5.7 Traffic and Circulation...5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014 State of California Regional...

StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐1

5.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION

1. INTRODUCTION

This section analyzes the potential effects of truck and worker trips to and from the site duringimplementation of the RAP. The primary focus is on the potential for haul truck andworker activity toimpact intersection service levels compared to the City of Carson and Los Angeles County CongestionManagement established standards. The traffic impact analysis is based on the analysis, conclusions, andrecommendationsoftheTrafficStudyfortheKastProperty(“TrafficStudy”)(Fehr&Peers,October,2014),whichisprovidedinAppendixGofthisEIR.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Regulatory Framework

State

Congestion Management Program

TheCongestionManagementProgram(CMP)isastate‐mandatedprogramenactedbytheStatelegislaturetoaddress the increasing concern that urban congestion is affecting the economic vitality of the state anddiminishing the quality of life in some communities. The 2010 CMP is the eighth CMP adopted for LosAngelesCountysincetherequirementbecameeffectivewiththepassageofProposition111in1990. Thehallmark of theCMPprogram is that it is intended to address the impact of local growth on the regionaltransportationsystem.StatutoryrequirementsoftheCMPincludemonitoringlevelofservice(LOS)ontheCMPHighwayandRoadwaynetwork,measuringfrequencyandroutingofpublictransit, implementingtheTransportationDemandManagementandLandUseAnalysisProgramandhelping local jurisdictionsmeettheirresponsibilitiesundertheCMP.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the local CMP agency, hasestablishedacountywideapproachtoimplementthestatutoryrequirementsoftheCMPintheirgoverning2010CMPforLosAngelesCounty.ThecountywideapproachincludesdesignatingahighwaynetworkthatincludesallstatehighwaysandprincipalarterialswithintheCountyandmonitoringtrafficconditionsonthedesignated transportation network; performance measures to evaluate current and future systemperformance;promotionofalternativetransportationmethods;analysisoftheimpactoflandusedecisionson the transportation network; and mitigation to reduce impacts on the network. If LOS standardsdeteriorate, then local jurisdictions must prepare a deficiency plan to be in conformance with thecountywideplan.

TheCMP requires that,whenanenvironmental impact report isprepared for aproject, traffic andpublictransit impact analyses be conducted for select regional facilities based on the quantity of project trafficexpected touse those facilities. TheCMPguidelinesstate thatareasselected foranalysis shouldbe thosethatincludethefollowinglocations:

5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014


All CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or more tripsduringeithertheA.M.orP.M.weekdaypeakhoursofadjacentstreettraffic;and

Mainline freeway monitoring locations where the project will add 150 or more trips, in eitherdirection,duringeithertheA.M.orP.M.weekdaypeakhours.

Regional

Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan

TheSouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments(SCAG)RegionalTransportationPlan(RTP) isa long‐rangeplanthatprovidesavisionfortransportationinvestmentsthroughouttheregion.TheRTPenvisionsafuturemulti‐modaltransportationsystemfortheregionandprovidesthebasicframeworkforcoordinated,long‐term investment in the regional transportation system over the planning horizon of 2035. Incompliancewithstateandfederalrequirements,SCAGpreparestheRegionalTransportationImprovementProgram(RTIP)toimplementprojectsandprogramslistedintheRTP. Updatedeveryfouryears,theRTPcontainsalistingoftransportationprojectsproposedfortheregionoverasix‐yearperiod. TransportationprojectsproposedintheregionarerequiredtobeconsistentwiththeRTPandincludedwithintheRTIPtobe eligible for state or federal funding. The 2012‐2035 Regional Transportation Plan/SustainableCommunities Strategy (RTP/SCS) identifiesmobility as an important component of amuch larger picturewithaddedemphasisonsustainabilityandintegratedplanning.Inaddition,theRTP/SCSincludesgoalsandpoliciesthatpertaintomobility,accessibility,safety,productivityofthetransportationsystem,protectionofthe environment and energy efficiency, and landuse and growthpatterns that complement the state andregion's transportation investments. An integral component of the RTP/SCS is a commitment to reduceemissionsfromtransportationsources,incompliancewithSenateBill375;toimprovepublichealth;andtomeettheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardsassetforthbytheCleanAirAct.Forfurtherdiscussionofairqualityandgreenhousegasemissions,seeSections5.1,AirQuality,and5.3,GreenhouseGasEmissions,ofthisEIR,respectively.

Local

City of Carson General Plan Transportation and Infrastructure Element

The Transportation and Infrastructure Element of the Carson General Plan (adopted October 11, 2004),providesmethodsandresultsof theanalysisof existingandprojected futurecirculationconditions in theCityofCarson.AspartoftheGeneralPlan,theTransportationandInfrastructureElementoutlinespoliciesand describes the future circulation system needed to support the General Plan Land Use Element. TheTransportationandInfrastructureElementidentifiestheexistingcirculationsystem,therelationshipoftheexisting system to the regional roadway system, and existing daily traffic volume on the existing streetnetwork. It alsoprovidesaclassificationsystem,which includes local streets, collectorstreets, secondaryhighways,majorhighways,andstatehighwaysandfreeways.

TheTransportationandInfrastructureElementprovidesadescriptionofdesignatedtruckroutes.Accordingto theTransportationand InfrastructureElement, thevolumeof trucks,due to the typesof industrialandcommercialusesintheCity,andconflictsbetweentrucksandothervehiclesaremajorissuesfortheCity.1

1 CityofCarsonGeneralPlan,TransportationandInfrastructureElement,October11,2004,pageII‐16.

November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation


TheCityhasdesignatedand regulated truck routes and truckparking zones thatprovideaccess for largetrucks on streets designed to accommodate them and to protect residential streets from unwanted trucktraffic. TheTransportationand InfrastructureElementalso identifiespublic transit facilities in theCityofCarson.

TheTransportationandInfrastructureElementidentifiesdesirableroadwaycapacitiesandservicelevelsforeach type of facility, based on volume‐to‐capacity ratio for the roadway level of service. The assumedcapacitiesonroadwaylinksarebasedonthestandardsusedbytheCountyofLosAngelesandmodifiedforspecialconditionsinCarson.AllstreetintersectionswithinthestudyareafortheRP’sProposedRemedyarelocatedwithin the jurisdictionalcontrolof theCityofCarson,even if somestreetsegmentsarewithin theCityofLosAngelesboundary.

City of Carson Municipal Code

TheCity of Carsonhas identified specific arterial roadways as truck routes in theirMunicipal Code (CMC3260.2and3260.3). Commercialvehiclesexceedingamaximumgrossweightofsix thousandpoundsareonlypermittedtouse truckroutes identified in theCity’sMunicipalCode. LomitaBoulevard,MainStreet,SepulvedaBoulevard, andAvalonBoulevardwithin theproject study area are all listed inCMC3260.2 asdesignatedtruckroutes.

Existing Conditions

Existing Roadways

The site is located in the southern portion of the City of Carson, and is generally bounded by LomitaBoulevard to the south, theMonterey Pines residential community and industrial property of the formerTurco Products Facility to the west, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)railroadtrackstothenorth,andsingle‐familyresidentialpropertiestotheeast.PrimaryregionalaccesstothesiteisprovidedbytheHarborFreeway(I‐110)andtheSanDiegoFreeway(I‐405).TheI‐110runsinanorth/southdirectionapproximatelyone‐halfmilewestofthesite;theI‐405runsinanorthwest/southeastdirectionnorth of the site. Themunicipal boundary between the cities of Carson andLosAngeles in theproject area generally follows Lomita Boulevard. However, the area between Avalon Boulevard andWilmingtonAvenuenorthofLomitaAvenuetotheapproximatelocationofDelorasDriveis locatedwithintheCityofLosAngeles.Thefollowingisabriefdescriptionofthemajorstreetsservingtheprojectsite:withfunctionalclassificationsfromtheTransportationandInfrastructureElementoftheCityofCarsonGeneralPlanandtheTransportationElementsoftheLosAngelesGeneralPlan.

Lomita Boulevard, which runs east/west south of the site, provides access to the site. LomitaBoulevardisclassifiedasaMajorHighwayintheCarsonTransportationandInfrastructureElementwhile the Wilmington Community Plan classifies it as a Secondary Highway. Lomita Boulevardprovidestwolanesineachdirectionandisdividedbyatwo‐wayleft‐turnlane.Parkingisgenerallypermittedonbothsidesoftheroadwayandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.ThereisaschoolzonebetweenMainStreetandNeptuneAvenue,adjacenttoWilmingtonMiddleSchool,wherethespeedlimitis25MPHwhenchildrenarepresent.

SepulvedaBoulevard,whichrunseast/westnorthoftheprojectsiteandprovidesaccesstoI‐110,isclassified as aMajorHighway in theCarsonTransportation and InfrastructureElement. Near the



site,SepulvedaBoulevardhastwolanesineachdirectionandisdividedbyaraisedmedian.ParkingisgenerallyallowedonbothsidesofSepulvedaBoulevardandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.

223rdStreetisclassifiedasaMajorHighwayandrunseast/westnorthoftheprojectsite.Itprovidestwolanesineachdirectionandisdividedbyatwo‐wayleft‐turnlane.Parkingisgenerallyallowedonbothsidesof223rdStreetandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.

Figueroa Street runs north/south west of the site. North of Lomita Boulevard, in Carson, it isclassifiedasaMajorHighway.SouthofLomitaBoulevard,inLosAngeles,itisclassifiedasaMajorHighwayClassII.Itprovidestwolanesineachdirectionandisgenerallydividedbyaraisedmedian.Parkingisallowedandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.

MainStreetrunsnorth/southjustwestoftheprojectsite.NorthofLomitaBoulevard,inCarson,itisclassifiedas aMajorHighway. SouthofLomitaBoulevard inLosAngeles, it isnamedWilmingtonBoulevardand,althoughitisclassifiedasaSecondaryHighway,trucksareprohibitedfromtheCitylimitsouthtowardsthePortarea.. Itprovidestwolanesineachdirectionandisdividedbyraisedmedians.ParkingisgenerallypermittedonbothsidesofMainStreetandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.

AvalonBoulevardrunsnorth/southeastofthesite.NorthofLomitaBoulevard,inCarson,AvalonBoulevardisclassifiedasaMajorHighwayandisadesignatedtruckroute.InLosAngeles,althoughdesignatedaMajorHighwayClassII,trucksareprohibitedfromthecitylimitsouthtowardsthePortarea. Avalon Boulevard provides two lanes in each direction and is divided by a raisedmedian.ParkingispermittedonbothsidesofAvalonBoulevardandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.

WilmingtonAvenue runs north/south east of the site and provides access to I‐405. WilmingtonAvenuenorthofLomitaBoulevardisclassifiedasaMajorHighwayandgenerallyprovidestwotravellanes ineachdirectionand isdividedbyaraisedmediannorthof therailroadcrossing. On‐streetparkingisgenerallyallowedonWilmingtonAvenueandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.

NeptuneAvenue isa localstreetandrunsnorth/southwithintheCarouselTract. Itprovidesonetravellaneineachdirection.On‐streetparkingisallowedonNeptuneAvenue.

Lagoon Street is a short local street and runs north/south between Lomita Boulevard and 249thStreetwithintheCarouselTract. Itprovidesonetravellaneineachdirection.OnstreetparkingisallowedonLagoonStreet.

Existing Traffic Conditions

Study Area Intersections

ThestudyareawasestablishedinaccordancewiththeCityofCarsonandcoverstheareaadjacenttothesitethatwouldbeutilizedbyproject‐generatedtraffic.Figure5.7‐1,ProjectSiteandStudyIntersections,showsthestudyareaandthe14studyintersections,whichareasfollows:

1. I‐110SBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard

2. I‐110NBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard

3. FigueroaStreet&SepulvedaBoulevard

4. MainStreet&SepulvedaBoulevard

FIGUREProject Site and Study Intersec ons

Former Kast Property Tank Farm Site Remedia on Project 5.7-1Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.P C R

N

City Boundary

City Boundary



Thispageintentionallyblank.



5. MainStreet&LomitaBoulevard

6. NeptuneAvenue&LomitaBoulevard

7. LagoonAvenue&LomitaBoulevard(unsignalized)

8. AvalonBoulevard&SepulvedaBoulevard

9. AvalonBoulevard&LomitaBoulevard

10. WilmingtonAvenue&I‐405NBRamps

11. WilmingtonAvenue&I‐405SBRamps

12. WilmingtonAvenue&E223rdStreet

13. WilmingtonAvenue&SepulvedaBoulevard

14. WilmingtonAvenue&LomitaBoulevard(unsignalized)

Existing Traffic Volumes and Service Levels

The following sections describe the peak hour traffic volumes, the methodology used to analyze theintersectionoperatingconditions,andtheresultinglevelsofservice(LOS)forthestudyintersectionsunderexisting conditions. Lane configurations at the study intersections are illustrated in Figure 4 of the TrafficStudy,whichiscontainedinAppendixGofthisEIR.

Level of Service Methodology

Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term Level of Service (LOS). LOS is aqualitativedescriptionoftrafficflowbasedonseveralfactorssuchasspeed,traveltime,delay,andfreedomto maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS “A”, representing completely free‐flowconditions, to LOS “F”, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop‐and‐go conditions. LOS “E”representsoperationsatornearcapacity,anunstablelevelwherevehiclesareoperatingwiththeminimumspacing formaintaininguniform flow. Based on theCity of Carson’s guidelines, the IntersectionCapacityUtilization (ICU)methodologywasused to determine the intersection volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio andcorrespondingLOSforthe12signalizedstudyintersections. TheCityofCarsonutilizesthe2000HighwayCapacityManual(HCM2000)methodologyforunsignalizedintersectionsand,forthosewhicharefoundtooperateatLOSEorF,theICUmethodologyisalsousedinordertoobtainaV/Cratioforimpactassessmentpurposes.

TherangesofV/CratiosordelayvaluesandcorrespondingLOSforsignalizedandunsignalizedintersectionsareincludedinTable5.7‐1,LevelofServiceforSignalizedIntersections–ICUmethodology,andTable5.7‐2,LevelofServiceDefinitionsforStop‐ControlledIntersections.



Existing Traffic Volumes

Trafficvolumesatthe14studyintersectionswerecollectedduringthemorningandafternoonpeakperiods(from7:00AMto9:00A.M.and4:00PMto6:00P.M.,respectively)inApril2014andareincludedinAppendixAoftheTrafficStudycontainedinAppendixGofthisEIR.Vehicleclassificationsareincludedinthebaselinetrafficcountdata. Existingpeakhourtrafficvolumeswithpassenger‐carequivalent(PCE)adjustmentsareillustratedinFigure4oftheTrafficStudy(AppendixG).TheHighwayCapacityManual,2000edition(HCM2000) identifies a 2.0 passenger‐car unit equivalent for heavy trucks (within the 10‐wheel category) to

Table 5.7‐1

Level of Service Standards for Signalized Intersections Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology

Level of Service Description Volume/Capacity Ratio

A EXCELLENT.Novehiclewaitslongerthanoneredlightandnoapproachphaseisfullyused. 0.000‐0.600

BVERYGOOD.Anoccasionalapproachphaseisfullyutilized;manydriversbegintofeelsomewhatwhatrestrictedwithingroupsofvehicles. >0.600‐0.700

CGOOD.Occasionallydriversmayhavetowaitthroughmorethanoneredlight;backupsmaydevelopbehindturningvehicles. >0.700‐0.800

DFAIR.Delaysmaybesubstantialduringportionsoftherushhours,butenoughlowervolumeperiodsoccurtopermitclearingofdevelopinglines,preventingexcessivebackups. >0.800‐0.900

EPOOR.Representsthemostvehiclesintersectionapproachescanaccommodate;maybelonglinesofwaitingvehiclesthroughseveralsignalcycles. >0.900‐1.000

F

FAILURE.Backupsfromnearbylocationsoroncrossstreetsmayrestrictorpreventmovementofvehiclesoutoftheintersectionapproaches.Tremendousdelayswithcontinuouslyincreasingqueuelengths >1.000

Source: Highway Capacity Manual SpecialReport209,TransportationResearchBoard,1994.

Table 5.7‐2

Level Of Service Definitions For Stop‐Controlled Intersections

Level of Service Average Control Delay

(Seconds/Vehicle)

A <10.0B >10.0to15.0C >15.0to25.0D >25.0to35.0E >35.0to50.0F >50.0

Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2000.



account for the additional space occupied by these vehicles and the difference in operating capabilitiescomparedwithpassengercars.2

Existing Intersection Levels of Service

An assessment of the existing operating conditions at the 14 intersections, including the V/C ratio andcorresponding LOS at each of the study intersections during the morning and afternoon peak hours issummarizedinTable5.7‐3,ExistingServiceLevels–Existing(2014)Conditions.AsshowninTable5.7‐3,all14studyintersectionsarecurrentlyoperatingatacceptablelevelsofservice(LOSDorbetter)duringbothpeakhoursunderICUmethodologyshowninTable5.7‐1.Theunsignalizedintersections,however,operateat LOS E or F using HCM methodology shown in Table 5.7‐2. This means that stop‐sign‐controlledapproaches have a higher delay under existing conditions than considered satisfactory. Detailed LOScalculations forexisting intersectionsareprovided inAppendixBof theTrafficStudy (AppendixGof thisEIR).

Existing Transit Services

PublictransitservicesoperatingintheprojectareaareoperatedbyMetro,CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofTransportation(LADOT)CommuterExpress,CityofCarson,andCityofTorrancetransitsystems.Busroutesandtheirfrequenciesduringtheweekdaymorning(7:00to10:00A.M.)andweekdayafternoon(3:00to6:00PM.)peakperiodsaredetailedintheTrafficStudy,Figure2,containedinAppendixGofthisEIR.Abusstopislocatedon thenorthsideofLomitaBoulevardat its intersectionwithNeptuneAvenue. TherearenobusstopsattheintersectionofLomitaBoulevardandLagoonStreet.Publictransitlinesservingtheprojectareaincludethefollowing:

MetroLine205 travelsnorth/south fromSanPedro toWillowbrookwith stops inLomita,HarborCity,Carson,HarborGateway,RanchoDominguez,andCarson.Neartheprojectsite,Line205travelsalongVermontAvenue.Line205has30‐minuteheadwaysduringtheweekdaypeakperiods,and50‐minuteheadwaysonweekends.

MetroLine246travelsnorth/southfromSanPedrotoGardenawithstopsinWilmingtonandCarson.Near the project site, Line 246 travels along Avalon Boulevard. Line 246 has 20‐ to 25‐minuteheadwaysduringtheweekdaypeakperiods,and40‐minuteheadwaysonweekends.

Metro Line 450 travels north/south fromSanPedro to downtownLosAngeles along I‐110 throughWilmington, Carson, Harbor Gateway, and Gardena. Near the project site, Line 450 travels alongSepulvedaBoulevard.Line45has20‐to30‐minuteheadwaysduringtheweekdaypeakperiods,40‐minuteheadwaysonSaturdays,and60‐minuteheadwaysonSundays.

MetroLine550 travelsnorth/south fromSanPedro todowntownLosAngeleswithstops inHarborCity,HarborGateway,andWilmington.Neartheprojectsite,Line550travelsalongVermontAvenue.Line550has30‐to40‐minuteheadwaysduringtheweekdaypeakperiods,and50‐minuteheadwaysonweekends.

2 Inaddition,theuseofa2.0PCEisconsistentwithpreviousstudiesinthisarea,inwhichPCEfactorsof1.0,1.5,and2.0

areusedforpassengervehicles,bobtailtrucksandbuses,andheavytrucks,respectively,toaccountfortheinfluenceofheavyvehiclesinthetrafficstream.



LADOTCommuterExpressLine448travelsnorth/southfromRanchoPalosVerdestodowntownLosAngeles,with stops in Lomita,HarborCity, andWilmington. Near theproject site, Line 448 travelsalongI‐110.Line448operatesonweekdaysonly,with15‐minuteheadwaysduringthepeakhours.

CarsonCircuitRouteBisacircuitousroutethroughtheCityofCarson,travelingalongCarsonStreet,FigueroaStreet,234thStreet, andMainStreet. In theprojectstudyarea, this line travelsalongMainStreet.RouteBoperatesat40‐minuteheadwaysdaily.

Table 5.7‐3

Intersection Service Levels – Existing (2014) Conditions

NO. INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR

EXISTING

V/C or Delay LOS

1

I‐110SBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard

AM 0.795 CPM 0.830 D

2

I‐110NBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard

AM 0.717 CPM 0.615 B

3

FigueroaSt&SepulvedaBoulevard

AM 0.704 CPM 0.630 B

4

MainSt&SepulvedaBoulevard

AM 0.682 BPM 0.751 C

5

MainSt&LomitaBoulevard

AM 0.734 CPM 0.771 C

6

NeptuneAve& AM 0.547 ALomitaBoulevard PM 0.479 A

7

LagoonAve&LomitaBoulevarda

AM 0.751 CPM 0.662 BAM 80.0s FPM 46.0s E

8

AvalonBoulevard&SepulvedaBoulevard

AM 0.684 BPM 0.776 C

9

AvalonBoulevard&LomitaBoulevard

AM 0.653 BPM 0.641 B

10

WilmingtonAve&I‐405NBRamps

AM 0.656 BPM 0.652 B

11

WilmingtonAve&I‐405SBRamps

AM 0.720 CPM 0.822 D

12

WilmingtonAve&E223rdSt

AM 0.623 BPM 0.740 C

13

WilmingtonAve&SepulvedaBoulevard

AM 0.666 BPM 0.625 B

14

WilmingtonAve&LomitaBoulevarda

AM 0.448 APM 0.422 AAM 50.6s FPM 54.8s F

a Unsignalized intersection operating at LOS E or F per the HCM methodology were also analyzed per the ICU methodology to calculate a V/C ratio, as per City of Carson practices.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.



Carson Circuit Route C is a circuitous route through the City of Carson, traveling along AvalonBoulevard, 223rd Street,DoloresStreet, andSepulvedaBoulevard. In the studyarea, this line travelsalongAvalonBoulevard.RouteCoperatesat40‐minuteheadwaysdaily.

CarsonNorth/SouthShuttletravelsnorthandsouththroughtheCityofCarson.Inthestudyarea,theshuttle travels along Main Street, Sepulveda Boulevard, and Lomita Boulevard. The North/SouthShuttleoperates twiceduringthemorningpeakhourandonceduringtheafternoonpeakhouronweekdaysonly.ThereisastopattheintersectionofLomitaBoulevardandNeptuneAvenue.

TorranceTransitLine3/Rapid3 travels fromtheSouthBayGalleriaTransitCenter inTorrance tothe Metro Blue Line station in Long Beach. Near the project site, Line 3 travels along AvalonBoulevard.Line3has20‐to25‐minuteheadwaysduringtheweekdaypeakperiodsandSaturdays,and30‐minuteheadwaysonSundays.

TorranceTransitLine7travelsbetweenthecitiesofRedondoBeachandCarson. Neartheprojectsite,Line7travelsalongSepulvedaBoulevard.Line7hasa1‐hourheadwaydaily.

TorranceTransitLine9travelsfromtheDelAmoMallinTorrancetoCarson.Neartheprojectsite,Line 9 travels along Lomita Boulevard. Line 9 operates Monday through Saturday withapproximately 50‐minute headways. The bus stops nearest to the project site are at LomitaBoulevard&MainStreet.

3. METHODOLOGY AND THRESHOLDS

Methodology

TheTrafficStudyevaluatesthepotential forconstructiontraffic impactsonthestreetsystemsurroundingtheproject site. Due to thenatureof theRP’sProposedRemedy, aminimalnumberof tripswouldoccurafter the implementationof theRAPformonitoringandanynecessarymaintenance. The followingtrafficscenariosareevaluatedtoassesstemporaryconstruction‐periodimpacts:

ExistingConditions(Year2014)

ExistingplusProject(Year2014)

ExistingplusExpeditedImplementationOption(Year2014)

CumulativeBase(Year2021)

CumulativeplusProject(Year2021)

CumulativeBase(Year2019)forExpeditedImplementationProject

CumulativeplusExpeditedImplementationOption(Year2019)

Level of Service Methodology

The existing level of service methodology is described above under Existing Conditions. The followingprovidesthemethodologyfortheotherscenariosthatareevaluated.



Future Traffic Projections

Potential project impacts are assessed against existing conditions as well as cumulative conditions toevaluate thepotential impactsof theRP’sProposedRemedyandExpedited ImplementationOptiononthesurroundingstreetsystem.Undercumulativeconditions,estimatesoffuturetrafficconditionsinthestudyarea are estimated with and without the project’s traffic. Estimates of traffic growth are developed toforecastfutureconditionswithouttheproject.Theseforecastsincludedtrafficincreasesasaresultofbothregionalambienttrafficgrowthandtrafficgeneratedbyspecificdevelopmentsinthevicinityoftheproject(relatedprojects).Trafficexpectedtobegeneratedbyrelatedprojectswithin,orwiththepotentialtoaffect,the study area is considered in addition to the ambient areawide traffic growth. For this study, relatedprojectswithintwomilesoftheprojectsitewereidentifiedbytheCityofCarsonandLADOTinSpring2014.

Theseprojectedconstruction‐period trafficvolumes(thecumulativebaseconditions)represent the futurestudy year conditions without the project. The traffic generated by the RP’s Proposed Remedy andExpeditedImplementationOptionisestimatedandassignedtothesurroundingstreetsystem.Theprojecttraffic is added to the cumulative base to form the cumulative plus project traffic conditions, which isanalyzedtodeterminetheincrementaltrafficimpactsattributabletotheprojectitself.

ImplementationoftheRP’sProposedRemedyisestimatedtobecompletein2021andundertheExpeditedImplementationOptionitisestimatedtobecompletein2019.Project‐generatedtrafficvolumesarebasedonthetripgenerationestimatesandtripdistributionpatternsdescribedbelow.

Trip Generation

Tripgenerationisexpressedinvehicletripends,definedasone‐wayvehicularmovements,eitherenteringorexiting thegenerating landuse. The trafficprojections for theproposedprojectweredevelopedusingthree steps: estimating the trip generation of the project, determining trip distribution, and assigning theproject traffic to the roadway system based on assumptions made about the RAP regarding excavationmethods,haulroutes,andworkertrips,includingtheshuttleserviceforworkersMaximumtripgenerationwouldoccurduringexcavationinresidentialareas.Therefore,thisphaseofactivityisthebasisofthetrafficanalysis. Other activities, such as the subsequent street grinding and paving which would produceapproximately24one‐waytrucktripsperday,andperiodicactivitysuchasmaintenanceandmonitoringofSVE/bioventing,wouldresultinlessvehicletrips.

Trip Distribution and Assignment

Theestimatedtotaltrafficvolumes,includingtruck,worker,andvisitortrips,fortheprojectareillustratedintheTraffic Study, Figure6A, contained inAppendixGof thisEIR. The estimated total volumes, includingtruck,worker,andvisitortrips,fortheExpeditedImplementationOptionareillustratedinFigure6BoftheTrafficStudy.

Truck Traffic

Trucks would be coming to the site via I‐110 from points north or south of the site. As shown inFigure5.7‐2,ProposedHaulRoute,inboundtruckswereassumedtotaketheI‐110southboundoff‐rampatSepulvedaBoulevardandtraveleastbound,turnrightontoWilmingtonAvenueandtravelsouthbound,turnrightontoLomitaBoulevardand travelwestbound,and turnrightontoeitherNeptuneAvenueorLagoon

220th St

Alam

eda

St

213th St

Carson St

Wilm

ingt

on A

ve

evA emkaL

Lomita Blvd

tS aoreugiF

Lago

on A

ve

evA atenoM

Sepulveda Blvd

223rd St

tS seroloD

tS ar eVt

Boni

ta S

t

tS nitraM

Desford St

d

230th St

Q St

228th St

evA amanaP

220th St

215th Pl

Watson Center Rd

Stamps Dr

Shearer Ave

246th St

236th St

tS ocihC

evA nnilB

evA kci rrO

tS enrecuL

248th St

Lomita Blvd

tS yrreP

evA seirF

219th St

Desford St

218th St

evA notnyLJavelin St

Men

lo A

ve

Q St

235th St

Aval

on B

lvdtS nia

M

|þ47

§̈¦405

§̈¦110

CARSON

N:\J

obs\

Act

ive\

2600

s\26

65_C

arou

sel T

ract

Rem

EIR

\Gra

phic

s\G

IS\M

XD

\F4_

Truc

kRou

tes.

mxd

Project Site

Inbound

Outbound

P C R

FIGUREProposed Haul Route

Former Kast Property Tank Farm Site Remedia on Project 5.7-2Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.

N



Thispageintentionallyblank.



Avenuetoenterthesite.TruckswouldexitthesitebyturningrightfromeitherNeptuneAvenueorLagoonAvenue onto LomitaBoulevard and travelingwest, turn right ontoMain Street and travel north, turn leftontoSepulvedaBoulevardandtravelwest,andturnrightontotheI‐110northboundon‐ramp. Trucksareexpectedtoaccessthesitenoearlierthan8A.M.andwoulddepartthesitenolaterthan4P.M.3

Worker Traffic

Worker tripswouldbegenerallydistributedevenlywithapproximately50percentarrivingat thesiteviashuttleand50percentarrivingviaprivatevehicles.Thedistributionpatternofworkersarrivingviaprivatevehicleswoulddependonthehomelocationofeachworker.Basedontypicaltravelpatternsinthearea,thegeneralizeddistributionwasusedforworkertrips.

35percenttoandfromthesouthviatheI‐405freeway

25percenttoandfromthenorthviatheI‐405freeway

10percenttoandfromthesouthviatheI‐110freeway

20percenttoandfromthenorthviatheI‐110freeway

10percenttoandfromtheeastviaSepulvedaBoulevard

Theoff‐sitelocationforworkerstravelingtothesiteviashuttlevaniscurrentlyunknownbutisassumedtobewithinfivemilesofthesite.Basedonexistinglanduseandthenearbyroadwaynetwork,itisassumedthattheoff‐sitelocationwouldbenorthofthesite,withaccesstothesitelikelyviaI‐110. Assuch,andtomaintainaconservativeanalysis, ithasbeenassumedthatworkerstravelingbyshuttlevanwouldusethesameroutesasthetrucktrips.

Visitor Traffic

Uptoninevisitors(suchasagencystaff,RPpersonnel)perdaycouldbeatthesite. It isassumedthatsixwouldarrivefrompointsnorthusingtheI‐110freewayandtheremainingthreevisitorswouldlikelyaccessthesiteusingsurfacestreets.

Thresholds of Significance

AppendixGof theStateCEQAGuidelinesprovides a setof screeningquestions that address impactswithregardtotransportation.Thesequestionsareasfollows:

Wouldtheproject:

a) Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinanceorpolicyestablishingmeasuresof effectiveness for theperformance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including

3 ThetrafficanalysisevaluatesthehighestpeakhourintheA.M.andP.M. Giventhatthearrivalofworkersandtruckswouldoccur

withindifferenthours(workerswouldbeginarrivingasearlyas7:00A.M.andtruckswouldarrivenoearlierthan8:00A.M.) it isunlikelythatworkersandtruckswouldarriveatthesitewithinthesameone‐hourduringeitherpeakperiod.However,tomaintainaconservativeassumption,allemployeetripsarrivingduringtheA.M.inadditiontothefirstgroupoftrucktripsarrivingtothesite,wereanalyzedfortheA.M.peakwiththeconverseholdingtruefortheP.M.peak.Basedonthisassumption,theA.M.peakwouldbe7:30to8:30A.M.andnotruckswouldbeexpectedtoleavethesite.



masstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,includingbutnot limited to intersections, streets,highwaysand freeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths, andmasstransit?

b) Conflictwith an applicable congestionmanagement program, including, but not limited to level ofservice standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the countycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways?

c) Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks?

d) Substantiallyincreasehazardsduetoadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)?

e) Resultininadequateemergencyaccess?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities

BasedontheCityofCarson’scirculationsystemstandardsandtheCMPtrafficimpactanalysisguidelines,thespecificthresholdsregardingtrafficthatareusedintheanalysisareprovidedbelow.AsdeterminedintheInitialStudy,whichiscontainedinAppendixAofthisEIR,implementationoftheRAPwouldresultinshort‐term, temporary traffic. As such, theprojectwouldnot conflictwith adoptedpolicies, plansorprogramsregardingthecirculationsystemoralternativetransportationfacilities(Itemf). AsrequiredbytheCityofCarson, a Construction Traffic Management Plan would be implemented and would include coordinationwith emergency providers to ensure appropriate emergency access (Item e). In addition, the haul routewouldfollowdesignatedtruckroutes.Theprojectwouldnotresultinanychangestotheexistingcirculationsystem(Itemd). Withregardtoairports,thenearestairporttothesiteistheTorranceMunicipalAirport,whichislocatedover3.3milestothewestofthesite(Itemc).Assuch,nofurtheranalysisofthesetopicsisnecessary.

Intersection Capacity

Theprojectwouldhaveasignificantimpactrelativetolocalintersectionsif:

TRAF1: The project‐generated traffic causes an increase in the V/C ratio equal to or greater than0.020 if the intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or F under future plus projectconditions(representedbyaV/Cratioof0.901orgreater).

Underthesestandards,aprojectwouldnothaveasignificantimpactatanintersection,regardlessoftheV/Cratioincrease,iftheintersectionisoperatingatLOSA,B,CorDunderthe“WithProject”trafficconditions.Conversely, if an intersection is or is projected to be operating at LOS E or F, the project would havesignificant impact ifproject‐generatedtrafficcausedan increaseofmorethan0.02 in theV/Cratioatanyindividualintersection.

CMP Traffic Impacts

TheCMPtrafficimpactanalysisguidelinesindicatethatanimpactontheregionaltransportation(freeway)systemisconsideredtobesignificantunderthefollowingconditions:



TRAF2: The project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2 percent of capacity (i.e., V/Cincreaseof0.02), causingLOSF(V/C>1.00)or if the facility isalreadyatLOSFwhen theprojectincreasestrafficdemandonaCMPfacilityby2percentofcapacity(i.e.,V/Cincreaseof0.02).

4. PROJECT ANALYSIS

Project Design Features

ThefollowingProjectDesignFeatures(PDFs)arecomponentsthatwouldbeimplementedaspartoftheRP’sProposedRemedytominimizethepotentialimpactsregardingtrafficandcirculation.

PDFTRAF‐1 PriortoimplementationoftheRAP,theprojectcontractorwillsubmitaHaulRoutePlantotheCityofCarsonforreviewandapproval.TheproposedhaulroutewillberestrictedtotheCity’sdesignatedtruckrouteroadwaysandwillbeasshowninFigure5.7‐2ofthisEIR.

PDFTRAF‐2 Prior to implementation of the RAP, the project contractor will prepare a ConstructionTraffic Management Plan that will be submitted to the City of Carson for review andapprovalpriortothestartofanywork.Thisplanwillcomprisesitetrafficcontrolplans,including but not limited to such elements as the designation of haul routes forconstruction‐related trucks, the sequencing of construction activities, any drivewayturningmovementrestrictions,temporarytrafficcontroldevices,traveltimerestrictionsfor construction‐related traffic, consolidation of construction truck deliveries, flagcontrol,anddesignatedstagingandparkingareasforworkersandequipment.

Becausetheconstructionactivitiesoccurwithinapublicstreetright‐of‐way,thefollowingdesignfeatureswouldalsoapply:

A site‐specific constructionwork site traffic control planwill be prepared for eachconstructionphaseandsubmittedtotheCityofCarsonforreviewandapprovalpriorto the start of any constructionwork. This planwill include such elements as thelocation and hours of any necessary lane closures, local traffic detours (if any),protectivedevicesandtrafficcontrols(suchasbarricades,cones,flagpersons,lights,warningbeacons,temporarytrafficsignals,warningsigns),thelocationandhoursofanynecessaryaccess limitationsforabuttingproperties,andprovisionstomaintainemergencyaccessthroughconstructionworkareas.

Generally accepted construction safety standards will be followed to separatepedestriansfromconstructionactivitythroughsuchmeasuresasprotectionbarriersand signage indicating alternative pedestrian access routeswhere existing facilitieswould be affected. This would include the sidewalks around the perimeter of anactiveexcavationsite.

Advance notice of planned construction activities will be provided to any affectedresidentsandpropertyownersinthevicinityoftheconstructionsite.

The project contractor will coordinate with emergency service providers(police/sheriffs,fire,ambulanceandparamedicservices)toprovideadvancenoticeofongoingconstructionactivityandconstructionhours.



PDFTRAF‐3 Onetravellanewillbekeptopenatalltimesordetourswillbeprovidedduringresidentialpropertyremediation,wellinstallationandstreettrenchingphases.

PDFTRAF‐4 Theprojectcontractorwillarrange foroff‐siteparkingwithin5milesof thesiteandwillprovideshuttleservicestothesiteforapproximately50percentofon‐siteworkers.

Analysis of Project Impacts

ThresholdTRAF‐1: The project would have a significant impact on transportation and circulation if itincreasestrafficdemandonaCMPfacilityby2percentofcapacity(i.e.,V/Cincreaseof0.02),causingLOSF(V/C>1.00)orifthefacilityisalreadyatLOSFwhentheprojectincreasestrafficdemandonaCMPfacilityby2percentofcapacity(i.e.,V/Cincreaseof0.02).

Impact Statement TRAF‐1: The RP’s Proposed Remedy and Expedited Implementation Optionwould notexceedthresholdstandardsrelatedtoV/Cratiosatanyofthestudy intersections Therefore,theRP’sProposedRemedyandtheExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldhavealessthansignificantimpactwithrespecttointersectionservicelevels.

ImplementationoftheRAPwouldbeginin2015andendin2021.TheRP’sProposedRemedyisexpectedtogenerate approximately 32 workers, including 16 workers who would travel from home to the site andcontributeapproximately10additionaloff‐peakroundtripstovariousoff‐sitelocationsduringthecourseofatypicalday.Theremaining16employeeswouldparkatanoff‐sitelocationandtraveltothesiteinshuttlevans,makingoneround‐tripeachinthemorningandeveningpeakhours.Workerswouldarriveasearlyas7:00 A.M. andwould depart as late as 5:00 P.M. No specific location for off‐siteworker parking has beenidentifiedatthistime,butthisanalysisassumesthatitwouldbelocatedwithinfivemilesoftheprojectsite.

An average of 66 one‐way trucks and a maximum of 99 trucks would travel to and from the site daily.Applying PCEmethodology, inwhich one truck trip is equivalent to two passenger car trips, truck trafficwouldbeequivalenttoamaximumof396PCEtripendsonapeakday.Truckswouldarrivenoearlierthan8:00A.M.andleavenolaterthan4:00P.M.Theestimateddailytrucktripsareassumedtooccurfairlyevenlyovertheworkday,withaslightinboundpeakduringtheA.M.peakhourandaslightoutboundpeakduringtheP.M.peakhour.

As shown inTable5.7‐4,RemedialActionPlanTripGenerationEstimates, it is assumed that theproposedprojectwouldgenerateapproximately478dailyPCEtrips,with61tripsduringboththeA.M.andP.M.peakhours.DuringtheA.M.peakhourtheprojectwouldgenerate58inboundtripsand3outboundtrips;duringthe P.M. peak hour the project would generate 3 inbound trips and 58 outbound trips. This provides aconservativelyhighestimate for thisanalysis, as theproject truck traffic andemployee trafficmaynot alloccurduringthesameone‐hourperiod.

Projectpeakhourtrafficvolumesduring implementationof theRAParecomparedtoexisting intersectionoperatingconditionsinTable5.7‐5.ExistingPlusProject–IntersectionLevelsofServiceandImpactAnalysis.As shown in Table 5.7‐5, under City of Carson’s intersection traffic impact significance criteria, the RP’sProposedRemedywouldnotresultinanysignificantimpactsatanyofthe14studyintersections.



Expedited Implementation Option

UndertheExpeditedImplementationOptionexcavationactivitieswouldbeacceleratedandimplementationwouldoccurbytheendof2019,approximatelytwoyearslessthanunderthebasicproject.Becauseoftheacceleratedschedule,dailytrafficwouldbeincrementallygreaterthanunderthebasicproject,A.M.andP.M.peakhourtrafficvolumeswouldbe incrementallyhigher thanunder thebasicproject. Anaverageof118one‐waytrucktrips,andmaximumof151one‐waytrucktrips,wouldtraveltothesitedaily.Truckswouldarrivenoearlierthan8:00A.M.andleavenolaterthan4:00P.M.

As shown in Table 5.7‐6, Expedited Implementation Option Trip Generation Estimates, the ExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldgenerate790totaldailytripsand94tripsduringboththeA.M.andP.M.peakhours(comparedto61underthebasicproject).TotaldailyPCEtrucktripswouldbe604(comparedto478underthebasicproject)andA.M.andP.M.peakhourtrucktripswouldbe57(comparedto38underthebasicproject). Table 5.7‐7, Existing Plus Expedited ImplementationOption – Intersection Levels of Service andImpactAnalysisillustratesservicelevelsthatwouldresultundertheExpeditedImplementationOption.Asshown in Table 5.7‐7, in accordancewith City of Carson’s intersection traffic impact significance criteria,even with incrementally greater peak hour traffic under the Expedited Implementation Option, theExpedited Implementation Option would not result in any significant impacts at any of the 14 studyintersections.

Table 5.7‐5

Existing Plus RP’s Proposed Remedy Intersection Levels Of Service And Impact Analysis

No. Intersection Peak Existing Existing Project V/C Significant

Table 5.7‐4

Remedial Action Plan Trip Generation Estimates

Trip Number and Source

Trip Generation Rates Estimated Trip Generation

Weekday Daily

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday

Daily

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Rate % In %

Out Rate % In

% Out In Out Total In Out Total

Trucks(99)a 4.00 0.38 100 0 0.38 0 100 396 38 0 38 0 38 38Employees(16)‐ParkingOn‐Siteb 3.25 1.00 100 0 1.00 0 100 52 16 0 16 0 16 16Employees‐ParkingOff‐Site(16)c 0.75 0.38 50 50 0.38 50 50 12 3 3 6 3 3 6

Visitors(9)d 2.00 0.10 50 50 0.10 50 50 18 1 0 1 0 1 1

Total 478 58 3 61 3 58 61

a Trip Generation Rates and Estimates reported in Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE); PCE rate of 1 truck = 2 PCEs. b 16 employees to be parking on‐site; trip rate includes trips to various off‐site locations not during the peak hour c 16 employees would arrive using vans. 3 round trip (RT) vans in AM, 3 RT vans in PM. Vans would arrive full/depart empty in AM; arrive

empty/depart full in PM. d Up to 9 visitors to site daily. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.



Hour Increase Impact?

V/C or Delay Los

V/C or Delay LOS

1


AM 0.795 C 0.795 C 0.000 No

PM 0.830 D 0.830 D 0.000 No

2


AM 0.717 C 0.717 C 0.000 No

PM 0.615 B 0.625 C 0.010 No

3


AM 0.704 C 0.705 C 0.001 No

PM 0.630 B 0.645 B 0.015 No

4


AM 0.682 B 0.684 B 0.002 No

PM 0.751 C 0.782 C 0.031 No

5


AM 0.734 C 0.735 C 0.001 No

PM 0.771 C 0.771 C 0.000 No

6

NeptuneAve&LomitaBoulevard

AM 0.547 A 0.562 A 0.015 No

PM 0.479 A 0.506 A 0.027 No

7


AM 0.751 C 0.439 C 0.002 No

PM 0.662 B 0.428 B 0.012 No

AM 80.0b F 92.8b F 12.8b N/A

PM 46.0b E 47.5b E 1.5b N/A

8


AM 0.684 B 0.684 B 0.000 No

PM 0.776 C 0.776 C 0.000 No

9


AM 0.653 B 0.676 B 0.023 No

PM 0.641 B 0.645 B 0.004 No

10


AM 0.656 B 0.659 B 0.003 No

PM 0.652 B 0.652 B 0.000 No

11


AM 0.720 C 0.722 C 0.002 No

PM 0.822 D 0.826 D 0.004 No

12


AM 0.623 B 0.623 B 0.000 No

PM 0.740 C 0.740 C 0.000 No

13


AM 0.666 B 0.666 B 0.000 No

PM 0.625 B 0.628 B 0.003 No

14


AM 0.448 A 0.448 A 0.000 No

PM 0.422 A 0.427 A 0.005 No

AM 50.6b F 58.0b F 7.4b N/A

PM 54.8b F 57.1b F 2.3b N/A


b Expressed in “seconds of delay” on the most constrained approach.




ThresholdTRAF‐2:TheprojectincreasestrafficdemandonaCMPfacilityby2percentofcapacity(i.e.,V/Cincreaseof0.02),causingLOSF(V/C>1.00)orifthefacilityisalreadyatLOSFwhentheprojectincreasestrafficdemandonaCMPfacilityby2percentofcapacity(i.e.,V/Cincreaseof0.02).

Impact Statement TRAF‐2: The RP’s Proposed Remedy and Expedited Implementation Optionwould notexceed thresholdstandardsrelated toCMP facilitiesbecause theydonotexceedminimumvolumesofpeaktrafficatanyCMParterialorfreewaymonitoringstationstowarrantanalysisundertheCMP.Inaddition,theRP’sProposedRemedyandExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldnotadverselyimpactridership or operation of transit lines in the area. Therefore, impacts related to CMP service levelswouldbelessthansignificant.

CMP Roadway Analysis

AprojectwouldimpactCMParterialmonitoringintersectionsifitadded50ormoretripsduringeithertheA.M.orP.M.weekdaypeakhoursatCMParterialintersectionmonitoringlocationsorifitadded150ormoretrips, in either direction, during either the A.M. or P.M. weekday peak hours at CMP freeway monitoringlocations. The CMP arterialmonitoring intersection nearest to the site is located at Figueroa Street andSepulvedaBoulevard,approximatelyonemilewestof thesite. BasedontheRP’sProposedRemedy’s tripgenerationdescribedinTable5.7‐4,anddistributionofallhaultrucksalongtheproposedhaulroutewithin

Table 5.7‐6

Expedited Implementation Option Trip Generation Estimates

Trip Number and Source

Trip Rate Trip Estimate

Weekday Daily

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday

Daily

AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour

Rate % In

% Out Rate

% In

% Out In Out Total In Out Total

SourceandType DeliveryTrucks(151)a 4.00 0.38 100 0 0.38 0 100 604 57 0 57 0 57 57Employees(24)‐ParkingOn‐Siteb 6.00 1.00 100 0 1.00 0 100 144 24 0 24 0 16 16Employees‐ParkingOff‐Site(23)c 1.04 0.52 50 50 0.38 50 50 24 6 6 12 6 6 12

Visitors(9)d 2.00 0.10 50 50 0.10 50 50 18 1 0 1 0 1 1Total 790 88 6 94 6 88 94

a Trip Generation Rates and Estimates reported in Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE); PCE rate of 1 truck = 2 PCEs. b Per Project Description, 24 employees to be parking on‐site; trip rate includes trips to various off‐site locations not during the peak hour d Per Project Description, 23 employees would arrive using vans. 3 RT vans in AM, 3 RT vans in PM. Vans would arrive full/depart empty in

AM; arrive empty/depart full in PM. d Per Project Description, up to 9 visitors to site daily. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2014.



Table 5‐7

Existing Plus Expedited Implementation Option Intersection Levels Of Service And Impact Analysis

No. Intersection Peak Hour

Existing Existing Plus

Project

V/C Increase

Significant Impact?

V/C or Delay LOS

V/C or Delay LOS

1


AM 0.795 C 0.795 C 0.000 No

PM 0.830 D 0.830 D 0.000 No

2


AM 0.717 C 0.718 C 0.001 No

PM 0.615 B 0.630 C 0.015 No

3


AM 0.704 C 0.706 C 0.002 No

PM 0.630 B 0.652 B 0.022 No

4


AM 0.682 B 0.686 B 0.004 No

PM 0.751 C 0.798 C 0.047 No

5


AM 0.734 C 0.736 C 0.002 No

PM 0.771 C 0.771 C 0.000 No

6


AM 0.547 A 0.571 A 0.024 No

PM 0.479 A 0.521 A 0.042 No

7


AM 0.751 C 0.448 A 0.011 No

PM 0.662 B 0.433 A 0.017 No

AM 80.0b F 100.9b F 20.9b N/A

PM 46.0b E 48.3b E 2.3b N/A

8


AM 0.684 B 0.684 B 0.000 No

PM 0.776 C 0.776 C 0.000 No

9


AM 0.653 B 0.692 B 0.039 No

PM 0.641 B 0.647 B 0.006 No

10


AM 0.656 B 0.659 B 0.003 No

PM 0.652 B 0.652 B 0.000 No

11


AM 0.720 C 0.723 C 0.003 No

PM 0.822 D 0.827 D 0.005 No

12


AM 0.623 B 0.623 B 0.000 No

PM 0.740 C 0.740 C 0.000 No

13


AM 0.666 B 0.666 B 0.000 No

PM 0.625 B 0.630 B 0.005 No

14


AM 0.448 A 0.448 A 0.000 No

PM 0.422 A 0.429 A 0.007 No

AM 50.6b F 62.5b F 11.9b N/A

PM 54.8b F 56.1b F 1.3b N/A


b Expressed in “seconds of delay” on the most constrained approach.




theCityofCarson,theRP’sProposedRemedywouldminimallyaffecttheintersectionofFigueroaStreetandSepulvedaBoulevard.Therefore,theRP’sProposedRemedywouldnotaddmorethan50vehiclesperhour(“vph”)atanyCMParterialmonitoringlocationduringtheA.M.orP.M.weekdaypeakhours.Inaddition,thetotalestimatedproject‐relatedtraffic inanydirectionduringtheweekdaypeakhour isprojectedtobe61vph,which is below theminimumcriteria of 150 vph at freewaymonitoring locations. Because theRP’sProposedRemedywouldnotmeettheminimumtripsrequiredforanalysisatCMPmonitoringlocations,itwouldnotexceedCMPguidelinecriteria.ImpactswithrespecttoCMPmonitoringlocationswould,thus,belessthansignificant.

CMP Transit

TheCMPtransitguidelines,whichestablishstandardsrelatedtotransitridership,assume3.5percenttransituseforaworkforce.Basedontheapproximately32workersaday,including16workerswhowouldtravelfromhometositeandtheremaining16employeeswhowouldparkatanoff‐sitelocationandtraveltotheprojectsiteinshuttlevans,itisestimatedthattheprojectcouldaddonenewtransitpersontripinboththeA.M.andP.M.peakhours.Theprojectsiteisservedbyseveralestablishedpublictransitrouteswhichprovideconnectivitytopublictransitservicesthroughoutthesurroundingarea.ExistingtransitlinesarelocatedonLomitaBoulevard,MainStreet,SepulvedaBoulevard,andAvalonBoulevard,whichalsowouldserveastheRP’sProposedRemedy’shaulroute. AlthoughtheRP’sProposedRemedywouldsharecommonroadwayswithtransit lines, itwouldnotincreasetrafficinamannerthatwouldcausenewcongestionorconditions(significant traffic impacts) thatwould affect operation of these streets. TheCarsonNorth‐South Shuttle,whichislocatedonthenorthsideofLomitaBoulevardjustwestofNeptuneBoulevard,istheneareststoptotheprojectsite.NoconstructionwouldoccuralongLomitaBoulevardorothertruckroutestreetsand,thus,nobusstopswouldbeadverselyaffectedbyconstructionactivities.Therefore,theRP’sProposedRemedy’strafficandconstructionactivitieswouldnotadverselyaffecttheoperationoftheseexistinglines.BecauseofthelowestimatedridershipgeneratedbytheRP’sProposedRemedyandadequacyoftheaffectedroadwaysystem during construction (2015‐2021) to serve existing transit, the RP’s Proposed Remedy would notadverselyaffectexistingtransitfacilities.ImpactswithrespecttoCMPtransitguidelineswouldbelessthansignificant.


CMP Roadway Analysis

Based on the Expedited Implementation Option’s trip generation described in Table 5.7‐6, above, andprimary distribution of trips along the designated truck route in the City of Carson, the ExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldminimally affect thenearestCMParterialmonitoring locationof SepulvedaBoulevard and Pacific Coast Highway during the A.M. or P.M. weekday peak hours. In addition, the totalestimatedtrafficinanydirectionduringtheweekdaypeakhourundertheExpeditedImplementationOptionisprojectedtobe94vph,whichisbelowtheminimumcriteriaof150vphatfreewaymonitoringlocations.BecausetheExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldnotmeettheminimumtripsrequiredforanalysisatCMP monitoring locations, it would not exceed CMP guideline criteria. Impacts with respect to CMPmonitoringlocationswould,thus,belessthansignificant.

CMP Transit

The Expedited Implementation Option would generate approximately 47 workers a day, including 24workerswhowouldtravelfromhometositeandtheremaining23employeeswhowouldparkatanoff‐site



location and travel to the project site in shuttle vans, it is estimated that the project could add one newtransit person trip in both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Construction activities and traffic would notadverselyaffectstreetservicelevelsorbusstops.BecauseofthelowestimatedridershipgeneratedbytheExpeditedImplementationOptionandadequacyoftheaffectedroadwaysystemduringconstruction(2015‐2019) to serve existing transit, the RP’s Proposed Remedy would not adversely affect existing transitfacilities.ImpactswithrespecttoCMPtransitguidelinesundertheExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldbelessthansignificant.

5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Analysis of Impacts Associated with Alternative 1 (No Project)

TheNoProjectAlternativewouldnotinvolveanyexcavationorconstructionactivitiesand,thus,wouldnotresult inthegenerationofadditionalvehicletripsrelativetoexistingconditions. Impactsrelatedtotrafficandcirculationwouldbelessthansignificant.

Analysis of Impacts Associated with Alternative 2 (Excavation Beneath Landscape and

Hardscape to 10 Feet Alternative)

Alternative2wouldgeneratethesamehourlyanddailytrafficastheRP’sProposedRemedy.However,totaltruckloadswouldbeincreasedundertheRP’sProposedRemedy.Thus,remedialactivitiesthatcouldaffectlocalroadwaysandsidewalkswouldoccuroveralongertimeframe(approximately7.8yearscomparedto6yearsundertheRP’sProposedRemedyor4yearsundertheExpeditedImplementationOption).AswiththeRP’sProposedRemedy,impactsonstudyareaintersectionswouldbelessthansignificant.

Analysis of Impacts Associated with Alternative 3 (No Excavation Beneath Hardscape – 5

Feet to Targeted 10 Feet)

Alternative3wouldgeneratethesamehourlyanddailytrafficastheRP’sProposedRemedy.Becauselesstotal material would be removed from the site, remedial activities that could affect local roadways andsidewalkswouldoccuroverashortertimeframe(approximately4yearscomparedto6yearsundertheRP’sProposedRemedy). AswiththeRP’sProposedRemedy,impactsonstudyareaintersectionswouldbelessthansignificant.

6. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CumulativeimpactsassociatedwiththeRP’sProposedRemedyarebasedonyear2021cumulativegrowth,which includes ambient yearly growth to 2021 and the addition of related projects. The respective tripgenerationestimatesforeachofrelatedprojectsisshowninTable5.7‐8,RelatedProjectsTripGeneration.ThelocationofrelatedprojectisillustratedinFigure4.1,LocationsofRelatedProjectsinChapter4,BasisofCumulativeAnalysis,inthisEIR.

Table5.7‐9,CumulativeYear(2021)PlusProjectIntersectionLevelsofServiceandImpactAnalysisprovidesasummaryof thecumulativebasescenario,which is shownas “Future.” Thisdesignationdoesnot includetraffic generated under the RP’s Proposed Remedy. As shown in Table 5.7‐9, four of the 14 study



Table 5.7‐8

Related Projects Trip Generation

Project Address Size Unit Use

Trip Generation

Daily AM PM

1.KaiserSouthBayHospitalExpansion 25825VermontAve,LosAngeles

234.407 ksf MedicalOffice

2,971 200 32077.5 ksf

Records/office/warehouse

286 beds Hospital

2.1311WSepulvedaApartments

1311WSepulvedaBoulevard,LosAngeles

352 units Apartments 1,434 19 5517.904 ksf Retail

3.DaycareFacility 25621SNormandieAve,LosAngeles 84 child Daycare 376 67 69

4.DelLagoApartments1450PacificCoastHighway,Los

Angeles 204 units Apartments 1,357 104 126

5.CarsonMarketplace/TheBoulevardsatSouthBay

DelAmoAvewestofI‐405,CarsonMixedUseDevelopment

68,951 2,510 5,761

6.CarsonShellRevitalization 20945SWilmingtonAve,Carson10

employee Office

6,357 408 58090 ksf Industrial/Commercial

83 ksf CommunityRetail

7.PonteVistaResidentialProject

26900SWesternAve,LosAngeles

143 DU SingleFamilyResidential

7,458 571 699600 DU Condominium

392 DU Apartments

2.8 AC Park

1. Traffic Impact Study & Technical Memorandum for the Kaiser Permanente South Bay Medical Center (2006, with amendment 2009), Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates 2. Traffic Impact Study for the 1311 W. Sepulveda Boulevard Project (2009), Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 3 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the 25621 S Normandie Avenue Child Care Facility (2010), Arch Beach Consulting 4. Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed Del Lago Apartment Project (2012), Crain & Associates 5. Traffic Study for the Carson Marketplace (2005), Kaku Associates 6. Traffic Study for the Carson Shell Revitalization (2012, with amendment 2014), Fehr & Peers 7. Traffic Impact Study: Ponte Vista at San Pedro (2012), Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers

Source:Fehr&Peers,2014.



Table 5.7‐9

Cumulative Year (2021) Plus Project Intersection Levels Of Service And Impact Analysis


Future Future +Project

V/C Increase Significant Impact? V/C or Delay LOS V/C or Delay LOS

1


AM 0.827 D 0.827 D 0.000 No

PM 0.862 D 0.862 D 0.000 No

2


AM 0.735 C 0.735 C 0.000 No

PM 0.645 B 0.654 B 0.009 No

3


AM 0.727 C 0.728 C 0.001 No

PM 0.674 B 0.689 B 0.015 No

4


AM 0.703 B 0.704 C 0.001 No

PM 0.813 D 0.843 D 0.030 No

5


AM 0.760 C 0.761 C 0.001 No

PM 0.930 E 0.930 E 0.000 No

6


AM 0.565 A 0.580 A 0.015 No

PM 0.500 A 0.527 A 0.027 No

7LagoonAve&LomitaBoulevarda

AM 0.782 C 0.456 A 0.001 No

PM 0.693 B 0.445 A 0.011 No

AM 101.0b F 118.6b F 17.6b N/A

PM 53.3b F 55.2b F 1.9b N/A

8


AM 0.751 C 0.751 C 0.000 No

PM 0.923 E 0.923 E 0.000 No

9


AM 0.705 C 0.718 C 0.013 No

PM 0.744 C 0.749 C 0.005 No

10


AM 0.670 B 0.673 B 0.003 No

PM 0.716 C 0.716 C 0.000 No

11


AM 0.493 C 0.497 A 0.004 No

PM 0.536 D 0.538 B 0.002 No12 WilmingtonAve& AM 0.644 B 0.644 B 0.000 No


Table 5.7‐9 (Continued)

Cumulative Year (2021) Plus Project Intersection Levels Of Service And Impact Analysis


E223rdSt PM 0.765 C 0.765 C 0.000 No

13


AM 0.693 B 0.693 B 0.000 No

PM 0.659 B 0.663 B 0.004 No

14


AM 0.474 A 0.474 A 0.000 No

PM 0.468 A 0.472 A 0.004 No

AM 68.4b F 78.0b F 9.6b N/A

PM 77.6b F 80.2b F 2.6b N/A

a Unsignalized intersection operating at LOS E or F per the HCM methodology were also analyzed per the ICU methodology to calculate a V/C ratio, as per City of Carson practices. b Expressed in “seconds of delay” on the most constrained approach. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.



intersections are projected to operate at LOS E during the peak hour. The poor LOS calculated at studyintersections No. 7, Lagoon Avenue and Lomita Boulevard and No. 14, Wilmington Avenue and LomitaBoulevardaretheresultofrelativelyhighlevelsofdelayonthemostconstrainedapproach,ratherthanthevolumeofvehiclestravelingthroughthesestop‐controlledintersections.

IntersectionNo.5:MainStreetandLomitaBoulevard

IntersectionNo.7.LagoonAvenueandLomitaBoulevard

IntersectionNo.8.AvalonBoulevardandLomitaBoulevard

IntersectionNo.14.WilmingtonAvenueandLomitaBoulevard

AsalsoshowninTable5.7‐9,peakhourtrafficgeneratedbytheRP’sProposedRemedyisaddedtotheyear2021basepeakhour traffic to create cumulative traffic levels in2021 (“Future+Project”). DetailedLOScalculations are provided in the Traffic Study, Appendix B, contained in Appendix G of this EIR. Thedifferencebetweenthe“Future”and“FuturePlusProject”representstherelative increaseassociatedwiththeRP’sProposedRemedy.Theincreasesillustratedunder“V/C”increaseundertheRP’sProposedRemedywouldnotexceedCityofCarsonintersectioncapacityservicethresholdsatanyofthe14studyintersections.Therefore,cumulativeimpactsundertheRP’sProposedRemedywouldbelessthansignificant.


Cumulative impacts associated with the Expedited Implementation Option are based on year 2019cumulative growth, which includes ambient yearly growth to 2019 and the addition of related projects.Table5.7‐10,CumulativeYear(2019)PlusExpeditedImplementationOptionIntersectionLevelsofServiceandImpactAnalysis provides a summary of the cumulative base scenario, which is shown as “Future.” Thisdesignation does not include traffic generated under the Expedited ImplementationOption. As shown inTable5.7‐9,fourofthe14studyintersectionsareprojectedtooperateatLOSEduringthepeakhour.Thepoor LOS calculated at study intersections No. 7, Lagoon Avenue and Lomita Boulevard and No. 14,Wilmington Avenue and Lomita Boulevard, are the result of relatively high levels of delay on the mostconstrained approach, rather than the volume of vehicles traveling through these stop‐controlledintersections.

IntersectionNo.5:MainStreetandLomitaBoulevard

IntersectionNo.7.LagoonAvenueandLomitaBoulevard

IntersectionNo.8.AvalonBoulevardandLomitaBoulevard

IntersectionNo.14.WilmingtonAvenueandLomitaBoulevard

AlsoasshowninTable5.7‐10,peakhourtrafficgeneratedbytheExpeditedImplementationOptionisaddedtotheyear2019basepeakhourtraffic(“Future+Project”). DetailedLOScalculationsareprovidedintheTrafficStudy,AppendixB,containedinAppendixGofthisEIR.VehicletripsassociatedwiththeExpeditedImplementationOptionarecomparedtothecumulativebaseintersectionconditionstodetermineimpacts.Thedifference between the “Future” and “FuturePlus Project” quantities represents the relative increaseassociatedwiththeExpeditedImplementationOption.Theincreasesillustratedunder“V/C”increaseunderthe Expedited Implementation Option would not exceed City of Carson intersection capacity servicethresholdsatanyofthe14studyintersections.



Table 5.7‐10

Cumulative Year (2019) Plus Expedited Implementation Option Intersection Levels Of Service And Impact Analysis


Future Future +Project

V/C Increase

Significant Impact?

V/C or Delay LOS

V/C or Delay LOS

1


AM 0.819 D 0.819 D 0.000 No

PM 0.854 D 0.854 D 0.000 No

2


AM 0.727 C 0.729 C 0.002 No

PM 0.638 B 0.653 B 0.015 No

3


AM 0.719 C 0.720 C 0.001 No

PM 0.668 B 0.690 B 0.022 No

4


AM 0.697 B 0.701 C 0.004 No

PM 0.808 D 0.854 D 0.046 No

5


AM 0.751 C 0.753 C 0.002 No

PM 0.922 E 0.922 E 0.000 No

6


AM 0.561 A 0.585 A 0.024 No

PM 0.494 A 0.536 A 0.042 No

7


AM 0.451 A 0.458 A 0.007 No

PM 0.430 A 0.447 A 0.017 No

AM 95.3b F 121.9b F 26.6b N/A

PM 51.7b F 54.5b F 2.8b N/A

8


AM 0.744 C 0.744 C 0.000 No

PM 0.917 E 0.917 E 0.000 No

9


AM 0.698 B 0.718 C 0.020 No

PM 0.738 C 0.744 C 0.006 No

10


AM 0.665 B 0.668 B 0.003 No

PM 0.709 C 0.709 C 0.000 No

11


AM 0.489 A 0.495 A 0.006 No

PM 0.531 B 0.534 A 0.003 No

12


AM 0.639 B 0.639 B 0.000 No

PM 0.758 C 0.758 C 0.000 No

13


AM 0.686 B 0.686 B 0.000 No

PM 0.654 B 0.659 B 0.005 No

14


AM 0.469 A 0.469 A 0.000 No

PM 0.464 A 0.471 A 0.007 No

AM 65.5b F 79.8b F 13.3 N/A

PM 74.5b F 78.2b F 3.7b N/A

a Unsignalized intersection operating at LOS E or F under HCM conditions; Analyzed under ICU per City of Carson criteria. b Expressed in “seconds of delay” on the most constrained approach.

Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2014.



Therefore,cumulativeimpactsundertheExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldbelessthansignificant.However, under the Expedited Implementation Option, the “Future + Project” and “V/C Increases” areslightly higher because peak hour traffic under this option are incrementally higher than under the RP’sProposedRemedy.

BasedontheCityofCarson’sintersectiontrafficimpactsignificancecriteria,theprojectwouldnotresultinanyadverseimpactsatanyofthe14studyintersections.

7. MITIGATION MEASURES

Impacts associated with intersection capacity, CMP monitored locations and transit would be less thansignificantundertheRP’sProposedRemedyandtheExpeditedImplementationOption.Alternative1wouldresultinnoincreaseintrafficandtherefore,nosignificantimpactswouldoccur.AswiththeRP’sProposedRemedy,Alternative2andAlternative3wouldnotresult insignificant impactson intersectioncapacities,CMProadwayandtransitservicelevels.Therefore,nomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

8. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

No significant impacts would occur under the RP’s Proposed Remedy or under the ExpeditedImplementationOption.Inaddition,Alternative1wouldnotresultinanyincreaseintrafficandAlternatives2 and3wouldhave less than significant impacts related to transportation and circulation. Therefore, nomitigationmeasureswouldbe required and impactswouldbe less than significant for theBaseCase, theExpeditedImplementationOption,andAlternatives1,2,and3withregardtotrafficandcirculationissues.

5.7 Traffic and Circulation...5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014 State of California Regional...

Documents

Transcript of 5.7 Traffic and Circulation...5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014 State of California Regional...