5.7 traffic and circulation...5.7 traffic and circulation november 2014 state of california regional...
TRANSCRIPT
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐1
5.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
1. INTRODUCTION
This section analyzes the potential effects of truck and worker trips to and from the site duringimplementation of the RAP. The primary focus is on the potential for haul truck andworker activity toimpact intersection service levels compared to the City of Carson and Los Angeles County CongestionManagement established standards. The traffic impact analysis is based on the analysis, conclusions, andrecommendationsoftheTrafficStudyfortheKastProperty(“TrafficStudy”)(Fehr&Peers,October,2014),whichisprovidedinAppendixGofthisEIR.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
State
Congestion Management Program
TheCongestionManagementProgram(CMP)isastate‐mandatedprogramenactedbytheStatelegislaturetoaddress the increasing concern that urban congestion is affecting the economic vitality of the state anddiminishing the quality of life in some communities. The 2010 CMP is the eighth CMP adopted for LosAngelesCountysincetherequirementbecameeffectivewiththepassageofProposition111in1990. Thehallmark of theCMPprogram is that it is intended to address the impact of local growth on the regionaltransportationsystem.StatutoryrequirementsoftheCMPincludemonitoringlevelofservice(LOS)ontheCMPHighwayandRoadwaynetwork,measuringfrequencyandroutingofpublictransit, implementingtheTransportationDemandManagementandLandUseAnalysisProgramandhelping local jurisdictionsmeettheirresponsibilitiesundertheCMP.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the local CMP agency, hasestablishedacountywideapproachtoimplementthestatutoryrequirementsoftheCMPintheirgoverning2010CMPforLosAngelesCounty.ThecountywideapproachincludesdesignatingahighwaynetworkthatincludesallstatehighwaysandprincipalarterialswithintheCountyandmonitoringtrafficconditionsonthedesignated transportation network; performance measures to evaluate current and future systemperformance;promotionofalternativetransportationmethods;analysisoftheimpactoflandusedecisionson the transportation network; and mitigation to reduce impacts on the network. If LOS standardsdeteriorate, then local jurisdictions must prepare a deficiency plan to be in conformance with thecountywideplan.
TheCMP requires that,whenanenvironmental impact report isprepared for aproject, traffic andpublictransit impact analyses be conducted for select regional facilities based on the quantity of project trafficexpected touse those facilities. TheCMPguidelinesstate thatareasselected foranalysis shouldbe thosethatincludethefollowinglocations:
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐2
All CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or more tripsduringeithertheA.M.orP.M.weekdaypeakhoursofadjacentstreettraffic;and
Mainline freeway monitoring locations where the project will add 150 or more trips, in eitherdirection,duringeithertheA.M.orP.M.weekdaypeakhours.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan
TheSouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments(SCAG)RegionalTransportationPlan(RTP) isa long‐rangeplanthatprovidesavisionfortransportationinvestmentsthroughouttheregion.TheRTPenvisionsafuturemulti‐modaltransportationsystemfortheregionandprovidesthebasicframeworkforcoordinated,long‐term investment in the regional transportation system over the planning horizon of 2035. Incompliancewithstateandfederalrequirements,SCAGpreparestheRegionalTransportationImprovementProgram(RTIP)toimplementprojectsandprogramslistedintheRTP. Updatedeveryfouryears,theRTPcontainsalistingoftransportationprojectsproposedfortheregionoverasix‐yearperiod. TransportationprojectsproposedintheregionarerequiredtobeconsistentwiththeRTPandincludedwithintheRTIPtobe eligible for state or federal funding. The 2012‐2035 Regional Transportation Plan/SustainableCommunities Strategy (RTP/SCS) identifiesmobility as an important component of amuch larger picturewithaddedemphasisonsustainabilityandintegratedplanning.Inaddition,theRTP/SCSincludesgoalsandpoliciesthatpertaintomobility,accessibility,safety,productivityofthetransportationsystem,protectionofthe environment and energy efficiency, and landuse and growthpatterns that complement the state andregion's transportation investments. An integral component of the RTP/SCS is a commitment to reduceemissionsfromtransportationsources,incompliancewithSenateBill375;toimprovepublichealth;andtomeettheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardsassetforthbytheCleanAirAct.Forfurtherdiscussionofairqualityandgreenhousegasemissions,seeSections5.1,AirQuality,and5.3,GreenhouseGasEmissions,ofthisEIR,respectively.
Local
City of Carson General Plan Transportation and Infrastructure Element
The Transportation and Infrastructure Element of the Carson General Plan (adopted October 11, 2004),providesmethodsandresultsof theanalysisof existingandprojected futurecirculationconditions in theCityofCarson.AspartoftheGeneralPlan,theTransportationandInfrastructureElementoutlinespoliciesand describes the future circulation system needed to support the General Plan Land Use Element. TheTransportationandInfrastructureElementidentifiestheexistingcirculationsystem,therelationshipoftheexisting system to the regional roadway system, and existing daily traffic volume on the existing streetnetwork. It alsoprovidesaclassificationsystem,which includes local streets, collectorstreets, secondaryhighways,majorhighways,andstatehighwaysandfreeways.
TheTransportationandInfrastructureElementprovidesadescriptionofdesignatedtruckroutes.Accordingto theTransportationand InfrastructureElement, thevolumeof trucks,due to the typesof industrialandcommercialusesintheCity,andconflictsbetweentrucksandothervehiclesaremajorissuesfortheCity.1
1 CityofCarsonGeneralPlan,TransportationandInfrastructureElement,October11,2004,pageII‐16.
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐3
TheCityhasdesignatedand regulated truck routes and truckparking zones thatprovideaccess for largetrucks on streets designed to accommodate them and to protect residential streets from unwanted trucktraffic. TheTransportationand InfrastructureElementalso identifiespublic transit facilities in theCityofCarson.
TheTransportationandInfrastructureElementidentifiesdesirableroadwaycapacitiesandservicelevelsforeach type of facility, based on volume‐to‐capacity ratio for the roadway level of service. The assumedcapacitiesonroadwaylinksarebasedonthestandardsusedbytheCountyofLosAngelesandmodifiedforspecialconditionsinCarson.AllstreetintersectionswithinthestudyareafortheRP’sProposedRemedyarelocatedwithin the jurisdictionalcontrolof theCityofCarson,even if somestreetsegmentsarewithin theCityofLosAngelesboundary.
City of Carson Municipal Code
TheCity of Carsonhas identified specific arterial roadways as truck routes in theirMunicipal Code (CMC3260.2and3260.3). Commercialvehiclesexceedingamaximumgrossweightofsix thousandpoundsareonlypermittedtouse truckroutes identified in theCity’sMunicipalCode. LomitaBoulevard,MainStreet,SepulvedaBoulevard, andAvalonBoulevardwithin theproject study area are all listed inCMC3260.2 asdesignatedtruckroutes.
Existing Conditions
Existing Roadways
The site is located in the southern portion of the City of Carson, and is generally bounded by LomitaBoulevard to the south, theMonterey Pines residential community and industrial property of the formerTurco Products Facility to the west, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)railroadtrackstothenorth,andsingle‐familyresidentialpropertiestotheeast.PrimaryregionalaccesstothesiteisprovidedbytheHarborFreeway(I‐110)andtheSanDiegoFreeway(I‐405).TheI‐110runsinanorth/southdirectionapproximatelyone‐halfmilewestofthesite;theI‐405runsinanorthwest/southeastdirectionnorth of the site. Themunicipal boundary between the cities of Carson andLosAngeles in theproject area generally follows Lomita Boulevard. However, the area between Avalon Boulevard andWilmingtonAvenuenorthofLomitaAvenuetotheapproximatelocationofDelorasDriveis locatedwithintheCityofLosAngeles.Thefollowingisabriefdescriptionofthemajorstreetsservingtheprojectsite:withfunctionalclassificationsfromtheTransportationandInfrastructureElementoftheCityofCarsonGeneralPlanandtheTransportationElementsoftheLosAngelesGeneralPlan.
Lomita Boulevard, which runs east/west south of the site, provides access to the site. LomitaBoulevardisclassifiedasaMajorHighwayintheCarsonTransportationandInfrastructureElementwhile the Wilmington Community Plan classifies it as a Secondary Highway. Lomita Boulevardprovidestwolanesineachdirectionandisdividedbyatwo‐wayleft‐turnlane.Parkingisgenerallypermittedonbothsidesoftheroadwayandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.ThereisaschoolzonebetweenMainStreetandNeptuneAvenue,adjacenttoWilmingtonMiddleSchool,wherethespeedlimitis25MPHwhenchildrenarepresent.
SepulvedaBoulevard,whichrunseast/westnorthoftheprojectsiteandprovidesaccesstoI‐110,isclassified as aMajorHighway in theCarsonTransportation and InfrastructureElement. Near the
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐4
site,SepulvedaBoulevardhastwolanesineachdirectionandisdividedbyaraisedmedian.ParkingisgenerallyallowedonbothsidesofSepulvedaBoulevardandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.
223rdStreetisclassifiedasaMajorHighwayandrunseast/westnorthoftheprojectsite.Itprovidestwolanesineachdirectionandisdividedbyatwo‐wayleft‐turnlane.Parkingisgenerallyallowedonbothsidesof223rdStreetandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.
Figueroa Street runs north/south west of the site. North of Lomita Boulevard, in Carson, it isclassifiedasaMajorHighway.SouthofLomitaBoulevard,inLosAngeles,itisclassifiedasaMajorHighwayClassII.Itprovidestwolanesineachdirectionandisgenerallydividedbyaraisedmedian.Parkingisallowedandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.
MainStreetrunsnorth/southjustwestoftheprojectsite.NorthofLomitaBoulevard,inCarson,itisclassifiedas aMajorHighway. SouthofLomitaBoulevard inLosAngeles, it isnamedWilmingtonBoulevardand,althoughitisclassifiedasaSecondaryHighway,trucksareprohibitedfromtheCitylimitsouthtowardsthePortarea.. Itprovidestwolanesineachdirectionandisdividedbyraisedmedians.ParkingisgenerallypermittedonbothsidesofMainStreetandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.
AvalonBoulevardrunsnorth/southeastofthesite.NorthofLomitaBoulevard,inCarson,AvalonBoulevardisclassifiedasaMajorHighwayandisadesignatedtruckroute.InLosAngeles,althoughdesignatedaMajorHighwayClassII,trucksareprohibitedfromthecitylimitsouthtowardsthePortarea. Avalon Boulevard provides two lanes in each direction and is divided by a raisedmedian.ParkingispermittedonbothsidesofAvalonBoulevardandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.
WilmingtonAvenue runs north/south east of the site and provides access to I‐405. WilmingtonAvenuenorthofLomitaBoulevardisclassifiedasaMajorHighwayandgenerallyprovidestwotravellanes ineachdirectionand isdividedbyaraisedmediannorthof therailroadcrossing. On‐streetparkingisgenerallyallowedonWilmingtonAvenueandthepostedspeedlimitis40MPH.
NeptuneAvenue isa localstreetandrunsnorth/southwithintheCarouselTract. Itprovidesonetravellaneineachdirection.On‐streetparkingisallowedonNeptuneAvenue.
Lagoon Street is a short local street and runs north/south between Lomita Boulevard and 249thStreetwithintheCarouselTract. Itprovidesonetravellaneineachdirection.OnstreetparkingisallowedonLagoonStreet.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Study Area Intersections
ThestudyareawasestablishedinaccordancewiththeCityofCarsonandcoverstheareaadjacenttothesitethatwouldbeutilizedbyproject‐generatedtraffic.Figure5.7‐1,ProjectSiteandStudyIntersections,showsthestudyareaandthe14studyintersections,whichareasfollows:
1. I‐110SBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
2. I‐110NBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
3. FigueroaStreet&SepulvedaBoulevard
4. MainStreet&SepulvedaBoulevard
FIGUREProject Site and Study Intersec ons
Former Kast Property Tank Farm Site Remedia on Project 5.7-1Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.P C R
N
City Boundary
City Boundary
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐6
Thispageintentionallyblank.
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐7
5. MainStreet&LomitaBoulevard
6. NeptuneAvenue&LomitaBoulevard
7. LagoonAvenue&LomitaBoulevard(unsignalized)
8. AvalonBoulevard&SepulvedaBoulevard
9. AvalonBoulevard&LomitaBoulevard
10. WilmingtonAvenue&I‐405NBRamps
11. WilmingtonAvenue&I‐405SBRamps
12. WilmingtonAvenue&E223rdStreet
13. WilmingtonAvenue&SepulvedaBoulevard
14. WilmingtonAvenue&LomitaBoulevard(unsignalized)
Existing Traffic Volumes and Service Levels
The following sections describe the peak hour traffic volumes, the methodology used to analyze theintersectionoperatingconditions,andtheresultinglevelsofservice(LOS)forthestudyintersectionsunderexisting conditions. Lane configurations at the study intersections are illustrated in Figure 4 of the TrafficStudy,whichiscontainedinAppendixGofthisEIR.
Level of Service Methodology
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term Level of Service (LOS). LOS is aqualitativedescriptionoftrafficflowbasedonseveralfactorssuchasspeed,traveltime,delay,andfreedomto maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS “A”, representing completely free‐flowconditions, to LOS “F”, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop‐and‐go conditions. LOS “E”representsoperationsatornearcapacity,anunstablelevelwherevehiclesareoperatingwiththeminimumspacing formaintaininguniform flow. Based on theCity of Carson’s guidelines, the IntersectionCapacityUtilization (ICU)methodologywasused to determine the intersection volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio andcorrespondingLOSforthe12signalizedstudyintersections. TheCityofCarsonutilizesthe2000HighwayCapacityManual(HCM2000)methodologyforunsignalizedintersectionsand,forthosewhicharefoundtooperateatLOSEorF,theICUmethodologyisalsousedinordertoobtainaV/Cratioforimpactassessmentpurposes.
TherangesofV/CratiosordelayvaluesandcorrespondingLOSforsignalizedandunsignalizedintersectionsareincludedinTable5.7‐1,LevelofServiceforSignalizedIntersections–ICUmethodology,andTable5.7‐2,LevelofServiceDefinitionsforStop‐ControlledIntersections.
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐8
Existing Traffic Volumes
Trafficvolumesatthe14studyintersectionswerecollectedduringthemorningandafternoonpeakperiods(from7:00AMto9:00A.M.and4:00PMto6:00P.M.,respectively)inApril2014andareincludedinAppendixAoftheTrafficStudycontainedinAppendixGofthisEIR.Vehicleclassificationsareincludedinthebaselinetrafficcountdata. Existingpeakhourtrafficvolumeswithpassenger‐carequivalent(PCE)adjustmentsareillustratedinFigure4oftheTrafficStudy(AppendixG).TheHighwayCapacityManual,2000edition(HCM2000) identifies a 2.0 passenger‐car unit equivalent for heavy trucks (within the 10‐wheel category) to
Table 5.7‐1
Level of Service Standards for Signalized Intersections Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology
Level of Service Description Volume/Capacity Ratio
A EXCELLENT.Novehiclewaitslongerthanoneredlightandnoapproachphaseisfullyused. 0.000‐0.600
BVERYGOOD.Anoccasionalapproachphaseisfullyutilized;manydriversbegintofeelsomewhatwhatrestrictedwithingroupsofvehicles. >0.600‐0.700
CGOOD.Occasionallydriversmayhavetowaitthroughmorethanoneredlight;backupsmaydevelopbehindturningvehicles. >0.700‐0.800
DFAIR.Delaysmaybesubstantialduringportionsoftherushhours,butenoughlowervolumeperiodsoccurtopermitclearingofdevelopinglines,preventingexcessivebackups. >0.800‐0.900
EPOOR.Representsthemostvehiclesintersectionapproachescanaccommodate;maybelonglinesofwaitingvehiclesthroughseveralsignalcycles. >0.900‐1.000
F
FAILURE.Backupsfromnearbylocationsoroncrossstreetsmayrestrictorpreventmovementofvehiclesoutoftheintersectionapproaches.Tremendousdelayswithcontinuouslyincreasingqueuelengths >1.000
Source: Highway Capacity Manual SpecialReport209,TransportationResearchBoard,1994.
Table 5.7‐2
Level Of Service Definitions For Stop‐Controlled Intersections
Level of Service Average Control Delay
(Seconds/Vehicle)
A <10.0B >10.0to15.0C >15.0to25.0D >25.0to35.0E >35.0to50.0F >50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2000.
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐9
account for the additional space occupied by these vehicles and the difference in operating capabilitiescomparedwithpassengercars.2
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
An assessment of the existing operating conditions at the 14 intersections, including the V/C ratio andcorresponding LOS at each of the study intersections during the morning and afternoon peak hours issummarizedinTable5.7‐3,ExistingServiceLevels–Existing(2014)Conditions.AsshowninTable5.7‐3,all14studyintersectionsarecurrentlyoperatingatacceptablelevelsofservice(LOSDorbetter)duringbothpeakhoursunderICUmethodologyshowninTable5.7‐1.Theunsignalizedintersections,however,operateat LOS E or F using HCM methodology shown in Table 5.7‐2. This means that stop‐sign‐controlledapproaches have a higher delay under existing conditions than considered satisfactory. Detailed LOScalculations forexisting intersectionsareprovided inAppendixBof theTrafficStudy (AppendixGof thisEIR).
Existing Transit Services
PublictransitservicesoperatingintheprojectareaareoperatedbyMetro,CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofTransportation(LADOT)CommuterExpress,CityofCarson,andCityofTorrancetransitsystems.Busroutesandtheirfrequenciesduringtheweekdaymorning(7:00to10:00A.M.)andweekdayafternoon(3:00to6:00PM.)peakperiodsaredetailedintheTrafficStudy,Figure2,containedinAppendixGofthisEIR.Abusstopislocatedon thenorthsideofLomitaBoulevardat its intersectionwithNeptuneAvenue. TherearenobusstopsattheintersectionofLomitaBoulevardandLagoonStreet.Publictransitlinesservingtheprojectareaincludethefollowing:
MetroLine205 travelsnorth/south fromSanPedro toWillowbrookwith stops inLomita,HarborCity,Carson,HarborGateway,RanchoDominguez,andCarson.Neartheprojectsite,Line205travelsalongVermontAvenue.Line205has30‐minuteheadwaysduringtheweekdaypeakperiods,and50‐minuteheadwaysonweekends.
MetroLine246travelsnorth/southfromSanPedrotoGardenawithstopsinWilmingtonandCarson.Near the project site, Line 246 travels along Avalon Boulevard. Line 246 has 20‐ to 25‐minuteheadwaysduringtheweekdaypeakperiods,and40‐minuteheadwaysonweekends.
Metro Line 450 travels north/south fromSanPedro to downtownLosAngeles along I‐110 throughWilmington, Carson, Harbor Gateway, and Gardena. Near the project site, Line 450 travels alongSepulvedaBoulevard.Line45has20‐to30‐minuteheadwaysduringtheweekdaypeakperiods,40‐minuteheadwaysonSaturdays,and60‐minuteheadwaysonSundays.
MetroLine550 travelsnorth/south fromSanPedro todowntownLosAngeleswithstops inHarborCity,HarborGateway,andWilmington.Neartheprojectsite,Line550travelsalongVermontAvenue.Line550has30‐to40‐minuteheadwaysduringtheweekdaypeakperiods,and50‐minuteheadwaysonweekends.
2 Inaddition,theuseofa2.0PCEisconsistentwithpreviousstudiesinthisarea,inwhichPCEfactorsof1.0,1.5,and2.0
areusedforpassengervehicles,bobtailtrucksandbuses,andheavytrucks,respectively,toaccountfortheinfluenceofheavyvehiclesinthetrafficstream.
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐10
LADOTCommuterExpressLine448travelsnorth/southfromRanchoPalosVerdestodowntownLosAngeles,with stops in Lomita,HarborCity, andWilmington. Near theproject site, Line 448 travelsalongI‐110.Line448operatesonweekdaysonly,with15‐minuteheadwaysduringthepeakhours.
CarsonCircuitRouteBisacircuitousroutethroughtheCityofCarson,travelingalongCarsonStreet,FigueroaStreet,234thStreet, andMainStreet. In theprojectstudyarea, this line travelsalongMainStreet.RouteBoperatesat40‐minuteheadwaysdaily.
Table 5.7‐3
Intersection Service Levels – Existing (2014) Conditions
NO. INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR
EXISTING
V/C or Delay LOS
1
I‐110SBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.795 CPM 0.830 D
2
I‐110NBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.717 CPM 0.615 B
3
FigueroaSt&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.704 CPM 0.630 B
4
MainSt&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.682 BPM 0.751 C
5
MainSt&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.734 CPM 0.771 C
6
NeptuneAve& AM 0.547 ALomitaBoulevard PM 0.479 A
7
LagoonAve&LomitaBoulevarda
AM 0.751 CPM 0.662 BAM 80.0s FPM 46.0s E
8
AvalonBoulevard&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.684 BPM 0.776 C
9
AvalonBoulevard&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.653 BPM 0.641 B
10
WilmingtonAve&I‐405NBRamps
AM 0.656 BPM 0.652 B
11
WilmingtonAve&I‐405SBRamps
AM 0.720 CPM 0.822 D
12
WilmingtonAve&E223rdSt
AM 0.623 BPM 0.740 C
13
WilmingtonAve&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.666 BPM 0.625 B
14
WilmingtonAve&LomitaBoulevarda
AM 0.448 APM 0.422 AAM 50.6s FPM 54.8s F
a Unsignalized intersection operating at LOS E or F per the HCM methodology were also analyzed per the ICU methodology to calculate a V/C ratio, as per City of Carson practices.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐11
Carson Circuit Route C is a circuitous route through the City of Carson, traveling along AvalonBoulevard, 223rd Street,DoloresStreet, andSepulvedaBoulevard. In the studyarea, this line travelsalongAvalonBoulevard.RouteCoperatesat40‐minuteheadwaysdaily.
CarsonNorth/SouthShuttletravelsnorthandsouththroughtheCityofCarson.Inthestudyarea,theshuttle travels along Main Street, Sepulveda Boulevard, and Lomita Boulevard. The North/SouthShuttleoperates twiceduringthemorningpeakhourandonceduringtheafternoonpeakhouronweekdaysonly.ThereisastopattheintersectionofLomitaBoulevardandNeptuneAvenue.
TorranceTransitLine3/Rapid3 travels fromtheSouthBayGalleriaTransitCenter inTorrance tothe Metro Blue Line station in Long Beach. Near the project site, Line 3 travels along AvalonBoulevard.Line3has20‐to25‐minuteheadwaysduringtheweekdaypeakperiodsandSaturdays,and30‐minuteheadwaysonSundays.
TorranceTransitLine7travelsbetweenthecitiesofRedondoBeachandCarson. Neartheprojectsite,Line7travelsalongSepulvedaBoulevard.Line7hasa1‐hourheadwaydaily.
TorranceTransitLine9travelsfromtheDelAmoMallinTorrancetoCarson.Neartheprojectsite,Line 9 travels along Lomita Boulevard. Line 9 operates Monday through Saturday withapproximately 50‐minute headways. The bus stops nearest to the project site are at LomitaBoulevard&MainStreet.
3. METHODOLOGY AND THRESHOLDS
Methodology
TheTrafficStudyevaluatesthepotential forconstructiontraffic impactsonthestreetsystemsurroundingtheproject site. Due to thenatureof theRP’sProposedRemedy, aminimalnumberof tripswouldoccurafter the implementationof theRAPformonitoringandanynecessarymaintenance. The followingtrafficscenariosareevaluatedtoassesstemporaryconstruction‐periodimpacts:
ExistingConditions(Year2014)
ExistingplusProject(Year2014)
ExistingplusExpeditedImplementationOption(Year2014)
CumulativeBase(Year2021)
CumulativeplusProject(Year2021)
CumulativeBase(Year2019)forExpeditedImplementationProject
CumulativeplusExpeditedImplementationOption(Year2019)
Level of Service Methodology
The existing level of service methodology is described above under Existing Conditions. The followingprovidesthemethodologyfortheotherscenariosthatareevaluated.
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐12
Future Traffic Projections
Potential project impacts are assessed against existing conditions as well as cumulative conditions toevaluate thepotential impactsof theRP’sProposedRemedyandExpedited ImplementationOptiononthesurroundingstreetsystem.Undercumulativeconditions,estimatesoffuturetrafficconditionsinthestudyarea are estimated with and without the project’s traffic. Estimates of traffic growth are developed toforecastfutureconditionswithouttheproject.Theseforecastsincludedtrafficincreasesasaresultofbothregionalambienttrafficgrowthandtrafficgeneratedbyspecificdevelopmentsinthevicinityoftheproject(relatedprojects).Trafficexpectedtobegeneratedbyrelatedprojectswithin,orwiththepotentialtoaffect,the study area is considered in addition to the ambient areawide traffic growth. For this study, relatedprojectswithintwomilesoftheprojectsitewereidentifiedbytheCityofCarsonandLADOTinSpring2014.
Theseprojectedconstruction‐period trafficvolumes(thecumulativebaseconditions)represent the futurestudy year conditions without the project. The traffic generated by the RP’s Proposed Remedy andExpeditedImplementationOptionisestimatedandassignedtothesurroundingstreetsystem.Theprojecttraffic is added to the cumulative base to form the cumulative plus project traffic conditions, which isanalyzedtodeterminetheincrementaltrafficimpactsattributabletotheprojectitself.
ImplementationoftheRP’sProposedRemedyisestimatedtobecompletein2021andundertheExpeditedImplementationOptionitisestimatedtobecompletein2019.Project‐generatedtrafficvolumesarebasedonthetripgenerationestimatesandtripdistributionpatternsdescribedbelow.
Trip Generation
Tripgenerationisexpressedinvehicletripends,definedasone‐wayvehicularmovements,eitherenteringorexiting thegenerating landuse. The trafficprojections for theproposedprojectweredevelopedusingthree steps: estimating the trip generation of the project, determining trip distribution, and assigning theproject traffic to the roadway system based on assumptions made about the RAP regarding excavationmethods,haulroutes,andworkertrips,includingtheshuttleserviceforworkersMaximumtripgenerationwouldoccurduringexcavationinresidentialareas.Therefore,thisphaseofactivityisthebasisofthetrafficanalysis. Other activities, such as the subsequent street grinding and paving which would produceapproximately24one‐waytrucktripsperday,andperiodicactivitysuchasmaintenanceandmonitoringofSVE/bioventing,wouldresultinlessvehicletrips.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Theestimatedtotaltrafficvolumes,includingtruck,worker,andvisitortrips,fortheprojectareillustratedintheTraffic Study, Figure6A, contained inAppendixGof thisEIR. The estimated total volumes, includingtruck,worker,andvisitortrips,fortheExpeditedImplementationOptionareillustratedinFigure6BoftheTrafficStudy.
Truck Traffic
Trucks would be coming to the site via I‐110 from points north or south of the site. As shown inFigure5.7‐2,ProposedHaulRoute,inboundtruckswereassumedtotaketheI‐110southboundoff‐rampatSepulvedaBoulevardandtraveleastbound,turnrightontoWilmingtonAvenueandtravelsouthbound,turnrightontoLomitaBoulevardand travelwestbound,and turnrightontoeitherNeptuneAvenueorLagoon
220th St
Alam
eda
St
213th St
Carson St
Wilm
ingt
on A
ve
evA emkaL
Lomita Blvd
tS aoreugiF
Lago
on A
ve
evA atenoM
Sepulveda Blvd
223rd St
tS seroloD
tS ar eVt
Boni
ta S
t
tS nitraM
Desford St
d
230th St
Q St
228th St
evA amanaP
220th St
215th Pl
Watson Center Rd
Stamps Dr
Shearer Ave
246th St
236th St
tS ocihC
evA nnilB
evA kci rrO
tS enrecuL
248th St
Lomita Blvd
tS yrreP
evA seirF
219th St
Desford St
218th St
evA notnyLJavelin St
Men
lo A
ve
Q St
235th St
Aval
on B
lvdtS nia
M
|þ47
§̈¦405
§̈¦110
CARSON
N:\J
obs\
Act
ive\
2600
s\26
65_C
arou
sel T
ract
Rem
EIR
\Gra
phic
s\G
IS\M
XD
\F4_
Truc
kRou
tes.
mxd
Project Site
Inbound
Outbound
P C R
FIGUREProposed Haul Route
Former Kast Property Tank Farm Site Remedia on Project 5.7-2Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.
N
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐14
Thispageintentionallyblank.
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐15
Avenuetoenterthesite.TruckswouldexitthesitebyturningrightfromeitherNeptuneAvenueorLagoonAvenue onto LomitaBoulevard and travelingwest, turn right ontoMain Street and travel north, turn leftontoSepulvedaBoulevardandtravelwest,andturnrightontotheI‐110northboundon‐ramp. Trucksareexpectedtoaccessthesitenoearlierthan8A.M.andwoulddepartthesitenolaterthan4P.M.3
Worker Traffic
Worker tripswouldbegenerallydistributedevenlywithapproximately50percentarrivingat thesiteviashuttleand50percentarrivingviaprivatevehicles.Thedistributionpatternofworkersarrivingviaprivatevehicleswoulddependonthehomelocationofeachworker.Basedontypicaltravelpatternsinthearea,thegeneralizeddistributionwasusedforworkertrips.
35percenttoandfromthesouthviatheI‐405freeway
25percenttoandfromthenorthviatheI‐405freeway
10percenttoandfromthesouthviatheI‐110freeway
20percenttoandfromthenorthviatheI‐110freeway
10percenttoandfromtheeastviaSepulvedaBoulevard
Theoff‐sitelocationforworkerstravelingtothesiteviashuttlevaniscurrentlyunknownbutisassumedtobewithinfivemilesofthesite.Basedonexistinglanduseandthenearbyroadwaynetwork,itisassumedthattheoff‐sitelocationwouldbenorthofthesite,withaccesstothesitelikelyviaI‐110. Assuch,andtomaintainaconservativeanalysis, ithasbeenassumedthatworkerstravelingbyshuttlevanwouldusethesameroutesasthetrucktrips.
Visitor Traffic
Uptoninevisitors(suchasagencystaff,RPpersonnel)perdaycouldbeatthesite. It isassumedthatsixwouldarrivefrompointsnorthusingtheI‐110freewayandtheremainingthreevisitorswouldlikelyaccessthesiteusingsurfacestreets.
Thresholds of Significance
AppendixGof theStateCEQAGuidelinesprovides a setof screeningquestions that address impactswithregardtotransportation.Thesequestionsareasfollows:
Wouldtheproject:
a) Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinanceorpolicyestablishingmeasuresof effectiveness for theperformance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
3 ThetrafficanalysisevaluatesthehighestpeakhourintheA.M.andP.M. Giventhatthearrivalofworkersandtruckswouldoccur
withindifferenthours(workerswouldbeginarrivingasearlyas7:00A.M.andtruckswouldarrivenoearlierthan8:00A.M.) it isunlikelythatworkersandtruckswouldarriveatthesitewithinthesameone‐hourduringeitherpeakperiod.However,tomaintainaconservativeassumption,allemployeetripsarrivingduringtheA.M.inadditiontothefirstgroupoftrucktripsarrivingtothesite,wereanalyzedfortheA.M.peakwiththeconverseholdingtruefortheP.M.peak.Basedonthisassumption,theA.M.peakwouldbe7:30to8:30A.M.andnotruckswouldbeexpectedtoleavethesite.
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐16
masstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,includingbutnot limited to intersections, streets,highwaysand freeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths, andmasstransit?
b) Conflictwith an applicable congestionmanagement program, including, but not limited to level ofservice standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the countycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways?
c) Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks?
d) Substantiallyincreasehazardsduetoadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)?
e) Resultininadequateemergencyaccess?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities
BasedontheCityofCarson’scirculationsystemstandardsandtheCMPtrafficimpactanalysisguidelines,thespecificthresholdsregardingtrafficthatareusedintheanalysisareprovidedbelow.AsdeterminedintheInitialStudy,whichiscontainedinAppendixAofthisEIR,implementationoftheRAPwouldresultinshort‐term, temporary traffic. As such, theprojectwouldnot conflictwith adoptedpolicies, plansorprogramsregardingthecirculationsystemoralternativetransportationfacilities(Itemf). AsrequiredbytheCityofCarson, a Construction Traffic Management Plan would be implemented and would include coordinationwith emergency providers to ensure appropriate emergency access (Item e). In addition, the haul routewouldfollowdesignatedtruckroutes.Theprojectwouldnotresultinanychangestotheexistingcirculationsystem(Itemd). Withregardtoairports,thenearestairporttothesiteistheTorranceMunicipalAirport,whichislocatedover3.3milestothewestofthesite(Itemc).Assuch,nofurtheranalysisofthesetopicsisnecessary.
Intersection Capacity
Theprojectwouldhaveasignificantimpactrelativetolocalintersectionsif:
TRAF1: The project‐generated traffic causes an increase in the V/C ratio equal to or greater than0.020 if the intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or F under future plus projectconditions(representedbyaV/Cratioof0.901orgreater).
Underthesestandards,aprojectwouldnothaveasignificantimpactatanintersection,regardlessoftheV/Cratioincrease,iftheintersectionisoperatingatLOSA,B,CorDunderthe“WithProject”trafficconditions.Conversely, if an intersection is or is projected to be operating at LOS E or F, the project would havesignificant impact ifproject‐generatedtrafficcausedan increaseofmorethan0.02 in theV/Cratioatanyindividualintersection.
CMP Traffic Impacts
TheCMPtrafficimpactanalysisguidelinesindicatethatanimpactontheregionaltransportation(freeway)systemisconsideredtobesignificantunderthefollowingconditions:
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐17
TRAF2: The project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2 percent of capacity (i.e., V/Cincreaseof0.02), causingLOSF(V/C>1.00)or if the facility isalreadyatLOSFwhen theprojectincreasestrafficdemandonaCMPfacilityby2percentofcapacity(i.e.,V/Cincreaseof0.02).
4. PROJECT ANALYSIS
Project Design Features
ThefollowingProjectDesignFeatures(PDFs)arecomponentsthatwouldbeimplementedaspartoftheRP’sProposedRemedytominimizethepotentialimpactsregardingtrafficandcirculation.
PDFTRAF‐1 PriortoimplementationoftheRAP,theprojectcontractorwillsubmitaHaulRoutePlantotheCityofCarsonforreviewandapproval.TheproposedhaulroutewillberestrictedtotheCity’sdesignatedtruckrouteroadwaysandwillbeasshowninFigure5.7‐2ofthisEIR.
PDFTRAF‐2 Prior to implementation of the RAP, the project contractor will prepare a ConstructionTraffic Management Plan that will be submitted to the City of Carson for review andapprovalpriortothestartofanywork.Thisplanwillcomprisesitetrafficcontrolplans,including but not limited to such elements as the designation of haul routes forconstruction‐related trucks, the sequencing of construction activities, any drivewayturningmovementrestrictions,temporarytrafficcontroldevices,traveltimerestrictionsfor construction‐related traffic, consolidation of construction truck deliveries, flagcontrol,anddesignatedstagingandparkingareasforworkersandequipment.
Becausetheconstructionactivitiesoccurwithinapublicstreetright‐of‐way,thefollowingdesignfeatureswouldalsoapply:
A site‐specific constructionwork site traffic control planwill be prepared for eachconstructionphaseandsubmittedtotheCityofCarsonforreviewandapprovalpriorto the start of any constructionwork. This planwill include such elements as thelocation and hours of any necessary lane closures, local traffic detours (if any),protectivedevicesandtrafficcontrols(suchasbarricades,cones,flagpersons,lights,warningbeacons,temporarytrafficsignals,warningsigns),thelocationandhoursofanynecessaryaccess limitationsforabuttingproperties,andprovisionstomaintainemergencyaccessthroughconstructionworkareas.
Generally accepted construction safety standards will be followed to separatepedestriansfromconstructionactivitythroughsuchmeasuresasprotectionbarriersand signage indicating alternative pedestrian access routeswhere existing facilitieswould be affected. This would include the sidewalks around the perimeter of anactiveexcavationsite.
Advance notice of planned construction activities will be provided to any affectedresidentsandpropertyownersinthevicinityoftheconstructionsite.
The project contractor will coordinate with emergency service providers(police/sheriffs,fire,ambulanceandparamedicservices)toprovideadvancenoticeofongoingconstructionactivityandconstructionhours.
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐18
PDFTRAF‐3 Onetravellanewillbekeptopenatalltimesordetourswillbeprovidedduringresidentialpropertyremediation,wellinstallationandstreettrenchingphases.
PDFTRAF‐4 Theprojectcontractorwillarrange foroff‐siteparkingwithin5milesof thesiteandwillprovideshuttleservicestothesiteforapproximately50percentofon‐siteworkers.
Analysis of Project Impacts
ThresholdTRAF‐1: The project would have a significant impact on transportation and circulation if itincreasestrafficdemandonaCMPfacilityby2percentofcapacity(i.e.,V/Cincreaseof0.02),causingLOSF(V/C>1.00)orifthefacilityisalreadyatLOSFwhentheprojectincreasestrafficdemandonaCMPfacilityby2percentofcapacity(i.e.,V/Cincreaseof0.02).
Impact Statement TRAF‐1: The RP’s Proposed Remedy and Expedited Implementation Optionwould notexceedthresholdstandardsrelatedtoV/Cratiosatanyofthestudy intersections Therefore,theRP’sProposedRemedyandtheExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldhavealessthansignificantimpactwithrespecttointersectionservicelevels.
ImplementationoftheRAPwouldbeginin2015andendin2021.TheRP’sProposedRemedyisexpectedtogenerate approximately 32 workers, including 16 workers who would travel from home to the site andcontributeapproximately10additionaloff‐peakroundtripstovariousoff‐sitelocationsduringthecourseofatypicalday.Theremaining16employeeswouldparkatanoff‐sitelocationandtraveltothesiteinshuttlevans,makingoneround‐tripeachinthemorningandeveningpeakhours.Workerswouldarriveasearlyas7:00 A.M. andwould depart as late as 5:00 P.M. No specific location for off‐siteworker parking has beenidentifiedatthistime,butthisanalysisassumesthatitwouldbelocatedwithinfivemilesoftheprojectsite.
An average of 66 one‐way trucks and a maximum of 99 trucks would travel to and from the site daily.Applying PCEmethodology, inwhich one truck trip is equivalent to two passenger car trips, truck trafficwouldbeequivalenttoamaximumof396PCEtripendsonapeakday.Truckswouldarrivenoearlierthan8:00A.M.andleavenolaterthan4:00P.M.Theestimateddailytrucktripsareassumedtooccurfairlyevenlyovertheworkday,withaslightinboundpeakduringtheA.M.peakhourandaslightoutboundpeakduringtheP.M.peakhour.
As shown inTable5.7‐4,RemedialActionPlanTripGenerationEstimates, it is assumed that theproposedprojectwouldgenerateapproximately478dailyPCEtrips,with61tripsduringboththeA.M.andP.M.peakhours.DuringtheA.M.peakhourtheprojectwouldgenerate58inboundtripsand3outboundtrips;duringthe P.M. peak hour the project would generate 3 inbound trips and 58 outbound trips. This provides aconservativelyhighestimate for thisanalysis, as theproject truck traffic andemployee trafficmaynot alloccurduringthesameone‐hourperiod.
Projectpeakhourtrafficvolumesduring implementationof theRAParecomparedtoexisting intersectionoperatingconditionsinTable5.7‐5.ExistingPlusProject–IntersectionLevelsofServiceandImpactAnalysis.As shown in Table 5.7‐5, under City of Carson’s intersection traffic impact significance criteria, the RP’sProposedRemedywouldnotresultinanysignificantimpactsatanyofthe14studyintersections.
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐19
Expedited Implementation Option
UndertheExpeditedImplementationOptionexcavationactivitieswouldbeacceleratedandimplementationwouldoccurbytheendof2019,approximatelytwoyearslessthanunderthebasicproject.Becauseoftheacceleratedschedule,dailytrafficwouldbeincrementallygreaterthanunderthebasicproject,A.M.andP.M.peakhourtrafficvolumeswouldbe incrementallyhigher thanunder thebasicproject. Anaverageof118one‐waytrucktrips,andmaximumof151one‐waytrucktrips,wouldtraveltothesitedaily.Truckswouldarrivenoearlierthan8:00A.M.andleavenolaterthan4:00P.M.
As shown in Table 5.7‐6, Expedited Implementation Option Trip Generation Estimates, the ExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldgenerate790totaldailytripsand94tripsduringboththeA.M.andP.M.peakhours(comparedto61underthebasicproject).TotaldailyPCEtrucktripswouldbe604(comparedto478underthebasicproject)andA.M.andP.M.peakhourtrucktripswouldbe57(comparedto38underthebasicproject). Table 5.7‐7, Existing Plus Expedited ImplementationOption – Intersection Levels of Service andImpactAnalysisillustratesservicelevelsthatwouldresultundertheExpeditedImplementationOption.Asshown in Table 5.7‐7, in accordancewith City of Carson’s intersection traffic impact significance criteria,even with incrementally greater peak hour traffic under the Expedited Implementation Option, theExpedited Implementation Option would not result in any significant impacts at any of the 14 studyintersections.
Table 5.7‐5
Existing Plus RP’s Proposed Remedy Intersection Levels Of Service And Impact Analysis
No. Intersection Peak Existing Existing Project V/C Significant
Table 5.7‐4
Remedial Action Plan Trip Generation Estimates
Trip Number and Source
Trip Generation Rates Estimated Trip Generation
Weekday Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate % In %
Out Rate % In
% Out In Out Total In Out Total
Trucks(99)a 4.00 0.38 100 0 0.38 0 100 396 38 0 38 0 38 38Employees(16)‐ParkingOn‐Siteb 3.25 1.00 100 0 1.00 0 100 52 16 0 16 0 16 16Employees‐ParkingOff‐Site(16)c 0.75 0.38 50 50 0.38 50 50 12 3 3 6 3 3 6
Visitors(9)d 2.00 0.10 50 50 0.10 50 50 18 1 0 1 0 1 1
Total 478 58 3 61 3 58 61
a Trip Generation Rates and Estimates reported in Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE); PCE rate of 1 truck = 2 PCEs. b 16 employees to be parking on‐site; trip rate includes trips to various off‐site locations not during the peak hour c 16 employees would arrive using vans. 3 round trip (RT) vans in AM, 3 RT vans in PM. Vans would arrive full/depart empty in AM; arrive
empty/depart full in PM. d Up to 9 visitors to site daily. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐20
Hour Increase Impact?
V/C or Delay Los
V/C or Delay LOS
1
I‐110SBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.795 C 0.795 C 0.000 No
PM 0.830 D 0.830 D 0.000 No
2
I‐110NBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.717 C 0.717 C 0.000 No
PM 0.615 B 0.625 C 0.010 No
3
FigueroaSt&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.704 C 0.705 C 0.001 No
PM 0.630 B 0.645 B 0.015 No
4
MainSt&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.682 B 0.684 B 0.002 No
PM 0.751 C 0.782 C 0.031 No
5
MainSt&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.734 C 0.735 C 0.001 No
PM 0.771 C 0.771 C 0.000 No
6
NeptuneAve&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.547 A 0.562 A 0.015 No
PM 0.479 A 0.506 A 0.027 No
7
LagoonAve&LomitaBoulevarda
AM 0.751 C 0.439 C 0.002 No
PM 0.662 B 0.428 B 0.012 No
AM 80.0b F 92.8b F 12.8b N/A
PM 46.0b E 47.5b E 1.5b N/A
8
AvalonBoulevard&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.684 B 0.684 B 0.000 No
PM 0.776 C 0.776 C 0.000 No
9
AvalonBoulevard&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.653 B 0.676 B 0.023 No
PM 0.641 B 0.645 B 0.004 No
10
WilmingtonAve&I‐405NBRamps
AM 0.656 B 0.659 B 0.003 No
PM 0.652 B 0.652 B 0.000 No
11
WilmingtonAve&I‐405SBRamps
AM 0.720 C 0.722 C 0.002 No
PM 0.822 D 0.826 D 0.004 No
12
WilmingtonAve&E223rdSt
AM 0.623 B 0.623 B 0.000 No
PM 0.740 C 0.740 C 0.000 No
13
WilmingtonAve&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.666 B 0.666 B 0.000 No
PM 0.625 B 0.628 B 0.003 No
14
WilmingtonAve&LomitaBoulevarda
AM 0.448 A 0.448 A 0.000 No
PM 0.422 A 0.427 A 0.005 No
AM 50.6b F 58.0b F 7.4b N/A
PM 54.8b F 57.1b F 2.3b N/A
a Unsignalized intersection operating at LOS E or F per the HCM methodology were also analyzed per the ICU methodology to calculate a V/C ratio, as per City of Carson practices.
b Expressed in “seconds of delay” on the most constrained approach.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐21
ThresholdTRAF‐2:TheprojectincreasestrafficdemandonaCMPfacilityby2percentofcapacity(i.e.,V/Cincreaseof0.02),causingLOSF(V/C>1.00)orifthefacilityisalreadyatLOSFwhentheprojectincreasestrafficdemandonaCMPfacilityby2percentofcapacity(i.e.,V/Cincreaseof0.02).
Impact Statement TRAF‐2: The RP’s Proposed Remedy and Expedited Implementation Optionwould notexceed thresholdstandardsrelated toCMP facilitiesbecause theydonotexceedminimumvolumesofpeaktrafficatanyCMParterialorfreewaymonitoringstationstowarrantanalysisundertheCMP.Inaddition,theRP’sProposedRemedyandExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldnotadverselyimpactridership or operation of transit lines in the area. Therefore, impacts related to CMP service levelswouldbelessthansignificant.
CMP Roadway Analysis
AprojectwouldimpactCMParterialmonitoringintersectionsifitadded50ormoretripsduringeithertheA.M.orP.M.weekdaypeakhoursatCMParterialintersectionmonitoringlocationsorifitadded150ormoretrips, in either direction, during either the A.M. or P.M. weekday peak hours at CMP freeway monitoringlocations. The CMP arterialmonitoring intersection nearest to the site is located at Figueroa Street andSepulvedaBoulevard,approximatelyonemilewestof thesite. BasedontheRP’sProposedRemedy’s tripgenerationdescribedinTable5.7‐4,anddistributionofallhaultrucksalongtheproposedhaulroutewithin
Table 5.7‐6
Expedited Implementation Option Trip Generation Estimates
Trip Number and Source
Trip Rate Trip Estimate
Weekday Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday
Daily
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour
Rate % In
% Out Rate
% In
% Out In Out Total In Out Total
SourceandType DeliveryTrucks(151)a 4.00 0.38 100 0 0.38 0 100 604 57 0 57 0 57 57Employees(24)‐ParkingOn‐Siteb 6.00 1.00 100 0 1.00 0 100 144 24 0 24 0 16 16Employees‐ParkingOff‐Site(23)c 1.04 0.52 50 50 0.38 50 50 24 6 6 12 6 6 12
Visitors(9)d 2.00 0.10 50 50 0.10 50 50 18 1 0 1 0 1 1Total 790 88 6 94 6 88 94
a Trip Generation Rates and Estimates reported in Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE); PCE rate of 1 truck = 2 PCEs. b Per Project Description, 24 employees to be parking on‐site; trip rate includes trips to various off‐site locations not during the peak hour d Per Project Description, 23 employees would arrive using vans. 3 RT vans in AM, 3 RT vans in PM. Vans would arrive full/depart empty in
AM; arrive empty/depart full in PM. d Per Project Description, up to 9 visitors to site daily. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2014.
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐22
Table 5‐7
Existing Plus Expedited Implementation Option Intersection Levels Of Service And Impact Analysis
No. Intersection Peak Hour
Existing Existing Plus
Project
V/C Increase
Significant Impact?
V/C or Delay LOS
V/C or Delay LOS
1
I‐110SBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.795 C 0.795 C 0.000 No
PM 0.830 D 0.830 D 0.000 No
2
I‐110NBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.717 C 0.718 C 0.001 No
PM 0.615 B 0.630 C 0.015 No
3
FigueroaSt&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.704 C 0.706 C 0.002 No
PM 0.630 B 0.652 B 0.022 No
4
MainSt&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.682 B 0.686 B 0.004 No
PM 0.751 C 0.798 C 0.047 No
5
MainSt&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.734 C 0.736 C 0.002 No
PM 0.771 C 0.771 C 0.000 No
6
NeptuneAve&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.547 A 0.571 A 0.024 No
PM 0.479 A 0.521 A 0.042 No
7
LagoonAve&LomitaBoulevarda
AM 0.751 C 0.448 A 0.011 No
PM 0.662 B 0.433 A 0.017 No
AM 80.0b F 100.9b F 20.9b N/A
PM 46.0b E 48.3b E 2.3b N/A
8
AvalonBoulevard&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.684 B 0.684 B 0.000 No
PM 0.776 C 0.776 C 0.000 No
9
AvalonBoulevard&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.653 B 0.692 B 0.039 No
PM 0.641 B 0.647 B 0.006 No
10
WilmingtonAve&I‐405NBRamps
AM 0.656 B 0.659 B 0.003 No
PM 0.652 B 0.652 B 0.000 No
11
WilmingtonAve&I‐405SBRamps
AM 0.720 C 0.723 C 0.003 No
PM 0.822 D 0.827 D 0.005 No
12
WilmingtonAve&E223rdSt
AM 0.623 B 0.623 B 0.000 No
PM 0.740 C 0.740 C 0.000 No
13
WilmingtonAve&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.666 B 0.666 B 0.000 No
PM 0.625 B 0.630 B 0.005 No
14
WilmingtonAve&LomitaBoulevarda
AM 0.448 A 0.448 A 0.000 No
PM 0.422 A 0.429 A 0.007 No
AM 50.6b F 62.5b F 11.9b N/A
PM 54.8b F 56.1b F 1.3b N/A
a Unsignalized intersection operating at LOS E or F per the HCM methodology were also analyzed per the ICU methodology to calculate a V/C ratio, as per City of Carson practices.
b Expressed in “seconds of delay” on the most constrained approach.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐23
theCityofCarson,theRP’sProposedRemedywouldminimallyaffecttheintersectionofFigueroaStreetandSepulvedaBoulevard.Therefore,theRP’sProposedRemedywouldnotaddmorethan50vehiclesperhour(“vph”)atanyCMParterialmonitoringlocationduringtheA.M.orP.M.weekdaypeakhours.Inaddition,thetotalestimatedproject‐relatedtraffic inanydirectionduringtheweekdaypeakhour isprojectedtobe61vph,which is below theminimumcriteria of 150 vph at freewaymonitoring locations. Because theRP’sProposedRemedywouldnotmeettheminimumtripsrequiredforanalysisatCMPmonitoringlocations,itwouldnotexceedCMPguidelinecriteria.ImpactswithrespecttoCMPmonitoringlocationswould,thus,belessthansignificant.
CMP Transit
TheCMPtransitguidelines,whichestablishstandardsrelatedtotransitridership,assume3.5percenttransituseforaworkforce.Basedontheapproximately32workersaday,including16workerswhowouldtravelfromhometositeandtheremaining16employeeswhowouldparkatanoff‐sitelocationandtraveltotheprojectsiteinshuttlevans,itisestimatedthattheprojectcouldaddonenewtransitpersontripinboththeA.M.andP.M.peakhours.Theprojectsiteisservedbyseveralestablishedpublictransitrouteswhichprovideconnectivitytopublictransitservicesthroughoutthesurroundingarea.ExistingtransitlinesarelocatedonLomitaBoulevard,MainStreet,SepulvedaBoulevard,andAvalonBoulevard,whichalsowouldserveastheRP’sProposedRemedy’shaulroute. AlthoughtheRP’sProposedRemedywouldsharecommonroadwayswithtransit lines, itwouldnotincreasetrafficinamannerthatwouldcausenewcongestionorconditions(significant traffic impacts) thatwould affect operation of these streets. TheCarsonNorth‐South Shuttle,whichislocatedonthenorthsideofLomitaBoulevardjustwestofNeptuneBoulevard,istheneareststoptotheprojectsite.NoconstructionwouldoccuralongLomitaBoulevardorothertruckroutestreetsand,thus,nobusstopswouldbeadverselyaffectedbyconstructionactivities.Therefore,theRP’sProposedRemedy’strafficandconstructionactivitieswouldnotadverselyaffecttheoperationoftheseexistinglines.BecauseofthelowestimatedridershipgeneratedbytheRP’sProposedRemedyandadequacyoftheaffectedroadwaysystem during construction (2015‐2021) to serve existing transit, the RP’s Proposed Remedy would notadverselyaffectexistingtransitfacilities.ImpactswithrespecttoCMPtransitguidelineswouldbelessthansignificant.
Expedited Implementation Option
CMP Roadway Analysis
Based on the Expedited Implementation Option’s trip generation described in Table 5.7‐6, above, andprimary distribution of trips along the designated truck route in the City of Carson, the ExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldminimally affect thenearestCMParterialmonitoring locationof SepulvedaBoulevard and Pacific Coast Highway during the A.M. or P.M. weekday peak hours. In addition, the totalestimatedtrafficinanydirectionduringtheweekdaypeakhourundertheExpeditedImplementationOptionisprojectedtobe94vph,whichisbelowtheminimumcriteriaof150vphatfreewaymonitoringlocations.BecausetheExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldnotmeettheminimumtripsrequiredforanalysisatCMP monitoring locations, it would not exceed CMP guideline criteria. Impacts with respect to CMPmonitoringlocationswould,thus,belessthansignificant.
CMP Transit
The Expedited Implementation Option would generate approximately 47 workers a day, including 24workerswhowouldtravelfromhometositeandtheremaining23employeeswhowouldparkatanoff‐site
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐24
location and travel to the project site in shuttle vans, it is estimated that the project could add one newtransit person trip in both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Construction activities and traffic would notadverselyaffectstreetservicelevelsorbusstops.BecauseofthelowestimatedridershipgeneratedbytheExpeditedImplementationOptionandadequacyoftheaffectedroadwaysystemduringconstruction(2015‐2019) to serve existing transit, the RP’s Proposed Remedy would not adversely affect existing transitfacilities.ImpactswithrespecttoCMPtransitguidelinesundertheExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldbelessthansignificant.
5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Analysis of Impacts Associated with Alternative 1 (No Project)
TheNoProjectAlternativewouldnotinvolveanyexcavationorconstructionactivitiesand,thus,wouldnotresult inthegenerationofadditionalvehicletripsrelativetoexistingconditions. Impactsrelatedtotrafficandcirculationwouldbelessthansignificant.
Analysis of Impacts Associated with Alternative 2 (Excavation Beneath Landscape and
Hardscape to 10 Feet Alternative)
Alternative2wouldgeneratethesamehourlyanddailytrafficastheRP’sProposedRemedy.However,totaltruckloadswouldbeincreasedundertheRP’sProposedRemedy.Thus,remedialactivitiesthatcouldaffectlocalroadwaysandsidewalkswouldoccuroveralongertimeframe(approximately7.8yearscomparedto6yearsundertheRP’sProposedRemedyor4yearsundertheExpeditedImplementationOption).AswiththeRP’sProposedRemedy,impactsonstudyareaintersectionswouldbelessthansignificant.
Analysis of Impacts Associated with Alternative 3 (No Excavation Beneath Hardscape – 5
Feet to Targeted 10 Feet)
Alternative3wouldgeneratethesamehourlyanddailytrafficastheRP’sProposedRemedy.Becauselesstotal material would be removed from the site, remedial activities that could affect local roadways andsidewalkswouldoccuroverashortertimeframe(approximately4yearscomparedto6yearsundertheRP’sProposedRemedy). AswiththeRP’sProposedRemedy,impactsonstudyareaintersectionswouldbelessthansignificant.
6. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CumulativeimpactsassociatedwiththeRP’sProposedRemedyarebasedonyear2021cumulativegrowth,which includes ambient yearly growth to 2021 and the addition of related projects. The respective tripgenerationestimatesforeachofrelatedprojectsisshowninTable5.7‐8,RelatedProjectsTripGeneration.ThelocationofrelatedprojectisillustratedinFigure4.1,LocationsofRelatedProjectsinChapter4,BasisofCumulativeAnalysis,inthisEIR.
Table5.7‐9,CumulativeYear(2021)PlusProjectIntersectionLevelsofServiceandImpactAnalysisprovidesasummaryof thecumulativebasescenario,which is shownas “Future.” Thisdesignationdoesnot includetraffic generated under the RP’s Proposed Remedy. As shown in Table 5.7‐9, four of the 14 study
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐25
Table 5.7‐8
Related Projects Trip Generation
Project Address Size Unit Use
Trip Generation
Daily AM PM
1.KaiserSouthBayHospitalExpansion 25825VermontAve,LosAngeles
234.407 ksf MedicalOffice
2,971 200 32077.5 ksf
Records/office/warehouse
286 beds Hospital
2.1311WSepulvedaApartments
1311WSepulvedaBoulevard,LosAngeles
352 units Apartments 1,434 19 5517.904 ksf Retail
3.DaycareFacility 25621SNormandieAve,LosAngeles 84 child Daycare 376 67 69
4.DelLagoApartments1450PacificCoastHighway,Los
Angeles 204 units Apartments 1,357 104 126
5.CarsonMarketplace/TheBoulevardsatSouthBay
DelAmoAvewestofI‐405,CarsonMixedUseDevelopment
68,951 2,510 5,761
6.CarsonShellRevitalization 20945SWilmingtonAve,Carson10
employee Office
6,357 408 58090 ksf Industrial/Commercial
83 ksf CommunityRetail
7.PonteVistaResidentialProject
26900SWesternAve,LosAngeles
143 DU SingleFamilyResidential
7,458 571 699600 DU Condominium
392 DU Apartments
2.8 AC Park
1. Traffic Impact Study & Technical Memorandum for the Kaiser Permanente South Bay Medical Center (2006, with amendment 2009), Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates 2. Traffic Impact Study for the 1311 W. Sepulveda Boulevard Project (2009), Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 3 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the 25621 S Normandie Avenue Child Care Facility (2010), Arch Beach Consulting 4. Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed Del Lago Apartment Project (2012), Crain & Associates 5. Traffic Study for the Carson Marketplace (2005), Kaku Associates 6. Traffic Study for the Carson Shell Revitalization (2012, with amendment 2014), Fehr & Peers 7. Traffic Impact Study: Ponte Vista at San Pedro (2012), Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Source:Fehr&Peers,2014.
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐26
Table 5.7‐9
Cumulative Year (2021) Plus Project Intersection Levels Of Service And Impact Analysis
No. Intersection Peak Hour
Future Future +Project
V/C Increase Significant Impact? V/C or Delay LOS V/C or Delay LOS
1
I‐110SBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.827 D 0.827 D 0.000 No
PM 0.862 D 0.862 D 0.000 No
2
I‐110NBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.735 C 0.735 C 0.000 No
PM 0.645 B 0.654 B 0.009 No
3
FigueroaSt&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.727 C 0.728 C 0.001 No
PM 0.674 B 0.689 B 0.015 No
4
MainSt&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.703 B 0.704 C 0.001 No
PM 0.813 D 0.843 D 0.030 No
5
MainSt&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.760 C 0.761 C 0.001 No
PM 0.930 E 0.930 E 0.000 No
6
NeptuneAve&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.565 A 0.580 A 0.015 No
PM 0.500 A 0.527 A 0.027 No
7LagoonAve&LomitaBoulevarda
AM 0.782 C 0.456 A 0.001 No
PM 0.693 B 0.445 A 0.011 No
AM 101.0b F 118.6b F 17.6b N/A
PM 53.3b F 55.2b F 1.9b N/A
8
AvalonBoulevard&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.751 C 0.751 C 0.000 No
PM 0.923 E 0.923 E 0.000 No
9
AvalonBoulevard&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.705 C 0.718 C 0.013 No
PM 0.744 C 0.749 C 0.005 No
10
WilmingtonAve&I‐405NBRamps
AM 0.670 B 0.673 B 0.003 No
PM 0.716 C 0.716 C 0.000 No
11
WilmingtonAve&I‐405SBRamps
AM 0.493 C 0.497 A 0.004 No
PM 0.536 D 0.538 B 0.002 No12 WilmingtonAve& AM 0.644 B 0.644 B 0.000 No
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
Table 5.7‐9 (Continued)
Cumulative Year (2021) Plus Project Intersection Levels Of Service And Impact Analysis
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐27
E223rdSt PM 0.765 C 0.765 C 0.000 No
13
WilmingtonAve&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.693 B 0.693 B 0.000 No
PM 0.659 B 0.663 B 0.004 No
14
WilmingtonAve&LomitaBoulevarda
AM 0.474 A 0.474 A 0.000 No
PM 0.468 A 0.472 A 0.004 No
AM 68.4b F 78.0b F 9.6b N/A
PM 77.6b F 80.2b F 2.6b N/A
a Unsignalized intersection operating at LOS E or F per the HCM methodology were also analyzed per the ICU methodology to calculate a V/C ratio, as per City of Carson practices. b Expressed in “seconds of delay” on the most constrained approach. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014.
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐28
intersections are projected to operate at LOS E during the peak hour. The poor LOS calculated at studyintersections No. 7, Lagoon Avenue and Lomita Boulevard and No. 14, Wilmington Avenue and LomitaBoulevardaretheresultofrelativelyhighlevelsofdelayonthemostconstrainedapproach,ratherthanthevolumeofvehiclestravelingthroughthesestop‐controlledintersections.
IntersectionNo.5:MainStreetandLomitaBoulevard
IntersectionNo.7.LagoonAvenueandLomitaBoulevard
IntersectionNo.8.AvalonBoulevardandLomitaBoulevard
IntersectionNo.14.WilmingtonAvenueandLomitaBoulevard
AsalsoshowninTable5.7‐9,peakhourtrafficgeneratedbytheRP’sProposedRemedyisaddedtotheyear2021basepeakhour traffic to create cumulative traffic levels in2021 (“Future+Project”). DetailedLOScalculations are provided in the Traffic Study, Appendix B, contained in Appendix G of this EIR. Thedifferencebetweenthe“Future”and“FuturePlusProject”representstherelative increaseassociatedwiththeRP’sProposedRemedy.Theincreasesillustratedunder“V/C”increaseundertheRP’sProposedRemedywouldnotexceedCityofCarsonintersectioncapacityservicethresholdsatanyofthe14studyintersections.Therefore,cumulativeimpactsundertheRP’sProposedRemedywouldbelessthansignificant.
Expedited Implementation Option
Cumulative impacts associated with the Expedited Implementation Option are based on year 2019cumulative growth, which includes ambient yearly growth to 2019 and the addition of related projects.Table5.7‐10,CumulativeYear(2019)PlusExpeditedImplementationOptionIntersectionLevelsofServiceandImpactAnalysis provides a summary of the cumulative base scenario, which is shown as “Future.” Thisdesignation does not include traffic generated under the Expedited ImplementationOption. As shown inTable5.7‐9,fourofthe14studyintersectionsareprojectedtooperateatLOSEduringthepeakhour.Thepoor LOS calculated at study intersections No. 7, Lagoon Avenue and Lomita Boulevard and No. 14,Wilmington Avenue and Lomita Boulevard, are the result of relatively high levels of delay on the mostconstrained approach, rather than the volume of vehicles traveling through these stop‐controlledintersections.
IntersectionNo.5:MainStreetandLomitaBoulevard
IntersectionNo.7.LagoonAvenueandLomitaBoulevard
IntersectionNo.8.AvalonBoulevardandLomitaBoulevard
IntersectionNo.14.WilmingtonAvenueandLomitaBoulevard
AlsoasshowninTable5.7‐10,peakhourtrafficgeneratedbytheExpeditedImplementationOptionisaddedtotheyear2019basepeakhourtraffic(“Future+Project”). DetailedLOScalculationsareprovidedintheTrafficStudy,AppendixB,containedinAppendixGofthisEIR.VehicletripsassociatedwiththeExpeditedImplementationOptionarecomparedtothecumulativebaseintersectionconditionstodetermineimpacts.Thedifference between the “Future” and “FuturePlus Project” quantities represents the relative increaseassociatedwiththeExpeditedImplementationOption.Theincreasesillustratedunder“V/C”increaseunderthe Expedited Implementation Option would not exceed City of Carson intersection capacity servicethresholdsatanyofthe14studyintersections.
November 2014 5.7 Traffic and Circulation
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐29
Table 5.7‐10
Cumulative Year (2019) Plus Expedited Implementation Option Intersection Levels Of Service And Impact Analysis
No. Intersection Peak Hour
Future Future +Project
V/C Increase
Significant Impact?
V/C or Delay LOS
V/C or Delay LOS
1
I‐110SBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.819 D 0.819 D 0.000 No
PM 0.854 D 0.854 D 0.000 No
2
I‐110NBOff‐Ramp&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.727 C 0.729 C 0.002 No
PM 0.638 B 0.653 B 0.015 No
3
FigueroaSt&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.719 C 0.720 C 0.001 No
PM 0.668 B 0.690 B 0.022 No
4
MainSt&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.697 B 0.701 C 0.004 No
PM 0.808 D 0.854 D 0.046 No
5
MainSt&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.751 C 0.753 C 0.002 No
PM 0.922 E 0.922 E 0.000 No
6
NeptuneAve&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.561 A 0.585 A 0.024 No
PM 0.494 A 0.536 A 0.042 No
7
LagoonAve&LomitaBoulevarda
AM 0.451 A 0.458 A 0.007 No
PM 0.430 A 0.447 A 0.017 No
AM 95.3b F 121.9b F 26.6b N/A
PM 51.7b F 54.5b F 2.8b N/A
8
AvalonBoulevard&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.744 C 0.744 C 0.000 No
PM 0.917 E 0.917 E 0.000 No
9
AvalonBoulevard&LomitaBoulevard
AM 0.698 B 0.718 C 0.020 No
PM 0.738 C 0.744 C 0.006 No
10
WilmingtonAve&I‐405NBRamps
AM 0.665 B 0.668 B 0.003 No
PM 0.709 C 0.709 C 0.000 No
11
WilmingtonAve&I‐405SBRamps
AM 0.489 A 0.495 A 0.006 No
PM 0.531 B 0.534 A 0.003 No
12
WilmingtonAve&E223rdSt
AM 0.639 B 0.639 B 0.000 No
PM 0.758 C 0.758 C 0.000 No
13
WilmingtonAve&SepulvedaBoulevard
AM 0.686 B 0.686 B 0.000 No
PM 0.654 B 0.659 B 0.005 No
14
WilmingtonAve&LomitaBoulevarda
AM 0.469 A 0.469 A 0.000 No
PM 0.464 A 0.471 A 0.007 No
AM 65.5b F 79.8b F 13.3 N/A
PM 74.5b F 78.2b F 3.7b N/A
a Unsignalized intersection operating at LOS E or F under HCM conditions; Analyzed under ICU per City of Carson criteria. b Expressed in “seconds of delay” on the most constrained approach.
Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2014.
5.7 Traffic and Circulation November 2014
StateofCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard FormerKastPropertyTankFarmSiteRemediationProjectSCHNo.2014031053 5.7‐30
Therefore,cumulativeimpactsundertheExpeditedImplementationOptionwouldbelessthansignificant.However, under the Expedited Implementation Option, the “Future + Project” and “V/C Increases” areslightly higher because peak hour traffic under this option are incrementally higher than under the RP’sProposedRemedy.
BasedontheCityofCarson’sintersectiontrafficimpactsignificancecriteria,theprojectwouldnotresultinanyadverseimpactsatanyofthe14studyintersections.
7. MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts associated with intersection capacity, CMP monitored locations and transit would be less thansignificantundertheRP’sProposedRemedyandtheExpeditedImplementationOption.Alternative1wouldresultinnoincreaseintrafficandtherefore,nosignificantimpactswouldoccur.AswiththeRP’sProposedRemedy,Alternative2andAlternative3wouldnotresult insignificant impactson intersectioncapacities,CMProadwayandtransitservicelevels.Therefore,nomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.
8. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No significant impacts would occur under the RP’s Proposed Remedy or under the ExpeditedImplementationOption.Inaddition,Alternative1wouldnotresultinanyincreaseintrafficandAlternatives2 and3wouldhave less than significant impacts related to transportation and circulation. Therefore, nomitigationmeasureswouldbe required and impactswouldbe less than significant for theBaseCase, theExpeditedImplementationOption,andAlternatives1,2,and3withregardtotrafficandcirculationissues.