Lake Forest City Council
June 17, 2025

ATTACHMENT

LAKE FOREST TRANSPORTATION
MITIGATION PROGRAM 5-YEAR UPDATE
2024 Update
May 20, 2025
Prepared for:

City of Lake Forest
Prepared by:

Stantec
Project Number:
2042547210

LAKE FOREST TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM 5-YEAR UPDATE

The conclusions in the Report titled Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared. The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk.

Stantec has assumed all information received from City of Lake Forest (the “Client”) and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein.

This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client.

While the Report may be provided by the Client to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and to other third parties in connection with the project, Stantec disclaims any legal duty based upon warranty, reliance or any other theory to any third party, and will not be liable to such third party for any damages or losses of any kind that may result.

Prepared by:

Eric Mazzella, TE

Maria Morris, AICP, PTP

Reviewed by:

Daryl Zerfass, TE, PTP

LAKE FOREST TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM 5-YEAR UPDATE

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ ES.1 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1.1

1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1.1

1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 1.2

1.3 Performance Standards.............................................................................................................. 1.2

1.4 Committed Roadway System ..................................................................................................... 1.3

1.5 Future Roadway System ............................................................................................................ 1.6

1.6 Land Use Assumptions............................................................................................................... 1.8 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................. 2.1 3 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................. 3.1 4 COST ALLOCATIONS AND LFTM FEE CALCULATION .......................................... 4.1

4.1 Cost Allocation Methodology ...................................................................................................... 4.1

4.2 LFTM Fee Calculation Methodology .......................................................................................... 4.3 5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 5.1

LAKE FOREST TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROGRAM 5-YEAR UPDATE

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1 Properties Participating in the LFTM Program ..................................................................... ES.1 Table ES-2 LFTM Program Improvement Costs..................................................................................... ES.3 Table ES-3 LFTM Program Cost Summary ............................................................................................ ES.4 Table ES-4 LFTM Fee Calculation .......................................................................................................... ES.5 Table ES-5 LFTM Participating Properties LFTM Fee Summary ........................................................... ES.5 Table 1-1 Performance Criteria .................................................................................................................. 1.3 Table 1-2 Level of Service Descriptions – Signalized Intersections .......................................................... 1.4 Table 1-3 Committed Roadway Improvements in Lake Forest and Immediate Vicinity ............................ 1.5 Table 1-4 Properties Participating in the LFTM Program .......................................................................... 1.8 Table 2-1 Intersection LOS Comparison (2018 versus 2022) ................................................................... 2.6 Table 3-1 Future-Year (2040) Intersection LOS Summary – Baseline Committed Network ..................... 3.3 Table 3-2 OSA Analysis Intersection LOS Summary – Full MPAH Roadway Network Scenario ............. 3.5 Table 3-3 Summary of Deficient Intersections and Proposed Improvements ........................................... 3.7 Table 4-1 LFTM Properties Land Use and Trip Generation Summary ...................................................... 4.2 Table 4-2 California Construction Cost Index Summary ............................................................................ 4.3 Table 4-3 LFTM Program Improvement Costs .......................................................................................... 4.4 Table 4-4 LFTM Program Cost Summary .................................................................................................. 4.5 Table 4-5 LFTM Fee Calculation ............................................................................................................... 4.7 Table 4-6 LFTM Participating Properties LFTM Fee Calculation ............................................................... 4.8 Table 4-7 LFTM Remaining Participating Properties LFTM Fee Summary ............................................... 4.9 Table B-1 LFTM Intersection Comparison Table ....................................................................................... B.1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Committed Roadway Network .................................................................................................. 1.7 Figure 1-2 Properties Part of the LFTM Program ...................................................................................... 1.9 Figure 2-1 Existing Midblock Lanes ........................................................................................................... 2.2 Figure 2-2 Study Area Intersections .......................................................................................................... 2.3 Figure 2-3 Intersection Volume Count Comparison (2018 versus 2022) – AM Peak Hour ....................... 2.4 Figure 2-4 Intersection Volume Count Comparison (2018 versus 2022) – PM Peak Hour ....................... 2.5 Figure 3-1 Future ADT Volumes ................................................................................................................ 3.2 Figure 3-2 LFTM Program Status ............................................................................................................ 3.10 Figure A-1 Study Area Intersections .......................................................................................................... A.2

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
ICU CALCULATION WORKSHEETS ............................................................ A.1 APPENDIX B LFTM INTERSECTION COMPARISON TABLE ............................................ B.1 APPENDIX C LFTM PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY ......................................... C.1 APPENDIX D COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................................ D.1

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update Executive Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 ES.1

Executive Summary
The Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation (LFTM) Program establishes a list of citywide transportation improvements to maintain adequate levels of service (LOS) on the City’s arterial street system. The LFTM Program was adopted by the City Council in 2008 and Chapter 7.19 was added to the Lake Forest Municipal Code (LFMC). In accordance with LFMC Chapter 7.19.070.A(3), the LFTM Program is reviewed every five years to ensure that the LFTM Program continues to adequately address the City’s future roadway improvement needs. Improvements are funded through the payment of LFTM Program fees paid by developers in accordance with their development agreements with the City.

The LFTM Program has previously been reviewed in 2011, 2013, and 2018, and was reviewed most recently in 2024. This report discusses the 2024 review and provides the status of each LFTM Program location (completed, planning, pre-construction, removed), the updated cost of the LFTM Program, and the estimated allocated cost for the remaining unpaid development units.

Five properties have taken part in the LFTM Program as shown in Table ES-1. As shown, four of the five participating properties have completed construction, with Portola Center being the remaining property with unconstructed units.

Table ES-1 Properties Participating in the LFTM Program LFTM Properties Description Status1

1. Shea/Baker (Baker
Ranch)
1,402 single family dwelling units; 348 condominium units; 619 apartment units; 17,500 sq. ft of retail commercial; public park Complete

2. Portola Center 617 single family dwelling units; 251 condominium units; 58 senior mixed-use units; 12,600 sq. ft. of retail commercial; public park Not
Complete

3. Irvine Ranch Water
District (Serrano Summit)
101 single family dwelling units; 146 detached condominium units; 66 attached condominium units; 224 attached multi-family units Complete

4. KB Homes (Whisler
Ridge)
75 single family dwelling units Complete

5. Pacific Heritage
(Teresina)
85 single family dwelling units Complete
1 Complete as of June 30, 2024
See Figure 1-2 for the location of each participating property.

Source: City of Lake Forest

INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS
Existing conditions peak hour intersection counts were collected in 2022 and all locations meet the acceptable LOS “D” performance standard. It should be noted that some intersections may not perform as well as indicated by the theoretical intersection capacity utilization (ICU) value due to operational constraints such as closely spaced intersections, turn pocket length constraints, etc. Also, the traffic counts used to calculate the ICU value represent vehicles passing through the intersection. When Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update Executive Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 ES.2

demand volumes approach or exceed capacity, upstream queues may form causing significant delays and low levels of service, occurrences that are not accounted for in ICU values based on the intersection counts.

Future-year (2040) traffic forecasts for the City’s arterial street system are used to identify transportation improvements that need to be implemented over time. Within the City, future traffic volume forecasts are based on the allowable land uses specified by the City General Plan (including land use updates based on recent development project approvals). For the remainder of the County, 2040 demographic projections prepared for the County of Orange are used as the basis for calculating traffic volume growth.

Traffic forecasts are derived using the City’s travel demand model, referred to as the Lake Forest Traffic Analysis Model (LFTAM). For the purpose of this study, the LFTAM has been updated to include the most current land use projections and roadway network assumptions for the City of Lake Forest. The committed roadway improvements are those that are fully or partially funded and are expected to be constructed in the near future.

The LOS analysis shows that all study area intersections operate at a LOS D or better, with exception to one intersection that is at a LOS E. Intersections that were previously forecast to operate at LOS E or worse in prior LFTM Program updates are forecast to operate at LOS D or better under the baseline scenario in this report. This is due to the implementation of planned improvements at intersections and refinements to the LFTAM land use and network. However, although locations are at a LOS D or better, the intersection and the corresponding identified improvements, remain part of the LFTM Program due to the ICU/LOS being at the cusp of LOS D/LOS E, or intersection sensitivity.

LFTM PROGRAM COST ANALYSIS
Table ES-2 lists the LFTM Program locations and the estimated construction costs. For each LFTM Project location, costs from the completed improvements are shown and engineering estimates for locations in pre-construction or in the planning phase are shown.

For locations involving the construction of physical improvements, the cost estimates include planning and engineering costs (preliminary project development, public hearings, design engineering, and construction engineering costs), right-of-way acquisition costs (land acquisition, demolition, severance, business goodwill, right-of-way engineering, consultant and legal costs), and construction costs (construction of project improvements, permit and inspection fees, resolution of construction issues, and preparation of record drawings). Cost related to administration and environmental clearances are added separately.

The total program cost is listed in Table ES-3 and comprises the improvement costs, plus a 25% cost for administration and environmental clearances. In addition, estimated credits are shown based on existing cooperative agreements with the City of Irvine. The final credit amounts will be based upon the completion of the improvement projects.

The total estimated cost for the LFTM Program is approximately $14.7 million.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update Executive Summary
Project Number: 2042547210 ES.3
Table ES-2 LFTM Program Improvement Costs
Item Int.

No. Intersection Jurisdiction Total Cost
On-Going Projects (Pre-Construction and Planning)
1 10 Lake Forest Dr & Rancho Pkwy LF $ 627,448
2 14 Bake Pkwy & Irvine Blvd/Trabuco Rd LF/Irvine $ 2,226,251 1 3 22 Bake Pkwy & Jeronimo Rd LF/Irvine $ 2,846,788 2 4 23 Lake Forest Dr & Jeronimo Rd LF $ 1,392,922 5 34 Los Alisos Blvd & Rockfield Blvd LF $ 906,678 6 31 Lake Forest Dr & Rockfield Blvd LF $ 59,980
7 105 Alton Pkwy & Irvine Blvd Irvine $ 676,214
8 36 Lake Forest Dr & I-5 Fwy SB Off-Ramp/Carlota LH/Irvine $ 120,360 Completed Projects
9 2 Ba ke Pkwy & Portola Pkwy LF $ 72,240
10 12 El Toro Rd & Portola Pkwy/Santa Margarita Pkwy LF $ 2,627,022 11 32 R idge Route Dr & Rockfield Blvd LF $ 1,144
12 37 P aseo de Valencia & Avenida de la Carlota LH $ 79,000 13 39 E l Toro Rd & Avenida de la Carlota LH $ 78,000 14 117 Alton Pkwy & Toledo Way Irvine $ 19,555
Summary
Total Cost of Improvements $ 11,733,603
Notes:
1 Per the Bake at Irvine/Trabuco Cooperative Agreement, City of Irvine’s share is assumed to be 50% ($2,226,251) and the City of Lake Forest’s share is assumed to be 50% ($2,226,251). Final shared cost will be determined per the Cooperative Agreement.
2 Per the Bake/Jeronimo Cooperative Agreement, City of Irvine’s share is assumed to be 70% ($6,642,506) and the City of Lake Forest’s share is assumed to be 30% ($2,846,788). Final shared cost will be determined per the Cooperative Agreement.

LF = Lake Forest; LH = Laguna Hills; Irvine = City of Irvine; NA = not applicable Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update Executive Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 ES.4

Table ES-3 LFTM Program Cost Summary
Cost Item
2018 5-Year Update
Cost Summary1
2024 5-Year Update
Cost Summary
Total Cost of Improvements $ 9,222,000 $ 11,733,603 Payments from NITM (Not assumed) $ 0 $ 0 Payments from FCPP (Not assumed) $ 0 $ 0 Administration & Environmental (25%) $ 2,306,000 $ 2,933,400 Total Allocated Costs $ 11,528,000 $ 14,667,003 Difference +27%

LFTM Program Spent to Date (as of June 30, 2024) $ 3,991,299 LFTM Program Cash Balance to Date (as of June 30, 2024) $ 8,156,453 Unpaid Program Costs2 $ 2,519,251
1 Source: 2018 5-Year Update provided for comparison purposes only. 2 Unpaid Program Costs = Total allocated cost minus spent to date minus cash balance to date.

The LFTM Program shows an approximately 27% increase when compared to the prior update. The increasing costs of construction is consistent with a memorandum prepared by the City of Lake Forest Public Works department to the City of Lake Forest Council. The memorandum discusses the rising costs in the construction industry over the past three to four years, specifically annual increases up to 13.4% and a compounded increase of 35.6% from 2020-20241. The memorandum describes a variety of factors that have contributed to the cost increases, including material prices, labor costs, and a surge in construction activity. Due to significant increases, the City’s roadway infrastructure projects, such as those in the LFTM Program, show an increase in cost.

Alternative improvements were investigated for locations in the planning phase. In some instances, the future intersection LOS is at an acceptable LOS, therefore, the LFTM Program improvement is no longer necessary. This was done to help keep the LFTM Program cost increase to a minimal amount.

The City of Lake Forest and City of Irvine currently have a cooperative agreement in place for Bake at Jeronimo and Bake at Irvine/Trabuco intersections and the cost summary listed above captures the City’s assumed share of cost for the two intersections.

Table ES-4 shows the cost allocation according to land use and the resulting fee per unit of land use. The trip length factors used in the table are relative, using dwelling units as the comparative base.

1 Construction Cost Increases for Roadway and Infrastructure Projects Memorandum to City Council, City of Lake Forest, July 11, 2024.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update Executive Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 ES.5

Table ES-4 LFTM Fee Calculation

Land Use

Land Use
Units

Land Use
Amount

ADT Trip
Generation
Trip
Length
Factor

Fee

Fee/ADT

Fee/Land
Use Unit
SDU DU 121 1,141 1.00 $2,519,251 $2,208 $20,820
Total LFTM Program Spent to Date and Cash Balance $12,147,752 Total LFTM Program $14,667,003
Baseline ADT Fee = $2,208/trip

LFTM Program Spent to Date (as of June 30, 2024) = $3,991,299 LFTM Program Cash Balance to Date (as of June 30, 2024) = $8,156,453

(Fee/ADT = Baseline ADT Fee x Trip Length Factor)
Abbreviations: ADT – Average Daily Trips; SDU – Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit The resulting fee/ADT is $2,208 and is applied to the remaining property. Table ES-5 summarizes the remaining participating property with unpaid units and the corresponding LFTM Program fee.

Table ES-5 LFTM Participating Properties LFTM Fee Summary Landowner ADT Cost
Portola Center 1,141 $2,519,251
Total Remaining Unpaid 1,141 $2,519,251
LFTM Program Spent to Date and Cash Balance to Date $12,147,752 Total LFTM Program $14,667,003
1All payment obligations for KB Homes (Whisler Ridge), Shea/Baker (Baker Ranch), Pacific Heritage (Teresina), IRWD (Serrano Summit), and a portion of Portola Center were completed under prior fee structures.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 1 Introduction
Project Number: 2042547210 1.1

1 Introduction
This report describes the 2024 update to the City of Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation (LFTM) traffic analysis in support of the City’s five-year review of the LFTM Program. It thereby updates the report that established the current LFTM Program for transportation improvements in the City and the LFTM fees.

1.1 Overview
The LFTM Program was adopted by the City Council in 2008. Chapter 7.19 was added to the Lake Forest Municipal Code (LFMC) and established a list of citywide transportation improvements to maintain adequate levels of service on the City’s arterial street system. The LFTM Program improvements are funded through the payment of LFTM fees paid by developers in accordance with their development agreements with the City. The LFTM Program originally included transportation improvements at 18 intersections, 10 are in the City, 5 are partially in the City, and 3 are fully in neighboring jurisdictions (Irvine and Laguna Hills).

The LFTM Program was updated in 2011 (“2011 Baseline Adjustment”) to incorporate land use assumptions from the approved Opportunities Study Area (OSA), including an update of the latest development plans for the vacant lands as well as the Sports Park at Glass Creek. The 2011 Baseline Adjustment removed three (3) locations from the LFTM Program and added one intersection, for a total of 16 LFTM Program locations. The locations were removed due to traffic forecasts showing those intersections at an acceptable LOS, had completed improvements, or had fully committed improvements by the Foothill Circulation Phasing Plan (FCPP).

This 2024 update is prepared in accordance with LFMC Chapter 7.19.070.A(3) requiring review of the LFTM Program every 5 years and incorporates the following changes:

1. Updates to the Citywide land use data

2. Updates to the committed roadway network

3. Updates to the City’s travel demand model

4. Updates to the identified transportation improvements

5. Updates to the total cost of the program

6. Revised fee structure based on the above
A requirement for a five-year review was included in the LFTM Program to ensure that the LFTM Program continues to adequately address the City’s future roadway improvement needs. Similar to prior updates in 2013 and 2018, this update contains refinements to the land use assumptions utilized by the Lake Forest Traffic Analysis Model (LFTAM). The land use assumed for this analysis is consistent with the Lake Forest 2040 General Plan that was adopted by City Council on June 2020. This land use database is then used as the basis for forecasting future traffic volumes on City roadways.

Interim reviews were conducted in between the five-year reviews in 2016 and 2017. The 2016 interim review of the LFTM Program updated land use for the Shea Baker development area, re-divided the costs of the improvements, and updated LFTM Program fees for participating properties. In 2017 a Feasibility Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 1 Introduction
Project Number: 2042547210 1.2

Analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of a capacity constrained roadway network and determine the feasibility of modifying certain LFTM Program improvements.

The 2018 update did not add or remove any LFTM Program improvements. Four intersections that previously did not meet the established LOS criteria in earlier LFTM Program updates were at an acceptable LOS. However, those intersections remained in the LFTM Program per the direction of City staff, due to the intersection LOS being at a LOS D cusp or other known sensitivities.

This report summarizes the LFTM Program intersections, the current status (completed, planning, pre- construction, removed), and the cost of the LFTM Program.

1.2 Methodology
To prepare the updated transportation improvement program, traffic forecasts based on the future land uses in the City were evaluated and potential deficiencies identified. These future land uses are consistent with the buildout of the City’s 2040 General Plan Update (Modified General Plan), and the traffic forecasts also include regional growth projections for the year 2040. A long-range buildout horizon such as the year 2040 is used so that the investments made to improve the City’s roadway network will accommodate not just the current needs, but the future traffic demand as well. For this analysis committed roadway improvements are those that are fully or partially funded and are expected to be constructed in the near future.

LFTM Program improvements to alleviate the traffic deficiencies were reevaluated and refined, where applicable. In accordance with the LFTM Ordinance, the five-year review does not add any new LFTM Program locations. These LFTM Program improvements form the basis for the updated citywide transportation improvement program and associated LFTM fees.

Transportation improvements in the program are implemented over time using fees paid by future development in the City. These improvements were identified by analyzing conditions in year 2040 assuming only committed improvements, and then identifying the additional improvements that will be needed to serve the future traffic. Since the improvements are identified for the 2040 time frame, the timing and priority for improvement implementation is based on actual traffic demand and analysis, citywide performance standards, and available funds to complete the improvements.

The information presented in this report includes a cost analysis with transportation improvement costs allocated according to the trips generated by various land uses. An average fee per land use type is calculated, and this is intended as the updated fee for the participants.

1.3 Performance Standards
The performance criteria used for evaluating volumes and capacities on the City street system are based on peak hour intersection volumes. Using peak hour intersection turn movement volumes and the intersection lane geometry, intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values are calculated for each of the AM and PM peak hours. Table 1-1 summarizes the criteria used for the intersection performance calculations.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 1 Introduction
Project Number: 2042547210 1.3

Table 1-1 Performance Criteria
The following are the performance criteria used for comparing volumes and capacities on the study area street system:

I. Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
ICU values calculated as follows:

Saturation Flow Rate: 1,700 vehicles per hour (VPH).

Clearance Interval: 0.05 ICU

II. Performance Standard
Arterial intersections to achieve LOS D or better (ICU not to exceed .90)

CMP intersections outside the City of Lake Forest, and the following non-CMP intersections within the City of Irvine to achieve LOS E or better (ICU not to exceed 1.00):

Bake Parkway/I-5 northbound and southbound ramps
Alton Parkway/I-5 northbound ramps
Irvine Center Drive/Lake Forest Drive

Table 1-2 describes traffic flow quality levels of service (LOS) for signalized intersections. Traffic LOS is designated A through F, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing severe traffic congestion. As listed in the previously referenced performance criteria table, LOS D (ICU not to exceed .90) is the performance standard that has been adopted by the City of Lake Forest. For County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections outside the City of Lake Forest, and for select intersections within the City of Irvine, LOS E (ICU not to exceed 1.00) is the adopted performance standard.

1.4 Committed Roadway System
The LFTM Program does not include new roadways or roadway improvements directly related to new development (i e., on-site roadways that would be built or widened as part of standard subdivision requirements). Signalized intersections that are for the purpose of providing project site access are likewise excluded. For this analysis, committed roadway improvements are those that are fully or partially funded and are expected to be constructed in the near future. These improvements are part of the “Committed” or “Baseline” roadway. The focus of this five-year review of the LFTM Program is on roadway improvements to augment the committed roadway system.

Table 1-3 summarizes the committed roadway and intersection improvements for the City of Lake Forest and immediate vicinity.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 1 Introduction
Project Number: 2042547210 1.4

Table 1-2 Level of Service Descriptions – Signalized Intersections LOS Traffic Flow Description V/C or ICU

A

Minimal or no vehicle delay.

0.00 – 0.60

B

Slight delay to vehicles.

0.61 – 0.70

C

Moderate vehicle delays, traffic flow remains stable.

0.71 – 0.80

D

More extensive delays at intersections.

0.81 – 0.90

E

Long queues create lengthy delays.

0.91 – 1.00

F

Severe delays and congestion.

> 1.00
Sources: HCM 7th Edition
V/C = Volume to Capacity ratio; ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 1 Introduction
Project Number: 2042547210 1.5

Table 1-3 Committed Roadway Improvements in Lake Forest and Immediate Vicinity Summary of Committed Roadway Segment Improvements
Roadway Limits Jurisdiction 2014 2018 2024 2040 Source(s) Status Alton
Pkwy
Monarch to
Rancho Pkwy
South
Lake Forest 4D 6D 6D 6D Shea/Baker Constructed
SR-133 I-5 to Irvine Blvd Caltrans/TCA 4T 6T 6T 6T TCA CIP Constructed SR-133 Irvine Blvd to SR-
241
Caltrans/TCA 6T 8T 8T 8T TCA CIP Constructed
SR-241 SR-133 to SR-261 Caltrans/TCA 5T 5T 5T 6T TCA CIP Not Constructed
SR-241 Lake Forest Dr to
Los Alisos Blvd
Caltrans/TCA 5T 5T 5T 8T TCA CIP Not
Constructed
SR-241 Portola Pkwy
(Irvine) to Lake
Forest Dr
Caltrans/TCA 6T 6T 6T 8T

TCA CIP Not
Constructed
Summary of Committed Intersection Lane Improvements
Intersection Improvement Source(s) Status

6. Alton (N/S) & SR-241
Ramps (E/W)
Add 3rd SB (Alton) through lane and
3rd NB (Alton) through lane
County/Irvine/
Lake Forest
Constructed

11. Bake (N/S) & Rancho
South (E/W)
Construction of the east leg of the
intersection (Rancho)
Nakase/Meadows Constructed
30 Los Alisos (N/S) &
Muirlands (E/W)
Add 2nd NB (Los Alisos) left-turn lane,
2nd SB (Los Alisos) left-turn lane and
2nd EB (Muirlands) left-turn lane
FCPP

Not Constructed

41. Alton (N/S) & Rancho
South (E/W)
Convert SB (Alton) right-turn lane to
3rd SB through lane, striping of a
second NB left turn
Shea/Baker

Constructed
Lane abbreviations:

D = Divided Roadway Lane; T = Toll Road Lane; SB = Southbound; NB = Northbound; EB = Eastbound; N/S = North/South direction; E/W = East/West direction Other abbreviations:

TCA = Transportation Corridor Agencies; CIP = Capital Improvement Program; FCPP – Foothill Circulation Phasing Plan; NITM – North Irvine Transportation Mitigation Program

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 1 Introduction
Project Number: 2042547210 1.6

Figure 1-1 illustrates the committed roadway network, which comprises of existing roadways plus committed improvements as noted above.

Subsequent to the LFTM Program 2011 Baseline Adjustment Study, several key roadways have been constructed and opened to traffic. These new roadways are as follows:
• Alton Parkway from Irvine Boulevard to Rancho Parkway South/Towne Centre Drive (6- lane Divided
• Rancho Parkway from Hermana Circle to Portola Parkway (4-lane Divided) • Rancho Parkway South from Alton Parkway to Bake Parkway (4-lane Divided)

1.5 Future Roadway System
Unfunded future roadways are excluded from the future baseline roadway condition utilized for this analysis, including unfunded roadways that are part of the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Without funding, the following future improvements are not a part of the committed network:
• El Toro Road Improvements
o Live Oak Canyon Road to Glenn Ranch Road: Existing roadway is two lanes (one lane in each direction) and on the MPAH it is designated as six lanes (three lanes in each direction) o Glenn Ranch Road to Marguerite Parkway: Existing roadway is five lanes (two southbound and northbound varies from 1 to 3 lanes) and on the MPAH it is designated as six lanes (three lanes in each direction)
o Raintree Lane to Montcliff Drive: Existing roadway is 5 lanes (3 southbound, 2 northbound) and on the MPAH it is designated as 6 lanes (three lanes in each direction). o Trabuco Road to Muirlands Boulevard: Existing roadway is six lanes (three lanes in each direction) and on the MPAH it is designated as eight lanes (four lanes in each direction).

• Portola Parkway Improvements (from Market Street to Lake Forest Drive). Existing roadway is 5 lanes (3 eastbound, 2 westbound) and on the MPAH it is designated as six lanes (3 lanes in each direction)

• Los Alisos Boulevard Improvements (from Rockfield Boulevard to Paseo De Valencia). Existing roadway is four lanes (two lanes in each direction) and on the MPAH it is designated as six lanes (three lanes in each direction). The segment of the roadway from Rockfield Boulevard to I-5 is in the City of Lake Forest and the segment of the roadway from I-5 to Paseo De Valencia is in the City of Laguna Hills.

• Portola Parkway Gap Closure (from just west of Paloma to the SR 241 toll road). The MPAH shows a new four-lane roadway (two lanes in each direction) in unincorporated Orange County between the Lake Forest and Irvine city limits

CITY OF LAKE FOREST

CITY OF IRVINE

CITY OF MISSION VIEJO

CITY OF LAKE FOREST
LOS
ALISOS
BLVD

IRVINE BLVD

ALICIA PKWY

LA PAZ RD

LAKEFORESTDR

TRABUCO RD

GLENNRANCH RD
ALTON
PKWY

SANTIAGO CANYO N RD

STA MARGARITA PKWY

TOLEDO WY

JER ONIMO
RD

O LYMPIAD RD

MELINDA RD

CABOT RD

RIDGELIN E RD

MUIRLANDS BLVD
ELTORO

SADDLEBACK
RANCH
RD

ROCKFIELD BLVD

DIMENSIO N DR

PORTOLA PKWY

IRVINE CENTER DR
ALICIA

RANCHO PKWY

AVENIDA DE LA CARLOTAMOULTON PKWY

MARGUERITEPKWY
ADA

TECHNOLOGY DR

BAKE PKWY

COMMERCENTRE DR

PASEO DE VALENCIA

EL TORO RD

RIDGE ROUTE DR
BAKE
PKWY

PORTOLAPKWY

LAKE FOREST DR

JERONIMO RD

MELINDA RD

RANCHO PKWY
\\us0300-ppfss01\workgroup\2042\active\2042547200\gis\2024update\Figure1-1.mxd Legend
Future Roadway (MPAH) (included in
committed network)
City of Lake Forest limits
241
5 Figure 1-1
Committed Roadway Network

LFTM PROGRAM
5-YEAR UPDATE

1.7 FCPP Intersection Improvements
(included in committed network)
SR-241 Widening
Future TCA CIP roadway
(included in committed network)
Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 1 Introduction
Project Number: 2042547210 1.8

• Ridge Route Drive Gap Closure at I-5 freeway (from Gowdy Avenue to Avenida de la Carlota). The MPAH designates a four-lane roadway and bridge over the freeway (two lanes in each direction) between the Lake Forest and Laguna Hills city limits

• Widening and grade separation improvements of Ridge Route Drive at the railroad crossing (between Jeronimo Road and Muirlands Boulevard). Existing roadway is two lanes (one lane in each direction) and on the MPAH it is designated as four lanes (two lanes in each direction).

The exclusion of the above roadway segment improvements helps ensure that the LFTM Program can achieve its goals in the event that such improvements are not built within the 2040 horizon year addressed by this study.

1.6 Land Use Assumptions
Figure 1-2 illustrates the properties in the City of Lake Forest that are currently in, or have taken part in, the LFTM Program, which includes the OSA participating properties and the development plans for the vacant lands. These properties include the five LFTM Program participants listed in Table 1-4.

Table 1-4 Properties Participating in the LFTM Program
LFTM Properties Description Status1

1. Shea/Baker (Baker
Ranch)
1,402 single family dwelling units; 348 condominium units; 619 apartment units; 17,500 sq. ft of retail commercial; public park Complete

2. Portola Center 617 single family dwelling units; 251 condominium units; 58 senior mixed-use units; 12,600 sq. ft. of retail commercial; public park Not
Complete

3. Irvine Ranch Water
District (Serrano Summit)
101 single family dwelling units; 146 detached condominium units; 66 attached condominium units; 224 attached multi-family units Complete

4. KB Homes (Whisler
Ridge) 75 single family dwelling units
Complete

5. Pacific Heritage
(Teresina) 85 single family dwelling units
Complete
1 Status as of June 2024
Source: City of Lake Forest
See Figure 1-2 for the location of each participating property.

LOS ALISOS BLVD

LAKE FOREST DR

TRABUCO RD

GLENN RANCH RD

ALTONPKWY

DIMENSION DR

SADDLEBACK RANCH RD

PORTOLA PKWY

RANCHO PKWY

STA MARGARITA PKWY

BAKE PKWY

COMMERCENTRE DR

EL TORO RD

RANCHO PKWY
\\us0300-ppfss01\workgroup\2042\active\2042547200\gis\2024update\Figure1-2.mxd 241
Figure 1-2
Properties Part of the LFTM Program

1.9 SHEA/BAKER
(Baker Ranch)
IRWD
(Serrano
Summit)

KB HOMES
(Whisler Ridge)

PORTOLA
CENTER
Pacific
Heritage
(Teresina)

MARGUERITE PKWY

LFTM PROGRAM
5-YEAR UPDATE
Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 2 Existing Conditions
Project Number: 2042547210 2.1

2 Existing Conditions
The existing circulation system within the study area is illustrated in Figure 2-1 together with existing midblock lanes on arterial roadways freeway/toll mainline segments. Peak hour intersection counts were collected in 2022 for the intersections shown in Figure 2-2.

A comparison between the 2022 intersection count data (post-pandemic conditions) and 2018 intersection count data (pre-pandemic conditions) was made to identify potential post-pandemic changes in travel patterns. The 2022 data shows a decrease in traffic of approximately 9% citywide, based on the peak hour counts. The decrease could be due to changes in commuting patterns such as by an increase in remote work and alternative work schedules. Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 illustrate a comparison between the 2022 and 2018 AM and PM peak hour intersection counts, respectively. A few observations are noted below:
• In the 2022 peak hours, 6 intersections show an increase in traffic volume and 36 intersections experience a decrease in traffic volume compared to 2018 counts. • In the AM peak hour, the following intersections show the biggest decrease in traffic volume:

6. Alton & SR-241 Ramps

13. Bake & Commercentre

22. Bake & Jeronimo

23. Alton & Commercentre
• In the PM peak hour, the following intersections show the biggest decrease in traffic volume:

13. Bake & Commercentre

22. Bake & Jeronimo

38. El Toro & Bridger/I-5 NB
ICU values based on the intersection counts are summarized in Table 2-1 for 2018 and 2022 conditions (ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix A). As shown, the Bake and Jeronimo intersection improved from LOS E to LOS B in the AM peak hour. The improvement in LOS is attributed to a reduction in volume on Bake Parkway for both the southbound through and northbound through movements (300 vph decrease in the southbound direction and 400 vph decrease in the northbound direction). The northbound left-turn decreased from 410 vph in 2018 to 180 vph in 2022, and the westbound left-turn decreased from 400 vph in 2018 to 260 vph in 2022. In 2022, all locations meet the LOS “D” performance standard.

It should be noted that some intersections may not perform as well as indicated by the theoretical ICU value due to operational constraints such as closely spaced intersections, turn pocket length constraints, traffic signal timing, etc. Also, the traffic counts used to calculate the ICU value represent vehicles passing through the intersection. When demand volumes approach or exceed capacity, upstream queues may form causing significant delays and low levels of service, occurrences that are not accounted for in the ICU calculations.

CITY OF LAKE FOREST

CITY OF IRVINE

CITY OF MISSION VIEJO

CITY OF LAKE FOREST
6 4
5 8
2 4
6 8
6 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 6
4 6
4 6
6 4
4 4
4 6
5 6
6 2
6 44
4 4
6 4
6 6
5 4
4 6
4 4
6 6
6 6
6 4
4 4
4 4
6 6
4 4
4 4
4 6
6 4
4 4
4 6
4 4
LOS
ALISOS
BLVD

IRVINE BLVD

LA PAZ RD

LAKEFORESTDR

TRABUCO RD

GLENNRANCH RD
ALTON
PKWY

ALICIA PKWY

TOLEDO WY

STAMARGARITA PKWY

JER O NIMORD

OLYMPIAD RD

MUIRLANDSBLVD

ROCKFIELD BLVD

D IMENSION DR

PORTOLA PKWY

SADDLEBACK
RANCH
RD

IRVINE CENTER DR

RANCHO PKWY

AVENIDA DE LA CARLOTA

MELINDA RD

MARGUERITEPKWY

MOULTON PKWY

CABOT RD
ALICIA
ADA

BAKE PKWY

SCIENTIFIC
WAY

EL TORO RD

PASEO DE VALENCIA

MELINDA RD

JERONIMO RD

LAKE FOREST DR
\\us0300-ppfss01\workgroup\2042\active\2042547200\gis\2024update\Figure1-2.mxd Legend
Mid-block lanes
City of Lake Forest limits
241
5 Figure 2-1
Existing Mid-block Lanes

2.2 X
6 4
5 4

RANCHO PKWY

COMMERCENTRE DR

LFTM PROGRAM
5-YEAR UPDATE
9 8
7 6
5 432
1 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
2928
27 26
2524
2322
212019
18 17
16 15
14 13
1211
10 125
117
105
LOS
ALISOS
BLVD

IRVINE BLVD

LA PAZ RD

LAKEFORESTDR

TRABUCO RD

GLENNRANCH RD
ALTON
PKWY

ALICIA PKWY

TOLEDO W Y

STAMARGARITA PKWY

JER O NIMORD

OLYMPIAD RD

MUIRLANDSBLVD

ROCKFIELD BLVD

DI MENSIO N DR

P ORTOLA PKWY

SADDLEBACK
RANCH
RD

IRVINE CENTER DR

RANCHO PKWY

AVENIDA DE LA CARLOTA

MELINDA RD

MARGUERITEPKWY

MOULTON PKWY

CABOT RD
ALICIA
ADA

BAKE PKWY

SCIENTIFIC
WAY

EL TORO RD

PASEO DE VALENCIA

RIDGE ROUTE DR

JERONIMO RD

LAKE FOREST DR

RANCHO PKWY

MELINDA RD
\\us0300-ppfss01\workgroup\2042\active\2042547200\gis\2024update\Figure1-2.mxd Legend
Intersection locations
City of Lake Forest limits
241
5 Figure 2-2
Intersection Location Map

2.3 LFTM PROGRAM
5-YEAR UPDATE

COMMERCENTRE DR
Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 2 Existing Conditions
Project Number: 2042547210 2.4

Figure 2-3 Intersection Volume Count Comparison (2018 versus 2022) – AM Peak Hour

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 2 Existing Conditions
Project Number: 2042547210 2.5

Figure 2-4 Intersection Volume Count Comparison (2018 versus 2022) – PM Peak Hour

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 2 Existing Conditions
Project Number: 2042547210 2.6

Table 2-1 Intersection LOS Comparison (2018 versus 2022)

Intersection
2018 2022 Difference
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM PM

ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS

1. Alton & Portola 0.41 A 0.29 A 0.38 A 0.30 A -0.03 0.01

2. Bake & Portola 0.44 A 0.50 A 0.44 A 0.47 A 0.00 -0.03

3. Lake Forest & Portola 0.39 A 0.46 A 0.39 A 0.46 A 0.00 0.00

4. Glenn Ranch & Portola 0.41 A 0.50 A 0.41 A 0.49 A 0.00 -0.01

5. Portola & SR-241 Ramps 0.34 A 0.35 A 0.32 A 0.35 A -0.02 0.00

6. Alton & SR-241 Ramps 0.35 A 0.36 A 0.29 A 0.30 A -0.06 -0.06

7. Lake Forest & SR-241 NB 0.23 A 0.26 A 0.22 A 0.26 A -0.01 0.00

8. Lake Forest & SR-241 SB 0.29 A 0.33 A 0.27 A 0.28 A -0.02 -0.05

9. Bake & Rancho N 0.47 A 0.59 A 0.37 A 0.49 A -0.10 -0.10

10. Lake Forest & Rancho* 0.44 A 0.55 A 0.43 A 0.58 A -0.01 0.03

11. Bake & Rancho S 0.56 A 0.53 A 0.43 A 0.43 A -0.13 -0.10

12. El Toro & Portola/Sta. Margarita 0.69 B 0.67 B 0.62 B 0.66 B -0.07 -0.01

13. Bake & Commercentre* 0.50 A 0.70 B 0.41 A 0.48 A -0.09 -0.22

14. Bake & Irvine/Trabuco* 0.65 B 0.67 B 0.59 A 0.61 B -0.06 -0.06

15. Lake Forest & Trabuco 0.59 A 0.58 A 0.54 A 0.57 A -0.05 -0.01

16. Ridge Route & Trabuco 0.43 A 0.50 A 0.40 A 0.48 A -0.03 -0.02

17. El Toro & Trabuco 0.62 B 0.60 A 0.63 B 0.58 A 0.01 -0.02

18. Bake & Toledo 0.73 C 0.62 B 0.60 A 0.51 A -0.13 -0.11

19. Lake Forest & Toledo 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.51 A 0.49 A -0.02 -0.04

20. Ridge Route & Toledo 0.34 A 0.27 A 0.33 A 0.26 A -0.01 -0.01

21. El Toro & Toledo 0.54 A 0.46 A 0.56 A 0.44 A 0.02 -0.02

22. Bake & Jeronimo 0.91 E 0.84 D 0.65 B 0.65 B -0.26 -0.19

23. Lake Forest & Jeronimo 0.65 B 0.72 C 0.53 A 0.63 B -0.12 -0.09

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 2 Existing Conditions
Project Number: 2042547210 2.7

Table 2-1 Intersection LOS Comparison (2018 versus 2022) (Continued)

Intersection
2018 2022 Difference
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM PM

ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS

24. Ridge Route & Jeronimo 0.46 A 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.37 A -0.01 -0.08

25. El Toro & Jeronimo 0.67 B 0.81 D 0.62 B 0.71 C -0.05 -0.10

26. Los Alisos & Jeronimo 0.64 B 0.67 B 0.58 A 0.62 B -0.06 -0.05

27. Lake Forest & Muirlands 0.49 A 0.69 B 0.44 A 0.64 B -0.05 -0.05

28. Ridge Route & Muirlands 0.42 A 0.55 A 0.37 A 0.49 A -0.05 -0.06

29. El Toro & Muirlands 0.61 B 0.71 C 0.56 A 0.69 B -0.05 -0.02

30. Los Alisos & Muirlands 0.67 B 0.70 B 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.00 0.03

31. Lake Forest & Rockfield 0.54 A 0.65 B 0.54 A 0.65 B 0.00 0.00

32. Ridge Route & Rockfield* 0.35 A 0.44 A 0.35 A 0.39 A 0.00 -0.05

33. El Toro & Rockfield 0.57 A 0.61 B 0.44 A 0.55 A -0.13 -0.06

34. Los Alisos & Rockfield 0.69 B 0.52 A 0.66 B 0.62 B -0.03 0.10

35. Lake Forest & I-5 NB 0.42 A 0.57 A 0.40 A 0.54 A -0.02 -0.03

36. Lake Forest & I-5/Carlota 0.72 C 0.78 C 0.65 B 0.69 B -0.07 -0.09

37. Paseo De Valencia & Carlota 0.47 A 0.49 A 0.43 A 0.41 A -0.04 -0.08

38. El Toro & Bridger/I-5 NB 0.56 A 0.65 B 0.47 A 0.52 A -0.09 -0.13

39. El Toro & Avd Carlota 0.57 A 0.62 B 0.45 A 0.58 A -0.12 -0.04

40. Portola & Rancho 0.47 A 0.52 A 0.43 A 0.48 A -0.04 -0.04

41. Alton & Towne Centre Dr 0.51 A 0.39 A 0.45 A 0.38 A -0.06 -0.01

42. Alton & Commercentre 0.42 A 0.51 A 0.33 A 0.44 A -0.09 -0.07 * Intersection improvements were completed between 2018 and 2022 Bold – exceeds acceptable LOS D
Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 3 Traffic Forecasts and Level of Service
Project Number: 2042547210 3.1

3 Traffic Forecasts and Level of Service
Future-year (2040) traffic forecasts for the City’s arterial street system are used to identify transportation improvements that need to be implemented over time. Within the City, traffic volume forecasts are based on the allowable land uses specified by the City General Plan (including land use updates based on recent development project approvals). For the remainder of the County, 2040 demographic projections prepared for the County of Orange are used as the basis for calculating traffic volume growth.

Future-year traffic forecasts are derived using LFTAM, the City’s travel demand model. The LFTAM was originally developed in 2005 as a transportation planning tool for preparing long-range traffic forecasts and estimating future transportation needs in the City. The LFTAM is a sub-area derivative of the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) maintained by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The LFTAM was developed according to the OCTA sub-area traffic modeling guidelines and the OCTA has certified the traffic model as being consistent with the OCTAM parent model.

For this study, the LFTAM has been updated to include the most current land use projections and roadway network assumptions for the City of Lake Forest. In January 2020, the Lake Forest City Council certified the Meadows Residential Community (also referred to as the “Nakase Planned Community”) environmental impact report (EIR). In June 2020, the Lake Forest City Council adopted the Lake Forest 2040 General Plan and established a new land use designation, “mixed-use”, to encourage additional opportunities for residential development in the future. Since then, a City-initiated Zoning Code Amendment was approved by the City Council in August 2022 and established mixed-use zoning in five select areas throughout the City. The amendment established allowable uses such as residential and open space, and development standards such as building height, building setbacks, for five focus areas.

The LFTAM roadway network incorporates several key roadways that have recently been constructed and opened to traffic. These new roadway segments include:
• Alton Parkway from Irvine Boulevard to Towne Centre Drive • Rancho Parkway from Hermana Circle to Portola Parkway • Rancho Parkway South from Alton Parkway to Bake Parkway Figure 3-1 illustrates the forecast future citywide average daily traffic (ADT) volumes based on the land use and demographic projections noted above, along with the committed roadway network described in the previous sections. Intersections included in this future-year analysis are the same as previously shown in Figure 2-2. Table 3-1 lists the peak hour ICU and LOS for each location. Detailed ICU calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix A.

CITY OF LAKE FOREST

CITY OF IRVINE

CITY OF MISSION VIEJO

CITY OF LAKE FOREST
8 33
36 5
43 39
51 31
26 18
66 30
22 71
23 24
28 15
14 27
38 16
20 29
7 40
19 50
10 42
11 72
32 13
63 54
41 12 46
45 13
22 19
12 22
42 8
39 30
22 36
43 15
16 11
24 23
31 15
38 26
10 18
23 27
23 28
29 26
29 32
LOS
ALISOS
BLVD

IRVINE BLVD

LA PAZ RD

LAKEFORESTDR

TRABUCO RD

GLENNRANCH RD
ALTON
PKWY

ALICIA PKWY

TOLEDO WY

STAMARGARITA PKWY

JER O NIMORD

OLYMPIAD RD

MUIRLANDSBLVD

ROCKFIELD BLVD

DIME NSIONDR

P ORTOLA PKWY

SADDLEBACK
RANCH
RD

IRVINE CENTER DR

RANCHO PKWY

AVENIDA DE LA CARLOTA

MELINDA RD

MARGUERITEPKWY

MOULTON PKWY

CABOT RD
ALICIA
ADA

BAKE PKWY

SCIENTIFIC
WAY

EL TORO RD

PASEO DE VALENCIA

MELINDA RD

LAKE FOREST DR
\\us0300-ppfss01\workgroup\2042\active\2042547200\gis\2024update\Figure1-2.mxd Legend
ADT volumes (000s)
City of Lake Forest limits
241
5 Figure 3-1
Future (Year-2040) ADT Volumes

LFTM PROGRAM
5-YEAR UPDATE
XX

3.2 COMMERCENTRE DR
Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 3 Traffic Forecasts and Level of Service
Project Number: 2042547210 3.3

Table 3-1 Future-Year (2040) Intersection LOS Summary – Baseline Committed Network

Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LFTM
Program
LFTM Program
Status ICU LOS ICU LOS

1. Alton & Portola 0.49 A 0.43 A No n/a

2. Bake & Portola 0.50 A 0.62 B Yes Completed

3. Lake Forest & Portola 0.55 A 0.64 B No n/a

4. Glenn Ranch & Portola 0.65 B 0.89 D No n/a

5. Portola & SR-241 Ramps 0.62 B 0.68 B No n/a

6. Alton & SR-241 Ramps 0.57 A 0.59 A No n/a

7. Lake Forest & SR-241 Northbound 0.41 A 0.44 A No n/a

8. Lake Forest & SR-241 Southbound 0.41 A 0.54 A No n/a

9. Bake & Rancho North 0.53 A 0.71 C No n/a

10. Lake Forest & Rancho 0.59 A 0.89 D Yes1 Construction

11. Bake & Rancho South 0.77 C 0.81 D No n/a

12. El Toro & Portola/Santa Margarita 0.66 C 0.73 C Yes Completed

13. Bake & Commercentre 0.69 B 0.72 C No n/a

14. Bake & Irvine/Trabuco 0.67 B 0.78 C Yes1 Construction

15. Lake Forest & Trabuco 0.66 B 0.64 B No n/a

16. Ridge Route & Trabuco 0.54 A 0.62 B No n/a

17. El Toro & Trabuco 0.65 B 0.67 B Yes Completed and
Removed (2011)

18. Bake & Toledo 0.73 C 0.72 C No n/a

19. Lake Forest & Toledo 0.66 B 0.64 B No n/a

20. Ridge Route & Toledo 0.52 A 0.35 A No n/a

21. El Toro & Toledo 0.62 B 0.50 A No n/a

22. Bake & Jeronimo 0.75 C 0.83 D Yes1 Pre-Construction

23. Lake Forest & Jeronimo 0.64 B 0.77 C Yes1 Construction

24. Ridge Route & Jeronimo 0.57 A 0.48 A No n/a

25. El Toro & Jeronimo 0.71 C 0.78 C No n/a

26. Los Alisos & Jeronimo 0.69 B 0.67 B Yes2 Removed (2011)

27. Lake Forest & Muirlands 0.49 A 0.73 C No n/a

28. Ridge Route & Muirlands 0.44 A 0.53 A No n/a

29. El Toro & Muirlands 0.65 B 0.78 C No n/a

30. Los Alisos & Muirlands 0.71 C 0.72 C Yes2 Removed (FCPP)

31. Lake Forest & Rockfield 0.67 B 0.84 D Yes1 Planning

32. Ridge Route & Rockfield 0.44 A 0.67 B Yes Completed

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 3 Traffic Forecasts and Level of Service
Project Number: 2042547210 3.4

Table 3-1 Future-Year (2040) Intersection LOS Summary – Baseline Committed Network (Continued)

Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LFTM
Program
LFTM Program
Status ICU LOS ICU LOS

33. El Toro & Rockfield 0.68 B 0.66 B No n/a

34. Los Alisos & Rockfield 0.78 C 0.73 C Yes1 Construction

35. Lake Forest & I-5 Northbound 0.50 A 0.68 B No n/a

36. Lake Forest & I-5/Avenida de la
Carlota

0.78 C 0.91 E Yes Planning

37. Paseo De Valencia & Avenida de la
Carlota 0.53 A 0.57 A Yes Completed

38. El Toro & Bridger/I-5 Northbound 0.61 B 0.73 C No n/a

39. El Toro & Avenida de la Carlota 0.66 B 0.86 D Yes Completed

40. Portola & Rancho 0.61 B 0.65 B No n/a

41. Alton & Towne Centre Dr 0.59 A 0.54 A Yes2 Removed (2011)

42. Alton & Commercentre 0.49 A 0.69 A No n/a
1 These locations were forecasted to have an ICU/LOS deficiency in earlier LFTM Program updates. Due to recent intersection improvements and refinements to the LFTAM land use, this location is no longer forecast to have a deficient ICU/LOS. The intersection remains part of the LFTM program due to either being on the LOS D/LOS E cusp or variabilities in the LFTAM forecasts and, therefore, improvements are maintained as part of the LFTM Program. 2 These locations were removed from the LFTM Program in prior LFTM updates due to acceptable LOS or improvements are included as part of another program.

Table 3-1 shows that one study area intersection is forecast to be at LOS E in the future-year (2040) conditions; however, the intersection is outside of the City limits. In comparison to the prior LFTM 5-year update, there are three fewer intersections that exceed the City’s LOS D performance standard (the 2018 5-year update reported four total intersections worse than LOS D).

Intersections that were previously forecast to operate at LOS E or worse in prior LFTM 5-year updates are forecast to operate at LOS D or better under the baseline scenario in this report. This is due to the implementation of planned improvements at intersections and refinements to the LFTAM land use and network. However, although locations are at LOS D or better, the intersections and the corresponding identified improvements remain part of the LFTM Program due to the ICU/LOS being at the cusp of LOS D/LOS E or due to variabilities in the LFTAM model forecasts.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 3 Traffic Forecasts and Level of Service
Project Number: 2042547210 3.5

Included in the LFTM Program are two intersections in the City of Lake Forest and three locations in the City of Irvine that were identified in the OSA analysis (Vacant Land Opportunities Phase III Alternative 7 (Hybrid Alternative) Traffic Study, May 2008) as needing improvements. The intersections are listed below and in Table 3-2:

2. Bake Parkway/Portola Parkway (City of Lake Forest)

32. Ridge Route Drive/Rockfield Boulevard (City of Lake Forest) 105. Alton Parkway/Irvine Boulevard (City of Irvine)
117. Alton Parkway/Toledo Way (City of Irvine)
125. Bake Parkway/Rockfield Boulevard (City of Irvine) The conditions evaluated in the OSA analysis were based on the non-committed MPAH roadway system described previously in Section 1.5, and in that regard differ from the analysis that is based on the committed roadway network (see Section 1.4for committed roadway network description) utilized for this analysis.

Table 3-2 OSA Analysis Intersection LOS Summary – Full MPAH Roadway Network Scenario

Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LFTM
Program
LFTM
Improvement
Status ICU LOS ICU LOS

2. Bake & Portola 0.74 C 1.05 F Yes Completed

32. Ridge Route & Rockfield 0.85 D 1.25 F Yes Completed 105. Alton & Irvine 0.90 D 1.01 F Yes1 Planning
117. Alton & Toledo 0.72 C 0.92 E Yes1 Completed
125. Bake & Rockfield 0.69 B 0.92 E Yes1 Proposed to be Removed
Notes:

ICUs presented in this table are from the May 2008 Alternative 7/Hybrid Alternative traffic impact analysis (See Reference 2 in Section 5).

These locations were identified as not meeting the performance criteria in the Alternative 7/Hybrid Alternative traffic impact analysis therefore is impact by the OSA project. Improvements identified from that traffic impact analysis are part of the LFTM Program.

Each of these locations are impacted under conditions assuming the completion of the roadway system according to the County of Orange MPAH. The improvements for these locations would be implemented as presented here should the Portola gap connection and Ridge Route Drive/I-5 Freeway Overcrossing be constructed. 1 These are City of Irvine intersections.

Abbreviations:

MPAH – Master Plan of Arterial Highways; OSA – Opportunities Study Area

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 3 Traffic Forecasts and Level of Service
Project Number: 2042547210 3.6

Identifying suitable improvements for the intersection deficiencies noted in Table 3-2 above, which are partially due to future conditions based on buildout of the properties participating in the LFTM program, is the basis for the LFTM Program. Table 3-3 summarizes the improvements in the LFTM Program. Each location is categorized as pre-construction phase, planning phase, completed, or proposed to be removed from the program (also see Figure 3-2). The improvements for some of the intersections are fully funded by the LFTM Program while others are funded by a combination of the LFTM Program and the North Irvine Transportation Mitigation (NITM) Program. The improvements for nine intersections (#2, #10, #12, #17, #22, #41, #105, #117, #125) are fully funded by the LFTM Program while seven intersections (#14, #23, #26, #31, #32, #34, #36) are funded by the LFTM Program and the NITM Program. Two intersections (#37 and #39) are funded by the LFTM Program, NITM Program, and the City of Laguna Hills. One intersection (#30) is funded by the FCPP.

Fully committed improvements under the FCPP are excluded from the LFTM Program. The number of intersections with improvements funded by the LFTM Program has evolved over time as updated analyses have been prepared. Appendix B provides a comparison table showing past and current locations under the LFTM program. Appendix C describes the LFTM Program improvements at each location in detail.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 3 Traffic Forecasts and Level of Service
Project Number: 2042547210 3.7

Table 3-3 Summary of Deficient Intersections and Proposed Improvements Intersection
(N/S & E/W)
ICU With No
Improvements
ICU With
Improvements Improvements Funding
Source(s) Additional Notes

AM PM AM PM
Committed Network – Intersection Improvements in Pre-Construction Phase

10. Lake Forest
(N/S) & Rancho
(E/W)

0.59 0.89 0.59 0.86
Restripe WB (Rancho) approach to add 2nd WB left-turn lane (Completed).

Convert WB (Rancho) right-turn lane to a defacto right-turn lane (Not needed per acceptable LOS).

Add a 2nd EB (Rancho) through lane (Completed). Add an EB (Rancho) defacto right turn lane (In pre-construction).

LFTM City of Lake Forest
is the lead agency.

14. Bake (N/S)
& Irvine/Trabuco
(E/W)

0.67 0.78 0.65 0.78
Add a 2nd NB (Bake) left-turn lane (In pre-construction).

Convert the 3rd EB (Bake) through lane to a shared through/right-turn lane (Not needed).

Convert the WB (Bake) right-turn lane to a 4th through lane (In pre-construction).

Provide a defacto WB (Bake) right-turn lane (In pre-construction).

LFTM City of Lake Forest
is the lead agency.

Co-operative
agreement in place
between Irvine and
Lake Forest.

22. Bake (N/S)
& Jeronimo
(E/W)

0.75 0.83 0.63 0.81
Add a 2nd NB (Bake) left-turn lane (In pre-construction).

Add 2nd WB (Jeronimo) left-turn lane (In pre-construction, per City of Irvine improvements).

WB (Jeronimo) right turn defacto lane (In pre-construction, per City of Irvine improvements).

NITM and
LFTM
City of Irvine is the
lead agency. Co-
operative
agreement in place
between Irvine and
Lake Forest.

23. Lake Forest
(N/S) &
Jeronimo(E/W)

0.64 0.77 0.64 0.73 Add a defacto EB (Jeronimo) right-turn lane (In pre-construction).

NITM and
LFTM
City of Lake Forest
is the lead agency.

34. Los Alisos
(N/S) &
Rockfield (E/W)

0.78 0.73 0.64 0.65 Add a SB (Los Alisos) right-turn lane (not feasible due to physical constraints).

In lieu of the above: Add a SB defacto right-turn lane (In pre-construction).

NITM and
LFTM
City of Lake Forest
is the lead agency.

Committed Network – Intersection Improvements in the Planning Phase

31. Lake Forest
(N/S) &
Rockfield(E/W)

0.67 0.84 0.67 0.82
Convert the 2nd WB (Rockfield) through lane to a shared left-turn/through lane (Not needed per analysis).

Convert traffic signal phasing for EB and WB (Rockfield) approaches to split phase operation (Not needed per analysis).

In lieu of the above: Modify signal to include EB (Rockfield) right-turn overlap phasing.

NITM and
LFTM

--

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 3 Traffic Forecasts and Level of Service
Project Number: 2042547210 3.8

Table 3-3 Summary of Deficient Intersections and Proposed Improvements (Continued) Intersection (N/S
& E/W)
ICU With No
Improvements ICU With Improvements
Improvements Funding
Source(s)
Additional
Notes

AM PM AM PM
Committed Network – Intersection Improvements in the Planning Phase (Cont.)

36. Lake Forest
(N/S) & I-5/Carlota
(E/W)

0.78 0.91 0.73 0.86
Convert the shared EB (I-5 ramp) left- turn/through lane to a 3rd left-turn lane (Not needed). Add a 2nd WB (Carlota) left-turn lane and add a right- turn overlap phasing for WB right-turn lane (Not needed).

NITM and
LFTM
Shared City of
Irvine, City of
Laguna Hills
intersection. Add a 2nd EB (I-5 ramp) through lane (Not needed). LFTM In lieu of the above: restripe WBR (Carlota) to a shared left/right turn lane. LFTM Committed Network – Intersection Improvements that are Completed

12. El Toro (N/S)
& Portola/Santa
Margarita (E/W)
Improvements
Completed 0.66 0.73 Add a 2nd NB (El Toro) left-turn lane (Completed).

Add a 2nd SB (El Toro) right-turn lane (Completed).

LFTM
Program
--

37. Paseo de
Valencia (N/S) &
Avenida de la
Carlota (E/W)
Improvements
Completed

0.53 0.57 Restripe 2nd SB (Paseo de Valencia) through to a shared 3rd left/2nd through (Completed).

NITM,
LFTM, and
Laguna
Hills
City of Laguna
Hills intersection.

39. El Toro Road
(N/S) & Avenida
de la Carlota
(E/W)
Improvements
Completed

0.66 0.86 Restripe EB (Avenida de la Carlota) to shared 3rd left/2nd through and shared through/right (Completed).

Restripe WB (Avenida de la Carlota) to shared left/through, through, and 2 right turn lanes with overlap phasing (Completed).

NITM,
LFTM, and
Laguna
Hills
City of Laguna
Hills intersection.

Committed Network – Intersection Improvements that are Removed from the Program

17. El Toro Rd
(N/S) & Trabuco
(E/W)
Improvements completed and removed
from the LFTM Program in the 2011 LFTM
Program Baseline Adjustment Study.

In lieu of a defacto NB (El Toro) right turn and defacto WB (Trabuco) right turn, a NB (El Toro) dedicated right turn land and WB (Trabuco) dedicated right turn lane was completed.

LFTM
Program
--

26.Los Alisos
(N/S) & Jeronimo
(E/W)
Removed from LFTM Program in the 2011
LFTM Program Baseline Adjustment Study
due to acceptable LOS.

Restripe WB (Jeronimo) approach to 2 left turn lanes, 2 through lanes, and a defacto right turn lane, and add a 2
nd EB (Jeronimo) left turn lane.

NITM and
LFTM
--

30. Los Alisos
(N/S) & Muirlands
(E/W)
Removed from list in the 2014 5-Year
Update due to fully committed
improvements by the FCPP.

Add 2nd NB (Los Alisos) left turn lane, add 2nd SB (Los Alisos) left turn lane, add 2nd EB (Muirlands) left turn lane, and convert NB (Los Alisos) dedicated right turn lane to a defacto right turn.

FCPP --

41. Alton (N/S) &
Rancho (E/W)
Removed from LFTM Program in the 2011
LFTM Program Baseline Adjustment Study
due to acceptable LOS
Add 2nd WB (Rancho) left turn lane. LFTM
Program
--
Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 3 Traffic Forecasts and Level of Service
Project Number: 2042547210 3.9

Table 3-3 Summary of Deficient Intersections and Proposed Improvements (Continued) Intersection
(NS & EW)
ICU Without
Improvements
ICU With
Improvements Improvements

Funding
Source(s)
Additional Notes

AM PM AM PM
Deficient Locations under MPAH Network

2. Bake (N/S) &
Portola (E/W)
Improvements
Completed
Add a 3rd WB (Portola) through lane or add a 2nd EB (Portola) left-turn lane (Completed).

LFTM
Program
--

32. Ridge Route
(N/S) & Rockfield
(E/W)
Improvements
Completed
Add a defacto NB (Ridge Route) right-turn lane.

In lieu of the above, the City implemented a dedicated NB right-turn lane (Completed).

NITM and
LFTM
Programs
--
105. Alton (N/S) &
Irvine (E/W)
1,2

0.903 1.013 0.65 0.53 Reconfigure the EB (Irvine) approach to add a 3rd EB left-turn lane, remove dedicated EB right-turn lane, and provide a defacto EB right-turn lane.

LFTM
Program
City of Irvine
intersection
117. Alton (N/S) &
Toledo (E/W)1
Improvements
Completed
Add right-turn overlap signal phasing for WB (Toledo) right-turn lanes (Completed).

LFTM
Program
City of Irvine
intersection
125. Bake (N/S) &
Rockfield (E/W)1
Improvements no longer needed
due to acceptable LOS (2024
Update).

Reconfigure the WB (Rockfield) approach to add a 3rd WB left-turn lane, remove dedicated WB free-flow (No longer needed) right-turn lane and provide a defacto WB right-turn lane (No longer needed).

LFTM
Program
City of Irvine
intersection
Notes:
1 These are City of Irvine locations identified in the Vacant Land Opportunities traffic impact analysis as being impacted by the OSA Alternative 7/Hybrid Alternative project, and the improvements included in the LFTM Program at these locations are included to address the impact of the OSA project. 2 This location is impacted under conditions assuming the completion of the roadway system according to the County of Orange MPAH. The improvements for this location would be implemented as presented here should the Portola gap connection and Ridge Route Drive/I-5 Freeway Overcrossing be constructed. 3 ICUs for conditions without improvements are from the May 2008 OSA Alternative 7/Hybrid Alternative traffic impact analysis. The ICUs with Improvements are from the current ITAM TC v7.1.

Abbreviations:

ICU – Intersection Capacity Utilization, LFTM – Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program, NITM – North Irvine Transportation Mitigation Program, EB – Eastbound, WB – Westbound, NB – Northbound, SB – Southbound 2 41
3937
36 3432
31 30
26 2322
17 14
12 10
125
117
105

IRVINE BLVD

LOSALISOS BLVD

LAKE FOREST DR

TRABUCO RD

GLENNRANCH RD
ALTON
PKWY

TOLEDO W Y

ROCKFIELD BLVD

DI MENSIO N DR

PORTOLA PKWY

SADDLEBACK
RANCH
RD

JERONIMO RD

IRVINE CENTER DR

T ECHNOLOGY DR

RANCHO PKWY

AVENIDA DE LA CARLOTAMOULTON PKWY

STA MARGARITA PKWY

PACIFICA
ADA
ALICIA

MERIDIAN

BAKE PKWY

COMMERCENTRE DR

SCIENTIFIC
W
AY

GATEWAY

EL TORO RD

ENTERPRISE DR

RIDGE ROUTE DR

PORTOLA PKWY

RANCHO PKWY

LAKE FOREST DR

ALTONPKWY

TECHNOLOGY DR
\\us0300-ppfss01\workgroup\2042\active\2042547200\gis\2024update\Figure1-2.mxd Legend
Pre-construction
Planning
Completed
Removed
241
5 Figure 3-2
LFTM Program Status

3.10 LFTM PROGRAM
5-YEAR UPDATE
Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 4 Cost Allocations and LFTM Fee Calculation
Project Number: 2042547210 4.1

4 Cost Allocations and LFTM Fee Calculation
As discussed in the previous sections, the LFTM Program was identified based on traffic forecasts from LFTAM, the City’s traffic demand forecasting model. The evaluation has been prepared for a future year horizon that is based on buildout of the City’s General Plan and regional growth projections for the year 2040. In the following sub-sections, the methodology that was applied to allocate the cost of the improvement program is described. Cost estimates for the intersection improvements are presented and the corresponding cost for each property that participates in the LFTM Program is determined.

4.1 Cost Allocation Methodology
The cost allocation methodology uses ADT trip generation as the basis for deriving traffic shares. The total cost of the LFTM Program (presented in Section 4.2, below) is allocated according to the amount of traffic generated by the properties that participate in the LFTM Program and the impact that traffic has on the roadway system. Since the amount of traffic that a particular land use places on the roadway system is a function of trip generation and trip length, both of these factors are considered in deriving the LFTM fee. Simply stated, roadway system usage, as measured in vehicle miles of travel, is as follows:

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) = Trip Generation x Trip Length Since trip generation and trip length vary by land use, VMT estimates for each land use form the basis of the share formula. This creates an equitable means whereby each unit of a given type of land use is assigned a corresponding fee. The land uses are defined according to the following three basic categories that represent the land uses included in the properties that participate in the LFTM Program:

1. Single Family Detached Residential Dwelling (SDU)

2. Multi-Family Residential Dwelling (MDU)

3. Commercial (i.e., office and retail)
These three categories generally reflect the major differences in trip generation and/or trip length inherent in different types of land use. The SDU category represents the typical freestanding single-family home while the MDU category includes attached multi-family dwellings such as apartments and condominiums.

Public benefit uses, such as trips generated by parks and the Civic Center, are not included in the share calculations, but the traffic generated by these uses is included in the traffic model.

Table 4-1 summarizes the land use data associated with each property that participates in the LFTM Program. The amount of development shown in the tables represents the current approved entitlements of each property, which differs from the amounts in Ordinance 236 that implemented the LFTM Program 2011 Baseline Adjustment (the 2011 analysis occurred prior to the City Council approval of the Baker Ranch, Teresina, Serrano Summit and Portola Center projects). The traffic model forecasts that are based on these land uses formed the basis of the roadway improvements discussed in the previous section.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 4 Cost Allocations and LFTM Fee Calculation
Project Number: 2042547210 4.2

Table 4-1 LFTM Properties Land Use and Trip Generation Summary Property/Land Use Description Amount ADT

NOT COMPLETED
Portola Center
Single Family Detached 617 DU 5,820
Condominium 251 DU 2,030
Apartment 58 DU 390
Commercial 12.6 TSF 1,190
Total Portola Center 9,430

COMPLETED
Irvine Ranch Water District (Serrano Summit)
Single Family Detached 101 DU 950
Condominium (Attached and Detached) 212 DU 1,720
Apartments 224 DU 1,510
Total Irvine Ranch Water District 4,180
KB Homes (Whisler Ridge)
Single Family Detached 75 DU 710
Total KB Homes 710
Pacific Heritage (Teresina)
Single Family Detached 85 DU 800
Total Pacific Heritage 800
Shea/Baker (Baker Ranch)
Single Family Detached 1,402 DU 13,220
Condominium 348 DU 2,820
Apartment 619 DU 4,170
Commercial 17.5 TSF 1,650
Total Shea/Baker 21,860
Total Completed 27,550
TOTAL
Single Family Detached 2,280 DU 21,500
Condominium 811 DU 6,570
Apartment 901 DU 4,560
Commercial 30.1 TSF 2,840
Total 35,470
The amount of development shown above represents the most current entitlements of each property, which differs from the amounts in Ordinance 236, which implemented the LFTM Program 2011 Baseline Adjustment.

Trip Rates: ITE 11th Edition
Abbreviations:

ADT – Average Daily Trips; DU – Dwelling Unit; TSF – Thousand Square Feet ITE 210 Single Family Detached Housing = 9.43 trips/DU; ITE 220 Apartment = 6.74 trips/DU; Condominium trip rate is the average of Single Family and Apartment rates = 8.09 trips/DU; ITE 821 Shopping Plaza rate = 94.49 trips/TSF Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 4 Cost Allocations and LFTM Fee Calculation
Project Number: 2042547210 4.3

Also shown in Table 4-1 are ADT trip generation estimates (calculated using current land use-based ADT trip generation rates) for each property participating in the LFTM Program. As noted in the table, four of the five properties have completed construction.

4.2 LFTM Fee Calculation Methodology
In prior LFTM Program updates, the California Department of General Services (DGS) California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) was used to estimate the annual inflator or deflator. The annual inflator or deflator was applied to the 2011 cost estimates to bring costs to current levels. For information purposes, Table 4-2 summarizes the CCCI historical trend from 2011 to 2024. The CCCI shows an annual increase of approximately 1% to 2% from 2011 to 2016, an approximately 3% to 4% increase from 2016 to 2021, then an increase of approximately 9% to 13% from 2021-2024. For this update, the 2011 cost estimates have not been adjusted to 2024 dollars, but rather new cost estimates and final costs for projects that have been completed are used.

Table 4-2 California Construction Cost Index Summary
Year Annual Adjustment
2011 to 2012: +1.50%
2012 to 2013: +1.55%
2013 to 2014: +2.31%
2014 to 2015: +1.29%
2015 to 2016: +2.19%
2016 to 2017: +4.34%
2017 to 2018: +3.50%
2018 to 2019: +1.33%
2019 to 2020: +3.6%
2020 to 2021: +2.8%
2021 to 2022: +13.4%
2022 to 2023: +9.3%
2023 to 2024: +9.4%
Source: State of California Department of General Services - Real Estate Services Division – California Construction Cost Index
Table 4-3 lists the LFTM Program and the estimated construction costs. For each LFTM Program location, costs from completed improvements are shown and engineering estimates are shown for locations in pre-construction and planning phases.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 4 Cost Allocations and LFTM Fee Calculation
Project Number: 2042547210 4.4

Table 4-3 LFTM Program Improvement Costs
Item Int.

No. Intersection Jurisdiction Total Cost
On-Going Projects (Pre-Construction and Planning)
1 10 Lake Forest Dr & Rancho Pkwy LF $ 627,448 2 14 Bake Pkwy & Irvine Blvd/Trabuco Rd LF/Irvine $ 2,226,2511 3 22 Bake Pkwy & Jeronimo Rd LF/Irvine $ 2,846,7882 4 23 Lake Forest Dr & Jeronimo Rd LF $ 1,392,922 5 34 Los Alisos Blvd & Rockfield Blvd LF $ 906,678 6 31 Lake Forest Dr & Rockfield Blvd LF $ 59,980 7 105 Alton Pkwy & Irvine Blvd Irvine $ 676,214 8 36 Lake Forest Dr & I-5 Fwy SB Off-Ramp/Carlota LH/Irvine $ 120,360 Completed Projects
9 2 Bake Pkwy & Portola Pkwy LF $ 72,240 10 12 El Toro Rd & Portola Pkwy/Santa Margarita Pkwy LF $ 2,627,022 11 32 Ridge Route Dr & Rockfield Blvd LF $ 1,144 12 37 Paseo de Valencia & Avenida de la Carlota LH $ 79,000 13 39 El Toro Rd & Avenida de la Carlota LH $ 78,000 14 117 Alton Pkwy & Toledo Way Irvine $ 19,555 Summary
Total Cost of Improvements $ 11,733,603
Notes:
1 Per the Bake at Irvine/Trabuco Cooperative Agreement, City of Irvine’s share is assumed to be 50% ($2,226,251) and the City of Lake Forest’s share is assumed to be 50% ($2,226,251). Final shared cost will be determined per the Cooperative Agreement.
2 Per the Bake/Jeronimo Cooperative Agreement, City of Irvine’s share is assumed to be 70% ($6,642,506) and the City of Lake Forest’s share is assumed to be 30% ($2,846,788). Final shared cost will be determined per the Cooperative Agreement.

LF = Lake Forest; LH = Laguna Hills; Irvine = City of Irvine; NA = not applicable

For locations involving the construction of physical improvements, the cost estimates include planning and engineering costs (preliminary project development, public hearings, design engineering, and construction engineering costs), right-of-way acquisition costs (land acquisition, demolition, severance, business goodwill, right-of-way engineering, consultant and legal costs), and construction costs (construction of project improvements, permit and inspection fees, resolution of construction issues, and preparation of record drawings). Cost related to administration and environmental clearances are added separately.

At the intersection of Paseo de Valencia at Avenida de la Carlota, and the intersection of El Toro Road at Avenida de la Carlota, the City of Lake Forest has paid $157,000 towards the improvement of these two Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 4 Cost Allocations and LFTM Fee Calculation
Project Number: 2042547210 4.5

intersections based on the City of Laguna Hills’ Urban Village Fee Program. For other “completed” improvements, the final cost was provided by the City. Locations that are in the “pre-construction” phase or “planning” phase, the engineer’s probable estimate of cost and/or construction bids include the following: engineering costs, right-of-way acquisition costs, and construction costs. The pre-construction phase costs were provided by the City. In addition, estimated credits are shown based on existing cooperative agreements with the City of Irvine. The final credit amounts will be based upon the completion of the improvement projects.

The actual program cost is listed in Table 4-4 and comprises the improvement costs, plus 25% for administration and environmental costs. As shown, the total estimated cost for the LFTM Program is approximately $14.7 million.

Table 4-4 LFTM Program Cost Summary
Cost Item
2018 5-Year Update
Cost Summary1
2024 5-Year Update
Cost Summary
Total Cost of Improvements $ 9,222,000 $ 11,733,603 Payments from NITM (Not assumed) $ 0 $ 0 Payments from FCPP (Not assumed) $ 0 $ 0 Administration & Environmental (25%) $ 2,306,000 $ 2,933,400 Total Allocated Costs $ 11,528,000 $ 14,667,003 Difference +27%

LFTM Program Spent to Date (as of June 30, 2024) $ 3,991,299 LFTM Program Cash Balance to Date (as of June 30, 2024) $ 8,156,453 Unpaid Program Costs2 $ 2,519,251
1 Source: 2018 5-Year Update provided for comparison purposes only. 2 Unpaid Program Costs = Total allocated cost minus spent to date minus cash balance to date.

As shown, there is an approximately 27% increase when compared to the prior update. The increase in costs could be attributed to an overall increase in construction costs, materials, labor, and inflation for each individual improvement project. The 25% added for administration and environmental include costs associated with administration, environmental clearance, and construction support and administration.

In addition, the City of Lake Forest and the City of Irvine currently have a cooperative agreement in place for Bake at Jeronimo and Bake at Irvine/Trabuco intersections. The cost summary shown above captures the City’s assumed share of cost for the two intersections. For all other locations with both LFTM and NITM as sources, the full cost of the improvement will be included in the LFTM Program until an agreement is reached with the City of Irvine on an equitable contribution, in which case the overall cost shown here will be reduced. The Ordinance also allows for possible contribution from the FCPP, and coordination will be established with the County to determine what, if any, funds may be available.

As mentioned above, the LFTM Program shows an approximately 27% increase when compared to the prior update. The increasing costs of construction is consistent with a memorandum prepared by the City Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 4 Cost Allocations and LFTM Fee Calculation
Project Number: 2042547210 4.6

of Lake Forest Public Works department for the City of Lake Forest Council, which discusses the rising costs in the construction industry over the past three to four years. Specifically, annual increases up to

13.4% and a compounded increase of 35.6% from 2020 to 20232. The memorandum describes a variety of factors that have contributed to the cost increases, including material prices, labor costs, and a surge in construction activity. Due to significant increases, the City’s roadway infrastructure projects, such as those in the LFTM Program, show an increase in cost.

There are increases in cost when compared to the prior update at the following locations:

10. Lake Forest Drive & Rancho Parkway

14. Bake Parkway & Irvine Boulevard/Trabuco Road

22. Bake Parkway & Jeronimo Road

23. Lake Forest Drive & Jeronimo Road

34. Los Alisos Boulevard & Rockfield Boulevard
105. Alton Parkway & Irvine Boulevard
Alternative improvements were investigated for locations in the planning phase. In some instances, the future intersection LOS is at an acceptable LOS, therefore, the LFTM Program improvement is no longer necessary. Updates to the following locations include:

31. Lake Forest Drive & Rockfield Boulevard – an alternate improvement results in a reduction to the cost

36. Lake Forest Drive & I-5 Freeway Southbound Off-Ramp/Avenida de la Carlota – an alternative improvement results in a reduction to the cost 125. Bake Parkway & Rockfield Boulevard – proposed to be removed from the LFTM Program due to acceptable LOS
Updates to the three locations noted above help keep the LFTM Program cost increase to a minimal amount.

Table 4-5 shows the cost allocation according to land use and the resulting fee per unit of land use.

2 Construction Cost Increases for Roadway and Infrastructure Projects Memorandum to City Council, City of Lake Forest, July 11, 2024.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 4 Cost Allocations and LFTM Fee Calculation
Project Number: 2042547210 4.7

Table 4-5 LFTM Fee Calculation

Land Use

Land Use
Units

Land Use
Amount

ADT Trip
Generation
Trip
Length
Factor

Fee

Fee/ADT

Fee/Land
Use Unit
SDU DU 121 1,141 1.00 $2,519,251 $2,208 $20,820
Total LFTM Program Spent to Date and Cash Balance $12,147,752 Total LFTM Program $14,667,003
Baseline ADT Fee = $2,208/trip

LFTM Program Spent to Date (as of June 30, 2024) = $3,991,299 LFTM Program Cash Balance to Date (as of June 30, 2024) = $8,156,453

(Fee/ADT = Baseline ADT Fee x Trip Length Factor)
Abbreviations: ADT – Average Daily Trips; SDU – Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit The resulting fee/ADT is $2,208 and is applied to the remaining property as shown in the previously referenced Table 4-5.

Of the five participating properties, four have completed construction and have paid their share of costs under the applicable prior fee structure. KB Homes (Whisler Ridge) completed their payment obligations in 2011 under the prior fee structure and Shea/Baker (Baker Ranch), Pacific Heritage (Terisina), and IRWD (Serrano Summit), completed their payment obligations as of June 2024. Portola Center is the only remaining property with pending fee payment obligations for 121 units.

The LFTM Program cost shares for the participating properties are summarized in Table 4-6. Shown here are the land uses within each project area and the corresponding cost allocation to that land use Program. As shown in Table 4-6, four of the five properties have no unpaid units remaining.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 4 Cost Allocations and LFTM Fee Calculation
Project Number: 2042547210 4.8

Table 4-6 LFTM Participating Properties LFTM Fee Calculation Land Use Description Unpaid Units Fee per Unit Cost ($) Shea/Baker (Baker Ranch)
Single Family Detached 0 DU NA2 $0
Condominium 0 DU NA2 $0
Apartment 0 DU NA2 $0
Commercial 0 TSF NA2 $0
Total $0
Portola Center
Single Family Detached 121 DU $20,8204 $2,519,251
Condominium 0 DU NA3 $0
Apartment 0 DU NA3 $0
Commercial 0 TSF NA3 $0
Total $0
Irvine Ranch Water District (Serrano Summit)
Single Family Detached 0 DU NA3 $0
Condominium Detached (DU) 0 DU NA3 $0
Condominium Attached (DU) 0 DU NA3 $0
Multi-family Attached (DU) 0 DU NA3 $0
Total $0
KB Homes (Whisler Ridge)
Single Family Detached 0 DU NA1 $0
Pacific Heritage (The Pinnacle at Serrano Highlands)
Single Family Detached 0 DU NA2 $0
Total
Single Family Detached 121 DU $20,8204 $2,519,251
Condominium 0 DU -- $0
Apartment 0 DU -- $0
Commercial 0 TSF -- $0
Total $2,519,251
Abbreviations: DU – Dwelling Unit; TSF – Thousand Square Feet 1 All payment obligations for this participating property were completed in 2011 under the prior fee structure. 2 All payment obligations for this participating property were paid before June 30, 2019 under a prior fee structure. 3 All payment obligations for this participating property were paid before June 30, 2024 under a prior fee structure. 4 Full amount is $21,756.61 without rounding.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 4 Cost Allocations and LFTM Fee Calculation
Project Number: 2042547210 4.9

Table 4-7 summarizes the remaining participating property with unpaid units and the corresponding LFTM Fee.

Table 4-7 LFTM Remaining Participating Properties LFTM Fee Summary Landowner ADT Cost
Portola Center 1,141 $2,519,251
Total Remaining Unpaid 1,141 $2,519,251
LFTM Program Spent to Date and Cash Balance to Date $12,147,752 Total LFTM Program $14,667,003
1All payment obligations for KB Homes (Whisler Ridge), Shea/Baker (Baker Ranch), Pacific Heritage (Teresina), IRWD (Serrano Summit), and a portion of Portola Center were completed under prior fee structures.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update 5 References
Project Number: 2042547210 5.1

5 References

1. Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation (LFTM) Program 2006 Transportation Report, Austin- Foust Associates, Inc., February 2006.

2. Vacant Land Opportunities Phase III Alternative 7 (Hybrid Alternative) Traffic Study, Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., May 2008

3. Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2022.

4. Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation (LFTM) Program 2011 Baseline Adjustment Study, Austin- Foust Associates, Inc., August 2011.

5. Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation (LFTM) 5-Year Review (2014 Update), Stantec Consulting Services Inc, May 2014.

6. Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation (LFTM) 5-Year Review (2018 Update), Stantec Consulting Services Inc, October 2019.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update ICU Calculation Worksheets

Project Number: 2042547210 A.1

Appendix A ICU Calculation Worksheets
Peak hour intersection volume/capacity ratios are calculated by means of intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. ICU calculations were performed for the intersections shown in Figure A-1.

The procedure is based on the critical movement methodology, and shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical move. A "de-facto" right-turn lane is used in the ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both through and right-turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 feet from curb to outside of through-lane with parking prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes are treated the same as striped right-turn lanes during the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets using the letter "d" in place of a numerical entry for right-turn lanes.

The methodology also incorporates a check for right-turn capacity utilization. Both right-turn-on- green (RTOG) and right-turn-on-red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated and checked against the total right-turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made.

Example of Right-turn Capacity Utilization for Northbound Right

1. Right-Turn-On-Green (RTOG)
If NBT is critical move, then:

RTOG = V/C (NBT)
Otherwise,
RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL)

2. Right-Turn-On-Red (RTOR)

If WBL is critical move, then:

RTOR = V/C (WBL)
Otherwise,
RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT)

3. Right-Turn Overlap Adjustment

If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows:

RTOG = RTOG + V/C (WBL)
RTOR = RTOR - V/C (WBL)

4. Total Right-Turn Capacity (RTC) Availability For NBR

RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR
Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (typically 75%)

5. Right-turn Adjustment for ICU Calculation

Right-turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU = V/C (NBR) - RTC 2 41
3937
36 3432
31 30
26 2322
17 14
12 10
125
117
105

IRVINE BLVD

LOSALISOS BLVD

LAKE FOREST DR

TRABUCO RD

GLENNRANCH RD
ALTON
PKWY

TOLEDO W Y

ROCKFIELD BLVD

DI MENSIO N DR

PORTOLA PKWY

SADDLEBACK
RANCH
RD

JERONIMO RD

IRVINE CENTER DR

T ECHNOLOGY DR

RANCHO PKWY

AVENIDA DE LA CARLOTAMOULTON PKWY

STA MARGARITA PKWY

PACIFICA
ADA
ALICIA

MERIDIAN

BAKE PKWY

COMMERCENTRE DR

SCIENTIFIC
W
AY

GATEWAY

EL TORO RD

ENTERPRISE DR

RIDGE ROUTE DR

PORTOLA PKWY

RANCHO PKWY

LAKE FOREST DR

ALTONPKWY

TECHNOLOGY DR
\\us0300-ppfss01\workgroup\2042\active\2042547200\gis\2024update\Figure1-2.mxd Legend
Pre-construction
Planning
Completed
Removed
241
5 Figure A-1
LFTM Program Status
A.2

LFTM PROGRAM
5-YEAR UPDATE
Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update ICU Calculation Worksheets

Project Number: 2042547210 A.3

A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately accommodate the right-turn V/C, therefore the right-turn is essentially considered to be a critical movement. In such cases, the right-turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that a right-turn adjustment is required for more than one right- turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right-turn movement reference, and the right-turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right-turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a right-turn adjustment credit should be applied.

Shared Lane V/C Methodology
For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn movement (e.g., left/through, through/right, left/through/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out:

Example of Shared Lane Utilization for Shared Left/Through Lane

1. Average Lane Volume (ALV)
ALV = Left-Turn Volume + Through Volume .

Total Left + Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane)

2. ALV for Each Approach
ALV (Left) = Left-Turn Volume .

Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane)

ALV (Through) = Through Volume .

Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane)

3. Lane Dedication is Warranted
If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV then full dedication of the shared lane to the left -turn approach is warranted.

Left-turn and through V/C ratios for this case are calculated as follows:

V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume .

Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane)

V/C (Through) = Through Volume .

Through Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane)

Similarly, if ALV (Through) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the through approach is warranted, and left- turn and through V/C ratios are calculated as follows:

V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume .

Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane)
Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update ICU Calculation Worksheets

Project Number: 2042547210 A.4

V/C (Through) = Through Volume .

Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane)

4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted
If ALV (Left) and ALV (Through) are both less than ALV, the left/through lane is assumed to be truly shared and each left, left/through or through approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left/through V/C ratio is calculated as follows:

V/C (Left/Through) = Left-Turn Volume + Through Volume .

Total Left + Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane)

This V/C (Left/Through) ratio is assigned as the V/C (Through) ratio for the critical movement analysis and ICU summary listing.

If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Through) that is attributed to the left-turn volume is estimated as follows:

If approach has more than one left-turn (including shared lane), then:

V/C (Left) = V/C (Through)

If approach has only one left-turn lane (shared lane), then:

V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume .

Single Approach Lane Capacity

If this left-turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout.

These same steps are carried out for shared through/right lanes. If full dedication of a shared through/right lane to the right-turn movement is warranted, the right-turn V/C value calculated in step three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity availability if the option to include right-turns in the V/C ratio calculations is selected. If the V/C value that is determined using the shared lane methodology described here is reduced due to RTOR and RTOG capacity availability, the V/C value for the through/right lanes is posted in brackets.

When an approach contains more than one shared lane (e.g., left/through and through/right), steps one and two listed above are carried out for the three turn movements combined. Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for either of the shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two movements involved in the other shared lane.

1. Alton & Portola

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 70 .04 120 .07 │ │ NBL 1 1700 220 .13* 210 .12 │ │ NBT 2 3400 40 .01* 150 .04* │ │ NBT 2 3400 30 .01 260 .08* │ │ NBR f 350 460 │ │ NBR f 390 500 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 170 .10* 110 .06* │ │ SBL 1 1700 200 .12 140 .08* │ │ SBT 2 3400 140 .04 60 .02 │ │ SBT 2 3400 290 .09* 100 .03 │ │ SBR d 1700 10 .01 10 .01 │ │ SBR d 1700 30 .02 20 .01 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 10 .00 10 .00 │ │ EBL 2 3400 20 .01 30 .01 │ │ EBT 2 3400 270 .08* 150 .04* │ │ EBT 2 3400 370 .11* 310 .09* │ │ EBR f 120 70 │ │ EBR f 210 210 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 480 .14* 360 .11* │ │ WBL 2 3400 360 .11* 430 .13* │ │ WBT 3 5100 130 .03 150 .03 │ │ WBT 3 5100 400 .08 160 .03 │ │ WBR f 110 140 │ │ WBR f 150 210 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .38 .30 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .43

A.5

2. Bake & Portola

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 50 .03 180 .11* │ │ NBL 1 1700 110 .06 170 .10 │ │ NBT 1.5 5100 250 {.07}* 180 {.06} │ │ NBT 1.5 5100 280 {.09}* 240 {.07}* │ │ NBR 1.5 140 270 │ │ NBR 1.5 300 300 {.05} │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 150 .09* 160 .09 │ │ SBL 1 1700 290 .17* 340 .20* │ │ SBT 2 3400 380 .11 200 .06* │ │ SBT 2 3400 380 .11 230 .07 │ │ SBR d 1700 300 .18 170 .10 │ │ SBR d 1700 230 .14 60 .04 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 280 .08* 230 .07* │ │ EBL 2 3400 350 .10* 160 .05* │ │ EBT 3 5100 440 .09 670 .13 │ │ EBT 3 5100 420 .08 680 .13 │ │ EBR d 1700 60 .04 100 .06 │ │ EBR d 1700 50 .03 130 .08 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 280 .08 350 .10 │ │ WBL 2 3400 360 .11 490 .14 │ │ WBT 2 3400 520 .15* 620 .18* │ │ WBT 2 3400 310 .09* 860 .25* │ │ WBR d 1700 70 .04 30 .02 │ │ WBR d 1700 130 .08 80 .05 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .47 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .50 .62

A.6

3. Lake Forest & Portola

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 50 .03 80 .05 │ │ NBL 1 1700 130 .08* 260 .15* │ │ NBT 2 3400 140 .04* 180 .05* │ │ NBT 2 3400 210 .06 320 .09 │ │ NBR d 1700 150 .09 180 .11 │ │ NBR d 1700 330 .19 470 .28 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 200 .12* 180 .11* │ │ SBL 1 1700 200 .12 160 .09 │ │ SBT 2 3400 160 .05 180 .05 │ │ SBT 2 3400 360 .11* 300 .09* │ │ SBR d 1700 10 .01 30 .02 │ │ SBR d 1700 20 .01 30 .02 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 20 .01 20 .01 │ │ EBL 2 3400 30 .01 10 .00 │ │ EBT 3 5100 600 .12* 940 .18* │ │ EBT 3 5100 780 .15* 990 .19* │ │ EBR d 1700 80 .05 90 .05 │ │ EBR d 1700 240 .14 290 .17 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 200 .06* 190 .06* │ │ WBL 2 3400 500 .15* 390 .11* │ │ WBT 3 5100 810 .16 900 .18 │ │ WBT 3 5100 740 .15 1200 .24 │ │ WBR d 1700 240 .14 140 .08 │ │ WBR d 1700 240 .14 150 .09 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment NBR .01* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment NBR .01* NBR .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .39 .46 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .64

A.7

4. Glenn Ranch & Portola

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 70 .04 90 .05 │ │ NBL 1 1700 70 .04 80 .05 │ │ NBT 2 3400 40 .02* 40 .02* │ │ NBT 2 3400 80 .05* 80 .05* │ │ NBR 0 0 60 .04 70 .04 │ │ NBR 0 0 100 .06 140 .08 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 340 .10* 250 .07* │ │ SBL 2 3400 860 .25* 690 .20* │ │ SBT 2 3400 70 .02 30 .01 │ │ SBT 2 3400 140 .04 70 .02 │ │ SBR f 630 480 │ │ SBR f 750 670 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 290 .09* 730 .21* │ │ EBL 2 3400 310 .09* 820 .24* │ │ EBT 3 5100 570 .11 870 .17 │ │ EBT 3 5100 880 .17 1160 .23 │ │ EBR 1 1700 90 .05 80 .05 │ │ EBR 1 1700 110 .06 80 .05 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 140 .04 70 .02 │ │ WBL 2 3400 230 .07 110 .03 │ │ WBT 3 5100 750 .15* 690 .14* │ │ WBT 3 5100 890 .17* 1020 .20* │ │ WBR 1 1700 290 .17 270 .16 │ │ WBR 1 1700 790 .46 930 .55 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment WBR .04* WBR .15* │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for WBR │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for WBR │ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .41 .49 └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .89

A.8

5. Portola & SR-241 Ramps

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 260 .08 130 .04* │ │ NBL 2 3400 330 .10* 120 .04 │ │ NBT 3 5100 850 .17* 750 .15 │ │ NBT 3 5100 1240 .24 1330 .26* │ │ NBR f 80 120 │ │ NBR f 80 100 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 120 .04* 210 .06 │ │ SBL 2 3400 220 .06 370 .11* │ │ SBT 3 5100 670 .13 900 .18* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1250 .25* 1420 .28 │ │ SBR f 190 110 │ │ SBR f 350 270 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 100 .06* 130 .08* │ │ EBL 1 1700 380 .22* 440 .26* │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR f 180 270 │ │ EBR f 200 260 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 160 .05 130 .04 │ │ WBL 2 3400 220 .06 160 .05 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBR f 230 180 │ │ WBR f 310 280 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .32 .35 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .68

A.9

6. Alton & SR-241 Ramps

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 110 .06* 160 .09* │ │ NBL 1 1700 350 .21* 370 .22* │ │ NBT 3 5100 380 .07 780 .15 │ │ NBT 3 5100 520 .10 1050 .21 │ │ NBR f 80 150 │ │ NBR f 120 10 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 40 .02 60 .04 │ │ SBL 1 1700 60 .04 80 .05 │ │ SBT 3 5100 560 .11* 520 .10* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1040 .20* 710 .14* │ │ SBR f 190 200 │ │ SBR f 680 480 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 130 .04 210 .06* │ │ EBL 2 3400 380 .11* 600 .18* │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR f 320 90 │ │ EBR f 540 340 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 250 .07* 60 .02 │ │ WBL 2 3400 10 .00 50 .01 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBR f 40 50 │ │ WBR f 80 40 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .29 .30 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .59

A.10

7. Lake Forest & SR-241 NB

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 120 .04* 160 .05* │ │ NBL 2 3400 130 .04 230 .07 │ │ NBT 2 3400 490 .14 640 .19 │ │ NBT 2 3400 960 .28* 1330 .39* │ │ NBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBT 2 3400 440 .13* 540 .16* │ │ SBT 2 3400 810 .24 910 .27 │ │ SBR 1 1700 80 .05 120 .07 │ │ SBR 1 1700 540 .32 450 .26 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment SBR .08* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .22 .26 └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .41 .44

A.11

8. Lake Forest & SR-241 SB

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBT 2 3400 510 .15* 720 .21* │ │ NBT 2 3400 840 .25 1290 .38* │ │ NBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBT 2 3400 440 .13 540 .16 │ │ SBT 2 3400 860 .25* 980 .29 │ │ SBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 100 .03* 80 .02* │ │ EBL 2 3400 340 .10* 370 .11* │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR 1 1700 160 .09 100 .06 │ │ EBR 1 1700 190 .11 120 .07 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .04* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .27 .28 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .41 .54

A.12

9. Bake & Rancho N

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBT 2 3400 560 .16* 780 .23* │ │ NBT 2 3400 690 .20* 890 .26* │ │ NBR d 1700 290 .17 490 .29 │ │ NBR d 1700 430 .25 720 .42 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 90 .05* 210 .12* │ │ SBL 1 1700 180 .11* 350 .21* │ │ SBT 2 3400 660 .19 610 .18 │ │ SBT 2 3400 800 .24 720 .21 │ │ SBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 370 .11* 300 .09* │ │ WBL 2 3400 570 .17* 480 .14* │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBR 2 3400 90 .03 180 .05 │ │ WBR 2 3400 140 .04 300 .09 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment NBR .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .37 .49 └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .71

A.13

10. Lake Forest & Rancho

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 130 .08* 170 .10 │ │ NBL 1 1700 70 .04 170 .10 │ │ NBT 2 3400 450 .13 600 .18* │ │ NBT 2 3400 600 .18* 850 .25* │ │ NBR d 1700 150 .09 280 .16 │ │ NBR d 1700 230 .14 270 .16 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 100 .06 170 .10* │ │ SBL 1 1700 230 .14* 320 .19* │ │ SBT 2 3400 520 .15* 550 .16 │ │ SBT 2 3400 710 .21 670 .20 │ │ SBR d 1700 50 .03 60 .04 │ │ SBR d 1700 160 .09 220 .13 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 20 .01 20 .01 │ │ EBL 1 1700 80 .05* 180 .11 │ │ EBT 2 3400 260 .09* 530 .20* │ │ EBT 2 3400 410 .14 940 .31* │ │ EBR 0 0 50 140 │ │ EBR 0 0 50 100 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 220 .06* 170 .05* │ │ WBL 2 3400 240 .07 290 .09* │ │ WBT 2 3400 370 .11 330 .10 │ │ WBT 2 3400 580 .17* 490 .14 │ │ WBR 1 1700 40 .02 80 .05 │ │ WBR 1 1700 140 .08 190 .11 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .58 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .89

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 2040 General Plan with LFTM Program Imp │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 70 .04 170 .10 │ │ NBT 2 3400 600 .18* 850 .25* │ │ NBR d 1700 230 .14 270 .16 │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 230 .14* 320 .19* │ │ SBT 2 3400 710 .21 670 .20 │ │ SBR d 1700 160 .09 220 .13 │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 80 .05* 180 .11 │ │ EBT 2 3400 410 .12 940 .28* │ │ EBR d 1700 50 .03 100 .06 │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 240 .07 290 .09* │ │ WBT 2 3400 580 .17* 490 .14 │ │ WBR 1 1700 140 .08 190 .11 │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .86
A.14

11. Bake & Rancho S

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 170 .10* 120 .07* │ │ NBL 1 1700 310 .18* 330 .19* │ │ NBT 2 3400 710 .21 1010 .30 │ │ NBT 2 3400 910 .27 1270 .37 │ │ NBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBR 1 1700 380 .22 120 .07 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBL 1 1700 150 .09 70 .04 │ │ SBT 2 3400 830 .24* 840 .25* │ │ SBT 2 3400 1060 .31* 1050 .31* │ │ SBR 1 1700 200 .12 140 .08 │ │ SBR 1 1700 280 .16 180 .11 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 150 .04* 200 .06* │ │ EBL 2 3400 200 .06 340 .10* │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 1 1700 360 .21* 60 .04 │ │ EBR 1 1700 140 .08 130 .08 │ │ EBR d 1700 350 .21 370 .22 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBL 2 3400 80 .02* 300 .09 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 1 1700 70 .04 280 .16* │ │ WBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBR 1 1700 50 .03 140 .08 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .43 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .77 .81

A.15

12. El Toro & Portola/Santa M

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 250 .15* 270 .16* │ │ NBL 2 3400 320 .09* 530 .16* │ │ NBT 3 5100 190 .04 420 .08 │ │ NBT 3 5100 210 .04 440 .09 │ │ NBR f 450 610 │ │ NBR f 450 530 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 40 .02 20 .01 │ │ SBL 2 3400 10 .00 30 .01 │ │ SBT 3 5100 530 .10* 210 .04* │ │ SBT 3 5100 590 .12* 200 .04* │ │ SBR 1 1700 230 .14 160 .09 │ │ SBR 2 3400 370 .11 220 .06 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 90 .03 290 .09 │ │ EBL 2 3400 170 .05 410 .12 │ │ EBT 3 5100 900 .18* 1420 .28* │ │ EBT 3 5100 1410 .28* 1850 .36* │ │ EBR 1 1700 280 .16 360 .21 │ │ EBR 1 1700 400 .24 600 .35 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 480 .14* 450 .13* │ │ WBL 2 3400 420 .12* 410 .12* │ │ WBT 4 6800 1320 .19 970 .14 │ │ WBT 4 6800 1690 .25 1410 .21 │ │ WBR d 1700 30 .02 50 .03 │ │ WBR d 1700 30 .02 50 .03 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .66 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .66 .73

A.16

13. Bake & Commercentre

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 80 .05* 70 .04 │ │ NBL 1 1700 220 .13* 130 .08* │ │ NBT 2 3400 740 .22 910 .27* │ │ NBT 2 3400 1000 .29 1240 .36 │ │ NBR d 1700 270 .16 130 .08 │ │ NBR d 1700 380 .22 380 .22 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01* │ │ SBL 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 │ │ SBT 2 3400 690 .20* 800 .24 │ │ SBT 2 3400 990 .29* 1090 .32* │ │ SBR d 1700 80 .05 130 .08 │ │ SBR d 1700 170 .10 240 .14 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 100 .06 90 .05 │ │ EBL 1 1700 160 .09* 150 .09 │ │ EBT 2 3400 130 .06* 100 .05* │ │ EBT 2 3400 110 .06 290 .15* │ │ EBR 0 0 80 80 │ │ EBR 0 0 220 .13 230 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1.5 130 280 │ │ WBL 1.5 380 400 .12* │ │ WBT 1.5 5100 90 .05* 210 .10* │ │ WBT 1.5 5100 240 .13* 160 .09 │ │ WBR 0 10 10 │ │ WBR 0 0 30 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .41 .48 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .72

A.17

14. Bake & Irvine/Trabuco

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 290 .17* 290 .17* │ │ NBL 1 1700 240 .14* 240 .14 │ │ NBT 3 5100 1260 .25 1060 .21 │ │ NBT 3 5100 1830 .36 1720 .34* │ │ NBR 1 1700 140 .08 440 .26 │ │ NBR 1 1700 140 .08 530 .31 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 50 .03 210 .12 │ │ SBL 1 1700 100 .06 320 .19* │ │ SBT 3 5100 810 .16* 1090 .21* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1500 .29* 1680 .33 │ │ SBR 1 1700 60 .04 110 .06 │ │ SBR 1 1700 120 .07 190 .11 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 120 .04 110 .03 │ │ EBL 2 3400 210 .06* 260 .08 │ │ EBT 3 5100 240 .05* 410 .08* │ │ EBT 3 5100 280 .05 500 .10* │ │ EBR 1 1700 260 .15 340 .20 │ │ EBR 1 1700 170 .10 340 .20 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 530 .16* 330 .10* │ │ WBL 2 3400 430 .13 330 .10* │ │ WBT 3 5100 400 .08 410 .08 │ │ WBT 3 5100 670 .13* 480 .09 │ │ WBR 1 1700 120 .07 120 .07 │ │ WBR 1 1700 250 .15 210 .12 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .61 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .78

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 2040 General Plan with LFTM Program Imp │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 240 .07 240 .07 │ │ NBT 3 5100 1830 .36* 1720 .34* │ │ NBR 1 1700 140 .08 530 .31 │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 100 .06* 320 .19* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1500 .29 1680 .33 │ │ SBR 1 1700 120 .07 190 .11 │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 210 .06 260 .08 │ │ EBT 3 5100 280 .05* 500 .10* │ │ EBR 1 1700 170 .10 340 .20 │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 430 .13* 330 .10* │ │ WBT 4 6800 670 .10 480 .07 │ │ WBR d 1700 250 .15 210 .12 │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .78
A.18

15. Lake Forest & Trabuco

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 200 .06* 240 .07 │ │ NBL 2 3400 190 .06* 250 .07 │ │ NBT 3 5100 670 .13 880 .17* │ │ NBT 3 5100 800 .16 1090 .21* │ │ NBR 1 1700 160 .09 450 .26 │ │ NBR 1 1700 190 .11 490 .29 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 310 .09 330 .10* │ │ SBL 2 3400 400 .12 350 .10* │ │ SBT 3 5100 970 .21* 760 .17 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1300 .29* 880 .20 │ │ SBR 0 0 90 110 │ │ SBR 0 0 190 160 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 170 .05 300 .09 │ │ EBL 2 3400 220 .06 410 .12 │ │ EBT 3 5100 520 .10* 720 .14* │ │ EBT 3 5100 630 .12* 930 .18* │ │ EBR 1 1700 230 .14 120 .07 │ │ EBR 1 1700 230 .14 120 .07 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 420 .12* 230 .07* │ │ WBL 2 3400 490 .14* 280 .08* │ │ WBT 3 5100 520 .10 520 .10 │ │ WBT 3 5100 670 .13 620 .12 │ │ WBR 1 1700 350 .21 320 .19 │ │ WBR 1 1700 320 .19 380 .22 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment NBR .04* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment NBR .02* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .54 .57 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .66 .64

A.19

16. Ridge Route & Trabuco

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 180 .11* 170 .10* │ │ NBL 1 1700 270 .16* 210 .12* │ │ NBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBR 1 1700 230 .14 220 .13 │ │ NBR 1 1700 320 .19 430 .25 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 3 5100 750 .15* 1380 .27* │ │ EBT 3 5100 810 .16* 1520 .30* │ │ EBR d 1700 250 .15 140 .08 │ │ EBR d 1700 410 .24 290 .17 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 150 .09* 110 .06* │ │ WBL 1 1700 290 .17* 150 .09* │ │ WBT 3 5100 1040 .20 860 .17 │ │ WBT 3 5100 1140 .22 1020 .20 │ │ WBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment NBR .06* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .40 .48 └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .54 .62

A.20

17. El Toro & Trabuco

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 220 .06* 300 .09* │ │ NBL 2 3400 130 .04* 290 .09* │ │ NBT 3 5100 670 .13 1030 .20 │ │ NBT 3 5100 770 .15 1110 .22 │ │ NBR 1 1700 190 .11 250 .15 │ │ NBR 1 1700 180 .11 250 .15 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 230 .07 240 .07 │ │ SBL 2 3400 290 .09 310 .09 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1560 .31* 930 .18* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1780 .35* 1100 .22* │ │ SBR 1 1700 260 .15 160 .09 │ │ SBR 1 1700 580 .34 260 .15 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 200 .06 340 .10 │ │ EBL 2 3400 310 .09* 430 .13 │ │ EBT 3 5100 430 .13* 810 .21* │ │ EBT 3 5100 530 .13 1020 .26* │ │ EBR 0 0 220 .13 270 │ │ EBR 0 0 140 290 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 270 .08* 160 .05* │ │ WBL 2 3400 270 .08 160 .05* │ │ WBT 3 5100 600 .12 470 .09 │ │ WBT 3 5100 630 .12* 560 .11 │ │ WBR 1 1700 170 .10 190 .11 │ │ WBR 1 1700 200 .12 230 .14 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for SBR NBR │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for SBR NBR │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63 .58 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .67

A.21

18. Bake & Toledo

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 210 .12* 50 .03 │ │ NBL 1 1700 180 .11* 120 .07* │ │ NBT 3 5100 1570 .31 1690 .33* │ │ NBT 3 5100 1990 .39 2280 .45 │ │ NBR d 1700 70 .04 240 .14 │ │ NBR d 1700 100 .06 310 .18 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 50 .03 60 .04* │ │ SBL 1 1700 80 .05 80 .05 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1530 .30* 1650 .32 │ │ SBT 3 5100 2060 .40* 2220 .44* │ │ SBR d 1700 100 .06 40 .02 │ │ SBR d 1700 110 .06 40 .02 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 30 .01 80 .02 │ │ EBL 2 3400 40 .01* 150 .04 │ │ EBT 2 3400 40 .01* 140 .04* │ │ EBT 2 3400 70 .02 370 .11* │ │ EBR 1 1700 40 .02 160 .09 │ │ EBR 1 1700 60 .04 190 .11 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 210 .12* 60 .04* │ │ WBL 1 1700 130 .08 80 .05* │ │ WBT 2 3400 150 .07 40 .02 │ │ WBT 2 3400 400 .16* 80 .05 │ │ WBR 0 0 100 90 .05 │ │ WBR 0 0 150 130 .08 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .73 .72 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .60 .51

A.22

19. Lake Forest & Toledo

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 50 .03* 70 .04 │ │ NBL 1 1700 100 .06* 130 .08 │ │ NBT 3 5100 860 .17 1590 .31* │ │ NBT 3 5100 1010 .20 1870 .37* │ │ NBR d 1700 90 .05 130 .08 │ │ NBR d 1700 120 .07 160 .09 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 50 .03 30 .02* │ │ SBL 1 1700 50 .03 40 .02* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1420 .28* 900 .18 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1670 .33* 1060 .21 │ │ SBR d 1700 60 .04 30 .02 │ │ SBR d 1700 150 .09 30 .02 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 30 .02 70 .04 │ │ EBL 1 1700 40 .02 70 .04 │ │ EBT 2 3400 120 .06* 180 .07* │ │ EBT 2 3400 180 .10* 360 .15* │ │ EBR 0 0 90 60 │ │ EBR 0 0 150 140 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 160 .09* 60 .04* │ │ WBL 1 1700 210 .12* 80 .05* │ │ WBT 2 3400 180 .08 90 .04 │ │ WBT 2 3400 310 .12 110 .04 │ │ WBR 0 0 90 40 │ │ WBR 0 0 90 40 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .51 .49 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .66 .64

A.23

20. Ridge Route & Toledo

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 50 .03 20 .01 │ │ NBL 1 1700 80 .05 40 .02 │ │ NBT 2 3400 200 .10* 230 .08* │ │ NBT 2 3400 370 .17* 360 .12* │ │ NBR 0 0 130 40 │ │ NBR 0 0 220 60 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 120 .07* 60 .04* │ │ SBL 1 1700 210 .12* 80 .05* │ │ SBT 2 3400 330 .12 190 .07 │ │ SBT 2 3400 580 .22 370 .12 │ │ SBR 0 0 90 40 │ │ SBR 0 0 160 50 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 40 .02* 40 .02 │ │ EBL 1 1700 50 .03 120 .07 │ │ EBT 2 3400 180 .06 230 .07* │ │ EBT 2 3400 220 .09* 320 .10* │ │ EBR 0 0 40 10 │ │ EBR 0 0 70 20 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 90 .05 30 .02* │ │ WBL 1 1700 150 .09* 50 .03* │ │ WBT 2 3400 230 .09* 110 .05 │ │ WBT 2 3400 280 .10 140 .06 │ │ WBR 0 0 60 70 │ │ WBR 0 0 60 70 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .33 .26 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .52 .35

A.24

21. El Toro & Toledo

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 140 .08* 80 .05 │ │ NBL 1 1700 140 .08* 80 .05 │ │ NBT 3 5100 970 .19 1570 .31* │ │ NBT 3 5100 940 .18 1680 .33* │ │ NBR d 1700 10 .01 20 .01 │ │ NBR d 1700 0 .00 30 .02 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01* │ │ SBL 1 1700 20 .01 20 .01* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1780 .35* 1310 .26 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1920 .38* 1380 .27 │ │ SBR d 1700 230 .14 50 .03 │ │ SBR d 1700 260 .15 80 .05 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1.5 110 150 │ │ EBL 1.5 210 250 │ │ EBT 0.5 3400 10 .04* 20 .05* │ │ EBT 0.5 3400 40 .07* 50 .09* │ │ EBR 1 1700 200 .12 120 .07 │ │ EBR 1 1700 260 .15 130 .08 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 0 0 20 10 │ │ WBL 0 0 20 10 │ │ WBT 1 1700 10 .02* 10 .02* │ │ WBT 1 1700 10 .02* 20 .02* │ │ WBR 0 0 10 10 │ │ WBR 0 0 10 10 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .02* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .02* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .44 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .50

A.25

22. Bake & Jeronimo

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 180 .11* 60 .04 │ │ NBL 1 1700 210 .12* 50 .03 │ │ NBT 3 5100 1710 .34 1740 .34* │ │ NBT 3 5100 2150 .42 2280 .45* │ │ NBR d 1700 90 .05 280 .16 │ │ NBR d 1700 100 .06 310 .18 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 60 .04 160 .09* │ │ SBL 1 1700 80 .05 230 .14* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1610 .32* 1700 .33 │ │ SBT 3 5100 2100 .41* 2190 .43 │ │ SBR d 1700 100 .06 40 .02 │ │ SBR d 1700 150 .09 80 .05 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 30 .01 110 .03 │ │ EBL 2 3400 60 .02 240 .07 │ │ EBT 2 3400 70 .02* 380 .11* │ │ EBT 2 3400 80 .02* 490 .14* │ │ EBR 1 1700 50 .03 200 .12 │ │ EBR 1 1700 50 .03 160 .09 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 260 .15* 110 .06* │ │ WBL 1 1700 260 .15* 90 .05* │ │ WBT 2 3400 230 .10 160 .08 │ │ WBT 2 3400 300 .14 210 .10 │ │ WBR 0 0 110 100 │ │ WBR 0 0 160 130 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .65 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .75 .83

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 2040 General Plan with LFTM Program Imp │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 210 .06* 50 .01 │ │ NBT 3 5100 2150 .42 2280 .45* │ │ NBR d 1700 100 .06 310 .18 │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 80 .05 230 .14* │ │ SBT 3 5100 2100 .41* 2190 .43 │ │ SBR d 1700 150 .09 80 .05 │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 60 .02* 240 .07 │ │ EBT 2 3400 80 .02 490 .14* │ │ EBR 1 1700 50 .03 160 .09 │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 260 .08 90 .03* │ │ WBT 2 3400 300 .09* 210 .06 │ │ WBR d 1700 160 .09 130 .08 │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63 .81
A.26

23. Lake Forest & Jeronimo

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 50 .03* 80 .05 │ │ NBL 1 1700 60 .04* 90 .05 │ │ NBT 3 5100 790 .15 1510 .30* │ │ NBT 3 5100 950 .19 1810 .35* │ │ NBR 1 1700 150 .09 250 .15 │ │ NBR 1 1700 190 .11 290 .17 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 130 .08 60 .04* │ │ SBL 1 1700 180 .11 110 .06* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1380 .27* 810 .16 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1670 .33* 980 .19 │ │ SBR 1 1700 150 .09 150 .09 │ │ SBR 1 1700 170 .10 180 .11 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 80 .05* 220 .13 │ │ EBL 1 1700 100 .06* 260 .15 │ │ EBT 2 3400 170 .06 550 .18* │ │ EBT 2 3400 170 .06 640 .23* │ │ EBR 0 0 30 60 │ │ EBR 0 0 30 130 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 100 .06 100 .06* │ │ WBL 1 1700 100 .06 130 .08* │ │ WBT 2 3400 300 .13* 260 .10 │ │ WBT 2 3400 370 .16* 300 .12 │ │ WBR 0 0 130 70 │ │ WBR 0 0 160 110 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .63 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .64 .77

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 2040 General Plan with LFTM Program Imp │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 60 .04* 90 .05 │ │ NBT 3 5100 950 .19 1810 .35* │ │ NBR 1 1700 190 .11 290 .17 │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 180 .11 110 .06* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1670 .33* 980 .19 │ │ SBR 1 1700 170 .10 180 .11 │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 100 .06* 260 .15* │ │ EBT 2 3400 170 .05 640 .19 │ │ EBR d 1700 30 .02 130 .08 │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 100 .06 130 .08 │ │ WBT 2 3400 370 .16* 300 .12* │ │ WBR 0 0 160 110 │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .64 .73
A.27

24. Ridge Route & Jeronimo

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 70 .04 40 .02 │ │ NBL 1 1700 130 .08* 60 .04 │ │ NBT 2 3400 190 .06* 170 .05* │ │ NBT 2 3400 350 .10 290 .09* │ │ NBR d 1700 130 .08 100 .06 │ │ NBR d 1700 150 .09 30 .02 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 120 .07* 50 .03* │ │ SBL 1 1700 130 .08 150 .09* │ │ SBT 2 3400 280 .08 150 .04 │ │ SBT 2 3400 490 .14* 290 .09 │ │ SBR d 1700 150 .09 40 .02 │ │ SBR d 1700 310 .18 40 .02 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 110 .06* 60 .04 │ │ EBL 1 1700 130 .08* 110 .06 │ │ EBT 2 3400 340 .13 640 .20* │ │ EBT 2 3400 360 .15 700 .23* │ │ EBR 0 0 90 40 │ │ EBR 0 0 140 70 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 100 .06 60 .04* │ │ WBL 1 1700 150 .09 40 .02* │ │ WBT 2 3400 630 .21* 340 .12 │ │ WBT 2 3400 560 .22* 420 .14 │ │ WBR 0 0 100 70 │ │ WBR 0 0 180 70 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .45 .37 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .48

A.28

25. El Toro & Jeronimo

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 80 .05* 120 .07 │ │ NBL 1 1700 70 .04 140 .08 │ │ NBT 3 5100 870 .17 1390 .27* │ │ NBT 3 5100 870 .17* 1600 .31* │ │ NBR 1 1700 290 .17 270 .16 │ │ NBR 1 1700 340 .20 290 .17 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 260 .15 220 .13* │ │ SBL 1 1700 370 .22* 110 .06* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1500 .29* 1060 .21 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1590 .31 1120 .22 │ │ SBR d 1700 250 .15 70 .04 │ │ SBR d 1700 210 .12 40 .02 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 110 .06 180 .11 │ │ EBL 1 1700 80 .05 20 .01 │ │ EBT 2 3400 320 .14* 560 .19* │ │ EBT 2 3400 430 .17* 790 .26* │ │ EBR 0 0 140 90 │ │ EBR 0 0 160 100 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 310 .09* 240 .07* │ │ WBL 2 3400 330 .10* 340 .10* │ │ WBT 2 3400 410 .12 290 .09 │ │ WBT 2 3400 530 .16 390 .11 │ │ WBR 1 1700 190 .11 260 .15 │ │ WBR 1 1700 200 .12 250 .15 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .71 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .78

A.29

26. Los Alisos & Jeronimo

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 190 .11* 220 .13 │ │ NBL 1 1700 210 .12* 310 .18 │ │ NBT 3 5100 610 .12 1110 .22* │ │ NBT 3 5100 710 .14 1230 .24* │ │ NBR 1 1700 240 .14 220 .13 │ │ NBR 1 1700 250 .15 300 .18 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 210 .12 150 .09* │ │ SBL 1 1700 250 .15 160 .09* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1010 .20* 600 .12 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1280 .25* 650 .13 │ │ SBR 1 1700 270 .16 140 .08 │ │ SBR 1 1700 230 .14 160 .09 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 210 .06 290 .09 │ │ EBL 2 3400 220 .06 310 .09 │ │ EBT 2 3400 560 .16* 610 .18* │ │ EBT 2 3400 670 .20* 660 .19* │ │ EBR 1 1700 170 .10 160 .09 │ │ EBR 1 1700 320 .19 220 .13 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 200 .06* 260 .08* │ │ WBL 2 3400 240 .07* 340 .10* │ │ WBT 2 3400 460 .14 470 .14 │ │ WBT 2 3400 480 .14 510 .15 │ │ WBR 1 1700 90 .05 120 .07 │ │ WBR 1 1700 100 .06 130 .08 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .62 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .67

A.30

27. Lake Forest & Muirlands

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 40 .01* 50 .01 │ │ NBL 2 3400 50 .01* 10 .00 │ │ NBT 3 5100 730 .14 1490 .29* │ │ NBT 3 5100 870 .17 1760 .35* │ │ NBR 1 1700 170 .10 350 .21 │ │ NBR 1 1700 320 .19 510 .30 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 130 .04 160 .05* │ │ SBL 2 3400 120 .04 250 .07* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1160 .23* 810 .16 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1430 .28* 980 .19 │ │ SBR 1 1700 90 .05 60 .04 │ │ SBR 1 1700 110 .06 80 .05 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 40 .01* 210 .06 │ │ EBL 2 3400 50 .01* 240 .07 │ │ EBT 2 3400 210 .06 670 .20* │ │ EBT 2 3400 240 .07 630 .19* │ │ EBR 1 1700 30 .02 80 .05 │ │ EBR 1 1700 10 .01 90 .05 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 240 .07 170 .05* │ │ WBL 2 3400 280 .08 250 .07* │ │ WBT 2 3400 480 .14* 270 .08 │ │ WBT 2 3400 490 .14* 340 .10 │ │ WBR 1 1700 150 .09 130 .08 │ │ WBR 1 1700 180 .11 170 .10 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for EBR │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for EBR │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .64 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .73

A.31

28. Ridge Route & Muirlands

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 50 .03 80 .05 │ │ NBL 1 1700 80 .05 100 .06 │ │ NBT 2 3400 150 .04* 160 .05* │ │ NBT 2 3400 280 .08* 220 .06* │ │ NBR d 1700 90 .05 130 .08 │ │ NBR d 1700 110 .06 130 .08 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 100 .06* 110 .06* │ │ SBL 1 1700 160 .09* 160 .09* │ │ SBT 2 3400 210 .06 120 .04 │ │ SBT 2 3400 350 .10 190 .06 │ │ SBR d 1700 90 .05 40 .02 │ │ SBR d 1700 240 .14 100 .06 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 40 .02* 40 .02 │ │ EBL 1 1700 80 .05* 150 .09 │ │ EBT 2 3400 450 .13 1000 .29* │ │ EBT 2 3400 560 .16 1030 .30* │ │ EBR 1 1700 40 .02 40 .02 │ │ EBR 1 1700 70 .04 60 .04 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 110 .06 70 .04* │ │ WBL 1 1700 100 .06 50 .03* │ │ WBT 2 3400 670 .20* 470 .14 │ │ WBT 2 3400 570 .17* 510 .15 │ │ WBR 1 1700 80 .05 70 .04 │ │ WBR 1 1700 140 .08 140 .08 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .37 .49 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .53

A.32

29. El Toro & Muirlands

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 100 .03* 220 .06 │ │ NBL 2 3400 120 .04* 240 .07 │ │ NBT 3 5100 780 .15 1350 .26* │ │ NBT 3 5100 840 .16 1630 .32* │ │ NBR 1 1700 130 .08 330 .19 │ │ NBR 1 1700 150 .09 330 .19 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 250 .07 290 .09* │ │ SBL 2 3400 210 .06 230 .07* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1310 .26* 1000 .20 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1520 .30* 1170 .23 │ │ SBR 1 1700 330 .19 150 .09 │ │ SBR 1 1700 220 .13 170 .10 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 230 .07* 230 .07 │ │ EBL 2 3400 250 .07* 170 .05 │ │ EBT 2 3400 350 .10 720 .21* │ │ EBT 2 3400 490 .14 930 .27* │ │ EBR 1 1700 180 .11 270 .16 │ │ EBR 1 1700 220 .13 340 .20 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 290 .09 270 .08* │ │ WBL 2 3400 410 .12 250 .07* │ │ WBT 2 3400 520 .15* 350 .10 │ │ WBT 2 3400 660 .19* 450 .13 │ │ WBR 1 1700 240 .14 190 .11 │ │ WBR 1 1700 90 .05 200 .12 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .69 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .78

A.33

30. Los Alisos & Muirlands

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 240 .14* 200 .12 │ │ NBL 2 3400 260 .08* 220 .06 │ │ NBT 3 5100 700 .14 1100 .22* │ │ NBT 3 5100 720 .14 1230 .24* │ │ NBR 1 1700 260 .15 290 .17 │ │ NBR 1 1700 290 .17 340 .20 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 250 .15 170 .10* │ │ SBL 2 3400 380 .11 200 .06* │ │ SBT 3 5100 890 .17* 660 .13 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1080 .21* 820 .16 │ │ SBR d 1700 240 .14 170 .10 │ │ SBR d 1700 400 .24 150 .09 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 160 .09 270 .16 │ │ EBL 2 3400 190 .06 360 .11 │ │ EBT 2 3400 500 .20* 760 .29* │ │ EBT 2 3400 590 .23* 790 .29* │ │ EBR 0 0 180 210 │ │ EBR 0 0 200 200 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 190 .11* 120 .07* │ │ WBL 1 1700 230 .14* 130 .08* │ │ WBT 2 3400 450 .13 420 .12 │ │ WBT 2 3400 400 .12 500 .15 │ │ WBR 1 1700 120 .07 130 .08 │ │ WBR 1 1700 220 .13 190 .11 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .73 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .72

A.34

31. Lake Forest & Rockfield

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 460 .14* 380 .11 │ │ NBL 2 3400 440 .13* 370 .11 │ │ NBT 3 5100 940 .18 1780 .35* │ │ NBT 3 5100 1210 .24 2290 .45* │ │ NBR 1 1700 260 .15 550 .32 │ │ NBR 1 1700 370 .22 610 .36 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 110 .03 170 .05* │ │ SBL 2 3400 350 .10 350 .10* │ │ SBT 4 6800 1230 .19* 1040 .17 │ │ SBT 4 6800 1720 .29* 1390 .23 │ │ SBR 0 0 90 90 │ │ SBR 0 0 260 180 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 60 .02 150 .04 │ │ EBL 2 3400 140 .04 360 .11* │ │ EBT 2 3400 130 .04* 300 .09* │ │ EBT 2 3400 240 .07* 290 .09 │ │ EBR 2 3400 290 .09 490 .14 │ │ EBR 2 3400 280 .08 480 .14 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 420 .12* 380 .11* │ │ WBL 2 3400 440 .13* 390 .11 │ │ WBT 2 3400 240 .07 190 .06 │ │ WBT 2 3400 430 .13 330 .10* │ │ WBR 1 1700 90 .05 130 .08 │ │ WBR 1 1700 220 .13 360 .21 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment WBR .03* │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for EBR │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for EBR │ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .54 .65 └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .84

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 2040 General Plan with LFTM Program Imp │ │ 2040 General Plan w/ alt. LFTM Program Imp │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 440 .13* 370 .11 │ │ NBL 2 3400 440 .13* 370 .11 │ │ NBT 3 5100 1210 .24 2290 .45* │ │ NBT 3 5100 1210 .24 2290 .45* │ │ NBR 1 1700 370 .22 610 .36 │ │ NBR 1 1700 370 .22 610 .36 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 350 .10 350 .10* │ │ SBL 2 3400 350 .10 350 .10* │ │ SBT 4 6800 1720 .29* 1390 .23 │ │ SBT 4 6800 1720 .29* 1390 .23 │ │ SBR 0 0 260 180 │ │ SBR 0 0 260 180 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 140 .04 360 .11* │ │ EBL 2 3400 140 .04 360 .11* │ │ EBT 2 3400 240 .07* 290 .09 │ │ EBT 2 3400 240 .07* 290 .09 │ │ EBR 2 3400 280 .08 480 .14 │ │ EBR 2 3400 280 .08 480 .14 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2.5 440 390 │ │ WBL 2 3400 440 .13* 390 .11 │ │ WBT 1.5 6800 430 .13* 330 .11* │ │ WBT 2 3400 430 .13 330 .10* │ │ WBR 1 1700 220 .13 360 .21 │ │ WBR 1 1700 220 .13 360 .21 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment WBR .02* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for WBR EBR │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for EBR │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .82 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .84
A.35

31. Lake Forest & Rockfield

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 2040 General Plan (MPAH Network) w/ LFTM Progra │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 390 .11* 330 .10 │ │ NBT 3 5100 1110 .22 2230 .44* │ │ NBR 1 1700 220 .13 250 .15 │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 420 .12 440 .13* │ │ SBT 4 6800 1580 .27* 1290 .21 │ │ SBR 0 0 240 170 │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 140 .04* 290 .09 │ │ EBT 2 3400 260 .08 500 .15* │ │ EBR 2 3400 260 .08 420 .12 │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 330 .10 310 .09* │ │ WBT 2 3400 480 .14* 370 .11 │ │ WBR 1 1700 260 .15 420 .25 │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for WBR EBR │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .86
A.36

32. Ridge Route & Rockfield

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 0.5 50 .03 30 .02* │ │ NBL 0.5 60 .04* 120 .07* │ │ NBT 1.5 3400 50 .03* 20 .01 │ │ NBT 1.5 3400 50 .03 20 .01 │ │ NBR 1 1700 30 .02 20 .01 │ │ NBR 1 1700 20 .01 70 .04 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 0.5 100 .06* 90 .05* │ │ SBL 0.5 120 .07* 100 .06* │ │ SBT 1.5 3400 30 .02 20 .01 │ │ SBT 1.5 3400 70 .04 70 .04 │ │ SBR d 1700 220 .13 110 .06 │ │ SBR d 1700 320 .19 190 .11 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 60 .04* 230 .14 │ │ EBL 1 1700 70 .04 540 .32* │ │ EBT 2 3400 330 .10 820 .26* │ │ EBT 2 3400 600 .19* 940 .29 │ │ EBR 0 0 20 60 │ │ EBR 0 0 60 30 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 10 .01 20 .01* │ │ WBL 1 1700 40 .02* 60 .04 │ │ WBT 2 3400 390 .13* 330 .12 │ │ WBT 2 3400 410 .14 490 .17* │ │ WBR 0 0 50 80 │ │ WBR 0 0 50 100 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment SBR .04* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment SBR .07* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35 .39 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .67

A.37

33. El Toro & Rockfield

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 220 .06* 390 .11* │ │ NBL 2 3400 380 .11* 600 .18* │ │ NBT 4 6800 770 .11 1140 .17 │ │ NBT 4 6800 900 .13 1650 .24 │ │ NBR d 1700 120 .07 160 .09 │ │ NBR d 1700 160 .09 550 .32 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 170 .05 190 .06 │ │ SBL 2 3400 170 .05 260 .08 │ │ SBT 4 6800 1340 .20* 1100 .18* │ │ SBT 4 6800 1820 .28* 1240 .20* │ │ SBR 0 0 50 90 │ │ SBR 0 0 110 90 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 90 .03 280 .08 │ │ EBL 2 3400 70 .02 170 .05 │ │ EBT 2 3400 200 .06* 420 .12* │ │ EBT 2 3400 260 .08* 250 .07* │ │ EBR f 180 230 │ │ EBR f 350 380 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 240 .07* 300 .09* │ │ WBL 2 3400 550 .16* 530 .16* │ │ WBT 2 3400 300 .09 250 .07 │ │ WBT 2 3400 270 .08 270 .08 │ │ WBR 1 1700 160 .09 150 .09 │ │ WBR 1 1700 170 .10 160 .09 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .55 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .68 .66

A.38

34. Los Alisos & Rockfield

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 230 .14* 250 .15* │ │ NBL 1 1700 300 .18* 340 .20* │ │ NBT 2 3400 900 .26 1270 .37 │ │ NBT 2 3400 860 .26 1180 .35 │ │ NBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBR 0 0 10 10 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 20 .01 20 .01 │ │ SBL 1 1700 30 .02 30 .02 │ │ SBT 2 3400 810 .36* 690 .29* │ │ SBT 2 3400 940 .42* 710 .29* │ │ SBR 0 0 410 290 │ │ SBR 0 0 480 260 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1.5 270 330 │ │ EBL 1.5 360 540 │ │ EBT 0.5 3400 20 .09* 40 .11* │ │ EBT 0.5 3400 10 .11* 40 .17* │ │ EBR 1 1700 230 .14 250 .15 │ │ EBR 1 1700 260 .15 230 .14 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 0.5 10 10 │ │ WBL 0.5 10 10 │ │ WBT 1.5 3400 40 .02* 20 .02* │ │ WBT 1.5 3400 40 .02* 30 .02* │ │ WBR 0 30 30 │ │ WBR 0 30 40 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .66 .62 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 .73

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 2040 General Plan with LFTM Program Imp │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 300 .18* 340 .20* │ │ NBT 2 3400 860 .26 1180 .35 │ │ NBR 0 0 10 10 │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 30 .02 30 .02 │ │ SBT 2 3400 940 .28* 710 .21* │ │ SBR d 1700 480 .28 260 .15 │ │ │ │ EBL 1.5 360 540 │ │ EBT 0.5 3400 10 .11* 40 .17* │ │ EBR 1 1700 260 .15 230 .14 │ │ │ │ WBL 0.5 10 10 │ │ WBT 1.5 3400 40 .02* 30 .02* │ │ WBR 0 30 40 │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .64 .65
A.39

35. Lake Forest & I-5 NB

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBT 4 6800 1340 .20 2480 .36* │ │ NBT 4 6800 1820 .27* 3110 .46* │ │ NBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1010 .20* 990 .19 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1250 .25 1080 .21 │ │ SBR f 930 910 │ │ SBR f 1210 1230 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 450 .13* 220 .06* │ │ WBL 2 3400 610 .18* 400 .12* │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBR 2 3400 500 .15 440 .13 │ │ WBR 2 3400 610 .18 580 .17 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment WBR .02* WBR .07* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment WBR .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .40 .54 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .50 .68

A.40

36. Lake Forest & I-5/Carlota
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │
│ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │
│ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │
│ NBT 4 6800 610 .10 1020 .17* │ │ NBT 4 6800 810 .13 1620 .26* │ │ NBR 0 0 50 120 │ │ NBR 0 0 60 170 │ │ │ │ │
│ SBL 2 3400 210 .06 210 .06* │ │ SBL 2 3400 310 .09 370 .11* │ │ SBT 3 5100 890 .17* 630 .12 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1380 .27* 880 .17 │ │ SBR f 360 360 │ │ SBR f 450 420 │
│ │ │ │
│ EBL 2.5 780 1460 │ │ EBL 2.5 1140 .22* 1710 .34* │ │ EBT 1.5 6800 320 .16* 540 .29* │ │ EBT 1.5 6800 310 .18 410 .24 │ │ EBR 1 1700 610 .36 460 .27 │ │ EBR 1 1700 590 .35 600 .35 │ │ │ │ │
│ WBL 1 1700 120 .07* 200 .12* │ │ WBL 1 1700 190 .11* 260 .15* │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │
│ WBR 2 3400 120 .04 250 .07 │ │ WBR 2 3400 250 .07 400 .12 │ │ │ │ │
│ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .20* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .13* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .69 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 .91 ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 2040 General Plan with LFTM Program Imp │ │ 2040 General Plan w/ alt. LFTM Program Imp │ │ │ │ │
│ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │
│ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │
│ NBT 4 6800 810 .13 1620 .26* │ │ NBT 4 6800 810 .13 1620 .26* │ │ NBR 0 0 60 170 │ │ NBR 0 0 60 170 │ │ │ │ │
│ SBL 2 3400 310 .09 370 .11* │ │ SBL 2 3400 310 .09 370 .11* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1380 .27* 880 .17 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1380 .27* 880 .17 │ │ SBR f 450 420 │ │ SBR f 450 420 │
│ │ │ │
│ EBL 3 5100 1140 .22* 1710 .34* │ │ EBL 2.5 1140 .22* 1710 .34* │ │ EBT 2 3400 310 .09 410 .12 │ │ EBT 1.5 6800 310 .18 410 .24 │ │ EBR 1 1700 590 .35 600 .35 │ │ EBR 1 1700 590 .35 600 .35 │ │ │ │ │
│ WBL 2 3400 190 .06 260 .08 │ │ WBL 1.5 190 .06* 260 │ │ WBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 5100 0 0 {.10}* │ │ WBR 2 3400 250 .07 400 .12 │ │ WBR 1.5 250 {.04} 400 │ │ │ │ │
│ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .19* WBR .01* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .13* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for WBR │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .73 .77 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .73 .86 A.41

37. Paseo De Valencia & Carlota

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 120 .04* 180 .05* │ │ NBL 2 3400 100 .03* 150 .04 │ │ NBT 1 1700 30 .02 70 .04 │ │ NBT 1 1700 40 .02 90 .05* │ │ NBR 1 1700 20 .01 100 .06 │ │ NBR 1 1700 30 .02 130 .08 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2.5 720 650 │ │ SBL 2.5 760 .22 980 │ │ SBT 1.5 6800 710 .21* 360 .15* │ │ SBT 1.5 6800 900 .27* 510 .22* │ │ SBR 0 30 30 │ │ SBR 0 30 20 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 2 3400 120 .04* 210 .06 │ │ EBL 2 3400 130 .04* 190 .06 │ │ EBT 2 3400 180 .05 470 .14* │ │ EBT 2 3400 280 .08 750 .22* │ │ EBR 1 1700 100 .06 300 .18 │ │ EBR 1 1700 80 .05 300 .18 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 10 .01 30 .02* │ │ WBL 1 1700 10 .01 30 .02* │ │ WBT 2 3400 250 .07* 250 .07 │ │ WBT 2 3400 450 .13* 410 .12 │ │ WBR 1 1700 430 .25 340 .20 │ │ WBR 1 1700 580 .34 450 .26 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment WBR .02* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01* NBR .01* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes N/S Split Phasing │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .41 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .57

A.42

38. El Toro & Bridger/I-5 NB

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 50 .03* 50 .03 │ │ NBL 1 1700 60 .04* 60 .04 │ │ NBT 2.5 6800 830 {.19} 1210 {.27}* │ │ NBT 2.5 6800 1070 {.22} 2310 {.45}* │ │ NBR 1.5 610 810 │ │ NBR 1.5 610 870 {.39} │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 0 0 10 40 {.02}* │ │ SBL 0 0 0 40 {.02}* │ │ SBT 5 8500 1790 .22* 1640 .21 │ │ SBT 5 8500 2970 .36* 2220 .28 │ │ SBR 0 0 80 90 │ │ SBR 0 0 90 110 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 20 .01 60 .04* │ │ EBL 1 1700 30 .02* 80 .05* │ │ EBT 1 1700 10 .01* 10 .01 │ │ EBT 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 │ │ EBR 1 1700 120 .07 120 .07 │ │ EBR 1 1700 170 .10 160 .09 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1.5 390 310 │ │ WBL 1.5 340 .10* 300 │ │ WBT 0 5100 30 {.13}* 30 {.14}* │ │ WBT 0 5100 40 30 .16* │ │ WBR 1.5 310 450 │ │ WBR 1.5 360 {.10} 530 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .03* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .04* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for EBR │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for EBR │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .47 .52 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .73

A.43

39. El Toro & Avd Carlota

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBT 4 6800 810 .12 1720 .25* │ │ NBT 4 6800 900 .13 2250 .33* │ │ NBR d 1700 40 .02 70 .04 │ │ NBR d 1700 40 .02 90 .05 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 110 .03 260 .08* │ │ SBL 2 3400 120 .04 330 .10* │ │ SBT 3 5100 860 .17* 1050 .21 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1090 .21* 1270 .25 │ │ SBR 1 1700 600 .35 550 .32 │ │ SBR 1 1700 860 .51 740 .44 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 3 5100 580 .11* 640 .13* │ │ EBL 3 5100 750 .15* 1250 .25* │ │ EBT 2 3400 210 .06 420 .12 │ │ EBT 2 3400 210 .06 580 .17 │ │ EBR 1 1700 100 .06 120 .07 │ │ EBR 1 1700 70 .04 10 .01 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 0.5 20 40 │ │ WBL 0.5 30 70 │ │ WBT 0.5 1700 70 .05* 80 .07* │ │ WBT 0.5 1700 140 .10* 150 .13* │ │ WBR 2 3400 290 .09 400 .12 │ │ WBR 2 3400 290 .09 470 .14 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment SBR .07* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment SBR .15* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for SBR WBR │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for SBR WBR │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .45 .58 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .66 .86

A.44

40. Portola & Rancho

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 620 .18* 490 .14* │ │ NBL 2 3400 820 .24* 740 .22* │ │ NBT 3 5100 1110 .22 880 .17 │ │ NBT 3 5100 1480 .29 1360 .27 │ │ NBR d 1700 10 .01 10 .01 │ │ NBR d 1700 0 .00 0 .00 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 10 .00 30 .01 │ │ SBL 2 3400 10 .00 30 .01 │ │ SBT 3 5100 870 .17* 1160 .23* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1370 .27* 1530 .30* │ │ SBR 1 1700 130 .08 100 .06 │ │ SBR 1 1700 70 .04 50 .03 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1.5 80 130 │ │ EBL 1.5 140 220 │ │ EBT 0.5 3400 10 .03* 30 .05* │ │ EBT 0.5 3400 10 .04* 30 .07* │ │ EBR f 390 810 │ │ EBR f 630 1240 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1.5 10 10 .01 │ │ WBL 1.5 0 0 │ │ WBT 1 6800 10 .00* 20 .01* │ │ WBT 1 6800 20 .01* 20 .01* │ │ WBR 1.5 10 20 │ │ WBR 1.5 10 20 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for SBR WBR │ │ Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for SBR WBR │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .48 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .65

A.45

41. Alton & Rancho South

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 1 1700 80 .05* 130 .08 │ │ NBL 2 3400 80 .02* 150 .04 │ │ NBT 3 5100 520 .10 1000 .20* │ │ NBT 3 5100 820 .16 1390 .27* │ │ NBR 1 1700 140 .08 100 .06 │ │ NBR 1 1700 200 .12 150 .09 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 120 .04 40 .01* │ │ SBL 2 3400 250 .07 70 .02* │ │ SBT 3 5100 980 .19* 590 .12 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1350 .26* 940 .18 │ │ SBR d 1700 40 .02 30 .02 │ │ SBR d 1700 50 .03 40 .02 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 20 .01 20 .01 │ │ EBL 1 1700 30 .02 10 .01 │ │ EBT 2 3400 30 .01* 30 .01* │ │ EBT 2 3400 70 .02* 100 .03* │ │ EBR 1 1700 150 .09 140 .08 │ │ EBR 1 1700 160 .09 150 .09 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1 1700 190 .11* 190 .11* │ │ WBL 1 1700 320 .19* 290 .17* │ │ WBT 2 3400 20 .01 30 .01 │ │ WBT 2 3400 70 .02 60 .02 │ │ WBR d 1700 30 .02 90 .05 │ │ WBR d 1700 90 .05 110 .06 │ │ │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .04* │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .45 .38 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .54

A.46

42. Alton & Commercentre

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Existing Counts (2022) │ │ 2040 General Plan (Committed Network) │ │ │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ NBT 3 5100 540 .15 1120 .26* │ │ NBT 3 5100 780 .23* 1480 .39* │ │ NBR 0 0 250 190 │ │ NBR 0 0 460 .27 510 │ │ │ │ │ │ SBL 1 1700 90 .05 30 .02* │ │ SBL 1 1700 170 .10* 120 .07* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1190 .23* 790 .15 │ │ SBT 3 5100 1570 .31 1100 .22 │ │ SBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ SBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ EBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBL 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBT 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ EBR 0 0 0 0 │ │ │ │ │ │ WBL 1.5 170 .05* 360 .11* │ │ WBL 1.5 380 .11* 600 .18* │ │ WBT 0 5100 0 0 │ │ WBT 0 5100 0 0 │ │ WBR 1.5 30 100 .06 │ │ WBR 1.5 110 200 .12 │ │ │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .33 .44 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .69

A.47
105. Alton & Irvine

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 2040 General Plan (MPAH Network) w/ LFTM Progra │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 130 .04* 490 .14 │ │ NBT 3 5100 550 .11 1360 .27* │ │ NBR f 40 100 │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 220 .06 90 .03* │ │ SBT 3 5100 1540 .30* 640 .13 │ │ SBR f 240 700 │ │ │ │ EBL 3 5100 460 .09* 280 .05* │ │ EBT 3 5100 600 .12 400 .08 │ │ EBR d 1700 480 .28 110 .06 │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 50 .01 90 .03 │ │ WBT 3 5100 350 .07* 640 .13* │ │ WBR 1 1700 50 .03 160 .09 │ │ │ │ Right Turn Adjustment EBR .10* │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .53
A.48
125. Bake & Rockfield

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 2040 General Plan (MPAH Network) w/ LFTM Progra │ │ │ │ AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR │ │ LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C │ │ │ │ NBL 2 3400 200 .06* 70 .02 │ │ NBT 4 6800 2790 .41 3390 .50* │ │ NBR f 660 590 │ │ │ │ SBL 2 3400 80 .02 90 .03* │ │ SBT 4 6800 3070 .45* 2760 .41 │ │ SBR 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 │ │ │ │ EBL 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 │ │ EBT 2 3400 20 .01* 40 .01* │ │ EBR f 50 430 │ │ │ │ WBL 2 3400 290 .09* 840 .25* │ │ WBT 2 3400 60 .02 30 .01 │ │ WBR f 100 80 │ │ │ │ Clearance Interval .05* .05* │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .66 .84
A.49
Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update LFTM Intersection Comparison Table

Project Number: 2042547210 B.1

Appendix B LFTM Intersection Comparison Table
The number of intersections with improvements funded by the LFTM Program has evolved over time as updated analyses have been prepared. Table B-1 provides a comparison that shows past, current, and proposed intersections improvement locations under the LFTM program.

Table B-1 LFTM Intersection Comparison Table

Intersection Ordinance 186

LFMC 7.19
2011 Baseline
Adjustment/
Ordinance 236
2014
5 Year
Update
2018
5 Year
Update
2024
Proposed
Update
Bake and Irvine/Trabuco      
Bake and Portola     (a) (a)
Lake Forest & Rancho     (a) 
El Toro & Portola/Santa
Margarita
     (a)
Bake & Jeronimo      
Lake Forest & Jeronimo      
Los Alisos & Jeronimo  
Los Alisos & Muirlands   
Lake Forest & Rockfield      
Los Alisos & Rockfield      
Lake Forest & I-5/Carlota      
PD Valencia & Carlota      (a)
El Toro & Carlota      (a)
Alton & Towne Centre  
Alton & Irvine      
Alton & Toledo     (a) (a)
Bake & Rockfield      (r)
Ridge Route & Rockfield    (a)
El Toro & Trabuco  
Total 18 18 16 15 15 14
(a) The LFTM improvement was implemented. The intersection improvements remain on the list for cost allocation purposes. (r) Proposed to be removed from the LFTM Program due to acceptable LOS.

The original LFTM Program (Ordinance 186) and LFMC 7.19 included the 18 intersections shown in Table B-1, above. As part of the 2011 Baseline Adjustment and Ordinance 236, three intersections were removed from the program and one intersection was added. Both the Los Alisos/Jeronimo intersection and the Alton/Town Center intersection were removed due to traffic forecasts showing those intersections had an ICU value at an acceptable LOS. Improvements at the El Toro/Trabuco intersection was completed and removed from the LFTM Program. The Ridge Route/Rockfield intersection was added due to traffic forecasts showing deficient intersection LOS.

In the 2014 Five-Year Update the Los Alisos/Muirlands intersection was removed due to fully committed improvements by the FCPP program.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update LFTM Intersection Comparison Table

Project Number: 2042547210 B.2

In the 2018 Five-Year Update five intersections under the updated baseline conditions had an acceptable LOS. Recent LFTM Program improvements were constructed at Bake/Portola, Lake Forest/Rancho, and Alton/Toledo intersections, which was a part of the Baker Ranch development. The Lake Forest/Jeronimo, Lake Forest/Rockfield, and Los Alisos/Rockfield intersections have traffic forecasts showing the intersections at an acceptable LOS. Based on discussions with City staff, the intersections remain part of the LFTM Program due to either being on the LOS D/LOS E cusp or intersection sensitivity, and therefore improvements are maintained as part of the LFTM program.

In this 2024 Five-Year Update, LFTM Program improvements at El Toro/Portola, Paseo De Valencia/Avenida de la Carlota, and El Toro/Avenida de la Carlota have been completed. The following five intersections are in the pre-construction phase: Lake Forest/Rancho, Bake/Irvine, Bake/Jeronimo, Lake Forest/Jeronimo, and Los Alisos/Rockfield. Bake/Rockfield is proposed to be removed from the LFTM Program due to an acceptable LOS.

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update LFTM Program Improvements Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 C.1

Appendix C LFTM Program Improvements Summary
The following provides a detailed discussion on each LFTM Program intersection.

LFTM Program Locations in Pre-construction Phase

10. Lake Forest Drive & Rancho Parkway
This intersection is in the City of Lake Forest. The LFTM Program included the following improvements:

- Restripe westbound (Rancho Parkway) approach to add 2nd westbound left-turn lane and convert dedicated westbound right-turn lane to a defacto right-turn lane - Add a 2nd eastbound (Rancho Parkway) through lane
In 2014 the City completed the 2nd eastbound (Rancho Parkway) through lane and in 2016 completed the 2nd westbound left-turn lane. The dedicated westbound right-turn lane was not converted to a defacto right-turn lane. A westbound right-turn defacto is not needed because there is a westbound right-turn lane in place.

The City is in the pre-construction phase of implementing the following improvement:
- Restripe eastbound (Rancho Parkway) lanes to include a defacto right-turn lane.

The implementation of the eastbound defacto right-turn lane would complete the LFTM Program at this location.

Estimated Cost (before Admin & Environmental): $627,448

14. Bake Parkway & Irvine Boulevard/Trabuco Road
This location is partially in the City of Lake Forest and partially in the City of Irvine (west leg of intersection is in Irvine). The City of Lake Forest is the lead agency that will implement the following improvements (CIP PW2019-02):

- Add a 2
nd northbound left turn lane (Bake Parkway)
- Convert the westbound right-turn lane to a 4th through lane (Trabuco Road) - Add a westbound right turn defacto (Trabuco Road)
The above improvements are both a part of the LFTM program and the NITM program. A cooperative agreement for the “Bake Parkway/Irvine Boulevard/Trabuco Road Intersection Improvement Project” was made and entered on September 14, 2021. Per the cooperative agreement, the City of Irvine will contribute 50% of the preliminary engineering and final design phases of the Project. The City of Irvine will also contribute 50% toward right-of-way and construction phases of the Project.

The following improvement is in the LFTM program but the City does not wish to construct at this time:
- Convert the 3
rd eastbound through lane to a shared through/right-turn lane Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update LFTM Program Improvements Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 C.2

The ICU and LOS analysis carried out for this LFTM 5-Year Update shows that the intersection is at a LOS B and would not need the conversion of the 3rd eastbound through lane to a shared through/right- turn lane.

The following improvement is in the NITM program but the City of Irvine does not wish to pursue the improvements at this time:
- Ultimate lane configuration for eastbound Irvine Boulevard to be 2.5 through lanes and a 1.5 right turn lane)
Per the cooperative agreement, Irvine agrees that additional improvements to the eastbound Irvine Boulevard will be their sole responsibility and expense in the future if deemed by appropriate by Irvine.

Estimated Cost (before Admin & Environmental): $4,452,502 Estimated Lake Forest Cost Share (before Admin & Environmental): $2,226,251

22. Bake Parkway and Jeronimo Road
This intersection is partially in the City of Lake Forest and partially in the City of Irvine (west leg). The City of Irvine is the lead agency that will implement the following improvements:

- 2nd northbound left-turn lane (Bake Parkway)
The above is a joint LFTM program and NITM program improvement.

The City of Irvine does not want to proceed with the following NITM program improvements:
- Add 4th southbound through lane (Bake Parkway)
- Add 3rd westbound through lane (Jeronimo Road)
In lieu if the NITM program improvements above, City of Irvine and City of Lake Forest agree to substitute the above improvements with the following:
- Add 2nd westbound left-turn lane (Jeronimo Road)
- Add a westbound right turn defacto lane (Jeronimo Road) The City of Irvine will contribute 100% of costs for the above listed substitute NITM program improvements. Therefore, the improvements at this intersection include:
- 2nd northbound left-turn lane (Bake Parkway)
- 2nd westbound left-turn lane (Jeronimo Road)
- Westbound right turn defacto lane (Jeronimo Road)
A cooperative agreement for the “Bake Parkway/Jeronimo Intersection Improvement Project” was made and entered on September 14, 2021. Lake Forest will contribute 50% towards preliminary engineering and final design phases of the Project for the joint LFTM and NITM improvement. Irvine and Lake Forest will each contribute 50% towards right-of-way and construction phases.

Estimated Cost (before Admin & Environmental): $9,489,294 Estimated Lake Forest Cost Share (before Admin & Environmental): $2,846,788

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update LFTM Program Improvements Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 C.3

23. Lake Forest Drive & Jeronimo Road
This intersection is in the City of Lake Forest. The City is currently in the pre-construction stage (CIP 2022-10).

The LFTM program includes:
- Add a defacto eastbound right turn lane (Jeronimo Road) (LFTM program) The NITM program includes additional improvements, however there are no plans to implement them at this time:
- Add 2nd southbound (Lake Forest Drive)
- Add dedicated eastbound and westbound right turn lanes (Jeronimo Road)

An ICU and LOS analysis under 2040 General Plan conditions shows that the intersection will be at LOS C with the defacto eastbound right turn lane and no additional improvements are needed.

Estimated Cost (before Admin & Environmental): $1,392,922

34. Los Alisos Boulevard and Rockfield Boulevard

This intersection is in the City of Lake Forest. The City is currently in the pre-construction stage (CIP 2022-11).

The LFTM program includes:
- Add a southbound right-turn lane (Los Alisos Boulevard) (LFTM program and NITM program) In 2017, the City of Lake Forest has implemented:
- Extend northbound left turn lane (Los Alisos Boulevard) The City of Lake Forest is currently in the pre-construction phase of implementing the following:
- Add a southbound defacto right -turn lane (Los Alisos Boulevard) A southbound defacto right-turn would be in lieu of the dedicated southbound right-turn lane because of physical constraints. Widening of the roadway would impact adjacent homes, sidewalk, and on-street bike lanes. An ICU and LOS analysis under 2040 General Plan conditions shows that the intersection would be at LOS B with the southbound defacto right-turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane is not needed.

The defacto right turn lane meets the requirements of the LFTM program as the intersection is at an acceptable LOS and the improvements would not cost more than the dedicated right-turn lane.

The NITM program includes additional improvements, however there are no plans to implement them at this time:
- Add 2
nd northbound (Los Alisos) left turn lane
- Add southbound (Los Alisos) right turn lane
As noted above, the intersection would be at a LOS B with the southbound defacto and no additional improvements are needed.

Estimated Cost (before Admin & Environmental): $906,678

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update LFTM Program Improvements Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 C.4

LFTM Program Intersections in the Planning Phase

31. Lake Forest Drive & Rockfield Boulevard

This intersection is in the City of Lake Forest. Improvements in the LFTM program include:
- Restripe 2nd westbound through to shared 3rd westbound left/2nd westbound through (Rockfield Boulevard)
- Eastbound and westbound split phasing traffic signal operation (Rockfield Boulevard) This location is also a part of the NITM program and includes the following improvements, however there are no plans to implement them at this time:
- Restripe westbound (Rockfield Boulevard) to provide 3 left turn lanes, 2 thru lanes, and no right turn lane
The intersection is at an acceptable LOS D under the 2040 committed network scenario and at a LOS D/LOS E cusp under a scenario where the Ridge Route extension over the I-5 freeway is built (per MPAH buildout). The City of Lake Forest does not wish to pursue the split phase traffic signal modification due to unbalanced lane utilization. An ICU and LOS analysis was conducted using General Plan MPAH buildout forecast volumes and is summarizes in Table C-1. The analysis shows that the intersection would be at an LOS E with the LFTM program improvements and at a LOS E with the NITM program improvements.

Table C-1: Lake Forest Drive & Rockfield Boulevard ICU and LOS Analysis – General Plan Buildout with MPAH Buildout Scenario

Peak Hour
No Intersection
Improvements
With LFTM
Improvements
With NITM
Improvements
With Alternative
Improvements

LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU
AM Peak Hour B 0.61 B 0.65 B 0.69 B 0.61
PM Peak Hour D 0.86 E 0.92 E 0.93 D 0.86

In lieu of the LFTM program improvements that involve modifying the eastbound/westbound (Rockfield) traffic signal to split phasing, the following traffic signal modifications would improve the traffic operations at the intersection:

- Westbound (Rockfield) right turn overlap phasing
- No right turns on red when there are pedestrian calls (safety improvement for pedestrians) Removal of the west crosswalk was also considered, however, since this intersection is adjacent to a busy shopping center removal of a crosswalk would not be ideal.

A westbound right turn overlap phasing would require a prohibited U-turn for the northbound (Lake Forest) movement). Vehicles would need to make a U-turn at Lake Forest Drive and Aspan Street intersection, which is under signal control with a protected left-turn light. An eastbound right turn overlap phasing would require a prohibited U-turn for the southbound (Lake Forest Drive) movement. There is no available U-turn until past the freeway in Irvine. An option would be to make a U-turn at Centre Drive and Rockfield Boulevard intersection.

Estimated Cost (before Admin & Environmental): $59,980

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update LFTM Program Improvements Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 C.5

36. Lake Forest Drive & I-5 Off Ramp/Avenida de la Carlota

This intersection is shared between the City of Laguna Hills and the City of Irvine.

LFTM program improvements include:
- Convert the shared eastbound left- turn/through lane to a 3rd left-turn lane (I-5 Off Ramp) (LFTM and NITM improvement)
- Add a 2
nd westbound left-turn lane (Avenida de la Carlota) (LFTM and NITM improvement) - Add right-turn overlap phasing for westbound right-turn lane (Avenida de la Carlota) (LFTM and NITM improvement)
- Add a 2nd eastbound through lane (I-5 Off Ramp) (LFTM Only) The improvements above are joint NITM and LFTM program improvements, except for adding a 2nd eastbound through lane, which is only in the LFTM program.

An ICU and LOS analysis was carried out for this location under 2040 General Plan (with committed network) conditions. The following alternative improvements would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS D.
- Restripe the westbound approach (Avenida de la Carlota) to include one left-turn lane, one shared left/right turn lane, and one dedicated right turn lane Estimated cost (before Admin & Environmental): $120,360

105. Alton Parkway & Irvine Boulevard

This intersection is located in the City of Irvine and the City of Lake Forest would like to make a payment to the City of Irvine to implement their preferred improvements.

LFTM program improvements at this intersection include:
- Reconfigure the eastbound approach to add a 3rd eastbound left-turn lane (Irvine Boulevard) - Remove dedicated eastbound right-turn lane and provide a defacto eastbound right-turn lane (Irvine Boulevard)
The City of Irvine is planning to implement the following NITM program improvements:
- Restripe eastbound approach to provide 2.5 left-turn lanes, 2.5 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane (Irvine Boulevard)
- Modify Traffic study to provide for east/west split phasing. - Designate LOS “E” as acceptable
- In lieu of constructing additional NITM improvements, the City of Irvine will make a contribution to their TMSOS in an amount equal to the construction cost of adding a 4 th westbound through lane
and a third eastbound left-turn lane.

At this time there is no cooperative agreement between the two cities for improvements at this intersection.

Estimated cost (before Admin & Environmental): $676,214

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update LFTM Program Improvements Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 C.6

LFTM Program Locations that are Complete

2. Bake Parkway & Portola Parkway

The intersection is in the City of Lake Forest and LFTM program improvements include:
- Add 3rd westbound through lane (Portola Parkway)
- Or 2nd eastbound left turn lane (Portola Parkway)
In 2017, the City constructed the 2nd eastbound left turn lane on Portola Parkway. This improvement completed the LFTM program at this location.

Final Cost: $72,240 (Source: City of Lake Forest)

12. El Toro Road & Portola Parkway/Santa Margarita Parkway

This intersection is in the City of Lake Forest and construction on the LFTM improvements started in March 2023 (CIP PW2019-03). Construction was completed on December 2023. The city implemented the following improvements:
- Add a 2nd northbound left-turn lane (El Toro Road)
- Add a 2nd southbound right-turn lane (El Toro Road)
- Add a 2nd southbound left-turn lane (El Toro Road) (note: not a LFTM program improvement) The LFTM Improvements for this intersection are complete.

Final Cost: $2,627,022 (Source: City of Lake Forest)

17. El Toro Road & Trabuco Road

This intersection is in the City of Lake Forest and LFTM program improvements include:
- Add defacto northbound right turn lane (El Toro Road) - Add defacto westbound right turn lane (Trabuco Road)
In 2009 the construction of a northbound dedicated right turn lane (El Toro Road) and westbound dedicated right turn lane (Trabuco Road) was completed.

The implementation of the above improvements completed the LFTM program improvements at this intersection and was removed from the LFTM program in the 2011 LFTM program Baseline Adjustment Study.

Estimated Cost: $280,000 (Source: 2006 LFTM program Update)

32. Ridge Route Drive & Rockfield Boulevard

This location is in the City of Lake Forest. Improvements in the LFTM program include:

- Add defacto northbound right turn lane (Ridge Route Drive) In 2020 the City finished construction on a dedicated northbound right turn lane (Ridge Route).

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update LFTM Program Improvements Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 C.7

This location is also a part of the NITM program, however there are no plans to implement them at this time:
- Improve southbound (Ridge Route Drive) to 1.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 thru lanes, and defacto right turn lane.
- Restripe northbound (Ridge Route Drive) to1.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes, and defacto right turn lane
- Modify signal to split phase (northbound/southbound only).

Final Cost: $1,144 (Source: City of Lake Forest)

37. Paseo De Valencia & Avenida de la Carlota

This location is in the City of Laguna Hills. The City of Lake Forest contributed funds for the implementation of improvements. LFTM program improvements are complete at this location.

Final Contribution Cost: $79,000 (Source: City of Lake Forest)

39. El Toro Road & Avenida de la Carlota

This location is in the City of Laguna Hills. The City of Lake Forest contributed funds for the implementation of improvements. LFTM program improvements are complete at this location.

Final Contribution Cost: $78,000 (Source: City of Lake Forest)

117. Alton Parkway & Toledo Way

This location is in the City of Irvine. The City of Lake Forest completed the following improvement:
- Westbound right turn overlap phasing (Toledo Way)
LFTM program improvements are complete at this location.

Final Cost: $19,555 (Source: City of Lake Forest)

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update LFTM Program Improvements Summary

Project Number: 2042547210 C.8

LFTM Program Locations Proposed to be Removed

125. Bake Parkway & Rockfield Boulevard

The intersection is in the City of Irvine. LFTM Program improvements include the following:

- Restripe shared 3rd westbound (Rockfield) left/2nd westbound through to full 3rd westbound left turn lane and remove free westbound right turn, add defacto westbound right turn.

Forecast volumes from the City of Irvine’s traffic model (ITAM TC) was used obtained and an ICU analysis showed that the intersection would be at an acceptable LOS (LOS D) without the LFTM Program improvements. The City of Irvine has removed this location from its NITM program and does not intend to make any physical improvements to the lane configuration. Since the City of Irvine does not plan to implement any improvements, the intersection is proposed to be removed from the LFTM program.

Estimated Cost Removed from Program: $1,626,800 (Source: 2018 LFTM 5-Year Update)

Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program 5-Year Update Cost Estimates

Project Number: 2042547210 D.1

Appendix D Cost Estimates

Unit
Description Unit Quantity Price Amount
Remove ex. and Furnish and Install Sign on Signal Mast ArmEA 1 1,300.00$ 1,300.00$ Remove and Salvage Existing Signal Head EA 2 750.00$ 1,500.00$ 5-12" Vehicle Head (LED), visors, and mounting hardwareEA 2 4,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 5-12" Backplate EA 2 800.00$ 1,600.00$
Wiring (Slip pull 5-CSC) LF 200 40.00$ 8,000.00$ Modify Cabinet for New Overlap Phasing LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ Traffic Control LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
Mobilization LS 1 4,900.00$ 4,900.00$
Contingency (20%) LS 1 4,680.00$ 4,680.00$
44,980.00$
Right of Way LS 0 -$ -$
Environmental LS 0 -$ -$
Design LS 1 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
Construction Support/Administration LS 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ Bid Support/Administration LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ Traffic Signal Modification ImprovementsTotal = 59,980.00$ Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
Lake Forest Drive and Rockfield Boulevard
Traffic Signal Modification
City of Lake Forest , LFTM 5-Year Update
Construction Subtotal

DETAIL "A"
DETAIL "A"
DETAIL "A"
DETAIL "A"
v:\2042\active\2042547200\drawing\exhibit_files\concept_plans_lake-forest_rockfield.dwg ´
Lake Forest Drive at Rockfield Boulevard Conceptual Intersection Improvements DETAIL "A"

GRAPHIC SCALE

ROCKFIELD BLVD
(45 MPH)

LAKE FOREST DR
(45 MPH)
ALL SECTIONS 12-INCH
R73-5(CA)
R73-6(CA)
Unit
Description Unit Quantity Price Amount
Clear and Grubbing LS 1 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $
Remove Existing Striping LF 1807 2.00 $ 3,614.00$ Reconstruct Raised Island/Pedestrian Passageways SF 705 20.00 $ 14,100.00$ Remove Thermoplastic Markings E A 7 150.00$ 1,050.00$ Remove and Salvage Existing TS Mast Arm LS 1 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ Relocate Ex. ISNS to New Mast Arm/Pole LS 1 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ Type "E" Loop (6'x6') E A 3 500.00$ 1,500.00$ Traffic Signal Modification LS 1 86,625.00 $ 86,625.00 $ Roadway Striping LF 3510 3.00 $ 10,530.00$ Thermoplastic Markings SF 30 20.00 $ 600.00 $ Excavation (raodway widening) CY 340 15.00 $ 5,100.00$ Curb and Gutter LF 480 75.00 $ 36,000.00$
PCC Sidewalk and Landing SF 2160 15.00 $ 32,400.00$ Modify Existing Irigation System LS 1 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 14' Catch Basin E A 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00 $
21" Concrete Collar EA 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00 $
21" RCP LF 10 300.00 $ 3,000.00$
Traffic Control LS 1 14,023.14 $ 14,023.14 $
Mobilization LS 1 11, 685.95$ 11,685.95 $
256,428.09$
Right of Way SF 2400 135.00 $ 324,000.00$
Temporary Construction Easement SF 2500 15.00 $ 37,500.00$ Design LS 1 51,285.62 $ 51,285.62 $
Construction Support/Administration LS 1 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ Bid Support/Administration LS 1 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ Intersection Improvements Total = 676,214.00$
Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
Alton Parkway and Irvine Boulevard
Intersection Improvements
City of Lake Forest , LFTM 5-Year Update
Construction Subtotal

Unit
Description Unit Quantity Price Amount
Remove Thermoplastic Markings LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ Remove ex. And Furnish and Install Sign on Signal Mast ArmEA 1 1,300.00$ 1,300.00$ Thermoplastic Markings SF 30 20.00$ 600.00$ Lane Line Extension Striping LF 130 5.00$ 650.00$ Traffic Control LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
Mobilization LS 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
Contingency (20%) EA 1 -- 810.00$
10,360.00$
Design LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
Construction Support/Administration LS 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ Bid Support/Administration LS 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ Traffic Signal Modification ImprovementsTotal = 20,360.00$ Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
Lake Forest Drive and Avenida De La Carlota
Intersection Modifications
City of Lake Forest , LFTM 5-Year Update
Construction Subtotal