APPENDIX F-IV.K Updated Transportation Impact Analysis (June 2010)

Transcription

1 APPENDIX F-IV.K Updated Transportation Impact Analysis (June 2010)

2 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY MASTER PLAN PROJECT JUNE 2010 PREPARED FOR AECOM Design PREPARED BY

3 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY MASTER PLAN PROJECT December 2009June 2010 Prepared for: AECOM Design Prepared by: FEHR & PEERS 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500 Santa Monica, California (310) Ref: 2016

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary I. Introduction... 1 Project Description... 1 Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan... 4 Study Scope and Analysis Methodologies... 7 II. Existing Conditions Existing Street System Existing Transit Service Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service III. Future Conditions without Project Areawide Traffic Growth Future Baseline Intersection and Roadway Improvements Intersection Operations IV. Future Conditions with Project Project Traffic Volumes Intersection Operating Conditions V. Intersection Traffic Impact Analysis Criteria for Determination of Significant Traffic Impact Project Intersection Impacts Impact Trip Thresholds Campus Resident Trip Generation Study Mitigation Measures Faculty/Staff TDM Program TDM Implementation and Monitoring Sample TDM Programs VI. Neighborhood Traffic Impact Analysis Neighborhood Street Impacts VII. Regional Transportation System Impact Analysis Significant Traffic Impact Criteria Regional Traffic Impact Analysis Regional Transit Impact Analysis VIII. Site Access and Parking Analysis Level of Service Analysis at Project Access Points Parking Analysis Parking Inventory and Occupancy Data Resident Student Parking Demand Ratio Commuter Parking Demand Ratio... 86

5 Campus Parking Demand, Recommended Supply and Impact Analysis Phasing of Parking Supply Increases IX. Construction Period Impact Analysis Construction Impacts Mitigation Measures X. Summary and Conclusions References Appendix E: TDM Trip Generation Estimates Note: Appendices A through D remain unchanged from the Draft EIR and can be reviewed in Appendix IV.K of the Draft EIR.

6 LIST OF FIGURES NO. 1 Study Area Analyzed Intersections and Segments Existing Transit Service A Existing (2008) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes B Existing (2008) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Locations of Related Projects A Future without Project (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes B Future without Project (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes University Trip Distribution A Future Project Only (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes B Future Project Only (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Future with Project (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes B Future with Project (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Campus Map PM Peak Hour Trips A Future with Project with Mitigation (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes B Future with Project with Mitigation (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes... 67

7 LIST OF TABLES NO. 1 Full-Time Equivalent Data Existing Surface Street Characteristics Existing Transit Service Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Definitions for Unsignalized Intersections Existing Conditions (2008) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections Existing Conditions (2008) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections Related Projects Trip Generation Future without Project (2030) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections Future without Project (2030) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections Trip Generation Rates Trip Generation Future with Project (2030) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections Future with Project (2030) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections Trip Generation with Residential Rates TDM Mitigation Phasing Future with Project with TDM Conditions (2030) Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Signalized Intersections Sample TDM Programs Neighborhood Street Impact Analysis Existing (2008) On-Campus Parking Inventory and Occupancy Parking Demand Projections Parking Supply Phasing... 91

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was undertaken to analyze the potential transportation impacts of the Loyola Marymount University Master Plan Project. The methodology and base assumptions used in this analysis were established in conjunction with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). A total of 25 intersections were analyzed for this report, including six unsignalized intersections analyzed for potential signalization. Five residential street segments were analyzed. The Project will be located in the West Los Angeles community of Westchester. The Project buildout year is expected to be The Project proposes the development of approximately 508,000 net new gross square feet (gsf) of academic, administrative, and student support facilities, 476,000 net new gsf of student residential facilities, 28,000 gsf of net new indoor athletic facilities, and 4.8 acres of net new outdoor athletic facilities. A trip generation study was conducted, and based on the empirical data collected, trip generation rates were developed. The Proposed Project is expected to generate a net increase of approximately 176 trips during the AM peak hour, 223 trips during the PM peak hour, and approximately 2,540 daily trips. According to the significance criteria established by LADOT, before mitigation, the Proposed Project is expected to have significant impacts at two intersections at Proposed Project buildout in 2030: Lincoln Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard, and Centinela Avenue & Jefferson Boulevard. Detailed TDM mitigation measures have been proposed that will mitigate Proposed Project impacts to less than significant levels. Proposed mitigation measures include increasing the number of residential beds provided on Campus, and/or implementing a 5% or 10% faculty/staff TDM program, depending on the number of additional full-time equivalent students, faculty, and staff members added to the Campus population. Detailed descriptions of TDM strategies have been provided, and a sample 5% and 10% TDM program has been discussed. i

9 An analysis of the Proposed Project s potential impacts on the regional transportation system conducted in accordance with CMP requirements determined that the Proposed Project would not have a significant impact on the CMP arterial highway network, the mainline freeway system, and the regional transit system. An empirical parking demand study was conducted to determine parking demand rates for the Campus. Applying the parking demand rates to the Proposed Project buildout determined that an additional 609 parking spaces would be needed at full buildout to meet the increased demand of the Proposed Project. To avoid significant impacts, LMU should construct these additional spaces in phases as the Campus grows. While typical construction traffic does not occur during peak periods, construction staging will occur on-campus, and construction worker parking will be located on-campus or in a designated off-site parking facility, a construction management plan is recommended to mitigate any additional potential impacts. ii

10 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this transportation and parking analysis is to analyze the potential transportation impacts of the Loyola Marymount University (LMU) Master Plan Project (the Proposed Project ). This report identifies the base assumptions, describes the methodologies, and summarizes the findings of the study, which was conducted as part of the Proposed Project s environmental impact report (EIR). The methodology and base assumptions used in this analysis were established in conjunction with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed with LADOT that established the parameters and approach of this study. The assumptions and methods used in this analysis have been chosen to create a conservative set of conditions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Project The Proposed Project will be located at the Loyola Marymount University campus (the Campus ) in the West Los Angeles community of Westchester (the Project Site ). The project buildout year is expected to be The Project proposes the development of approximately 508,000 net new gross square feet (gsf) of academic, administrative, and student support facilities, 476,000 net new gsf of student residential facilities, 28,000 gsf of net new indoor athletic facilities, and 4.8 acres of net new outdoor athletic facilities. As part of the Proposed Project, LMU proposes to systematically replace all functionally obsolete or substandard oncampus buildings in order to enhance the student experience and quality of life. Currently, LMU s enrollment cap, as approved by the City in 2000, is 7,800 full-time equivalent (FTE) students 1. Notwithstanding the higher enrollment permitted by the City approvals, all analysis in the EIR is based on the actual enrollment as of Fall 2008 and assesses the impacts of increasing the actual enrollment to 7,800 FTE students. LMU s enrollment of 6,868.4 FTE 1 A student FTE is a unit of measurement used to calculate enrollment for academic and master planning purposes, as opposed to student headcount. One undergraduate student FTE is defined as one undergraduate student taking 12 course units, which represents a full course load. Students taking fewer course units are considered to constitute a fraction of a Student FTE, whereas students taking more than 12 units constitute more than one FTE. One graduate student FTE is defined as one graduate student taking 9 course units, which represents a full course load. 1

11 students in Fall 2008 (existing/current conditions) would be increased to a student enrollment cap of 7,800 FTE students. LMU also proposes to house a greater percentage of LMU undergraduate students on the Campus, from approximately 60 percent of its undergraduate FTE students currently, to approximately 75 percent at buildout, depending on the final allotted space allowances per bed. Since outdated residential units would be replaced with newer apartment-style units, the residential square footage allotted per bed would be higher in the new housing. Further, this analysis considers the traffic and parking impacts of changes to the faculty and staff population on Campus. In Fall 2008, there were 1, FTE faculty and staff 2. At buildout, LMU expects to have 1,800 FTE faculty and staff employed by the University. Because of the long-term nature of the Proposed Project, the precise location and configuration of proposed buildings and facilities have not been finalized, and will be determined based on the evolving academic and administrative needs of LMU and available funding over the next 20 years. Therefore, the transportation impacts of the Proposed Project have been analyzed utilizing projections of future FTE numbers for the Campus population, inclusive of students, faculty, and staff. Table 1 details the current FTE numbers for students, faculty, and staff, as well as presents LMU s projections for FTEs at Proposed Project buildout. Existing Uses and Population on the Project Site The Campus encompasses approximately 142 acres, and is developed with a variety of academic, administrative, athletic, and residential facilities that serve LMU s Campus population. The Proposed Project would not expand the Campus boundaries. LMU s enrollment for Fall 2008, the most recent semester for which enrollment figures are available, was 6,868.4 FTE students, including 5,441.8 undergraduate FTEs and 1,426.6 graduate FTEs. As of Fall 2008, LMU employed approximately 1,484 faculty and staff FTEs working on the Campus, some of whom also lived on the Campus. The Campus is accessed via two vehicular entrances: LMU Drive and Lincoln Boulevard, which is the primary Campus entry, and Loyola Boulevard and West 80 th Street, a secondary 2 Faculty/Staff FTEs: One full-time staff member works 40 hours per week. Two part-time staff members working 20 hours per week equals one full-time equivalent staff person. For faculty, one full-time faculty member is one FTE faculty member and three part-time faculty members equals one FTE faculty member. 2

12 TABLE 1 FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT DATA [a] LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY MASTER PLAN PROJECT 2008 Buildout [b] Students Undergrad FTEs [c] 5, ,500 Residential 3,218 4,200 Residential 3,261 4,250 Non-Residential 2, ,300 Non-Residential 2, ,250 Graduate FTEs [c] 1, ,300 Total Student FTEs 6, ,800 Faculty/Staff Faculty/Staff FTEs [d] 1, Residential Non Residential 1, Total Total Campus FTEs 8, Notes: [a] Data Source: LMU, January 22, 2009 [b] Residential students are currently approximately 60% of total undergrad FTES. This is projected to grow to approximately 75% of the total of approximately 5,500 undergrad students upon Master Plan buildout. [c] Student FTEs: A student FTE is a unit of measurement used to calculate enrollment for academic and master planning purposes, as opposed to student headcount. One undergraduate student FTE is defined as one undergraduate student taking 12 course units, which represents a full course load. Students taking fewer course units are considered to constitute a fraction of a Student FTE, whereas students taking more than 12 units constitute more than one FTE. One graduate student FTE is defined as one graduate student taking 9 course units, which represents a full course load. [d] Faculty/Staff FTEs: One full-time staff member works 40 hours per week. Two part-time staff members working 20 hours per week equals one full-time equivalent staff person. For faculty, one full-time faculty member is one FTE faculty member and three part-time faculty members equals one FTE faculty member.

13 ingress/egress with a keycard controlled access gate. Pedestrians and bicycles may use either entrance. Project Location and Study Area The Proposed Project Site is located approximately 1.25 miles west of the Pacific Ocean, and one mile north of the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The study area is generally bounded by the Marina Freeway (State Route [SR] 90) to the north, the San Diego Freeway (I- 405) to the east, Westchester Parkway to the south, and Lincoln Boulevard to the west. Figure 1 shows the location of the Project Site in relation to the surrounding area and transportation system. Primary regional access to the Proposed Project Site is provided by I-405, which runs generally north-south in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site, and by SR-90, which runs east-west in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site. Primary local access to the Project Site is provided by Lincoln Boulevard, Culver, Boulevard, Jefferson Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard, La Tijera Boulevard, and Manchester Avenue. The study area was established in consultation with LADOT, and by reviewing the travel patterns and the potential impacts of Proposed Project traffic. A total of 25 intersections and five neighborhood street segments have been selected for detailed analysis in the study area. These study intersections and neighborhood street segments are illustrated in Figure 2. COASTAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN The Proposed Project Site is located within the area governed by the City of Los Angeles Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan (the Specific Plan ) (City of Los Angeles, 1993). The Specific Plan requires that trip impact fees be paid for projects that generate more than 42 trips in a peak hour. Trip impact fees are used to fund area transportation improvements. The Specific Plan defines Projects as: Any construction, addition, conversion, change of use, or use of land in C, M, or P zones which requires the issuance of a building, grading or foundation permit and which results in an increase in the number of trips as determined by the Department of Transportation. 4

14

15

16 The LMU Campus is located in an R zone, so the Proposed Project would not be considered a project under the Specific Plan. Additionally, per section 6.F of the Specific Plan, non-profit educational institutions are exempt from the trip fee requirement. STUDY SCOPE AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES This study analyzed the potential Proposed Project-generated traffic impacts on the street system surrounding the Proposed Project Site. Intersection traffic impacts for the Proposed Project were evaluated for typical weekday morning (7:00 to 10:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 to 7:00 PM) peak hours when streets adjacent to the Proposed Project Site experience their peak utilization. The actual peak hour at each intersection varied during these time periods, but most were close to an AM peak hour of 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM and a PM peak hour of 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. In contrast, the peak hour for Campus trip generation was 8:30 to 9:30 AM and 6:30 to 7:30 PM. To be conservative, the Campus peak hours were applied to the intersection peak hours. Campus trip generation is detailed in Chapter IV. Weekend periods were not evaluated because streets adjacent to the Proposed Project Site experience lower utilization during weekends than on weekdays. A weekend analysis would therefore present a less conservative set of conditions to evaluate the potential for Proposed Project-related impacts than a weekday analysis, so is unnecessary. The following traffic scenarios were analyzed in the study: Existing Conditions (Year 2008) The analysis of existing traffic conditions provides a basis for the assessment of future traffic conditions. The existing conditions analysis includes a description of key streets and highways, traffic volumes, and current intersection and roadway operating conditions. Intersection turning movement counts for the morning and afternoon peak periods for typical weekdays and fieldwork for the analyzed intersections were collected in Spring 2007 and Fall Future without Project Conditions (Year 2030) This scenario projects the future traffic growth and intersection operating conditions that could be expected as a result of regional growth and related projects in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site by the year

17 This analysis provides the baseline conditions by which the Proposed Project s potential for impacts are evaluated. Future with Project Conditions (Year 2030) This analysis identifies the potential incremental impacts of the Proposed Project on projected future traffic operating conditions by adding the net Project-generated traffic to the Future without Project traffic forecasts. Intersection Capacity Analyses Intersection capacity has been analyzed using a method that assesses the cumulative peak hour operating conditions at each study intersection. The critical movement analysis (CMA) methodology is required by LADOT for consistency with the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) and is used in this study. The CMA Methodology Software (CalcaDB) developed by LADOT was used to analyze signalized intersections in this study. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM) methodology has been used in the study for unsignalized intersections. Significant Impact Criteria for Signalized Intersections In Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (LADOT, May 2009), LADOT threshold criteria were established to be used to determine the significant traffic impact of a proposed project on the signalized study intersections. LADOT standards indicate that a project is considered to have a significant traffic impact on a signalized intersection if the increase in the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio attributable to the project exceeds a specific standard depending on the final intersection level of service (LOS). LADOT has developed a sliding scale in which the minimum allowable increase in the V/C ratio decreases as the V/C ratio increases: Intersection Conditions Project-related Increase with Project Traffic in V/C Ratio LOS V/C C Equal to or greater than 0.04 D Equal to or greater than 0.02 E, F > Equal to or greater than

18 Unsignalized Intersections Analyzed for Potential Signalization Unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the 2000 HCM stop-controlled methodology. This method quantifies the intersection operations in terms of average vehicular delay in seconds. LADOT s Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (May 2009) directs that unsignalized intersections not be evaluated for significant impacts. 3 Rather, unsignalized intersections that are adjacent to the project, or integral to the project s site access and circulation, are to be analyzed for potential signalization if, based on estimated delay, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or F during the analyzed peak hours under Future with Project conditions. It should be noted that the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant shall not in itself require the installation of a signal. The decision of whether a traffic signal should be installed is made according to the discretion of the LADOT district office. Additional unsignalized intersections were added to this study based on requests contained in Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters submitted by members of the Westchester area community. The analysis of unsignalized intersections presented in this traffic study is therefore conservative because it applies the above criteria to additional unsignalized intersections that are not integral to the Proposed Project s site access. Unsignalized intersections also have been analyzed according to the methodology detailed in the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide. While this is no longer LADOT s preferred methodology for analyzing unsignalized intersections, since the City s CEQA Thresholds Guide has not been amended, this analysis is included in Appendix D to this report. This methodology analyzes unsignalized intersections as if they were signalized intersections, and applies the City s intersection impact criteria to determine the potential for significant impacts at the unsignalized intersections. 3 LADOT, Traffic Study Policies & Procedures (May 2009), Section F-10, Page 14 9

19 Significant Impact Criteria for Local Residential Streets Under the guidelines in Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (LADOT, May 2009), a project impact on a local residential street would be considered significant if the projected increase in average daily traffic (ADT) volumes is as follows: Projected Average Daily Traffic with Project-Related Increase in ADT Project (Final ADT) 0 to or more ADT 1,000 to 1, percent or more of final ADT 2,000 to 2, percent or more of final ADT 3,000 or more 8 percent or more of final ADT 10

20 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A comprehensive data collection effort was undertaken to develop a detailed analysis of existing conditions in the study area. The assessment of conditions relevant to this study includes a description of the study area, an inventory of the local street system in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site, a review of traffic volumes on these facilities, an assessment of the resulting operating conditions, and the existing public transit service in the study area. EXISTING STREET SYSTEM The existing street system in the study area consists of a regional roadway system including freeways, principal and secondary arterials, and collector and local streets. The following defines each of the different street classifications: Freeways With a controlled number of entry points and grade-separated from city streets, freeways are intended to provide high speed regional movement. Major Highways-Class I Are designed to carry more than 50,000 vehicles per day, typically with six full-time through lanes, one median/left-turn lane, and two part-time parking lanes. Access to abutting uses is limited. Major Highways-Class II Are designed to carry 30,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day, typically with four full-time through lanes, two part-time parking lanes, and one median/left-turn lane. Secondary Highways Are designed to carry 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day, typically with four full-time through lanes, one median/left turn lane, and two full-time parking lanes. They supplement the through-traffic carrying characteristics of Major Highways and are typically spaces one mile apart. 11

21 Collector Streets Are designed to carry up to 10,000 vehicles per day, typically with two full-time through lanes, and two full time parking lanes. Collector streets allow moderate volumes of through traffic, but provide access to abutting uses. Local Streets Are designed primarily to provide access from abutting uses to the street network. Through traffic is discouraged. Several freeways provide regional access to and from LMU. I-405 lies approximately two miles east of the Proposed Project Site, the Century Freeway (I-105) lies approximately three miles to the south of Proposed Project Site, and the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) lies approximately 4.5 miles to the north of Project Site. SR-90 lies approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the Proposed Project Site and provides limited freeway access to and from the study area. Major arterials serving the Proposed Project Site include Lincoln Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard in the north-south direction and Jefferson Boulevard and Manchester Avenue in the east-west direction. These roadway facilities are described in more detail below. Freeways The San Diego Freeway (I-405) runs north-south east of the Proposed Project Site and extends from the San Fernando Valley to Orange County. In the vicinity of the study area, the San Diego Freeway provides four lanes in each direction plus auxiliary lanes. Access to the freeway is provided via ramps at Jefferson Boulevard, Howard Hughes Parkway, La Tijera Boulevard, and Manchester Boulevard in the study area. The Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) runs east-west and extends from the City of Santa Monica eastward past downtown Los Angeles. In the vicinity of the study area, the Santa Monica Freeway provides four lanes in each direction plus auxiliary lanes. The interchange closest to the Proposed Project Site is at Lincoln Boulevard. The Century Freeway (I-105) runs east-west and extends from LAX eastward through southern Los Angeles to the City of Norwalk. In the vicinity of the study area, the Century Freeway provides four lanes in each direction plus auxiliary lanes. The interchange closest to the Proposed Project Site is at Sepulveda Boulevard. 12

22 The Marina Freeway (SR-90) runs east-west and extends from the Lincoln Boulevard in Marina del Rey eastward to Slauson Avenue in southern Culver City. In the vicinity of the study area, the Marina Freeway provides two lanes in each direction plus auxiliary lanes. Interchanges closest to the Proposed Project Site are at Culver Boulevard and Centinela Avenue. East-West Streets Culver Boulevard is a Class II major highway with two travel lanes in each direction through the study area. On-street parking is not available on either side of Culver Boulevard west of Centinela Avenue. East of Centinela Avenue, parking is available on both sides of Culver Boulevard. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most intersections. Jefferson Boulevard is a Class II major highway with three travel lanes in each direction in the study area. On-street parking is generally not available on either side of Jefferson Boulevard in the study area. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most intersections. Centinela Avenue is a Class II major highway with two to three travel lanes in each direction in the study area. On-street parking is generally prohibited on both sides of Centinela Avenue in the study area. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most intersections. Manchester Avenue is a Class II major highway with two travel lanes in each direction in the study area. Parking is generally permitted on both sides of the street. Dedicated Leftturn lanes are provided at most intersections. West 77 th Street is a local street and runs from Sepulveda Boulevard to the eastern boundary of the Proposed Project Site. This street provides one travel lane in each direction and parking is permitted on both sides of the street. West 80 th Street is a collector street and runs along the southern border of Project Site with an entrance at Loyola Boulevard. This street provides one travel lane in each direction, and parking is permitted on both sides of the street. 13

23 West 83 rd Street is a collector street that runs south of the Proposed Project Site. This street provides one travel lane in each direction and parking is permitted on both sides of the street. Howard Hughes Parkway is a secondary street and runs between Sepulveda Boulevard and ramps for the San Diego Freeway. This street provides two travel lanes in each direction. Parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. La Tijera Boulevard (west of Lincoln Boulevard) is a local street that runs west of Lincoln Boulevard to Rayford Drive south of Manchester Avenue. This street provides one travel lane in each direction, and parking is permitted on both sides of the street. North-South Streets Lincoln Boulevard is a Class I major highway in the study area and runs along the western boundary of the Proposed Project Site. Lincoln Boulevard provides three travel lanes in each direction plus dedicated left-turn lanes at most intersections. One hour on-street parking is permitted between 83 rd Street and Manchester Avenue. Other stretches of Lincoln Boulevard in the study area prohibit on-street parking on both sides of the street. Sepulveda Boulevard is a Class I major highway with three travel lanes in each direction through the study area. Parking is generally prohibited on both sides of Sepulveda Boulevard in the study area with the exception of one-hour street parking during off-peak hours south of Manchester Avenue. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most intersections. Centinela Avenue is a Class II major highway with two travel lanes in each direction extending north from Jefferson Boulevard. In the study area, parking is generally permitted on both sides of the street. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most intersections. 14

24 Loyola Boulevard is a collector street and runs south from the Proposed Project Site. This street provides one travel lane in each direction and parking is permitted on both sides of the street. Table 2 provides a summary of the features of the major arterials in the study area. Lane configurations of the study intersections are illustrated in Appendix A. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE The study area is served by three local transit agencies in the form of local and express bus service. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the City of Santa Monica s Big Blue Bus, Culver City Bus, and the LADOT Commuter Express provide public transit service to the study area. Figure 3 illustrates the existing transit routes that serve the study area, and Table 3 details the hours of operation and average peak hour headways. The following provides a brief description of the bus lines providing service in the study area: Express Bus Lines Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Rapid Line 3 Line 3 is an express Rapid bus line that travels from the City of Santa Monica to the Metro Green Line light rail station at Aviation and Imperial Boulevards. This line has stops in Venice Beach, Marina del Rey, and at LAX. In the study area, this line travels along Lincoln Boulevard, with the stop at Lincoln Boulevard & Manchester Avenue being the closest to Campus. This line has average approximate headways 4 of 15 minutes during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. LADOT Commuter Express Line 574 Line CE 574 is an express bus line that travels between the community of Sylmar in the San Fernando Valley and Redondo Beach. This line has stops in the communities of Granada Hills, Northridge, Lake Balboa, Culver City, El Segundo, and at LAX. Near LMU, this line travels along Sepulveda Boulevard, with a stop at Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles from 4 Headway is defined as the frequency of transit service on a particular line. 15

25 TABLE 2 EXISTING SURFACE STREET CHARACTERISTICS SEGMENT FROM TO LANE MEDIAN PARKING RESTRICTIONS SPEED NB/EB SB/WB TYPE NB/EB SB/WB LIMIT Lincoln Bl Culver Bl Jefferson Bl 3/4 2/4 DY NSAT NSAT 40 Jefferson Bl LMU Dr 4 3/4 DY NSAT NSAT 45 LMU Dr 83rd St 3 3 DY NSAT NSAT 35 83rd St Manchester Av 2/3* 2/3* RM NS 7-9A, 1 Hr pkg NS 3:30-7:30P, 1 Hr pkg 35 Manchester Av La Tijera Bl 3 3/2 RM NSAT NSAT 35 La Tijera <and beyond> 3 3 RM NSAT NSAT 40 Loyola Bl 80th St Manchester Av 1 1 SDY PA PA 25 Centinela Av Culver Bl Milton St 2 2 DY PA PA 35 Milton St Hammack St 2 2 DY NSAT NSAT 35 Hammack St Lucile St 2/3* 2/3* DY NS 7-9A, 4-6P NS 7-9A, 4-6P 35 Lucile St Jefferson Bl 3 3 DY NSAT NSAT 35 Jefferson Bl Sepulveda Bl 3 4 RM NSAT NSAT 35 Sepulveda Bl <south end> 2 2 RM NSAT NSAT 45 Sepulveda Bl Jefferson Bl Green Valley Cir 3 2 RM NSAT NSAT 35 Green Valley Cir Centinela Av 3 3 RM NSAT NSAT 35 Centinela Av Howard Hughes Pkwy 3/4 3 2LT NSAT NSAT 40 Howard Hughes Pkwy Manchester Av 2/3 3 DY/2LT NSAT NSAT 40 Manchester Av Westchester Pkwy 2 (CONST) 3 RM NSAT (CONST) NSAT 30 Westchester Pkwy Lincoln Bl 2 (CONST) 3 RM NSAT (CONST) NSAT 30 Lincoln Bl <south end> 4 4 RM NSAT NSAT Culver Bl Lincoln Bl <before 90 freeway> 3 1 2LT NSAT NSAT 40 <before 90 freeway> <after 90 freeway> 2 2 DY NSAT NSAT 40 <after 90 freeway> Braddock Dr 2 2 2LT NSAT NSAT 40 Braddock Dr Centinela Av 2 1 DY PA PA 40 Jefferson Bl Culver Bl Lincoln Bl 2 2 RM NSAT NSAT 50 Lincoln Bl Alla Rd 3 3 RM/DY NSAT NSAT 45 Alla Rd Centinela Av 3/4 3 RM NSAT PA/NSAT 45 Centinela Av Inglewood Bl 3 3 2LT NSAT PA 45 Inglewood Bl Mesmer Av 3 2 DY 4 Hr pkg 4 Hr pkg 35 Mesmer Av Slauson Av 2 2 RM/DY NSAT NSAT 35 Slauson Av Sepulveda Bl 3 3 RM NSAT NSAT 45 Howard Hughes Pkwy Sepulveda Bl I-405 SB Ramps 2 2 RM NSAT NSAT 77th St <west end> Sepulveda Bl 1 1 SDY PA PA 25 76th St Sepulveda Bl <east end> 1 1 SDY PA PA 25 80th St <west end> Sepulveda Bl 1 1 SDY PA PA SDY PA PA 30 79th St Sepulveda Bl <east end> 1 1 SDY PA PA 30 83rd St <west end> Sepulveda Bl 1 1 SDY PA PA 30 Sepulveda Bl <east end> 1 1 SDY PA PA 35 Manchester Av <west end> Lincoln Bl 1 (CONST) 2 RM PA 2 Hr 8A-6P 35 Lincoln Bl Sepulveda Wy 2 2 RM PA PA 40 Sepulveda Wy La Tijera 2 2 2LT PA/1 Hr 8A-6P PA/1 Hr 8A-6P 40 La Tijera <east end> 2 2 RM PA PA 40 La Tijera Bl <west end> Lincoln Bl 1 1 DY NS 4-7P PA Notes: LANES: # = Number of lanes PARKING: PA = Parking Allowed * = Number of lanes changes on segment NSAT = No Stopping Anytime CONST= Segment was under construction GZ = Green zone - Passenger loading and unloading MEDIAN TYPE: DY = Double Yellow Centerline RZ = Red zone - No parking allowed SDY = Single Dashed Yellow Centerline 2LT = Dual Left Turn Centerline RM = Raised Median UD = Undivided Lane

26

27 TABLE 3 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Provider Route Service Type Hours of Operation Approximate Peak Hour Headways Metro 110 Playa Vista - Bell Gardens via Jefferson Blvd - Gage Ave LOCAL 4:42 A.M.-11:17 P.M minutes Metro 115 Playa Del Rey - Norwalk via Manchester Blvd, Firestone Blvd LOCAL / LIMITED STOP 4:28 A.M.-12:26 A.M minutes between Westchester and Southgate; min between Playa Del Rey and Norwalk Metro 439 Aviation Station - Downtown LA/Union Station via LAX, Westch EXPRESS 4:55 A.M.-10:18 P.M minutes LADOT CE574 Sylmar to El Segundo EXPRESS 5:21 A.M.-8:45 A.M, 3:35 P.M.-7:35 P.M. 30 minutes Big Blue Bus 3 Montana Ave & Lincoln Blvd LOCAL 5:19 A.M.-12:37 A.M minutes Big Blue Bus R3 4th and Wilshire to Aviation Station via Lincoln Blvd RAPID 6:10 A.M. to 9 P.M. 15 minutes Culver City C6 UCLA to Aviation Station via Sepulveda Blvd LOCAL 5:25 A.M. to 12:39 A.M minutes

28 Campus. This line operates only during peak hours with southbound service from the San Fernando Valley in the morning and northbound service from Redondo Beach in the afternoon. This line has average approximate headways of 30 minutes during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. Metro Line 439 Line 439 is an express bus line that travels between downtown Los Angeles and the Metro Green Line LAX/Aviation light rail station. This line has stops in West Los Angeles, Culver City, and at LAX. Near LMU, this line travels along Sepulveda Boulevard, with a stop at Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles from Campus. This line has average approximate headways of 50 minutes during the weekday AM peak period and 40 minutes during the weekday PM peak period. Local Bus Lines Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Line 3 Line 3 provides local stop service between the City of Santa Monica and the Metro Green Line light rail station at Aviation and Imperial Boulevards. This line follows the same route as Big Blue Bus Rapid Line 3, but with more frequent stops. This line has stops in Venice Beach, Marina del Rey, and at LAX. In the study area, this line travels along Lincoln Boulevard with a stop at the LMU entrance at Lincoln Boulevard and LMU Drive. This line has average approximate headways of 15 to 19 minutes during the AM and PM peak periods. Metro Line 110 Line 110 provides local bus service from Bell Gardens to the community of Playa Vista. This line has stops in Bell, Huntington Park, Florence, Hyde Park, Inglewood, and Culver City. In the study area, this line travels along Jefferson Boulevard north of the Playa Vista community, with the final stop at Electronic Arts Way/Jefferson Boulevard being the closest to Campus. This line has average approximate headways of 5 to 25 minutes. Metro Line 115 Line 115 provides local service between the City of Norwalk and Westchester. This line has stops in Downey, South Gate, Florence, south Los Angeles, and Inglewood. In the study area, it travels along Manchester Avenue to Pacific Avenue in Playa del Rey. The stop closest to Campus is at Loyola Boulevard and Manchester Avenue. During school days, Line 115 adds supplemental service, with two westbound 19

29 AM buses stopping at the Loyola Boulevard entrance to Campus on 80 th Street. During weekday AM and PM peak periods, Lines 115 operates with an average approximate headway of 45 to 60 minutes. Service from the stop at Sepulveda Boulevard/Manchester Avenue to the east operates with average approximate headways of 10 to 12 minutes. Culver City Bus Line 6 Line 6 provides service along Sepulveda Boulevard in the study area and travels between UCLA and the Metro Green Line light rail station at Aviation and Imperial Boulevards. Near LMU, this line travels along Sepulveda Boulevard, with a stop at Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles from Campus. This line has stops in West Los Angeles, Culver City, and at LAX. This line provides average approximate headways of 10 to 12 minutes in both directions during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the study area include sidewalks, pedestrian signals at signalized intersections, and crosswalks. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street at all study intersections, and all signalized study intersections have pedestrian signal heads and marked crosswalks on at least two approaches. At the two Proposed Project access locations, Lincoln Boulevard and LMU Drive, and Loyola Boulevard and 80 th Street, there are sidewalks on both sides of each street. Three of four approaches have striped crosswalks at Lincoln Boulevard and LMU Drive, and all four approaches have striped crosswalks at Loyola Boulevard and 80 th Street. Bicycle Facilities Two types of bicycle facilities are provided in the study area: Class I Bike Paths Class I bike paths are facilities with exclusive rights-of-way (separated from automobile traffic), with minimal points of conflict with motorists. Bike paths provide the highest level of safety for bicyclists, and may be used either for recreational purposes or as higher-speed commute routes. 20

30 Class II Bike Lanes Class II bike paths provide painted striping within the paved area of streets. Bike lane stripes are intended to promote an orderly flow of traffic by establishing specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and lanes for motor vehicles. The following Class I facilities are provided in the study area: Ballona Creek Trail from Jefferson Boulevard in Culver City along Ballona to Marina Del Rey From Marina Del Rey along the coast to Redondo Beach The following Class II facilities are provided in the study area: Manchester Boulevard from Lincoln Boulevard to Sepulveda Boulevard Sepulveda Boulevard from Centinela Boulevard to Manchester Boulevard Westchester Parkway from Pershing Drive to La Tijera Parkway At the time of data collection, a Class II bicycle facility was under construction on Lincoln Boulevard between Jefferson Boulevard and LMU Drive. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE This section presents existing peak hour traffic volumes, describes the methodology used to assess the traffic conditions, and analyzes the resulting operating conditions at each intersection, indicating V/C ratios and LOS. Existing Base Traffic Volumes AM and PM peak hour weekday intersection turning movement traffic counts were conducted at the following 21 analyzed intersections in March 2007: 1. Culver Boulevard & SR-90 westbound ramps 2. Culver Boulevard & SR-90 eastbound ramps 3. Lincoln Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard 21

31 4. Lincoln Boulevard & LMU Drive 5. Lincoln Boulevard & 83 rd Street 6. Lincoln Boulevard & Manchester Avenue 7. Lincoln Boulevard & La Tijera Boulevard 8. Loyola Boulevard & 80 th Street (unsignalized) 9. Loyola Boulevard & 83 rd Street (unsignalized) 10. Loyola Boulevard & Manchester Avenue 11. Sepulveda Boulevard & Howard Hughes Parkway 12. Sepulveda Boulevard & 77 th Street/76 th Street 13. Sepulveda Boulevard & 80 th Street/79 th Street 14. Sepulveda Boulevard & 83 rd Street 15. Sepulveda Boulevard & Manchester Avenue 16. Centinela Avenue/Campus Center Drive & Jefferson Boulevard 17. Centinela Avenue & SR-90 westbound ramps 18. Centinela Avenue & SR-90 eastbound ramps 19. I-405 southbound ramps & Jefferson Boulevard 20. I-405 northbound ramps & Jefferson Boulevard 21. Sepulveda Boulevard & Centinela Avenue The 2007 turning movement counts at the above intersections were adjusted to 2008 conditions by applying one year of ambient growth (0.84 percent). This ambient growth rate was derived from the SCAG travel demand model in consultation with LADOT. A detailed discussion of the development of the ambient growth rate is discussed in Chapter III. In response to comments on the Proposed Project s Notice of Preparation of an EIR, requesting that additional intersections be analyzed, four additional intersections were counted in October 2008: 22. McConnell Avenue & West 77 th Street (unsignalized) 23. Emerson Avenue & West 77 th Street (unsignalized) 24. McConnell Avenue & West 80 th Street (unsignalized) 25. Emerson Avenue & West 80 th Street (unsignalized) All of the study intersections are controlled by traffic signals except for six intersections: Intersections 8 (Loyola Boulevard & 80 th Street), 9 (Loyola Boulevard & 83 rd Street), and 22 22

32 through 25 (McConnell Avenue & West 77 th Street, Emerson Avenue & West 77 th Street, McConnell Avenue & West 80 th Street, and Emerson Avenue & West 80 th Street). In March 2007, 24-hour average daily traffic (ADT) machine counts were conducted on the following five neighborhood street segments: 1. West 83 rd Street between Loyola Boulevard and Gonzaga Avenue 2. Loyola Boulevard between West 80 th Street and West 83 rd Street 3. Loyola Boulevard between West 83 rd Street and West 85 th Street 4. West 77 th Street between Stewart Avenue & Westlawn Avenue 5. West 80 th Street between Stewart Avenue & Westlawn Avenue Figures 4A and 4B illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour volumes. Traffic counts for the analyzed intersections and street segments are provided in Appendix B. Neighborhood street segments are evaluated in Chapter VI. Level of Service Methodology Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow on the street system, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. LOS definitions for signalized intersections are provided in Table 4. There are a variety of standard methodologies to determine LOS. According to Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (LADOT, May 2009), this study is required to use the CMA method of intersection capacity calculation (Transportation Research Board, 1980) to analyze signalized intersections. The CMA methodology determines the peak hour intersection V/C ratio. The V/C ratio is then used to find the corresponding LOS based on the definitions in Table 4. The 19 signalized intersections listed above were analyzed using the CMA methodology. The six unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the 2000 HCM All-Way Stop-Controlled methodology. The 2000 HCM methodology determines the average vehicle delay during the peak hour to find the corresponding LOS based on the definitions in Table 5. 23

33

34

35 TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Intersection Capacity Level of Service Utilization Definition A EXCELLENT. No Vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. B VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. Source: Transportation Research Board.

36 TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Total Delay (seconds/vehicle) A < 10.0 B > 10.0 and < 15.0 C > 15.0 and < 25.0 D > 25.0 and < 35.0 E > 35.0 and < 50.0 F > 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 2000.

37 Computer Traffic Signal Control The Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) System represents an advanced system in computer control of traffic signals. It was first put into operation in June 1984 in the Coliseum area of the City of Los Angeles to anticipate the expected increase in traffic due to the Summer Olympic Games, and has since been expanded to other parts of the City. The advantages of ATSAC-controlled traffic signals are substantial, including real-time adjustment of signal timing plans to reflect changing traffic conditions, identification of unusual traffic conditions caused by incidents, the ability to implement special purpose short-term signal timing changes in response to incidents, and the ability to identify signal equipment malfunctions quickly. LADOT estimates that implementation of this system improves intersection capacity by an average of 7 percent. In addition to ATSAC, the Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) has been tested and implemented along major travel corridors in the City of Los Angeles. ATCS is a computerbased traffic signal control program that provides fully responsive traffic signal control based on real-time traffic conditions. It automatically adjusts and optimizes traffic signal timing in response to current traffic demands on the entire signal network such that the number of stops and the amount of delay is minimized along with improved traffic signal coordination throughout the network. LADOT estimates that implementation of this system improves intersection capacity by an additional 3 percent over those operating under ATSAC alone. All signalized study intersections operated under the ATSAC system when traffic counts were conducted. Eight of the 19 signalized study intersections also operated under the City s ATCS when traffic counts were conducted. The signalized study intersections without ATCS control when the traffic counts were conducted include: 4. Lincoln Boulevard & LMU Drive 5. Lincoln Boulevard & 83 rd Street 6. Lincoln Boulevard & Manchester Avenue 7. Lincoln Boulevard & La Tijera Boulevard 10. Loyola Boulevard & Manchester Avenue 11. Sepulveda Boulevard & Howard Hughes Parkway 12. Sepulveda Boulevard & 77 th /76 th Street 28

38 13. Sepulveda Boulevard & 80 th /79 th Street 14. Sepulveda Boulevard & 83 rd Street 15. Sepulveda Boulevard & Manchester Avenue 16. Centinela Avenue & Jefferson Boulevard Full ATCS has been implemented at these intersections subsequent to when the traffic counts were conducted. Existing Levels of Service The traffic volumes presented in Figures 4A and 4B were analyzed using the methodologies described above to determine existing intersection operating conditions. Detailed intersection LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Table 6 summarizes the results of the analysis of the existing weekday morning and afternoon peak hour V/C ratio and corresponding LOS at the 19 signalized intersections. As indicated in the table, all but four of the 19 analyzed intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS, i.e., LOS D or better, during both peak periods. The following four intersections currently operate at LOS E or F in the AM or PM peak periods: 4. Lincoln Boulevard & LMU Drive (AM peak hour) 5. Lincoln Boulevard & 83 rd Street (AM peak hour) 12. Sepulveda Boulevard & 77 th /76 th Street (AM peak hour) 21. Sepulveda Boulevard & Centinela Avenue (PM peak hour) As indicated in Table 7, the six unsignalized intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS. 29