traffic study for the gaffey pool project ...eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/emg/docs/gaffrey/app g -...

TRAFFIC STUDYFOR THE

GAFFEY POOL PROJECT

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2013

PREPARED FOR

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, BUREAU OF ENGINEERING

PREPARED BY

DRAFT TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE GAFFEY POOL PROJECT

October 2013

Prepared for:

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, BUREAU OF ENGINEERING

Prepared by: FEHR & PEERS 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1050 Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 2618-3050 Ref: SM12-2577.00

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Scope ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Existing Highway and Street System ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Existing Transit Service ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service .................................................................................................................... 6

3. Traffic Projections ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Existing plus Project Traffic Projections .............................................................................................................................. 14 Future Base Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................................... 14

4. Level of Service and Significant Impact Analysis .................................................................................. 16 Criteria for Determination of Significant Traffic Impact ............................................................................................... 16 Level of Service Analysis............................................................................................................................................................ 16 Intersection Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................................................... 17

5. Congestion Management Program Analysis .......................................................................................... 19 Regional Traffic Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Regional Transit Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 20

6. Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 21

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Traffic Counts

Appendix B – Intersection Turning Movement Figures

Appendix C – Level of Service Worksheets

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Conceptual Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2 – Study Area and Analyzed Intersections.................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 3 – Population Density ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections................................................................................... 7

Table 2 – Level of Service Definitions for Stop-Controlled Intersections....................................................................... 8

Table 3 – Existing and Existing plus Project Intersection Level of Service Analysis ................................................ 10

Table 4 – Estimated Persons Present and Trip Generation Estimates by Time of Day – Summer Weekday – Gaffey Pool ................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 5 – Future (Year 2016) Level of Service Analysis Results ....................................................................................... 18

Traffic Study for the Gaffey Pool October 2013

1

1. Introduction

Fehr & Peers conducted a traffic study to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Gaffey Pool project, located within Angels Gate Park at 3351 Gaffey Street in the San Pedro community of Los Angeles, California. This report identifies the base data and assumptions, explains the methodologies used, and summarizes the findings of the study. The traffic impact analysis conducted for this report includes analysis of existing (2013) conditions and opening year (2016) conditions.

Project Description

The Gaffey Street Pool was originally constructed in 1943. The proposed project would restore and re-open the pool to public use as one of the seasonal pools operated by the City’s Department of Recreation and Parks. It would be used by all ages for activities such as lap swimming, water aerobics, aquatic lessons, recreation swimming, team practice and synchronized swimming performance. The concrete seating area and changing rooms will be upgraded to meet standard bathhouse requirements. The main parking area for the facility will be west of the existing pool. Vehicular traffic will use Gaffey Street to reach Leavenworth Drive (near 36th Street), currently the entrance to Angels Gate Park and Fort MacArthur Museum. The pool will also be accessible from Osgood Farley Road (opposite 32nd Street). The pool will be open from June to September. Approximate hours of operation would be weekdays from 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays and noon to 6:00 PM on weekend days. Access from the lower slope area on Gaffey Street near 33rd Street will include stair access and a handicapped accessible ramp. Historically a stairway connected the pool with the neighborhood at the foot of the slope, and a crosswalk on Gaffey Street was present at 33rd Street to facilitate pedestrian crossings. The conceptual site plan is illustrated in Figure 1.

Study Scope

The scope of work for this study was developed in conjunction with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). The base assumptions and technical methodologies were discussed as part of the study approach. The study analyzes potential project-generated traffic impacts on the adjacent street system for existing conditions and the opening year. The following traffic scenarios were analyzed for the weekday PM peak hour (between 3:00 and 6:00 PM):

• Existing (Year 2013) Conditions – The analysis of existing Year 2013 traffic conditions provides a basis for the remainder of the study. The existing conditions analysis includes an assessment of streets, traffic volumes, and operating conditions. The existing traffic conditions are the baseline for assessing the significance of project impacts.

• Existing (Year 2013) plus Project Conditions – This is an analysis of existing traffic conditions with traffic expected from the proposed project added to the traffic volumes.

270

265

260

245

240

235

230

280

FFE. 259.05

+249.0

+258.75

TW 262

225

FFE. 259.00

270

265

260

255

+275

+275

+275

250

275

+272

+269

+266

+263

273

255

250

245

240

235

230

275

255

260

265

270

275

+259.0

FFE. 259.00

+251.5

+254.0

+256.5

+259.0

+263

S

2:1

TY

P.

2:1

TY

P.

NTE 2:1 TYP.

NTE 2:1 TYP.

2:1

TY

P.

+272.5

+270

+267.5

+265

+262.5

NT

E 2

51 T

YP

.

NT

E 2

51 T

YP

.

NT

E 2

51 T

YP

.

+239.0+236.5

+231.5

+229.0

+234.0

+241.5

+244.0

+246.5

+249.0

+255.1

+257.7

+254.5

+252.0

+249.5

+258.75

+257.5

+260.0

+255.0

+262.5

+268.25

+270.75

+273.25

+226.5

(18")

(36")

(60")

(18")

(24")

(18")

(36")

(42")

+248.5

(24")

FFE. 259.00

+261.5

+262.5

+259.0

+249.3

+276.5

NTE

2:1

TY

P.

+275.75

+265.75

+255.3

+263.25

+262.5

GRAPHIC SCALE (in feet)

NORTH

20 20 40010

SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

G A F F E Y S T R E E T

POOL

BATH HOUSE

COMMUNITY!

ROOM

STAFF

GAFFEY POOL !

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

LAWN

FIGURE 1 - CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN - GAFFEY POOLNot to Scale

N

Project #\Graphics

1

2Leavenworth Dr


3

• Opening Year (Year 2016) Conditions – Future traffic conditions are projected without the proposed project in the opening year 2016. The objective of this phase of analysis is to project future traffic growth and operating conditions that could be expected to result from regional ambient growth and known cumulative projects if the proposed project were not developed. The cumulative base traffic forecasts are used to develop cumulative baseline operating conditions that provide the basis for determining project impacts.

• Cumulative Year (2016) plus Project Conditions – This is an analysis of future traffic conditions with traffic expected from the proposed project added to the cumulative base traffic forecasts. Cumulative plus proposed project conditions were developed for years 2016. The objective of this analysis is to develop the traffic forecasts of the proposed project that are then used to identify potential impacts.

The traffic study focuses on the weekday PM peak hour of traffic because it represents the worst overall traffic conditions when the project will be open, and thus has the greatest potential for impact. As illustrated in Figure 2, two intersections were identified, in consultation with LADOT, for weekday afternoon peak hour analysis as part of the scope of work for this project.

1. 32nd Street/Barlow Saxton Road & Gaffey Street (signalized) 2. 36th Street/Leavenworth Drive & Gaffey Street (stop-controlled)

Organization of Report

This report is divided into six chapters, including this introduction. Chapter 2 describes the existing conditions in the study area including an inventory of the streets, highways, and transit service in the study area, a summary of traffic volumes and an assessment of operating conditions. The methodologies used to develop traffic forecasts for the cumulative base and cumulative plus project and the forecasts themselves are included in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents an assessment of potential intersection traffic impacts generated by the proposed project. The results of the regional transportation system analysis are provided in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 summarizes the key findings and conclusions of the study. Appendices to this report include details of the technical analysis.

FIGURE 2 - STUDY INTERSECTIONS - GAFFEY POOLNot to Scale

N

Project #\Graphics

1

2Leavenworth Dr


5

2. Existing Conditions

This chapter presents a description of existing roadways and traffic conditions in the study area. The assessment of conditions relevant to this study includes an inventory of the street and highway systems, traffic volumes on these facilities, and operating conditions at key intersections. A detailed description of these elements in presented in this chapter.

Existing Highway and Street System

The project site is in the San Pedro community of the City of Los Angeles. Primary regional access to the project area is provided by the Harbor Freeway (I-110), which terminates at Gaffey Street approximately four miles north of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by a well-defined grid of arterial and collector roads. The primary roadway facilities in the project study area are:

• Gaffey Street – Gaffey Street is classified as a Major Class II Highway that runs north/south in the study area. In the vicinity of the project site it provides two travel lanes and provides a connection for local and regional travel from southern San Pedro to other parts of Los Angeles. Gaffey Street in this area is residential in character; south of 32nd Street the west side of the street adjoins Angels Gate Park. The new San Pedro Community Plan proposes to downgrade this portion Gaffey Street (between 25th Street and Shephard Street) to a Secondary Arterial.

• 32nd Street and Barlow Saxton Road – 32nd Street is a local street that runs east/west from Gaffey Street to Pacific Avenue. It provides one travel lane with parking in each direction. Adjacent land uses are primarily residential. West of Gaffey Street, 32nd Street aligns with Barlow Saxton Road, an internal roadway within Angels Gate Park which also provides secondary access to the Olguin Campus of San Pedro High School. A traffic signal controls operations at 32nd Street/Barlow Saxton Road & Gaffey Street, and marked school crosswalks are present on the north, east and west legs.

• 36th Street and Leavenworth Drive – 36th Street is a local residential street that runs east/west from Gaffey Street to Pacific Avenue. It provides one travel lane with parking in each direction. West of Gaffey Street, and offset somewhat is Leavenworth Drive, an internal roadway within Angels Gate Park which would provide primary vehicular access to Gaffey Pool project. The intersection of 36th Street/Leavenworth Drive & Gaffey Street is controlled by stop signs on the minor (east-west) approaches.

Existing lane configurations at the analyzed intersections are shown in the level of service worksheets in Appendix C.

Existing Transit Service

The project study area is served by bus transit lines operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). One transit route provides service in the project vicinity:


6

• Metro Line 246 – Metro Line 246 travels between the Harbor Gateway Transit Center and southern San Pedro (Paseo del Mar & Almeria Street), generally along Avalon Boulevard, John S. Gibson Boulevard, Pacific Avenue and Paseo del Mar. This line provides service from approximately 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM seven days a week, with headways of approximately 30 to 60 minutes.

Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service

This section presents the existing peak hour turning movement traffic volumes for the analyzed intersections, describes the methodology used to assess the traffic conditions at each intersection, and analyzes the resulting operating conditions at each, indicating volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios and level of service (LOS).

Existing Traffic Volumes

New traffic counts were conducted for the weekday afternoon peak period (between 3:00 and 6:00 PM) in June 2013 while school was in normal session. The existing weekday afternoon peak hour traffic volumes at the analyzed intersections are presented in Appendix B. Traffic count data sheets are provided in Appendix A.

Level of Service Methodology

LOS is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent “free-flow” conditions at LOS A to overloaded “stop-and-go” conditions at LOS F. LOS D is typically considered to be the minimum desirable level of service in urban areas.

According to Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (LADOT, June 2013), this study is required to use the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) method of intersection capacity calculation (Transportation Research Circular No. 212, Transportation Research Board, 1980) to analyze the LOS at signalized intersections, including the signalized intersection of 32nd Street/Barlow Saxton Road & Gaffey Street. The CMA methodology determines the V/C ratio of an intersection based on the number of approach lanes, the traffic signal phasing and the traffic volumes. The signalized study intersection is by the City’s Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) system and, in accordance with LADOT procedures, a capacity increase of 7% was applied to reflect the benefits of ATSAC. The CMA worksheet developed by LADOT was used to implement the CMA methodology in this study. The V/C ratio is then used to find the corresponding LOS based on the definitions in Table 1.

The “Two-Way Stop-Controlled” methodology from Highway Capacity Manual was used to determine the average vehicle control delay (in seconds) for the two-way stop-controlled study intersection 36th Street/Leavenworth Drive & Gaffey Street. The two-way stop-controlled methodology relates intersection LOS to the delay experienced by the most constrained approach (i.e., either the northbound or southbound left turns or the eastbound or westbound approaches), rather than to the intersection as a whole. The corresponding levels of service are defined by the list in Table 2.

TABLE 1LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

A 0.000-0.600 EXCELLENT. No Vehicle waits longer than one red

light and no approach phase is fully used.

B 0.601-0.700 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is

fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat

restricted within groups of vehicles.

C 0.701-0.800 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait

through more than one red light; backups may

develop behind turning vehicles.

D 0.801-0.900 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions

of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods

occur to permit clearing of developing lines,

preventing excessive backups.

E 0.901-1.000 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection

approaches can accommodate; may be long lines

of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.

F > 1.000 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on

cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of

vehicles out of the intersection approaches.

Tremendous delays with continuously increasing

queue lengths.

Source: Transportation Research Circular No. 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, Transportation Research Board, 1980.

Level of ServiceIntersection

Capacity UtilizationDefinition

TABLE 2LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS

A < 10.0

B > 10.0 and < 15.0

C > 15.0 and < 25.0

D > 25.0 and < 35.0

E > 35.0 and < 50.0

F > 50.0

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.

Level of ServiceAverage Control Delay

(seconds/vehicle)


9

Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service

The existing weekday peak hour turning movement volumes presented in Appendix B were used in conjunction with the LOS methodology described above to determine existing operating conditions at each of the study intersections. LOS calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C.

Table 3 summarizes the existing weekday afternoon peak hour V/C ratio and delay and corresponding LOS at the study intersections. The results of this analysis indicate that both of the two intersections are currently operating at good levels of service (LOS A) in the afternoon peak hour.

Existing plus Project SignificantProject Increase Project

V/C or Delay LOS V/C or Delay LOS in V/C Impact1. Gaffey Street & Barlow Saxton Road/32nd Street * PM 0.113 A 0.129 A 0.016 NO2. Gaffey Street & Leavenworth Drive/36th Street PM 9.9 B 10.2 B 0.3 NO

TABLE 3EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

Intersection Peak HourExisting Base

* Intersection is currently operating under ATSAC system; a 7% ATSAC/ATCS credit was applied.


11

3. Traffic Projections

Project Traffic Volumes

Development of traffic estimates for the proposed project involved a three-step process including traffic generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment.

Project Traffic Generation

The number of person trips generated was estimated based on the expected use of the pool, including the types of programs and number of users. Information was provided by the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks on the actual level of utilization at Westchester Pool (the most comparably-located seasonal pools, as they both lie within the coastal zone) and Peck Pool (the nearest City pool to the Gaffey Pool). In 2012, July was the busiest month at both existing pool, with an average of approximately 150-200 persons per day. Average daily attendance in August at Westchester Pool and Peck Pool was approximately 120-140 persons. The Gaffey Pool would be used by all ages for activities such as swim lessons, diving lessons, recreational swimming, synchronized swimming, water polo and junior lifeguard training. Total peak daily attendance at the Gaffey Pool was estimated at twice the average attendance at Westchester Pool during the busiest month, July.

The vehicular trip generation estimate was derived from the number of person trips and an assumed average vehicle occupancy of 2.0 persons per vehicle, based on observations at the Westchester Pool. Some pool users will travel by bicycle or walk in from the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed stairway and handicapped access ramp would provide the most direct route for pedestrians to reach the pool. The swim facility-generated vehicular traffic was used to develop a peak hour for analysis of the afternoon peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Since vehicular trips generated on a weekend typically do not create a significant impact, only weekday volumes were analyzed. The Gaffey Pool will be open from June through September (Labor Day or shortly after), which overlaps somewhat with the normal academic year for public schools in this area. To provide a conservative analysis of potential traffic impacts, the traffic analysis combines the estimated trip generation of the Gaffey Pool during its peak month (July) and the weekday background traffic levels during the normal school year.

As shown in Table 4, the project is projected to generate a total of approximately 364 vehicle trips on a peak summer weekday, including approximately 70 trips during the PM peak hour (35 inbound, 35 outbound).

Project Traffic Distribution

The geographic distribution of trips generated by the proposed project is dependent on characteristics of the street system serving the site, the level of accessibility of routes to and from the proposed project site, and the geographic distribution of population from which swimmers would be drawn. The trip distribution pattern used in this study was developed in consultation with LADOT and is based in part on the population density illustrated in Figure 3. This includes the following trip distribution by cardinal directions:

9TH ST

25TH STGAFFEY ST

PALOS VERDES DR

PACIF

IC AV

E

ANAHEIM ST

GAFF

EY ST

PASEO DEL MAR

PALOS VERDES DR ALAMEDA ST

B ST

CRENSHAW

BLVD FIGUEROA ST

PALOS VERDES DR

JOHNS GIBSON BLVD

AVALON BLVDFRONT ST

HARBOR BLVD

WEST

ERN

AVE

PALOS VERDES DR

Pacific Ocean

Peck Pool (Existing)

Gaffey Pool (Proposed)

213110

47

©2013 Esri

FIGURE 3 - POPULATION DENSITYNot to Scale

NNNNNNN

Document Path: N:\Jobs\Active\2500s\2577 - Gaffey Pool TIA\Graphics\GIS\MXD\pop.mxd

Block GroupsPersons per square mile

2 mile buffer zone

25,001 to 100,000 people

10,001 to 25,000 people

1,001 to 10,000 people

101 to 1,000 people

100 or less people

LosAngeles

Pool Users/Activity Times 10:00a-11:00a 11:00a-11:30a 11:30a-noon noon-12:30p 12:30p-1:00p 1:00p-2:00p 2:00p-3:00p 3:00p-4:00p 4:00p-4:30p 4:30p-5:00p 5:00p-5:30p 5:30p-6:00p 6:00p-6:30p 6:30p-7:00p

PERSONS AND PERSON TRIPS

Lessons* 11-1, 4-6 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 10

inbound 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10

outbound 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10

Team Diving 4:00p-5:00p 10 10 10 10

inbound 10

outbound 10

Team Swimming 1:00p-2:00p 10 10 10

inbound 10

outbound 10

Team Synchr. Swim 3:00p-4:00p 10 10 10

inbound 10

outbound 10

Team Water Polo noon-1:00p 10 10 10 10

inbound 10

outbound 10

Jr. Lifeguard Training 5:00p-6:00p 10 10 10 10

inbound 10

outbound 10

Recreational Swim 11:00a-6:00p 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

inbound 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

outbound 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Staff 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

inbound 4

outbound 4

Total Users Present 34 44 54 44 54 54 54 64 54 54 54 44 24 0

INBOUND Person Trips inbound 34 40 40 30 30 20 30 40 30 40 30 0 0 0

OUTBOUND Person Tripsoutbound 0 10 40 40 30 40 30 20 30 30 40 30 24 0

TOTAL Person Trips 34 50 80 70 60 60 60 60 60 70 70 30 24 0

VEHICLE TRIPS

INBOUND Vehicle Trips inbound 17 20 20 15 15 10 15 20 15 20 15 0 0 0

OUTBOUND Vehicle Tripsoutbound 0 5 20 20 15 20 15 10 15 15 20 15 12 0

TOTAL Vehicle Trips 17 25 40 35 30 30 30 30 30 35 35 15 12 0

NOTES: *Assumes 12 half-hour lessons are held from 11:00 to 1:00 and from 4:00 to 6:00, similar to current schedule for the Westchester Pool, and that each one has 10 students.

Operating hours planned to be 11:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays and noon to 6:00 pm on weekend days.

Times shown for the team workouts are taken from Summer 2013 program at the Westchester Pool but may not precisely reflect future programs at the Gaffey Pool.

Average vehicle ridership estimated to be 2.0.

PM peak hour trip generation estimated to be 70 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour (35 inbound, 35 outbound) during the peak month (July). Less activity would occur during the few weeks when school is in session.

TABLE 4ESTIMATED PERSONS PRESENT AND TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES BY TIME OF DAY - SUMMER WEEKDAY - GAFFEY POOL


14

• To/from north: 50% • To/from south: 20% • To/from east: 10% • To/from west: 10%

Project Traffic Assignment

The trip generation estimates summarized in Table 4 and the distribution pattern described above were used to assign the project-generated traffic to the study intersections. Estimated project-generated afternoon peak hour traffic volumes at the analyzed intersections during a typical weekday are illustrated in Appendix B.

Existing plus Project Traffic Projections

The proposed project traffic volumes were added to the 2013 baseline traffic counts to develop the Existing plus Project traffic volumes. Appendix B illustrates the resulting projected Existing plus Project peak hour traffic volumes for a typical weekday PM peak hour.

Future Base Traffic Volumes

The future base traffic projections reflect the changes to existing traffic conditions that can be expected from three primary sources. The first source is the ambient growth in traffic, which reflects increases in traffic because of regional growth and development. The second source is traffic generated by specific development projects located within, or in the vicinity of, the study area. The third source is roadway or intersection capacity enhancements. These factors are described below.

Areawide Traffic Growth

Based on discussions with LADOT, it was determined that an ambient growth factor of 1.0% per year should be applied to adjust the existing base year traffic volumes to reflect the effects of regional growth and development for the 2016 project opening year. This adjustment was applied to the base Year 2013 traffic volume data to reflect the effect of ambient growth of 3.0% in Year 2016.

Related Project Traffic Generation and Assignment

Future base traffic forecasts include the effects of specific cumulative development projects, also called related projects, expected to be built in the vicinity of the proposed project site prior to the proposed project’s future year of 2016. Following coordination with the Los Angeles Departments of Transportation and City Planning, one related project was identified in the vicinity of the study area.

The related project is City Dock #1 project, located at Berths 56-60 and 70-71.within the Port of Los Angeles, approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. In 2016, that project is forecast to generate a total of 1,046 daily trips, including 96 in the PM peak hour (22 inbound, 74 outbound). A review of the trip assignment in the traffic study for that project shows that three southbound trips and one northbound


15

trip were estimated to travel on Gaffey Street near the site of the proposed Gaffey Pool. These volumes were added to the Existing volumes after calculating ambient growth through 2016.

Future Baseline Street Improvements

There are currently no planned street improvements at the study locations that are scheduled to be in place by 2016.

Traffic Assignment

Using the estimated trip generation and trip distribution patterns described above, traffic generated by the related projects was assigned to the street network.

Future Base and Future Base plus Project Traffic Projections

Appendix B illustrates the future base for the Year 2016 at the analyzed intersections for weekday afternoon peak hour. The future base traffic conditions represent an estimate of future conditions without development of the proposed project.

The proposed project traffic volumes were then added to the future base traffic projections to develop the future plus project traffic forecasts for the opening year 2016 scenario. These volumes are illustrated in Appendix B.


16

4. Level of Service and Significant Impact Analysis

This section presents an analysis of the existing and future, without and with project volumes to determine the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project on the operating conditions of the surrounding street system. The traffic impact analysis compares the projected LOS at each study intersection under Existing and Future plus Project conditions to the Existing and Future Base conditions to estimate the incremental increase in the V/C ratio caused by the proposed project. This provides the information needed to assess the potential impact of the project using significance criteria established by LADOT. Detailed LOS calculations for the proposed project for Existing plus Project and future year 2016 are included in Appendix C.

Criteria for Determination of Significant Traffic Impact

All study intersections are in the City of Los Angeles. Significance criteria established by the City of Los Angeles was used to assess the potential for significant project impacts at the study intersections.

The City of Los Angeles has established threshold criteria to determine significant traffic impact of a proposed project in its jurisdiction. Under the LADOT guidelines, an intersection would be significantly impacted with an increase in V/C ratio equal to or greater than 0.04, or an increase of 6.0 seconds in delay for intersections projected to operate at LOS C after the addition of project traffic. Stricter thresholds of significance apply to intersections projected to operate at LOS D, E or F after the addition of project traffic. Intersections operating at LOS A or B after the addition of the project traffic are not considered significantly impacted regardless of the project related increase in V/C ratio or delay. The following summarizes the impact criteria:

LOS Final V/C Ratio Project-related Increase in V/C C >0.700 - 0.800 equal to or greater than 0.040 D >0.800 - 0.900 equal to or greater than 0.020 E or F >0.900 equal to or greater than 0.010

LOS Final Delay Project-related Increase in V/C

C >20 - 35 equal to or greater than 6.0 seconds D >35 - 55 equal to or greater than 4.0 seconds E >55 - 80 equal to or greater than 2.5 seconds F >80 equal to or greater than 2.5 seconds

Level of Service Analysis

Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions

The resulting Existing plus Project peak hour traffic volumes, illustrated in Appendix B, were analyzed to determine the projected existing operating conditions with the addition of the proposed project traffic. The results of the Existing plus Project analysis are presented in Table 3. As indicated in the table, the two intersections are projected to continue operating at good levels of service during the PM peak hour.


17

Project Intersection Impacts – Existing plus Project

To determine whether significant impacts would occur at the study intersections, the Existing plus Project operating conditions were compared to the existing operating conditions. As shown in Table 3, using the City of Los Angeles criteria for determination of significant impacts, under Existing plus Project conditions, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts.

Future Base (Year 2016) Traffic Conditions

The 2016 cumulative and cumulative plus project peak hour traffic volumes illustrated in Appendix B were analyzed to determine the projected future operating conditions without and with the addition of the proposed project traffic. As indicated in Table 5, both study intersections are projected to continue operating at good levels of service during the PM peak hour.

Project Intersection Impacts Year 2016

To determine whether significant impacts would occur at the study intersections, the 2016 plus project operating conditions were compared to the 2016 base operating conditions. As shown in Table 5, using the City of Los Angeles criteria for determination of significant impacts, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts.

Intersection Mitigation Measures

The aforementioned traffic impact analysis determined that the proposed project will not result in any significant traffic impacts. As such, no mitigation measures are needed.

2016 plus Project Significant

Project Increase Project

V/C LOS V/C LOS in V/C Impact

1. Gaffey Street & Barlow Saxton Road/32nd Street * PM 0.181 A 0.205 A 0.024 NO2. Gaffey Street & Leavenworth Drive/36th Street PM 10.0 B 10.2 B 0.2 NO

* Intersection will operate under ATSAC and ATCS systems; a 10% ATSAC/ATCS credit was applied.

TABLE 5

2016 PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

Intersection Peak Hour2016 Base


19

5. Congestion Management Program Analysis

This chapter presents the regional transportation system impact analysis conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (Metro, October 2010).

Regional Traffic Impact Analysis

The CMP guidelines require that the first issue to be addressed is the determination of the geographic scope of the study area. The criteria for determining the study area for CMP arterial monitoring intersections and for freeway monitoring locations are:

• All CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic.

• All CMP mainline freeway monitoring locations where the proposed project will add 150 or more

trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM peak hours.

The CMP traffic impact analysis guidelines establish that a significant project impact occurs when the following threshold is exceeded:

• The proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00).

• If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases

traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C 0.02).

Arterial Monitoring Station Analysis

The CMP arterial monitoring stations nearest to the project study area include:

• Gaffey Street & Ninth Street • Western Avenue & Ninth Street

According to the incremental project trip generation estimates developed in Chapter 3 and the project only traffic volumes illustrated in Appendix B, the proposed project is not expected to add sufficient new traffic to exceed the analysis criteria at these locations. No further analysis of CMP arterial intersections is required and CMP arterial intersection impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Freeway Mainline Monitoring Station Analysis

This section presents an analysis of potential project impacts on the regional transportation system. This analysis was conducted in accordance with the transportation impact analysis procedures outlined in the CMP. The CMP mainline freeway monitoring location nearest to the project site is I-110 at C Street.


20

The project’s total estimated trip generation is less than 150 trips in any peak hour, thus the project would add fewer than 150 vehicle trips through these arterial monitoring stations. No further analysis of CMP arterial intersections is required and CMP arterial intersection impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Regional Transit Impact Analysis

Potential increases in transit person trips generated by the proposed project were estimated as follows. Section B.8.4 of the CMP provides a methodology for estimating the number of transit trips expected to result from a proposed project based on the projected number of vehicle trips. The CMP requires that the transit impact analysis include local services within ¼ mile of the project and express bus and rail routes within two miles of the project. Potential increases in transit person trips generated by the proposed project were evaluated based on the CMP methodology. This methodology assumes an Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) factor of 1.4 to estimate the number of person trips to and from the project and then provides guidance regarding the percent of person trips assigned to public transit depending on the type of use (commercial/other; residential) and its proximity to transit services.

There is one fixed-route transit line (Metro 246) within ¼ mile of the project area. Assuming an average bus seating capacity of 30 to 40 seats, the total number of seats during peak hours can range from 60 to 80.

The proposed project could generate as many as 70 trips during a weekday PM peak hour. Multiplying the weekday PM peak hour trips by an AVR of 1.4 estimates that the proposed project could generate a total of 98 person trips.

Based on parameters in the CMP, a factor of 3.5% was applied to person trips generated to estimate transit trips. The project may therefore generate approximately four or fewer transit trips in the peak hour.

The CMP does not have a threshold for determining the significance of impacts on the transit system, however, at these levels, project-related impacts on the regional transit system would not be considered significant.


21

6. Summary and Conclusions

This study was undertaken to analyze the potential for traffic impacts resulting from the proposed improvements to the existing Gaffey Pool in the San Pedro community of Los Angeles, California. The key findings and conclusions of the study are summarized below:

• The proposed project would restore an existing outdoor swimming pool and re-open it for public use as one of the seasonal pools operated by the Department of Recreation and Parks from June to September. Improvements would also be made to the concrete seating area and changing rooms. Parking would be provided west of the existing pool.

• Vehicular traffic will reach the site primarily from Gaffey Street and Leavenworth Drive or Osgood Farley Road. Access will also be available from Alma Street west of the site. Pedestrian access is proposed to be provided along those routes and also by a staircase and handicapped accessible ramp to Gaffey Street at 33rd Street. A stairway was located there when the pool was formerly in public use and a crosswalk on Gaffey Street was present at 33rd Street to facilitate pedestrian crossings.

• The project is estimated to generate a total of approximately 364 daily vehicle trips, including

approximately 70 trips in the PM peak hour. • Detailed intersection capacity and operation analyses were conducted at two intersections in the

vicinity of the project site for the weekday afternoon peak hour (between 3:00 to 6:00 PM). Both intersections are operating at good levels of service (LOS A and B). Potential traffic impacts were assessed against Existing conditions and against Cumulative (2016) conditions and it was determined that the project would result in less than significant impacts, based on the City’s significant impact criteria. Impacts to CMP roadway and transit facilities were also found to be less than significant.

REFERENCES

Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation

Authority, October 2010.

Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, June, 2013. Transportation Research Circular No. 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, Transportation Research Board, 1980. Traffic Study for the City Dock #1 Development Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Fehr & Peers, May 2012. 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.

APPENDIX A:

TRAFFIC COUNTS

City Of Los Angeles

Department Of Transportation

MANUAL TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY

STREET:

North/South Gaffey St

East/West Barlow Saxton Rd_32nd St

Day: Date: Weather: SUNNY

Hours: 3-6PM Chekrs: NDS

School Day: YES District: I/S CODE

N/B S/B E/B W/B

DUAL-

WHEELED 5 3 0 0

BIKES 0 0 0 1

BUSES 4 0 0 0

N/B TIME S/B TIME E/B TIME W/B TIME

PM PK 15 MIN 50 15.30 66 15.30 19 15.15 10 15.00

PM PK HOUR 173 15.30 240 15.30 42 15.00 28 17.00

NORTHBOUND Approach SOUTHBOUND Approach TOTAL XING S/L XING N/L

Hours Lt Th Rt Total Hours Lt Th Rt Total N-S Ped Sch Ped Sch

15-16 0 159 2 161 15-16 35 170 25 230 391 1 0 1 0

16-17 2 161 2 165 16-17 34 180 13 227 392 0 0 0 0

17-18 4 140 3 147 17-18 35 184 16 235 382 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 6 460 7 473 TOTAL 104 534 54 692 1165 123 1 36 3

EASTBOUND Approach WESTBOUND Approach TOTAL XING W/L XING E/L

Hours Lt Th Rt Total Hours Lt Th Rt Total E-W Ped Sch Ped Sch

15-16 38 4 0 42 15-16 0 1 26 27 69 1 0 7 0

16-17 18 2 1 21 16-17 2 1 23 26 47 0 0 4 0

17-18 20 4 3 27 17-18 4 6 18 28 55 1 0 2 0

TOTAL 76 10 4 90 TOTAL 6 8 67 81 171 149 0 81 0

TUESDAY June 5, 2013

Intersection Turning MovementPrepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services

Day: WEDNESDAY

Date: 6/5/2013

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL

LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

3:00 PM 0 37 0 5 35 12 14 1 0 0 0 10 114

3:15 PM 0 33 0 8 40 5 17 2 0 0 0 7 112

3:30 PM 0 47 1 17 46 3 1 1 0 0 0 4 120

3:45 PM 0 39 1 4 49 5 6 0 0 0 1 5 110

4:00 PM 0 37 1 5 39 6 7 0 0 2 1 5 103

4:15 PM 1 43 0 9 54 1 3 0 0 0 0 7 118

4:30 PM 0 36 1 11 38 2 5 1 0 0 0 6 100

4:45 PM 1 43 0 8 48 4 3 1 1 0 0 5 114

5:00 PM 0 33 1 10 45 3 0 0 1 1 3 2 99

5:15 PM 3 34 1 13 38 9 12 0 2 1 1 4 118

5:30 PM 0 42 1 7 46 1 5 3 0 2 0 4 111

5:45 PM 1 27 0 5 55 3 3 1 0 0 2 8 105


TOTAL VOLUMES : 6 451 7 102 533 54 76 10 4 6 8 67 1324

APPROACH %'s : 1.29% 97.20% 1.51% 14.80% 77.36% 7.84% 84.44% 11.11% 4.44% 7.41% 9.88% 82.72%

nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d

PEAK HR START TIME : 300 PM TOTAL

PEAK HR VOL : 0 156 2 34 170 25 38 4 0 0 1 26 456

PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.950

CONTROL :

0.823 0.675

WESTBOUND

Project ID: CA13_5318_001

City: City of San Pedro

Barlow Saxton Rd_32nd St

PM

Gaffey St Gaffey St

CARS

1-Way Stop (WB)

Barlow Saxton Rd_32nd StNS/EW Streets:

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

0.867 0.553

PROJECT#:

N/S Street:

E/W Street:

DATE: DAY:

CITY:

P M

Adult Pedestrians School-Aged Pedestrians

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB

3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:30 PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 0 1 1 0 5 8 1 1 TOTALS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PREPARED BY NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICESCA13_5318_001

Gaffey St

Barlow Saxton Rd_32nd St

6/5/2013 WEDNESDAY

City of San Pedro

TIMENORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

TIMENORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG



Day: WEDNESDAY

Date: 6/5/2013


LANES: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%



PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1


CONTROL : 1-Way Stop (WB)

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250

PM

NS/EW Streets: Gaffey St Gaffey St Barlow Saxton Rd_32nd St Barlow Saxton Rd_32nd St



BIKES



Day: WEDNESDAY

Date: 6/5/2013


LANES: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%



PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


CONTROL :



BUSES

PM


1-Way Stop (WB)


0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000



Day: WEDNESDAY

Date: 6/5/2013


LANES: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

3:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00%



PEAK HR VOL : 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4


CONTROL :



HEAVY TRUCKS

PM


1-Way Stop (WB)


0.375 0.250 0.000 0.000



Day: WEDNESDAY

Date: 6/5/2013


LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

3:00 PM 0 38 0 5 35 12 14 1 0 0 0 10 115

3:15 PM 0 33 0 8 40 5 17 2 0 0 0 7 112

3:30 PM 0 49 1 17 46 3 1 1 0 0 0 4 122

3:45 PM 0 39 1 5 49 5 6 0 0 0 1 5 111

4:00 PM 0 37 1 5 40 6 7 0 0 2 1 5 104

4:15 PM 1 44 0 9 54 1 3 0 0 0 0 7 119

4:30 PM 0 37 1 11 38 2 5 1 0 0 0 6 101

4:45 PM 1 43 0 9 48 4 3 1 1 0 0 5 115

5:00 PM 0 35 1 10 45 3 0 0 1 1 3 2 101

5:15 PM 3 35 1 13 38 9 12 0 2 1 1 4 119

5:30 PM 0 42 1 7 46 1 5 3 0 2 0 4 111

5:45 PM 1 28 0 5 55 3 3 1 0 0 2 8 106


TOTAL VOLUMES : 6 460 7 104 534 54 76 10 4 6 8 67 1336

APPROACH %'s : 1.27% 97.25% 1.48% 15.03% 77.17% 7.80% 84.44% 11.11% 4.44% 7.41% 9.88% 82.72%



PEAK HR VOL : 0 159 2 35 170 25 38 4 0 0 1 26 460


CONTROL :



TOTALS

PM


1-Way Stop (WB)


0.805 0.871 0.553 0.675

City Of Los Angeles

Department Of Transportation

MANUAL TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY

STREET:

North/South Gaffey St

East/West Leavenworth Dr

Day: Date: Weather: SUNNY

Hours: 3-6PM Chekrs: NDS

School Day: YES District: I/S CODE

N/B S/B E/B W/B

DUAL-

WHEELED 7 1 1 0

BIKES 1 0 1 0

BUSES 4 0 0 0

N/B TIME S/B TIME E/B TIME W/B TIME

PM PK 15 MIN 46 15.30 55 16.15 6 15.00 5 15.30

PM PK HOUR 164 15.15 187 17.00 21 15.00 12 17.00

NORTHBOUND Approach SOUTHBOUND Approach TOTAL XING S/L XING N/L

Hours Lt Th Rt Total Hours Lt Th Rt Total N-S Ped Sch Ped Sch

15-16 12 142 9 163 15-16 9 137 23 169 332 0 0 0 0

16-17 4 139 6 149 16-17 12 156 7 175 324 0 0 1 0

17-18 4 130 4 138 17-18 12 174 1 187 325 2 0 0 0

TOTAL 20 411 19 450 TOTAL 33 467 31 531 981 124 1 36 3

EASTBOUND Approach WESTBOUND Approach TOTAL XING W/L XING E/L

Hours Lt Th Rt Total Hours Lt Th Rt Total E-W Ped Sch Ped Sch

15-16 11 0 10 21 15-16 1 1 9 11 32 0 0 1 2

16-17 9 0 8 17 16-17 1 0 6 7 24 1 0 3 1

17-18 3 0 2 5 17-18 0 0 12 12 17 0 0 4 5

TOTAL 23 0 20 43 TOTAL 2 1 27 30 73 148 0 76 8

TUESDAY June 5, 2013



Day: WEDNESDAY

Date: 6/5/2013


LANES: 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

3:00 PM 3 30 2 2 32 4 3 0 3 0 0 2 81

3:15 PM 4 33 4 0 34 6 2 0 2 0 0 2 87

3:30 PM 2 41 2 6 31 8 2 0 3 1 1 3 100

3:45 PM 2 35 1 1 40 5 4 0 2 0 0 2 92

4:00 PM 0 34 2 1 34 3 3 0 2 0 0 2 81

4:15 PM 2 38 1 4 50 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 99

4:30 PM 1 31 0 4 30 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 73

4:45 PM 1 34 2 3 42 0 3 0 3 0 0 2 90

5:00 PM 2 30 0 4 41 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 83

5:15 PM 2 31 3 5 38 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 84

5:30 PM 0 37 0 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 87

5:45 PM 0 28 1 2 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 84


TOTAL VOLUMES : 19 402 18 33 467 30 23 0 19 2 1 27 1041

APPROACH %'s : 4.33% 91.57% 4.10% 6.23% 88.11% 5.66% 54.76% 0.00% 45.24% 6.67% 3.33% 90.00%



PEAK HR VOL : 6 148 6 12 155 17 10 0 8 1 1 8 372


CONTROL : 2-Way Stop (EB/WB)

Leavenworth DrNS/EW Streets:

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

0.836 0.750



Leavenworth Dr

PM

Gaffey St Gaffey St

CARS

0.889 0.500

WESTBOUND

PROJECT#:

N/S Street:

E/W Street:

DATE: DAY:

CITY:

P M

Adult Pedestrians School-Aged Pedestrians

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB

3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 1 0 1 1 5 3 1 0 TOTALS 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEGTIME

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEGTIME

City of San Pedro

PREPARED BY NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICESCA13_5318_002

Gaffey St

Leavenworth Dr

6/5/2013 WEDNESDAY



Day: WEDNESDAY

Date: 6/5/2013


LANES: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%



PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1


CONTROL :



BIKES

PM

NS/EW Streets: Gaffey St Gaffey St Leavenworth Dr Leavenworth Dr

2-Way Stop (EB/WB)


0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000



Day: WEDNESDAY

Date: 6/5/2013


LANES: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%



PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

PM




BUSES



Day: WEDNESDAY

Date: 6/5/2013


LANES: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

3:15 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

3:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 9

APPROACH %'s : 14.29% 71.43% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%



PEAK HR VOL : 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5




0.750 0.250 0.250 0.000

PM




HEAVY TRUCKS



Day: WEDNESDAY

Date: 6/5/2013


LANES: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:00 PM 3 31 2 2 32 4 3 0 3 0 0 2 82

3:15 PM 5 34 4 0 34 6 2 0 2 0 0 2 89

3:30 PM 2 42 2 6 31 8 2 0 3 1 1 3 101

3:45 PM 2 35 1 1 40 5 4 0 2 0 0 2 92

4:00 PM 0 34 3 1 34 4 3 0 2 0 0 2 83

4:15 PM 2 39 1 4 50 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 101

4:30 PM 1 32 0 4 30 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 74

4:45 PM 1 34 2 3 42 0 3 0 3 0 0 2 90

5:00 PM 2 32 0 4 41 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 85

5:15 PM 2 32 3 5 38 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 85

5:30 PM 0 37 0 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 87

5:45 PM 0 29 1 2 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 85


TOTAL VOLUMES : 20 411 19 33 467 31 23 0 20 2 1 27 1054

APPROACH %'s : 4.44% 91.33% 4.22% 6.21% 87.95% 5.84% 53.49% 0.00% 46.51% 6.67% 3.33% 90.00%



PEAK HR VOL : 6 150 7 12 155 18 10 0 9 1 1 8 377




0.886 0.841 0.792 0.500

PM




TOTALS

APPENDIX B: INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT FIGURES

APPENDIX C: LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS

Level of Service Workheet(Circular 212 Method)

I/S #: PROJECT TITLE:

1 North-South Street: East-West Street:

Scenario:

Count Date: Analyst: Date:

No. of Phases 2 2

Opposed Ø'ing: N/S-1, E/W-2 or Both-3? 0 0

NB-- 0 SB-- 0 NB-- 0 SB-- 0

EB-- 0 WB-- 0 EB-- 0 WB-- 0

ATSAC-1 or ATSAC+ATCS-2? 0 1

Override Capacity 0 0

No. of

Lanes

Lane

Volume

No. of

Lanes

Lane

Volume

Left 1 1

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 1 1

Right 0 0

Left-Through-Right 0 0

Left-Right 0 0

Left 1 1

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 1 1

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 0 0

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 0 0

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 0 0

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 0 0

Right 0 0

Left-Through-Right 1 1 Left-Right 0 0

0 196

0 65

SUM: 0 SUM: 261

0.000 0.174

0.000 0.113

A A

Version: 1i Beta; 8/4/2011

V/C LESS ATSAC/ATCS ADJUSTMENT:

LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS):

CRITICAL VOLUMES

North-South: North-South:

East-West: East-West:

VOLUME/CAPACITY (V/C) RATIO:

0

0 0 1 27

0 0 26 0

WE

ST

BO

UN

D

0 0 0

38

0 0 4 42

0 0 0 0

EA

ST

BO

UN

D

0 0 38

35

0 0 170 195

0 0 25 0

SO

UT

HB

OU

ND 0 0 35

0

0 0 159 161

0 0 2 0

MOVEMENTVolume Volume

NO

RT

HB

OU

ND

0 0 0

AM PM

Right Turns: FREE-1, NRTOR-2 or OLA-3?

Gaffey Street Barlow Saxton Road/32nd Street

EXISTING

6/5/2013 Fehr & Peers 7/8/2013




Scenario:


No. of Phases 2 2


NB-- 0 SB-- 0 NB-- 0 SB-- 0

EB-- 0 WB-- 0 EB-- 0 WB-- 0



No. of

Lanes

Lane

Volume

No. of

Lanes

Lane

Volume

Left 1 1

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 1 1

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 1 1

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 1 1

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 0 0

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 0 0

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 0 0

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 0 0

Right 0 0


0 217

0 80

SUM: 0 SUM: 297

0.000 0.198

0.000 0.129

A A



EXISTING + PROJECT

6/5/2013 Fehr & Peers 7/8/2013

AM PM



NO

RT

HB

OU

ND

0 0 4 4

0 0 166 168

0 0 2 0

SO

UT

HB

OU

ND 0 0 35 35

0 0 177 213

0 0 36 0

EA

ST

BO

UN

D

0 0 49 49

0 0 8 61

0 0 4 0

WE

ST

BO

UN

D

0 0 0 0

0 0 5 31

0 0 26 0



CRITICAL VOLUMES







Scenario:


No. of Phases 2 2


NB-- 0 SB-- 0 NB-- 0 SB-- 0

EB-- 0 WB-- 0 EB-- 0 WB-- 0



No. of

Lanes

Lane

Volume

No. of

Lanes

Lane

Volume

Left 1 1

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 1 1

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 1 1

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 1 1

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 0 0

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 0 0

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 0 0

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 0 0

Right 0 0


0 204

0 67

SUM: 0 SUM: 271

0.000 0.181

0.000 0.090

A A



CUMULATIVE

6/5/2013 Fehr & Peers 7/8/2013

AM PM



NO

RT

HB

OU

ND

0 0 0 0

0 0 165 167

0 0 2 0

SO

UT

HB

OU

ND 0 0 36 36

0 0 178 204

0 0 26 0

EA

ST

BO

UN

D

0 0 39 39

0 0 4 43

0 0 0 0

WE

ST

BO

UN

D

0 0 0 0

0 0 1 28

0 0 27 0



CRITICAL VOLUMES







Scenario:


No. of Phases 2 2


NB-- 0 SB-- 0 NB-- 0 SB-- 0

EB-- 0 WB-- 0 EB-- 0 WB-- 0



No. of

Lanes

Lane

Volume

No. of

Lanes

Lane

Volume

Left 1 1

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 1 1

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 1 1

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 1 1

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 0 0

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 0 0

Right 0 0


Left-Right 0 0

Left 0 0

Left-Through 0 0

Through 0 0

Through-Right 0 0

Right 0 0


0 225

0 82

SUM: 0 SUM: 307

0.000 0.205

0.000 0.105

A A



CUMULATIVE + PROJECT

6/5/2013 Fehr & Peers 7/8/2013

AM PM



NO

RT

HB

OU

ND

0 0 4 4

0 0 172 174

0 0 2 0

SO

UT

HB

OU

ND 0 0 36 36

0 0 185 221

0 0 36 0

EA

ST

BO

UN

D

0 0 50 50

0 0 8 62

0 0 4 0

WE

ST

BO

UN

D

0 0 0 0

0 0 5 32

0 0 27 0



CRITICAL VOLUMES




Default Scenario Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:15:56 Page 3-1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level Of Service Computation Report

2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)

********************************************************************************

Intersection #1 Gaffey Street & Leavenworth Drive

********************************************************************************

Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.9]

********************************************************************************

Street Name: Gaffey Street Leavenworth Drive

Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound

Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign

Rights: Include Include Include Include

Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Volume Module:

Base Vol: 7 150 6 12 155 18 10 0 9 1 1 8

Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Initial Bse: 7 150 6 12 155 18 10 0 9 1 1 8

User Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.50 0.50 0.50

PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

PHF Volume: 6 133 5 10 130 15 8 0 7 1 1 4

Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FinalVolume: 6 133 5 10 130 15 8 0 7 1 1 4

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2

FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 145 xxxx xxxxx 138 xxxx xxxxx 308 309 138 310 314 136

Potent Cap.: 1449 xxxx xxxxx 1458 xxxx xxxxx 648 609 916 647 605 919

Move Cap.: 1449 xxxx xxxxx 1458 xxxx xxxxx 639 602 916 636 598 919

Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Level Of Service Module:

2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx

Control Del: 7.5 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx

LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * *

Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT

Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 746 xxxxx xxxx 837 xxxxx

SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxxx

Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.9 xxxxx xxxxx 9.3 xxxxx

Shared LOS: * * * * * * * A * * A *

ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.9 9.3

ApproachLOS: * * A A

********************************************************************************

Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

********************************************************************************


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



********************************************************************************


********************************************************************************

Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.2]

********************************************************************************




------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|



Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 154 6 12 159 25 17 0 13 1 1 8

Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Initial Bse: 10 154 6 12 159 25 17 0 13 1 1 8

User Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.50 0.50 0.50

PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

PHF Volume: 9 136 5 10 134 21 13 0 10 1 1 4

Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FinalVolume: 9 136 5 10 134 21 13 0 10 1 1 4

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|




------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Capacity Module:





------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|




LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * *





Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * A *


ApproachLOS: * * B A

********************************************************************************


********************************************************************************


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



********************************************************************************


********************************************************************************

Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 10.0]

********************************************************************************




------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|



Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Volume Module:

Base Vol: 6 156 6 12 163 18 10 0 9 1 1 8

Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Initial Bse: 6 156 6 12 163 18 10 0 9 1 1 8

User Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.50 0.50 0.50

PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

PHF Volume: 5 138 5 10 137 15 8 0 7 1 1 4

Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FinalVolume: 5 138 5 10 137 15 8 0 7 1 1 4

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|




------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Capacity Module:





------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|




LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * *





Shared LOS: * * * * * * * A * * A *


ApproachLOS: * * A A

********************************************************************************


********************************************************************************


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



********************************************************************************


********************************************************************************

Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.2]

********************************************************************************




------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|



Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Volume Module:

Base Vol: 10 160 6 12 167 25 17 0 13 1 1 8

Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Initial Bse: 10 160 6 12 167 25 17 0 13 1 1 8

User Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.50 0.50 0.50

PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

PHF Volume: 9 142 5 10 140 21 13 0 10 1 1 4

Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FinalVolume: 9 142 5 10 140 21 13 0 10 1 1 4

------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|




------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|

Capacity Module:





------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|




LOS by Move: A * * A * * * * * * * *





Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * A *


ApproachLOS: * * B A

********************************************************************************


********************************************************************************

traffic study for the gaffey pool project ...eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/emg/docs/gaffrey/app g -...

Documents