appendix b traffic impact analysis, asphalt plant 1 and...

Appendix B Traffic Impact Analysis, Asphalt Plant

No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

R E P O R T

Traffic Impact Analysis, Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Prepared for

City of Los Angeles Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street Services

February 2016

Contents Section Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. iii

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1

2 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Access, Circulation and Parking ....................................................................................... 2-1

3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Study Intersections .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Traffic Scenarios ............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Traffic Impact Thresholds ................................................................................................ 3-3

4 Study Area Facilities ............................................................................................................. 4-1

5 Future Base Traffic Conditions .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Year 2016 (No Project) Intersection Operations ............................................................. 5-1 5.2 Year 2018 (No Project) Intersection Operations ............................................................. 5-1 5.3 Year 2040 (No Project) Intersection Operations ............................................................. 5-2

6 Project Conditions ................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Project Construction ........................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Project Operations ........................................................................................................... 6-3

7 Future Traffic Operations With Project Traffic Conditions ..................................................... 7-1 7.1 Year 2018 (Opening Year) + Project Operations .............................................................. 7-1 7.2 Year 2040 (Future Horizon Year) + Project Operations ................................................... 7-3

8 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 8-1

9 References ............................................................................................................................ 9-1

List of Tables

Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersection Operations .................................................. 3-2 Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersection Operations .............................................. 3-3 Table 3. City of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Thresholds- Signalized Intersections ..................................... 3-3 Table 4. Construction Year (2016) Intersection LOS Summary – No Project ............................................. 5-1 Table 5. Opening Year (2018) Intersection LOS Summary - No Project ..................................................... 5-2 Table 6. Future Horizon Year (2040) Intersection LOS Summary - No Project .......................................... 5-2 Table 7. Construction Trip Generation ...................................................................................................... 6-2 Table 8. Daily Trips- Operations ................................................................................................................. 6-3 Table 9. Peak Hour Trips (AM and PM)a Average Day- Operations ............................................................ 6-4 Table 10. Peak Hour Trips (AM and PM)a Maximum Day- Operations ...................................................... 6-4 Table 11. Project Truck Trip Distribution- Operations ............................................................................... 6-5 Table 12. Year 2018 (Opening Year) + Project (Maximum Day) Intersection LOS Summary ..................... 7-2 Table 13. Year 2040 (Future Horizon Year) + Project (Maximum Day) Intersection LOS Summary .......... 7-4 Table 14. Maximum Day Operations- Summary of Potentially Significant Impactsa ................................. 8-1

TR1104151057SCO I

CONTENTS

List of Figures

1 Regional and Local Road Network 2 Proposed On-site Vehicular Circulation 3 Study Intersections 4 Project Operations Trip Distribution- Incoming Trips 5 Project Operations Trip Distribution- Outgoing Trips

II TR1104151057SCO

Acronyms and Abbreviations AP1 Asphalt Plant No. 1

BSS Bureau of Street Services

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

the City the City of Los Angeles

CMA Critical Movement Analysis

CMP 2010 Congestion Management Program

HCM Highway Capacity Manual

HMA hot mix asphalt

I-5 Interstate 5

I-10 Interstate 10

LADOT City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation

LOS level of service

Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

PCE passenger car equivalent

RAP reclaimed asphalt pavement

SR State Route

TRB Transportation Research Board

V/C volume to capacity

TR1104151057SCO III

SECTION 1

Introduction CH2M conducted a traffic evaluation to address the potential traffic impacts of construction and operation of the City of Los Angeles (the City) Department of Public Works Bureau of Street Services (BSS) Asphalt Plant No. 1 (AP1; proposed project). The project site is currently in use as an asphalt plant and is located at 2484 East Olympic Boulevard in Los Angeles, California (see Figure 1).

This report describes the proposed project, summarizes the methodology used to assess the potential traffic impacts, describes the existing study area facilities, identifies the proposed project trip generation and distribution, evaluates the potential effects of the proposed project on intersection operations, and recommends mitigation to minimize the potential traffic impacts. The report will serve as the technical input to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) documentation.

TR1104151057SCO 1-1

SECTION 2

Project Description BSS has operated AP1 at its current location since 1947. The AP1 site is approximately 2 acres and is located in an industrial area south of downtown Los Angeles. The plant is bordered by the Los Angeles River channel and Amtrak railroad tracks on the east, East Olympic Boulevard on the north, a Waste Management property and South Santa Fe Avenue on the west, and industrial uses, a Waste Management property, and railroad tracks on the south. An existing driveway is located on East Olympic Boulevard, approximately 400 feet west of the site. The site is accessed from the driveway to a frontage road immediately south and parallel to East Olympic Boulevard. A second driveway is located at the southeastern corner of the site, with access provided via a private road along the eastern property boundary.

The proposed project is needed to replace the aged existing plant equipment and bring the production capabilities up to modern standards. The existing plant is currently permitted to produce up to 584,000 tons per year of “batch” hot mix asphalt (HMA) but because of the old plant equipment, the plant is currently only capable of producing a maximum of approximately 200,000 tons per year of HMA. The proposed project would increase the production capacity of the plant from approximately 200,000 to 700,000 tons per year of HMA. The HMA produced by the plant is currently, and would continue to be, used by BSS for road construction and maintenance.

The proposed reconstruction of AP1 would include removal of the existing facilities and construction of a new asphalt-concrete processing plant and other associated improvements. It is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would take place over a period of approximately 22 months, from early August 2016 to early May 2018. The proposed project would be at full operational capacity in mid-2018.

2.1 Access, Circulation, and Parking Figure 2 illustrates the access, circulation, and parking at the proposed project site. For inbound trucks, a single point of truck entry is proposed at the existing driveway on East Olympic Boulevard, approximately 400 feet west of the proposed project site. The driveway connects to the frontage road. The frontage road also runs under the elevated portion of E. Olympic Boulevard and connects to Porter Street north of the site. From the driveway on Olympic Boulevard (northwestern driveway), trucks would travel east along the frontage road to the site. A worker vehicle access point is proposed at the existing secondary driveway in the northeastern corner of the property, which would separate truck movements from the movement of other vehicles.

Once at the proposed project site, the trucks would travel along the western and southern sides of the plant property to the primary egress point at the southeastern corner of the property. An auxiliary truck exit is also proposed at the south portion of the site, using the leased property as an additional point of egress.

Channeling truck movements along the western and southern sides of the plant would ensure that trucks enter and exit the site without interfering with the plant operations. This configuration also separates truck movements from working personnel accessing the maintenance/administration building and the control/electrical building. With this approach, worker safety is maximized by limiting potential truck and pedestrian conflicts. Truck traffic within the plant is proposed to be separated by use (for example, asphalt oil delivery, aggregate and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) delivery, and HMA pick up), which increases the efficiency of the plant. The internal road layout also provides maximum onsite queuing for truck traffic.

TR1104151057SCO 2-1

SECTION 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site currently has 12 parking spaces. The proposed project would provide approximately 16 parking spaces to accommodate staff and visitors. The parking needs for the proposed project are anticipated to be met entirely onsite. No offsite parking would be needed.

2-2 TR1104151057SCO

SECTION 3

Methodology

The traffic analysis for the proposed project was conducted for construction and operational scenarios of the proposed project. The analysis was completed according to the methodologies and procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board [TRB], 2010), the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, Appendix L (City of Los Angeles, 2006), and the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (LADOT, 2012). Transportation system information was obtained from maps, literature searches, and aerial photographs. Traffic data were obtained from existing sources, and included the LADOT, the Boyle Heights Mixed Use Project Traffic Impact Study (Fehr & Peers, 2011), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Traffic Data Branch (Caltrans, 2015). The traffic data were based on counts collected between 2008 and 2015.

The 2010 Congestion Management Program (CMP), prepared by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), provides generalized traffic growth factors for Los Angeles County. These growth factors, which are based on regional modeling efforts, estimate the general effect of cumulative development and other socioeconomic changes on traffic throughout the region (Metro, 2010). The CMP growth rate, estimated at 0.22 percent per year, was applied to convert recent traffic counts to a common 2015 base year, and to forecast traffic volumes to estimate future traffic conditions.

3.1 Study Intersections Intersection operations were evaluated for affected intersections for the morning (a.m.) and afternoon (p.m.) peak hours (which typically occur between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.). The study intersections, as shown on Figure 3, were selected based on their proximity to the project site, the existing traffic volumes, and the potential for the proposed project traffic to travel through the intersections:

• Interstate 10 (I-10) westbound ramps and 8th Street (unsignalized)

• I-10 eastbound ramps and Porter Street (unsignalized)

• South Santa Fe Avenue and 8th Street (signalized)

• South Santa Fe Avenue and Porter Street (signalized)

• South Santa Fe Avenue and East Olympic Boulevard (signalized)

• Interstate 5/State Route 60 (I-5/SR-60) northbound off-ramp and Soto Street (signalized)

• East Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street (signalized)

Peak-hour turning movement counts for the I-10 westbound ramps at 8th Street and I-10 eastbound ramps at Porter Street were derived from Caltrans ramp volumes (Caltrans, 2015). Peak-hour turning movement counts for the remaining five intersections were obtained from the sources described above.

3.2 Traffic Scenarios Proposed project activities during construction and operation were evaluated within the context of surrounding transportation facilities to determine whether the proposed project may result in changes that will affect those facilities. Peak construction of the proposed project would occur during 2016 and

TR1104151057SCO 3-1

SECTION 3 – METHODOLOGY

the proposed project would be operational in 2018. The City also requested that a future horizon year be included in the traffic analysis, which was determined to be 2040.

To this end, the study intersections were evaluated for the following traffic scenarios for the morning and afternoon peak-hour conditions, with and without the proposed project traffic:

• Year 2016 Conditions (Peak Construction) • Year 2018 Conditions (Opening Year) • Year 2040 Conditions (Future Horizon Year)

3.3 Intersection Operations Analysis Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic operating conditions that range from LOS A (free-flow conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (forced-flow conditions with extreme delays). Based on LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (2012), the City’s adopted methodology for determining LOS at signalized intersections is the TRB, Circular 212 Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) methodology. CMA is a method that determines the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio on a critical lane basis and LOS associated with each V/C ratio at a signalized intersection. General descriptions of LOS and the corresponding V/C are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersection Operations Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Level of Service

Volume/Capacity Ratio Definition

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 that intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.

F > 1.000 FAILURE. Backups from nearby intersections or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths

Source: LADOT, 2012

When determining which intersections should be included in an impact analysis for development projects, LADOT typically only evaluates signalized intersections. However, the proposed project is anticipated to add traffic to the eastbound and westbound I-10 ramps, which are currently unsignalized intersections. In accordance with the City’s CEQA Thresholds Guide, Appendix L (City of Los Angeles, 2006), the LOS of the unsignalized intersections was analyzed using the methodologies developed in the 2010 HCM (TRB, 2010) and are based on seconds of delay. Table 2 is a summary of traffic flow characteristics for LOS at unsignalized intersections.

3-2 TR1104151057SCO

SECTION 3 – METHODOLOGY

Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersection Operations Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

LOS Delay per Vehicle

(Seconds) Traffic Flow Characteristics

A ≤10.0 Insignificant delays

B >10.0 and ≤15.0 Stable operation; minimal delays

C >15.0 and ≤25.0 Stable operation; acceptable delays

D >25.0 and ≤35.0 Below average operating conditions

E >35.0 and ≤50.0 At-capacity

F >50.0 Over capacity, forced flow

Source: TRB, 2010

3.4 Traffic Impact Thresholds The City considers a transportation impact at a signalized intersection to be significant based on an increase in the V/C with the proposed project-added traffic. Under the LADOT guidelines shown in Table 3, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if there is an increase in the V/C ratio equal to or greater than the following

• 0.04 for intersections operating at LOS C

• 0.02 for intersections operating at LOS D

• 0.01 for intersections operating at LOS E or F after the addition of proposed project traffic

Intersections operating at LOS A or B after the addition of the proposed project traffic are not considered to have a significant impact regardless of the increase in V/C ratio.

Table 3. City of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Thresholds- Signalized Intersections Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Intersection Conditions with Project Traffic Project-related Increase

in V/C Ratio LOS V/C Ratio

C 0.701 to 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.040

D 0.801 to 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.020

E, F 0.901 or more Equal to or greater than 0.010

For unsignalized intersections, the Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (LADOT, 2012) state that if, based on the estimated intersection delay, the resultant LOS is E or F in the “future with Project” scenario, then the intersection should be evaluated for the potential installation of a new traffic signal.

TR1104151057SCO 3-3

SECTION 4

Study Area Facilities The surrounding regional and local road networks are shown in Figure 1. Primary regional access to the project site is provided by the I-10, I-5, and SR-60 freeways. The project site is less than 0.25 mile south of I-10. Major arterials that serve the project site include East Olympic Boulevard, South Santa Fe Avenue, and Soto Avenue. Project site access will be provided at the existing driveway on East Olympic Boulevard (via the frontage road) and from the driveway located at the southeastern corner of the site. The primary roadways serving the site are described below.

I-10 (the Santa Monica Freeway) runs east-west and extends from the City of Santa Monica eastward past downtown Los Angeles. The freeway provides five lanes in each direction west of the I-10/SR-60 junction, three lanes in each direction between the I-10/SR-60 and I-10/I-5 junctions, and six lanes in the east direction west of the I-10/I-5 junction. I-10 carries an average of 288,000 vehicles/day near South Santa Fe Avenue (Caltrans, 2015). The I-10 westbound on- and off-ramps closest to the project site are located at 8th Street and the I-10 eastbound on- and off-ramps nearest to the project site are located at Porter Street. An eastbound off-ramp is also located at South Santa Fe Avenue.

I-5 (the Golden State Highway/Santa Ana Freeway) runs north-south through the Los Angeles area from north of the San Fernando Valley to south of Santa Ana. Near its junction with SR-60, I-5 has five lanes in each direction and carries an average of 257,000 vehicles/day (Caltrans, 2015).

SR-60 (the Pomona Freeway) runs east-west and extends from the I-5/I-10 interchange eastward past Pomona. Near the study area, SR-60 provides five lanes in each direction plus auxiliary lanes. The interchange closest to the project site is located at Soto Street.

East Olympic Boulevard is an east-west roadway that runs along the north side of the project site. East Olympic Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction through the study area. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most intersections. Access to the project site is provided from an existing driveway on East Olympic Boulevard, approximately 350 feet east of the intersection of East Olympic Boulevard and South Santa Fe Avenue.

South Santa Fe Avenue is a north-south two-lane roadway located immediately west of the project site.

Porter Street is an east-west two-lane local street (less than a 0.5 mile in length) between Mateo Street on the west and warehouses and the railroad tracks on the east. I-10 eastbound on- and off-ramps are located at Porter Street and are the closest I-10 freeways ramps to the site.

8th Street, within the vicinity of the project site, is a two-lane road located north of I-10. 8th Street terminates at the railroad tracks on the east and provides access to an industrial road running north-south along the west side of the railroad tracks. The I-10 westbound on- and off-ramps are located at 8th Street.

Soto Street is a north-south roadway with two travel lanes in each direction near the proposed project. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most intersections. Between 7th Street and 8th Street, Soto Street provides access to SR-60, I-5, and I-10 via several on- and off-ramps.

TR1104151057SCO 4-1

SECTION 5

Future Base Traffic Conditions This section presents an analysis of the future base (Years 2016, 2018, and 2040) traffic conditions in the study area, without the proposed project-added traffic. A 0.22 percent annual growth rate was applied to the existing traffic volumes to estimate the future base traffic volumes. The growth rate accounts for the anticipated regional traffic growth in the area.

5.1 Year 2016 (No Project) Intersection Operations The results of the 2016 (no project) intersection LOS analysis are summarized in Table 4. LOS is determined based on the V/C ratio (for signalized intersections) or delay (for unsignalized intersections). Two of the study intersections operate at LOS F during both peak hours. One intersection operates at LOS E during the afternoon peak hour only. The remaining study intersections operate at LOS D or better.

Table 4. Construction Year (2016) Intersection LOS Summary – No Project Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Intersection

a.m. Peak Hour p.m. Peak Hour

V/C or Delay LOS V/C or Delay LOS

1. I-10 westbound ramps/8th Streeta 19.7 C 38.9 E

2. I-10 eastbound ramps/Porter Streeta 16.5 C 18.2 C

3. South Santa Fe Avenue/8th Street 0.805 D 0.815 D

4. South Santa Fe Avenue/Porter Street 0.815 D 0.808 D

5. South Santa Fe Avenue/East Olympic Boulevard 1.353 F 1.617 F

6. I-5/SR-60 northbound off-ramp/Soto Street 0.844 D 0.771 C

7. East Olympic Boulevard/Soto Street 1.155 F 1.377 F

Notes: a Intersection is controlled by a one-way stop. Delay (in seconds/per vehicle) is reported for the stop-controlled (ramp) movement only.

5.2 Year 2018 (No Project) Intersection Operations The results of the 2018 (no project) intersection LOS analysis are summarized in Table 5. Like 2016, two of the study intersections operate at LOS F during both peak hours. One intersection operates at LOS E during the afternoon peak hour only. The remaining study intersections operate at LOS D or better.

TR1104151057SCO 5-1

SECTION 5 – FUTURE BASE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

Table 5. Opening Year (2018) Intersection LOS Summary - No Project Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Intersection



1. I-10 westbound ramps/8th Street* 21.4 C 48.1 E

2. I-10 eastbound ramps/Porter Street* 17.7 C 19.8 C




6. I-5/SR-60 northbound off-ramp/Soto Street 0.847 D 0.774 C


Notes:

* Intersection is controlled by a one-way stop. Delay (in seconds/per vehicle) is reported for the stop-controlled (ramp) movement only.

5.3 Year 2040 (No Project) Intersection Operations The results of the 2040 (no project) intersection LOS analysis are summarized in Table 6. Delay and V/C ratios increase, but LOS generally stays the same. Two of the study intersections operate at LOS F during the morning peak hour and three of the study intersections operate at LOS F during the afternoon peak hour. The remaining study intersections operate at LOS D or better.

Table 6. Future Horizon Year (2040) Intersection LOS Summary - No Project Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Intersection



1. I-10 westbound ramps/8th Street* 26.6 C 87.7 F

2. I-10 eastbound ramps/Porter Street* 21.6 C 24.4 C




6. I-5/SR-60 northbound off-ramp/Soto Street 0.891 D 0.815 D


Notes:

* Intersection is controlled by a one-way stop. Delay (in seconds/per vehicle) is reported for the stop-controlled (ramp) movement only.

5-2 TR1104151057SCO

SECTION 6

Project Conditions This section summarizes the estimated project-related traffic during project construction and operations.

6.1 Project Construction Construction of the proposed project would occur in phases over approximately 22 months, with construction commencing in August 2016 and being completed in May 2018. Construction of the proposed project would be conducted in either one single 8-hour shift per day or over two 8-hour shifts per day. Construction hours would likely be between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction would occur on Saturdays, Sundays, or public holidays. As a conservative analysis, it is assumed that there would be two shifts, with overlapping arrivals and departures.

The project trip generation during peak construction is presented in Table 7. The peak construction period, considering materials transportation, operation of heavy equipment and the construction workforce, would occur from approximately October 2016 through November 2016. During the peak construction period, the proposed project would generate 135 daily trips and 29 peak hour trips, assuming two-shifts per day. The existing plant operations generates 258 daily trips with 40 trips occurring during each peak hour. (The existing plant operations are discussed in more detail in the Project Operations section of this report). Because the existing plant operations would cease during construction, the net change in traffic during construction would be less than existing conditions. There would 123 fewer daily trips and 11 fewer peak hour trips during construction. With the reduction in trips, there will be no construction-related traffic effects to the surrounding roadways and intersections. Based on this determination, no quantitative LOS calculations were completed for the 2016 + Project Construction conditions.

TR1104151057SCO 6-1

SECTION 6 – PROJECT CONDITIONS

Table 7. Construction Trip Generation Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Phase No./Name

Schedulea Workforce Trucks

Start Finish Working Days Daily Workforce

Per Shift Daily Workforce Trips Per Shiftb

Total Trips (Roundtrip)c Daily Tripsd

1. Building Demolition 8/8/16 9/9/16 25 10 20 0 0

2. Site Demolition 8/15/16 10/21/16 50 10 20 372 7

3. Utility Work 9/26/16 2/1/17 93 10 20 0 0

4. Civil Work 9/26/16 2/1/17 93 10 20 0 0

5. Contaminated Soil Export 9/28/16 1/28/17 88 0 0 649 7

6. Rough Grading 9/28/16 11/12/16 33 7 14 695 21

7. Equipment Installation 1/19/17 10/16/17 193 15 30 50 0

8. Building Construction 1/19/17 3/23/18 307 15 30 700 2

9. Initial Paving 2/2/17 3/20/17 33 10 20 250 8

10. Construct Foundation 4/12/17 6/14/17 46 15 30 79 2

11. Final Grading 6/15/17 6/28/17 10 15 30 0 0

12. Final Paving 3/26/18 5/4/18 30 15 30 375 13

Notes: a Peak construction period highlighted in gray. Peak period occurs from October 2016 through approximately November 2017. During this period, the project would generate 35 daily truck trips and 100 workforce trips. It is assumed that the trucks trips would be spread evenly throughout the day. b There would be a maximum of 25 workers onsite at one time. Assumes each employee generates two trips per day (1 incoming + 1 outgoing trip). One shift would generate 50 trips and two overlapping shifts would generate 100 trips. c Total truck trips equal 1 incoming + 1 outgoing trip. d Daily trips equal the total truck trips divided by the number of working days.

6-2 TR1104151057SCO


6.2 Project Operations The existing plant currently employs 12 full-time personnel who work a single shift of 8 to 10 hours. With the proposed project, no changes to the operating schedule or size of the workforce are anticipated. Trucks trips at the site are currently categorized by use, which includes RAP, oil, and aggregates (imports) and HMA (exports). Currently, the imports arrive between 5:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. and the exports depart the site between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. No changes to this schedule are proposed. To minimize heavy vehicle movements associated with the proposed project, the City has committed to using trucks with a capacity of 18 tons rather than 12 tons to transport RAP and HMA.

The potential proposed project traffic impacts for operations were evaluated by determining the net increase in proposed project-related trips from existing conditions (200,000 tons per year) to proposed project conditions (700,000 tons per year). The proposed project trips are described below.

6.2.1.1 Operations Trip Generation Because daily production will fluctuate based on the demand for asphalt, the quantity produced and the associated trips will vary as well. Therefore, the proposed project trips were estimated based on two scenarios: an average day and a maximum day of production. These forecasts are presented in Tables 8 through 10. During a maximum day of operations, the existing plant produces 950 tons of HMA. In comparison, the proposed plant would generate a maximum of 3,200 tons of HMA per day.

For the average and maximum day, the project trips were separated into auto trips (employee trips) and truck trips (imports and exports). As shown in the tables, the proposed project would result in an average net increase of 291 daily trips and a maximum net increase of 660 daily trips. During peak hours, the proposed project would result in an average net increase of 34 peak hour trips and a maximum net increase of 76 peak hour trips.

It was assumed that each employee generates one incoming and one outgoing trip (12 workers x 2 trips per worker = 24 trips). Because there would be no increase in the number of existing employees, there would be no net increase in employee-generated trips.

Daily trips are summarized in Table 8. The number of truck trips were estimated for each material (e.g., RAP and aggregate), including the tons per year by material, tons per truck by material (e.g., truck capacity), and number of trucks needed per day by material. It was assumed that each truck generates one incoming and one outgoing trip. Truck trips were converted to passenger car equivalent (PCE) units at a ratio of 1.5 passenger cars for each truck, consistent with the HCM.

Table 8. Daily Trips- Operations Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Trip Type

Average Day Maximum Day

Existing Proposed Net Increase Existing Proposed Net Increase

Truck Trips

Imports 96 212 116 110 352 242

Exports 138 216 78 158 356 198

Subtotal 234 428 194 268 708 440

PCE (1.5)* 351 642 291 402 1,062 660

Workforce Trips 24 24 0 24 24 0

Total Traffic in PCE 375 666 291 426 1,086 660

Note: * Trips are rounded up.

TR1104151057SCO 6-3


The project peak hour trips for an average day of operation are summarized in Table 9. The project peak hour trips for a maximum day of operation are summarized in Table 10. The project peak hour trips were estimated based on the number of trucks by material and the proposed import/export schedule described above. Based on the proposed schedule (no change from existing), all imports and exports will be off the site by 3:00 p.m. and therefore occur outside of the typical afternoon peak period (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). However, traffic volumes and congestion occur throughout the day in and around downtown Los Angeles. Therefore, as a conservative analysis, both the morning and afternoon peak hours were evaluated with the project trips. For the purpose of this analysis, the project peak hour trips are assumed the same for each peak hour.

Table 9. Peak Hour Trips (a.m. and p.m.) Average Day - Operations Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Trip Type

Existing Proposed Net Increase

In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total

Truck Trips

Imports 5 5 10 11 11 22 6 6 12

Exports 9 9 18 14 14 28 5 5 10

Subtotal 14 14 28 25 25 50 11 11 22

PCE (1.5)a 21 21 42 38 38 76 17 17 34

Workforce Tripsb 12 0 12 12 0 12 0 0 0

Total Traffic in PCE 33 21 54 50 38 88 17 17 34

Notes: The proposed project is estimated to generate the same number of peak hour trips during the morning peak hour and the afternoon peak hour. a Trips are rounded up. b As a conservative analysis, the employee-related trips were assumed to occur during both peak hours. However, the operations staff arrive at the site by 5:00 a.m., which is outside of the typical morning peak hour.

Table 10. Peak Hour Trips (a.m. and p.m.) Maximum Day - Operations Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Trip Type

Existing Proposed Net Increase

In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total

Truck Trips

Imports 5 5 10 18 18 36 13 13 26

Exports 10 10 20 22 22 44 12 12 24

Subtotal 15 15 30 40 40 80 25 25 50

PCE (1.5)a 23 23 46 60 60 120 38 38 76

Workforce Tripsb 12 0 12 12 0 12 0 0 0

Total Traffic in PCE 35 23 58 72 60 132 38 38 76

Notes:

The proposed project is estimated to generate the same number of peak hour trips during the morning peak hour and the afternoon peak hour. a Trips are rounded up. b As a conservative analysis, the employee-related trips were assumed to occur during both peak hours. However, the operations staff arrive at the site by 5:00 a.m., which is outside of the typical morning peak hour.

6-4 TR1104151057SCO


6.2.1.2 Operations Trip Distribution The project trip distribution is assumed to be similar to the existing travel patterns at the site, except that a greater percentage of the exiting truck traffic would be directed to use the driveways on the north and south side of E. Olympic Boulevard (via the frontage roads). Approximately 10 percent of the operations-related trucks currently exit the site from the frontage road and E. Olympic Boulevard. With the proposed project, approximately 25 percent of the operations-related trucks would be directed to exit the site using the frontage roads and driveways on E. Olympic Boulevard during maximum operations. This change in the project trip distribution pattern is based on a preliminary analysis of the surrounding intersection operations, minimizing the potential for a significant project-related traffic effect to occur. The truck distribution pattern would be adhered to as an environmental commitment for the project, as part of the Operation Management Plan.

Because the proposed project would not generate an increase in the operations workforce, the project trip distribution is presented for the truck trips only. The truck trip distribution is summarized in Table 11 and presented on Figures 4 and 5.

Table 11. Project Truck Trip Distribution- Operations Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Percentage of Project Traffic

Direction To/From Roadway Project Driveway*

40% North/West South Santa Fe Avenue Southeast driveway

5% South South Santa Fe Avenue Southeast driveway

20% West I-10 Southeast driveway

25% East I-10/I-5 Southeast driveway/Olympic Boulevard

10% West Olympic Boulevard Olympic Boulevard

Notes:

* 75% of trucks use the driveway at the southeast corner of the site and travel under the E. Olympic Boulevard Bridge to/from Porter Street/South Santa Fe Avenue. 25% of trucks use the driveways on the north and south sides of E. Olympic Boulevard (via the frontage roads).

TR1104151057SCO 6-5

SECTION 7

Future Traffic Operations with Project Traffic Conditions This section presents an analysis of the future (Years 2018 and 2040) traffic conditions in the study area, with the project-added operations traffic. The potential for significant impacts was evaluated using the approach outlined in the “Methodology” section.

7.1 Year 2018 (Opening Year) + Project Operations The project peak-hour traffic generated during the maximum daily operations was added to the 2018 traffic volumes at the study intersections, based on the trip distribution pattern identified in Table 11. The results of the Year 2018 + Project LOS analysis are summarized in Table 12. The maximum day of operations was analyzed first, as the most conservative case. If impacts had been found with the maximum day of operations, the average day would also be evaluated.

The LOS at the study intersections would not change with the addition of project traffic. The signalized intersections were also evaluated for a change in V/C ratio, consistent with the traffic impact thresholds described earlier. The traffic impact thresholds would not be exceeded at any of the study intersections with the project-added traffic during a maximum day of operations.

The intersections of East Olympic Boulevard and South Santa Fe Avenue and East Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street are forecast to operate at LOS F during both peak hours with and without the proposed project-added traffic. The maximum increase in V/C ratio with the proposed project would be 0.005 (during both peak hours) at the East Olympic Boulevard/ South Santa Fe Avenue intersection and 0.001 (during both peak hours) at the East Olympic Boulevard/ Soto Street intersection. Both of these changes fall below the City’s traffic impact threshold value of a change of 0.01 or more. There would be no significant impact.

The unsignalized intersection at I-10 westbound ramps and 8th Street is forecast to operate at LOS E with and without the maximum proposed project traffic during the p.m. peak hour. In accordance with the LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, a traffic signal warrant was conducted for this intersection. The signal warrant analysis indicates that a traffic signal is not warranted at this intersection under 2018 conditions, with and without the proposed project traffic. Because there is no need for a new signal with the proposed project, no mitigation is required.

The remaining study intersections (signalized and unsignalized) are projected to operate at LOS D or better and the proposed project-added traffic would not exceed the V/C ratio impact threshold at any of these intersections. Because there were no identified significant impacts for the maximum day, the average day of operations (with lower traffic volumes) was not analyzed.

TR1104151057SCO 7-1

SECTION 7 – FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

Table 12. Year 2018 (Opening Year) + Project (Maximum Day) Intersection LOS Summary Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Intersection


2018 Conditions 2018 + Project Operations 2018 Conditions 2018 + Project Operations

V/C or Delay LOS

V/C or Delay LOS

Change in V/C or Delay

Significant Impact?

V/C or Delay LOS

V/C or Delay LOS


Significant Impact?

1. I-10 WB ramps/8th St. 21.4 C 21.8 C 0.4 No 48.1 E 49.9 E 1.8 No

2. I-10 EB ramps/Porter St. 17.7 C 18.1 C 0.4 No 19.8 C 20.2 C 0.4 No

3. S. Santa Fe Ave./8th St. 0.808 D 0.814 D 0.006 No 0.818 D 0.827 D 0.009 No

4. S. Santa Fe Ave/ Porter St. 0.821 D 0.84 D 0.019 No 0.811 D 0.828 D 0.017 No

5. S. Santa Fe Ave./E. Olympic Blvd. 1.359 F 1.368 F 0.009 No 1.624 F 1.633 F 0.009 No

6. Soto St./U.S. 101 off-ramp 0.847 D 0.847 D 0.000 No 0.774 C 0.776 C 0.002 No

7. E. Olympic Blvd./Soto St. 1.159 F 1.161 F 0.002 No 1.384 F 1.385 F 0.001 No

7-2 TR1104151057SCO


7.2 Year 2040 (Future Horizon Year) + Project Operations The proposed project peak-hour traffic generated during maximum operations was added to the 2040 traffic volumes at the study intersections, based on the trip distribution pattern identified in Table 11. The results of the Year 2040 + Project LOS analysis are summarized in Table 13. Again, the maximum day of operations was analyzed first.

In 2040, the LOS will not change at any of the intersections, with the addition of proposed project traffic. The signalized intersections were evaluated for a change in V/C ratio. The traffic impact threshold would not be exceeded at any of the study intersections with the project-added traffic during a maximum day of operations.

The intersections of East Olympic Boulevard and South Santa Fe Avenue and East Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street are forecast to operate at LOS F during both peak hours with and without the proposed project-added traffic. The proposed project would increase the V/C ratio by 0.005 (a.m. peak hour) and 0.006 (p.m. peak hour) at the East Olympic Boulevard/ South Santa Fe Avenue intersection. The proposed project would also increase the V/C by 0.001 (during both peak hours) at the East Olympic Boulevard/ Soto Street intersection. These increases in the V/C fall below the City’s traffic impact threshold value of 0.01 or more. There would be no significant impact.

The unsignalized intersection at I-10 westbound ramps and 8th Street is forecast to operate at LOS F with and without the maximum proposed project traffic during the p.m. peak hour. A traffic signal warrant was conducted for this intersection for the 2040 conditions. The signal warrant analysis indicates that a traffic signal is not warranted at this intersection under either scenario. Because there is no need for a new signal with the proposed project, no mitigation is required.

The remaining study intersections (signalized and unsignalized) are projected to operate at LOS D or better and the proposed project-added traffic would not exceed the V/C ratio impact threshold at any of these intersections. For 2040, there were no identified significant impacts for the maximum day, so the average day of operations (with lower traffic volumes) was not analyzed.

TR1104151057SCO 7-3


Table 13. Year 2040 (Future Horizon Year) + Project (Maximum Day) Intersection LOS Summary Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

Intersection


2040 Conditions 2040 + Project Operations 2040 Conditions 2040 + Project Operations

V/C or Delay LOS

V/C or Delay LOS


Significant Impact?

V/C or Delay LOS

V/C or Delay LOS


Significant Impact?

1. I-10 WB ramps/8th St. 26.6 C 27.2 D 0.6 No 87.7 F 91.3 F 3.6 No

2. I-10 EB ramps/Porter St. 21.6 C 24.4 C 2.8 No 24.4 C 25.1 C 0.7 No

3. S. Santa Fe Ave./8th St. 0.85 D 0.856 D 0.006 No 0.861 D 0.87 D 0.009 No

4. S. Santa Fe Ave/ Porter St. 0.863 D 0.882 D 0.019 No 0.853 D 0.871 D 0.018 No

5. S. Santa Fe Ave./E. Olympic Blvd. 1.427 F 1.435 F 0.008 No 1.699 F 1.708 F 0.009 No

6. Soto St./U.S. 101 off-ramp 0.891 D 0.891 D 0.000 No 0.815 D 0.896 D 0.081 No

7. E. Olympic Blvd./Soto St. 1.218 F 1.219 F 0.001 No 1.452 F 1.453 F 0.001 No

7-4 TR1104151057SCO

SECTION 8

Summary This analysis evaluated the potential traffic impacts of constructing and operating the Asphalt Plant 1 project. Seven intersections near the project site were evaluated for the morning and afternoon peak hour for the future (Years 2018 and 2040) traffic conditions with the proposed project.

The analysis determined that during the peak construction period, the proposed project would generate 135 daily trips and 29 peak hour trips. However, because the existing plant operations would cease during construction, the net change in traffic during construction would be less than existing conditions. There would 123 fewer daily trips and 11 fewer peak hour trips during construction and therefore no construction-related traffic effects to the surrounding roadways and intersections. Based on this determination, no quantitative LOS calculations were completed for the 2016 + Project Construction conditions.

The potential proposed project traffic impacts for operations were also evaluated by determining the net increase in proposed project-related traffic over existing conditions (which includes operation of the existing plant). The proposed project trips were estimated based on an average day and a maximum day of production. The proposed project would result in an average net increase of 34 peak hour trips and a maximum net increase of 76 peak hour trips. The maximum day of operations was analyzed first, as the most conservative case. A summary of the findings for a maximum day of operations is presented in Table 14.

Table 14. Maximum Day Operations- Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization

2018 + Project 2040 + Project

a.m. Peak Hour p.m. Peak Hour a.m. Peak Hour p.m. Peak Hour

Change in V/C

Significant Impact?

Change in V/C

Significant Impact?

Change in V/C

Significant Impact?

Change in V/C

Significant Impact?

1. I-10 WB ramps/ 8th St.*

0.4 No 1.8 No 0.6 No 3.6 No

2. I-10 EB ramps/ Porter St. *

0.4 No 0.4 No 2.8 No 0.7 No

3. S. Santa Fe Ave./ 8th St.

0.006 No 0.009 No 0.006 No 0.009 No

4. S. Santa Fe Ave/ Porter St.

0.019 No 0.017 No 0.019 No 0.018 No

5. S. Santa Fe Ave./ E. Olympic Blvd.

0.009 No 0.009 No 0.008 No 0.009 No

6. Soto St./U.S. 101 off-ramp

0.000 No 0.002 No 0.000 No 0.081 No

7. E. Olympic Blvd./ Soto St.

0.002 No 0.001 No 0.001 No 0.001 No

Notes:

A significant impact would occur if there were an increase in the V/C ratios as follows: LOS C- Equal to or greater than 0.040; LOS D- Equal to or greater than 0.020; LOS E/F- Equal to or greater than 0.010.

* Unsignalized intersection; intersection evaluated based on change in seconds of delay.

TR1104151057SCO 8-1

SECTION 8 – SUMMARY

A signal warrant analysis was conducted for the 1-10 westbound ramps at 8th Street for the 2018 and 2040 traffic conditions with and without the project traffic. The signal warrant was not met for any of the scenarios. No other potential traffic impacts were identified.

As part of the analysis, it was assumed that approximately 25 percent of the operations-related trucks would be directed to exit the site using the frontage road and driveways on E. Olympic Boulevard (approximately 10 percent of the operations-related trucks currently exit the site via E. Olympic Boulevard). This change in the project trip distribution pattern is based on a preliminary analysis of the surrounding intersection operations and minimizing the potential for a significant project-related traffic effect to occur. The truck distribution pattern would be adhered to as an environmental commitment for the project, as part of the Operation Management Plan. The traffic analysis concludes that, based on the City’s thresholds, there would be no significant impact to any of the seven study intersections.

8-2 TR1104151057SCO

SECTION 9

References California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2015. 2014 All Traffic Volumes on CSHD. Traffic Data Branch. Available at: http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2014all/

Fehr & Peers. 2011. Boyle Heights Mixed Use Project Traffic Impact Study. July.

City of Los Angeles. 2006. L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, Appendix L.

City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). 2012. Traffic Study Policies and Procedures. May.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2010. 2010 Congestion Management Program. Appendix D, Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis.

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2010. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).

TR1104151057SCO 9-1

http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2014all/

Figures

TR1104151057SCO

EN0930151035SCO LA_Asphalt_Network.ai 10.15

North

0 2.01.0

Approximate scale in miles

Figure 1.Regional and Local Road Network Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Moderniza onLos Angeles, CA

Aerial image © Google Earth, 2015. Annotation by CH2M HILL, 2015.

40%

INTERSTATE

5

60CALIFORNIA

101

East Olympic Blvd

East Olympic Blvd

40%

INTERSTATE

5

60CALIFORNIAA

101

East Olympic BlvdEast Olympic Blvd

East Olympic Blvd

East Olympic Blvd

Project Site

0.75 pt line, black

0.75 pt line, black

space = x space of logo (pg 9, brand guidelines)

Footer, or Slugline:Calibri Light, 6pt. Alwasy include JETT number and FileName.

From the Toolset:Figure Number - Calibri, bold, 10/13Figure Title - Calibri, bold, 10/13Figure Caption - Calibri, light, italic, 10/13Project Name - Calibri, light, 9/12

3.5” from edge of paper

Use this North arrow if working with GIS.

Calibri light, 6 pt

Calibri, light, 8/11

Calibri, bold, 8/11, all caps

0.25 pt line, 1/16” (4.5 pt) high

0.75” margin

0.75” margin

0.75”margin

0.75”margin

North Approximate scale in feet

0 200

TR0728151025SCO LA_Asphalt_proposed.ai 10/15

Figure 2. Proposed Site Layout Asphalt Plant No.1 Replacement and Modernization


E. Olympic Boulevard

Waste Management

Facility

Amtrak Property

Aggregate Silo Storage System

RAP Storage

Parking

RAP Bin

Drywell

Drywell

Conveyor System

Fuel Dispenser

Conveyor System

Administration/Maintenance

Bldg

Bag House

Control/Electrical BuildingTruck Scale

Dryer Drum

Blue Smoke Collection System

Asphalt Oil Tanks

Leased Property

Parking Area

Employee Entrance/Exit

Heavy Truck Entrance Only

Heavy Vehicle

Exit

Ramp to leased

property

Auxiliary Exit

Frontage Road

Swale

Swale

Heavy Vehicle Routes

HMA Silo Storage System

Legend

0.75 pt line, black

0.75 pt line, black



Figure Number - Calibri, bold, 10/13Figure Title - Calibri, bold, 10/13Project Name - Calibri, light, italic, 10/13Project Location - Calibri, light, 9/12



Calibri light, 6 pt



0.25 pt line, 1/16” (4.5 pt) high

0.75” margin

0.75” margin

0.75”margin

0.75”margin

EN0930151035SCO LA_Asphalt_Study_Intersections.ai 10.15

North

0 2,0001,000

Approximate scale in feet

Figure 3.Study Intersections Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and Modernization Los Angeles, CA

Study intersections

Project Site


INTERSTATE

5

60CALIFORNIA

INTERSTATE

10

101

East Olympic Blvd

East Olympic BlvdSot

o S

t

San

ta F

e Av

enue

San

ta F

e Av

enue

Porter St

8th Street

Soto

St

0.75 pt line, black

0.75 pt line, black






Calibri light, 6 pt



0.25 pt line, 1/16” (4.5 pt) high

0.75” margin

0.75” margin

0.75”margin

0.75”margin

EN0930151035SCO LA_Asphalt_Trip_Distribution_In.ai 11.15

Figure 4.Project Operations Trip Distribution - Incoming Trips Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and ModernizationLos Angeles, CA

North

0 2,0001,000



Project Site


10%

10%

15%20%

20%

x%

25%INTERSTATE

5

60CALIFORNIA

INTERSTATE

10

101

East Olympic Blvd


o S

t

San

ta F

e Av

enue

San

ta F

e Av

enue

Porter St

8th Street

Soto

St

0.75 pt line, black

0.75 pt line, black






Calibri light, 6 pt



0.25 pt line, 1/16” (4.5 pt) high

0.75” margin

0.75” margin

0.75”margin

0.75”margin

EN0930151035SCO LA_Asphalt_Trip_Distribution_Out.ai 11.15

Figure 5.Project Operations Trip Distribution - Outgoing Trips Asphalt Plant No. 1 Replacement and ModernizationLos Angeles, CANorth

0 2,0001,000



Project Site


10%

5%

25%

20%

20%

20%

x%

INTERSTATE

5

60CALIFORNIA

INTERSTATE

10

101

East Olympic Blvd


o S

t

San

ta F

e Av

enue

San

ta F

e Av

enue

Porter St

8th Street

Soto

St

appendix b traffic impact analysis, asphalt plant 1 and...

Documents