Transportation Impact Analysis (December 2009) · LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY MASTER PLAN PROJECT December 2009 Prepared for: AECOM Design Prepared by: FEHR & PEERS 201 Santa Monica

Transportation Impact Analysis (December 2009)

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR THE

LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITYMASTER PLAN PROJECT

DECEMBER 2009

PREPARED FOR

AECOM Design

PREPARED BY

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE

LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY MASTER PLAN PROJECT

December 2009

Prepared for:

AECOM Design

Prepared by:

FEHR & PEERS 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500

Santa Monica, California 90401 (310) 458-9916

Ref: 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description ............................................................................................ 1 Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan................................................... 4 Study Scope and Analysis Methodologies ........................................................ 7 II. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 11 Existing Street System ...................................................................................... 11 Existing Transit Service ..................................................................................... 15 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.......................................................... 20 Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service................................................. 21 III. Future Conditions – without Project............................................................................... 32 Areawide Traffic Growth .................................................................................... 32 Future Baseline Intersection and Roadway Improvements ............................... 39 Intersection Operations ..................................................................................... 40 IV. Future Conditions – with Project.................................................................................... 44 Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 44 Intersection Operating Conditions ..................................................................... 53 V. Intersection Traffic Impact Analysis ............................................................................... 57 Criteria for Determination of Significant Traffic Impact ...................................... 57 Project Intersection Impacts .............................................................................. 58 Impact Trip Thresholds...................................................................................... 58 Campus Resident Trip Generation Study.......................................................... 58 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................... 62 Faculty/Staff TDM Program............................................................................... 63 TDM Implementation and Monitoring ................................................................ 74 Sample TDM Programs..................................................................................... 76 VI. Neighborhood Traffic Impact Analysis........................................................................... 78 Neighborhood Street Impacts............................................................................ 78 VII. Regional Transportation System Impact Analysis ......................................................... 81 Significant Traffic Impact Criteria....................................................................... 82 Regional Traffic Impact Analysis ....................................................................... 81 Regional Transit Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 83 VIII. Site Access and Parking Analysis ................................................................................. 85 Level of Service Analysis at Project Access Points........................................... 85 Parking Analysis ................................................................................................ 85 Parking Inventory and Occupancy Data ............................................................ 86 Resident Student Parking Demand Ratio.......................................................... 86 Commuter Parking Demand Ratio..................................................................... 86

Campus Parking Demand, Recommended Supply and Impact Analysis.......... 89 Phasing of Parking Supply Increases................................................................ 90 IX. Construction Period Impact Analysis............................................................................. 92 Construction Impacts......................................................................................... 92 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................... 93 X. Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................ 95 References Appendix A: Intersection Lane Configurations Appendix B: Traffic Counts (under separate cover) Appendix C: Intersection Level of Service Worksheets (under separate cover) Appendix D: Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Appendix E: TDM Trip Generation Estimates

LIST OF FIGURES NO. 1 Study Area ........................................................................................................... 5 2 Analyzed Intersections and Segments ...................................................................... 6 3 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................ 17 4A Existing (2008) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................................................... 24 4B Existing (2008) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................................................... 25 5 Locations of Related Projects........................................................................................ 36 6A Future without Project (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................ 37 6B Future without Project (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................ 38 7 University Trip Distribution............................................................................................. 49 8A Future Project Only (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................ 50 8B Future Project Only (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................ 51 9A Future with Project (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 53 9B Future with Project (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 54 10 Campus Map ................................................................................................................ 60 11 PM Peak Hour Trips ...................................................................................................... 64 12A Future with Project with Mitigation (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......................... 66 12B Future with Project with Mitigation (2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......................... 67

LIST OF TABLES

NO. 1 Full-Time Equivalent Data......................................................................................... 3 2 Existing Surface Street Characteristics ..................................................................... 16 3 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................ 18 4 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections ......................................... 26 5 Level of Service Definitions for Unsignalized Intersections ....................................... 27 6 Existing Conditions (2008) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections ................................................................................ 30 7 Existing Conditions (2008) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections............................................................................. 31 8 Related Projects Trip Generation .................................................................................. 34 9 Future without Project (2030) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections..................................................................................... 41 10 Future without Project (2030) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections................................................................................. 43 11 Trip Generation Rates ................................................................................................... 46 12 Trip Generation.............................................................................................................. 47 13 Future with Project (2030) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Signalized Intersections..................................................................................... 55 14 Future with Project (2030) Intersection Level of Service Analysis Unsignalized Intersections................................................................................. 56 15 Trip Generation with Residential Rates ......................................................................... 61 16 TDM Mitigation Phasing ................................................................................................ 62 17 Future with Project with TDM Conditions (2030) Intersection Level of Service Analysis - Signalized Intersections ...................................... 65 18 Sample TDM Programs ............................................................................................ 77 19 Neighborhood Street Impact Analysis ........................................................................... 80 20 Existing (2008) On-Campus Parking Inventory and Occupancy ................................... 87 21 Parking Demand Projections ......................................................................................... 88 22 Parking Supply Phasing ................................................................................................ 91

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study was undertaken to analyze the potential transportation impacts of the Loyola

Marymount University Master Plan Project. The methodology and base assumptions used in this

analysis were established in conjunction with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation

(LADOT). A total of 25 intersections were analyzed for this report, including six unsignalized

intersections analyzed for potential signalization. Five residential street segments were analyzed.

The Project will be located in the West Los Angeles community of Westchester. The Project

buildout year is expected to be 2030. The Project proposes the development of approximately

508,000 net new gross square feet (gsf) of academic, administrative, and student support

facilities, 476,000 net new gsf of student residential facilities, 28,000 gsf of net new indoor athletic

facilities, and 4.8 acres of net new outdoor athletic facilities.

A trip generation study was conducted, and based on the empirical data collected, trip generation

rates were developed. The Proposed Project is expected to generate a net increase of

approximately 176 trips during the AM peak hour, 223 trips during the PM peak hour, and

approximately 2,540 daily trips.

According to the significance criteria established by LADOT, before mitigation, the Proposed

Project is expected to have significant impacts at two intersections at Proposed Project buildout in

2030: Lincoln Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard, and Centinela Avenue & Jefferson Boulevard.

Detailed TDM mitigation measures have been proposed that will mitigate Proposed Project

impacts to less than significant levels. Proposed mitigation measures include increasing the

number of residential beds provided on Campus, and/or implementing a 5% or 10% faculty/staff

TDM program, depending on the number of additional full-time equivalent students, faculty, and

staff members added to the Campus population. Detailed descriptions of TDM strategies have

been provided, and a sample 5% and 10% TDM program has been discussed.

ii

An analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential impacts on the regional transportation system

conducted in accordance with CMP requirements determined that the Proposed Project would not

have a significant impact on the CMP arterial highway network, the mainline freeway system, and

the regional transit system.

An empirical parking demand study was conducted to determine parking demand rates for the

Campus. Applying the parking demand rates to the Proposed Project buildout determined that an

additional 609 parking spaces would be needed at full buildout to meet the increased demand of

the Proposed Project. To avoid significant impacts, LMU should construct these additional spaces

in phases as the Campus grows.

While typical construction traffic does not occur during peak periods, construction staging will

occur on-campus, and construction worker parking will be located on-campus or in a designated

off-site parking facility, a construction management plan is recommended to mitigate any

additional potential impacts.

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this transportation and parking analysis is to analyze the potential transportation

impacts of the Loyola Marymount University (LMU) Master Plan Project (the “Proposed

Project”). This report identifies the base assumptions, describes the methodologies, and

summarizes the findings of the study, which was conducted as part of the Proposed Project’s

environmental impact report (EIR). The methodology and base assumptions used in this

analysis were established in conjunction with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation

(LADOT). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed with LADOT that

established the parameters and approach of this study. The assumptions and methods used in

this analysis have been chosen to create a conservative set of conditions.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Proposed Project

The Proposed Project will be located at the Loyola Marymount University campus (the

“Campus”) in the West Los Angeles community of Westchester (the “Project Site”). The project

buildout year is expected to be 2030. The Project proposes the development of approximately

508,000 net new gross square feet (gsf) of academic, administrative, and student support

facilities, 476,000 net new gsf of student residential facilities, 28,000 gsf of net new indoor

athletic facilities, and 4.8 acres of net new outdoor athletic facilities. As part of the Proposed

Project, LMU proposes to systematically replace all functionally obsolete or substandard on-

campus buildings in order to enhance the student experience and quality of life. Currently,

LMU’s enrollment cap, as approved by the City in 2000, is 7,800 full-time equivalent (FTE)

students1. Notwithstanding the higher enrollment permitted by the City approvals, all analysis in

the EIR is based on the actual enrollment as of Fall 2008 and assesses the impacts of

increasing the actual enrollment to 7,800 FTE students. LMU’s enrollment of 6,868.4 FTE

1 A student FTE is a unit of measurement used to calculate enrollment for academic and master planning purposes,

as opposed to student headcount. One undergraduate student FTE is defined as one undergraduate student taking 12 course units, which represents a full course load. Students taking fewer course units are considered to constitute a fraction of a Student FTE, whereas students taking more than 12 units constitute more than one FTE. One graduate student FTE is defined as one graduate student taking 9 course units, which represents a full course load.

2

students in Fall 2008 (existing/current conditions) would be increased to a student enrollment

cap of 7,800 FTE students. LMU also proposes to house a greater percentage of LMU

undergraduate students on the Campus, from approximately 60 percent of its undergraduate

FTE students currently, to approximately 75 percent at buildout, depending on the final allotted

space allowances per bed. Since outdated residential units would be replaced with newer

apartment-style units, the residential square footage allotted per bed would be higher in the new

housing. Further, this analysis considers the traffic and parking impacts of changes to the

faculty and staff population on Campus. In Fall 2008, there were 1,484.08 FTE faculty and

staff2. At buildout, LMU expects to have 1,800 FTE faculty and staff employed by the University.

Because of the long-term nature of the Proposed Project, the precise location and configuration

of proposed buildings and facilities have not been finalized, and will be determined based on the

evolving academic and administrative needs of LMU and available funding over the next 20

years. Therefore, the transportation impacts of the Proposed Project have been analyzed

utilizing projections of future FTE numbers for the Campus population, inclusive of students,

faculty, and staff. Table 1 details the current FTE numbers for students, faculty, and staff, as

well as presents LMU’s projections for FTEs at Proposed Project buildout.

Existing Uses and Population on the Project Site

The Campus encompasses approximately 142 acres, and is developed with a variety of

academic, administrative, athletic, and residential facilities that serve LMU’s Campus

population. The Proposed Project would not expand the Campus’ boundaries. LMU’s

enrollment for Fall 2008, the most recent semester for which enrollment figures are available,

was 6,868.4 FTE students, including 5,441.8 undergraduate FTEs and 1,426.6 graduate FTEs.

As of Fall 2008, LMU employed approximately 1,484 faculty and staff FTEs working on the

Campus, some of whom also lived on the Campus.

The Campus is accessed via two vehicular entrances: LMU Drive and Lincoln Boulevard, which

is the primary Campus entry, and Loyola Boulevard and West 80th Street, a secondary

2 Faculty/Staff FTEs: One full-time staff member works 40 hours per week. Two part-time staff members working 20

hours per week equals one full-time equivalent staff person. For faculty, one full-time faculty member is one FTE faculty member and three part-time faculty members equals one FTE faculty member.

TABLE 1FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT DATA [a]


StudentsUndergrad FTEs [c] 5,441.8 5,500

Residential 3,261 4,250Non-Residential 2,180.8 1,250

Graduate FTEs [c] 1,426.6 2,300Total Student FTEs 6,868.4 7,800

Faculty/StaffFaculty/Staff FTEs [d] 1,484.08 1,800.00

TotalTotal Campus FTEs 8,352.48 9,600.00

Notes:

[d] Faculty/Staff FTEs: One full-time staff member works 40 hours per week. Two part-time staff members working 20 hours per week equals one full-time equivalent staff person. For faculty, one full-time faculty member is one FTE faculty member and three part-time faculty members equals one FTE faculty member.

[b] Residential students are currently approximately 60% of total undergrad FTES. This is projected to grow to approximately 75% of the total of approximately 5,500 undergrad students upon Master Plan buildout.[c] Student FTEs: A student FTE is a unit of measurement used to calculate enrollment for academic and master planning purposes, as opposed to student headcount. One undergraduate student FTE is defined as one undergraduate student taking 12 course units, which represents a full course load. Students taking fewer course units are considered to constitute a fraction of a Student FTE, whereas students taking more than 12 units constitute more than one FTE. One graduate student FTE is defined as one graduate student taking 9 course units, which represents a full course load.

[a] Data Source: LMU, January 22, 2009

2008 Buildout [b]

4

ingress/egress with a keycard controlled access gate. Pedestrians and bicycles may use either

entrance.

Project Location and Study Area

The Proposed Project Site is located approximately 1.25 miles west of the Pacific Ocean, and

one mile north of the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The study area is generally

bounded by the Marina Freeway (State Route [SR] 90) to the north, the San Diego Freeway (I-

405) to the east, Westchester Parkway to the south, and Lincoln Boulevard to the west. Figure

1 shows the location of the Project Site in relation to the surrounding area and transportation

system. Primary regional access to the Proposed Project Site is provided by I-405, which runs

generally north-south in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site, and by SR-90, which runs

east-west in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site. Primary local access to the Project Site is

provided by Lincoln Boulevard, Culver, Boulevard, Jefferson Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard,

La Tijera Boulevard, and Manchester Avenue.

The study area was established in consultation with LADOT, and by reviewing the travel

patterns and the potential impacts of Proposed Project traffic. A total of 25 intersections and

five neighborhood street segments have been selected for detailed analysis in the study area.

These study intersections and neighborhood street segments are illustrated in Figure 2.

COASTAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN

The Proposed Project Site is located within the area governed by the City of Los Angeles Coastal

Transportation Corridor Specific Plan (the “Specific Plan”) (City of Los Angeles, 1993). The

Specific Plan requires that trip impact fees be paid for projects that generate more than 42 trips

in a peak hour. Trip impact fees are used to fund area transportation improvements. The

Specific Plan defines “Projects” as:

Any construction, addition, conversion, change of use, or use of land in C, M, or P zones

which requires the issuance of a building, grading or foundation permit and which results in

an increase in the number of trips as determined by the Department of Transportation.

7

The LMU Campus is located in an R zone, so the Proposed Project would not be considered a

project under the Specific Plan. Additionally, per section 6.F of the Specific Plan, non-profit

educational institutions are exempt from the trip fee requirement.

STUDY SCOPE AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES

This study analyzed the potential Proposed Project-generated traffic impacts on the street

system surrounding the Proposed Project Site. Intersection traffic impacts for the Proposed

Project were evaluated for typical weekday morning (7:00 to 10:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 to

7:00 PM) peak hours when streets adjacent to the Proposed Project Site experience their peak

utilization. The actual peak hour at each intersection varied during these time periods, but most

were close to an AM peak hour of 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM and a PM peak hour of 5:00 PM to 6:00

PM. In contrast, the peak hour for Campus trip generation was 8:30 to 9:30 AM and 6:30 to

7:30 PM. To be conservative, the Campus peak hours were applied to the intersection peak

hours. Campus trip generation is detailed in Chapter IV. Weekend periods were not evaluated

because streets adjacent to the Proposed Project Site experience lower utilization during

weekends than on weekdays. A weekend analysis would therefore present a less conservative

set of conditions to evaluate the potential for Proposed Project-related impacts than a weekday

analysis, so is unnecessary.

The following traffic scenarios were analyzed in the study:

• Existing Conditions (Year 2008) – The analysis of existing traffic conditions provides a

basis for the assessment of future traffic conditions. The existing conditions analysis

includes a description of key streets and highways, traffic volumes, and current

intersection and roadway operating conditions.

Intersection turning movement counts for the morning and afternoon peak periods for

typical weekdays and fieldwork for the analyzed intersections were collected in Spring

2007 and Fall 2008.

• Future without Project Conditions (Year 2030) – This scenario projects the future traffic

growth and intersection operating conditions that could be expected as a result of regional

growth and related projects in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site by the year 2030.

8

This analysis provides the baseline conditions by which the Proposed Project’s potential

for impacts are evaluated.

• Future with Project Conditions (Year 2030) – This analysis identifies the potential

incremental impacts of the Proposed Project on projected future traffic operating

conditions by adding the net Project-generated traffic to the Future without Project traffic

forecasts.

Intersection Capacity Analyses

Intersection capacity has been analyzed using a method that assesses the cumulative peak

hour operating conditions at each study intersection. The critical movement analysis (CMA)

methodology is required by LADOT for consistency with the Los Angeles County Congestion

Management Plan (CMP) and is used in this study. The CMA Methodology Software (CalcaDB)

developed by LADOT was used to analyze signalized intersections in this study. The 2000

Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM) methodology has been used in the study for

unsignalized intersections.

Significant Impact Criteria for Signalized Intersections

In Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (LADOT, May 2009), LADOT threshold criteria were

established to be used to determine the significant traffic impact of a proposed project on the

signalized study intersections. LADOT standards indicate that a project is considered to have a

significant traffic impact on a signalized intersection if the increase in the volume-to-capacity

(V/C) ratio attributable to the project exceeds a specific standard depending on the final

intersection level of service (LOS). LADOT has developed a sliding scale in which the minimum

allowable increase in the V/C ratio decreases as the V/C ratio increases:

Intersection Conditions with Project Traffic

LOS V/C

Project-related Increase in V/C Ratio

C 0.701 - 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.04

D 0.801 - 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.02

E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01

9

Unsignalized Intersections Analyzed for Potential Signalization

Unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the 2000 HCM stop-controlled methodology. This

method quantifies the intersection operations in terms of average vehicular delay in seconds.

LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (May 2009) directs that unsignalized intersections

not be evaluated for significant impacts.3 Rather, unsignalized intersections that are adjacent to

the project, or integral to the project’s site access and circulation, are to be analyzed for potential

signalization if, based on estimated delay, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or F

during the analyzed peak hours under Future with Project conditions.

It should be noted that the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant shall not in itself require the

installation of a signal. The decision of whether a traffic signal should be installed is made

according to the discretion of the LADOT district office.

Additional unsignalized intersections were added to this study based on requests contained in

Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters submitted by members of the Westchester area

community. The analysis of unsignalized intersections presented in this traffic study is therefore

conservative because it applies the above criteria to additional unsignalized intersections that are

not integral to the Proposed Project’s site access.

Unsignalized intersections also have been analyzed according to the methodology detailed in the

City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide. While this is no longer LADOT’s preferred

methodology for analyzing unsignalized intersections, since the City’s CEQA Thresholds Guide

has not been amended, this analysis is included in Appendix D to this report. This methodology

analyzes unsignalized intersections as if they were signalized intersections, and applies the City’s

intersection impact criteria to determine the potential for significant impacts at the unsignalized

intersections.

3 LADOT, Traffic Study Policies & Procedures (May 2009), Section F-10, Page 14

6 Headway is defined as the frequency of transit service on a particular line.

10

Significant Impact Criteria for Local Residential Streets

Under the guidelines in Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (LADOT, May 2009), a project

impact on a local residential street would be considered significant if the projected increase in

average daily traffic (ADT) volumes is as follows:

Projected Average Daily Traffic with

Project (Final ADT) Project-Related Increase in ADT

0 to 999 120 or more ADT

1,000 to 1,999 12 percent or more of final ADT


3,000 or more 8 percent or more of final ADT

11

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS

A comprehensive data collection effort was undertaken to develop a detailed analysis of existing

conditions in the study area. The assessment of conditions relevant to this study includes a

description of the study area, an inventory of the local street system in the vicinity of the Proposed

Project Site, a review of traffic volumes on these facilities, an assessment of the resulting

operating conditions, and the existing public transit service in the study area.

EXISTING STREET SYSTEM

The existing street system in the study area consists of a regional roadway system including

freeways, principal and secondary arterials, and collector and local streets. The following defines

each of the different street classifications:

• Freeways – With a controlled number of entry points and grade-separated from city streets,

freeways are intended to provide high speed regional movement.

• Major Highways-Class I – Are designed to carry more than 50,000 vehicles per day, typically

with six full-time through lanes, one median/left-turn lane, and two part-time parking lanes.

Access to abutting uses is limited.

• Major Highways-Class II – Are designed to carry 30,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day, typically

with four full-time through lanes, two part-time parking lanes, and one median/left-turn lane.

• Secondary Highways – Are designed to carry 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day, typically

with four full-time through lanes, one median/left turn lane, and two full-time parking lanes.

They supplement the through-traffic carrying characteristics of Major Highways and are

typically spaces one mile apart.

12

• Collector Streets – Are designed to carry up to 10,000 vehicles per day, typically with two

full-time through lanes, and two full time parking lanes. Collector streets allow moderate

volumes of through traffic, but provide access to abutting uses.

• Local Streets – Are designed primarily to provide access from abutting uses to the street

network. Through traffic is discouraged.

Several freeways provide regional access to and from LMU. I-405 lies approximately two miles

east of the Proposed Project Site, the Century Freeway (I-105) lies approximately three miles to

the south of Proposed Project Site, and the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) lies approximately 4.5

miles to the north of Project Site. SR-90 lies approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the Proposed

Project Site and provides limited freeway access to and from the study area. Major arterials

serving the Proposed Project Site include Lincoln Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard in the

north-south direction and Jefferson Boulevard and Manchester Avenue in the east-west direction.

These roadway facilities are described in more detail below.

Freeways

• The San Diego Freeway (I-405) runs north-south east of the Proposed Project Site and

extends from the San Fernando Valley to Orange County. In the vicinity of the study area,

the San Diego Freeway provides four lanes in each direction plus auxiliary lanes. Access

to the freeway is provided via ramps at Jefferson Boulevard, Howard Hughes Parkway, La

Tijera Boulevard, and Manchester Boulevard in the study area.

• The Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) runs east-west and extends from the City of Santa

Monica eastward past downtown Los Angeles. In the vicinity of the study area, the Santa

Monica Freeway provides four lanes in each direction plus auxiliary lanes. The

interchange closest to the Proposed Project Site is at Lincoln Boulevard.

• The Century Freeway (I-105) runs east-west and extends from LAX eastward through

southern Los Angeles to the City of Norwalk. In the vicinity of the study area, the Century

Freeway provides four lanes in each direction plus auxiliary lanes. The interchange

closest to the Proposed Project Site is at Sepulveda Boulevard.

13

• The Marina Freeway (SR-90) runs east-west and extends from the Lincoln Boulevard in

Marina del Rey eastward to Slauson Avenue in southern Culver City. In the vicinity of the

study area, the Marina Freeway provides two lanes in each direction plus auxiliary lanes.

Interchanges closest to the Proposed Project Site are at Culver Boulevard and Centinela

Avenue.

East-West Streets

• Culver Boulevard is a Class II major highway with two travel lanes in each direction

through the study area. On-street parking is not available on either side of Culver

Boulevard west of Centinela Avenue. East of Centinela Avenue, parking is available on

both sides of Culver Boulevard. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most

intersections.

• Jefferson Boulevard is a Class II major highway with three travel lanes in each direction in

the study area. On-street parking is generally not available on either side of Jefferson

Boulevard in the study area. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most intersections.

• Centinela Avenue is a Class II major highway with two to three travel lanes in each

direction in the study area. On-street parking is generally prohibited on both sides of

Centinela Avenue in the study area. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most

intersections.

• Manchester Avenue is a Class II major highway with two travel lanes in each direction in

the study area. Parking is generally permitted on both sides of the street. Dedicated Left-

turn lanes are provided at most intersections.

• West 77th Street is a local street and runs from Sepulveda Boulevard to the eastern

boundary of the Proposed Project Site. This street provides one travel lane in each

direction and parking is permitted on both sides of the street.

• West 80th Street is a collector street and runs along the southern border of Project Site

with an entrance at Loyola Boulevard. This street provides one travel lane in each

direction, and parking is permitted on both sides of the street.

14

• West 83rd Street is a collector street that runs south of the Proposed Project Site. This

street provides one travel lane in each direction and parking is permitted on both sides of

the street.

• Howard Hughes Parkway is a secondary street and runs between Sepulveda Boulevard

and ramps for the San Diego Freeway. This street provides two travel lanes in each

direction. Parking is prohibited on both sides of the street.

• La Tijera Boulevard (west of Lincoln Boulevard) is a local street that runs west of Lincoln

Boulevard to Rayford Drive south of Manchester Avenue. This street provides one travel

lane in each direction, and parking is permitted on both sides of the street.

North-South Streets

• Lincoln Boulevard is a Class I major highway in the study area and runs along the western

boundary of the Proposed Project Site. Lincoln Boulevard provides three travel lanes in

each direction plus dedicated left-turn lanes at most intersections. One hour on-street

parking is permitted between 83rd Street and Manchester Avenue. Other stretches of

Lincoln Boulevard in the study area prohibit on-street parking on both sides of the street.

• Sepulveda Boulevard is a Class I major highway with three travel lanes in each direction

through the study area. Parking is generally prohibited on both sides of Sepulveda

Boulevard in the study area with the exception of one-hour street parking during off-peak

hours south of Manchester Avenue. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most

intersections.

• Centinela Avenue is a Class II major highway with two travel lanes in each direction

extending north from Jefferson Boulevard. In the study area, parking is generally

permitted on both sides of the street. Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided at most

intersections.

15

• Loyola Boulevard is a collector street and runs south from the Proposed Project Site. This

street provides one travel lane in each direction and parking is permitted on both sides of

the street.

Table 2 provides a summary of the features of the major arterials in the study area. Lane

configurations of the study intersections are illustrated in Appendix A.

EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE

The study area is served by three local transit agencies in the form of local and express bus

service. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the City of

Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus, Culver City Bus, and the LADOT Commuter Express provide public

transit service to the study area. Figure 3 illustrates the existing transit routes that serve the study

area, and Table 3 details the hours of operation and average peak hour headways. The following

provides a brief description of the bus lines providing service in the study area:

Express Bus Lines

● Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Rapid Line 3 – Line 3 is an express Rapid bus line that travels

from the City of Santa Monica to the Metro Green Line light rail station at Aviation and

Imperial Boulevards. This line has stops in Venice Beach, Marina del Rey, and at LAX. In

the study area, this line travels along Lincoln Boulevard, with the stop at Lincoln Boulevard

& Manchester Avenue being the closest to Campus. This line has average approximate

headways6 of 15 minutes during the weekday AM and PM peak periods.

• LADOT Commuter Express Line 574 – Line CE 574 is an express bus line that travels

between the community of Sylmar in the San Fernando Valley and Redondo Beach. This

line has stops in the communities of Granada Hills, Northridge, Lake Balboa, Culver City,

El Segundo, and at LAX. Near LMU, this line travels along Sepulveda Boulevard, with a

stop at Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles from

MEDIAN SPEEDNB/EB SB/WB TYPE NB/EB SB/WB LIMIT

Lincoln Bl Culver Bl Jefferson Bl 3/4 2/4 DY NSAT NSAT 40Jefferson Bl LMU Dr 4 3/4 DY NSAT NSAT 45LMU Dr 83rd St 3 3 DY NSAT NSAT 3583rd St Manchester Av 2/3* 2/3* RM NS 7-9A, 1 Hr pkg NS 3:30-7:30P, 1 Hr pkg 35Manchester Av La Tijera Bl 3 3/2 RM NSAT NSAT 35La Tijera <and beyond> 3 3 RM NSAT NSAT 40

Loyola Bl 80th St Manchester Av 1 1 SDY PA PA 25Centinela Av Culver Bl Milton St 2 2 DY PA PA 35

Milton St Hammack St 2 2 DY NSAT NSAT 35Hammack St Lucile St 2/3* 2/3* DY NS 7-9A, 4-6P NS 7-9A, 4-6P 35Lucile St Jefferson Bl 3 3 DY NSAT NSAT 35Jefferson Bl Sepulveda Bl 3 4 RM NSAT NSAT 35Sepulveda Bl <south end> 2 2 RM NSAT NSAT 45

Sepulveda Bl Jefferson Bl Green Valley Cir 3 2 RM NSAT NSAT 35Green Valley Cir Centinela Av 3 3 RM NSAT NSAT 35Centinela Av Howard Hughes Pkwy 3/4 3 2LT NSAT NSAT 40Howard Hughes Pkwy Manchester Av 2/3 3 DY/2LT NSAT NSAT 40Manchester Av Westchester Pkwy 2 (CONST) 3 RM NSAT (CONST) NSAT 30Westchester Pkwy Lincoln Bl 2 (CONST) 3 RM NSAT (CONST) NSAT 30Lincoln Bl <south end> 4 4 RM NSAT NSAT

Culver Bl Lincoln Bl <before 90 freeway> 3 1 2LT NSAT NSAT 40<before 90 freeway> <after 90 freeway> 2 2 DY NSAT NSAT 40<after 90 freeway> Braddock Dr 2 2 2LT NSAT NSAT 40Braddock Dr Centinela Av 2 1 DY PA PA 40

Jefferson Bl Culver Bl Lincoln Bl 2 2 RM NSAT NSAT 50Lincoln Bl Alla Rd 3 3 RM/DY NSAT NSAT 45Alla Rd Centinela Av 3/4 3 RM NSAT PA/NSAT 45Centinela Av Inglewood Bl 3 3 2LT NSAT PA 45Inglewood Bl Mesmer Av 3 2 DY 4 Hr pkg 4 Hr pkg 35Mesmer Av Slauson Av 2 2 RM/DY NSAT NSAT 35Slauson Av Sepulveda Bl 3 3 RM NSAT NSAT 45

Howard Hughes Pkwy Sepulveda Bl I-405 SB Ramps 2 2 RM NSAT NSAT77th St <west end> Sepulveda Bl 1 1 SDY PA PA 2576th St Sepulveda Bl <east end> 1 1 SDY PA PA 2580th St <west end> Sepulveda Bl 1 1 SDY PA PA 30

1 1 SDY PA PA 3079th St Sepulveda Bl <east end> 1 1 SDY PA PA 3083rd St <west end> Sepulveda Bl 1 1 SDY PA PA 30

Sepulveda Bl <east end> 1 1 SDY PA PA 35Manchester Av <west end> Lincoln Bl 1 (CONST) 2 RM PA 2 Hr 8A-6P 35

Lincoln Bl Sepulveda Wy 2 2 RM PA PA 40Sepulveda Wy La Tijera 2 2 2LT PA/1 Hr 8A-6P PA/1 Hr 8A-6P 40La Tijera <east end> 2 2 RM PA PA 40

La Tijera Bl <west end> Lincoln Bl 1 1 DY NS 4-7P PA

Notes:LANES: # = Number of lanes PARKING: PA = Parking Allowed

* = Number of lanes changes on segment NSAT = No Stopping AnytimeCONST= Segment was under construction GZ = Green zone - Passenger loading and unloading

MEDIAN TYPE: DY = Double Yellow Centerline RZ = Red zone - No parking allowedSDY = Single Dashed Yellow Centerline2LT = Dual Left Turn CenterlineRM = Raised MedianUD = Undivided Lane

PARKING RESTRICTIONSLANE

TABLE 2EXISTING SURFACE STREET CHARACTERISTICS

SEGMENT FROM TO

Metro 110 Playa Vista - Bell Gardens via Jefferson Blvd - Gage Ave LOCAL 4:42 A.M.-11:17 P.M. 15-25 minutes

Metro 115 Playa Del Rey - Norwalk via Manchester Blvd, Firestone Blvd LOCAL / LIMITED STOP 4:28 A.M.-12:26 A.M.

10-12 minutes between Westchester and Southgate; 45-60 min between Playa Del

Rey and Norwalk

Metro 439 Aviation Station - Downtown LA/Union Station via LAX, Westch EXPRESS 4:55 A.M.-10:18 P.M. 40-50 minutesLADOT CE574 Sylmar to El Segundo EXPRESS 5:21 A.M.-8:45 A.M, 3:35 P.M.-7:35 P.M. 30 minutes

Big Blue Bus 3 Montana Ave & Lincoln Blvd LOCAL 5:19 A.M.-12:37 A.M 15-19 minutesBig Blue Bus R3 4th and Wilshire to Aviation Station via Lincoln Blvd RAPID 6:10 A.M. to 9 P.M. 15 minutesCulver City C6 UCLA to Aviation Station via Sepulveda Blvd LOCAL 5:25 A.M. to 12:39 A.M. 10-12 minutes

Approximate Peak Hour Headways

TABLE 3EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE

Route Hours of OperationService TypeProvider

19

Campus. This line operates only during peak hours with southbound service from the San

Fernando Valley in the morning and northbound service from Redondo Beach in the

afternoon. This line has average approximate headways of 30 minutes during the

weekday AM and PM peak periods.

● Metro Line 439– Line 439 is an express bus line that travels between downtown Los

Angeles and the Metro Green Line LAX/Aviation light rail station. This line has stops in

West Los Angeles, Culver City, and at LAX. Near LMU, this line travels along Sepulveda

Boulevard, with a stop at Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, approximately

1.5 miles from Campus. This line has average approximate headways of 50 minutes

during the weekday AM peak period and 40 minutes during the weekday PM peak period.

Local Bus Lines

• Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Line 3 – Line 3 provides local stop service between the City of

Santa Monica and the Metro Green Line light rail station at Aviation and Imperial

Boulevards. This line follows the same route as Big Blue Bus Rapid Line 3, but with more

frequent stops. This line has stops in Venice Beach, Marina del Rey, and at LAX. In the

study area, this line travels along Lincoln Boulevard with a stop at the LMU entrance at

Lincoln Boulevard and LMU Drive. This line has average approximate headways of 15 to

19 minutes during the AM and PM peak periods.

• Metro Line 110 – Line 110 provides local bus service from Bell Gardens to the community

of Playa Vista. This line has stops in Bell, Huntington Park, Florence, Hyde Park,

Inglewood, and Culver City. In the study area, this line travels along Jefferson Boulevard

north of the Playa Vista community, with the final stop at Electronic Arts Way/Jefferson

Boulevard being the closest to Campus. This line has average approximate headways of

5 to 25 minutes.

• Metro Line 115 – Line 115 provides local service between the City of Norwalk and

Westchester. This line has stops in Downey, South Gate, Florence, south Los Angeles,

and Inglewood. In the study area, it travels along Manchester Avenue to Pacific Avenue in

Playa del Rey. The stop closest to Campus is at Loyola Boulevard and Manchester

Avenue. During school days, Line 115 adds supplemental service, with two westbound

20

AM buses stopping at the Loyola Boulevard entrance to Campus on 80th Street. During

weekday AM and PM peak periods, Lines 115 operates with an average approximate

headway of 45 to 60 minutes. Service from the stop at Sepulveda Boulevard/Manchester

Avenue to the east operates with average approximate headways of 10 to 12 minutes.

• Culver City Bus Line 6 – Line 6 provides service along Sepulveda Boulevard in the study

area and travels between UCLA and the Metro Green Line light rail station at Aviation and

Imperial Boulevards. Near LMU, this line travels along Sepulveda Boulevard, with a stop

at Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles from Campus.

This line has stops in West Los Angeles, Culver City, and at LAX. This line provides

average approximate headways of 10 to 12 minutes in both directions during the weekday

AM and PM peak periods.

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

Pedestrian Facilities

Pedestrian facilities in the study area include sidewalks, pedestrian signals at signalized

intersections, and crosswalks. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street at all study

intersections, and all signalized study intersections have pedestrian signal heads and marked

crosswalks on at least two approaches. At the two Proposed Project access locations, Lincoln

Boulevard and LMU Drive, and Loyola Boulevard and 80th Street, there are sidewalks on both

sides of each street. Three of four approaches have striped crosswalks at Lincoln Boulevard and

LMU Drive, and all four approaches have striped crosswalks at Loyola Boulevard and 80th Street.

Bicycle Facilities

Two types of bicycle facilities are provided in the study area:

• Class I Bike Paths – Class I bike paths are facilities with exclusive rights-of-way

(separated from automobile traffic), with minimal points of conflict with motorists. Bike

paths provide the highest level of safety for bicyclists, and may be used either for

recreational purposes or as higher-speed commute routes.

21

• Class II Bike Lanes – Class II bike paths provide painted striping within the paved area of

streets. Bike lane stripes are intended to promote an orderly flow of traffic by establishing

specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and lanes for motor

vehicles.

The following Class I facilities are provided in the study area:

• Ballona Creek Trail from Jefferson Boulevard in Culver City along Ballona to Marina Del Rey

• From Marina Del Rey along the coast to Redondo Beach

The following Class II facilities are provided in the study area:

• Manchester Boulevard from Lincoln Boulevard to Sepulveda Boulevard

• Sepulveda Boulevard from Centinela Boulevard to Manchester Boulevard

• Westchester Parkway from Pershing Drive to La Tijera Parkway

At the time of data collection, a Class II bicycle facility was under construction on Lincoln

Boulevard between Jefferson Boulevard and LMU Drive.

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE

This section presents existing peak hour traffic volumes, describes the methodology used to

assess the traffic conditions, and analyzes the resulting operating conditions at each intersection,

indicating V/C ratios and LOS.

Existing Base Traffic Volumes

AM and PM peak hour weekday intersection turning movement traffic counts were conducted at

the following 21 analyzed intersections in March 2007:

1. Culver Boulevard & SR-90 westbound ramps

2. Culver Boulevard & SR-90 eastbound ramps

3. Lincoln Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard

22

4. Lincoln Boulevard & LMU Drive

5. Lincoln Boulevard & 83rd Street

6. Lincoln Boulevard & Manchester Avenue

7. Lincoln Boulevard & La Tijera Boulevard

8. Loyola Boulevard & 80th Street (unsignalized)

9. Loyola Boulevard & 83rd Street (unsignalized)

10. Loyola Boulevard & Manchester Avenue

11. Sepulveda Boulevard & Howard Hughes Parkway

12. Sepulveda Boulevard & 77th Street/76th Street

13. Sepulveda Boulevard & 80th Street/79th Street

14. Sepulveda Boulevard & 83rd Street

15. Sepulveda Boulevard & Manchester Avenue

16. Centinela Avenue/Campus Center Drive & Jefferson Boulevard

17. Centinela Avenue & SR-90 westbound ramps

18. Centinela Avenue & SR-90 eastbound ramps

19. I-405 southbound ramps & Jefferson Boulevard

20. I-405 northbound ramps & Jefferson Boulevard

21. Sepulveda Boulevard & Centinela Avenue

The 2007 turning movement counts at the above intersections were adjusted to 2008 conditions

by applying one year of ambient growth (0.84 percent). This ambient growth rate was derived

from the SCAG travel demand model in consultation with LADOT. A detailed discussion of the

development of the ambient growth rate is discussed in Chapter III.

In response to comments on the Proposed Project’s Notice of Preparation of an EIR, requesting

that additional intersections be analyzed, four additional intersections were counted in October

2008:

22. McConnell Avenue & West 77th Street (unsignalized)

23. Emerson Avenue & West 77th Street (unsignalized)

24. McConnell Avenue & West 80th Street (unsignalized)

25. Emerson Avenue & West 80th Street (unsignalized)

All of the study intersections are controlled by traffic signals except for six intersections:

Intersections 8 (Loyola Boulevard & 80th Street), 9 (Loyola Boulevard & 83rd Street), and 22

23

through 25 (McConnell Avenue & West 77th Street, Emerson Avenue & West 77th Street,

McConnell Avenue & West 80th Street, and Emerson Avenue & West 80th Street).

In March 2007, 24-hour average daily traffic (ADT) machine counts were conducted on the

following five neighborhood street segments:

1. West 83rd Street between Loyola Boulevard and Gonzaga Avenue

2. Loyola Boulevard between West 80th Street and West 83rd Street

3. Loyola Boulevard between West 83rd Street and West 85th Street

4. West 77th Street between Stewart Avenue & Westlawn Avenue

5. West 80th Street between Stewart Avenue & Westlawn Avenue

Figures 4A and 4B illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour volumes. Traffic counts for the

analyzed intersections and street segments are provided in Appendix B.

Neighborhood street segments are evaluated in Chapter VI.

Level of Service Methodology

Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow on the

street system, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F.

LOS definitions for signalized intersections are provided in Table 4.

There are a variety of standard methodologies to determine LOS. According to Traffic Study

Policies and Procedures (LADOT, May 2009), this study is required to use the CMA method of

intersection capacity calculation (Transportation Research Board, 1980) to analyze signalized

intersections. The CMA methodology determines the peak hour intersection V/C ratio. The V/C

ratio is then used to find the corresponding LOS based on the definitions in Table 4. The 19

signalized intersections listed above were analyzed using the CMA methodology.

The six unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the 2000 HCM All-Way Stop-Controlled

methodology. The 2000 HCM methodology determines the average vehicle delay during the peak

hour to find the corresponding LOS based on the definitions in Table 5.

TABLE 4LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

IntersectionCapacity

Level of Service Utilization 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 intersection

approaches can accommodate; may be long lines

of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.

F > 1.000 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on

cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of

vehicles out of the intersection approaches.

Tremendous delays with continuously increasing

queue lengths.

Source: Transportation Research Board.

TABLE 5LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Average Total DelayLevel of Service (seconds/vehicle)

A < 10.0

B > 10.0 and < 15.0

C > 15.0 and < 25.0

D > 25.0 and < 35.0

E > 35.0 and < 50.0

F > 50.0

Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway CapacityManual, Special Report 209, 2000.

28

Computer Traffic Signal Control

The Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) System represents an advanced

system in computer control of traffic signals. It was first put into operation in June 1984 in the

Coliseum area of the City of Los Angeles to anticipate the expected increase in traffic due to the

Summer Olympic Games, and has since been expanded to other parts of the City. The

advantages of ATSAC-controlled traffic signals are substantial, including real-time adjustment of

signal timing plans to reflect changing traffic conditions, identification of unusual traffic

conditions caused by incidents, the ability to implement special purpose short-term signal timing

changes in response to incidents, and the ability to identify signal equipment malfunctions

quickly. LADOT estimates that implementation of this system improves intersection capacity by

an average of 7 percent.

In addition to ATSAC, the Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) has been tested and

implemented along major travel corridors in the City of Los Angeles. ATCS is a computer-

based traffic signal control program that provides fully responsive traffic signal control based on

real-time traffic conditions. It automatically adjusts and optimizes traffic signal timing in

response to current traffic demands on the entire signal network such that the number of stops

and the amount of delay is minimized along with improved traffic signal coordination throughout

the network. LADOT estimates that implementation of this system improves intersection

capacity by an additional 3 percent over those operating under ATSAC alone.

All signalized study intersections operated under the ATSAC system when traffic counts were

conducted. Eight of the 19 signalized study intersections also operated under the City’s ATCS

when traffic counts were conducted. The signalized study intersections without ATCS control

when the traffic counts were conducted include:

4. Lincoln Boulevard & LMU Drive

5. Lincoln Boulevard & 83rd Street

6. Lincoln Boulevard & Manchester Avenue

7. Lincoln Boulevard & La Tijera Boulevard

10. Loyola Boulevard & Manchester Avenue

11. Sepulveda Boulevard & Howard Hughes Parkway

12. Sepulveda Boulevard & 77th/76th Street

29

13. Sepulveda Boulevard & 80th/79th Street

14. Sepulveda Boulevard & 83rd Street

15. Sepulveda Boulevard & Manchester Avenue

16. Centinela Avenue & Jefferson Boulevard

Full ATCS has been implemented at these intersections subsequent to when the traffic counts

were conducted.

Existing Levels of Service

The traffic volumes presented in Figures 4A and 4B were analyzed using the methodologies

described above to determine existing intersection operating conditions. Detailed intersection

LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix C.

Table 6 summarizes the results of the analysis of the existing weekday morning and afternoon

peak hour V/C ratio and corresponding LOS at the 19 signalized intersections. As indicated in

the table, all but four of the 19 analyzed intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS,

i.e., LOS D or better, during both peak periods. The following four intersections currently

operate at LOS E or F in the AM or PM peak periods:

4. Lincoln Boulevard & LMU Drive (AM peak hour)

5. Lincoln Boulevard & 83rd Street (AM peak hour)

12. Sepulveda Boulevard & 77th/76th Street (AM peak hour)

21. Sepulveda Boulevard & Centinela Avenue (PM peak hour)

As indicated in Table 7, the six unsignalized intersections currently operate at an acceptable

LOS.

TABLE 6EXISTING CONDITIONS (2008)

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSISSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

1. Culver Boulevard AM 0.614 BSR 90 Westbound Ramps PM 0.850 D

2. Culver Boulevard AM 0.313 ASR 90 Eastbound Ramps PM 0.429 A

3. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.856 DJefferson Boulevard PM 0.847 D

**4. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.943 ELMU Drive/Bluff Drive PM 0.791 C

**5. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.966 EWest 83rd Street PM 0.673 B

**6. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.851 DManchester Boulevard PM 0.867 D

**7. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.425 ALa Tijera Boulevard PM 0.407 A

**10. Loyola Boulevard AM 0.495 AManchester Boulevard PM 0.497 A

**11. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 0.679 BHoward Hughes Parkway PM 0.682 B

**12. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.162 FWest 77th Street PM 0.805 D

**13. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 0.877 DWest 80th Street PM 0.670 B

**14. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 0.769 CWest 83rd Street PM 0.618 B

**15. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 0.880 DManchester Boulevard PM 0.873 D

**16. Centinela Avenue AM 0.685 BJefferson Boulevard PM 0.598 A

17. Centinela Avenue AM 0.618 BSR 90 Westbound Ramps PM 0.750 C

18. Centinela Avenue AM 0.422 ASR 90 Eastbound Ramps PM 0.437 A

19. I-405 Southbound Ramps AM 0.339 AJefferson Boulevard PM 0.327 A

20. I-405 Northbound Ramps AM 0.341 AJefferson Boulevard PM 0.608 B

21. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 0.793 CCentinela Avenue PM 1.049 F

Notes:All signalized intersections operate under ATSAC and ATCS unless otherwise noted.

** Intersection does not operate under ATCS.

Intersection V/C LOSPeak Hour

TABLE 7EXISTING CONDITIONS (2008)

8. Loyola Boulevard & A.M. 9.7 AWest 80th Street P.M. 14.8 B

9. Loyola Boulevard & A.M. 11.6 BWest 83rd Street P.M. 14.2 B

22. McConnell Avenue & A.M. 7.2 AWest 77th Street P.M. 7.2 A

23. Emerson Avenue & A.M. 8.4 AWest 77th Street P.M. 8.1 A


25. Emerson Avenue & A.M. 10.4 BWest 80th Street P.M. 8.9 A

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSISUNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Peak HourIntersection Delay

(Seconds) LOS

32

III. FUTURE CONDITIONS – WITHOUT PROJECT

In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, this study

analyzes the effects of the Proposed Project in conjunction with other developments either

proposed, approved, or under construction in the study area. These development proposals

(called related projects) and the methodologies used in projecting future traffic conditions without

the Proposed Project are discussed in this chapter.

AREAWIDE TRAFFIC GROWTH

The traffic projections for Future without Project (2030) conditions reflect growth in traffic from two

primary sources: background or ambient growth of the existing traffic volumes to reflect the

effects of overall regional growth both in and outside of the study area, and traffic generated by

specific related projects in the vicinity of the study area.

Ambient Growth

An ambient growth rate was derived from the Southern California Association of Governments

(SCAG) travel demand model by comparing the number of forecasted trips in the Study Area

using the SCAG 2030 travel demand model, with the number of trips in the Study Area using the

SCAG base year travel demand model. The SCAG model projects that traffic in the Study Area

will grow 18.48 percent between the base year (2008) and the Proposed Project buildout year

(2030) for an annual growth rate of 0.84 percent. To be conservative, the growth rate was applied

in a compounded manner for a total growth of 20.2 percent above existing traffic volumes

between 2008 and 2030. LADOT affirmed the application of the compounded growth rate7.

7 LADOT approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on February 25, 2009, which stated that the 0.84%

growth rate would be used.

33

Related Project Traffic Generation and Assignment

Future without Project (2030) traffic forecasts include the effects of related projects expected to be

implemented in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site prior to the buildout of the Proposed

Project. The list of related projects was assembled in consultation with LADOT, the County of Los

Angeles, and the City of Culver City. Recent traffic studies conducted in the area were also used

to obtain related project data. A total of 60 related projects were identified in the study area.

Table 8 provides information on the land use, location, size, and trip generation estimates of these

related projects. The locations of the related projects are illustrated in Figure 5.

Trip Generation. Trip generation estimates for the related projects were calculated using a

combination of previous study findings as well as the trip generation rates contained in Trip

Generation, 7th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003).

Trip Distribution. The geographic distribution of the traffic generated by the related projects is

dependent on several factors. These factors include the type and density of the proposed land

uses, the geographic distribution of population from which employees and potential patrons of

proposed commercial developments are drawn, the locations of employment and commercial

centers to which residents of residential projects would be drawn, and the location of the projects

in relation to the surrounding street system. Due to the location of some of the more distant

related projects, some of the traffic they would generate is not expected to pass through the study

intersections.

Traffic Assignment. Using the estimated trip generation and trip distribution patterns described

above, traffic generated by the related projects was assigned to the street network. In some

cases, related project turning movement traffic volumes were applied directly to the study

intersections if recent traffic studies were available. Figures 6A and 6B illustrates Future without

Project (2030) weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the analyzed intersections.

Neighborhood street segments are evaluated in Chapter VI.

CITY DESCRIPTION

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

Condominium 98 DURetail 6.02 KSFRetail 36 KSF 2,023 45 28 73 86 93 179Apartments 71 DU 477 7 29 36 29 15 44Retail 5 KSF 215 3 2 5 9 10 19Apartments 19 DU 128 2 8 10 8 4 12

4 Live/work units 13340 Washington Boulevard Culver City Condominium 41 DU 417 5 13 18 19 13 325 Commercial & retail development 13322 Washington Boulevard Culver City Commercial 4.257 SF 896 15 9 24 38 41 79

Apartments 24 DU 161 2 10 12 10 5 15Retail 4.024 KSF 173 2 2 4 7 8 15

7 Four-unit condominium 4025 Wade Street Culver City Condominium 4 DU 23 0 2 2 1 1 2Retail 12.07 KSF 518 7 5 12 22 23 45Apartments 78 DU 524 8 32 40 38 10 48Retail 2.359 KSF 101 1 1 2 4 5 9Office 0.950 KSF 10 1 0 1 0 1 1Apartments 2.000 DU 13 0 1 1 1 0 1

10 Retirement Facility 4445 Admiralty Way Marina Del Rey Retirement Home 114 DU 320 13 8 21 16 17 3311 Villa Marina Mixed Use Development 4350 Lincoln Boulevard Los Angeles Condominium 230 DU 1,817 34 102 136 126 91 21712 Demolition of restaurant/build retail 13525 Mindanao Way Marina Del Rey Demolition of restaurant/build retail 0 0 0 0 0 0 013 Demolition of gas station/Make Park 4676 Admiralty Way Marina Del Rey Demolition of gas station/Make Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 014 Neptune Apartments 13800 Tahiti Wy Marina Del Rey Apartments 526 DU 3,535 54 214 268 209 112 32115 Bankfield Warehouse 5722 Bankfield Avenue Culver City Warehouse 40 KSF 198 15 3 18 5 14 1916 Westfield Fox Hills Mall expansion 200 Fox Hills Mall Culver City Shopping Center 293.786 KSF 2,727 0 0 0 126 135 26117 Fire Station 6030 Bristol Parkway Culver City Fire Station 12.156 KSF 141 20 2 22 3 18 21

Office 240.612 KSFRetail 4.242 KSF

19 Symantec Office multiphase development 800 Corporate Pointe Culver City Office 550 KSF 4,910 675 51 726 70 626 696

20 Westchester Neighborhood School expansion 5401 Beethoven Street Los Angeles School 420 Additional Students 775 162 132 294 31 35 66

Residential 3,246 DURetail 25 KSFOffice/Studio 1,570 KSFCommunity Serving 65 KSFStages 332.50 KSFProduction/Stage Support 797.40 KSFOffice 572.05 KSFOffice 175 KSFResidential 2,600 DURetail (Neighborhood) 150 KSFCommunity Serving 40 KSF

24 215 unit condominium 5550 Grosvenor Boulevard Los Angeles Condominium 215 DU 1,260 24 71 95 65 47 11225 Radisson Office tower 6161 Centinela Boulevard Culver City Office 300 KSF 3,109 398 54 452 71 344 41526 Marina Honda Car Sales 5850 Centinela Avenue Los Angeles New Car Sales 42.391 KSF 407 19 6 25 22 34 56

27 Westchester Lutheran School expansion 7831 Sepulveda Boulevard Los Angeles School 600 Additional Students 250 35 29 64 15 17 32

Retail/Restaurant 31 KSFApartment 539 DU

29 Western Federal Credit Union 8632 South Sepulveda Boulevard Los Angeles Bank 3.621 KSF N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 25 5030 Los Angeles International Airport expansion (Alt D) Los Angeles Airport Expansion N/A N/A N/A 11,517 8,641 20,158 9,291 11,917 21,20831 Century Pacific Hotel 6225 West Century Boulevard Los Angeles Hotel 180 DU 3,188 49 197 246 166 89 25532 Demo. 202 units; construct 544 units 4160 Admiralty Way (Parcels 100, 101) Marina Del Rey Apartments 342 DU 2,298 35 139 174 136 73 20933 Central Region Elementary School No. 22 Playa Vista Drive & Bluff Creek Drive Los Angeles School 650 Seats 839 123 98 221 0 0 0

Hotel 132 RMRestaurant 1,230 SeatsRetail 24 KSFOffice 5 KSFBoat Slip 26 SlipsRetail (to be removed) -12.984 KSFRestaurant (to be removed) -16.149 KSFBoat Slip (to be removed) -17 SlipsMulti-family Residential 478 DURestaurant 0.5 KSFBoat Slip 34 SlipsApartment (to be removed) -224 DU

36 123 unit apartment 330 W Washington Blvd Marina Del Rey Apartment 123 DU 827 13 50 63 56 30 86Apartment 72 DURestaurant 368 SeatsRetail 16.352 KSFOffice 7.888 KSFOffice (to be removed) -9.180 KSFRestaurant (to be removed) -165 SeatsSpecialty Retail 6.236 KSFSpecialty Retail (to be removed) 5.750 KSF

39 147 room hotel S/s Admiralty Wy, E/s Via Marina (Parcel IR) Marina Del Rey Hotel 147 rm 1,201 50 32 82 23 29 52

1 0 1 1Specialty Retail 514-586 Washington Bl btw. Via Marina/Palawan Wy Marina Del Rey 18

42 65 77 58

76 93 58 30

101

2,649 329 45 374 61 298 359

81 108

Culver City

59 42

Culver City

1,550 27

Culver City

4004 South Lincoln Boulevard Los Angeles

Culver City11501 Washington Boulevard

Culver City

Culver City

8

9

Lincoln Boulevard Mixed-Use Project1

13424 Washington Boulevard2

3

6

Encore Mixed-use

12337 Washington Boulevard



The Olson Co. Mixed-use

West-Culver Lofts

Glencoe/Washington mixed-use development

TABLE 8RELATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

NET DAILY

TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATESA.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOURID PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION LAND USE

Playa Vista Phase I21 Jefferson Boulevard Los Angeles

18 Office & retail building 700 Corporate Pointe

Mixed-use

2,464 1,328 3,792 1,541 2,462 4,00328,257

22 Playa Vista Plant Site (Spruce Goose) Bluff Creek Drive Los Angeles N/A 1,456 1,526198 1,654 259 1,267

23 Playa Vista Phase II (The Village) Jefferson Boulevard Los Angeles 1,275 1,027 2,30224,220 577 1,049 1,626

57 98 114Marina Del Rey 2,375 4134 W/o Fiji Wy near terminus Fisherman's Village (Parcels 55,56,W)Fisherman's Village Project

35 Villa Venetia Project Southern terminus of Fiji Wy (Parcel 64)

2

95 209

88

114 -9 10528 Decron Mixed-Use Development 8601 Lincoln Boulevard

38

37 Mixed-use S/s Washington Bl btw. Via Marina/Via Dolce (P

Marina Del Rey 1,106 17

Marina Del Rey 1360 23

899 -126 128Los Angeles

135

1 2

CITY DESCRIPTION

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

TABLE 8RELATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

NET DAILY

TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATESA.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOURID PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION LAND USE

Apartment 179 DUApartment (to be removed) -64 DUHotel 111 RMHotel (to be removed) -42 RMCongregate Care Retirement Facility 114 DURetail 5 KSFMarine Commercial Office 6 KSFHealth Club (to be removed) -6 KSFApartment 526 DUHotel 288 RMBoat Slip 174 SlipsPublic Park 1.46 AcresApartment (to be removed) -136 DUBoat Slip (to be removed) -184 Slips

44 600 unit condominium 4333 Admiralty Wy Marina Del Rey Condominium 600 du 3,516 45 219 264 134 62 196Apartment 351 duRetail 24,300 sfRestaurant 266 stRestaurant (to be removed) -1,067 stApartment 940 duSenior Apartment 82 duSpecialty Retail 4,000 sfCommercial 6,000 sfBoat Slip 439 sl

47 Apartment expansion 4500 Via Marina Marina Del Rey Apartment (expansion) 120 du 806 12 49 61 27 12 3948 Retail W/o Lincoln Bl N/o Fiji Wy (Parcels 50, 83) Marina Del Rey Specialty Retail [b] 4,700 sf 208 4 2 6 9 12 21

Condominium 158 duSpecialty Retail 3,178 sfOffice 30,400 sfSpecialty Retail 9,300 sfCondominium 244 duShopping Center 9,000 sfShopping Center (to be removed) -21,038 sfApartment 298 duLight Manufacturing (to be removed) -24,000 sfOffice (to be removed) -21,600 sfAuto Service/Repair (to be removed) -40,000 sf

53 Bank 13400 W. Washington Bl Marina Del Rey Walk-in Bank 4,300 sf 673 10 8 18 36 36 72Specialty Retail 5,000 sfCondominium 19 du

55 140 unit condominium 4055, 4063, 4071 S. Redwood Av Marina Del Rey Condominium 140 du 820 11 51 62 65 33 9856 118 unit condominium 4155 Redwood Av Marina Del Rey Condominium 118 du 691 9 43 52 56 27 83

Live/Work 12 duApartment 12 duCondominium 70 duSpecialty Retail 11,600 sfDry Stack Storage Facility 345 vesselMast Up Storage Space 30 vesselSheriff Boatwright Facility 1,500 sfElementary School 30,000 sfMedical Office (to be removed) -13,800 sf

Total: 115,363 18,505 14,232 32,737 15,202 19,660 34,872

Notes: 16,900 11,517 28,417 12,486 17,404 29,890N/A - Not Available

Source Data:Projects 1, 11, 22, 26, 28-31, 33: City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, 2007Projects 10, 12-16, 34: Los Angeles County, August 2008.Projects 2-9, 17, 19-21, 27: City of Culver City, April 2007. Verified August 2008.Project 18: "Revised Traffic Study for the Expansion of Westfield Shoppingtown Fox Hills Culver City, California," Kaku Associates, April 2005Project 32: "Supplemental Off-Airport Surface Transportation Technical Report," Parsons Transportation Group, June 2003Project 23-24: "Playa Vista Traffic Impact Assessment Culver City Agreement-Third Amendment," Kaku Associates, May 2002Project 25: "The Village at Playa Vista Transportation Plan Environmental Impact Report," Kaku Associates, July 2003Project 35: AM trips from "Central Region Elementary School No. 22 Draft Environmental Impact Report," Terry A. Hayes Associates LLC, September 2008. Daily trips from "Trip Generation, 7th Edition" ITE, 2003Projects 36-60: City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, November 2008

E/o Palawan Wy btw Washington Bl/Admiralty Wy (Parcel OT); N/s Panay Wy, E/o Via Marina(Parcel 21)

E/o Via Marina & S/o Panay Wy (Parcels 10R, FF, 9U)

S/s Admiralty Wy, E/s Palawan Wy (Parcel 33/NR)

E/s Via Marina btw Panay Wy/Marquesas Wy (Parcels 12, 15)

40 179 unit apartment NWC Admiralty Wy/Palawan Wy (Parcel 140)

54

41 111 room hotel SWC Admiralty Wy & Palawan Wy (Parcel 27)

49

Mixed-use

Mixed-use

Mixed-use

Mixed-use

Mixed-use

Elementary School

Mixed-use

57

58

59

60

50

51

52

42

43

45

46

Mixed-use

Apartment & Live/Work

Mixed-use

Mixed-use

Mixed-use

Mixed-use

12801-23 Washington Bl

12337-12449 Washington Bl

N/s Fiji Wy, W/o Admiralty Wy (Parcel 52/GG)

4363 Lincoln Blvd

12402 Washington Pl

E/o Lincoln Bl btw SR-90 & Maxella Av

NWC Princeton Dr/Carter Av

12099 Washington Bl

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

13365 Washington Bl

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

417 7 33 40 22 15 37

564 23 15 38 11 13 24

387 9 3 12 10 20 30

3,104 87 166 253 132 86 228

1,145 40 144 184

1,785 31 140 171

53 18 71

-10 32 22

106 46 152

386 0 47 47

747 48 10 58 19 51 70

903 11 84 95 73 10 83

860 -70 103 33 47 -79 -32

333 5 9 14 13 11 24

162 2 10 12 10 6 16

924 13 32 45 59 48 107

1,081 16 31 47 18 33 51

-64 49 58 107 25 15 40

39

FUTURE BASELINE INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

All signalized intersections will operate under both the ATSAC system and the ATCS under future

conditions. The future baseline intersection and roadway improvements that follow have been

included in the analysis of future conditions. Subsequent to the collection of the existing traffic

counts, Fehr & Peers conducted intersection field work, and determined that the following

roadway improvements have been implemented:

#3 Lincoln Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard

Intersection widened to provide an additional northbound and southbound through lane, and an

additional eastbound through lane. Signal improved to provide a southbound right-turn overlap

phase.

#4 Lincoln Boulevard & LMU Drive/Bluff Creek Drive

Intersection widened to provide two additional northbound through lanes and one additional

southbound through lane.

#5 Lincoln Boulevard & West 83rd Street

Intersection widened to provide an additional northbound through lane, and a second eastbound

left-turn only lane.

#6 Lincoln Boulevard & Manchester Avenue

Intersection widened to provide an additional northbound through lane, and a second eastbound

and a second westbound left-turn only lane.

40

#13 Sepulveda Boulevard & West 80th Street/West 79th Street

Intersection widened and re-striped to provide a left-turn only lane, a through lane, and a right-turn

only lane eastbound, as well as a left-turn only lane and a through/right lane westbound.

#15 Sepulveda Boulevard & Manchester Avenue

Intersection widened to provide a southbound right-turn only lane.

While other study area improvements have not been programmed, it is likely that several could be

implemented in the study area before full project buildout at 2030. Possible sources of transit and

roadway improvements include:

• Metro Green Line Extension on Lincoln Boulevard

• Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan Update

These improvements would reduce traffic congestion and improve LOS in the study area.

Because these additional improvements are likely but not assumed in this traffic study, projections

of future baseline operating conditions in this study are conservative estimates.

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Consistent with the analysis of existing conditions, the future operating condition of signalized

study intersections was analyzed using the CMA methodology per LADOT guidelines. The

projected Future without Project (2030) intersection operating conditions during the morning and

afternoon peak hours are presented in Table 9. As indicated in Table 9, five of 19 analyzed

signalized intersections operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. The following 14

signalized intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or F during one or both peak hours:

1. Culver Boulevard & SR-90 westbound ramps (PM peak hour)

3. Lincoln Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard (both peak hours)

5. Lincoln Boulevard & 83rd Street (AM peak hour)

TABLE 9FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS (2030)


1. Culver Boulevard AM 0.754 CSR 90 Westbound Ramps PM 1.101 F

2. Culver Boulevard AM 0.413 ASR 90 Eastbound Ramps PM 0.597 A

3. Lincoln Boulevard AM 1.157 FJefferson Boulevard PM 1.129 F

4. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.731 CLMU Drive/Bluff Drive PM 0.829 D

5. Lincoln Boulevard AM 1.003 FWest 83rd Street PM 0.895 D

6. Lincoln Boulevard AM 1.052 FManchester Boulevard PM 1.043 F

7. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.620 BLa Tijera Boulevard PM 0.672 B

10. Loyola Boulevard AM 0.578 AManchester Boulevard PM 0.654 B

11. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.044 FHoward Hughes Parkway PM 1.042 F

12. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.549 FWest 77th Street PM 1.144 F

13. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.169 FWest 80th Street PM 0.911 E

14. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.071 FWest 83rd Street PM 0.905 E

15. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.220 FManchester Boulevard PM 1.264 F

16. Centinela Avenue AM 1.331 FJefferson Boulevard PM 1.552 F

17. Centinela Avenue AM 0.976 ESR 90 Westbound Ramps PM 1.051 F

18. Centinela Avenue AM 0.659 BSR 90 Eastbound Ramps PM 0.694 B

19. I-405 Southbound Ramps AM 1.047 FJefferson Boulevard PM 1.070 F

20. I-405 Northbound Ramps AM 0.958 EJefferson Boulevard PM 1.183 F

21. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.387 FCentinela Avenue PM 1.621 F

Note:All signalized intersections will operate under ATSAC and ATCS in the future.

V/C LOSIntersection Peak Hour

42

6. Lincoln Boulevard & Manchester Avenue (both peak hours)

11. Sepulveda Boulevard & Howard Hughes Parkway (both peak hours)

12. Sepulveda Boulevard & 77th Street/76th Street (both peak hours)


14. Sepulveda Boulevard & 83rd Street (both peak hours)

15. Sepulveda Boulevard & Manchester Avenue (both peak hours)

16. Centinela Avenue/Campus Center Drive & Jefferson Boulevard (both peak hours)

17. Centinela Avenue & SR-90 westbound ramps (both peak hours)

19. I-405 southbound ramps & Jefferson Boulevard (both peak hours)

20. I-405 northbound ramps & Jefferson Boulevard (both peak hours)

21. Sepulveda Boulevard & Centinela Avenue (both peak hours)

As indicated in Table 10, all unsignalized intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable

LOS under Future without Project (2030) conditions.

TABLE 10FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS (2030)

8. Loyola Boulevard & A.M. 10.9 BWest 80th Street P.M. 23.2 C

9. Loyola Boulevard & A.M. 15.0 BWest 83rd Street P.M. 22.5 C






Peak Hour

Delay(Seconds) LOSIntersection

44

IV. FUTURE CONDITIONS – WITH PROJECT

This chapter describes the findings of the analysis of the transportation system in the study area

in the future with full development of the Proposed Project under the assumptions and

methodologies required by LADOT. These assumptions result in the assessment of a

conservative set of conditions based on the projections and assumptions outlined in this study.

The planning horizon for these analyses is the year 2030, corresponding with the buildout year of

the Project.

PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

The development of trip generation estimates for the Proposed Project involves the use of a three-

step process similar to that discussed above for the related projects. The three steps are trip

generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment.

Project Trip Generation

As described, because of the long-term nature of the Proposed Project, the exact location and

configuration of proposed buildings and facilities have not been finalized, and will be determined

based on the evolving needs of LMU and available funding over the next 20 years. Additionally,

much of the Proposed Project’s construction activity is related to the replacement of

substandard or obsolete buildings. In many cases, new buildings will be larger than the existing

structures they are replacing, but will still support a similar number of users as the existing

facilities. Therefore, square footage per Campus resident is expected to increase and gross

square footage of net new development is less likely to determine Campus trip generation than

the growth of the Campus population itself. The Proposed Project trip generation analysis uses

the incremental increase of FTEs from the current 8,352.48 Campus FTEs (which includes

6,868.4 student FTEs and 1484.08 faculty and staff FTEs) to the projected 9,600.0 Campus

45

FTEs (which includes 7,800 student FTEs and 1800 faculty and staff FTEs) - a growth of

1,247.52 Campus FTEs, inclusive of students, faculty, and staff.

To develop trip rates per Campus FTE, a trip generation study was conducted in October 2008.

Three days of 24-hour ADT machine counts were collected at both Campus driveways: LMU

Drive east of Lincoln Boulevard and Loyola Boulevard north of West 80th Street.

The traffic volumes from both entrances were summed, and the day with the highest daily trips,

as well as the highest AM and PM peak hours across the three days of counts, were selected

for the purposes of developing conservative trip rates per Campus FTE. Detailed count sheets

are provided in Appendix B.

As indicated in Tables 11 and 12, 17,015 total trips were counted on the day with the highest

number of daily trips, equivalent to a daily trip generation rate of 2.037 trips per Campus FTE.

1,197 trips were counted in the maximum AM peak hour, equivalent to a morning peak hour trip

generation rate of 0.143 trips per Campus FTE. 1,524 trips were counted in the maximum PM

peak hour, equivalent to an afternoon peak hour trip generation rate of 0.182 trips per Campus

FTE.

In Table 12, these trip generation rates were applied to future projections of Campus FTEs.

Based on 9,600.0 Campus FTEs at Proposed Project buildout in 2030, the Campus would

generate 19,555 daily trips, including 1,373 and 1,747 AM and PM peak hour trips, respectively.

However, as described, the Project proposes to house a greater percentage of LMU

undergraduate students on Campus, increasing the proportion of residential students from

approximately 60 to 75 percent of undergraduate FTE students. Because this would reduce the

percentage of the Campus population that commutes to LMU, this increase in the proportion of

undergraduate FTEs that live on Campus would reduce daily and peak hour trip generation

rates per Campus FTE. A trip generation analysis was conducted that quantifies the effects of

this increase in undergraduate residential FTEs on the number of trips generated at Proposed

Project buildout. To be conservative, this alternative trip generation has not been used in the

analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential for impacts. This conservative approach was

affirmed by LADOT8.

8 LADOT approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on February 25, 2009, which included approval of the

trip generation methodology and derived trip rates.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourIn Out Total In Out Total

Rates Developed from Empirical Counts [a] 8,352.48 Campus FTE 2.037 83% 17% 0.143 47% 53% 0.182

Note:[a] 2008 trip generation rates based on highest daily and peak hour traffic volume from data gathered 10/21/2008 - 10/23/2008.

TABLE 11TRIP GENERATION RATES

TRIP RATES Size Daily

AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour TripsIn Out Total In Out Total

Existing (Year 2008) 8,352.48 Campus FTE 17,015 994 203 1,197 709 815 1,524

Buildout (Year 2030) 9,600.00 Campus FTE 19,555 1,140 233 1,373 821 926 1,747

TOTAL NET NEW VEHICLE TRIPS (2008 - 2030) 2,540 146 30 176 112 111 223

Note:2008 Trip Generation rates based on highest traffic volume for daily, AM Peak, and PM Peak periods from data gathered 10/21/2008 - 10/23/2008.

TABLE 12TRIP GENERATION

Year Campus Population Daily Trips

48

To determine the incremental increase in trips at Proposed Project buildout, existing traffic counts

were subtracted from the projected buildout (2030) trips, netting 2,540 daily trips, 176 AM peak

hour trips, and 223 PM peak hour trips. These net trips have been applied to the street system for

the purposes of determining the Proposed Project’s potential for traffic impacts.

Project Trip Distribution

Proposed Project trip distribution was developed by the analysis of the current zip code

distribution of the home addresses of the commuting segment of the Campus population

(commuter students, faculty, and staff). Based on the location of each zip code where one or

more members of the commuting Campus population reside, the shortest route to the Campus

was determined. Depending on the zip code, these routes may travel on regional facilities such

as the I-405, or they may utilize the arterial street network. The general distribution pattern for this

study was developed in consultation with LADOT during the MOU process. Proposed Project

distribution is illustrated in Figure 7. As illustrated in the figure, 46 percent of Campus commuters

utilize regional freeway facilities to travel to Campus, including 10 percent from freeways to the

north (I-405), 21 percent on freeways from the east (I-10 and I-105), and 15 percent on freeways

from the south (I-405). The remaining 54 percent of Campus commuters travel to Campus on the

arterial roadway network, with 23 percent from roadways to the north, 15 percent from roadways

to south, 7 percent from roadways to the east, and 9 percent from roadways to the west.

Project Trip Assignment

The trips estimated to be generated by the Proposed Project were assigned to the street network

using the distribution pattern described above. Where there were several possible routes from a

given direction to Campus (such as Jefferson Boulevard or Manchester Boulevard from the east),

the characteristics of the streets within the study area, such as functional classification, roadway

capacity, and the level of accessibility of routes to and from concentrations of residential and

commercial activity, were used to assign Proposed Project traffic through the street network.

Figures 8A and 8B detail the Project-only traffic volumes assigned at the study intersections.

Neighborhood street segments are evaluated below in Chapter VI.

52

INTERSECTION OPERATING CONDITIONS

The Project-only traffic volumes were added to Future without Project (2030) traffic volumes to

develop Future with Project (2030) traffic forecasts for the AM and PM peak hours. The Future

with Project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 9A and 9B. Consistent with the analysis of

Existing and Future without Project conditions, signalized study intersection operations were

analyzed using the CMA methodology. The projected Future with Project (2030) intersection

operating conditions during the morning and afternoon peak hours are presented in Table 13.

As indicated in the table, five of the 19 signalized intersections are projected to operate at LOS

D or better during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The following 14 signalized

intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or F during one or both peak hours:

1. Culver Boulevard & SR-90 westbound ramps (PM peak hour)

3. Lincoln Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard (both peak hours)

5. Lincoln Boulevard & 83rd Street (both peak hours)

6. Lincoln Boulevard & Manchester Avenue (both peak hours)

11. Sepulveda Boulevard & Howard Hughes Parkway (both peak hours)



14. Sepulveda Boulevard & 83rd Street (both peak hours)

15. Sepulveda Boulevard & Manchester Avenue (both peak hours)

16. Centinela Avenue/Campus Center Drive & Jefferson Boulevard (both peak hours)

17. Centinela Avenue & SR-90 westbound ramps (both peak hours)

19. I-405 southbound ramps & Jefferson Boulevard (both peak hours)

20. I-405 northbound ramps & Jefferson Boulevard (both peak hours)

21. Sepulveda Boulevard & Centinela Avenue (both peak hours)

As indicated in Table 14, all unsignalized intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable

LOS.

Appendix D details the results of the analysis of unsignalized intersections according to the

methodology required by the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide. Based on this

analysis there would be no Project impacts at any of the analyzed unsignalized intersections.

Intersection Project SignificantPeak Increase ProjectHour V/C LOS V/C LOS in V/C Impact

1. Culver Boulevard AM 0.754 C 0.754 C 0.000 NOSR 90 Westbound Ramps PM 1.101 F 1.104 F 0.003 NO

2. Culver Boulevard AM 0.413 A 0.414 A 0.001 NOSR 90 Eastbound Ramps PM 0.597 A 0.599 A 0.002 NO

3. Lincoln Boulevard AM 1.157 F 1.168 F 0.011 YESJefferson Boulevard PM 1.129 F 1.143 F 0.014 YES

4. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.731 C 0.755 C 0.024 NOLMU Drive/Bluff Drive PM 0.829 D 0.846 D 0.017 NO

5. Lincoln Boulevard AM 1.003 F 1.012 F 0.009 NOWest 83rd Street PM 0.895 D 0.901 E 0.006 NO

6. Lincoln Boulevard AM 1.052 F 1.058 F 0.006 NOManchester Boulevard PM 1.043 F 1.051 F 0.008 NO

7. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.620 B 0.624 B 0.004 NOLa Tijera Boulevard PM 0.672 B 0.675 B 0.003 NO

10. Loyola Boulevard AM 0.578 A 0.595 A 0.017 NOManchester Boulevard PM 0.654 B 0.678 B 0.024 NO

11. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.044 F 1.045 F 0.001 NOHoward Hughes Parkway PM 1.042 F 1.045 F 0.003 NO

12. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.549 F 1.549 F 0.000 NOWest 77th Street PM 1.144 F 1.147 F 0.003 NO

13. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.169 F 1.171 F 0.002 NOWest 80th Street PM 0.911 E 0.916 E 0.005 NO

14. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.071 F 1.078 F 0.007 NOWest 83rd Street PM 0.905 E 0.911 E 0.006 NO

15. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.220 F 1.229 F 0.009 NOManchester Boulevard PM 1.264 F 1.271 F 0.007 NO

16. Centinela Avenue AM 1.331 F 1.342 F 0.011 YESJefferson Boulevard PM 1.552 F 1.555 F 0.003 NO

17. Centinela Avenue AM 0.976 E 0.984 E 0.008 NOSR 90 Westbound Ramps PM 1.051 F 1.057 F 0.006 NO

18. Centinela Avenue AM 0.659 B 0.663 B 0.004 NOSR 90 Eastbound Ramps PM 0.694 B 0.694 B 0.000 NO

19. I-405 Southbound Ramps AM 1.047 F 1.051 F 0.004 NOJefferson Boulevard PM 1.070 F 1.072 F 0.002 NO

20. I-405 Northbound Ramps AM 0.958 E 0.960 E 0.002 NOJefferson Boulevard PM 1.183 F 1.185 F 0.002 NO

21. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.387 F 1.390 F 0.003 NOCentinela Avenue PM 1.621 F 1.623 F 0.002 NO


Future Base Future with Project

TABLE 13FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (2030)


TABLE 14FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (2030)

8. Loyola Boulevard & A.M. 11.8 BWest 80th Street P.M. 32.7 D

9. Loyola Boulevard & A.M. 16.4 CWest 83rd Street P.M. 26.8 D





Note:

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO


Intersection Analyze for Signal Warrants? [a]

Peak Hour

NO

Future with Project

Delay(Seconds)

[a] Per Traffic Studies Policies and Procedures, LADOT, May 2009, signal warrant analysis is only required for intersections projected to operate at LOS E or F under Future with Project conditions.

LOS

57

V. INTERSECTION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

This traffic impact analysis compares the projected levels of service at each study intersection

under Future without Project (2030) and Future with Project (2030) conditions to determine the

incremental increase in the V/C ratio attributed to the trips generated by the Proposed Project.

This incremental increase in V/C ratio is evaluated for significance according to significant impact

criteria established by LADOT.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT

As each of the study intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles,

significance criteria established by the City were used to assess the potential for significant

Project impacts at each of the signalized study intersections.

Significant Impact Criteria for Signalized Intersections

As discussed in Chapter I, LADOT has established threshold criteria used to determine the

significant traffic impact of a proposed project on the signalized study intersections. LADOT

standards indicate that a project is considered to have a significant traffic impact on a signalized

intersection if the increase in the V/C ratio attributable to the project exceeds a specific standard

depending on the final intersection LOS. LADOT has developed a sliding scale in which the

minimum allowable increase in the V/C ratio decreases as the V/C ratio increases:

Intersection Conditions with Project Traffic

LOS V/C

Project-related Increase in V/C Ratio

C 0.701 - 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.04

D 0.801 - 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.02 E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01

58

PROJECT INTERSECTION IMPACTS

As shown in Table 13, using the significant impact criteria outlined above, the Proposed Project is

expected to result in significant traffic impacts at two intersections at Proposed Project buildout in

Year 2030:

3. Lincoln Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard (AM and PM peak hours)

16. Centinela Avenue/Campus Center Drive & Jefferson Boulevard (AM peak hour)

IMPACT TRIP THRESHOLDS

Because the analysis year for Proposed Project buildout is 2030, an interim amount of Proposed

Project growth could occur before impacts at these intersections would be triggered. A sensitivity

test was conducted to determine the interim threshold at which the Proposed Project would trigger

impacts. The threshold was determined to be 150 net new peak hour trips. Once the Proposed

Project generates more than 150 net new peak hour trips, these significant impacts would be

triggered.

However, the impact analysis conducted above did not account for the increase in on-campus

residents as proposed in the Project. Because this would reduce the percentage of the Campus

population that commutes to LMU, this increase in the proportion of undergraduate FTEs that

live on Campus would reduce daily and peak hour trip generation rates per Campus FTE,

essentially acting as a TDM measure. A trip generation analysis was conducted to quantify the

TDM effects of this increase in undergraduate residential FTEs, and is detailed below.

CAMPUS RESIDENT TRIP GENERATION STUDY

Currently, approximately 60% of undergraduate residential student FTEs live in Campus

housing. This is projected to grow to approximately 75% at Proposed Project buildout.

Because on-Campus residents are much less likely to travel during the AM and PM peak hours

than Campus commuters, the effects of increasing the Campus residential population would be

59

to lower the overall Campus trip generation rate, acting as a TDM measure that would reduce

net new Proposed Project trips.

To quantify the TDM effects of increasing the number of Campus undergraduate residential

units, a trip generation survey of the Del Rey parking facility was conducted in the Fall 2008

semester to assess the trip rates of residential undergraduate students at LMU. Located in the

northeast corner of Campus adjacent to Parking Lot H, Del Rey is an underground parking

facility with 169 parking spaces beneath the Del Rey dormitories shown in Figure 10. Due to

the proximity to dorms, the vast majority of spaces in the structure are utilized by residential

students. Because the cars that park in the Del Rey facility are primarily Campus residents, the

facility is an effective sample to assess the trip-making characteristics of a Campus resident.

The survey determined the trip rates for undergraduate residents by assessing the number of

unique vehicles using the facility registered to Campus residents, and the corresponding

Campus resident AM and PM trip generation rates. Because resident vehicles have registration

stickers, it was possible to count just those vehicles in developing the resident trip rate. The

results of the survey, presented in Table 15, indicated a Campus resident trip generation rate of

0.048 trips per resident student FTE in the AM peak, and 0.105 trips per resident student FTE in

the PM peak. The daily trip rate of 1.050 trips per resident student FTE was developed by

factoring the PM Peak Hour rate by 10, an industry standard factor used to estimate daily trips

from peak hour trips. Del Rey trip generation counts are presented in Appendix B.

These rates were multiplied by the base year residential undergraduate student FTEs (3,261 in

fall semester 2008) to estimate the total number of residential student trips. Based on this

analysis, 157 AM peak, 342 PM peak, and 3,424 daily trips in the base year have been

estimated to be attributable to on-campus residents. The remaining trips in the base year would

be attributable to Campus commuters. The Campus commuter trip generation rates of 0.204

AM peak, 0.232 PM peak, and 2.669 daily trips per Campus commuter FTE were calculated by

dividing the trips remaining (after subtracting the resident student trips) by the number of

Campus commuter FTEs.

In Table 15, these rates have been applied to Campus FTEs at Proposed Project buildout to

quantify the effects of increasing the number of residential student FTEs. Net new trips at

Proposed Project buildout would drop to 98 AM peak, 164 PM peak, and 1,727 daily trips at

AM PM DAILY AM PM DAILYResidential Trip Generation [a]Undergrad Residential Students 3,261 0.048 0.105 1.050 157 342 3,424

Commuter Trip Generation [b]Undergrad Non-Residential Students 2,180.8Graduate Students 1426.6Faculty/Staff 1,484.08

Total Commuter 5,091.48

Campus Total Trip GenerationTotal Campus FTEs 8,352.48 1,197 1,524 17,015

AM PM DAILY AM PM DAILY AM PM DAILYResidential Trip Generation [a]Undergrad Residential Students 4,250 0.048 0.105 1.050 204 446 4,463 47 104 1,039

Commuter Trip Generation [b]Undergrad Non-Residential Students 1,250 255 290 3,336Graduate Students 2,300 469 534 6,139Faculty/Staff 1,800.00 367 418 4,804

Total Commuter 5,350 1,091 1,242 14,279

Campus Total Trip Generation 9,600 1,295 1,688 18,742 98 164 1,727

Buildout Trip Generation (Not Accounting for Increase in Residential) 176 223 2,540

Net Difference (78) (59) (813)

688

2.6690.204

0.204 0.232 2.669 51

Master Plan Buildout (2030)Net Trips

FTEs

FTEsTrip Rates

(Residential/Commuter FTE) Total Trips

60

Trip Rates (Residential/Commuter FTE) Total Trips

0.232 1,1821,040 13,591

TABLE 15TRIP GENERATION WITH RESIDENTIAL RATES


Base Year (2008)

62

Proposed Project buildout in 2030, when accounting for the effects of increasing on-Campus

residents to 4,250 beds, which will house approximately 75% of undergraduate FTEs.

Based on the analysis presented in Appendix E, if a total of 4,250 beds are provided to

members of the Campus population that formerly commuted to Campus, no significant traffic

impacts would occur with Campus growth of up to 9,545 FTEs.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Using the rates developed in Table 15, a detailed analysis of TDM measures has been

conducted. Table 16 presents Campus FTE thresholds, the corresponding TDM mitigation

measure phasing necessary to mitigate Proposed Project-related impacts, and the resulting PM

peak hour trips. As seen in Table 16, growth in the Campus population up to 9,000 Campus

FTEs (without adding residential students) would not trigger any Proposed Project-related

impacts. Beyond 9,000 Campus FTEs, mitigation measures would need to be phased in as

Campus FTEs increase. Table 16 details the necessary TDM Mitigation Phasing to avoid

significant traffic impacts if Campus FTEs increase beyond 9,000. Detailed trip generation

tables used to develop these analyses are presented in Appendix E.

TABLE 16

TDM MITIGATION PHASING

Increased Residents

Faculty Staff TDM (5%) Faculty Staff TDM (10%)

Campus FTE

Trigger % Res

Net Increase

in Number of Beds

9

% Res

Net Increase in Number of

Beds9

Faculty/ Staff

TDM % % Res

Net Increase in Number of

Beds9

Faculty/Staff

TDM %

9,000 59.29% 0 59.29% 0 0% 59.29% 0 0%

9,100 62.70% 188 60.10% 45 5% 59.29% 0 10%

9,200 66.00% 369 61.60% 127 5% 60.50% 67 10%

9,300 69.30% 551 66.50% 397 5% 63.60% 237 10%

9,400 72.60% 732 69.75% 575 5% 66.80% 413 10%

9,500 75.85% 911 73.05% 757 5% 70.00% 589 10%

9,545 77.28% 989 74.30% 826 5% 71.50% 672 10%

9,600 76.30% 936 5% 73.30% 771 10%

9 Using a baseline of 3,261 existing beds on campus.

63

The following three candidate TDM strategies are proposed to mitigate Project-related impacts

during Proposed Project buildout:

1. Increase number of residential beds to 4,250 from the 3,261 beds currently available (an

increase of 989 beds). This mitigation measure would allow the Campus to grow to

9,545 FTEs before a traffic-related impact occurs.

2. Implement a 5% faculty/staff TDM program discussed below and increase the number of

residential beds to 4,197 from the 3,261 beds currently available (an increase of 936

beds). This mitigation measure would allow the Campus to grow to the full 9,600 FTEs

buildout without traffic-related impacts.

3. Implement a 10% faculty/staff TDM program discussed below and increase the number

of residential beds to 4,032 from the 3,261 beds currently available (an increase of 771

beds). This mitigation measure would allow the Campus to grow to the full 9,600 FTEs

buildout without traffic-related impacts.

Figure 11 presents a bar chart comparison of the PM peak hour trips of the Proposed Project

buildout and TDM scenarios. PM peak hour trips are displayed because the Proposed Project

generates more trips during the PM peak hour than during the AM peak hour, so the PM peak

hour is the critical hour for testing impact thresholds. Any of the proposed mitigation measures

will mitigate AM Project impacts.

Table 17 details Future with Project with Mitigation (2030) conditions for signalized

intersections, and shows that one or more combinations of the TDM mitigation measures can

eliminate any Proposed Project-related impacts. The Future with Project with Mitigation traffic

volumes are illustrated in Figures 12A and 12B.

FACULTY/STAFF TDM PROGRAM

A TDM program is a set of strategies, measures, and incentives to encourage Campus

commuters to walk, bicycle, use public transportation, carpool, or use other alternatives to

driving alone. TDM measures produce more mobility using existing transportation systems,

boost economic efficiency of the current transportation infrastructure, improve air quality, save

FIGURE 11

TDM OPTIONS

223

164150 150 150 150

0

50

100

150

200

250

Proposed Project Trip

Generation

(Not accounting for

increase in residential)


Generation

(Accounting for

increase in residential

of 989 additional beds)


Generation

(up to 9,000 Campus

FTEs and no additional

beds)


Generation plus

TDM Measure 1

(9,545 Campus FTEs,

989 Additional Beds)


Generation plus

TDM Measure 2

(9,600 Campus FTEs,

5% TDM, 936

Additional Beds)


Generation plus

TDM Measure 3

(9,600 Campus FTEs,

10% TDM, 771

Additional Beds)

PM

PE

AK

HO

UR

TR

IPS

Threshold for

Significant

Impact

Intersection Project Significant Future with Project Project SignificantPeak Increase Project with TDM Increase ProjectHour V/C LOS V/C LOS in V/C Impact V/C LOS in V/C Impact

1. Culver Boulevard AM 0.754 C 0.754 C 0.000 NO 0.754 C 0.000 NOSR 90 Westbound Ramps PM 1.101 F 1.104 F 0.003 NO 1.103 F 0.002 NO

2. Culver Boulevard AM 0.413 A 0.414 A 0.001 NO 0.414 A 0.001 NOSR 90 Eastbound Ramps PM 0.597 A 0.599 A 0.002 NO 0.599 A 0.002 NO

3. Lincoln Boulevard AM 1.157 F 1.168 F 0.011 YES 1.162 F 0.005 NOJefferson Boulevard PM 1.129 F 1.143 F 0.014 YES 1.138 F 0.009 NO

4. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.731 C 0.755 C 0.024 NO 0.742 C 0.011 NOLMU Drive/Bluff Drive PM 0.829 D 0.846 D 0.017 NO 0.841 D 0.012 NO

5. Lincoln Boulevard AM 1.003 F 1.012 F 0.009 NO 1.006 F 0.003 NOWest 83rd Street PM 0.895 D 0.901 E 0.006 NO 0.899 D 0.004 NO

6. Lincoln Boulevard AM 1.052 F 1.058 F 0.006 NO 1.054 F 0.002 NOManchester Boulevard PM 1.043 F 1.051 F 0.008 NO 1.048 F 0.005 NO

7. Lincoln Boulevard AM 0.620 B 0.624 B 0.004 NO 0.622 B 0.002 NOLa Tijera Boulevard PM 0.672 B 0.675 B 0.003 NO 0.674 B 0.002 NO

10. Loyola Boulevard AM 0.578 A 0.595 A 0.017 NO 0.585 A 0.007 NOManchester Boulevard PM 0.654 B 0.678 B 0.024 NO 0.670 B 0.016 NO

11. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.044 F 1.045 F 0.001 NO 1.045 F 0.001 NOHoward Hughes Parkway PM 1.042 F 1.045 F 0.003 NO 1.044 F 0.002 NO

12. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.549 F 1.549 F 0.000 NO 1.549 F 0.000 NOWest 77th Street PM 1.144 F 1.147 F 0.003 NO 1.146 F 0.002 NO

13. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.169 F 1.171 F 0.002 NO 1.169 F 0.000 NOWest 80th Street PM 0.911 E 0.916 E 0.005 NO 0.913 E 0.002 NO

14. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.071 F 1.078 F 0.007 NO 1.075 F 0.004 NOWest 83rd Street PM 0.905 E 0.911 E 0.006 NO 0.909 E 0.004 NO

15. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.220 F 1.229 F 0.009 NO 1.224 F 0.004 NOManchester Boulevard PM 1.264 F 1.271 F 0.007 NO 1.269 F 0.005 NO

16. Centinela Avenue AM 1.331 F 1.342 F 0.011 YES 1.337 F 0.006 NOJefferson Boulevard PM 1.552 F 1.555 F 0.003 NO 1.554 F 0.002 NO

17. Centinela Avenue AM 0.976 E 0.984 E 0.008 NO 0.979 E 0.003 NOSR 90 Westbound Ramps PM 1.051 F 1.057 F 0.006 NO 1.055 F 0.004 NO

18. Centinela Avenue AM 0.659 B 0.663 B 0.004 NO 0.659 B 0.000 NOSR 90 Eastbound Ramps PM 0.694 B 0.694 B 0.000 NO 0.694 B 0.000 NO

19. I-405 Southbound Ramps AM 1.047 F 1.051 F 0.004 NO 1.049 F 0.002 NOJefferson Boulevard PM 1.070 F 1.072 F 0.002 NO 1.071 F 0.001 NO

20. I-405 Northbound Ramps AM 0.958 E 0.960 E 0.002 NO 0.959 E 0.001 NOJefferson Boulevard PM 1.183 F 1.185 F 0.002 NO 1.184 F 0.001 NO

21. Sepulveda Boulevard AM 1.387 F 1.390 F 0.003 NO 1.389 F 0.002 NOCentinela Avenue PM 1.621 F 1.623 F 0.002 NO 1.623 F 0.002 NO


Future Base Future with Project

TABLE 17FUTURE WITH PROJECT WITH MITIGATION CONDITIONS (2030)


68

energy, and reduce traffic congestion. While the following TDM measures are primarily directed

towards faculty and staff, some TDM measures may also serve to reduce trips of commuting

students as well, making the analysis of these TDM measures conservative.

Existing TDM Activities

LMU currently has some TDM measures in place. They include:

• Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools

• Bicycle parking facilities

• Non-traditional work schedule for some employees (such as faculty members)

Potential TDM Activities

A preliminary TDM program has been developed for the Proposed Project and is outlined here.

The intent of the preliminary program is to develop a menu of potential TDM strategies for the

Proposed Project that will encourage Campus commuters to reduce single occupancy vehicle

use. In addition to the TDM measures already in place, potential TDM plans could draw from

some or all of these 14 measures organized into six strategies:

• Coordination and Information

o Transportation Coordinator

o Transportation Information Center

o User Surveys

• Scheduling

o Flexible work hours/Telecommuting opportunities

o Increase online class offerings

o Enhanced online library and research services

• Ridesharing

o Carpools/Vanpools

o Guaranteed Ride Home Program

o Expansion and improvement of Carpool/Vanpool Program

69

• Financial Incentives/Disincentives

o Commuter Club Program

o Transit Pass Subsidies

o Metro Vanpool Subsidy

o Parking Fees

o Parking Cash Out

• Facility Improvements

o Pedestrian Facilities and Improvements

o Bicycle Facilities and Improvements

• Transit Service Improvements

o Shuttle service improvements

Coordination and Information

Transportation Coordinator – A single transportation coordinator would design, manage, and

update LMU’s TDM programs. Duties would include:

• Maintaining Transportation Information Center

• Facilitating ride matching through data collection, information boards and online

programs

• Publishing alerts, resolving emergency issues, evaluating programs, and recommending

improvements

• Acting as a mechanism to distribute commuter incentives

• Producing promotional and survey materials

• Managing shuttle program

• Evaluating TDM program effectiveness

• Advocating for improved bus transit service and Metro Green Line Extension

• Developing parking management plans

• Facilitating financial support for formation of van- and carpools

• Providing discounted transit fares or passes

• Developing bike and walk to work promotions

• Coordinating emergency rides home

• Managing preferential parking for high occupancy vehicles

70

Transportation Information Center – A Transportation Information Center is a centrally-located

commuter information center where the Proposed Project employees, students, and visitors,

could obtain information regarding commute programs, and individuals could obtain information

for planning travel without using an automobile. A Transportation Information Center could

provide quarterly orientations for new employees as well as provide information about transit

schedules, commute planning, rideshare, telecommuting, bicycle and pedestrian plans, and

other TDM programs.

User Surveys – The Transportation Coordinator should conduct a transportation survey of

employees immediately following their hire and/or move-in date. The surveys would allow for the

development of a rideshare database and assist in creating individual transportation

management plans.

Scheduling

Flextime/Telecommuting – LMU could provide employees with the opportunity for

flexible/staggered work hours to reduce the number of peak hour trips, including but not limited

to permitting compressed work weeks, or off-peak scheduling of work hours. Also, employees

could be provided with opportunities to work remotely, and telecommute where feasible.

USDOT research has advised that a 2% trip reduction could be expected as a result of

telecommuting. Given the flexible nature of work schedules at a university, some employees

may already travel to work during off-peak hours, may have compressed work weeks, or may

already telecommute.

Online Classes – LMU could increase the number of classes that are partially or fully taught

online, providing the opportunity for both the faculty members teaching the class, and the

students taking the class, to participate in class activities without needing to make a trip to

Campus.

Enhanced Online Library & Research Resources – LMU could enhance the online services of

the Library system, research services, and conferencing services, so that students and faculty

members who need to conduct research or have meetings may do so without making a trip to

Campus.

71

Ridesharing

Ridesharing should be a primary focus of employee TDM strategies. Employees who work

Monday through Friday and maintain relatively fixed schedules are key candidates for

ridesharing programs. The Transportation Coordinator, through the development of a

ridesharing database, will identify employees for which ridesharing makes sense based on such

factors as work schedule and home location.

Carpool/Vanpool – Carpools are categorized as private passenger vehicles carrying two to five

persons. Vanpools carry six or more persons and are typically owned by the employer or a

vanpool company – rarely are these vehicles privately owned. The Transportation Coordinator,

through the development of a ridesharing database, will identify employees for whom

ridesharing makes sense (based on work schedule, home location, etc.). Online ride-matching

services can also help employees and residents take advantage of carpool and vanpool

programs. Vanpools may be eligible for a cash subsidy from the Los Angeles County

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) if they meet certain eligibility requirements

(discussed in greater detail below).

Guaranteed Ride Home – A Guaranteed Ride Home program provides emergency rides to

participating employees who do not have a private automobile available for use. In order to

qualify for a free ride, individuals must be registered with the program, be using an alternative to

driving alone to the site on the day they need a ride, and have a covered, verifiable need (such

as accident, injury, sudden and unexpected illness).

A Guaranteed Ride Home policy should specify:

• Eligibility: The program could cover all employees participating in the TDM program.

• Trips eligible for the program: The program could cover any trip or it could be limited to

unexpected business appointments or employee or family member sickness.

• Maximum use: Maximum number of uses allowed during a certain period, maximum

miles within a period, or maximum cost per trip (could include a co-payment option of

10%).

72

Financial Incentives/Disincentives

Commuter Club – The Transportation Coordinator could form and manage a “Commuter Club”

that would help promote alternate means of transportation. All Campus employees of the

Proposed Project would be eligible to join for free. In order to become a member, employees

would agree to use alternate modes of travel to travel to work for a minimum of three days of the

week and not purchase or be given a reserved parking space (carpool parking excepted).

Members could be provided with an ID card entitling them to discounts, special offers or gifts,

such as credits to the Campus Bookstore or at Campus restaurants.

Transit Pass Subsidies – Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus and Metro provide public transit service

to the Campus. Partially or fully subsidizing transit passes for Campus commuters would

provide an incentive that would increase transit use. For Metro’s employer pass programs, the

employer is responsible for the entire cost of the transit pass for the employee. LMU could also

provide transit subsidies in the form of Commuter Checks. Commuter Checks are vouchers,

accepted by both Metro and Big Blue Bus provided to employees that they can use to purchase

transit passes. Typically, the greater the subsidy provided by the employer, the higher the

employee participation rate will be. Any out-of-pocket transit expenses incurred by the

employee could be deducted from the employee’s salary before taxes.

Metro Vanpool Subsidy – Metro provides a direct financial subsidy for vanpools that serve Los

Angeles County worksites. The program offers substantial benefits to vanpools, but cannot be

used by carpools or private shuttles. This subsidy increases the attractiveness of vanpools

since employees are responsible for fewer transportation costs. However, there are certain

requirements that must be met to obtain and maintain the subsidy. In general, Metro will

subsidize up to 50% of the cost of vanpools that begin at 70% or higher occupancy. For

vanpools with expenses higher than $800 per month, Metro will provide $400. The vanpool can

originate outside Los Angeles County in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, or

Imperial Counties – San Diego County is not included – but must terminate within the

geographic boundaries of Los Angeles County. To maintain the subsidy, specific ridership and

reporting requirements must be met. The vanpool must be open to the general public when

seats are available and maintain 70% occupancy every month. The driver is responsible for

reporting these figures to Metro. All vanpools must be procured through a third-party vanpool

73

company that is contracted with Metro. The incentive is paid directly to the third-party vanpool

company through Metro.

Parking Fees – Parking is currently free on Campus. Research has shown that charging for

parking is one of the most effective TDM strategies, acting as a disincentive for single

occupancy vehicle usage, and an incentive for the use of transit and non-motorized modes.

Parking Cash Out – As a companion policy to implementing parking fees, parking cash out

program could also be initiated that would offer Campus employees a subsidy equivalent to the

value of on-campus parking that could be given as a cash equivalent or as a Commuter Check

or other transit subsidy. Research has indicated that parking cash out programs are very

successful in reducing single occupancy vehicle usage.

Facility Improvements

Pedestrian Facilities – The following pedestrian facilities will be created or enhanced as part of

the Proposed Project to re-establish a pedestrian orientation on Campus:

• Develop a primary pedestrian route via LMU Drive through the core of Campus

• Develop a secondary southern route connecting University Hall more directly to the

eastern core of Campus

• Develop a network of tertiary routes connecting individual facilities on Campus

Bicycle Facilities – The following bicycle facility improvements are planned as part of the

Proposed Project to encourage bicycling to and from Campus:

• Designate bicycle lanes on all primary, secondary, and tertiary Campus roads

• Provide bicycle parking racks at all new buildings

74

Transit Service Improvements

Lion Express Shuttle Service – LMU currently operates a shuttle service primarily for on-

Campus residents Thursdays through Sundays (4:00 PM to 12:00 AM on Thursdays, 12:00 PM

to 12:00 AM on Fridays and Saturdays, and 12:00 to 8:00 PM on Sundays), that primarily

serves shopping areas in the region. Riders must reserve seats at least one hour in advance of

the scheduled departure. LMU will maintain this service for the Proposed Project. If financially

feasible, the hours of operation, and service routes could be expanded to serve adjacent

residential areas, as well as locations of greater transit connectivity (such as along Sepulveda

Boulevard), to enable Campus commuters as well as Campus residents to utilize the service. If

hours and service locations are expanded, the service should be coordinated with the major

public transit routes along Lincoln and Sepulveda Boulevards. Because the transit stop at

Lincoln Boulevard and LMU Drive is at the bottom of a hill, a shuttle service that could also

transport Campus commuters from the transit stop to major Campus facilities would enhance

the ease of taking transit to Campus.

Shuttle services could potentially be enhanced through coordination with Otis College of Art and

Design and Playa Vista, to operate shared shuttles that serve the Playa Vista area community

as well as both LMU and Otis.

TDM IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING

A successful TDM program should start with the designation or hiring of a transportation

coordinator. Plan strategies should be outlined and fully developed by the transportation

coordinator in consultation with Campus employees and residents. The transportation

coordinator should be responsible for meeting key deliverables and include marketing,

evaluation, and refinement as key tasks.

Implementation

The start of the TDM program would be linked to the designation of a transportation coordinator.

It is expected that a TDM program could begin providing commuter benefits within three months

75

of the transportation coordinator’s hiring date. A sample implementation plan is outlined below

that details the order of strategies, and estimated month to complete each item:

• Select menu list of TDM strategies and begin search for transportation coordinator

(Month 0)

• Hire full-time transportation coordinator (Month 0)

• Conduct surveys of employees to use in developing programs (Month 1)

• Set fiscal year budget (Month 3)

• Finalize TDM strategies, develop program policy and guidelines (Month 3)

• Produce marketing/new hire materials, set up information center (Month 3)

• Create employee database for online/offline rideshare matching, incentive distribution,

car sharing, etc. (Month 3)

• Begin enrollment in rideshare and transit subsidy programs (Month 4)

• Conduct full program evaluation, recommend changes (Month 12)

An effective TDM program should include the following components:

• Commuter Database – A comprehensive data collection effort should be immediately

undertaken by the transportation coordinator to set the stage for the development of an

employee and commuter student TDM database. Ride-matching, distribution of

incentives, budget management, and evaluation all require an extensive employee

database.

• Incentives – The program developed for the Proposed Project should contain a mix of

financial incentives. The transportation coordinator would be responsible for distribution

of these incentives.

• Budget – A typical budget should include spending on administration, technology,

subsidies for individual programs, and evaluation.

• Marketing – Marketing is a key component of a successful program. The transportation

coordinator will need to extensively promote TDM options through a variety of means.

Events should be held for current employees and residents to inform them of their

options. The transportation coordinator should be present at employee job fairs to

market TDM programs as an added benefit of employment.

76

• Evaluation – The ability to measure effectiveness and adapt the program as needed

based on results will increase the chance of the program’s success. The transportation

coordinator should develop a methodology and individual metrics to measure

effectiveness. Evaluation methodology is discussed in the following section.

Evaluation and Monitoring

For any undertaking, evaluation and the resulting changes and modifications are keys to

success. For TDM programs, evaluation should focus on a basic set of metrics that are

designed to provide point in time comparisons (before implementation, at implementation, one

year after implementation, etc). Potential metrics include:

• Employee Participation – The percentage of employees who participate in TDM

programs should be tracked over time. As the percentage increases, the program has

become more attractive to employees.

• Online or Conferencing System Usage – The number of online classes, or the number of

users of online library and research or conferencing systems, should be tracked to

determine rates of participation over time.

• Employee satisfaction surveys – The transportation coordinator should also conduct

annual surveys that will assist in refining transportation strategies and offering better

benefits. All metrics and survey results should be tracked by the transportation

coordinator and published online and at the Transportation Information Center.

SAMPLE TDM PROGRAMS

Table 18 provides sample TDM programs that are estimated to reduce faculty/staff trips by 5%

and by 10% respectively. As indicated in the Table F-2 and F-3 of Appendix E, a 5%

faculty/staff TDM program would reduce Campus trip generation by approximately 21 trips

during peak hours, and 240 trips daily. A 10% faculty/staff TDM program would reduce Campus

trip generation by approximately 42 peak hour trips and 481 daily trips.

TABLE 18SAMPLE TDM PROGRAMS

TDM Measure 5% TDM 10% TDMTransportation Coordinator X X

Transportation Information Center X X

Flextime / Telecommuting X X

Online Classes X X

Online Library & Research Services X X

Carpool/Vanpool Matching X X

Guaranteed Ride Home X

Transit Pass Subsidies X

Vanpool Subsidies X

Parking Fees

Parking Cashout

Pedestrian Facility Improvements X X

Bicycle Facility Improvements X X

Shuttle Service Improvement X

78

VI. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

This chapter presents the results of an analysis conducted of the potential for Proposed Project

impacts on local residential streets in neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site.

The analysis was conducted at five street segments to the south and east of the Campus. The

significance of potential impacts was assessed using significance criteria established in Traffic

Study Policies and Procedures (LADOT, May 2009), as discussed in Chapter I.

ADT counts were conducted at the five street segments in March 2007. One year of ambient

growth (0.84 percent) was applied to 2007 counts to adjust them to 2008 operating conditions.

Future without Project (2030) daily traffic volumes were projected in a manner similar to the

intersection peak hour analysis detailed in Chapters III and IV, with both ambient growth as well

as projected traffic from related projects assigned to the street system in the study area. The

Future with Project (2030) conditions were also developed using the same methodology as

those for intersection peak hour analysis. As mentioned in Chapter IV, the Proposed Project is

expected to generate approximately 2,540 net new daily trips at full buildout. These daily trips

were assigned to the street network based on the Project trip distribution pattern presented in

Chapter IV and then added to the Future without Project (2030) conditions to obtain Future plus

Project (2030) conditions.

NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPACTS

Under the LADOT guidelines discussed above in Chapter I, a project impact on a local residential

street would be considered significant if the projected increase in daily traffic volumes is as

follows:

79

Projected Average Daily Traffic with

Project (Final ADT) Project-Related Increase in ADT

0 to 999 16 percent or more of final ADT



3,000 or more 8 percent or more of final ADT

Daily traffic volumes for Existing, Future without Project (2030), and Future with Project (2030)

conditions are summarized in Table 19. As shown in the table, based on the LADOT criteria listed

above, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact at any of the analyzed

neighborhood street segments.

Existing (2008)

Future without Project (2030)

Volume Volume Volume Increase (%)

Impact Criteria

Project Impact Volume Increase

(%)Impact Criteria

Project Impact

1. W. 83rd Stbtwn Loyola Bl & Gonzaga Av 8,121 10,031 10,412 3.8% 8% NO 10,272 2.4% 8% NO

2. Loyola Blbtwn W. 80th St & W. 83rd St 8,297 9,973 10,710 7.4% 8% NO 10,440 4.7% 8% NO

3. Loyola Bl btwn W. 83rd St & W. 85th St 6,050 7,272 7,729 6.3% 8% NO 7,562 4.0% 8% NO

4. W. 77th Stbtwn Stewart Av & Westlawn Av 1,529 1,838 1,965 6.9% 12% NO 1,918 4.4% 12% NO

5. W. 80th Stbtwn Stewart Av & Westlawn Av 4,845 5,824 5,976 2.6% 8% NO 5,921 1.7% 8% NO

Future with Project (2030) Future with Project with TDM (2030)

TABLE 19NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPACT ANALYSIS

Street Segments

81

VII. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPACT ANALYSIS

This section presents an analysis of potential impacts from the Proposed Project traffic on the

regional transportation system. This analysis was conducted in accordance with the procedures

outlined in Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (the CMP Guidelines)

(Metro, July 22, 2004). The CMP Guidelines requires that, when an EIR is prepared for a project,

traffic and transit impact analyses be conducted for select regional facilities based on the quantity

of project traffic expected to use those facilities.

SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA

The CMP Guidelines establish that a significant project impact occurs when the following

threshold is exceeded:

• The proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2 percent of capacity

(V/C ≥ 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00) operating conditions

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

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

REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The CMP Guidelines require that the first issue to be addressed is the determination of the

geographic scope of the study area. The criteria for determining the study area for CMP arterial

monitoring intersections and for freeway monitoring locations are to include:

• All CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or more

trips during either the AM or PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic.

82

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

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

Arterial Monitoring Stations

The following CMP monitoring stations are closest to the Project Site:

• Lincoln Boulevard and Manchester Avenue – The Proposed Project is expected to add

approximately 36 trips in the AM peak hour and 46 trips in the PM peak hour.

• Lincoln Boulevard and the Marina Freeway (SR-90) – The Proposed Project is expected

to add approximately 32 trips in the AM peak hour and 48 trips in the PM peak hour.

• Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue – The Proposed Project is expected to

add approximately 33 trips in the AM peak hour and 41 trips in the PM peak hour.

• Sepulveda Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard – The Proposed Project is expected to add

approximately 17 trips in the AM peak hour and 21 trips in the PM peak hour.

The Proposed Project is not expected to add more than 50 trips to any of the four closest CMP

arterial monitoring stations. In addition, the Proposed Project is not expected to increase traffic

by 2 percent of capacity at any of these locations. As the Proposed Project does not meet CMP

threshold criteria, no significant Project impact is expected.

Freeways

Entrances to the Proposed Project Site are approximately 2 miles west of I-405 (San Diego

Freeway). The CMP freeway monitoring station closest to the Proposed Project Site is #1069, I-

405 north of La Tijera Boulevard. Based on Proposed Project trip distribution patterns,

approximately 10 percent of the Proposed Project trips would be distributed to pass through this

monitoring station.

83

According to the trip generation estimates shown in Table 12 and trip distribution estimates

presented in Figure 7, the Proposed Project is expected to result in a net increase of

approximately 18 AM and 23 PM peak hour trips at the I-405 CMP monitoring location closest to

the Proposed Project Site. Since fewer than 150 trips would be added in either direction during

the AM or PM peak hours at any of the CMP freeway monitoring locations in the vicinity of the

study area, no further analysis of the freeway segments is required for CMP purposes.

REGIONAL TRANSIT IMPACT ANALYSIS

Potential increases in transit person trips generated by the Proposed Project were estimated

based on Appendix B Section B.8.4 of the CMP Guidelines, which provides a methodology for

estimating the number of transit trips expected to result from a proposed project based on the

projected number of vehicle trips. This methodology assumes an average vehicle occupancy

factor of 1.4 in order to estimate the number of person trips to and from the project, and then

provides guidance regarding the percent of person trips assigned to public transit depending on

the type of land use (commercial/other versus residential) and the proximity to transit services.

Appendix B Section B.8.4 recommends observing the fixed route local bus services within a

quarter-mile of the project and express bus routes and rail service within two miles of the project

site. Based on these criteria, there are five bus lines that should be analyzed: Metro 115, Metro

439, LADOT CE 574, Big Blue Bus 3, and Big Blue Bus Rapid 3. These bus lines are listed in

Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 3. Based on headways for these bus lines during peak hours,

there are approximately 15 separate buses serving the Proposed Project vicinity during each of

the AM and PM peak hours. Assuming a typical bus seating capacity of 40 seats, the total

number of seats during peak hours is 600.

Multiplying Project trips from Table 12 by an average vehicle occupancy of 1.4 predicts that the

Proposed Project will generate 246 net new person trips during the AM peak hour and 312 net

new person trips during the PM peak hour. To be consistent with the methodology outlined in

the CMP guidelines, a transit ridership factor of 3.5 percent should be used, meaning that 3.5%

of net new person trips would use transit10. This suggests that the Proposed Project will

generate nine net new transit trips during the AM peak hour and 11 net new transit trips during

10

Page B-4 of 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, July 22, 2004.

84

the PM peak hour. This demand represents approximately 2 percent of the current hourly

capacity. While the CMP Guidelines do not provide thresholds for significance in assessing

impacts to the regional transit system, given the small estimated increase in transit trips related to

the Proposed Project, it can be concluded that no significant impact on the regional transit system

would occur.

85

VIII. SITE ACCESS AND PARKING ANALYSIS

The Proposed Project would continue to provide site access at the following two driveways:

• A main entrance at the intersection of LMU Drive and Lincoln Boulevard.

• A secondary, key-card controlled entrance at the intersection of Loyola Boulevard and West 80th Street

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS AT PROJECT ACCESS POINTS

A LOS analysis was conducted to evaluate the ability of the Proposed Project access to

accommodate the anticipated traffic levels at the access points. For Future with Project (2030)

conditions, through traffic on Lincoln Boulevard and West 80th Street was increased for both

ambient growth and related projects, as discussed in Chapter III. Proposed Project-generated

traffic was added as described in Chapter IV.

The main entrance to the Campus at LMU Drive is signalized at its intersection with Lincoln

Boulevard, while the Campus entrance at Loyola Boulevard & West 80th Street would remain

unsignalized and stop-controlled. Based on the results presented in Tables 13 and 14, both of

these driveway intersections (Intersections #4 and #8) are projected to operate at an acceptable

LOS D or better during both peak hours under Future with Project (2030) conditions, and can

accommodate the increase in traffic resulting from the Proposed Project without a significant

impact that would require mitigation.

PARKING ANALYSIS

This section describes the existing Campus parking inventory and occupancy data that were

collected, the methodologies developed to project future Campus parking demand at buildout, and

the recommend supply to meet future parking demand.

86

PARKING INVENTORY AND OCCUPANCY DATA

A parking inventory and occupancy survey was conducted on the LMU Campus in Fall 2008, and

the parking occupancy surveys were conducted for each hour of the 14-hour study period (7:00

AM to 8:00 PM). According to these surveys, the Campus currently has a total parking supply of

4,133 spaces, divided between 18 parking facilities located throughout Campus. To be

conservative, all parked vehicles in Campus parking facilities were counted, even if they were

parked at red-curbs or unmarked spaces. As can be seen in Table 20, the peak Campus-wide

parking utilization occurred at 11:00 AM, when 3,843 cars were parked on Campus — roughly 93

percent occupancy.

RESIDENT STUDENT PARKING DEMAND RATIO

LMU has indicated that in Fall 2008, 58.3 percent of undergraduate resident student FTEs had

cars that they parked on Campus. There were a total of 3,261 undergraduate resident student

FTEs in Fall 2008. Based on this ratio, the total resident parking demand is 1,901 spaces (3,261

residential FTEs multiplied by 0.583 = 1,901). This analysis conservatively assumes that 100

percent of undergraduate resident FTEs would be parked during the peak hour for Campus

parking demand, a parking demand ratio of 1.00.

COMMUTER PARKING DEMAND RATIO

Commuter parking demand is the parking demand for all other segments of the Campus

population, including non-resident undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, staff, and

visitors. To determine commuter parking demand, the resident parking demand was subtracted

from the total Campus parking demand. As indicated in Table 21, the resident student parking

demand of 1,901 was subtracted from the total daytime peak parking demand of 3,843 to get a

commuter parking demand of 1,942 vehicles.

TABLE 20EXISTING (2008) ON-CAMPUS PARKING INVENTORY AND OCCUPANCY

Location Inventory 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9

University Hall- P1 387 44 140 281 338 349 347 354 357 337 256 347 166 129 103

University Hall- P2 403 309 329 348 355 348 350 375 376 338 329 351 330 309 325

University Hall - P3 350 98 176 255 307 332 267 307 319 275 302 279 226 101 135

Drollinger Parking Plaza (L) 918 583 633 759 844 904 900 902 892 855 830 841 780 734 703

Lot O [a] 8 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 9 8 8 6 7 8

Lot K 34 28 28 26 26 28 26 28 31 30 30 30 29 31 27

Lot J [a] 4 3 3 5 5 5 4 3 4 3 5 5 3 11 7

Lot I 72 43 45 55 56 65 65 57 59 57 59 57 57 58 54

Whelan Lane 51 41 48 47 50 49 50 49 47 50 50 44 42 41 40

Lot H 362 238 237 325 364 379 362 351 367 353 373 295 258 253 242

Del Rey Underground 169 159 160 154 162 163 158 163 156 149 158 147 142 141 134

Roscranz Lane 49 28 38 43 50 51 51 50 50 48 45 43 36 38 41

Lot E 35 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 2

Lot G 101 59 88 94 94 94 90 95 88 83 75 66 59 53 50

Lot F 68 44 48 53 53 50 51 52 52 48 43 51 42 36 35

Periera Lane 13 12 11 12 12 12 13 12 12 11 11 12 12 12 7

Lot D 179 63 151 178 176 176 178 176 178 174 157 135 165 170 168

Lot A 851 454 502 603 715 766 724 578 716 738 714 572 605 528 508

Lot B 40 25 30 31 33 33 33 35 32 35 35 35 33 32 32Lot C 39 29 29 33 34 36 34 34 32 33 35 34 36 34 32

ON-CAMPUS TOTAL 4,133 2,263 2,702 3,306 3,677 3,843 3,707 3,627 3,775 3,626 3,517 3,353 3,027 2,718 2,653TOTAL OCCUPANCY % 55% 65% 80% 89% 93% 90% 88% 91% 88% 85% 81% 73% 66% 64%

TABLE 21LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY MASTER PLAN PROJECT

PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS

Demand Ratio Demand RatioResidential Demand

Undergrad Residential Students 3,261 1,901 0.583 4,250 2,478 0.583

Commuter DemandUndergrad Non-Residential Students 2180.8 1,250Graduate Students 1426.6 2,300Faculty/Staff 1,484.08 1,800Total Commuter 5091.48 5,350

8,352.48 3,843 0.460 9,600 4,516 0.470

8,352.48 4,035 0.483 9,600 4,742 0.494

Notes:

[c] Parking facilities should rarely exceed 95 percent occupancy, because it is difficult for parkers to locate remaining available parking spaces. Therefore, a parking supply that exceeds peak demand by 5% is required to accommodate parking demand.

Projected Peak Demand (Campus FTE)

Required Supply [c]

Peak Parking [b]

0.3810.381 2,038

[b] 58.3% of residential FTEs have registered personal vehicles on Campus. This analysis assumes that all resident students vehicles would be parked during the daytime Campus parking peak.

[a] 2008 parking demand data collected October 2008.

1,942

Buildout

FTEs

2008 [a]

FTEs Peak Parking [b]

89

To calculate total commuter FTEs, the number of undergraduate non-residential student FTEs

was added to the number of graduate student, and faculty and staff FTEs. This yielded 5,091.48

total commuter FTEs (2, 180.8 undergraduate students + 1,426.6 graduate students + 1,484.08

faculty and staff = 5,091.48). Commuter parking demand was then calculated by dividing 1,942

vehicles by the total commuter FTEs, which yielded a parking demand ratio of 0.381.

CAMPUS PARKING DEMAND, RECOMMENDED SUPPLY, AND IMPACT ANALYSIS

Parking facilities should rarely exceed 95 percent occupancy, because at this occupancy level, it

becomes very difficult to locate the remaining available parking spaces. Parkers will typically give

up rather than search out the remaining five percent of available spaces. Therefore, a parking

supply that exceeds peak demand by 5 percent is necessary to accommodate the projected peak

demand.

Existing

The existing peak parking demand, as counted Fall Term 2008, totaled 3,843 vehicles. Therefore,

to allow for a parking supply that exceeds peak demand by five percent, a total of 4,035 parking

spaces would be needed to meet the recommended supply for the Campus in Fall 2008. The

current Campus supply of 4,133 spaces exceeds the recommended supply, so there is currently

sufficient parking supply on-Campus.

Proposed Project

Applying the 0.583 undergraduate resident FTEs parking ratio to the projected future 4,250

undergraduate resident FTEs yields a parking demand of 2,478 spaces. Applying the 0.381

parking ratio to the projected future 5,350 Campus commuter FTEs yields 2,038 spaces. In total,

future peak parking demand would be 4,516 spaces during the daytime peak.

Therefore, to allow for a parking supply that exceeds peak demand by five percent, a total of

4,742 parking spaces would be needed to meet the recommended supply for the Campus at

90

9,600 total Campus FTEs projected at Proposed Project buildout. As indicated, a total of 4,133

parking spaces were counted on Campus in Fall 2008. Thus, at buildout of the Proposed Project,

an additional 609 parking spaces will be needed to accommodate future projections of the LMU

Campus population.

Impact Analysis

Based on the Los Angeles CEQA Threshold Guide, a project would be considered to have a

significant impact on parking if the project provides less parking than needed as determined

through an analysis of demand from the project. As LMU will provide new parking to meet the

recommended supply, the Proposed Project is not expected to have a significant parking impact.

PHASING OF PARKING SUPPLY INCREASES

A parking space includes any space to park a car, including through stack parking or other

methods to optimize parking. A minimum of 4,035 parking spaces shall be provided on Campus,

provided that there is no increase in population beyond 8,360 Campus FTEs. As detailed in Table

22 below, parking shall be added in phases with increases in enrollment.

91

TABLE 22

PARKING SUPPLY PHASING

Campus FTEs Parking

Spaces

8,360 4,035

8,670 4,215

8,980 4,395

9,290 4,575

9,600 4,742

92

IX. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD IMPACT ANALYSIS

The City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006 (“the Guide”), states that the following

factors should be assessed in determining whether a construction impact would be considered

significant:

1. Temporary traffic impacts – potential impacts on vehicular travelers on roadways

2. Temporary loss of access – potential impacts on visitors entering and leaving sites

3. Temporary loss of bus stops or rerouting of bus lines – potential impacts on bus

travelers

4. Temporary loss of on-street parking – potential impacts on parkers

Per the Guide, determination of significance is made on a case-by-case basis.

The Proposed Project is a plan that will guide the development of the Campus through 2030.

The specific siting of new facilities, their size, the planned time of their construction, and their

physical design has not yet been established. A detailed construction period impact analysis

that quantitatively analyzes the specific number of truck haul trips, worker trips, etc. is not

feasible at this time. However, construction impacts have been qualitatively addressed, and

general mitigation measures have been proposed to mitigate temporary construction impacts.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

The Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) provides that construction activities are limited to the

hours from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM on weekdays and from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays and

holidays. No construction is permitted on Sundays.

93

Activity at typical construction projects is concentrated in the first part of a 12-hour window, with

most workers arriving and departing the project site outside of peak traffic hours (i.e., arriving prior

to 7:00 AM and departing between 3:00 and 4:00 PM). Therefore construction worker trips

typically do not cause impacts.

Traffic impacts from construction activities could be expected to occur as a result of the

following types of activities:

• Increases in truck traffic associated with removal or import of fill materials and

delivery of construction materials (potential for temporary traffic impacts)

• Construction staging and worker parking (potential for temporary parking impacts)

• No loss of access or loss of bus stops is anticipated as part of the Proposed Project.

MITIGATION MEASURES

A construction traffic management plan, including street closure information, detour plans, haul

routes, and staging plans satisfactory to the City of Los Angeles will be prepared. Construction

traffic management plans shall include the following elements:

1. Provisions to configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference and avoid

parking on residential streets.

2. Consolidating truck deliveries.

3. Maintaining access to residences and businesses.

4. Provision of safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as

alternate routing, and protection barriers.

It is anticipated that all construction staging for the Proposed Project will occur on Campus.

Additionally, worker parking will be located either on Campus or at designated off Campus

94

facilities. Therefore, roadway and parking facilities in the Study Area will not be impacted by

either construction staging or worker parking.

95

X. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study was undertaken to analyze the potential transportation impacts of the Loyola

Marymount University Master Plan Project. The following summarizes the results of this

analysis:

• The Proposed Project Site is located above the bluffs overlooking Playa Vista in the

community of Westchester in the City of Los Angeles. Entrances to the Campus are

located east of Lincoln Boulevard at LMU Drive and north of West 80th Street at Loyola

Boulevard.

• The development would include approximately 508,000 net new gsf of academic,

administrative, and student support facilities, approximately 476,000 net new gsf of

student residential facilities, approximately 28,000 gsf of net new indoor athletic facilities,

and approximately 4.8 acres of net new outdoor athletic facilities. The Campus population

would increase from 8,352.48 Campus FTEs to 9,600.00 Campus FTEs. LMU also

proposes to house a greater percentage of LMU undergraduate students on the Campus,

from approximately 60 percent of its undergraduate FTEs currently, to approximately 75

percent at buildout.

• A conservative trip generation analysis projects that the Proposed Project will generate a

net increase of approximately 176 trips during the AM peak hour, 223 trips during the

PM peak hour, and approximately 2,540 daily trips.

• A total of 25 intersections were analyzed for this report. Using the significance criteria

established by LADOT and the City’s CEQA Thresholds Guide, the Proposed Project

would have significant impacts at full buildout before mitigation at two locations:

o Lincoln Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard

o Centinela Avenue & Jefferson Boulevard

96

• No significant intersection impacts would occur with Campus growth up to up to 9,000

Campus FTEs even without the addition of residential beds.

• Detailed TDM mitigation measures have been proposed that will mitigate Proposed

Project impacts to less than significant levels. Proposed mitigation measures include

limiting the number of new Campus FTEs, increasing the number of residential beds

provided on Campus, implementing a 5% faculty/staff TDM program, and implementing a

10% faculty/staff TDM program. These measures may be used individually, or in

combination as documented in detail in the report.

• Summary analysis of potential impacts on the regional transportation system conducted

in accordance with CMP requirements determined that the Proposed Project would not

generate sufficient trips to have a significant impact on either the CMP arterial highway

network or the mainline freeway system. Proposed Project-related impacts on the regional

transit system are not expected to be significant.

• Adequate Proposed Project access will be provided by the two existing entrances at

Lincoln Boulevard and West 80th Street.

• An additional 609 parking spaces will be needed to meet the recommended parking

supply at full buildout of the Proposed Project. The report includes a phasing program to

increase parking supply using additional square footage and Campus FTEs as

benchmarks. With construction of this parking, no significant impact from parking

demand is expected.

• While typical construction traffic does not occur during peak periods, and construction

staging and worker parking will occur on-campus, or at designated off-site locations, a

construction management plan will be prepared to mitigate any potential impacts.

REFERENCES

2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, July 22, 2004. CEQA Thresholds Guide, City of Los Angeles, 2006. Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan, City of Los Angeles, 1993. Critical Movement Analysis, Transportation Research Board, 1980. Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, LADOT, May 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), USDOT FHWA, 2001. Policy Memo 09-01: Analyzing Unsignalized Intersections, LADOT, 2009. Traffic Manual, Caltrans, 2002. Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.

Documents

Transportation Impact Analysis (December 2009) · LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY MASTER PLAN PROJECT December 2009 Prepared for: AECOM Design Prepared by: FEHR & PEERS 201 Santa Monica