Traffic Analysis Final Report

SR-71 Widening Project Project Approval/Environmental Documentation Traffic Analysis Final Report Prepared for Caltrans District 7 August 2012 6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 700 Santa Ana, California 92707

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS APPROACH... 3 2.1 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED... 3 2.2 ANALYSIS YEARS... 3 2.3 STUDY AREA... 4 2.4 DATA COLLECTION... 7 2.5 TRAFFIC FORECASTING... 7 2.6 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY... 10 2.6.1 Freeway Analysis... 10 2.6.2 Intersection Analysis... 10 2.6.3 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis... 12 2.7 TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA... 13 2.7.1 Signalized Intersections... 13 2.7.2 Unsignalized Intersections... 13 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS... 15 3.1 ROADWAY NETWORK AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 15 3.2 FREEWAY ANALYSIS... 19 3.3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS... 21 3.3.1 Level of Service Analysis... 21 3.3.2 Queue Analysis at Ramp Terminal Intersections... 23 3.4 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS... 23 4 2029 CONDITIONS... 25 4.1 ROADWAY NETWORK AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 25 4.2 FREEWAY ANALYSIS... 36 4.3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS... 42 4.3.1 Level of Service Analysis... 42 4.3.2 Queuing Analysis at Ramp Terminal Intersections... 44 4.4 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS... 44 5 2050 CONDITIONS... 47 5.1 ROADWAY NETWORK AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES... 47 5.2 FREEWAY ANALYSIS... 55 5.3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS... 61 5.3.1 Level of Service Analysis... 61 5.3.2 Queuing Analysis at Ramp Terminal Intersections... 63 5.4 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS... 63 6 PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED PROJECT REFINEMENTS... 66 6.1 PROJECT IMPACTS... 66 6.1.1 Freeways... 66 6.1.2 Signalized Intersections... 66 6.1.3 Unsignalized Intersections... 66 6.1.4 Roadway Segments... 67 6.1.5 Emergency Providers... 67 6.1.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access... 71 6.1.7 School Access... 71 6.2 PROPOSED PROJECT REFINEMENTS... 74

6.2.1 Signalized intersections... 74 6.2.2 Unsignalized Intersections... 76 7 DATA EXTRACTED FOR AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS... 78 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS... 79 8.1 BUILD VS. NO BUILD COMPARISONS... 79 8.1.1 Advantages... 79 8.1.2 Potential Operational Issues... 79 8.2 OVERALL FINDINGS... 80 Appendices A B C D E F G H Alternatives 2 through 4 Draft Layout Plans Intersection Turning Movement Counts and Roadway Traffic Counts Freeway Analysis HCS Output Files Intersection Analysis Synchro Output Files Queue Report Output Files Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Air Quality Data Exhibit D 1 from the Los Angeles County CMP

1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to document the traffic analysis for the State Route 71 (SR-71) Widening Project Approval/Environmental Documentation (PA/ED). Caltrans is developing the PA/ED for the proposed improvements to SR-71, between Interstate 10 (I- 10) and the Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Line, in the County of Los Angeles. SR-71 is proposed for widening to six general purpose (GP) and two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. In addition, SR-71 will be converted to a freeway facility, with no at-grade intersections. The purpose of the project is to improve speeds and capacity, relieve existing traffic congestion, increase traffic safety and accommodate future traffic demands on SR-71 between I-10 and the County line. The final project recommendation will be based on an indepth evaluation of alternatives. Caltrans is leading the development of alternatives, the preparation of the Project Report (PR) and the preparation of the ED. A vicinity map of the project is illustrated in Figure 1-1. A detailed traffic operations analysis was conducted to evaluate potential alternatives. This report focuses on that analysis. Traffic analysis was used to evaluate operations on the SR-71 corridor, including mainline segments, ramps, and service interchanges. The traffic analysis also evaluates the operations of the surrounding roadway network (roadway segments and intersections) in the City of Pomona. In this report, following the introduction, Section 2 is description of the traffic analysis approach and methodology. Section 3 describes existing conditions in the study area. Section 4 discussed the results of the opening year (2029) analysis. Section 5 discussed the results of the horizon year (2050) analysis. Section 6 identifies the impacts of the project and proposes project refinements to minimize those impacts. Section 7 summarizes the data extracted for air quality analysis and Section 8 is the overview of findings and recommendations from the analysis. 1

FIGURE 1-1PROJECT VICINITY MAP Source: Google, 2012 2

2 Traffic Analysis Approach This section includes the details of the traffic analysis approach and assumptions used in this study. 2.1 Alternatives Studied The following alternatives were studied: Alternative #1 No-Build. The No-Build scenario includes the existing configuration of SR-71 between I-10 and SR-60 with no further improvements. Alternative # 2 SR-71 freeway conversion with no local street crossings between Mission Boulevard and Rio Rancho Road. All existing connections to SR-71 between Mission Boulevard and Rio Rancho Road will be converted to cul-de-sacks. A pedestrian overcrossing in the vicinity of 9 th Street is also included as part of this alternative. Alternative #2 is the same as the preferred alternative (semi-depressed) in the approved Caltrans Project Report (2002). Alternative #3 - SR-71 freeway conversion with no local street crossings between Mission Boulevard and Rio Rancho Road. This alternative will also have a frontage road on the west side of SR-71 between Phillips Drive and North Ranch Road and a pedestrian overcrossing in the vicinity of 9 th Street. Alternative #4 - SR-71 freeway conversion with one under-crossing at Old Pomona Road that connects to Lexington Avenue on the eastside of SR-71. This alternative will also have a frontage road on the west side of SR-71 between Phillips Drive and Old Pomona Road and a pedestrian overcrossing in the vicinity of 9 th Street. Alternative 4A: The proposed geometry of Alternative 4A is identical to Alternative 4 with one exception the undercrossing at Old Pomona Road is removed. This alternative was studied qualitatively. The qualitative assessment of Alternative 4A is provided in Section 8.2. Alternative 4A will therefore not be discussed anywhere else in this document. Draft layout plans for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are included in Appendix A. 2.2 Analysis Years In addition to existing conditions (2012), all four alternatives were studied for the following analysis years: Opening Year (2029) Horizon Year (2050) 3

The opening year of 2029 is based on the best available estimate provided by Caltrans staff. Since horizon year analysis is typically selected to be 20 years beyond the opening year, 2050 was selected as the horizon year (rounded from 2049). For each analysis scenario, the AM and PM peak hours were analyzed. Peak hours were determined based on existing data collected in the study area. Based on review of existing data on SR-71 in Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS), the AM peak hour occurs between 6:00 and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour occurs between 3:00 and 7:00 PM. Review of existing intersection data shows that the AM peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 AM (6:30 to 9:00 AM at ramp terminal intersections) and the PM peak hour occurs between 4:00 to 6:00 PM. Existing data is based on PeMS data reported on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays between March 6 th and March 22 nd, 2012. Daily data (24 hours) summarized by peak and off-peak periods are also provided to support the environmental studies. The data that will be provided to support the environmental studies are summarized in Section 7. 2.3 Study Area The study area was chosen to be wide enough to capture the changes in traffic circulation caused by the proposed project. Traffic circulation changes include the redistribution patterns that are anticipated due to the removal and/or addition of east-west roadway crossings on SR-71 between SR-60 and I-10. The freeway network includes SR-71 from SR-60 to I-10. All on- and off-ramps within the freeway study area are included in the traffic analysis. The ramp terminal intersections at each service interchange are also included. The SR-60 and I-10 system interchanges are not included in the analysis. The roadway network includes the ramp terminal intersections and additional intersections in the City of Pomona which are adjacent to the project and expected to experience changes in traffic circulation due to the proposed project. The following list of 27 study intersections was developed with input from Caltrans and the City of Pomona: 1. Temple Avenue and SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Avenue and SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Avenue and Mission Boulevard 4. Mission Boulevard and Phillips Drive 5. Phillips Drive and Westmont Avenue 6. Westmont Avenue and 9 th Street 7. Mission Boulevard and Westmont Avenue 8. Mission Boulevard and SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Boulevard and SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Boulevard and Dudley Street 4

11. Dudley Street and 9 th Street 12. Mission Boulevard and White Avenue 13. SR-71 and Phillips Drive 14. SR-71 and North Ranch Road 15. White Avenue and Phillips Boulevard 16. Santa Clara Drive and Village Loop Road 17. Old Pomona Road and Village Loop Road 18. SR-71 and Old Pomona Road 19. Lexington Avenue and White Avenue 20. Village Loop Road and Canyon Rim Road 21. Village Loop Road and Phillips Ranch Road 22. Phillips Ranch Road and Rio Rancho Road 23. Rio Rancho Road and Meadow View Drive 24. Rio Rancho Road and SR-71 SB Ramps 25. Rio Rancho Road and SR-71 NB Ramps 26. Rio Rancho Road and Auto Center Drive 27. Rio Rancho Road and Garey Avenue The roadway network also includes ten roadway segments. The roadways segments included in the study area are listed below: A. Mission Boulevard, west of SR-71 SB ramps B. Mission Boulevard, in between SR-71 SB and NB ramps C. Mission Boulevard, east of SR-71 NB ramps D. Dudley Street south of Mission Boulevard E. Phillips Drive west of SR-71 F. North Ranch Road west of SR-71 G. Old Pomona Road west of SR-71 H. Rio Rancho Road west of SR-71 SB off-ramp I. Rio Rancho Road in between SR-71 SB and NB ramps J. Rio Rancho Road east of SR-71 NB ramps Figure 2-1 illustrates the study area for the traffic analysis. 5

FIGURE 2-1 Study Area 6

2.4 Data Collection Daily and peak hour traffic data were collected to support the traffic analysis. Available data from previous studies were collected from Caltrans and the City of Pomona. Where data was not available, additional data were collected in May 2012: AM and PM peak period turning movement data for the study intersections were collected. CH2M HILL consulted with the City of Pomona to determine the appropriate peak period window for data collection to ensure the peak hour was captured. Based on this discussion, the AM peak period data were collected from 7-9 AM (6:30-9 AM at ramp terminal intersections) and 4-6 PM. Additional data in the AM peak period (more than two hours) at ramp terminal study intersections were collected to ensure the peak hour was captured. Daily (24-hour tube counts broken down by direction) roadway segment counts at all study roadway segments were collected. 2.5 Traffic Forecasting The traffic analysis used travel demand modeling to forecast future traffic demands and determine the traffic redistribution patterns of each alternative. CH2M HILL used the most recent available version of the SCAG model (the 2008 RTP model), for the 2035 AM and PM peak periods (horizon year in the 2008 SCAG model). The 2012 SCAG model was not available for use at the time the analysis started (May 2012). To keep the project on schedule, the 2008 SCAG model was used since it was available and ready for use. Figure 2-2 is a screen shot taken from the 2008 SCAG model in the vicinity of the project. As shown in Figure 2-2, the 2008 SCAG model has sufficient network detail in the City of Pomona for the analysis (i.e., the model has all the major/secondary arterials in the City of Pomona to capture the traffic redistribution effects of the SR-71 project). In the area of SR-71 and Mission Boulevard, the SCAG model network was modified to reflect the recent improvements at the SR-71/Mission Boulevard interchange (including the closure of the SR-71/9 th Street intersection). CH2M HILL also reviewed the projects assumed in the 2008 SCAG baseline model to ensure the Rio Rancho Towne Center project at SR-71/Rio Rancho Road was assumed in the baseline model for 2035. Review of the SCAG model shows that the Rio Rancho Towne Center project is already assumed in the model. Therefore, no land use changes were required in the 2008 SCAG baseline model. 7

FIGURE 2-2 2008 SCAG Model in the Vicinity of the Project Future traffic demands were developed for the freeway network (SR-71 freeway segments and ramps), and surface street network within the project study limits. The 2008 SCAG model can provide traffic forecast data only up to 2035. Therefore, 2035 forecasts were reduced and grown to reflect 2029 and 2050 forecasts. The growth rates applied to the 2035 SCAG data to reflect 2029 and 2050 data were developed with input from Caltrans and the City of Pomona. The 2010 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) provides geographically-based generalized growth factors between 2010 and 2035 (Exhibit D-1 of the CMP, which is provided in Appendix H for reference). These growth factors are based on regional modeling efforts, and estimate the general effect of cumulative development and other socioeconomic changes on traffic throughout the region. The growth in Pomona between 2030 and 2035 is forecast to be 0.58% per year. This annual growth rate (0.58%) was used to adjust the 2035 SCAG volumes to 2029 and 2050 forecasts. A detailed outline of the procedure for forecasting future peak hour traffic demands for each of the alternatives is summarized below: 1. The network coding in the SCAG model was adjusted to reflect the geometry of each alternative and ran for each alternative to generate 2035 forecast data for all periods of the day (morning, mid-day, evening, night-time). Multi-period modeling was required to extract the data needed for the traffic analysis and the air quality analysis. Details of the data provided to the air quality analysis group at Caltrans are discussed in Section 7. 2. The 2035 forecast data generated from each SCAG model run were reduced with an annual growth rate of 0.58% per year to reflect 2029 conditions. The growth rate was developed using a linear reduction of the 2.9% growth rate between 2030 and 2035 from the Los Angeles County CMP. 8

3. 2035 forecast data from the SCAG model were increased using an annual growth rate of 0.58% per year to reflect 2050 conditions. The growth rate was also applied using a linear relationship to develop 2050 forecast data for the same reasons discussed in Step 2. 4. The demand for the first SR-71 freeway segment entering the study area in both directions was taken directly from the 2029 and 2050 adjusted forecasts (adjustments discussed in Steps 2 and 3). 5. The 2029 and 2050 ramp volumes from the SCAG model were refined based on the adjustments made at the ramp terminal intersections. The ramp terminal intersections were adjusted using a spreadsheet-based refinement process that is consistent with the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255. This process computes a likely set of intersection turning movement volumes from intersection approach counts and the initial turning proportions from each approach leg. A final refinement step was to compare the resulting Opening Year (2029), Horizon Year (2050) volumes to Existing Year (2012) volumes and adjust the Opening and Horizon Year volumes to reflect reasonable growth. The reasonableness adjustment was to make sure future volumes are higher than existing volumes since all ramps will experience background growth as well and redistribution due to the project. Based on the forecasts at the ramp terminal intersections, the on-ramp and off-ramp demands were adjusted accordingly. 6. Once the on- and off-ramp demands were refined, the remaining freeway segment demands were developed using the demands leaving (via off-ramps) and entering (via on-ramps). A final check was to make sure that the demand leaving the study area on SR-71 in both directions was consistent with the 2029 and 2050 SCAG projections. The ramp demands were balanced as follows: D mle D off + D on = D mll D mle = Mainline demand entering the study area D mll = Mainline demand leaving the study area D off = Off-ramp demand leaving the study area D on = On-ramp demand entering the study area 7. Once the ramp demands were balanced, the ramp terminal intersections were adjusted one final time to reflect the balanced on- and off-ramp demands. The City of Pomona is in the process of developing a city-wide traffic model as part of their General Plan Update (to be developed by Fehr and Peers). The future forecasts for the surface street network in the City of Pomona will also reference the SCAG model. During the traffic forecasting process, CH2M HILL coordinated with Fehr and Peers in the development of the intersection forecasts, but Fehr and Peers had not begun to develop their intersection forecasts as part of their study. Therefore, intersection forecasts developed as part of this study were based on SCAG forecasts and existing intersection counts using a spreadsheet-based refinement process identical to the process used in Step 5. 9

The travel demand inputs served as inputs for the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and Synchro analysis (methodology discussed in the following section). 2.6 Analysis Methodology 2.6.1 Freeway Analysis Traffic analysis for the freeway was performed using the methodologies in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM contains concepts, guidelines, and computational procedures for calculating the capacity and level of service (LOS) on various transportation facilities. The analysis in this study includes HCM assessments of future LOS for the AM and PM peak hours using the HCM procedures for merge, diverge, weave, and basic sections. The HCM definition of these facility types is provided below: Freeway merge or diverge segments: Segments in which two or more traffic streams combine top form a single traffic stream (merge) or a single traffic stream divides to form two or more separate traffic streams (diverge). Freeway weaving segments: Segments in which two or more traffic streams traveling in the same general direction cross paths along a significant length of the freeway without the aid of traffic control devices (except for guide signs). Weaving segments are formed when a diverging segment closely follows a merge segment or when a one-lane off-ramp closely follows a one-lane ramp and two are connected by a continues auxiliary lane. Basic freeway segments: All segments that are not merge, diverge, or weaving segments For each mainline segment, HCM procedures for basic freeway analysis were performed. In addition, segments identified as merge, diverge, or weave sections were analyzed separately as a merge, diverge, or weave segment. In these segments, the worst-case LOS was reported. The analysis only includes the general purpose lanes; no HOV lane analysis was conducted with the HCM. However, HOV lane volumes are reported (see Section 7 for additional information on HOV data). 2.6.2 Intersection Analysis Intersection operations were assessed using the Synchro software package (Version 8.0), using the 2010 HCM reports function. Existing condition geometry/traffic control was used for the intersection analysis where project improvements are not anticipated. Intersections that are closely spaced or are known to be part of a coordinated corridor were coded with optimized, actuated-coordinated traffic signal timing. Isolated intersections were coded with optimized, actuated-uncoordinated traffic signal timing. To be consistent with the City of Pomona Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (February, 2012), the following assumptions were also used in the Synchro analysis: 10

Truck factor = 2% Ideal flow rate = 1,800 vehicles/hour/lane (vphpl) for exclusive through and right-turn lanes Ideal flow rate = 1,700 vphpl for exclusive left-turn lanes Ideal flow rate = 1,600 vphpl for exclusive dual left-turn lanes Peak hour factor = 0.90 Minimum cycle length = 60 seconds Maximum cycle length = 120 seconds Existing cycle length to be maintained along coordinated arterials Minimum green time: o o 7.0 seconds for secondary arterial and industrial collectors 10.0 seconds for primary and divided arterials. Yellow time = 3.0 seconds All-red time = 2.0 seconds The HCM delay was used to determine LOS, ranging from LOS A to LOS F using the delay ranges for signalized intersections shown in Table 2-1. At four-way stop-controlled intersections, the average delay of all four approaches was used to determine the LOS using the unsignalized intersection ranges listed in Table 2-1. At two-way stop-controlled intersections, the average delay of the worst approach was used to determine the worst approach LOS using the unsignalized intersection ranges listed in Table 2-1. TABLE 2-1 HCM-Based Level of Service and Delay Ranges Average Delay (seconds / vehicle) Signalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections LOS Source: HCM 2010 < 10.0 < 10.0 A > 10.0 to < 20.0 > 10.0 to < 15.0 B > 20.0 to < 35.0 > 15.0 to < 25.0 C > 35.0 to < 55.0 > 25.0 to < 35.0 D > 55.0 to < 80.0 > 35.0 to < 50.0 E > 80.0 > 50.0 F 11

The intersection analysis also evaluated queue lengths at the ramp terminal intersections to determine whether or not projected queues will extend beyond available storage the SR-71 mainline. 2.6.3 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Roadway segment operations were evaluated using volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. The roadway capacity for all study segments was assumed to be 1,600 vphpl at mid-block locations. This capacity assumption is consistent with the direction provided in the 2010 Los Angeles County CMP. Although this value is suitable for planning purposes, it is not a precise measure of capacity. The ultimate capacity of a roadway is based upon a number of factors. These factors include the relationships between peak hour and daily traffic volumes, intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian bicycle traffic. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. Therefore, roadway segment widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through lanes. Roadway capacity for all study segments has been assessed based upon AM and PM peak hour volumes (totaled for both directions). Roadway segment volumes are shown in this report for each analysis scenario in tabular form. General V/C ratio ranges (per the Los Angeles County CMP) used for the purposes of estimating overall performance along the study area roadway segments are discussed below: 0.00 0.80 = WITHIN CAPACITY represents a range of free flow to stable flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream, and begin to become significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. 0.81 1.00 = NEAR CAPACITY represents high-density but stable flow, where speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted at certain times of the day, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience during peak hours. Peak period speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic movement during peak hours. Greater than 1.00 = EXCEEDS CAPACITY is used to define forced or breakdown flow during peak hours. This condition exists wherever the amount of peak period traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations during peak hours. 12

2.7 Traffic Impact Criteria The traffic analysis also identified the impacts of the anticipated shifts in local circulation that will occur due to the project. Where impacts were found to be worthy of project refinements, the traffic analysis also identified project refinements that should be considered in the final project design. To be consistent with the City of Pomona Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, the criteria discussed in the following sections were used to determine the impacts due to the build scenarios. 2.7.1 Signalized Intersections An impact is considered worthy of project refinement if a study intersection is operating at a LOS A, B, C or D for any study scenario without project traffic and the addition of project traffic causes the intersection to change to a LOS E or F. The project refinement recommendation should bring the intersection back to at least LOS D. An impact is also considered worthy of project refinement if a study intersection is operating at a LOS E or F for any study scenario without project traffic and the addition of project traffic causes the overall intersection delay to increase. The project refinement recommendation should bring the intersection back to the overall level of delay established prior to project traffic being added. 2.7.2 Unsignalized Intersections An impact is worthy of project refinement if the study determines that either section a) or both sections b) and c) occur. a) The addition of project related traffic causes the intersection to change from LOS D or better to LOS E or worse OR b) The project contributes additional traffic to an intersection that is already projected to operate at LOS E or F with background traffic AND c) One or both of the following conditions are met: 1. The project adds ten (10) or more trips to any approach 2. The intersection meets the peak hour traffic signal warrant after the addition of project traffic 13

Project refinement analysis was conducted for intersections with impacts worthy of project refinement. Recommendations were based on the corresponding LOS calculations for each intersection with impacts worthy of project refinement. Justification of traffic signals (signal warrants) at applicable intersections was made based on available data. Identification of traffic impacts was conducted for all users (emergency providers, bicycle/pedestrian access, school access, and truck routes). 14

3 Existing Conditions 3.1 Roadway Network and Traffic s SR-71 is a north-south expressway between Rio Rancho Road and Mission Boulevard interchanges with two lanes in each direction. Figure 3-1 illustrates the existing lane configuration of SR-71. Between the Rio Rancho Road and Mission Boulevard interchanges there are three at-grade intersections on SR-71: SR-71/Philips Drive SR-71/North Ranch Road SR-71/Old Pomona Road The intersection of SR-71 and Philips Drive is an unsignalized intersection with a stop sign on Philips Drive. The intersections of SR-71/North Ranch Road and SR-71/Old Pomona Road are signalized. The existing lane configurations and peak hour traffic volumes of the 27 study intersections listed in Section 2.3 are illustrated in Figures 3-2 and 3-3. Copies of the intersection turning movement counts and the traffic counts on roadways are included in Appendix B. 15

FIGURE 3-1 SR-71 Existing Lane Configuration 16

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N STOP SIGN SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS FIGURE 3-2

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2012 NO BUILD VOLUMES FIGURE 3-3

3.2 Freeway Analysis Figure 3-4 is a summary of the freeway volume, density (in passenger cars/mile/lane (pc/mi/ln)), and LOS along SR-71 during the AM and PM peak hours for the existing conditions. Each freeway study segment is also labeled with the type of HCM analysis method was performed (i.e., basic, merge/diverge, weaving). A complete set of HCM output files are provided in Appendix C. Segment 4, located between Rio Rancho Road off-ramp and the SR-60 off-ramp, in the southbound (SB) direction did not conform to any segment type discussed. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) classifies this type of geometry as a Major Diverge Area (see page 13-26). To analyze this type of segment, the HCM 2010 provides Equation 13-26 which was used to determine density and LOS: D MD = density in the major diverge area, pc/mi/ln 0.0175 (HCM 2010 page 13-27) V F =demand flow rate immediately upstream of the major diverge influence area N= number of lanes approaching major diverge 19

FIGURE 3-4 Freeway Operations Summary Existing Conditions Southbound 1 Northbound 6 Diverge/Basic Merge/Basic Density LOS Density LOS AM 2684 27.4 C AM 3278 37.3 E PM 2422 24.6 C PM 2916 32.3 D HOV AM N/A HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A HOV PM N/A Mission Off Ramp Mission On Ramp AM Peak 327 PM Peak 374 AM Peak 634 PM Peak 443 Southbound 2 Northbound 5 Basic Basic Density LOS Density LOS AM 2357 18.9 C AM 2644 21.5 C PM 2048 16.1 B PM 2473 19.6 C HOV AM N/A HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A HOV PM N/A MISSION BLVD Mission Off Ramp Mission On Ramp AM Peak 238 AM Peak 227 PM Peak 280 PM Peak 673 Phillips Drive Northbound 4 Diverge/Basic Density LOS AM 2882 29.3 D PM 2753 27.7 C HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A North Ranch Road NTS Old Pomona Road Southbound 3 Diverge/Basic Density LOS AM 2653 28.3 D PM 2806 29.3 D HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A Rio Rancho On Ramp AM Peak 440 Southbound 4 PM Peak 226 Basic/Major Diverge Density LOS AM 2408 14 B Northbound 3 PM 2542 14.8 B Merge/Basic HOV AM N/A Density LOS HOV PM N/A AM 2384 13.6 B PM 2486 15.4 B HOV AM N/A Rio Rancho Off Ramp HOV PM N/A AM Peak 245 PM Peak 264 60 On Ramp AM Peak 1554 Southbound 5 PM Peak 1787 Basic Density LOS AM 983 7.8 A PM 808 6.3 A RIO RANCHO RD Northbound 2 HOV AM N/A Basic HOV PM N/A Density LOS AM 830 6.6 A PM 699 5.5 A 60 Off Ramp HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A AM Peak 1425 PM Peak 1734 Rio Rancho Off Ramp Rio Rancho On Ramp AM Peak 554 PM Peak 397 AM Peak 480 PM Peak 766 Northbound 1 Diverge/Basic Southbound 6 Density LOS Merge/Basic AM 1384 15.9 B Density LOS PM 1096 13.1 B AM 1463 16.3 B HOV AM N/A PM 1574 19.4 B HOV PM N/A HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A 20

3.3 Intersection Analysis Intersection analysis was performed using the HCM 2010 and the methodology outlined in Section 2.6.2. Queuing analysis was performed using Synchro to ensure that the intersection operations at the off-ramp terminals will not affect the freeway. 3.3.1 Level of Service Analysis Table 3-1 is a summary of the LOS and the delay for the individual intersections calculated using the HCM 2010 function in Synchro. A full set of 2010 HCM Reports output files are provided in Appendix D. 21

TABLE 3-1 Existing Intersection Operations Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour # Intersection Control Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Temple Avenue and SR 57 SB Ramps S 47.8 D 126.7 F 2 Temple Avenue and SR 57 NB Ramps S 14.7 B 10.0 B 3 Temple Avenue and Mission Boulevard S 40.8 D 39.9 D 4 Mission Boulevard and Phillips Drive S 3.7 A 5.0 A 5 Phillips Drive and Westmont Avenue U 8.2 A 8.6 A 6 Westmont Avenue and 9th Street U* 5.6 A 3.2 A 7 Mission Boulevard and Westmont Avenue S 4.7 A 6.8 A 8 Mission Boulevard and SR 71 SB Ramps S 24.5 C 21.0 C 9 Mission Boulevard and SR 71 NB Ramps S 21.5 C 16.2 B 10 Mission Boulevard and Dudley Street S 42.6 D 15.7 B 11 Dudley Street and 9th Street U 10.0 A 9.3 A 12 Mission Boulevard and White Avenue S 25.7 C 22.9 C 13 SR 71 and Phillips Drive U* 41.0 E 41.9 E 14 SR 71 and North Ranch Road S 58.2 E 48.2 D 15 White Avenue and Phillips Boulevard S 10.0 A 9.3 A 16 Santa Clara Drive and Village Loop Road U 33.1 D 18.2 C 17 Old Pomona Road and Village Loop Road U 9.9 A 7.8 A 18 SR 71 and Old Pomona Road S 9.5 A 17.2 B 19 Lexington Avenue and White Avenue S 9.8 A 8.1 A 20 Village Loop Road and Canyon Rim Road U* 12.8 B 11.0 B 21 Village Loop Road and Phillips Ranch Road S 14.1 B 32.3 C 22 Phillips Ranch Road and Rio Rancho Road S 44.0 D 17.7 B 23 Rio Rancho Road and Meadow View Drive U* 28.0 D 15.5 C 24 Rio Rancho Road and SR 71 SB Ramps S 21.2 C 20.9 C 25 Rio Rancho Road and SR 71 NB Ramps S 79.5 E 55.7 E 26 Rio Rancho Road and Auto Center Drive S 72.3 E 82.2 F 27 Rio Rancho Road and Garey Avenue S 21.5 C 25.4 C U = Unsignalized, S = Signalized * Two Way Stop controlled intersection, Delay reported for worst case stop controlled approach only The Rio Rancho Road/SR-71 NB ramps intersection is operating at LOS E in the AM and PM peak hours. Rio Rancho Road/Auto Center Drive and Temple Avenue/SR-57 SB ramps intersections operate at LOS F in PM peak hour. 22

3.3.2 Queue Analysis at Ramp Terminal Intersections Table 3-2 summarizes the approximate ramp length (ft) and the 95 th percentile queue length (ft) of the critical movement on the off-ramp approach at the ramp terminal intersections. The output files, or Queue Reports, are provided in Appendix E. TABLE 3-2 Existing Conditions Queue Analysis AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour # Intersection 95 th percentile Queue (feet) Ramp Length (feet) 95 th percentile Queue (feet) Ramp Length (feet) 8 SR 71 SB off ramp and Mission Boulevard *261 1030 *181 1030 9 SR 71 NB off ramp and Mission Boulevard 65 970 52 970 24 SR 71 SB off ramp and Rio Rancho Road 96 1150 62 1150 25 SR 71 NB off ramp and Rio Rancho Road *478 3810 134 3810 *95 th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 3.4 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table 3-3 is a summary of the roadway segment capacity analysis for the existing conditions. All roadway segment V/C ratios are currently less than 0.40 using the Los Angeles County CMP capacity values. This analysis only considers mid-block capacity (away from signal), so the results in Table 3-3 do not capture the operational constraints on the local street system. As illustrated in Table 3-3, all roadway segments in the study area are operating within the capacity of the roadway. 23

TABLE 3-3 Existing Roadway Capacity Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Roadway Lanes Classification Capacity* ADT V/C V/C Mission Boulevard, west of SR 71 SB ramps 6 Major Arterial 9,600 19,697 1,451 0.15 1,840 0.19 Mission Boulevard, in between SR 71 SB and NB ramps 6 Major Arterial 9,600 21,566 1,661 0.17 1,579 0.16 Mission Boulevard, east of SR 71 NB ramps 6 Major Arterial 9,600 24,891 1,833 0.19 1,828 0.19 Dudley Street south of Mission Boulevard 2 Collector 3,200 7,192 566 0.18 566 0.18 Phillips Drive west of SR 71 2 Collector 3,200 1,964 135 0.04 166 0.05 North Ranch Road west of SR 71 2 Collector 3,200 2,298 221 0.07 150 0.05 Old Pomona Road west of SR 71 4 Minor Arterial 6,400 2,574 202 0.03 142 0.02 Rio Rancho Road west of SR 71 SB offramp 4 Major Arterial 6,400 22,221 1,518 0.24 1,509 0.24 Rio Rancho Road in between SR 71 SB and NB ramps 4 Major Arterial 6,400 25,359 1,719 0.27 1,840 0.29 Rio Rancho Road east of SR 71 NB ramps 4 Major Arterial 6,400 28,793 2,201 0.34 2,027 0.32 * Per the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP), a mid block capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per through traffic lane has been used. 24

4 2029 Conditions This section is a summary of the 2029 traffic analysis. Four alternatives were evaluated using freeway, intersection, and roadway segment capacity analysis. 4.1 Roadway Network and Traffic s In 2029, the configuration of the SR-71 corridor for each of the alternatives is as follows: Alternative 1: SR-71 will remain unchanged with three at-grade intersections between Mission Boulevard and Rio Rancho Road. Alternative 2: SR-71 will be converted to a freeway facility with the closures of the Phillips Drive, North Ranch Road, and Old Pomona Road intersections. Alternative 3: SR-71 will be converted to a freeway facility with the closures of the Phillips Drive, North Ranch Road, and Old Pomona Road intersections. In addition, a parallel frontage road will be provided between Phillips Drive and North Ranch Road. Alternative 4: SR-71 will be converted to a freeway facility with the closures of the Phillips Drive, North Ranch Road, and Old Pomona Road intersections. In addition, a frontage road from Phillips Drive to Old Pomona Road, parallel to SR-71, and an undercrossing at Old Pomona Road will be provided. This undercrossing will connect the east and west sides of SR-71 and improve access to the freeway. SR-71 is currently two lanes in each direction and Alternative 1 proposes no changes to be made to the lane configuration in 2029. The lane configuration of SR-71 in Alternative 1 was illustrated in Figure 3-1 (presented previously). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will include three GP lanes and an HOV lane in each direction on SR-71. Figure 4-1 illustrates the lane configuration for the build alternatives. 25

FIGURE 4-1 2029 SR-71 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Lane Configuration MISSION BLVD NTS RIO RANCHO RD 26

For the year 2029 traffic analysis, the intersection geometry and lane configurations will remain the same as the existing conditions for Alternative 1. The lane configurations for Alternative 1 are illustrated in Figure 3-2 (presented previously). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 include the removal of three intersections at SR-71. Therefore, for these alternatives, only 24 intersections were studied. The intersection lane configurations for these 24 intersections are illustrated in Figure 4-2. Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 intersection volumes for the year 2029 were generated in accordance with the methodology discussed in Section 2.5. The traffic redistributions due to the intersection closures and the final volumes for all alternatives are illustrated in Figures 4-3 to 4-9. Some intersections will not have any traffic redistribution as a result of the closures. Those intersections are not reported in these figures. The intersections that experience a decrease in traffic volumes are due to the removal of trips generated from vehicles using alternative routes to avoid congestion on SR-71 between Mission Boulevard and Rio Rancho Road. 27

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N STOP SIGN SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS BUILD ALTERNATIVES LANE CONFIGURATIONS FIGURE 4-2

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2029 ALTERNATIVE 1 VOLUMES FIGURE 4-3

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s + Traffic Added to Movement - Traffic Subtracted to Movement SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2029 ALTERNATIVE 2 REDISTRIBUTED VOLUMES FIGURE 4-4

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2029 ALTERNATIVE 2 VOLUMES FIGURE 4-5

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s + Traffic Added to Movement - Traffic Subtracted to Movement SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2029 ALTERNATIVE 3 REDISTRIBUTED VOLUMES FIGURE 4-6

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2029 ALTERNATIVE 3 VOLUMES FIGURE 4-7

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s + Traffic Added to Movement - Traffic Subtracted to Movement SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2029 ALTERNATIVE 4 REDISTRIBUTED VOLUMES FIGURE 4-8

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2029 ALTERNATIVE 4 VOLUMES FIGURE 4-9

4.2 Freeway Analysis The freeway analysis for year 2029 was conducted using the HCM 2010 guidelines discussed in Section 2.6. For each alternative, the freeway facility was divided into various segments that were identified as basic, merge, diverge or weaving, depending on the lane configuration. The highest density and the controlling LOS are reported in the summary tables. The 2029 demand volumes on the mainline and ramps and the truck percentages were determined for each direction of travel. The densities and the corresponding LOS were calculated using HCS 2010. The results are illustrated in Figures 4-10 to 4-13 for Alternatives 1 to 4. These figures indicate the segment type, volumes, the highest densities, and the controlling LOS for AM and PM peak hours in each segment. Table 4-1 combines all of the results for comparison. A full set of HCS output files is provided in Appendix C. As shown in Figure 4-10 and Table 4-1, Alternative 1 will experience oversaturated conditions in the morning and afternoon peak hours. When a freeway facility is over capacity, queuing is expected on the mainline and the ramps. This is the case for the northbound direction in the PM peak hours in four of the six segments analyzed. The NB segments, north of Phillips Drive are projected to have high densities ranging from 67 to 97 pc/mi/ln in the PM peak hour. The southbound direction is projected to have densities ranging from 32 to 49 pc/mi/ln in the same segment. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are projected to have similar freeway performance. The three build alternatives operate similarly because the three alternatives are identical in terms of freeway geometry. The three alternatives will operate near and over capacity on the segment between the Rio Rancho Road and Mission Boulevard interchanges for the PM peak hour. In the northbound direction, the three alternatives will perform at a LOS E. The southbound direction is projected to operate at LOS F. The densities are not as high when compared to Alternative 1results due to the extra lanes in the build alternatives. Overall, the demand volumes for the three alternatives are higher than the no-build scenario, but the freeway performance is still near or better than no-build conditions. 36

FIGURE 4-10 Alternative 1 2029 Freeway Analysis Summary Southbound 1 Northbound 6 Diverge/Basic Merge/Basic Density LOS Density LOS AM 3690 37.6 E AM 4730 60.5 F PM 3940 40.0 E PM 5363 97.4 F HOV AM N/A HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A HOV PM N/A Mission Off Ramp Mission On Ramp AM Peak 344 PM Peak 406 AM Peak 666 PM Peak 481 Southbound 2 Northbound 5 Basic Basic Density LOS Density LOS AM 3346 29.7 D AM 4064 41.8 E PM 3534 32.6 D PM 4882 67.1 F HOV AM N/A HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A HOV PM N/A MISSION BLVD Mission Off Ramp Mission On Ramp AM Peak 250 AM Peak 239 PM Peak 304 PM Peak 730 PhillipsDrive Northbound 4 Diverge/Basic Density LOS AM 4314 47.2 F PM 5186 84.9 F HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A North Ranch Road NTS Old Pomona Road Southbound 3 Diverge/Basic Density LOS AM 3673 38.5 E PM 4393 49.4 F HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A Rio Rancho On Ramp AM Peak 507 Southbound 4 PM Peak 261 Basic/Major Diverge Density LOS AM 3391 19.8 C Northbound 3 PM 4089 23.9 C Merge/Basic HOV AM N/A Density LOS HOV PM N/A AM 3720 22.0 C PM 4947 * F HOV AM N/A Rio Rancho Off Ramp HOV PM N/A AM Peak 282 PM Peak 304 60 Frwy On Ramp AM Peak 1707 Southbound 5 PM Peak 1963 Basic Density LOS AM 1825 14.8 B PM 2184 17.6 B RIO RANCHO RD Northbound 2 HOV AM N/A Basic HOV PM N/A Density LOS AM 2013 16.1 B PM 2984 24.6 C 60 Frwy Off Ramp HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A AM Peak 1566 PM Peak 1905 Rio Rancho Off Ramp Rio Rancho On Ramp AM Peak 639 PM Peak 458 AM Peak 553 PM Peak 883 Northbound 1 Diverge/Basic Southbound 6 Density LOS Merge/Basic AM 2652 28.3 D Density LOS PM 3442 35.5 E AM 2378 25.2 C HOV AM N/A PM 3067 33.9 D HOV PM N/A HOV AM N/A HOV PM N/A * Demand exceeds capacity. Based on the HCM 2010 Exhibit 13 2, the segment operates at LOS F; therefore, the density is not reported. 37

FIGURE 4-11 Alternative 2 2029 Freeway Analysis Summary Southbound 1 Northbound 6 Basic/Major Diverge Basic Density LOS Density LOS AM 4,890 21.4 C AM 5,330 22.1 C PM 5,489 24.0 C PM 5,969 25.4 C HOV AM 1,532 HOV AM 880 HOV PM 1,806 HOV PM 1,074 Mission On Ramp Mission Off Ramp AM Peak 568 AM Peak 360 PM Peak 483 PM Peak 282 MISSION BLVD Northbound 5 Basic Southbound 2 Density LOS Basic AM 4,762 27.8 D Density LOS PM 5,486 34.3 D AM 4,530 25.8 C HOV AM 880 PM 5,207 31.7 D HOV PM 1,074 HOV AM 1,532 HOV PM 1,806 Mission Off Ramp Mission On Ramp AM Peak 285 AM Peak 318 PM Peak 326 PM Peak 805 Southbound 3 Northbound 4 Diverge/Merge/Basic Diverge/Merge/Basic Density LOS Density LOS AM 4,848 29.8 D AM 5,047 33.9 D PM 6,012 40.8 F PM 5,812 37.7 E HOV AM 1,532 HOV AM 880 HOV PM 1,806 HOV PM 1,074 NTS Rio Rancho Off Ramp AM Peak 431 PM Peak 378 Rio Rancho On Ramp Southbound 4 Basic/Major Diverge AM Peak 436 Density LOS PM Peak 327 AM 4,417 19.3 B PM 5,634 24.6 C HOV AM 1,532 HOV PM 1,806 Northbound 3 Basic/Merge Density LOS SR 60 Off Ramp AM 4,611 23.1 C PM 5,484 27.6 C AM Peak 1,851 HOV AM 880 PM Peak 1,953 HOV PM 1,074 Southbound 5 Basic SR 60 On Ramp Density LOS AM 2,566 13.9 B AM Peak 1,912 PM 3,681 20.0 C PM Peak 2,101 HOV AM 1,532 HOV PM 1,806 Rio Rancho On Ramp AM Peak 615 PM Peak 846 Southbound 6 RIO RANCHO RD Northbound 2 Basic Density LOS AM 2,699 14.5 B PM 3,383 18.1 C HOV AM 880 HOV PM 1,074 Rio Rancho Off Ramp AM Peak 325 PM Peak 510 Merge/Basic Density LOS AM 3,180 23.5 C Northbound 1 PM 4,527 32.5 D Diverge/Basic HOV AM 1,532 Density LOS HOV PM 1,806 AM 3,024 23.5 C PM 3,893 28.3 D HOV AM 880 HOV PM 1,074 38

FIGURE 4-12 Alternative 3 2029 Freeway Analysis Summary Southbound 1 Northbound 6 Basic/Major Diverge Basic Density LOS Density LOS AM 4,991 21.8 C AM 5,357 22.2 C PM 5,645 24.7 C PM 6,028 25.7 C HOV AM 1,429 HOV AM 890 HOV PM 1,676 HOV PM 1,122 Mission On Ramp Mission Off Ramp AM Peak 626 AM Peak 415 PM Peak 501 PM Peak 307 MISSION BLVD Northbound 5 Basic Southbound 2 Density LOS Basic AM 4,731 27.5 D Density LOS PM 5,526 34.7 D AM 4,576 26.1 D HOV AM 890 PM 5,337 33.0 D HOV PM 1,122 HOV AM 1,429 HOV PM 1,676 Mission Off Ramp Mission On Ramp AM Peak 285 AM Peak 318 PM Peak 322 PM Peak 805 Southbound 3 Northbound 4 Diverge/Merge/Basic Diverge/Merge/Basic Density LOS Density LOS AM 4,894 30.1 D AM 5,016 33.7 D PM 6,143 42.0 F PM 5,849 38.2 E HOV AM 1,429 HOV AM 890 HOV PM 1,676 HOV PM 1,122 NTS Rio Rancho Off Ramp AM Peak 371 PM Peak 352 Rio Rancho On Ramp Southbound 4 Basic/Major Diverge AM Peak 371 Density LOS PM Peak 308 AM 4,523 19.8 B PM 5,791 25.3 C HOV AM 1,429 HOV PM 1,676 Northbound 3 Basic/Merge Density LOS SR 60 Off Ramp AM 4,644 23.2 C PM 5,541 27.8 C AM Peak 1,851 HOV AM 890 PM Peak 1,953 HOV PM 1,122 Southbound 5 Basic SR 60 On Ramp Density LOS AM 2,672 14.5 B AM Peak 1,912 PM 3,838 21.0 C PM Peak 2,101 HOV AM 1,429 HOV PM 1,676 Rio Rancho On Ramp AM Peak 615 PM Peak 846 Southbound 6 RIO RANCHO RD Northbound 2 Basic Density LOS AM 2,732 14.7 B PM 3,440 18.5 C HOV AM 890 HOV PM 1,122 Rio Rancho Off Ramp AM Peak 325 PM Peak 526 Merge/Basic Density LOS AM 3,286 24.1 C Northbound 1 PM 4,684 33.3 D Diverge/Basic HOV AM 1,429 Density LOS HOV PM 1,676 AM 3,058 23.7 C PM 3,966 28.7 D HOV AM 890 HOV PM 1,122 39

FIGURE 4-13 Alternative 4 2029 Freeway Analysis Summary Southbound 1 Northbound 6 Basic/Major Diverge Basic Density LOS Density LOS AM 5,000 21.9 C AM 5,347 22.2 C PM 5,646 24.7 C PM 6,034 25.8 C HOV AM 1,413 HOV AM 901 HOV PM 1,688 HOV PM 1,072 Mission On Ramp Mission Off Ramp AM Peak 638 AM Peak 415 PM Peak 505 PM Peak 307 MISSION BLVD Northbound 5 Basic Southbound 2 Density LOS Basic AM 4,709 27.3 D Density LOS PM 5,530 34.8 D AM 4,585 26.2 D HOV AM 901 PM 5,339 33.0 D HOV PM 1,072 HOV AM 1,413 HOV PM 1,688 Mission Off Ramp Mission On Ramp AM Peak 282 AM Peak 310 PM Peak 323 PM Peak 793 Southbound 3 Northbound 4 Diverge/Merge/Basic Diverge/Merge/Basic Density LOS Density LOS AM 4,895 30.0 D AM 4,991 33.6 D PM 6,132 41.8 F PM 5,853 38.2 E HOV AM 1,413 HOV AM 901 HOV PM 1,688 HOV PM 1,072 NTS Rio Rancho Off Ramp AM Peak 371 PM Peak 352 Rio Rancho On Ramp Southbound 4 Basic/Major Diverge AM Peak 359 Density LOS PM Peak 304 AM 4,524 19.8 B PM 5,781 25.3 C HOV AM 1,413 HOV PM 1,688 Northbound 3 Basic/Merge Density LOS SR 60 Off Ramp AM 4,632 23.2 C PM 5,549 27.9 C AM Peak 1,851 HOV AM 901 PM Peak 1,953 HOV PM 1,072 Southbound 5 Basic SR 60 On Ramp Density LOS AM 2,673 14.5 B AM Peak 1,912 PM 3,828 20.9 C PM Peak 2,101 HOV AM 1,413 HOV PM 1,688 Rio Rancho On Ramp AM Peak 716 PM Peak 880 Southbound 6 RIO RANCHO RD Northbound 2 Basic Density LOS AM 2,720 14.6 B PM 3,448 18.5 C HOV AM 901 HOV PM 1,072 Rio Rancho Off Ramp AM Peak 329 PM Peak 528 Merge/Basic Density LOS AM 3,389 26.8 C Northbound 1 PM 4,708 33.7 D Diverge/Basic HOV AM 1,413 Density LOS HOV PM 1,688 AM 3,049 23.6 C PM 3,976 28.8 D HOV AM 901 HOV PM 1,072 40

TABLE 4-1 2029 Freeway Analysis Table Alternative #1 (No Build) Alternative #2 Peak Hour Truck Percentage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Truck Percentage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Direction Segment/Ramp AM PM AM PM Density LOS Density LOS AM PM AM PM Density LOS Density LOS South of Rio Rancho Road Off Ramp 2,652 3,442 6 4 28.3 D 35.5 E 3,024 3,893 8 6 23.5 C 28.3 D Rio Rancho Road Off Ramp to SR 60 On Ramp 2,013 2,984 6 5 16.1 B 24.6 C 2,699 3,383 8 7 14.5 B 18.1 C SR 60 On Ramp to Rio Rancho Road On Ramp 3,720 4,947 8 7 22.0 C * F 4,611 5,484 10 9 23.1 C 27.6 C Phillips Drive to Mission Boulevard Off Ramp 4,314 5,186 9 9 47.2 F 84.9 F DOES NOT EXIST Rio Rancho Road On Ramp to Mission Boulevard Off Ramp DOES NOT EXIST 5,047 5,812 10 9 33.9 D 37.7 E Mission Boulevard Off Ramp to Mission Boulevard On Ramp 4,064 4,882 10 9 41.8 E 67.1 F 4,762 5,486 11 10 27.8 D 34.3 D North of Mission Boulevard On Ramp 4,730 5,363 9 8 60.5 F 97.4 F 5,330 5,969 10 10 22.1 C 25.4 C North of Mission Boulevard Off Ramp 3,690 3,940 9 9 37.6 E 40.0 E 4,890 5,489 10 10 21.4 C 24.0 C Mission Boulevard Off Ramp to Mission Boulevard On Ramp 3,346 3,534 10 11 29.7 D 32.6 D 4,530 5,207 10 11 25.8 C 31.7 D Old Pomona Road to Rio Rancho Road Off Ramp 3,673 4,393 9 9 38.5 E 49.4 F DOES NOT EXIST Mission Boulevard On Ramp to Rio Rancho Road Off Ramp DOES NOT EXIST 4,848 6,012 10 11 29.8 D 40.8 F Rio Rancho Road Off Ramp to SR 60 Off Ramp 3,391 4,089 9 9 19.8 C 23.9 C 4,417 5,634 10 11 19.3 B 24.6 C SR 60 Off Ramp to Rio Rancho Road On Ramp 1,825 2,184 9 8 14.8 B 17.6 B 2,566 3,681 10 9 13.9 B 20.0 C South of Rio Rancho Road On Ramp 2,378 3,067 7 7 25.2 C 33.9 D 3,180 4,527 9 9 23.5 C 32.5 D Northbound SR 71 Southbound SR 71 Alternative #3 Alternative #4 Peak Hour Truck Percentage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Truck Percentage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Direction Segment/Ramp AM PM AM PM Density LOS Density LOS AM PM AM PM Density LOS Density LOS South of Rio Rancho Road Off Ramp 3,058 3,966 8 6 23.7 C 28.7 D 3,049 3,976 8 6 23.6 C 28.8 D Rio Rancho Road Off Ramp to SR 60 On Ramp 2,732 3,440 8 7 14.7 B 18.5 C 2,720 3,448 8 7 14.6 B 18.5 C SR 60 On Ramp to Rio Rancho Road On Ramp 4,644 5,541 10 9 23.2 C 27.8 C 4,632 5,549 10 9 23.2 C 27.9 C Phillips Drive to Mission Boulevard Off Ramp DOES NOT EXIST DOES NOT EXIST Rio Rancho Road On Ramp to Mission Boulevard Off Ramp 5,016 5,849 10 9 33.7 D 38.2 E 4,991 5,853 10 9 33.6 D 38.2 E Mission Boulevard Off Ramp to Mission Boulevard On Ramp 4,731 5,526 11 10 27.5 D 34.7 D 4,709 5,530 11 10 27.3 D 34.8 D North of Mission Boulevard On Ramp 5,357 6,028 10 10 22.2 C 25.7 C 5,347 6,034 10 10 22.2 C 25.8 C North of Mission Boulevard Off Ramp 4,991 5,645 10 10 21.8 C 24.7 C 5,000 5,646 10 10 21.9 C 24.7 C Mission Boulevard Off Ramp to Mission Boulevard On Ramp 4,576 5,337 10 11 26.1 D 33.0 D 4,585 5,339 10 11 26.2 D 33.0 D Old Pomona Road to Rio Rancho Road Off Ramp DOES NOT EXIST DOES NOT EXIST Mission Boulevard On Ramp to Rio Rancho Road Off Ramp 4,894 6,143 10 11 30.1 D 42.0 F 4,895 6,132 10 11 30.0 D 41.8 F Rio Rancho Road Off Ramp to SR 60 Off Ramp 4,523 5,791 10 11 19.8 C 25.3 C 4,524 5,781 10 11 19.8 B 25.3 C SR 60 Off Ramp to Rio Rancho Road On Ramp 2,672 3,838 10 9 14.5 B 21.0 C 2,673 3,828 10 9 14.5 B 20.9 C South of Rio Rancho Road On Ramp 3,286 4,684 9 9 24.1 C 33.3 D 3,389 4,708 9 9 26.8 C 33.7 D Northbound SR 71 Southbound SR 71 * Demand exceeds capacity. Based on the HCM 2010, Exhibit 13 2 the segement operate at LOS F, therefore the density is not reported. 41

4.3 Intersection Analysis The year 2029 intersection analysis was performed using the 2010 HCM guidelines and methodology outlined in Section 2.6. Synchro was used to analyze the intersection using the existing intersection geometry, lane configuration, and the 2029 intersection volumes listed previously for each alternative. 4.3.1 Level of Service Analysis Table 4-2 summarizes the 2029 intersection analysis for each alternative and allows for comparisons. A full set of 2010 HCM Reports output files are provided in Appendix D. The following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F for a peak hour period in 2029: Temple Avenue and SR-57 SB ramps SR-71 and Phillips Drive SR-71 and North Ranch Road Santa Clara Drive and Village Loop Road SR-71 and Old Pomona Road Village Loop Road and Phillips Ranch Road Phillips Ranch Road and Rio Rancho Road Rio Rancho Road and Meadow View Drive Rio Rancho Road and SR-71 NB ramps Nine intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F in 2029 for Alternative 1. The build alternatives are expected to have six intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F in 2029. These intersections with changes in LOS are identified in Section 6. Where there are identified impacts worthy of project refinement, the refinements (and the associated analysis) are described. 42

TABLE 4-2 2029 Intersection Analysis Alternative #1 (No Build) Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Alternative #4 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Name Control Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Temple Avenue and SR 57 SB Ramps S 55.0 D 158.0 F 55.0 D 158.0 F 55.0 D 158.0 F 55.0 D 158.0 F 2 Temple Avenue and SR 57 NB Ramps S 15.1 B 11.0 B 15.1 B 11.0 B 15.1 B 11.0 B 15.1 B 11.0 B 3 Temple Avenue and Mission Boulevard S 43.8 D 43.5 D 43.8 D 43.5 D 43.8 D 43.5 D 43.8 D 43.5 D 4 Mission Boulevard and Phillips Drive S 3.8 A 5.2 A 3.8 A 5.2 A 3.8 A 5.2 A 3.8 A 5.2 A 5 Phillips Drive and Westmont Avenue U 8.3 A 8.8 A 9.0 A 9.2 A 10.1 B 10.7 B 10.2 B 9.5 A 6 Westmont Avenue and 9th Street U* 5.6 A 3.2 A 4.4 A 2.7 A 3.6 A 2.4 A 3.5 A 2.3 A 7 Mission Boulevard and Westmont Avenue S 4.8 A 7.3 A 5.3 A 7.8 A 6.6 A 8.0 A 6.5 A 8.0 A 8 Mission Boulevard and SR 71 SB Ramps S 24.6 C 21.0 C 26.4 C 30.9 C 28.2 C 29.9 C 28.3 C 24.2 C 9 Mission Boulevard and SR 71 NB Ramps S 23.5 C 17.2 B 18.9 B 16.7 B 21.0 C 18.3 B 21.4 C 18.4 B 10 Mission Boulevard and Dudley Street S 51.4 D 16.3 B 40.2 D 16.0 B 40.2 D 16.0 B 40.2 D 16.0 B 11 Dudley Street and 9th Street U 10.3 B 9.7 A 9.8 A 9.0 A 9.8 A 9.0 A 9.8 A 9.0 A 12 Mission Boulevard and White Avenue S 27.9 C 24.6 C 27.1 C 23.9 C 27.1 C 23.9 C 27.1 C 23.9 C 13 SR 71 and Phillips Drive U* 49.4 E 55.9 F DOES NOT EXIST IN BUILD CONDITION 14 SR 71 and North Ranch Road S 83.2 F 86.0 F DOES NOT EXIST IN BUILD CONDITION 15 White Avenue and Phillips Boulevard S 10.2 B 9.5 A 10.1 B 9.1 A 10.1 B 9.1 A 10.1 B 9.1 A 16 Santa Clara Drive and Village Loop Road U 35.1 E 28.7 D 35.8 E 30.1 D 35.6 E 29.8 D 35.6 E 30.3 D 17 Old Pomona Road and Village Loop Road U 10.7 B 8.0 A 12.8 B 8.6 A 12.2 B 8.5 A 11.4 B 8.2 A 18 SR 71 and Old Pomona Road S 64.6 E 80.2 F DOES NOT EXIST IN BUILD CONDITION 19 Lexington Avenue and White Avenue S 10.8 B 8.6 A 10.7 B 8.5 A 10.7 B 8.5 A 14.0 B 10.3 B 20 Village Loop Road and Canyon Rim Road U* 14.3 B 11.5 B 25.5 D 13.9 B 22.5 C 13.5 B 14.8 B 11.7 B 21 Village Loop Road and Phillips Ranch Road S 25.4 C 75.2 E 65.2 E 111.6 F 57.4 E 109.4 F 24.5 C 81.0 F 22 Phillips Ranch Road and Rio Rancho Road S 57.9 E 22.9 C 97.3 F 26.8 C 83.4 F 28.3 C 59.0 E 22.8 C 23 Rio Rancho Road and Meadow View Drive U* 42.8 E 17.9 C 204.7 F 27.4 D 118.3 F 18.2 C 69.9 F 19.5 C 24 Rio Rancho Road and SR 71 SB Ramps S 26.6 C 23.7 C 34.2 C 25.6 C 30.9 C 25.1 C 32.4 C 24.1 C 25 Rio Rancho Road and SR 71 NB Ramps S 98.0 F 75.2 E 97.2 F 57.2 E 100.0 F 56.1 E 120.1 F 84.3 F 26 Rio Rancho Road and Auto Center Drive S 29.0 C 23.2 C 28.2 C 22.5 C 25.5 C 22.5 C 33.0 C 24.1 C 27 Rio Rancho Road and Garey Avenue S 25.6 C 28.1 C 25.6 C 28.1 C 25.6 C 28.1 C 25.6 C 28.1 C U = Unsignalized, S = Signalized * Two Way Stop controlled intersection, delay reported for worst case stop controlled approach only 43

4.3.2 Queuing Analysis at Ramp Terminal Intersections Queuing analysis was performed to ensure that the intersection performance at the off-ramp terminals will not affect mainline traffic. Synchro was used to determine queues based on the intersection analysis discussed in Section 4.3.1. Table 4-3 is a summary of findings of the queue analysis in year 2029. The table includes the approximate ramp length and the 95 th percentile queue length as reported in the output files for the longest queue. The output files, or Queue Reports, are provided in Appendix E. The off-ramps provide sufficient storage space to accommodate the queue that will be generated on the terminal intersections in 2029. No alternative has projected ramp queues that are projected to reach the mainline. 4.4 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis The roadway segment capacity analysis investigates the performance of the roadways at midblock locations. Table 4-4 is a summary of the 2029 roadway segment capacity analysis. As illustrated in Table 4-4, all roadway segments will operate at V/C ratios lower than 0.80. Therefore, roadway segment capacity (V/C ratio) analysis indicates that all roadway segments, at mid-block (away from the signal), will operate under capacity for all alternatives in 2029. 44

TABLE 4-3 2029 Queuing Analysis Table Alternative #1 (No Build) Alternative #2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach Name 95% Queue (ft) Ramp Length (ft) 95% Queue (ft) Ramp Length (ft) 95% Queue (ft) Ramp Length (ft) 95% Queue (ft) Ramp Length (ft) 8 SR 71 SB off ramp to Mission Boulevard *293 1030 *228 1030 *293 1210 146 1210 9 SR 71 NB off ramp to Mission Boulevard 67 970 65 970 80 960 74 960 24 SR 71 SB off ramp to Rio Rancho Road 109 1150 77 1150 150 1120 93 1120 25 SR 71 NB off ramp to Rio Rancho Road *591 3810 *204 3810 *353 3850 *240 3850 Alternative #3 Alternative #4 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach Name 95% Queue (ft) Ramp Length (ft) 95% Queue (ft) Ramp Length (ft) 95% Queue (ft) Ramp Length (ft) 95% Queue (ft) Ramp Length (ft) 8 SR 71 SB off ramp to Mission Boulevard *293 1210 155 1210 *293 1210 155 1210 9 SR 71 NB off ramp to Mission Boulevard 86 960 75 960 85 960 75 960 24 SR 71 SB off ramp to Rio Rancho Road 138 1120 87 1120 136 1120 87 1120 25 SR 71 NB off ramp to Rio Rancho Road *353 3850 *241 3850 *338 3850 *224 3850 * 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 45

TABLE 4-4 2029 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Table Alternative #1 (No Build) Alternative #2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Roadway Lanes Classification Capacity* ADT V/C V/C ADT V/C V/C Mission Boulevard, west of SR 71 SB ramps 4 Major Arterial 6,400 27,153 2,007 0.31 3,411 0.53 28,227 2,085 0.33 3,391 0.53 Mission Boulevard, in between SR 71 SB and NB ramps 6 Major Arterial 9,600 34,907 2,687 0.28 4,139 0.43 31,938 2,428 0.25 3,675 0.38 Mission Boulevard, east of SR 71 NB ramps 6 Major Arterial 9,600 39,950 3,032 0.32 4,570 0.48 32,650 2,379 0.25 3,642 0.38 Dudley Street south of Mission Boulevard 2 Major Arterial 3,200 13,558 1,162 0.36 1,618 0.51 7,358 555 0.17 1,010 0.32 Phillips Drive west of SR 71 2 Collector 3,200 2,119 146 0.05 179 0.06 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A North Ranch Road west of SR 71 2 Major Arterial 3,200 2,480 238 0.07 162 0.05 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Old Pomona Road west of SR 71 4 Major Arterial 6,400 3,309 260 0.04 183 0.03 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rio Rancho Road west of SR 71 SB off ramp 4 Major Arterial 6,400 29,224 2,416 0.38 1,755 0.27 30,498 2,318 0.36 2,020 0.32 Rio Rancho Road in between SR 71 SB and NB ramps 4 Major Arterial 6,400 30,501 2,377 0.37 2,950 0.46 35,637 2,802 0.44 3,551 0.55 Rio Rancho Road east of SR 71 NB ramps 4 Major Arterial 6,400 37,250 2,800 0.44 3,641 0.57 42,039 3,242 0.51 4,205 0.66 Alternative #3 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Alternative #4 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Roadway Lanes Classification Capacity* ADT V/C V/C ADT V/C V/C Mission Boulevard, west of SR 71 SB ramps 4 Major Arterial 6,400 27,861 2,049 0.32 3,336 0.52 27,251 2,011 0.31 3,258 0.51 Mission Boulevard, in between SR 71 SB and NB ramps 6 Major Arterial 9,600 31,775 2,395 0.25 3,667 0.38 31,234 2,354 0.25 3,614 0.38 Mission Boulevard, east of SR 71 NB ramps 6 Major Arterial 9,600 32,658 2,404 0.25 3,637 0.38 32,242 2,381 0.25 3,599 0.37 Dudley Street south of Mission Boulevard 2 Major Arterial 3,200 7,271 560 0.17 987 0.31 6,900 548 0.17 924 0.29 Phillips Drive west of SR 71 2 Collector 3,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A North Ranch Road west of SR 71 2 Major Arterial 3,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Old Pomona Road west of SR 71 4 Major Arterial 6,400 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rio Rancho Road west of SR 71 SB off ramp 4 Major Arterial 6,400 29,313 2,194 0.34 1,973 0.31 28,013 2,107 0.33 1,876 0.29 Rio Rancho Road in between SR 71 SB and NB ramps 4 Major Arterial 6,400 35,594 2,802 0.44 3,556 0.56 29,830 2,289 0.36 2,773 0.43 Rio Rancho Road east of SR 71 NB ramps 4 Major Arterial 6,400 41,761 3,198 0.50 4,236 0.66 37,120 2,740 0.43 3,571 0.56 * Per the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP), a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per through traffic lane has been used. 46

5 2050 Conditions This section is a summary of the 2050 traffic analysis. Four alternatives were evaluated using freeway, intersection, and roadway segment capacity analysis. 5.1 Roadway Network and Traffic s SR-71 is currently two lanes in each direction and Alternative 1 proposes no changes to be made to the lane configuration in 2050. The lane configuration of SR-71 in Alternative 1 was illustrated in Figure 3-1 (presented previously). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will include three GP lanes and an HOV lane in each direction on SR-71. Figure 4-1 (presented previously) illustrated the lane configuration for the build alternatives in 2050. For the year 2050 traffic analysis, the intersection geometry and lane configurations will remain the same as the existing conditions for Alternative 1. The lane configurations for Alternative 1 were illustrated in Figure 3-2 (presented previously). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 include the removal of three intersections at SR-71. Therefore, for these alternatives, only 24 intersections were studied. The intersection lane configurations for these 24 intersections were illustrated in Figure 4-2 (presented previously). Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 intersection volumes for the year 2050 were generated in accordance to the methodology discussed in Section 2.5. The traffic redistributions due to the intersection closures and the final volumes for all alternatives are illustrated in Figures 5-1 to 5-7. Some intersections will not have any traffic redistribution as a result of the closures. Those intersections are not reported in these figures. The intersections that experience a decrease in traffic volumes are due to the removal of trips generated from vehicles using alternative routes to avoid congestion on SR-71 between Mission Boulevard and Rio Rancho Road. 47

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2050 ALTERNATIVE 1 VOLUMES FIGURE 5-1

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s + Traffic Added to Movement - Traffic Subtracted to Movement SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2050 ALTERNATIVE 2 REDISTRIBUTED VOLUMES FIGURE 5-2

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2050 ALTERNATIVE 2 VOLUMES FIGURE 5-3

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s + Traffic Added to Movement - Traffic Subtracted to Movement SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2050 ALTERNATIVE 3 REDISTRIBUTED VOLUMES FIGURE 5-4

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2050 ALTERNATIVE 3 VOLUMES FIGURE 5-5

1. Temple Ave/SR-57 SB Ramps 2. Temple Ave/SR-57 NB Ramps 3. Temple Ave/Mission Blvd 4. Mission Blvd/Phillips Dr 5. Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 6. Westmont Ave/9th St 7. Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 8. Mission Blvd/SR-71 SB Ramps 9. Mission Blvd/SR-71 NB Ramps 10. Mission Blvd/Dudley St 11. Dudley St/9th St 12. Mission Blvd/White Ave 13. SR-71/ Phillips Dr 14. SR-71/North Ranch Rd 15. White Ave/Phillips Blvd 16. Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop Rd 17.Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop Rd 18. SR-71/Old Pomona Rd 19. Lexington Ave/White Ave 20.Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim Rd 26.Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center Dr 27. Rio Rancho Rd/Garey Ave LEGEND N XXX/YYY AM / PM Peak Hour s + Traffic Added to Movement - Traffic Subtracted to Movement SR-71 WIDENING PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2050 ALTERNATIVE 4 REDISTRIBUTED VOLUMES FIGURE 5-6