3.1 traffic and transportation 3.1.1 introduction traffic.pdfsource: mma, 2003 (appendix c of this...

3.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

LAUSD New School Construction Program 3.1-1 3.1 Traffic and Transportation Draft Program EIR March 2004

3.1.1 Introduction

This section describes the existing transportation setting, and identifies the Program’s traffic and transportation impacts that can be identified at this first-tier stage of review. This section also describes the methodology that LAUSD will employ for assessing site-specific impacts. The section identifies significance thresholds that will be applied during site-specific review and the general types of mitigation measures that may be employed during site-specific review to reduce or avoid significant impacts. The discussion is partly based on a study prepared by Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc. (MMA), a traffic-engineering firm. The MMA Traffic Study is presented in its entirety in Appendix C of this report.

3.1.2 Environmental Setting

Average Private Auto Trip Length

Current average auto trip length is calculated based on the attendance area for each school located in the LAUSD. For each elementary, middle and high school, the attendance area boundary generally dictates the specific school that students attend based on their residential address. Given the geographic boundary of the attendance area, the average trip length for the three types of schools (elementary, middle, and high) for each of the local districts (A-K) is estimated. Table 3.1-1 summarizes the current average trip length for the three school types by regional areas (i.e., Valley, Central and South).

Table 3.1-1 Average Auto Length Summary (mi.) Local District Elementary Middle High Total

A 0.33 0.65 0.80 0.45 B 0.39 0.89 1.05 0.55 C 0.31 0.53 0.67 0.39 D 0.35 0.68 0.94 0.49 E 0.59 0.30 0.59 0.29 F 0.20 0.46 0.53 0.27 G 0.24 0.35 0.50 0.29 H 0.19 0.51 0.51 0.25 I 0.18 0.45 0.45 0.25 J 0.19 0.29 0.52 0.25 K 0.27 0.53 0.86 0.36

Average 0.27 0.49 0.70 0.36 Regional Areas

Valley (A, B, C) 0.34 0.69 0.84 0.46 Central (D, E, F, H) 0.25 0.43 0.67 0.33 South (G, I, J, K) 0.23 0.41 0.59 0.30

All Districts 0.27 0.49 0.70 0.36 Source: MMA, 2003 (Appendix C of this report). As shown on Table 3.1-1, average trip length varies by local districts, which range from 0.25 mile (Local Districts H, I and J) to 0.55 mile (Local District B). Also, average trip lengths for elementary schools are relatively shorter (0.27 mile) as compared to middle schools (0.49


mile) and high schools (0.7 mile). Table 3.1-1 also shows that average trip length is the longest for the Valley area (0.46 mile) followed by the Central area (0.33 mile). The South area, on average, has the shortest trip length at 0.3 mile.

Average Bus Trip Length

The average trip length is calculated for school buses that transport “capped” students from over-crowded schools (sender schools) to schools with available capacity/seats (receiver schools). As explained in the Program Description (Section 2), the term “capped student” refers to a student who cannot attend his or her neighborhood school because that school is over capacity. Capped students are involuntarily bussed out of their neighborhoods to schools with available capacity. Conversely, voluntary bussing involves students that voluntarily attend a (receiver) school outside their attendance area to benefit from a magnet school program or a racially integrated school (LAUSD, 2002).

The average bus trip length is based on data provided by the LAUSD. Table 3.1-2 summarizes the results by the three school types and by local and regional school districts. As shown in Table 3.1-2, the average bus trip length ranges from 5.59 miles (Local District A) to 14.41 miles (Local District I).

Table 3.1-2 Average Bus Trip Length Summary (mi.) Local District Elementary Middle High Total

A 5.54 4.84 6.78 5.59 B 7.17 10.57 10.52 8.97 C 5.72 7.41 7.48 6.55 D 6.05 4.87 8.28 6.55 E 6.94 14.08 16.84 10.21 F 6.23 13.61 18.52 8.69 G 8.84 14.92 16.22 13.37 H 6.67 15.43 16.45 10.77 I 9.55 16.11 17.16 14.41 J 6.28 12.56 17.96 12.44 K 7.64 4.70 10.78 7.55

Average 6.69 11.61 14.02 9.54 Regional Areas

Valley (A, B, C) 6.01 7.87 8.42 6.94 Central (D, E, F, H) 6.53 13.43 15.84 9.43 South (G, I, J, K) 8.64 13.52 16.09 12.86

All Districts 6.82 11.55 14.02 9.54 Source: MMA, 2003 (Appendix C of this report).

Elementary schools have the shortest average bus trip length (6.82 miles) as compared to middle schools (11.55 miles) and high schools (14.02 miles). Table 3.1-2 also shows the estimated average bus trip length by regional areas. Based on the results, the Valley area has the shortest average bus trip length (6.94 miles) followed by the Central area (9.43 miles). The South area has the longest average bus trip length at 12.86 miles.

Figure 3.1-1 (at the end of this section) summarizes existing bussing patterns for capped students. As illustrated in the figure, the Central-East area (Local Districts E, F, and H)


currently has the highest number of students being bussed (7,780 students), followed by the South area (3,374 students), Valley area (3,116 students), and the Central-West area (201 students).

School Travel Survey

As part of the Program EIR, a school travel survey was conducted to determine the existing mode of travel at various LAUSD schools. A sample of the survey is provided in the Traffic Impact Study (see Appendix C). The survey was sent out to 27 schools in the LAUSD. Of the 27 schools, 15 schools responded to the survey effort. The purpose of the survey was to determine the modes of transportation that students utilize. These data are correlated with average auto trip lengths to estimate current and future average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in subsequent sections.

As expected, most students arrive to school via auto, followed by walking/biking and public transportation. Of the 2,792 elementary students who responded to the survey, 55 percent arrived to school via auto, 1 percent by school bus, 1 percent by public transportation, 41 percent walked/biked, and 1 percent arrived to school by other means. Responses by middle school students show that of the 4,166 students who responded, 69 percent arrived at school via auto, 1 percent by school bus, 5 percent by public transportation, 25 percent walked/biked and less than 1 percent arrived to school by other means. Of the 6,752 high school students who responded to the survey, 58 percent arrived to school in a private automobile. Of the 58 percent, approximately 7 percent drove while the remaining 93 percent were dropped off/carpooled. Approximately 3 percent arrived via school bus, 16 percent via public transportation, 22 percent walked/biked and 2 percent arrived to school by other means.

The data results of the survey presented above pertain to the typical commute to and from school only. Other activities such as field trips, athletic events, and other special/non-typical daily events are not included. It is assumed that non-typical daily activities would not be impacted significantly due to the proposed Program.

Average Private Auto Vehicle Miles Traveled

The calculation of daily VMT is based on the number of students who utilize autos to get to and from school. Based on the school survey effort described previously, approximately 55 percent of elementary students arrive at school via auto, 69 percent for middle school, and 58 percent for high school. The estimated number of students who travel by automobile is multiplied by the estimated average trip length shown in Table 3.1-1 to estimate VMT. Table 3.1-3 summarizes the current estimated daily private auto VMT by type of school and by local district. As shown, the total daily private auto VMT is estimated at 305,700. As expected, high schools have the highest VMT at 107,330, followed by middle schools at 107,200 and elementary schools at 91,200. Of the three regional areas, the Valley area has the highest daily VMT at 116,000 followed by the Central area at 94,900, and the South area at 94,800.


Table 3.1-3 Existing Estimated Daily Private Auto VMT (Round-trip) Local District Elementary Middle High Total

A 10,069 14,638 11,110 35,818 B 13,101 19,942 19,281 52,324 C 9,969 7,507 10,418 27,894 D 6,699 10,458 18,002 35,160 E 12,969 5,132 7,009 25,110 F 5,696 4,078 4,527 14,301 G 8,537 4,840 10,532 23,909 H 6,574 10,225 3,512 20,311 I 4,598 4,525 5,451 14,574 J 4,395 5,665 5,280 15,341 K 8,590 20,199 12,207 40,996

Total 91,198 107,209 107,329 305,736 Regional Areas

Valley (A, B, C) 33,140 42,087 40,809 116,036 Central (D, E, F, H) 31,939 29,892 33,050 94,881 South (G, I, J, K) 26,120 35,230 33,470 94,819

Note: Daily VMT estimate based on 2003-2004 enrollment data/schedule Source: MMA, 2003 (Appendix C of this report).

The calculation of annual VMT is based on daily VMT as well as school schedule (single-track and multi-track). Multi-track or year-round schools have a different yearly schedule as compared to the single-track (two-semester) schedule. Based on the 2002/2003 LAUSD calendar, the number of days school is in session was identified. Following are the number of days school is in session for each of the respective tracks:

• Single-track – 182 days

• Concept 6/multi-track – 163 days

• Four-track – 180 days.

The data above were used to estimate annual VMT. For the purpose of estimating annual VMT, 20 percent of the students were assumed to attend summer school. Table 3.1-4 summarizes the estimated annual private auto VMT results. As shown, the total annual VMT is estimated at 68,880,600 vehicle miles. Of the three school types, high school averages the highest annual VMT at 24,493,700, followed by middle school at 23,052,600, and elementary school at 21,334,300. Of the three regional areas, the Valley area is estimated to have the highest annual VMT at 26,312,400, followed by the Central area at 21,758,800 and the South area at 20,809,500.

Average Trip Generation

In order to determine the amount of traffic generated by each school within the LAUSD, the LAUSD-specific trip generation rates were determined. Surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2003 (May 27, 2003 to June 24, 2003). The surveys were conducted between 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. at selected schools to determine an average trip generation rate for an elementary,


Table 3.1-4 Existing Estimated Annual Private Auto VMT (Round-trip) Local District Elementary Middle High Total

A 2,295,835 3,239,139 2,503,206 8,038,180 B 3,037,384 4,555,921 4,474,321 12,067,626 C 2,291,742 1,639,574 2,275,253 6,206,570 D 1,477,693 2,284,048 3,985,150 7,746,891 E 3,048,527 1,177,555 1,677,113 5,903,195 F 1,392,309 964,789 1,024,112 3,381,211 G 2,077,314 1,099,578 2,448,873 5,625,765 H 1,519,989 2,339,997 867,468 4,727,454 I 1,083,838 878,739 1,268,072 3,230,648 J 1,121,400 1,173,604 1,304,136 3,599,140 K 1,988,288 3,699,687 2,666,011 8,353,987

Total 21,334,319 23,052,631 24,493,717 68,880,667 Regional Areas

Valley (A, B, C) 7,624,961 9,434,635 9,252,780 26,312,376 Central (D, E, F, H) 7,438,518 6,766,389 7,553,843 21,758,751 South (G, I, J, K) 6,270,840 6,851,607 7,687,093 20,809,540

Note: Annual VMT estimate based on 2003-2004 enrollment data/schedule Source: MMA, 2003 (Appendix C of this report).

middle/junior high, and high school in the Valley, Central, and South areas. Schools on a traditional schedule (single-track) were surveyed prior to the end of the traditional school year (e.g., June 19, 2003). Table 3.1-5 shows the schools selected for the surveys:

Table 3.1-5 Schools Surveyed for Average Trip Generation School Name Regional Area Schedule Year Surveyed

Elementary Schools Morningside Elementary School Valley Concept 6 2003 Fair Avenue Elementary School Valley Concept 6 2003 Kittridge Elementary School Valley Concept 6 2003 Plummer Elementary School Valley Concept 6 2001 Noble Elementary School Valley Concept 6 2001 Grant Elementary School Central Concept 6 2003 Wilton Elementary School Central Concept 6 2003 Union Elementary School Central Concept 6 2003 Cahuenga Elementary School Central Concept 6 2001 Santa Monica Elementary School Central Concept 6 2001 Wadsworth Elementary School Central Concept 6 2001 Fries Elementary School South Concept 6 2003 Corona Elementary School South Concept 6 2003 68th Street Elementary School South Concept 6 2003 Vermont Elementary School South Concept 6 2001

Middle/Junior High Schools San Fernando Junior High School Valley Concept 6 2003 Sepulveda Middle School Valley Concept 6 2003 Sutter Middle School Valley Single-track 2003 Sun Valley Middle School Valley Concept 6 2001 Madison Middle School Valley Single-track 2001 Le Conte Middle School Central Concept 6 2003 Mt. Vernon Junior High School Central Single-track 2003 Nightingale Middle School Central Single-track 2003 Virgil Middle School Central Concept 6 2001 Berendo Middle School Central Concept 6 2001 Carver Middle School Central Concept 6 2001 Adams Middle School Central Concept 6 2001


School Name Regional Area Schedule Year Surveyed Edison Middle School South Concept 6 2003 Wilmington Middle School South Single-track 2003 Stevenson Middle School South Single-track 2003

High Schools North Hollywood High School Valley Concept 6 2003 Canoga Park High School Valley Single-track 2003 Kennedy High School Valley Single-track 2003 San Fernando High School Valley Concept 6 2001 Monroe High School Valley Concept 6 2001 Belmont High School Central Concept 6 2003 Franklin High School Central Concept 6 2003 Hamilton High School Central Single-track 2003 Marshall High School Central Concept 6 2001 Los Angeles High School Central Concept 6 2001 Jefferson High School Central Concept 6 2001 Manual Arts High School South Concept 6 2003 Huntington Park High School South Concept 6 2003 Banning High School South Single-track 2003 Fremont High School South Concept 6 2001

Source: MMA, 2003 (Appendix C of this report). The survey data gathered included the number of vehicles entering and exiting each school’s long term parking facility and number of students that were dropped-off. The total vehicle ingress/egress of each school during the peak hour of the period surveyed was divided by the school’s operational capacity to determine an average trip rate. Trip rates generated by each school were averaged with other schools of similar type (i.e., elementary, middle/junior high, and high school) and regional areas to obtain a single rate for each category. The trip generation rates presented in Table 3.1-6 are intended to serve as standard rates to be used in subsequent project EIRs.

Table 3.1-6 AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates Valley Central South School Type

In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Elementary School 0.31 0.28 0.59 0.19 0.15 0.34 0.22 0.21 0.43 Middle/Junior High School 0.24 0.22 0.46 0.20 0.17 0.37 0.22 0.19 0.41 High School 0.26 0.22 0.48 0.19 0.15 0.34 0.21 0.18 0.39

Note: Rates express trip ends per seat. Source: MMA, 2003 (Appendix C of this report).

Table 3.1-6 summarizes the average rates obtained from the schools shown above. Please note that trip rates are expressed in vehicle trip ends per seat (defined as operational capacity). As indicated in Table 3.1-6, inbound rates are only slightly higher than outbound rates, which indicate that a majority of the trips generated by the schools are “drop-off” trips during the morning peak hour. However, the difference between inbound and outbound rates for high schools is higher than elementary and middle/junior high schools, which reflects high school students driving to school alone.


LAUSD Vehicle Traffic Data

Additional traffic trip and VMT data were developed for school buses, LAUSD-owned vehicles, and school employee vehicles. These traffic data were developed for Section 3.2 to determine the overall emission impact of the Program. Table 3.1-7 provides a summary of the non-private VMT estimates that are presented in Appendix D.3.

Table 3.1-7 Existing LAUSD Vehicle Daily and Annual VMT VMT Data LAUSD Vehicle Type

Daily Annual School Bus 182,332 37,900,000 School Employee Commute 1,321,608 276,038,243 School Operations and Maintenance 63,904 15,017,452 Total 1,567,844 328,955,695

Source: Appendix D.3, Table D.3-1. These traffic data are in addition to the private automobile drop-off/pickup traffic VMT presented in Tables 3.1-3 and 3.1-4. The school bus data are directly from LAUSD sources and include all bus miles, including the “deadhead” miles to and from the bus storage yards,1 for both LAUSD-owned and contracted buses (i.e., Laidlaw). The school employee commute mileage includes only employees that commute to and from actual school sites (i.e., teachers, school administrators, nurses, janitors, and other school staff). The school operations and maintenance (O&M) mileage includes both LAUSD-owned vehicles that are used to maintain and operate schools and the reimbursed school business mileage for O&M staff-owned vehicles (i.e., employee vehicles being used for school O&M). Appendix D.3 provides additional assumptions and data for these LAUSD vehicles.

3.1.3 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards

California Department of Transportation

The California Vehicle Code (code) establishes height, weight, length, and width restrictions for vehicles and their loads. Vehicles or loads that exceed these limitations are considered oversize and require a special permit to operate on the State highway system. The code authorizes the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to issue special permits for the movement of these oversize vehicles along specified routes on the State highway system. The code authorizes county and city governments, such as Los Angeles, to issue special permits for movement of oversize vehicles through their jurisdictions.

Local Jurisdictions

The LAUSD encompasses a total of 27 local jurisdictions. Each local jurisdiction is responsible for transportation issues within their respective boundaries. The requirements within the County and City of Los Angeles are shown below as examples of the type of requirements that would apply.

1 The school bus trip length data presented in Table 3.1-2 provide the trip length with students aboard.


City of Los Angeles

The LADOT is responsible for transportation issues within the City of Los Angeles boundaries. LADOT reviews the transportation/traffic studies prepared for projects of all types for which the City is the lead agency, in addition to other public agency projects (County, State, or federal) located within, or that may affect, the City. LADOT’s internal procedures are described in their Traffic Study Policies and Procedures Manual.

County of Los Angeles

New projects within the City must comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles County, which was adopted by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in November 1995, pursuant to State law. The CMP involves monitoring traffic conditions on the designated transportation network, performance measures, analysis of the impact of land use decisions on the transportation network, and mitigation to reduce impacts of the network.

Appendix D of the CMP includes Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) guidelines. The TIA guidelines require analysis at monitored street intersections and segments, including freeway on- or off-ramp intersections, at which a project is expected to add 50 or more peak hour vehicle trips, and mainline freeway or ramp monitoring locations where the project will add 150 or more peak hour trips. If a project does not add, but merely shifts trips at a given monitoring location, the CMP analysis is not required.

An evaluation of transit impacts is required by the CMP for all projects for which an EIR will be prepared. The CMP also requires that transit system operators receive the NOP for all EIRs to evaluate the potential impacts on existing transit systems, and establishes evaluation procedures. Transit corridors and centers subject to CMP requirements are identified in Appendix F of the CMP (City of LA, 1998).

3.1.4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

3.1.4.1 Thresholds of Significance

The Program would have a significant impact on traffic and transportation if it would:

• Substantially increase the number of automobile or bus miles traveled throughout the Program area

• Exceed the applicable city level-of-service standard at affected intersections2

2 The City of Los Angeles standards are as follows: V/C ratio increase is equal to or greater than 0.040 if final LOS* is C V/C ratio increase is equal to or greater than 0.020 if final LOS* is D V/C ratio increase is equal to or greater than 0.010 if final LOS* is E or F Final LOS” is defined as projected future conditions including project, ambient, and related project growth but without

project traffic mitigation. Other cities within the Program area have their own intersection capacity standards.


• Cause the demand for parking to exceed the available supply in the vicinity of a proposed project

• Substantially increase vehicular and pedestrian safety hazards, or result in inadequate emergency access from existing or project design features.

3.1.4.2 Environmental Impact Analysis

Impact T-1: The Program could substantially increase the number of automobile or bus miles traveled throughout the Program area. Impact Determination -- No Impact.

This first-tier analysis identifies the Program’s traffic impacts by comparing (1) VMT in 2020 without the Program with (2) VMT in 2020 with the Program. The traffic study conducted for the Program indicates that the Program would reduce VMT throughout the Program area by eliminating the involuntary bussing of capped students and by constructing more school capacity closer to where students live. Thus, as measured on a region-wide basis, the Program would have a beneficial impact on traffic conditions. This analysis is based on available data provided by the LAUSD staff regarding current enrollment, attendance area boundaries, school schedules, capacities, and involuntary bussing data.

FUTURE NO-PROGRAM CONDITIONS

The No-Program scenario assumes that LAUSD will continue its current practices for addressing overcrowding, including bussing of capped students and use of multi-track schedules for overcrowded schools. The No-Program scenario also assumes that the Phase I new construction projects will be completed as planned.

Based on the estimated future enrollment, a comparison between enrollment and capacity was conducted to determine if changes to the school schedule would be required to accommodate the increase in students. Those schools that are currently on the traditional single-track (two-semester) schedule and where future estimated enrollment exceeds school capacity are assumed to switch to multi-track schedule. Based on discussions with the LAUSD staff, elementary and middle schools are assumed to shift from single-track schedule to four-track (90/30) schedule if required and high schools are assumed to shift to a multi-track (Concept 6) schedule if required. Based on this information, future 2020 No-Program conditions were estimated.

Average Private Auto Trip Length

It is anticipated that the average auto trip length would decrease slightly from projected 2020 trip length levels due to construction of new schools as part of the approved Phase I of the Program. Overall, however, average auto trip length is not expected to decrease significantly due to Phase I construction, as the majority of attendance boundaries would remain relatively unchanged on a district-wide level.


Due to the expected increase in enrollment by 2020, it is expected that more schools will be overcrowded. In addition to modifying school schedules from single-track to multi-track, an


increase in involuntary bussing of capped students is expected. At this time, there is no way to determine which specific “sender” schools would generate capped students, which specific “receiver” schools would receive capped students, or even estimate the total number of students or buses. However, it is expected that average trip length would increase from current conditions as more schools would be overcrowded and more students would be involuntarily bussed. Based on conversations with LAUSD staff, voluntary bussing would remain relatively the same, as there are currently no plans to increase or decrease funding for voluntary bussing.

Average Private Auto Vehicle Miles Traveled

With the estimated increase in student enrollment, average VMT is expected to increase across all local districts as compared with current conditions. Table 3.1-8 shows the estimated daily private auto VMT for 2020 without the Program. As can be seen, the total LAUSD private auto VMT is estimated to be 316,330 vehicle-miles. This represents a modest 3 percent increase from existing conditions. The largest percent increase in VMT occurs in high school with 12 percent followed by elementary at 3 percent. Future daily VMT actually decreases by approximately 5 percent for middle schools. Although most schools would experience an increase in daily VMT due to the increase in student population, some schools may experience a decrease as a result of modest increase in enrollment and switching from single-track to a multi-track schedule. This phenomenon is more apparent in the daily VMT analysis as fewer students are in sessions on a typical school day.

Table 3.1-8 Future No-Program Daily Private Auto VMT Estimation (Round-Trip) Existing (2003) No-Program (2020) Regional Area

Elementary Middle High Total Elementary Middle High Total Valley (A, B, C) 33,140 42,087 40,809 116,036 34,094 42,935 49,783 126,811

Central (D, E, F, H) 31,939 29,892 33,050 94,881 30,283 30,399 36,869 97,551 South (G, I, J, K) 26,120 35,230 33,470 94,819 29,846 28,697 33,425 91,968

Total 91,198 107,209 107,329 305,736 94,223 102,030 120,076 316,330 Source: MMA, 2003 (Appendix C of this report). Without the proposed Program, annual VMT is expected to increase due to projected student enrollment growth and the conversion of additional schools from single-track to the multi-track schedule in order to accommodate the increase in students. Table 3.1-9 shows the estimated annual private auto VMT results. As can be seen, the total annual private auto VMT is estimated to be 79,467,780 vehicle-miles. This reflects an approximate 15 percent increase in annual VMT. Of the three types of schools, high schools are expected to have the highest increase in annual VMT at 27 percent followed by middle schools at 9 percent and elementary schools at 9 percent as well. The increase in annual VMT ranges from 12 percent to 19 percent for regional areas.


Table 3.1-9 Future No-Program Annual Private Auto VMT Estimation (Round-Trip) Existing (2003) No-Program (2020) Regional Area

Elementary Middle High Total Elementary Middle High Total Valley (A, B, C) 7,624,961 9,434,635 9,252,780 26,312,376 8,430,081 10,325,569 12,666,888 31,422,538

Central (D, E, F, H) 7,438,518 6,766,389 7,553,843 21,758,751 7,392,811 7,534,286 9,534,840 24,461,937South (G, I, J, K) 6,270,840 6,851,607 7,687,093 20,809,540 7,461,410 7,201,983 8,919,914 23,583,308

Total 21,334,319 23,052,631 24,493,717 68,880,667 23,284,302 25,061,838 31,121,643 79,467,783 Source: MMA, 2003 (Appendix C of this report). LAUSD Vehicle Miles Traveled

With the estimated increase in student enrollment, bussing, employee commute, and operations and maintenance VMT (collectively known as LAUSD VMT for the purposes of this analysis) are expected to increase across the district as compared with existing conditions. Table 3.1-10 shows a comparison between the estimated daily and annual LAUSD VMT for existing conditions versus 2020 No-Program. As can be seen, the total LAUSD VMT is estimated to increase for all vehicle type categories due primarily to the forecast increase in school attendance. The LAUSD school bus daily and annual mileage is forecast to increase by approximately 34 and 16 percent, respectively, from existing conditions. The employee commute daily mileage is forecast to increase by approximately 11 percent from existing conditions, while the employee commute annual emissions are forecast to decrease by approximately 4 percent due primarily to changes assumed in the average school year schedule (i.e., the number of days needed for each school employee to commute to school) and an assumed increase in rideshare and public transportation by 2020. The O&M daily and annual mileage is forecast to increase by approximately six percent from existing conditions.

Table 3.1-10 Future No Program Daily and Annual LAUSD VMT Estimation Existing (2003) No-Program (2020) LAUSD Vehicle Type

Daily Annual Daily Annual School Bus 182,332 37,900,000 244,398 43,991,688 School Employee Commute 1,321,608 276,038,243 1,467,270 264,108,600 School Operations and Maintenance 63,904 15,017,452 67,626 15,892,018 Total 1,567,844 328,955,695 1,779,294 323,992,305 Source: Appendix D.3, Table D.3-4. FUTURE PROGRAM CONDITIONS

With the implementation of the Program, all schools are expected to be on the single-track schedule by the year 2020. This would have a beneficial impact on average daily and annual traffic as year-round (multi-track) school would be eliminated. However, maximum daily commuting trips are forecast to be higher under the single-track schedule in comparison to multi-track schedules as more students and employees need to commute during the more limited number of days each school is in operation, and also because some multi-track schedules have fewer school days per school year. However, for the single-track schedule, the traffic would be significantly reduced during summer when schools are out of session.


Additionally, the Program would reduce bus trips and would reduce trip distances for many other vehicle categories causing an overall decrease in VMT from the No-Program scenario.

Average Auto Trip Length

The Program would result in more students commuting to school by foot and bicycle rather than by automobile and bus. Thus, average auto trip length is expected to decrease with the implementation of the full Program. This is a beneficial impact as a result of the proposed Program.


With implementation of the Program, all students within the LAUSD would be able to attend schools in their own neighborhoods, and involuntary bussing of capped students would be eliminated, thereby reducing bus trips throughout the Program area. The proposed Program would thus have a significant beneficial effect on school bus trips. As noted previously, voluntary bussing would remain relatively unchanged and would be available to students. No increase or decrease in voluntary bussing is expected.

Average Private Auto Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

The Program would decrease daily as well as annual VMT, because all students would be able to attend their local neighborhood school and all schools would be on the traditional two-semester schedule. As a result, the Program would have a significant beneficial impact on average private automobile VMT.

Table 3.1-11 shows the estimated daily private VMT results with the implementation of the Program. As can be seen, with the Program, total daily private VMT is expected to decrease by approximately 9 percent as compared to the 2020 No-Program scenario. Daily private VMT for elementary, middle, and high schools are expected to decrease by 11 percent, 7 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Daily private VMT for the Valley, Central, and South areas is expected to decrease by 9 percent, 10 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

Table 3.1-11 Future With Program Daily Private VMT Estimation (Round-Trip) No-Program (2020) With Program (2020) Regional Area

Elementary Middle High Total Elementary Middle High Total Valley (A, B, C) 34,094 42,935 49,783 126,811 30,202 40,412 44,335 114,949

Central (D, E, F, H) 30,283 30,399 36,869 97,551 27,110 27,443 33,039 87,592 South (G, I, J, K) 29,846 28,697 33,425 91,968 26,933 27,286 30,440 84,660

Total 94,223 102,030 120,076 316,330 84,246 95,141 107,814 287,200 Source: MMA, 2003 (Appendix C of this report).

Table 3.1-12 shows the estimated annual private VMT results with the implementation of the proposed Program. Overall, the total annual private VMT is estimated to be 60,111,045 vehicle-miles. This reflects an approximate 24 percent decrease in annual VMT as compared to the 2020 No-Program scenario. Annual private VMT is expected to decrease for elementary, middle, and high school at 24 percent, 21 percent, and 27 percent, respectively. Annual private


VMT is also expected to decrease for regional areas as well. For the Valley, Central, and South areas, annual VMT is estimated to decrease by 23 percent, 25 percent, and 25 percent, respectively.

Table 3.1-12 Future With Program Annual Private VMT Estimation (Round-Trip) No-Program (2020) With Program (2020) Regional Area

Elementary Middle High Total Elementary Middle High Total Valley (A, B, C) 8,430,081 10,325,569 12,666,888 31,422,538 6,321,378 8,458,133 9,279,283 24,058,793

Central (D, E, F, H) 7,392,811 7,534,286 9,534,840 24,461,937 5,674,122 5,743,778 6,915,088 18,332,988

South (G, I, J, K) 7,461,410 7,201,983 8,919,914 23,583,308 5,637,088 5,711,049 6,371,126 17,719,263

Total 23,284,302 25,061,838 31,121,643 79,467,783 17,632,587 19,912,960 22,565,498 60,111,045

Source: MMA, 2003 (Appendix C of this report). LAUSD Vehicle Miles Traveled

With the implementation of the Program, the LAUSD vehicle mileage is expected to decrease from that estimated for the No-Program scenario, due primarily to the elimination of involuntary bussing. Additionally, the employee mileage is assumed to decrease due to a reduction in commute distance as a result of the increased number of schools. The O&M mileage estimate is based on attendance, so no change between Program and No-Program has been determined. Table 3.1-13 shows a comparison between the estimated daily and annual LAUSD VMT for 2020 with the Program versus 2020 No-Program. As can be seen, the total LAUSD VMT is estimated to decrease with the Program. The LAUSD school bus daily and annual mileage is forecast to decrease by approximately 19 percent as compared to the 2020 No-Program scenario. The employee commute daily and annual mileage is forecast to decrease by approximately five percent as compared to the 2020 No-Program scenario due to a reduction in the average commute distance because of the increased number of schools. The O&M mileage estimate is based on attendance, so no change between Program and No-Program has been determined.

Table 3.1-13 Future No Program Daily and Annual LAUSD VMT Estimation No-Program (2020) With Program (2020) Vehicle Type

Daily Annual Daily Annual School Bus 244,398 43,991,688 197,018 35,463,215 School Employee Commute 1,467,270 264,108,600 1,393,907 250,903,170 School Operations and Maintenance 67,626 15,892,018 67,626 15,892,018 Total 1,779,294 323,992,305 1,658,550 302,258,403

Source: Appendix D.3, Table D.3-7.

As described previously, the Program would have overall beneficial traffic impacts on the regional roadway system. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.

Impact T-2: The Program could exceed the applicable city level-of-service standard at affected intersections. Impact Determination – Less than Significant.


The Program has the potential to result in increased traffic at specific school sites. This increased traffic could result in changes to the level-of-service, usually measured as the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio, at specific street intersections. The location of specific school sites, however, is not known at this time. As specific projects are proposed, detailed traffic and transportation assessments would be prepared during the second-tier stage of review to address intersection level-of-service impacts. LAUSD will consider site-specific traffic impacts by employing the applicable city traffic impact study guidelines. Within the City of Los Angeles, for example, as agreed upon in a MOC between the LAUSD and the LADOT (LADOT, 2001), LAUSD would employ the following guidelines:

• Traffic studies shall quantify the impacts of the school projects on the AM peak period only, with qualitative discussion of circulation issues during other time periods. New traffic counts, where necessary, will be collected from 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM.

• Traffic studies shall not be required if the proposed school is estimated to add less than 43 net new AM peak hour trips to nearby streets.

• The estimate of the number of trips to be generated shall be based on trip generation rates developed based on empirical trip generation surveys in the City of Los Angeles.

• Trip generation for displaced land uses shall be based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published rates.

• The number of intersections to be studied shall be based on the number of proposed student seats and net new trips generated, as determined through consultation with LADOT, but with the following goals:

− Elementary Schools (<800 seats) – up to a maximum of four intersections on the perimeter of the site.

− Middle Schools (<1,500 seats) – up to a maximum of six intersections on the perimeter of the site and on key access routes.

− High Schools (<1,500 seats) – up to a maximum of eight intersections on the perimeter of the site and on key access routes.

• Loading zones shall be assessed qualitatively to determine their adequacy as pick up and drop off points. Recommendations will be developed in consultation with LADOT for curb parking restrictions to accommodate loading needs and reduce impacts of double parking or across-the-street loading.

• A copy of the campus site plan will be provided to LADOT to assist in the scoping of the traffic study.

• Neighborhood traffic impacts will be assessed qualitatively.

Traffic associated with future school facilities would generally be distributed locally. Based on the estimated trip generation and distribution assumptions described in the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix C), future proposed project traffic levels will be assigned onto the roadway system based on driveway locations and the availability of local roadways to access the regional highway system. Future with no project and future with project AM peak hour traffic volumes


will be estimated at all intersections affected by the projects. The AM peak hour traffic volumes will be used to estimate the change in the V/C ratios. If a change in V/C ratio exceeds a threshold of significance, the proposed project will create significant impacts at the subject intersection.

The Program includes specific measures that would reduce impacts. The Program Description identifies criteria that require schools not to be located on major highways or arterial streets with heavy traffic patterns, unless mitigation of traffic hazards and a plan for the safe arrival and departure of students has been provided. These measures require that site access patterns are oriented to discourage the use of local residential streets by school traffic. In addition, the LAUSD applies construction (see Section 2.3.5) and operational (see Section 2.3.6) requirements and BMPs to new projects that are applicable to traffic and transportation. Transportation-related construction requirements and BMPs that LAUSD applies include: requiring contractors to submit a construction worksite traffic control plan to the LADOT for review prior to construction, encouraging its contractors to limit construction-related trucks to off-peak commute periods, and requiring that applicable transportation related safety measures be implemented during construction. Transportation-related operational requirements and BMPs that LAUSD applies include encouraging ride-sharing programs for students and teachers.

The LAUSD would also meet with the applicable local jurisdiction or other applicable city agency early in the site planning process to receive its input on all transportation-related issues. Street dedications and street improvements would be addressed on a project-by-project basis in conjunction with the applicable city or county department. In addition, as noted earlier, the trip generation rates identified in Table 3.1-6 of this report would be used in the environmental review of all future new schools, school additions, reconfigurations, and reopening of schools.

To evaluate the potential impacts of future individual projects within the Program area on local traffic conditions, forecast of future traffic volumes in the local study areas under conditions without the proposed project would be developed to provide a basis against which to measure the traffic impacts associated with the proposed school. Ambient traffic growth is the traffic growth that would occur in a local study area due to general employment growth, housing growth, and regional growth through trips in Southern California. Even if there were no change in housing or employment in the Los Angeles area, there would be some background (ambient) traffic growth in the region. A two percent per year growth rate can be assumed as a conservative estimate of traffic increase in the local study areas. Cumulative project traffic growth, which is growth due to known development projects in the study area, would also be included in the analyses through coordination with local jurisdiction staff.

No level-of-service impacts on affected intersections have been identified during this first-tier stage of review. If potentially significant intersection level-of-service impacts are identified during site-specific review, LAUSD will consider what feasible site-specific mitigation measures may be available, if any, to mitigate those impacts to a level of insignificance.


Potential site-specific mitigation measures for intersection level-of-service impacts include funding of Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control Systems, street widenings, street restripings, turn restrictions, removal of on-street parking, installation of traffic signals, and installation of additional traffic lanes. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, LAUSD will consider the effectiveness and feasibility of these measures in the context of individual projects and site-specific circumstances. In the context of individual projects, LAUSD may find intersection level-of-service impacts are significant and unavoidable, although no such determination can be made at this time before individual sites are proposed.

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.

Impact T-3: The Program could cause the demand for parking to exceed the available supply in the vicinity of a proposed project. Impact Determination – Less than Significant with Mitigation.

Future school facilities would include on-site parking spaces designated for faculty and staff. Additional spaces would be available for visitors to the campus. School projects could create potentially significant parking impacts if the parking demand generated by a project exceeded the available parking supply in the project vicinity. As part of the site-specific CEQA review for each project, the LAUSD will consider the extent to which the project’s proposed on-site parking supply will be sufficient to meet the project’s parking needs. No significant parking impacts have been identified during this first-tier stage of review, but potentially significant impacts could be identified during site-specific CEQA review.

Mitigation Measures

T-3.1 Where a project’s parking needs exceed the project’s on-site supply of parking, the LAUSD shall conduct a parking demand analysis. The demand analysis shall consider the on-site parking to be provided as part of the project, as well as the existing parking supply in the vicinity of the proposed project, including both on-street and off-street parking. The demand analysis shall summarize parking utilization within ¼ mile of the project site, identify existing or proposed transit/rail stations in proximity to the project, and identify the potential for shared parking based on the fact that peak parking demand does not always occur simultaneously for different types of land uses.

T-3.2 Where a parking demand analysis concludes that a project will cause the parking demand in the vicinity of the project to exceed the available supply, LAUSD shall promote alternative transportation modes for staff and students by: (a) providing notice to parents, students, and staff of implications of parking on adjacent residential streets, including a description of restrictions and penalties, (b) providing information on existing public transportation options, (c) designating existing parking areas for car pools and van pools, and (d) assigning staff parking areas.


Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts associated with traffic would be less than significant if the following performance standard would be achieved:

• The parking demand does not exceed the available supply in the vicinity of the project area. Residual Impacts. If the mitigation measures achieve the identified performance standard at specific sites, site-specific impacts will be mitigated to insignificant. The LAUSD will make site-specific determinations of significance during the second-tier stage of review. In the context of individual projects, LAUSD may find parking impacts are significant and unavoidable, although no such determination can be made at this time before individual sites are proposed.

Impact T-4: The Program could substantially increase vehicular and pedestrian safety hazards or result in inadequate emergency access from existing or project design features. Impact Determination – Less than Significant with Mitigation.

Construction of new school facilities under the Program may result in new vehicular and pedestrian safety hazards within the Program study area. As identified below, such hazards may result during the construction and operation of schools.

Construction

During construction of a proposed project, construction workers would drive to and from the project site and haul truck trips would occur during construction activity. Because construction activity, including hauling of oversized loads, may potentially require roadway or sidewalk closures and/or traffic detours, construction worksite traffic control plans would be proposed and implemented to address any potential construction safety hazards impacts (see Section 2.3.5 of the Program Description).

Operation

Increased levels of traffic, increased numbers of pedestrians, and increased numbers of vehicular turning movements at the nearby intersections, driveways, and on-street parking areas adjacent to a proposed school site could increase the risk of a traffic accident involving pedestrians. The impact would not likely be significant in most cases, because sidewalks would be in place along the streets in the vicinity of the school, controlled crossing locations would be located along the pedestrian access routes (stop signs or signals), and yellow school crosswalk markings would be painted on the street pavement at appropriate locations. However, Mitigation Measures T-4.1 and T-4.2 have been identified to further reduce the potential for safety-related accidents.

The risk of a pedestrian safety accident is increased where proposed projects are located on major arterial streets with heavy traffic volumes. Mitigation Measure T-4.3 below is intended to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance in this circumstance.


Emergency access would be proposed off of a public street and through the interior of the school campuses. This would allow police and fire emergency access to the campus from a public street. Access would likely be restricted to one street to limit disruption to residences adjacent to a proposed school site. Future projects would be designed to allow access to the interior of a campus. Further as described in Section 2.3.4, all construction and site plans would be reviewed and approved by the local fire jurisdiction prior to the State Fire Marshall’s final approval. Therefore, the Program would provide adequate emergency access.

Mitigation Measures

T-4.1 Where potentially significant pedestrian safety impacts are identified in the review of individual projects, the LAUSD shall request the LADOT or applicable city/county agency to install an Advance School symbol sign with a “SCHOOL” plates and “SCHOOL – SPEED LIMIT 25 – WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT” signs along adjacent streets in appropriate locations.

T-4.2 Where potentially significant pedestrian safety impacts are identified in the review of individual projects, the LAUSD shall request that the LADOT or applicable city/ county agency post signs along adjacent streets in appropriate locations that restrict stopping or passenger unloading along the school frontage.

T-4.3 If a proposed school project is located on a major arterial street or a street with a heavy traffic volume, LAUSD shall prepare a pedestrian safety plan for the safe arrival and departure of students in accordance with the “School Area Pedestrian Safety Manual” published by the California Department of Transportation, 1987 edition. The plan shall include all feasible measures to ensure a high level of pedestrian safety, as approved by the city with jurisdiction over the project area. Such measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: installation of traffic controls, pedestrian signal lights, school warning and speed limit signs, school crosswalks, pavement markings, passenger loading zones and school bus loading zones, and crossing guard operations. The plan shall also include a “Pedestrian Routes to School” map for distribution to all school attendees with clear guidance on safe pedestrian access to school.

Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts associated with safety hazards would be less than significant if the following performance standard would be achieved:

• The measures reduce the potential impact associated with pedestrian safety traffic hazards at proposed schools to a level of insignificance.

Residual Impacts. If the mitigation measures achieve the identified performance standard at specific sites, site-specific impacts will be mitigated to insignificance. The LAUSD will make site-specific determinations of significance during the second-tier stage of review.

VALLEY

CENTRAL-WEST

CENTRAL-EAST

SOUTH

From South District

(3,374 Students)

TO

VALLEY

SOUTH

CENTRAL-EAST

CENTRAL-WEST

%

19%

44%

5%

32%

TOTAL 100%

From Central-West District

(201 Students)

TO

VALLEY

SOUTH

CENTRAL-EAST

CENTRAL-WEST

%

7%

0%

3%

90%

TOTAL 100%

From Valley District

(3,116 Students)

TO

VALLEY

SOUTH

CENTRAL-EAST

CENTRAL-WEST

%

99%

0%

0%

1%

TOTAL 100%

From Central-East District

(7,780 Students)

TO

VALLEY

SOUTH

CENTRAL-EAST

CENTRAL-WEST

%

26%

3%

37%

34%

TOTAL 100%

Total CAP Students = 14,471Source: LAUSD

N

NOT TO SCALE

LAUSD New School Construction ProgramDraft Program EIR

3.1-19 3.1 Traffic and TransportationMarch 2004

AspenEnvironmental Group

Figure 3.1-1

2003/2004 CAP -Bussing Pattern

LAUSD New School Construction

3.1 traffic and transportation 3.1.1 introduction traffic.pdfsource: mma, 2003 (appendix c of this...

Documents