
<40
>40

Basic input data for the weaving section includes: number of lanes before the weaving section, number of
lanes on the weaving section, number of lanes after the weaving section, free flow speeds, traffic
volumes/percent trucks on the on and off-ramps, freeway section "through" traffic volume/percent trucks,
length of the weaving section, and peak hour factors. The results of the weaving section analysis are
summarized in Table 3.
The results of the weaving analysis indicate that the following two sections currently experience level of
service E conditions: I-710 southbound, from the westbound WB Anaheim Street off-ramp to the
eastbound EB Anaheim off-ramp during the AM peak hour, and I-710 northbound from the eastbound
Pacific Coast Highway off-ramp to the westbound Pacific Coast Highway off-ramp.
The appendix to this report contains the traffic volumes and LOS worksheets for each weaving section
analysis.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
16

POLB/POLA Transportation Study Technical Report

TABLE 3
Existing Conditions Analysis
Weaving Section Analysis Results
AM Peak
Weaving Section

Weaving
Type (2)

Midday Peak

PM Peak

Density
(pc/mi/ln)

LOS (1)

Density
(pc/mi/ln)

LOS

Density
(pc/mi/ln)

LOS

Harbor Scenic Drive/I-710
Northbound, from EB Anaheim on-ramp to WB
Anaheim Off-ramp

Type A

19.40

B

24.67

C

26.71

C

Northbound, from EB PCH on-ramp to WB PCH
Off-ramp

Type A

27.30

C

34.88

D

35.53

E

Southbound, from WB Anaheim on-ramp to EB
Anaheim off-ramp

Type A

39.87

E

32.04

D

32.31

D

Southbound, from WB PCH on-ramp to EB PCH
off-ramp

Type A

27.30

C

32.20

D

28.5

C

Notes: (1) Criteria for freeway weaving areas are in density (pc/mi/ln):LOS: Maximum Density: LOS A: 0 - 10, LOS B: 10.1 - 20, LOS C: 20.1 - 28, LOS D: 28.1
- 35, LOS E: 35.1 - 43, LOS F: >43.
(2) Weaving Type indicates the minimum number of lane changes that must be made by weaving vehicles as they travel through the section, Type A has
a minimum of one lane change, Type B is major weaving sections with multilane entry or exit legs and Type C is similar to B with one or more
through lanes provided for one of the weaving movements.

Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
17


Aperçu du document portlaandlbtransport.pdf - page 1/179
 
portlaandlbtransport.pdf - page 3/179
portlaandlbtransport.pdf - page 4/179
portlaandlbtransport.pdf - page 5/179
portlaandlbtransport.pdf - page 6/179
 




Télécharger le fichier (PDF)


portlaandlbtransport.pdf (PDF, 6.6 Mo)

Télécharger
Formats alternatifs: ZIP



Documents similaires


portlaandlbtransport
20160524 list of pilot projects and preparatory actions tran
vehicules rfid
schlenker walker 2015 nber forthcoming restud
complement du document aurora par david keith
herpa cars und trucks 2017 11 12

Sur le même sujet..