Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

Page 1

VENTURA BOULEVARD DIAGONAL PARKING FEASIBILITY STUDY Prepared for the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) & Office of Los Angeles City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield January 16, 2018

FINAL REPORT Prepared by Sam Schwartz Engineering, DPC

The Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study is funded and overseen by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and was prepared by consultants in collaboration with the Department of City Planning and Council District 3.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION

1 4

1.1 Purpose & Goal 1.2 Background 1.3 Public Outreach

4 5 5

2. STUDY AREA 2.1 General 2.2 Study Intersections 2.3 Study Roadway Sections

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Roadway Characteristics 3.2 Traffic & Parking Conditions 3.3 Pedestrian Accommodations 3.4 Bicycle Facilities 3.5 Public Transit Facilities

4. ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS 4.1 Benefits & Design Considerations of Diagonal Parking 4.2 Development 4.3 Design Considerations 4.4 Alternative 1 4.5 Alternative 2 4.6 Alternative 3

5. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Development 5.2 Preferred Alternative ‘A’ 5.3 Preferred Alternative ‘B’ 5.4 Preliminary Cost Estimates & Potential Funding 5.5 Alternatives Comparison Summary

6. NEXT STEPS 7. REFERENCES 8. APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Public Outreach Meeting Minutes & Collected Data APPENDIX B: Detailed Traffic & Parking Counts APPENDIX C: Level of Service (LOS) & Signal Warrants Analysis APPENDIX D: Los Angeles Department of Transportation Standard Details APPENDIX E: Preliminary Cost Estimate – Preferred Alternatives APPENDIX F: Conceptual Design Plans (80-scale, 11"x17")

6 6 6 6

8 8 11 14 16 17

19 19 22 22 23 24 25

28 28 28 34 39 40

42 44 45


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of diagonal parking implementation along Ventura Boulevard between Royer Avenue and Sale Avenue, while seeking to minimize potential negative impacts on traffic flow, improve pedestrian amenities, and to improve overall safety by making strides towards Vision Zero. Vision Zero is a visionary goal set by the Los Angeles City Planning Mobility Plan 2035 to achieve zero annual transportation related fatalities throughout the city by 2035. The primary goal of this study was to identify feasible infrastructure enhancements that balance the roadway facilities for all users. Within the study area, Ventura Boulevard is a wide roadway (nearly one-third the length of a standard American football field) that provides between two and three vehicle travel lanes in each direction, a two-way center left-turn lane, bike lanes in most areas, on-street parallel parking, and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Land uses within the study area are generally commercial with many driveways providing access to/from Ventura Boulevard. Pedestrian amenities along the study corridor are scarce as there are a limited number of benches, planters, trees that provide shade, and trash receptacles. Bicycle support facilities such as parking racks are lacking throughout the corridor. Initially, three conceptual design alternatives were developed and shown to community members at a public meeting to “Re-Imagine� Ventura Boulevard. Having three different alternatives served as a starting point and helped members of the public visualize various roadway configurations that could be implemented. For the presented alternatives, reverse angled (back-in, head-out) parking was considered due to the many benefits it provides, including improved visibility for the driver when backing in and pulling out of a parking space, conflict avoidance between open car doors and bicyclists, natural channelization of passengers towards the curb when exiting the parked vehicle, and allowance for easier loading and unloading as the parked vehicle’s trunk is adjacent to the curb. Additionally, traditional (head-in, back-out) diagonal parking is not recommended by the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities when bike lanes are present, as it could result in conflicts between approaching bicyclists and vehicle blind spots. Reverse

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

1


angled parking alleviates this issue as drivers pulling out are able to see approaching bicyclists. Although the Los Angeles Complete Streets Design Guide recommends it first be considered on non-arterial streets, it also suggests that reverse angled parking be considered on wide roadways where parking is scarce, vehicle speeds are unsafe, bicycle traffic is frequent, and finally, that it be considered in commercial districts. Ventura Boulevard meets many of these criteria. It is important to note that potential drawbacks of this type of parking do include the need for drivers to be aware of bicyclists as they back into parking spaces and that exhaust from parked cars is directed towards the sidewalk. Alternative 1 focused on providing reverse angled parking throughout the study corridor and introduced a striped buffer area to separate the bike lane from the vehicular travel lane. Alternative 2 emphasized providing reverse angled parking while simultaneously improving existing bicycle facilities through relocation of the bike lane adjacent to the curb. With relocation of the bike lane, bicyclists would be located between the parallel parking aisle and the curb, rather than alongside the vehicular travel lanes, where vehicles pass by at much higher speeds. Alternative 3 explored the potential for a parallel parking lane located in the center of Ventura Boulevard alongside a curbed island median and prohibited midblock left-turn movements to reduce vehicle and bicyclist conflicts. The three initial alternatives were presented at a community meeting to gauge public opinion on the various design facilities explored in each concept. Based on input received by the public, they were further refined into two “preferred” alternatives. Preferred Alternative ‘A’ provides a balanced design that considered all users of the roadway, including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Preferred Alternative ‘B’ focused on maximizing the net increase in on-street parking. Both Preferred Alternatives preserve existing traffic operations at intersections studied and even improve them in some locations. They also reduce the travel lanes by one in each direction on the section east of Fallbrook Avenue. However, the roadway would still operate at an acceptable level near capacity (the theoretical maximum rate at which vehicles can reasonably travel throughout the roadway). Preferred Alternative 'A' provided a mix of reverse angled and parallel parking. In many locations, it increased the protection between bicyclists and passing motorists by relocating the bike lane towards the curb such that parked cars physically separate the two modes of travel. Additional pedestrian amenities such as new crosswalks, increased tree coverage, and potential landscaping areas were also provided. Preferred Alternative ‘A’ reduces Ventura Boulevard to two vehicle travel lanes in each direction and proposed two new traffic signals—one at the intersection of Royer Avenue and the other at Ponce Avenue. The proposed traffic signals would significantly improve intersection operations at Royer Avenue and provide for additional pedestrian crossing locations. The preliminary cost estimate for Preferred Alternative ‘A’ is $2,500,000 (includes asphalt resurfacing). Preferred Alternative ‘B’ increases the number of on-street parking spaces by providing a combination of reverse angled and parallel parking throughout the study area. Bike lanes in this alternative remained adjacent to the motor vehicle lanes and a striped buffer area was introduced to increase separation distance between the

2

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


active vehicular travel lanes and bicyclists. Pedestrian amenities in this alternative were similar to those in Preferred Alternative ‘A’ with additional crosswalk locations (except for one fewer crossing), increased tree plantings, and identification of areas for planters and landscaping. One new traffic signal was proposed at the intersection of Ventura Boulevard and Royer Avenue. The new traffic signal would improve vehicle operations at this intersection and provide an additional pedestrian crossing. The preliminary cost estimate for Preferred Alternative ‘B’ is approximately $2,340,000 (includes asphalt resurfacing). As part of the next steps in this project, a “test before you invest” approach through implementation of a pilot or demonstration project was identified and is recommended. Demonstration projects are short-term, temporary projects which allow communities to test new street design treatments before making substantial financial commitments to a permanent condition. Demonstration projects can also be used as outreach and educational tools to involve the public prior to permanently changing a street layout or implementing new parking designs. The studied section of Ventura Boulevard is a prime candidate for a pilot program should the City of Los Angeles choose to test out reverse angled parking before implementing this type of facility in other areas throughout the city. Preferred Alternative 'B' was the "people's choice" as it received the most votes in the public engagement process. It also provides the most on-street parking. Therefore, Preferred Alternative 'B' is the recommended design solution to implement on a trial basis in the Pilot Implementation/Evaluation phase. Further study should be conducted to oversee this effort and refine the conceptual design to construction level plans.

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

3


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose & Goal The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and cost of implementing diagonal parking along Ventura Boulevard between Royer and Sale Avenue, and to “Re-Imagine” the corridor with improved pedestrian connectivity, sense of place, and overall safety. The feasibility of diagonal parking was determined by evaluating changes to on-street parking capacity and type, traffic flow, walkability, bicycle infrastructure, driveway accessibility (turn restrictions), aesthetics, public opinion, and cost. Public opinion and input was gauged through a series of public community meetings/workshops which guided the development of conceptual design alternatives at various stages throughout the project. The primary goal of this study was to develop several conceptual alternatives for Ventura Boulevard between Royer and Sale Avenues which not only included on-street diagonal parking spaces, but also balanced the inherent trade-offs between different roadway users in the public domain. Initial concept alternatives were developed and through refinement, public input, and revision, “Preferred Alternatives” were identified. The Preferred Alternatives were designed to the "35% Design Level," which is engineering speak to indicate that more engineering design would be required before anything could be constructed, whether temporarily as a pilot program or permanently. It is important to note that the expected net change in the number of parking spaces along Ventura Boulevard could vary slightly from what is shown on the Preferred Alternatives if this project should continue to the "100% Design Level" implementation phase. All conceptual designs were developed to utilize only the existing curb-to-curb roadway width and do not result in any right-of-way (ROW) acquisitions.. Additionally, this report sought to address the potential implementation of design elements from the Preferred Alternatives throughout similar sections of Ventura Boulevard with the same curb-to-curb width. Although the scope of this study was to examine a defined section of Ventura Boulevard (Refer to Section 2 for a complete Study Area description), the recommendations and/or design solutions presented herein may be applicable and useful beyond the limits of the project boundaries. 4

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


1.2 Background In the study area Ventura Boulevard runs parallel to Ventura Freeway (U.S. Highway 101) and is a viable cut-through route for motorists during times of heavy congestion along the freeway. Ventura Boulevard is a motor vehicle centric roadway in that pedestrian crossings are infrequent, require waiting for a signal with a long crosswalk, and there is limited shade available from the sun. Pleasant public space for recreation is highly limited and the corridor lacks a sense of place. The existing on-street striped bike lanes were found to be underutilized which is not likely due to lack of demand, but rather is due to a lack of perceived safety as vehicle speeds feel fast when compared to the typical speed of a bicyclist. The lack of a striped buffer space or physical separation/protection between cars and bicycles further perpetuates the perceived danger of biking along the study corridor. In 2008, the California State Legislature adopted AB 1358, The Complete Streets Act. This act requires local jurisdictions to “plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban or urban context.” The Mobility Plan 2035 published by Los Angeles City Planning incorporates The Complete Streets Act into city policy and seeks to “expand the role of streets as public spaces.” An improvement to Ventura Boulevard's infrastructure or aesthetics would be beneficial for both residents and merchants alike. “Complete Streets take into account the many community needs that streets fulfill. Streets do not just move people from one location to another. They provide a space for people to recreate, exercise, conduct business, engage in community activities, interact with their neighbors, and beautify their surroundings. Complete streets offer safety, comfort, and convenience for all users regardless of age, ability or means of transportation. They also lead to other public benefits, including improved transportation, a cleaner environment, and healthier neighborhoods.” - Los Angeles City Council Motion, January 28, 2014

As such, the conceptual design alternatives developed as part of this study align with the complete streets goals and policies adopted by the City of Los Angeles in the Mobility Plan 2035 and with The Complete Streets Act in the State of California.

1.3 Public Outreach This study included substantial public outreach efforts to help guide the outcome and ensure that any recommendations or alternatives pursued would not come as a surprise to members of the public. A Community Advisory Group (CAG) meeting was held to serve as a “focus group” and direct the study (November 16, 2016). Additionally, three community-wide workshops were held to gauge public opinion and provide additional guidance for the outcome of the study (January 12, 2017, February 15, 2017 and July 10, 2017). The public outreach firm Katherine Padilla & Associates (KPA) was hired to assist with door-to-door flyer distribution, meeting facilitation, and online survey to elicit opinions. For more information on the public outreach effort, refer to Appendix A for the meeting notes and collected data/responses. Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

5


2. STUDY AREA

2.1 General Ventura Boulevard is a major east-west thoroughfare in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles stretching approximately 18 miles from Woodland Hills to Studio City. The study area was focused on a half mile segment of Ventura Boulevard between Royer Avenue and Sale Avenue in the Woodland Hills neighborhood. Ventura Boulevard consists of mostly commercial/retail properties at the street frontage and provides access to residential communities north and south of the Boulevard. Figure 2.1 shows the general study area.

2.2 Study Intersections In conjunction with City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) staff, key intersections were selected for study due to the potential for traffic impacts which may occur when modifying cross sectional roadway elements to provide on-street diagonal parking spaces. The three (3) intersections that were selected for analysis are as follows: 1.

Royer Avenue/Ventura Boulevard (stop-controlled);

2.

Fallbrook Avenue/Ventura Boulevard (signalized); and

3.

Sale Avenue/Ventura Boulevard (signalized).

2.3 Study Roadway Sections In addition to the three intersections listed above, the study area was divided into two (2) distinct sections for analysis based upon the prevailing (typical) curb-to-curb width and roadway elements. The sections were based on their east-west relation to Fallbrook Avenue as follows: 1.

Ventura Boulevard east of Fallbrook Avenue; and

2.

Ventura Boulevard west of Fallbrook Avenue.

The study intersections and roadway sections are shown in Figure 2.2. 6

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


Sale Ave

Legend

Po n

Fallbrook Ave

Study Corridor

ve ce A

ura

t Ven

d

Blv

yer Ave d

sR

ere

Com

Ve

vd

Bl

Rigoletto St

Ro

ra

u nt

N NOT TO SCALE

Legend

City of Los Angeles Ventura Blvd Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

Study Intersection Study Corridor

Pon

Fallbrook Ave

#

Sale Ave

Figure 2.1: Study Area FIGURE 2.1 Study Area

ve ce A

3

lvd

ra B

tu Ven

2

Ave d

sR

ere

Com

1

Rigoletto St

yer

Ro

n Ve

lvd

aB

r tu

N NOT TO SCALE

Figure 2.2: Study Intersections and Roadway Sections

City of Los Angeles Ventura Blvd Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

FIGURE 2.2

Study Intersections and Roadway Sections

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

7


3. EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Roadway Characteristics Roadway Classification Ventura Boulevard has a public right-of-way width of 140 feet in the section east of Fallbrook Avenue where there are three (3) travel lanes in each direction and a width of 120 feet in the section to the west where there are two (2) travel lanes in each direction. The right-of-way width includes the entire roadway section curb-tocurb plus the public sidewalks located on both sides of Ventura Boulevard. Excluding the sidewalks, even the asphalt portion of the roadway alone is significantly wide and accommodating. Throughout the entire study area, eastbound and westbound travel lanes are separated by a two-way center left-turn lane. The posted speed limit on Ventura Boulevard is 35 mph, although there are few physical speed limit signs located within the limits of the study area. Ventura Boulevard in the study area is classified as “Boulevard II” per the roadway classification system outlined in the Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035. The Boulevard II classification represents the new designation to what was formerly known as “Major Highway Class I.” According to the plan, a Boulevard II typically has a right-of-way width of 110 feet and a roadway width of 80 feet. Table 3.1 lists the characteristics of Ventura Boulevard and intersecting roadways within the study area. Table 3.1 – Study Area Roadway Configurations

Note: Roadway classification based on City of Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035, 2015

8

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


Typical Cross Section West of Fallbrook Avenue Ventura Boulevard in this section consists of a curb-to-curb roadway width of 90 feet. The corridor consists of four travel lanes (two in each direction), a two-way center leftturn lane, striped bike lanes, and parallel parking on both sides. Figure 3.1 shows the typical cross-sectional elements west of Fallbrook Avenue. VENTURA BLVD EXISTING CONDITION (West of Fallbrook Ave)

P 10’ Sidewalk

9’ Parking Lane

P 6’ Bicycle Lane

11’ Travel Lane

11’ Travel Lane

16’ Center Turn Lane

11’ Travel Lane

11’ Travel Lane

6’ Bicycle Lane

9’ Parking Lane

20’ Sidewalk

Figure 3.1: Existing Section West (looking west)

Typical Cross Section East of Fallbrook Avenue Ventura Boulevard in this section consists of a curb-to-curb roadway width of 99 feet. The corridor consists of six travel lanes (three in each direction), a two-way center leftturn lane, bike lanes, and parallel parking on both sides. Figure 3.2 shows the typical cross-sectional elements east of Fallbrook Avenue. VENTURA BLVD EXISTING CONDITION (East of Fallbrook Ave)

P 20’ Sidewalk

P

8’ 5’ Parking Lane Bicycle Lane

10.5’ Travel Lane

10.5’ Travel Lane

10.5’ Travel Lane

10’ Center Turn Lane

10.5’ Travel Lane

10.5’ Travel Lane

10.5’ Travel Lane

5’ 8’ Bicycle Lane Parking Lane

20’ Sidewalk

Figure 3.2: Existing Section East (looking west)

Topography High-resolution aerial photography obtained using NearmapTM was used in conjunction with field observations and measurements taken on December 20, 2016 to prepare a scale base plan of the topography in the study area along Ventura Boulevard using AutoCAD drafting software. Base Plan Figure 3.3 shows existing curb, lane striping and pavement markings, trees, driveways, parking spaces, driveways, and approximate fire hydrant locations. The high-resolution aerial used in preparation was taken September 16, 2016. The information collected by this effort served as the base from which all subsequent conceptual designs were based.

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

9


HUGOS DWY

DWY

LIQUOR HYD

RESTAURANT DWY

DWY

2

4

Average Daily Traffic 20,908

VENTURA BLVD COMERES RD

5 DWY

ETT RIG 21

2L

2

1 DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

AUTO

ELECTRIC

HABIT DWY

DWY

1

WENDY'S EGRESS

HYD

DWY

1

1L

2

2

2

1L

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

XX(YY) Existing Condition Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

97 6 2 3 no

1 1L

HYD

Legend AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume No. of existing parallel parking spaces No. of existing parallel loading spaces Existing tree Existing fire hydrant Existing bicyclist symbol with arrow

10(19) 982(907) 13(10)

Figure 3.3: Existing Conditions Base Plan (Not to Scale - See Appendix F for scale drawing)

10

LE

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

SALE AVE

1 inch = 80 ft.

160

PONCE AVE

( IN FEET )

HOLIDAY INN DWY HYD

4

7(23) 3(0) 19(61)

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B

5

4 DWY

80

4

VENTURA BLVD

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

0

16(28) 986(1321) 43(34)

SMART+FINAL

1

80

AV

E

DWY

DWY

ETT OL

1

DWY TOP NAILS

80(167) 315(403) 43(33)

RIG

2

3 DWY 7-ELEVEN

25(33) 5(1) 57(42)

DWY 7-ELEVEN

68(51) 567(612) 94(141)

OS T

BOFA

SA

2

DWY

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

Average Daily Traffic 30,393

DWY

SCALE

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

361(498) 525(705) 132(150)

LBR OFFICE DWY 2

DWY

DWY

DWY WE BUY

FAL

IN COFFEE DWY

1L

OL

KA VE

773(346) 348(143) 459(368)

13(21) 322(492)

E

OFFIC

5 DWY VALSURF

OO

DWY

5 DWY

VALSURF

GYM

8

3

NU

3

VACANT DWY

1

1

1L

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

HUGOS

3

Y RSER

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

84(26) 88(40)

ROYER AVE

OS T

22(40) 1319(987)

DWY

IMAR SHAL DWY

),*85( (;,67,1* &21',7,216


3.2 Traffic & Parking Conditions Traffic counts were conducted on Thursday, November 3, 2016 at the three study intersections. Counts were conducted during the weekday AM peak period from 7 AM to 9 AM and PM peak period from 4 PM to 6 PM. The traffic analysis at intersections is based on the highest single hour of traffic during each time period at each location (peak hour). Full 24-hour roadway section counts were also conducted on November 3, 2016 at the two study roadway sections (east and west of Fallbrook Avenue). These counts were taken to represent the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on each study roadway section. All traffic counts were collected while schools were still in session, avoiding any holiday related shifts in traffic patterns. The ADT of Ventura Boulevard in the study area was found to be approximately 20,000 vehicles per day to the west of Fallbrook Avenue and approximately 30,000 vehicles per day east of Fallbrook Avenue. Figure 3.4 shows the existing peak hour volumes at the study intersections and daily volumes at the two roadway sections. Raw traffic count data is included in Appendix B. Roadway Section Analysis The two roadway sections (east and west of Fallbrook Avenue) were analyzed according to their Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratios. The ADT volumes provide a baseline to evaluate current performance of the roadway by each section/direction. The existing ADT volumes were used to determine the volume or “V” in the V/C ratio. The capacity or “C” is based on an assumed theoretical daily roadway capacity of 7,500 vehicles per lane per day. The existing Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratios were evaluated to identify deficiencies in the roadway network, and for purposes of this analysis, a section is considered deficient (i.e. operating at capacity) if the V/C ratio is 1.00 or greater. It was found that Ventura Boulevard currently operates at a V/C of less than 1.00 and has excess available capacity in the study area. Specifically, Ventura Boulevard operates at a V/C of between 0.68 and 0.70 for the sections east and west of Fallbrook Avenue, respectively. Table 3.2 summarizes the existing V/C ratios at the two roadway sections. Table 3.2 – Existing Conditions – Roadway Section Volume-to-Capacity

Notes: 1. 2.

Capacity is based on daily capacity of 7,500 vehicles/lane/day. V/C = Volume-to-Capacity ratio.

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

11


Sale Ave

Legend AM/PM Peak Hour Volume Average Daily Traffic Volume

60%-80% Roadway Capacity Utilization

93

30,3

773/346 348/143 459/368

/40 88 /26 84

1

8 /49 361 05 /7 525 50 /1 2 3 1

d

sR

ere

Com

1 /2 13 492 2/ 32

0 22/4 /987 9 131

Rigoletto St

Ave

08

20,9

2

3

94/141 567/612 68/51

yer

Ro

167 80/ 03 /4 315 3/33 4

lvd

aB

tur Ven

80%-100% Roadway Capacity Utilization

9 10/1 7 /90 982 /10 13

8 16/2 321 /1 986 4 43/3

61 19/ 3/0 3 7/2

ve ce A

40%-60% Roadway Capacity Utilization

Pon

0%-20% Roadway Capacity Utilization 20%-40% Roadway Capacity Utilization

3 25/3 5/1 2 57/4

XX/XX XX,XXX

Study Intersection

Fallbrook Ave

#

N NOT TO SCALE

Figure 3.4: Existing Traffic Volumes

City of Los Angeles Ventura Blvd Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

12

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

FIGURE 3.4

Existing Volumes


Intersection Analysis Intersections are typically considered to represent the most critical locations for traffic flow bottlenecks and general congestion on roadways. Conflicting traffic movements are created at intersections because the right-of-way is shared by opposing traffic streams. Traffic operations at signalized and unsignalized intersections are typically described in terms of Levels of Service (LOS) which is based on the amount of delay incurred by vehicles. Levels of service range from “LOS A” which describes excellent operating conditions to “LOS F” which describes congested conditions with noticeable delay. The delay values associated with each LOS are shown in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 – Intersection Level of Service Definitions

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.

Significant traffic impacts are determined based on a threshold of significance set by respective agencies. The LADOT has established threshold criteria to determine if a project has significant traffic impacts. Using the LADOT standard, a project impact would be considered significant based on the criteria shown in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 – Intersection Significant Impact Criteria

Source: LADOT Traffic Study Guidelines, December 2010

A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate existing operations during the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the three study intersections. The study intersection of Ventura Boulevard at Royer Avenue was identified to operate at LOS F during the weekday AM peak hour, largely due to delay experienced by left-turning vehicles from Royer Avenue onto the Boulevard. The intersection operates at LOS C during the weekday PM peak hour. Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

13


The intersection of Ventura Boulevard and Fallbrook Avenue operates at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Ventura Boulevard and Sale Avenue operates at overall LOS B conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. Parking Utilization The study area consists of on-street parallel and off-street parking areas. There are 97 on-street metered parallel parking spaces and six (6) designated loading areas. Additionally, there are three off-street parking areas open for public use at Hugo’s Tacos, Val Surf, and Smart & Final. A parking utilization count was performed for each study parking area on Thursday, November 3, 2016 during the weekday afternoon period from 1 PM to 8 PM. The number of on-street vehicles parked and number of vehicles parked in each parking lot was recorded on an hourly basis during the observation period and the total number of available spaces (inventory) for each parking area was noted. On-street parking utilization east of Fallbrook Avenue was generally found to be at most 40%. Immediately adjacent to Lot 3, the on-street parking utilization was found to be approximately 20%. West of Fallbrook Avenue, the parking utilization was considerably higher, particularly on the north side of Ventura Boulevard where onstreet parking utilization was identified to be 60% to 80%. The south side of Ventura Boulevard west of Fallbrook Avenue experienced a utilization of between 20% and 40%. The Lot 1 off-street parking area experienced the highest utilization of between 60% to 80%, while parking lots 2 and 3 experienced a utilization of between 40% and 60%. Figure 3.5 details the average (mean) parking utilization rates by location and Appendix B summarizes the parking utilization data.

3.3 Pedestrian Accommodations There are three (3) marked crosswalks for pedestrians to use when crossing Ventura Boulevard. One (1) crosswalk is located at the signalized intersection with Fallbrook Avenue and two (2) crosswalks are located at the signalized intersection with Sale Avenue, which is located approximately 1,400 feet east of Fallbrook Avenue. All existing pedestrian crossings require the activation of a pedestrian push button at the traffic signal. The midpoint on the longest stretch of roadway without a marked pedestrian crossing is located at Royer Avenue, where the nearest crossing is approximately 1,200 -1,400 feet in either direction. Therefore, pedestrians at the intersection of Ventura Boulevard and Royer Avenue must either walk west to the signalized intersection of Woodlake Avenue (1,400 feet) or walk east to the signalized intersection of Fallbrook Avenue (1,200 feet).

14

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


1 2

Sale Ave

Legend

40%-60% Utilization 60%-80% Utilization 80%-100% Utilization

ve ce A

Pon

Fallbrook Ave

0%-20% Utilization 20%-40% Utilization

Smart & Final Parking

lvd

ra B

tu Ven

Ave

rf Su Val king r Pa

d

sR

ere

Com

aB

ur

nt Ve

lvd

Rigoletto St

yer

Ro s aco sT go’ rking u H Pa

N NOT TO SCALE

Note: Parking utilization is calculated by the number of parked cars in a segment divided by the total number of parking spots in the segment. The average parking utilization shown in this figure is the average of the hourly parking utilization between 1 PM and 8 PM on a typical weekday.

Figure 3.5: Existing Average Parking Utilization FIGURE 3.5 City of Los Angeles Existing Weekday Afternoon Average Parking Utilization Ventura Blvd Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

15


There are some trees within the public right-of-way between the sidewalk and the roadway, however, most of the study corridor does not provide shade to pedestrians on the sidewalk from overhead sunlight. Public benches are not provided throughout the study area except for a limited number located at transit bus stops (Refer to Section 3.5 below).

3.4 Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities in the study area were evaluated based on the Degree of Separation (DOS) they provide from vehicular traffic consistent with the type of facilities outlined in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. Table 3.5 describes the various levels of bicycle facility separation from vehicular traffic. The Degree of Separation column in the table represents an arbitrary number assigned to each type of facility so that the various types of facilities may be objectively compared throughout this study. For the purposes of this study, the higher the Degree of Separation between bicycles and vehicles, the higher the facility is regarded in terms of bicycle accommodation provided. Table 3.5 – Comparing Bicycle Facility Accommodations

Source: FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, May, 2015. Degree of Separation represents an arbitrary numerical value assigned in this study to objectively compare the Degree of Separation offered by each type of facility.

Ventura Boulevard provides on-street bike lanes (Degree of Separation 3 according to Table 3.5) on both the north and south side between Royer Avenue and Ponce Avenue. However, there is signage indicating that the bike lane ends just east of Ponce Avenue on the south side of Ventura Boulevard and there are no formal bike facilities on the north side of Ventura Boulevard east of Ponce Avenue. In this section, the outermost travel lane likely operates in the shared lane condition without proper signing or shared lane pavement markings (comparable to Degree of Separation 2). 16

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


There are very few bike racks or bicycle parking facilities on public property throughout the study area, except for the frontage along the Wheel World Bicycles business property located on the south side of Ventura Boulevard just west of Ponce Avenue.

3.5 Public Transit Facilities The study area is served by bus transit lines operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). Table 3.6 lists the transit lines within or near the study area and Figure 3.6 illustrates the bus routes and stops within the study area. Table 3.6 – Bus Routes in Study Area

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

17


Study Intersection LADOT 422/423 LA Metro 152/353 LA Metro 161 Bus Stop

Pon

Fallbrook Ave

#

Sale Ave

Legend

ve ce A

3

lvd

ra B

tu Ven

2

Ave d

sR

ere

Com

Rigoletto St

yer

Ro

1

N NOT TO SCALE

Figure 3.6: Bus Routes

City of Los Angeles Ventura Blvd Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

18

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

FIGURE 3.6 Bus Routes


4. ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS

4.1 Benefits & Design Considerations of Diagonal Parking Diagonal (angled) parking can provide numerous benefits to local businesses and residents alike. It has the potential to help transform roads that have a suburban arterial look-and-feel into a more vibrant main street. The concentration of parking it provides helps generate a sense of place and can be a major component of increased pedestrian activity in the surrounding area. Due to the bike lanes within the study area, reverse angled (back-in-head-out) parking was selected for consideration in the conceptual design alternatives. According to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, “Bike lanes should normally not be placed adjacent to conventional front-in diagonal parking, since drivers backing out of parking spaces have poor visibility of bicyclists in the bike lane.” The guide also lists several benefits associated with reverse angled parking: • Improved sight distance between exiting motorists and other traffic compared to parallel parking or front-in angled parking. • No conflict between bicyclists and open car doors. • Easier loading/unloading of vehicles. • Passengers (including children) are naturally channeled toward the curb when alighting. • Loading and unloading of the trunk occurs at the curb, not in the street. Further, the Los Angeles Department of City Planning Complete Streets Manual also recommends avoiding conventional front-in diagonal parking when bike lanes are present. Reverse angled parking is suggested instead. In addition to the benefits listed above, reverse angled parking helps direct vehicle headlights away from homes and businesses and is typically an easier maneuver for drivers, according to the manual. It is worth noting that there are some drawbacks to reverse angled parking. The Los Angeles Department of City Planning Complete Streets Design Guide lists considerations (and potential drawbacks) of reverse angled parking as being that

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

19


drivers must be aware of bicyclists before backing in and that vehicle exhaust from parked cars is directed towards the sidewalk. As with all angled parking (back-in or head-in), excessive vehicle overhang can also be an issue if it impinges on sidewalk space. A mitigative measure often used by municipalities is to install wheel stops as a physical deterrent. These wheel stops are often beneficial in an overall sense but may have negative effects on drainage and street cleaning maintenance. As with all infrastructure, there is an associated cost to install and maintain. Benefits of Back-In Angle Parking: •

Expands and increases motorists' field of vision when exiting, reducing the risk of colliding with pedestrians and bicyclists.

Eliminates the risk of motorists "dooring" bicyclists traveling in the bicycle lane, as evidenced on streets with a parallel parking configuration.

Increases the overall supply of on-street parking spaces when compared to parallel parking.

May prove easier for some motorists to back-in at an angle as opposed to backing in and parking parallel.

Makes loading and unloading activities more convenient by orienting the vehicle's trunk toward the sidewalk.

Encourages safer vehicle speeds when back-in angled parking is part of a road diet project. --Los Angeles Complete Streets Design Guide

It is common to see reverse angled parking in commercial areas adjacent to local businesses with active street facades. The cross-sectional width necessary for reverse angled parking increases the physical separation between pedestrians on the sidewalk and passing motorists. Figure 4.1 depicts some of the benefits associated with reverse angled parking. LADOT currently follows Standard Detail S-440.0 for diagonal parking stall design. Refer to Appendix D for LADOT standard for On-Street Angle Parking Stalls. The LADOT standard for angled on-street parking is uniquely for front-in angled parking, as the city does not currently have a standard detail for reverse angled parking. In the development of the conceptual design alternatives in this study, parking stalls of 9 feet width by 16 feet (not including overhang space) in length with an angle of 45° relative to the curb were selected. Note that due to the geometry, the lines physically painted on the asphalt would be 25 feet long. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) and National Parking Association (NPA) Dimensions of Parking was used as a guide in determining these dimensions. The parking dimensions selected require a cross-sectional width of 17.7 feet and the stall stripe measures 25 feet from the curb to the outside of the parking space. To provide an additional (and conservative) 2.3-foot separation between the angled parking and the travel lanes, all conceptual designs provide 20 feet of cross-sectional width for the reverse angled parking. These dimensions are shown on Figure 4.1.

20

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


What are the Benefits?

How to park in a back-in angle space

1. More parking spaces: a back-in angle parking space takes up less room than a parallel parking space, creating seven additional spaces on Lower Broadway

4. Improved safety: studies have shown a decrease in crashes with back-in angle parking due to the driver’s increased field of vision as they exit the space into traffic, and because car doors open in a manner that directs occupants (children) to the sidewalk

2. Easier than parallel parking: drivers find that back-in angle parking is easier because there is only one turning movement to enter the space

It’s as easy as 1, 2, 3 1 Signal to indicate your intention to park 2 Pull past the space and stop 3 Reverse into the space

5. Improved visibility: when leaving the parking space, drivers have improved visibility and increased field of vision which allows them to better see oncoming traffic

3. Improved curbside loading and unloading: car trunks are loaded directly from the sidewalk, keeping people out of the roadway

6. Better ADA parking: both the driver and passenger sides of the vehicle are protected from traffic

Making Deliveries

1

Trash & Snow 2

2.3’ 25’ 16’ 17.7’ 9’

3

45°

12.728’

Figure 4.1: Benefits of Reverse Angled Parking (Source: Sam Schwartz Engineering, D.P.C.)

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

21


4.2 Development Conceptual design alternatives were developed to provide diagonal parking along the study corridor while balancing the needs of the roadway users which at times can be conflicting. For example, during the public input process some bicycle advocates indicated they desired more bicycle facilities and were not concerned with traffic operations for motor vehicles. Alternatively, coming from a different school of thought, some motor vehicle commuters indicated a preference for motor vehicle accommodations and would prefer there we no bicycle accommodations at all. This is just one example of conflicting interests amongst roadway users. With a finite amount of roadway width available for public use, providing more width for one mode of transportation may come at the expense of another. The trade-offs that exist between different allocations of the public space within the right-of-way were best illustrated by creating separate alternatives that allocated more space to one mode or roadway feature over another, and then comparing outcomes to assess the sensitivity of the key evaluation metrics. As such, three (3) distinct alternatives were developed following the Community Advisory Group (CAG) meeting on November 16, 2016 and comments received from the first public meeting on January 12, 2017. These alternatives were presented to the public at the February 15, 2017 meeting.

4.3 Design Considerations Each conceptual design alternative was prepared with attention to the following key evaluation metrics (design considerations): • Roadway section capacity (v/c) • Intersection Level of Service (LOS) • Parking (number of spaces, loading zones) • Walkability (number of marked crossings) • Bicycle infrastructure (degrees of separation) • Driveway accessibility (no left turns, left turns allowed from thru lane, twoway center left-turn lane, versus dedicated left-turn lane) • Estimated cost Other important metrics also considered in the development of the three conceptual design alternatives were: • Lane width • Type of parking & ease of use • Alignment of roadway • Aesthetics/Landscaping

22

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


• Traffic calming • Pedestrian crossing distance • Maintenance cost • Vehicle turning paths • Fire hydrant access • Emergency routes and access • “Inviting” look and feel which promotes commerce

4.4 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 was developed with the primary objective of increasing on-street parking. West of Fallbrook Avenue, one eastbound vehicular through lane was removed to accommodate reverse angled parking on the south side of Ventura Boulevard. This alternative also provided additional space between the bike and vehicle travel lanes by introducing a striped buffer. No new left-turn restrictions were imposed, but the two-way center left-turn lane width was reduced to 12 feet (from 16 feet existing). The FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide indicates that two-way center left-turn lanes are typically 10-12 feet, and seldom less than 10 feet. It should be noted that with the removal of a vehicle through lane, a transition taper would be required and would extend to Woodlake Avenue. In the section east of Fallbrook Avenue, reverse angled parking was provided on both the north and south sides where possible and a curbed median island would restrict left turns between Fallbrook Avenue and Ponce Avenue (except at intersections). A striped buffer between the bike and travel lanes was included where there was adequate space. In the eastbound direction, a lane shift taper helped transition vehicles towards the center of the roadway to accommodate the reverse angled parking on the south side. The section of Ventura Boulevard between Ponce Avenue and Sale Avenue remained mostly unchanged, except for the addition of right-turn arrows on the outside westbound lane indicating that a mandatory right turn would be required at Ponce Avenue. Note that this is the case for all three alternatives. Figure 4.2 depicts the rendered conceptual design of Alternative 1.

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

23


ROYER AVE DWY

LIQUOR

DWY

DWY IN COFFEE DWY

DWY

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

VALSURF

DWY WE BUY

VALSURF

DWY

DWY

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

OFFICE DWY LOADING

LOADING

HABIT

SMART+FINAL

DWY

DWY

7-ELEVEN

TOP NAILS

VACANT

DWY

LBR

WENDY'S EGRESS

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

AUTO

ELECTRIC

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

DWY

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

FAL

RIG OL

HOLIDAY INN DWY

DWY

DWY 7-ELEVEN

DWY

K

DWY BOFA

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

OO

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

DWY

ETT OS T

DWY

RIG O

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

E

DWY

DWY

DWY

GYM

OFFIC

VACANT DWY

DWY

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

DWY

RESTAURANT DWY

DWY LOADING

TOP NAILS

K

7-ELEVEN

DWY FAL LBR OO

7-ELEVEN

HUGOS

DWY

DWY

ERY

NURS

HUGOS

DWY

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

SH

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

DWY ALIMAR

L ET TO ST

DWY

DWY

HABIT

SMART+FINAL DWY

HOLIDAY INN DWY

SCALE

80

DWY

DWY

DWY

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

VENTURA

WENDY'S EGRESS

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

DWY

DWY BLVD MEDICAL

LOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

Existing Condition

Alternative 1

97 6 2 3 no

128 5 2 3 some

160

( IN FEET )

1 inch = 80 ft.

Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

LOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

LOADING

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

PONCE AVE

0

PONCE AVE

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B

LOADING

Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

Existing Condition

Alternative 1

97 6 2 3 no

128 5 2 3 some

SALE AVE

DWY

FIGURE 4.2 ALTERNATIVE 1

Figure 4.2: Alternative 1 (Not to Scale - See Appendix F for scale drawing)

4.5 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 accentuated a more balanced approach to the trade-off between parking and other roadway features than in Alternative 1. In this alternative, bicycle facilities were significantly improved and no left-turn restrictions were imposed throughout the entire study area. Figure 4.3 depicts the rendered conceptual design of Alternative 2. West of Fallbrook Avenue and similar to Alternative 1, one eastbound vehicular through lane was removed to accommodate reverse angled parking on the south side of the roadway. Where possible, the bike lane facilities were improved in the section west of Fallbrook Avenue. Parallel parking adjacent to a striped buffer offered protection on the north side (westbound direction). Reverse angled parking stood between the vehicular travel lanes and the bike lane on the south side of the roadway (eastbound direction). The two-way center left-turn lane was reduced to 12 feet in the entire west section.

24

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


F LOADING

VENTU

WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

HUGOS

HUGOS

DWY

DWY

LIQUOR

DWY

E

DWY

OFFIC

IN COFFEE DWY

DWY

DWY

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

VALSURF

DWY WE BUY

VALSURF

OFFICE DWY LOADING

HABIT

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

LOADING

SMART+FINAL

DWY

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

HOLIDAY INN DWY

WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

7-ELEVEN

TOP NAILS

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

AUTO

ELECTRIC

DWY

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

DWY

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

RIG

FAL

OL

LBR

DWY

K

7-ELEVEN

WENDY'S EGRESS

DWY

ETT

BOFA

DWY

OO

DWY

OS T

DWY

DWY

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

RIG O

OO

FAL L

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

GYM

VACANT

VENTURA BLVD

BR

DWY

VACANT DWY

DWY

LOADING

TOP NAILS

K

7-ELEVEN

DWY

7-ELEVEN

RESTAURANT DWY

DWY

DWY

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

DWY

Y

ER NURS

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

IMAR SHAL DWY

ROYER AVE

LET TO ST

DWY

DWY

HABIT

SMART+FINAL DWY

HOLIDAY INN DWY

LOADING

80

JACK

BJJ

JACK (EGRESS) DWY

DWY

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

160

( IN FEET )

1 inch = 80 ft.

LOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

LOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

Existing Condition Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

DWY

MEDICAL

LOADING

DWY

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

DWY VENTURA BLVD

DWY

DWY

PONCE AVE

SCALE

PONCE AVE

0

DWY

DWY

WENDY'S EGRESS

97 6 2 3 no

Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

Alternative 2

Existing Condition

Alternative 2

97 6 2 3 no

121 5 2 3 no

121 5 2 3 no

SALE AVE

DWY

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B

NG

InOFFICE the section east of Fallbrook Avenue, reverse angled parking was provided on the DWY north side of Ventura Boulevard only, where possible. On the south side of Ventura Boulevard, the bike lane had the same additional protection as it does on the southern side in the west section. The section of Ventura Boulevard between Ponce Avenue and Sale Avenue remained mostly unchanged as compared to the existing condition, except for the right-turn-only lane at Ponce Avenue.

FIGURE 4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2

Figure 4.3: Alternative 2 (Not to Scale - See Appendix F for scale drawing)

4.6 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 explores the potential for parallel parking within a center median island. This alternative was developed based on feedback from the community workshop held on January 12, 2017. During this community workshop, members of the public engaged in an activity in which they assembled numerous “puzzle pieces” of different cross-sectional elements to form various possible roadway configurations. Parallel

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

25


parking alongside a center curbed median island was an idea put forth by workshop participants in one of the configurations formulated that evening. Figure 4.4 is a photo taken of one possible roadwayDWYconfiguration at the JanuaryDWY12th community WB-67

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

AASHTO 2011 (US)

VALSURF

LOADING

VALSURF

OFFICE DWY

workshop that proposed median parallel parking.

LOADING

VENT

Figure 4.4: January 12, 2017- Photo of possible roadway configuration put forth by community workshop participants showing median parallel parking as one option.

Figure 4.5 depicts Alternative 3 along Ventura Boulevard in the study area. DWY

K

DWY

HUGOS

DWY

DWY

TOP NAILS

RESTAURANT DWY

DWY

VACANT VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

DWY

DWY

HABIT OFFICE DWY

DWY

DWY

HOLIDAY INN

VENTURA BLVD DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

TOP NAILS

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

WENDY'S EGRESS

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

DWY

VENTURA BLVD DWY

DWY

DWY

LIQUOR

AUTO

ELECTRIC

DWY

DWY

LIQUOR

DWY

FAL

RIG OL

LBR

DWY

DWY 7-ELEVEN

OO K

DWY 7-ELEVEN

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

SMART+FINAL

DWY

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

DWY BOFA

DWY

DWY

WE BUY

VALSURF

ETT

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

E

OFFIC

VALSURF

OS T

FAL

LOADING

GYM

LOADING

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

WB-67

DWY

IN COFFEE DWY

DWY

AASHTO 2011 (US)

DWY

LOADING

LIQUOR LOADING

LBR

DWY

HUGOS

OL

ERY

NURS

ETT OS T

DWY

RIG

IMAR SHAL DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

7-ELEVEN

OO

DWY

7-ELEVEN

DWY

DWY ROYER AVE

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

DWY

HABIT

SMART+FINAL

DWY

( IN FEET )

80

1 inch = 80 ft.

JACK

HOLIDAY INN DWY

DWY BJJ

JACK (EGRESS)

WENDY'S EGRESS

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

LOADING

LOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

Existing Condition

Alternative 3

97 6 2 3 no

126 6 2 5 some

160

Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

LOADING

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

PONCE AVE

SCALE

LOADING

VENTURA BLVD

PONCE AVE

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B

DWY

0

DWY

Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

Existing Condition

Alternative 3

97 6 2 3 no

126 6 2 5 some

SALE AVE

DWY

Figure 4.5: Alternative 3 (Not to Scale - See Appendix F for scale drawing) 26

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

FIGURE 4.5 ALTERNATIVE 3


West of Fallbrook Avenue from Comeres Road to Rigoletto Street, a center median whose width varied between 7 and 16 feet provided parallel parking in the center of the roadway. Due to the constrained width in this section, the additional median parking alternated between the eastbound and westbound sides (see figure 4.5). The median was wide enough to facilitate pedestrian access to the two new crosswalks shown at either end of the median—one crossing near Comeres Road and the other near Rigoletto Street. It is important to note that where the median has an outside curb width of 7 feet, the usable width available to pedestrians is slightly less due to a proposed safety fence to prevent pedestrians from crossing mid-block. It should be noted that further engineering study as per the recommendations in the FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) should be performed to verify the new crosswalk locations. No parallel parking was proposed between Royer Avenue and Comeres Road due to the proximity of both intersections. East of Fallbrook Avenue, Alternative 3 was similar to Alternative 1.

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

27


5. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

5.1 Development The ‘Preferred’ Alternatives were developed based on input received during the public meeting held on February 15, 2017, through consultation with LADOT, and the office of City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield. The alternatives are “preferred”, as they contain as many “preferred” design elements from the original three concepts as reasonably possible, given the typical constraints on a study of this nature. Each Preferred Alternative sought to refine desirable design elements from Alternatives 1-3 in different ways. The evaluation metrics of on-street parking capacity, traffic flow, walkability, bicycle infrastructure, driveway accessibility, aesthetics, and cost remained paramount throughout the entire process. Throughout the public process, many different users of the roadway voiced their opinion in some form or another: advocacy groups, individuals, business owners, commuters, parents, elders, transit riders, bicyclists, pedestrians...etc. It comes as no surprise that this diverse group of roadway users have differing needs. Both Preferred Alternatives were designed with all these groups in mind while seeking to satisfy the project goals to provide diagonal parking along Ventura Boulevard.

5.2 Preferred Alternative ‘A’ Design Summary Preferred Alternative ‘A’ was designed to minimize the trade-offs between added reverse angled parking and accommodations for different travel modes. As such, it provided a moderate net increase of 8 on-street parking spaces in overall parking capacity with the introduction of reverse angled parking as compared to existing conditions. It should be noted, however, that there may be a 2-4 parking space variation if this concept should advance to construction level design plans due to ADA requirements to accommodate one disabled parking space for every 25 nondisabled spaces.

28

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


Preferred Alternative 'A' improved bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and traffic calming measures. It preserved all driveway left-turn access via the two-way center left-turn lane, though the lane was reduced to a width of 12 feet. The number of vehicular travel lanes in the section east of Fallbrook Avenue was reduced from three in each direction to two, and the section west of Fallbrook maintained at least two vehicular travel lanes in both directions (unchanged from existing conditions). Two new traffic signals were introduced in this concept—one at the intersection of Ventura Boulevard with Royer Avenue and the other at Ponce Avenue. Although the intersection with Ponce Avenue was not a study intersection and therefore not analyzed with respect to MUTCD traffic signal warrants, a traffic signal was recommended nonetheless as a means of improving pedestrian connectivity and calming traffic. A traffic signal warrants analysis as outlined in the MUTCD was performed to verify the need for a traffic signal at the intersection with Royer Avenue. This analysis concluded that the signal is warranted and is included in Appendix C. Additional speed limit signs were placed throughout the study area to remind drivers that the speed limit is 35 mph. Figure 5.1 depicts the rendered conceptual design of Preferred Alternative ‘A’. Typical Section West of Fallbrook Avenue Beginning from the south side, this section consisted of a 6-foot bike lane protected by a 3-foot striped buffer and an 8-foot parking lane, two eastbound 11-foot travel lanes, a 12-foot two-way center left-turn lane, two 11-foot westbound travel lanes, and an 8-foot parking lane and 3-foot buffer protecting the northerly 6-foot bike lane. Figure 5.2 depicts this section. Typical Section East of Fallbrook Avenue Beginning from the south side, this section consisted of a 6-foot bike lane protected by a 3-foot striped buffer and an 8-foot parking lane, an 11-foot and 11 ½-foot eastbound travel lane, a 12-foot two-way center left-turn lane, an 11 ½-foot and 11-foot westbound travel lane, a 5-foot bike lane, and a 20-foot row of reverse angled parking. Figure 5.3 depicts this section. Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions for Preferred Alternative ‘A’ were evaluated for the overall roadway sections and key intersections. Roadway Section Analysis East of Fallbrook Avenue, Ventura Boulevard would be reduced by one travel lane in each direction and as such, the V/C ratio would be increased to 1.01. A V/C ratio of this level indicates that the roadway volume would slightly exceed the available capacity. To the west of Fallbrook Avenue, the V/C ratio would remain similar to the existing condition.

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

29


PROTECTED BIKE LANES (WHERE POSSIBLE)

FAL COMERES LBR OO KA V

INCREASED TREE COVERAGE

PROP. R

OFFICE DWY LOADING

DWY

ROYER AVE

VE

POTENTIAL PLANTERS/LANDSCAPING

PROP. SIGNAL

IMAR SHAL DWY

HUGOS

HUGOS

DWY

DWY

LIQUOR HYD

RESTAURANT DWY

DWY

VACANT DWY

HARDWOOD FLOORING DWY

LOADING

ERY

NURS

WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

DWY

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

DWY

OO K

LOADING

TOP NAILS

PROP. R2-1 35 MPH SPEED LIMIT SIGN (1 OF 4 NEW)

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

HABIT

OS T

DWY

SMART+FINAL

WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

DWY

7-ELEVEN

DWY TOP NAILS

DWY

OO

LBR

DWY

HABIT

DWY

DWY

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

HOLIDAY INN DWY HYD

DWY

DWY WENDY'S EGRESS

AUTO

WENDY'S I

ELECTRIC

DWY

DW

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

HYD

DWY

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

DWY

BJJ

MEDICAL

LOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

WINE

LUKE

WB-67

P

JACK

JACK (EGRESS) DWY

PONCE AVE

P

PROP. SIGNAL

JACK

DWY

JACK (EGRESS)

LOADING

IMPROVED IMPROVED ROADWAY ROADWAY ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT

SNEAKERLOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

Existing Condition Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

Preferred Alternative 'A'

Existing Condition 97 6 2 3 no

97 6 2 3 no

105 6 4 6 no

Preferred Alternative 'A' 105 6 4 6 no

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

SALE AVE

AASHTO 2011 (US)

AASHTO 2011 (US)

PONCE AVE

WENDY'S EGRESS

Figure 5.1: Preferred Alternative ‘A’ (Not to Scale - See Appendix F for scale drawing)

30

HOLIDAY INNDWY HYD DWY LIQUOR

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

LOADING

160

LIQUOR

SMART+FINAL

DWY

DWY

DWY

AASHTO 2011 (US)

( IN FEET )

DWY VACANT

PROP. R2-1 35 MPH SPEED LIMIT SIGN (1 OF 4 NEW)

FAL

DWY

RIG

OL

ETT

PROP. HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYP.)

DWY

1 inch = 80 ft.

DWY

DWY 7-ELEVEN

K

BOFA

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

DWY

PROP. REVERSE ANGLE PARKING

VENTURA BLVD

WB-67

80

LIQUOR

PROTECTED BIKE LANES (WHERE POSSIBLE)

INCREASED TREE COVERAGE

AASHTO 2011 (US)

0

YELLOW SIGN

DWY

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

LOADING

PROP. CROSSING

SCALE

VACANT

WE BUY

OFFICE DWY

DWY

L

VALSURF

DWY

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

DWY

IN COFFEE DWY

FAL

LBR

DWY

PROP. CROSSINGS

P

OFFICE

VALSURF

DWY DWY

P

DWY

AASHTO 2011 (US)

7-ELEVEN

GYM

LOADING

DWY

DWY AASHTO 2011 (US)

DWY

DWY

PROP. HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYP.)

AASHTO 2011 (US)

DWY

OL ETT

DWY

7-ELEVEN

P

AASHTO 2011 (US)

RIG

DWY

P

(US)

OS T

WB-67

AASHTO 2011

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

VENTURA BLVD

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B

G

PROP. CROSSINGS

FIGUR PREFE ALTERNA


VENTURA BLVD PREFERRED “A” (West of Fallbrook Ave)

P 10’ Sidewalk

P

6’ 3’ 8’ Bicycle Lane Parking Lane

11’ Travel Lane

11’ Travel Lane

12’ Center Turn Lane

11’ Travel Lane

11’ Travel Lane

8’ 3’ 6’ Parking Lane Bicycle Lane

20’ Sidewalk

Figure 5.2: Preferred Alternative ‘A’ Section West (looking west)

VENTURA BLVD PREFERRED “A” (East of Fallbrook Ave)

P 20’ Sidewalk

P

6’ 3’ 8’ Bicycle Lane Parking Lane

11’ Travel Lane

11.5’ Travel Lane

12’ Center Turn Lane

11.5’ Travel Lane

11’ 5’ Travel Lane Bicycle Lane

20’ Reverse Angle Parking

20’ Sidewalk

Figure 5.3: Preferred Alternative ‘A’ Section East (looking west)

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

31


Table 5.1 summarizes the expected Volume-to-Capacity ratios on both the east and west of Fallbrook Avenue study roadway sections. Table 5.1 –Preferred Alternative ‘A’ Conditions – Roadway Section LOS

Notes: 1 = Based on daily capacity of 7,500 vehicles/lane/day V/C = Volume-to-Capacity ratio

Intersection Analysis Compared to the existing condition, the intersection of Ventura Boulevard at Royer Avenue would improve significantly during the AM peak hour from LOS F in the existing condition to LOS A in Preferred Alternative A. Similarly, during the PM peak hour the intersection operations would improve from LOS C to LOS A. The improvements in traffic operation are due to the proposed traffic signal installation. The intersections of Ventura Boulevard at Fallbrook Avenue and Sale Avenue would continue to operate at similar LOS D and LOS B conditions, respectively. Table 5.2 compares LOS in the existing condition and Preferred Alternative A. LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. Table 5.2 – Preferred Alternative ‘A’ – Intersection LOS

Notes: HCM 2000 Operations Methodology LOS = Level of Service Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds)

Pedestrian Accommodations The two new traffic signals at the intersections of Royer Avenue and Ponce Avenue in Preferred Alternative ‘A’ reduced the distance a pedestrian might need to walk to safely and legally cross Ventura Boulevard in the study area by providing a total of three additional marked/signalized crosswalks. In this alternative, the distance between pedestrians crossing locations would be reduced by half as compared to the existing condition. Numerous additional trees and landscaping opportunities were also included to 32

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


shade pedestrians from the overhead sun and enhance the aesthetics of the corridor. The installation of additional benches could be incorporated into the design as well. Bicycle Facilities The same methodology used to evaluate the existing bicycle facilities in Section 3.4 was used to evaluate the facilities proposed in Preferred Alternative ‘A’. In addition to the benefits for pedestrians, the two new traffic signals proposed benefit bicyclists who wish to cross the roadway but do not feel safe doing so while riding their bicycle. The proposed traffic signals also facilitate side-street access to Ventura Boulevard by stopping primary traffic. Dotted lane stripes and chevron pavement markings were added at intersections and some driveway locations throughout the study area to warn bicyclists and drivers of potential conflict. There are no such treatments in the existing condition. It is important to note that in the existing condition, parked cars abut the curb and do not block drivers' view of bicyclists traveling in the bike lane. With the proposed bike lane protected by a row of parallel parking, the parking must be restricted by a specified distance (usually a function of the travel speed) to provide adequate sight distance to avoid potential driveway conflicts. In Preferred Alternative 'A', the parking spaces were located such that the maximum available sight distance was provided, never less than 15 feet for right-turn entering vehicles or 10 feet for left-turn entering vehicles. Additional chevron conflict markings could be added upon future design iterations to further enhance bicycle safety in areas where sight distance is limited. The sight distance standard could also be increased to enhance bicycle safety, however, the trade-off is that it would reduce the number of on-street parallel parking spaces provided. West of Fallbrook Avenue, bike lanes were widened to 6 feet and relocated alongside a 3-foot stiped buffer adjacent to parallel parking spaces. The FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide recommends a 3-foot minimum buffer between the bike lane and parallel parking to prevent collisions between bicyclists and opening car doors. The physical protection and separation from vehicle traffic by the parked cars provided Degree of Separation 5. East of Fallbrook Avenue, the bike lane on the south side of Ventura Boulevard continued the same protection as the west until Ponce Avenue, where it transitioned at the end of the study limits to meet the existing bike lane. On the northern side of Ventura Boulevard, the bike lane varied from an on-street striped lane to a buffered lane (Degrees of Separation 3 and 4). The variation was the result of the changing curb-to-curb width as the roadway transitioned between 90 feet and 99 feet (this is an existing condition), and as the parking facilities varied between parallel and reverse angled parking. Transit Facilities No changes to the existing bus route or bus stop locations were proposed as part of Preferred Alternative ‘B’. However, based on review of the study area, additional benches, landscaping, trees, wayfinding signage, artwork, and other pedestrian improvements could be added to enhance the existing bus stop locations. Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

33


5.3 Preferred Alternative ‘B’ Design Summary The primary focus of Preferred Alternative ‘B’ was to provide a significant net increase (32 on-street parking spaces) in overall parking capacity with the introduction of reverse angled parking as compared to existing conditions. It should be noted, however, that there may be a 4-6 parking space variation if this concept should advance to construction level design plans due to ADA requirements to accommodate one disabled parking space for every 25 non-disabled spaces. Improvements to bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and traffic calming measures were also included in Preferred Alternative 'B'. It preserved most driveway left-turn access via the two-way center left-turn lane, except for a short section between Fallbrook Avenue and Ponce Avenue where a median island with mountable curb was located. Mountable curb was selected to deter typical passenger vehicles from crossing while maintaining emergency vehicle access. The two-way center left-turn lane was reduced to a width of 12 feet. The number of vehicular travel lanes in the section east of Fallbrook Avenue was reduced from three in each direction to two. In the section west of Fallbrook Avenue, the westbound direction maintained two travel lanes (same as existing condition), but the eastbound direction was reduced from two to one. The roadway section analysis describes the operations in more detail. The V/C would go to 1.01, just barely over the theoretical limit. A new traffic signal was introduced in this concept at the intersection of Ventura Boulevard and Royer Avenue. A traffic signal warrants analysis as outlined in the MUTCD was performed to verify the need for a traffic signal at the intersection with Royer Avenue. This analysis concluded that the signal is warranted and is included in Appendix C. A new traffic signal could potentially be added at Ponce Avenue with additional engineering study (signal warrants analysis, conceptual layout, cost estimate). However, a new traffic signal at Ponce Avenue in this alternative would likely require a reduction in the proposed reverse angled parking due to geometric constraints. For this reason in conjunction with the increased cost, a traffic signal was not proposed. Additional speed limit signs are recommended throughout the study area to remind drivers that the speed limit is 35 mph. Figure 5.4 depicts the rendered conceptual design of Preferred Alternative ‘B’. Typical Section West of Fallbrook Avenue The curb-to-curb width in this section would not change. Beginning from the south side to the north, Ventura Boulevard would consist of an 8-foot parking lane, 6-foot bike lane, 3-foot striped buffer, two westbound 11-foot travel lanes, a 12-foot two-way center left-turn lane, an 11-foot eastbound travel lane, a 2-foot striped buffer, 6-foot bike lane, and a 20-foot row of reverse angled parking. Figure 5.5 depicts this section. Typical Section East of Fallbrook Avenue Beginning from the south side, Ventura Boulevard consisted of a 20-foot row of reverse angled parking, a 5-foot bike lane, an 11-foot and an 11 ½-foot westbound travel lane, a 4-foot raised median island with mountable curb, an 11 ½-foot and an 11-foot eastbound travel lane, a 5-foot bike lane, and a 20-foot row of reverse angled parking. Figure 5.6 depicts this section. 34

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


FAL COM LBR O

PR

OFFICE DWY

NG

LOADING

DWY

ROYER AVE

PROP. SIGNAL

IMAR SHAL DWY

HUGOS

HUGOS

DWY

DWY

LIQUOR HYD

RESTAURANT DWY

DWY

VACANT DWY

WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

LOADING

ERY

DWY

YELLOW SIGN

HYD (TO BE RELOCATED)

(RELOCATED)

DWY

WE BUY

VALSURF

LIQUOR

DWY

DWY

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

PROP. R2-1 (WHERE POSSIBLE) 35 MPH SPEED LIMIT SIGN (1 OF 4 NEW)

OL ETT

BUFFERED BIKE LANES

INCREASED TREE COVERAGE

PROP. REVERSE ANGLE PARKING

OFFICE DWY LOADING

LOADING

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

VENTURA BLVD HABIT

SMART+FINAL

DWY DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

7-ELEVEN

TOP NAILS

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

FAL

LBR

DWY

PROP. R2-1 35 MPH SPEED LIMIT SIGN (1 OF 4 NEW)

LIQUOR

WENDY'S EGRESS DWY

DWY

AUTO

ELECTRIC

DWY

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

RIG

OL

PROP. HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYP.)

K

7-ELEVEN

HOLIDAY INN DWY DWY HYD

DWY

DWY

ETT

BOFA

DWY

OO

OS T

DWY

WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

DWY

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

IN COFFEE DWY

VACANT

DWY

DWY

RIG

PROP. CROSSINGS

FAL

LBR

OFFICE

DWY

DWY

DWY

TOP NAILS

VALSURF

DWY

P

PROP. HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYP.)

DWY

DWY

AASHTO 2011 (US)

GYM

P

AASHTO 2011 (US)

P

DWY

OO K

7-ELEVEN

P

AASHTO 2011 (US)

AASHTO 2011 (US)

7-ELEVEN

DWY

WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

OS T

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

DWY

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

NURS

PROP. MEDIAN

HABIT

SMART+FINAL

DWY

DWY

HOLIDAY INN DWY HYD

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B

LOADING

DWY

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

( IN FEET )

1 inch = 80 ft.

DWY

BJJ

MEDICAL

LOADING

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

LOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

Existing Condition Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

Preferred Alternative 'B'

Existing Condition

97 6 2 3 no

129 5 3 5 some

97 6 2 3 no

Preferred Alternative 'B'

SALE AVE

160

PROP. R4-7 "KEEP RIGHT" SIGN (1 OF 2)

PONCE AVE

80

DWY

DWY

P

AASHTO 2011 (US)

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

0

DWY

P

DWY

SCALE

HYD

DWY

LOADING

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

AASHTO 2011 (US)

PONCE AVE

7 T" 2)

DWY

WENDY'S EGRESS

FIGURE PREFER ALTERNA

129 5 3 5 some

Figure 5.4: Preferred Alternative ‘B’ (Not to Scale - See Appendix F for scale drawing)

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

35


VENTURA BLVD PREFERRED “B” (West of Fallbrook Ave)

P 10’ Sidewalk

P

20’ Reverse Angle Parking

6’ 2’ Bicycle Lane

11’ Travel Lane

12’ Center Turn Lane

11’ Travel Lane

11’ Travel Lane

3’

6’ 8’ Bicycle Lane Parking Lane

20’ Sidewalk

Figure 5.5: Preferred Alternative ‘B’ Section West (looking west)

VENTURA BLVD PREFERRED “B” (East of Fallbrook Ave)

P 20’ Sidewalk

P

20’ Reverse Angle Parking

5’ 11’ Bicycle Lane Travel Lane

11.5’ Travel Lane

4’ Median

11.5’ Travel Lane

11’ 5’ Travel Lane Bicycle Lane

20’ Reverse Angle Parking

Figure 5.6: Preferred Alternative ‘B’ Section East (looking west)

36

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

20’ Sidewalk


Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions for Preferred Alternative ‘B’ were evaluated for the overall roadway sections and key intersections. Roadway Section Analysis East of Fallbrook Avenue, Ventura Boulevard would be reduced by one travel lane in each direction and as such, the V/C ratio would be increased to 1.01. A V/C ratio of this level indicates that the roadway volume would slightly exceed the available capacity. To the west of Fallbrook Avenue, the V/C ratio would increase slightly to 0.86 (from 0.70 in the existing condition). A V/C ratio at this level indicates that the roadway is operating within the theoretical available traffic capacity limit. Table 5.3 summarizes the expected Volume-to-Capacity ratios on both the east and west of Fallbrook Avenue study roadway sections. Table 5.3 –Preferred Alternative ‘B’ Conditions – Roadway Segment LOS

Notes: 1 = Based on daily capacity of 7,500 vehicles/lane/day V/C = Volume-to-Capacity ratio

Intersection Analysis Compared to the existing condition, the intersection of Ventura Boulevard at Royer Avenue would improve significantly during the AM peak hour from LOS F in the existing condition to LOS A in Preferred Alternative ‘B’. Similarly, during the PM peak hour the intersection operations would improve from LOS C to LOS A. The improvements in traffic operation are due to the proposed traffic signal installation. The intersections of Ventura Boulevard at Fallbrook Avenue and Sale Avenue would continue to operate at similar LOS D and LOS B conditions, respectively. Table 5.4 compares LOS in the existing condition and Preferred Alternative ‘B’. LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C. Table 5.4 – Preferred Alternative ‘B’ – Intersection LOS

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

37


Notes: HCM 2000 Operations Methodology LOS = Level of Service Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds)

Pedestrian Accommodations The new traffic signal in Preferred Alternative ‘B’ at Royer Avenue reduced the distance a pedestrian might need to walk to safely and legally cross Ventura Boulevard between Fallbrook Avenue and the western limits of the study (and beyond all the way to Woodlake Avenue) area by providing a total of two additional marked/signalized crosswalks. Numerous additional trees and landscaping opportunities are proposed to shade pedestrians from the overhead sun and enhance the aesthetics of the corridor. While not shown on the plan, the installation of additional benches could be incorporated into the design as well. Bicycle Facilities The same methodology used to evaluate the existing bicycle facilities in Section 3.4 was used to evaluate the facilities proposed in Preferred Alternative ‘B’. In addition to the benefits for pedestrians, the new traffic signal benefits bicyclists who wish to cross the roadway but do not feel safe doing so while riding their bicycle. The traffic signal also facilitates side street access from Royer Avenue by stopping primary traffic. Dotted lane stripes and chevron pavement markings are proposed at intersections or potential conflict points throughout the study area to warn both drivers and bicyclists to be vigilant and use caution at that location. There are no such treatments in the existing condition. In the section west of Fallbrook Avenue, the bike lanes were located just outside a striped buffer separating vehicular traffic from bicycle traffic. The increased separation from vehicle traffic by the striped buffer provides Degree of Separation 4. In the section east of Fallbrook until Ponce Avenue, the bike lanes vary from on-street striped to buffered where possible (Degree of Separation 3 and 4). West of Ponce Avenue, conditions returned to those like the existing condition, but with the added improvements of shared lane arrows (“sharrows”) in the eastbound direction and a striped/buffered bike lane where space permits in the westbound direction. Transit Facilities No changes to the existing bus route or bus stop locations were proposed as part of Preferred Alternative ‘B’. However, based on the review of the study area, additional benches, landscaping, trees, wayfinding signage, artwork, and other pedestrian improvements could be added to enhance the existing bus stop locations.

38

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


5.4 Preliminary Cost Estimates & Potential Funding Preliminary Cost Estimates The preliminary cost estimates for both Preferred Alternatives ‘A’ and ‘B’ were estimated based on quantities of the various items in each conceptual design. It is important to note that future engineering design fees were not included in the estimates. The purpose of these preliminary cost estimates was to compare the conceptual designs and help identify what level of funding will be required should the project proceed to final design. To ensure consistency in comparison, the entire Ventura Boulevard project area was assumed for mill & overlay (resurfacing), plus or minus concept specific adjustments such as the proposed median island in Preferred Alternative ‘B’. In addition, the same mobilization, work zone traffic control, and lump sum cost per each new traffic signal was used in the estimates. Each estimate includes a 20% contingency to account for costs still unknown at the approximate 35% level of design completed in the Preferred Alternatives. The unit costs in the calculations were based on a combination of internal/external research from a variety of sources and the collective experience of Sam Schwartz Engineering. Actual costs vary over time, due to bid quantity, manufacturer, location, proximity to distribution facilities, market forces, and other factors. Note that costs were not estimated for Alternatives 1-3 because they were not refined to the level of detail as the Preferred Alternatives. Refer to Appendix E for a detailed breakdown of the engineer’s opinion of the preliminary cost for each alternative. In summary, the preliminary cost estimate for Preferred Alternatives ‘A’ and ‘B’ are as follows: • Preferred Alternative ‘A’ -- $2,500,000 (includes 2" asphalt mill & overlay) • Preferred Alternative ‘B’ -- $2,340,000 (includes 2" asphalt mill & overlay) Potential Funding Because both Preferred Alternatives ‘A’ and ‘B’ improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities and increased parking, they may be eligible for certain state, federal, or local funding programs that are intended to enhance safety or promote economic development. Additionally, it may be possible to partially fund the project due to the proposed asphalt resurfacing. If the timing of the street improvements could coincide with routine pavement maintenance and/or scheduled resurfacing projects, there is potential for overlap in funding. Approximately $1.5 million (before contingency) in each alternative could be shaved off the estimated project cost if the proposed 2" (two inch) asphalt resurfacing were to be funded through other sources. The FHWA administers many Federal Aid Programs which could provide funding at the federal level and include: • Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Safe Routes to School Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

39


• Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) • Transportation Improvements (TI’s) At the state level, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) administrates the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) which could be instrumental to funding the potential street improvements in this study. The STIP identifies procedures and subcategories for regional and local funding sources. At the local level, the Ventura-Cahuenga Specific Plan or the recently city-wide adopted Measure M--Traffic Improvement Plan could provide funding specific to the Woodland Hills section of Ventura Boulevard.

5.5 Alternatives Comparison Summary Table 5.5 compares the two Preferred Alternatives to the existing conditions based on the key evaluation metrics previously described in Section 4.3.

Table 5.5: Alternatives Comparison Summary Both Preferred Alternatives provide more metered on-street parking spaces than are present in the existing condition, but Preferred Alternative ‘B’ featured the largest increase due to the added reverse angled parking on the southern side in the section west of Fallbrook Avenue and on both sides between Fallbrook Avenue and Ponce Avenue. The added reverse angled parking west of Fallbrook Avenue did come with a trade-off, however, as the roadway capacity in this section was reduced from two to one eastbound vehicular travel lane, whereas Preferred Alternative ‘A’ maintained the two existing travel lanes. Additionally, the added reverse angled parking on both sides between Fallbrook Avenue and Ponce Avenue occupy roadway space that otherwise could have preserved the two-way center left-turn lane which was replaced by a raised median island. The median restricts left turns into and out of driveways in the immediate vicinity. 40

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


Preferred Alternative ‘A’ was more conservative with respect to the trade-offs between added reverse angled parking and accommodations for different travel modes. The alternative is less aggressive in terms of increased on-street parking supply when compared to Preferred Alternative ‘B’. The reverse angled parking in Preferred Alternative ‘A’ is limited to the northern side of Ventura Boulevard between Fallbrook Avenue and Ponce Avenue, and is not featured elsewhere within the study area. The bike lane facilities are often separated by a striped buffer between the bike lane and a row of parallel parking, thus providing physical protection between the bicyclists and vehicular traffic—an improvement not offered by Preferred Alternative ‘B’. Also with Preferred Alternative ‘A’, by not featuring reverse angled parking on the southern side between Fallbrook Avenue and Ponce Avenue, adequate road width was available to maintain the two-way center left-turn lane and therefore no new restrictions on leftturns into and out of driveways were introduced. An additional benefit to preserving the two-way center left-turn lane was that a new traffic signal could be introduced at Ponce Avenue and provides an additional signalized crosswalk for pedestrians in case they wish to park on the other side of the street and walk to their destination (a traffic signal at this location would require an exclusive phase/left-turn lane, hence the added traffic signal was not provided in Preferred Alternative ‘B’). Such a lane could be added to the Preferred Alternative 'B' design, but it would come at an approximate cost of 8 to12 parking spaces. Both Preferred Alternatives include additional tree coverage, new speed limit signs to reinforce the 35 mph speed limit, and improved pavement markings and striping for bicyclists and pedestrians at conflict points and intersections. High visibility longitudinal bars at crosswalks are proposed instead of the two outer painted lines which currently exist. Chevron pavement markings are proposed through intersections in the expected wheel path of bicyclists to warn both drivers and bicyclists where potential conflicts might occur. Neither alternative alters existing transit facilities within the study area. Preferred Alternative ‘A’ is expected to cost slightly more than Preferred Alternative ‘B’ largely due to the cost of the additional new traffic signal at Ponce Avenue. However, it is worth noting that further engineering study could potentially result in a design that features a left-turn bay (exclusive lane) in the eastbound direction at Ponce Avenue— making a traffic signal at this location possible. Such a design may be possible, but would likely come at the expense of on-street diagonal parking spaces and would make Preferred Alternative ‘B’ the more costly alternative.

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

41


6. NEXT STEPS

Through this feasibility study and public involvement, it has been demonstrated that there are numerous feasible design options that could be implemented throughout the studied section of Ventura Boulevard, and potentially even along similar sections of Ventura Boulevard given that the Boulevard runs approximately 18 miles and is fairly consistent in curb-to-curb width. The community of the Woodland Hills neighborhood has been involved in this feasibility study throughout the entire process and has helped guide the planning behind the various technical analysis methods applied in this study. However, there are limitations to the conclusions that can be made from public commentary on the alternatives presented in this study as many people, understandably, are resistant to changes that they feel could potentially have a negative impact on their commute, businesses, residency‌etc. One solution is to implement a pilot program or “test before you investâ€? strategy to test out the implementation of the various reverse angled parking areas explored in this study as a demonstration project. A substantial education effort is recommended to ensure the proper use of such facilities. Figure 4.1 could be circulated as a brochure and additional education through the media would also help educate motorists unfamiliar with reverse angled parking. Temporary pavement striping and markings would be used in conjunction with signage during a temporary pilot program to aid in the correct use of the new parking facilities. Figure 6.1 is one example of signs that were installed as part of a 9-week pilot program in Springfield, Missouri. In addition to education, police enforcement of the "BACK-IN PARKING ONLY" signs is recommended by imposing fines upon drivers who fail to park correctly. Upon the Implementation Phase of a pilot program, the fine amount should be determined and posted underneath the regulatory sign. The signs should be placed throughout all areas of reverse angled parking and visible from both travel directions.

42

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


Figure 6.1: Reverse Angled (Back-In) Parking Signs. Source: KSPR ABC 33 News.

A pilot implementation would give residents in the City of Los Angeles time and the ability test out the new parking arrangement before the City spends additional funding in other locations or to make the pilot program a permanent construction. The Ventura Boulevard corridor is a prime candidate for a pilot program. It may also be worthwhile for the City and LADOT to adopt a standard detail for reverse angled parking given that one currently does not exist. Preferred Alternative 'B' obtained a positive response through the public engagement process (it had the most votes at the final public meeting on July 10, 2016) and provided the largest increase in on-street parking. The pilot program, if employed, should implement Preferred Alternative 'B' on a trial basis. Further, the pilot program could introduce certain improvements in phases. The proposed traffic signal at Royer Avenue, for example, could be constructed prior to adding the reverse angled parking. Because the curb-to-curb width of Ventura Boulevard continues unchanged from Royer Avenue to Woodlake Avenue (outside western limit of study area), it is recommended that the Preferred Alternative 'B' cross-section west of Fallbrook Avenue be continued to Woodlake Avenue to maximize net parking gains. Note that this would require a reassessment of the cost estimate previously stated. Although beyond the scope of this study, consolidation of driveways close in proximity could potentially reduce the number of vehicle path conflict points in the roadway and allow for more reverse angled parking spaces to be installed. Additional engineering studies would help make this determination. In conclusion, an Implementation Phase study is recommended to move forward with a pilot program by preparing 100% design level engineering plans for Preferred Alternative 'B', obtaining necessary permitting approvals, and overseeing the implementation to evaluate the results. The study should include a speed zone study to benchmark the existing 85th percentile speeds and assess the impact, if any, that implementing the proposed design would have on the study corridor speeds, and whether any adjustments should be made to the speed limit. Neighborhood streets that connect Ventura Boulevard to other thoroughfares such as Fallbrook Avenue should be studied in case traffic calming measures should be taken to prevent potential cutthrough traffic. Finally, an MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrants analysis is recommended at the intersection of Ventura Boulevard and Ponce Avenue. Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

43


REFERENCES

1. American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Ed. (2012), 2nd printing (2013). 2. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Ed. 3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, May 2015. 4. Urban Land Institute (ULI) & National Parking Association (NPA) Dimensions of Parking, 5th Ed., 2010. 5. National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide, 2013. 6. Los Angeles Department of City Planning Mobility Plan 2035: An Element of the General Plan, Approved by City Planning Commission June 23, 2016 & Adopted by City Council September 7, 2016. Council File No. 15-0719-S15. 7. Los Angeles Department of City Planning Complete Streets Manual, Draft February 2014, retrieved online August 28, 2017. <http://planning.lacity.org/Cwd/GnlPln/MobiltyElement/Text/ CompStManual.pdf> 8. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Road Diet: Informational Guide, FHWA Safety Program, November 2014. 9. Los Angeles Department of City Planning Complete Streets Design Guide, Draft November 2014, retrieved online November 8, 2017. <https://losangeles2b.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ complete-street-design-guide-nov-20144.pdf> 10. Los Angeles Department of City Planning Ventura-Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan, Effective February 16, 1991, last amended effective date August 18, 2001, retrieved online November 15, 2017. <http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/pdf/ VENTURA.PDF> 11. Los Angeles Metro Measure M Final Guidelines, July 14, 2017, retrieved online November 15, 2017. <http://theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/guidelines_measurem_2017-0714. pdf> 12. Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000), October 2000, Copyright by National Academy of Sciences.

44

Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study


Appendix A Public Outreach Meeting Minutes & Collected Data


A-1


MEETING NOTES PROJECT NAME: San Fernando Valley Ventura Blvd.

TEAM MEMBER(S) PRESENT:

Andrew Pennington, LA City; Sergio Valdez, LA City DOT; Lou Luglio, Sam Schwartz; Deepak Kaushik, Iteris; Dina Saleh, Iteris; Katherine Padilla Otanez, and Thelma Herrera, KPA

NUMBER OF ATTENDEES:

70, based on sign -in sheets.

MEETING LOCATION:

American Legion, 5320 Fallbrook Ave., Woodland Hills, CA 91367

MEETING DATE/TIME:

July 10, 2017

NOTES BY:

Katherine Padilla Otanez

Community Meeting Workshop #2 Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

MEETING OVERVIEW: The objective for the Ventura Blvd. Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study Open House was to present for community feedback two Preferred Alternatives; Alternative A and Alternative B. Councilmember Bob Blumenfield opened the meeting and welcomed community members. Andrew Penning, Director of Land Use, introduced team members and stated the Meeting Purpose, specifically to present the Alternatives with the expected outcome that community comments would lead to refinement of one final Alternative. Lou Luglio, Vice President at San Schwartz Consulting, then presented a PowerPoint describing project objectives and the Alternatives, and how Alternatives ranked in meeting those objectives. After the brief PowerPoint, the meeting became an Open House format during which community members interacted one-to-one with team members and fellow attendees at display boards of Alternatives. They asked questions, discussed their opinions with team members and each other, and then provided their comments in writing and verbally.

A-2


Entry# 001

Preference Neither

Comments Source Community Meeting Alternative A: yuck‌ Comment Card Alternative B: Better‌ Try again‌ This seems like a "striping" exercise as opposed to what we need -- a pedestrian focused plan which 1) increases pedestrian walkways mid-block along Ventura; 2) accents shortened crosswalks at intersections; 3) wider sidewalks for outdoor activities (dining, seating, strolling, etc); 4) trees are great but businesses will cut them down visibility -- needs a signage plan to accompany it, otherwise the investment will do nothing to invite community building activities & services. Plan lacks a vision for business pedestrian use and is too focused on cars.

002

(blank)

Can something be done about the broken sidewalks on Mariano just east of Valley Circle. And Community Meeting on Clarendon St between V.C. and Sadring. Barbara Leiken barbleiken@aol.com Comment Card

003

Neither

#1: Don't waste our time or tax dollars Community Meeting Comment Card #2: Alternative A I think this project is unnecessary due to the costs of road improvements: traffic signal, cement, street resurfacing, etc. The reduction in lanes from the current state of 3 to 2 (or 1) lane isn't feasible as more growth/housing has/is coming to area. I am a cyclist - I try to avoid major streets for my safety. Keep Ventura for cars. Consider removing parking meters. This would encourage more business to patronize local business. The meters have/will harm business. Ultimately more tax revenue is created by the sale of goods vs the revenue of parking meters.

x

issue outside of scope

remove parking meters

cost outweighs a few more parking spaces

less concern for bike lanes

less concern for landscape

less concern for cars

more parking

landscaping, esp median

commuter traffic/safety

bike rider safety

pedestrian safety

Ventura Blvd. Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study Community Meeting, July 10, 2017, 6-7:30pm Comments Card

Issue of Interest (for categorizing) x x

x

x

A-3


004

Neither

We need medians that are landscaped! The money should be used to put a median down the Community Meeting center of the area -- with trees & plants. Medians say that an area is special & causes people to Comment Card slow down. I also think there can be diagonal parking, BUT, not to back into -- that is ridiculous. We don't need people stopping in the middle of Ventura Blvd. to try to back into a parking space. We need an attractive median with crosswalks & then diagonal parking. When you drive down Ventura Blvd. in Sherman Oaks & Studio City. People slow down & shop because there are attractive medians that are landscaped & this has attracted more upscale businesses. If you ONLY do diagonal parking -- the you must heavily landscape the sidewalk areas.

005

Neither

You have missed a HUGE opportunity to solve parking, store access, and traffic calming. Plan A Community Meeting Comment Card totally misses the mark -- especially with the center islan area totally devoted to turning. It should have been a RAISED LANDSCAPED AREA with "SAFETY AREAS" for crossing pedestrians. "B" has a "wasted median" -- an ugly raised concrete area that does little to add any beauty or facility to the streetscape. Since "A" only adds 8 spaces over what is already there, it is idiotic to even consider it. At least "B" adds 32 more spaces. But neither appears to benefit the commercial aspects of the street and may even hurt commerce because of the difficulty people will have with "reverse backend" parking. You will increase injury and accidents. No smart business woul move here. Frankly, it would have been much smarter and far more helpful if the diagonal parking was shifted to the center medians (see Long Beach, NY) which has solved their problems using the center median for alternate diagonal parking (8 spaces on the south/8 on the North, etc.) -Additionally, both plans underestimate the amount of traffic turning off Ventura and onto Fallbrook, with the subnettel alternatives, the City of LA will be looking at years of lawsuits for the inept engineering. The VAST majority of the people in this end of the Valley would have preferred a fully landscaped center median with pedestrian pass-throughs for crosswalks. If either of the 2 alternatives is adopted, the City will have to attempt to re-engineer the Boulevard within 5 years. GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.

x

Community Meeting Alternative B + more parking Comment Card + bike lane on outside is a plus with all the drive ways in the area (-cars will pull out to get a view that is blocked by parked cars - that will block/cut the protected bike path that is not to the curb in plan A) + slow traffic down to make the area more friendly to business along this stretch of Ventura. When this is done -- sidewalks need to be improved fixed for walkability & outdoor dining. Area needs a theme -- uniform decorative lighting needed for sidewalks along with landscaping -- benches.

x

006

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

A-4


007

Neither

I don't like either one. Community Meeting * I really like the signal at Royer the one concern is that my very light car will not be able to set Comment Card off the pad to make the signal change. --* I feel there still needs to be a crosswalk for the local peasant restaurant because people will still jaywalk across the street. This happens now and will not stop. Please take this into consideration. They will be drunk. * Re: bike lanes, I very rarely see bike riders in the valley it is usually 90°-115° and there is no way we'bb be riding -- let alone riding to work in my dress and heels, LOL! * I think the median idea will be detrimental to the shops and put them out of business -traffic will be backed up for people doing U-turns everywhere. This is a huge artery that is between 2 fwy off-ramps & everyone from the valley filters onto this portion at all times of the day. This will affect everyone in the Valley & slow things down & back up traffic on all of the surrounding streets & 101 off-ramps. * Another problem I see is the corner where the Habit is -- people turning right will be smashing into the people backing up into their parking spot. * Please remember that we have short off ramps which will be affected by slowing traffic down with diagonal parking. * I also believe that that looking down the road when (illegible) treeland comes in we'll have another huge problem between Royer & Sale! Enjoy picking A or B

008

Neither

I don't think that either A or B is addressing the concern of making Woodland Hills a more charming, inviting, desireable place to be for both visitors (shoppers) and businesses. Woodland Hills has plenty of hardscape, but little softscape. Wouldn't landscaped medians help serve that purpose as well as become turn restrictions. I like the diagonal parking -backing in is easier than parallel parking, and gives the town a more "quaint" look. As a landscaper, this is a real opportunity for our community, and we don't seem to be capitalizing on this. I have lived in Walnut Acres for 27 years and the only real improvement I see is at the village which is attractive, user-friendly and promotes community interaction. Have you considered what will attract new businesses to the area? Calabasas is a great example. They have popular new restaurants that attract people of all ages. Ventura Blvd is dead. "Todo Bien" is the first prosperous new business in a long time. Calabasas has and maintains their landscaping year round. They have seasonal signage. Aren't these all things we should be considering, not just bike lanes? Look at the bigger picture!!!

Community Meeting Comment Card

x

x

x

x

x

A-5


009

Community Meeting Alternative B I am a West Hills resident who uses this area regularly. My dentist office is on the southeast Comment Card corner of Sale & Ventura. My primary care physician used to be on the southwest corner of Sale & Ventura. As a former WHNC Boardmember, I am aware of the required traffic studies that are done to set speeds. It is not clear to me if the speed limit in this are is 35 mph? However, traffic exiting the Ventura Freeway at Shoup will be moving at great speed. Residents trying access the Shoup & Woodlake on-ramps, or the Fallbrook & Shoup/Topanga off-ramps will be going at high speeds. Safety is the most important issue to me. I believe that the reverse angled parking is an accident waiting to happen. People tend to tailgate, and not be observant of turn signals. Others do not use turn signals. Still others drive with their cellphones. People will not slow to allow people to back into there spaces -- in B, they are just east of Fallbrook where many people are making right-hand turns. I see pros and cons to protected parking -- parking against the curb is safer for the disabled, adults with children, etc, to access. On the otherhand, I see the purpose of protected bike lanes. My neighborhood -- Vanowen -- does not have a bike lane. I have used the sidewalk because I only ride 5-10mph. In conclusion, I oppose the reverse diagonal parking. ~ Chris Rowe

x

010

Combiniation 1) Crosswalks are inadequate and too far apart. The distance between the new Royer of Both crosswalk & Fallbrook is too far. Still need smart crosswalks. 2) The bike lanes should be painted a different color. 3) Need landscaped median. 4) Like the introduction of traffic calming measures -- do not like more travel lanes. Why is more parking needed? Parking seems to be available during the day. Parking congestion seems to only be a problem @ night next to bars where people jaywalk. Diagonal parking is not the solution. This is a striping project. Alternative B (no written comment)

x

011 012

013

014

Alternative B Please please, please put crosswalk in front of the Local Peasant before some one gets hurt or worse running across Ventura. More Landscaping. ~ Karl Makinen, Owner Local Peasant, 818-625-4840 Alternative B Need to see more landscaping & crosswalks between Royer & Fallbrook. Very dangerous at night and people running across streen when area is very poorly lit! ~ (illegible), Managing Partner, The Local Peasant Neither This is an urban planning opportunity lost to a traffic engineer :(

Community Meeting Comment Card

Community Meeting Comment Card Community Meeting Comment Card

Community Meeting Comment Card

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Community Meeting Comment Card

A-6


015

016

017

018

019

Alternative B Reluctantly prefer Alternative B "B" is better than "A" -- but only because "A" is a horrible solution. Neither really addresses the needs of the area -- instead both will wind up sending more traffice through adjacent neighborhood streets -- including speeders and people who are terrified of trying to "backward park" in the diagonal space. No attempt has been made to even consider widening the sidewalks -- something like businesses like restaurants, art & antique shops are looking to incorporate into their businesses. Combiniation A blend and also missing median with plants & trees. of Both The light and crosswalk at Royer would help slow down traffic & give safe walkways for pedestrians running and dodging cars now. The diagonal parking will not be safe. The posted speed limit is 35, but most people are doing 45-50. I live right off Royer & drive Ventura at least two times a day. People drive way too fast to parrell park, and in reverse! No way! Where is the plants in the median? And trees? This will slow down traffic, make it desirable, like old town Calabasas. This would also cool the area a little. Bike lanes should be on the street side off parrell parking, not like on Alt B. Alternative A If I had to choose I find plan A less of a problem. You would need a bettter plan allowing for drivers having to stop traffic for backing into spaces, also bicyclists between parking & driving lane with -- I know we pull into traffic now from parallel spaces. I like plants and slower traffic. I don't know if any of these plans account for new building and more traffic. Neither #1: no change #2: Alternative A I think we need to know the costs before we make decisions. 1. Do the stores and businesses have to contribute a per square foot charge for the initial project? 2. Do the stores and businesses have an increased annual tax? 3. Do the residents in the adjoining neighborhoods have an increased property tax for this project? 4. Huge st changes for 10 to 20 additional spaces. Alternative A To make a neighborhood friendly area the emphasis needs to be on pedestrians, bicyclists & landscaping. Simply increasing parking will not do it. Also Alt B will cause slower traffic but this will not be condusive to pedestrians if it causes the drivers to be impatient or take chances. Alt A needs more landscaping & areas people can sit & chat during their walks. TREES!!!

Community Meeting Comment Card

x

x

Community Meeting Comment Card

x

x

x

x

x

Community Meeting Comment Card

Community Meeting Comment Card

Community Meeting Comment Card

x

x

x

x

A-7


020

Combiniation Alternative A: like more trees Community Meeting Comment Card of Both Alternative B: like more parking This is my 1st view of the Ventura Blvd plan -- so I am aware that I'm late to the table. I appreciate the work being done on our behalf! What I was hoping to see in this project included more pedestrian space, outdoor restaurant areas, shaded community friendly landscaped areas, beautification, safe bike lanes, & of course parking. A tall order, but not impossible. As an example, downtown Mountain View, CA has a small town feel w/ so many amenities. I think we can work w/in the constructs of the plans -maybe go down to 1 lane in each direction to widen sidewalks.

021

Alternative A Alt A seems like a safer choice for bikers -- who have a protected buffer!! Alt A does not eliminate traffic lanes going eastbound!! Angled parking will therefore create potential nightmare for peak hour traffic for those looking for the 101 freeway Angled parking would best be suited for places with the highest turnover rate, or places desiring more turnover. But what if a business wants to covert it into a commercial loading zone or a passenger loading zone?

022

Alternative A I think it makes sense to have speed limit changes when approacing an area with back in spots. Community Meeting I worry about older drivers being able to safely navigate the space/area w/o posing a risk to Comment Card other drivers and non-vehicle traffic, i.e. taking too long to back into space. It might also make sense to have "ribs" on the street so as to notify vehicles that they are entering a different are where hazards may be different/increase.

023

Alternative A 1. Need to slow down vehicular traffic. Armadillos & speed strips would help. 2. Mid block pedestrian chrossings can make the street more people friendly. Alternative B In a perfect world more elements could be added to make a more beautiful pedestrian area, improvements to the sidewalk. Truly protected crossings with planters. Truly protected bike lanes. A couple extra crossings between streets could be useful also. B is preferred because it provides more parking and has more potential to reduce traffic speeds (it seems)

Community Meeting Comment Card Community Meeting Comment Card

Preference: Original proposal This does not represent our origan proposal. We look forward to a "slow zone" & median greenery for an improved aesthetic. This is not what we envisioned. Alternative A My main reason for Alt A is cycling safety. I believe B is too dangerous for cyclists. Cycling is dangerous & gettting worse all the time so every measure should be taken to ensure cyclists' safety. Neither Neither A or B, you do not have sufficient parking. This will result in parking in residential neighborhoods. Project should be killed. Noise is also a problem.

Community Meeting Comment Card

024

025

026

027

x

Community Meeting Comment Card

Community Meeting Comment Card Community Meeting Comment Card

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x

A-8


028

Alternative B I know the Royer traffic very well and plan B makes sense.

029

Alternative B Royer should have a sensor that changes the light only when cars are waiting on Royer. Otherwise through traffic would not be affected very much. X walk buttons of course.

030

Alternative B It would seem that w/o additional parking being added to A that B is the practical alternative. It would also seem that we need to add more reverse angle parking further down the Blvd toward Woodlake with additional trees. Bearing in mind the need to attract more small business that will enhance the community (illegible)

Community Meeting Comment Card

031

Alternative A I'm not so sure that this will bring in more shops, etc. This end of Ventura has more industries & a bowling alley isn't charming. Yes, it will look better, but it will take much longer to transverse. The street will be narrower.

Community Meeting Comment Card

032

Alternative B With B I like the idea of additional parking, which will help businesses. Not a fan of back-in parking -- I envision more accidents as people try to maneuver in, plus, a car wanting to park will have to pass their spot to then back in -- I see frustration and delays in the event tthe car behind is following too close (everyone will have to back up to allow the parking car to park). Like the bike lanes a lot, but if they're on the inside between sidewalks and parked car, you have to do something to lessen the slope on the North side of Ventura. It's way too deep/steep to ride on (you can barely exit your car on the passenger side in some places). Good luck & thanks

Community Meeting Comment Card

033

Alternative B More parking for businesses. We do not need dedicated bicycle lanes. They may be P.C., but are, in reality, not used. Alternative B B' preferred over 'A', however, great, great desire to see the original landscape/planting island down middle of Ventura. I and several neighbors and local business owners, desire the 'softening' of the harsh center of Ventura however small or narrow it may be. Absolutely desire landscaping/plantings down the center of Ventura please!!

Community Meeting Comment Card Community Meeting Comment Card

034

035

Neither

Community Meeting Comment Card Community Meeting Comment Card

Neither alternative fit in Woodland Hills. Doing traffic hours, Ventura Blvd is already Community Meeting congested. With less lanes, it would be a bigger problem. What % of Woodland Hills residents Comment Card ride bicycle or walk on Ventura Blvd to go to work? There will be more road rage when cars are bumper to bumper. Why don't the City do more for the working class. Have transportation like San Francisco or New York.

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

A-9


036

Alternative A Alternative B: Do not like solid median, reduces access to business. Do not like single lane of Community Meeting traffic by Royer. Does not allow for additional traffic use from Brething Treeland site. Comment Card 1. Bike lane should be between parallel parking and traffic lane. Stay consistent along Ventura Blvd. Driver's side car door should be protected by bike lane and not open directly into traffic. 2. Add a designated/lit pedestrian crosswalk between Royer Ave and Fallbrook. Perhaps east of Rigoletto, near the intersection. 3. Parking should be head-first, not back-in. In all alternatives safer for drivers entering into parking spaces. If pull forward to park, no one will allow the extra space needed behind you to allow you to back in. Cant see breaklights of cars pulling out of diagonal spaces, which gives drivers a warning. Safety issue! 4. Tree planting and landscaping need maintenance. Get City funds to subsidise.

037

Alternative A I love crosswalk and light added at Ponce! Want people to slow down! Don't love protected bike lanes but it's ok! Don't love the fact its missing on plan B. Don't love the median in front of my store near Ponce. Alternative B Like the diagonal parking and the greenway in middle of street need a crosswalk at Ponce (and at a few other major intersections if you want to increase foot flow in area) Alternative B But really Alt C! I support back-in parking! B does not go far enough to make this a viable Main st. Merchants don't get noticed. High speeds make parking still risky. Center median trees will slow down traffic psychologically. Please limit lanes west of Fallbrook, add more diagonal parking to make itt viable for merchant. Beside trees what additional planting to make walking more interesting. Hanging baskets on stronger light poles. Logo signage for stretch to establish identity. Why not use roundabouts between signals to slow down traffic by limiting space to consider accelerating. Need crosswalks in between signals. Remove overhead power lines in the future.

038

039

Community Meeting Comment Card

x

Community Meeting Comment Card

x

Community Meeting Comment Card

x

x

x

x

x

A-10


040

Combiniation 1. Should combine elements from both of Both - median by Fallbrook is a good idea - prefer bike lane protected by parked cars - street trees/landscape is essential - consider brightly painted bike lanes (see Santa Monica) - need mid-block crosswalks/smart/lighted crosswalks 2. Slant parking would be unsafe without any traffic calming!! Eliminate all slant parking.

Community Meeting Comment Card

041

Alternative B (blank)

042

Alternative B #1 safety #2 efficiency #3 aesthetics Let's talk about #1, any project undertaken is only deemed worthwhile if you can guarantee people's safety. At the moment there are at least a dozen hostile drug addicts living in parking lots right here on the Blvd in Woodland Hills. I've since changed banks, pharmacies & grocery stores to get away from these abusive individuals. Consider a security patrol (on bikes) much like other cities have implemented. There are 30+ attendees here tonight to address just this one issue. As a property owner I am very unimpressed with what the Blvd has turned into. I won't even get started on the Post Office situation.

Community Meeting Comment Card Community Meeting Comment Card

043

Alternative A You may want to rethink the backup diagonal parking lots of senior drivers & others who are not going to adjust to this. DO add light signal at Royer ASAP No reduction in number of lanes on Ventura Boulevard. Alternative B Although I am very happy to see some pending improvements to Ventura Blvd, I feel that both plans are half measures. If the hope is to make this strip more shopping & pedestrian friendly then widening the sidewalk and having more diagonal parking would be helpful. I feel strongly that having a median strip without trees is pointless. There is a good example of partial widening of the sidewalk or Hollywood Blvd Walk of Fame east of Highland. Shade trees will be a boon and help make the strip cooler for pedestrians.

044

045

Neither

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Community Meeting Comment Card

x

Community Meeting Comment Card

x

I feel that the risk to human life and increase in car accidents, even during a "trial period", due Community Meeting to back-in diagonal parking far outweighs any benefits to be gained by the addition of a few Comment Card dozen parking spaces and a token increase in meter income. I am in favor of the street improvements but nott the back-in or head-in, diagonal parking,

x

x

x

x

x

A-11


046

Alternative B The more diagonal parking the better! We need to make this a cute community not a freeway! Community Meeting Comment Card Ventura is way to wide --> needs to be narrower to slow traffic down.

047

Alternative B slight preference for B Have concerns about backing into bike lane to get to parking space. What is speed limit? Is a parking lot behind businesses a viable option? Alternative A Conservative approach that can later be beefed up. I like it!

048 049

050

I do NOT CARE Read below: How are you going to "beautify" or "cutify" Ventura Blvd with all the drug addicts and transidents that are hanging around trashing the area. Before you can beautify the area, first you have to clean it up. It is not even safe to walk around anymore. Alternative A Bike lane out side to prvent accidents

x

Community Meeting Comment Card

Community Meeting Comment Card Community Meeting Comment Card

Community Meeting Comment Card Community Meeting Comment Card

051

Neither

Something else You have presented two plans that have very little difference between them. I don't believe that either will be the solution that this are of Ventura Boulevard desparately needs. Neither plan offer any elements of landscape beautification, and neither adds a substantial amount of new parking that is desperately needed if the street is going to attract new businesses and keep driver from tearing through adjacent neighborhoods and parking in residential areas.

052

(blank)

Thank you for the information on Ventura Blvd. As a lifelong Woodland Hills resident, I wish to Email fr Annemarie Donkin, 7/12/2017 warn you about a big mistake the city might be making regarding reverse parking. (Would I adonkin@socal.rr.com reverse park before or after I hit the bicyclists riding on the wrong side of the road??) The City of Santa Clarita tried reverse parking on a stretch of Old Town Newhall a few years back. It was so dangerous and everyone hated it, so after a few accidents and close calls, they literally "reversed" it to be head-in parking and it works just fine. The aftermath was it became a city-wide joke and the Santa Clarita city council has yet to live it down. And there was not bike lane to compilicate things further. BTW, whose bright idea in L.A. is reverse parking anyway? Just curious... we can't drive straight in L.A., much less back in to park... just sayin'...

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

A-12


053

054

055

(blank)

I believe the reverse angle parking is a very oor idea and should not be implemented

Email fr Carl Jacobs, 7/12/2017 cdjinla013@gmail.com Alternative A Thank you again for your time and interest. If anything I feel Alt A is the only one that makes Email fr John L. Sundahl, any sense. Backing in for parking would be a disaster. Many of our local citizens can park only 7/12/2017 under perfect conditions and have had no practice. This presentation is built for experts and jsundahl@pacbell.net not for the average person so good input is questionable. All in all, it looks like it will slow down morning and evening commute which will earn the enmity of a lot of the local population. It is overdone. Alternative B Based on the two Alternative options, my vote goes to Alternative B which provides more parking spaces.

Email fr Debra De Avila, 7/12/2017 debra@accelerateconstruc tioninc.com

x

x

x

A-13


056

(blank)

057

(blank)

058

If you want to add Bike Lanes, fine - DO NOT Remove vehicle traffic lanes to do it, it has been an utter disaster everywhere they have done the "Goal Zero" changes so far. It forces all the peak-time traffic to secondary and side streets and into adjoining areas like Culver City, and then you have to do even more Traffic Calming on the side streets - which forces it farther out... The only sane solution is to make the traffic on primary streets flow better, not restrict them. You want the goal of zero traffic deaths, you have to assign Police Officers to go out and enforce the basic traffic laws on the books like excessive speed and not yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks. Adding more synchronized traffic signals and marked crosswalks is a very good thing, and ticket Jaywalking. Oh, and they have to target Bicycles deliberately failing to yield too. Many bicycles don't even slow down and look at a stop sign, they just roll on through. "Reverse diagonal" parking will be a safety problem - Drivers stopping in traffic to back into a parking space will clog peak traffic, and the Bicycle Lane to Parking and Exiting Vehicles hazard is greatly increased because vans and SUV's have poor visibility to the right sides. Plain old parallel parking has worked well for 130+ years and doesn't discriminate against large vehicles and trailers. And don't try to sell Bicycle Commuting as a reason to remove vehicle lanes or parking, it doesn't work here in the hottest part of the valley - When it's over 100-F you simply won't if you can't shower and change at work, and that is rare indeed. (a few Stank complaints and you're fired.) Not for shopping either, your eggs will be soft boiled before you get them home, and the milk well on it's way to Yogurt,,, If anything, people would bicycle from their homes to the primary streets and take a bus for the main trip - and the buses don't have the bicycle carrying capacity to accommodate that - 2 on the rack and it's a ~30+ minute wait to try the next one... Not to mention problematic access for bicycles connecting to Orange Line Busway, Subway and rail transit. You can take a bike along sure, but also be subject to capacity and restrictions at each transfer point - and when you have to get somewhere on time that simply does not work. You grit your teeth and drive. Due to the LA City "vision Zero" initiative, could an alternative to the bike lanes on the street of Ventura, be reworked to be a shared space with pedestrians on the sidewalks? Since both cyclists and pedestrians are in limited supply in Woodland Hills on that stretch of street, maybe that alternative would be better than having vehicles and bicycles interact.

Email fr Bruce Bergman, 7/12/2017 bruceberman@gmail.com

x

x

x

Email fr Diane Bockwoldt a cyclist, 7/12/2017 oneonthego123@gmail.co m

x

x

x

Alternative B I am for Alternative B. I live near this area of Ventura Blvd, and the angled street parking is Email fr Harry Gantz, needed between Royer and Fallbrook to accommodate the Local Peasant. It's a great bar. We 7/12/2017 are happy it's packed, but we need to deal with the parking. There are often so many patrons harry@viewfilm.com that parking overflows into the residential area of Walnut Acres. Thanks for considering our opinion.

x

A-14


059

(blank)

Having reviewed both plans, we find minimal differences. Email fr Judith Fischer, If real improvements are desired, the City should look at a median strip that is raised and 7/12/2017 rja@socal.rr.com planted (and maintained). This could prevent the illegal u-turns and speed racers that cause accidents or near-accidents. It would also add needed landscaping to a barren and ugly strip of land. Thank you

x

x

A-15


MEETING NOTES PROJECT NAME:

Community Meeting Workshop San Fernando Valley Ventura Blvd. Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

TEAM MEMBER(S) PRESENT:

Andrew Pennington, LA City; Sergio Valdez, LA City DOT; Lou Luglio, Sam Schwartz; Deepak Kaushik, Iteris; Dina Saleh, Iteris; Sam Gennaway, KPA; Cindy Suh, KPA

NUMBER OF ATTENDEES:

66

MEETING LOCATION:

Woodland Hills Branch Library22200 Ventura Blvd, Woodland Hills, CA 91364

MEETING DATE/TIME:

January 12, 2017

NOTES BY:

Cindy Suh

MEETING OVERVIEW: The objective for the Ventura Blvd. Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study Open House was to introduce the project and to document the community's issues, opportunities, hopes, fears, and expectations to guide the Project team. The open house format consisted of 3 stations. The first station provided an overview explaining the meeting format and expectations from the community members. The second station provided context featuring boards with project information and aerial maps. The third station was an interactive exercise where participants, using street sectional boards maps, where encouraged to create their ideal street cross section. They used predesigned building blocks representing various amenities such as bike lanes, parking, and pedestrian amenities. Representatives from Sam Schwartz and Iteris provided pictured blocks of parking, bicycle lanes, and drive lanes allowing the community to place on the boards to express their vision of design.

SUMMARY: Station 3 Interactive Exercise Pictures:

A-16


A-17


Comments from the Comment Card (index card): Comments were transcribed verbatim • jack@dansupersubs.com: Jack Halici, 818-825-5252: Should be extended to Shoup Avenue. • Hyeran Lee, Policy and Outreach Coordinator, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition: hyeran@la-bike.org: Bike lanes should be located at the curb, not on the center of the street. Buffered/Protected bike lanes would work best with diagonal or parallel parking. Bicyclists will not cross the street to use 1 mile-long, centered bike lanes. The best option for all road users is 3 to 4 lanes. No variances to allow buildings higher than 3 to 4 stories, to limit traffic, crime and anger in an overcrowded family oriented boulevard and neighborhood. • Brent Butterworth, 415-786-6470: I am in favor of parking and bike lanes on both sides of the street all the way from Shoup Avenue to Rover Street. If the lanes start at Sole Street, cyclists will not want to risk riding on Ventura Boulevard between Sole and Shoup. I also strongly prefer protected bike lanes, not bike lanes adjacent to traffic. • David Griban: Extend project to Shoup Avenue. • Mike@delightville.com: Project needs to be extended to Shoup Avenue. • Two lanes each way or traffic will be pushed into the neighborhood. • Please put bike lanes inside a barrier isolated from car traffic. Increase shade trees on sidewalk. • Please don’t use stop signs. Use stop lights instead so the commute in the morning is not a nightmare. Larchmont in Hancock Park is a good example of how stop signs slow traffic, so much that it gets pushed into the neighborhood streets. • (Ventura Boulevard): Store fronts need to be cleaned up. It needs a facelift. Double lane traffic with angle parking on both sides of Ventura boulevard with a 10’ ft. sidewalk on each side.

A-18


• •

• • • •

• •

Benches, pedestrian amenities, planters. Ventura Boulevard; Perhaps add a signal to slow traffic. No bike lanes. North side  10’ ft. Sidewalk  20’ ft. Diagonal Parking  (2) 11’ ft. Drive Lane <<<< Need two lanes to handle traffic volume.  12’ ft. Center Lane  (2) 11’ ft. Drive Lane <<<< Need two lanes to handle traffic volume.  8’ ft. Parking <<<< Reduce 20’ ft. sidewalk. Let’s just do it. Diagonal parking is great for storekeepers. Free two-hour parking after 4:00 p.m. Signage for buildings on the street. With power poles, we need to update utilities. Project needs to be extended to Shoup Avenue. Suggestions:  Diagonal parking both sides of the street.  Bike lanes on both sides of the street between diagonal parking and sidewalk.  Increase sidewalk on both sides of the street (encourage pedestrians).  Trees and shade structures  Street furniture-benches, etc.  Bike racks  Refuse bins  Water fountains  Traffic lanes in the middle of the street. We really need protected bike lanes. I love the cycle track idea. Also, providing secure bike parking is important! From Barry Johnson, bjohnson416@sbcglobal.net, 818-761-0983. My suggestion for the 99’ ft. wide section is: 1) Bike lane 2) Diagonal parking (Drive in, not back in) 3) Traffic Lane 4) Traffic Lane 5) Turning Lane 6) Traffic Lane 7) Traffic Lane 8) Regular parallel parking lane 9) Bike Lane 10) Alternate numbers 2 and 8 on different sides each block. Planning must consider:  Traffic impact on West-bound Freeway 101 entrance at Woodlake and Ventura.  New 100 plus homes development at Tree-land which is at Ventura and Valley Circle boulevards.

A-19


 New 100 plus homes development behind Motion Picture Hospital at Mulholland and Valley Circle boulevards. Freeway 101 ingress and egress is awful now. It will get worse. Planning should include mitigation. R. Sheiberg. dsheinberg@socal.rr.com.

Comments from Email: Comments were transcribed verbatim Note from Hyeran Lee, LA Bicycle Coalition: “You might have gotten a number of public comments on the Ventura Blvd project which refers parking-protected bike lanes to ‘Option 1.’ It refers to the option 1 that LACBC proposed on our recent blog post. I just wanted to clear that out just in case you were confused with it. We did not expect that people were going to refer it as ‘Option 1’ so much in their comments.” 1. As the owner of a bike store I can tell you that one of the biggest barriers to people using bikes to get around their neighborhood is the perceived danger of cycling on busy city streets with nothing but a painted line (if you're lucky) to separate you from traffic. - The organization People for Bikes has a Protected Bikeways program that just might provide some insights into different ways that protected bike paths are being implemented in large and small towns. It also provides data supporting the idea that people on foot and on bikes are good for businesses, the environment and neighborhoods. - I'm providing a link to a new article about updated Fed regulations that make it easier for local planners to incorporate bike plans into their projects. Plus, the photograph is a great demonstration of one of the ideas from last night's proposed ideas (with the median incorporating a bike/ped pathway -- my favorite!) - I'm providing a link to a new article about updated Fed regulations that make it easier for local planners to incorporate bike plans into their projects. Plus, the photograph is a great demonstration of one of the ideas from last night's proposed ideas (with the median incorporating a bike/ped pathway -- my favorite!) – ID Pedego101 http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/the-feds-justrecognized-that-people-count-as-traffic-not-cars 2. Please, please, please, please put the bike lane next to the sidewalk. These bike lanes that people have to cross to park their cars are super dangerous. I'm really glad bike lanes are included in the design but all the possible designs put bike riders in a dangerous situation. Sidewalk, bike lane, parking, travel lane...in that order. 3. I sincerely hope that we do everything in our power to slow Ventura down. I would like to say that if I had my way, I would make Ventura one lane in either direction and replace the other two traffic lanes with a bike path and wider sidewalks. Notice I don't say bike lane; I would separate the bike traffic from the other traffic by all means possible. One cheap and effective way of doing this is using parked cars as a separator between car traffic and bike traffic. If you make the parking head or tail in as opposed to parallel, you can even increase the amount of parking in the area. Please use the precedents of the Orange Line Bike Path, the curb separated bus islands of Los Angeles street downtown, and the parking protected bike lanes on Reseda to guide you. 4. I am always thrilled to hear about new protected bike lanes and am really glad that Ventura Blvd might be getting one. I believe that this protected bike lane should be located by the curb and protected by cars. It is the safest and most attractive option for most cyclists and I believe it is also more convenient for drivers.

A-20


5. I am writing in support of Option 1, for parking-protected bike lanes, on Ventura Boulevard. I notice that vehicles travel at high speeds when I bike on Ventura Boulevard. Additionally, a lot of drivers are looking for street parking (rather than bicyclists), so the bike lanes would be safer if they were separated from such drivers by parked cars. On a commercial corridor like Ventura, cars are often pulling into and out of parking spaces. This design change would separate bicyclists and make bicycling safer. 6. Option 1! This is a no-brainer. Parked cars should protect bicyclists, not the other way around. A bike lane is not even close to "8 to 80" if the only thing separating it from traffic is air (and the whims of evermore-distracted motorists). In this case, Option 2 doesn't even come with a tradeoff; it's just one location or the other. Very exciting that Ventura Blvd. has the potential to play a key role in such a desperately needed virtuous cycle: if you build it they will come, and if you build it better even more will come! To clarify, it's great that there are bike lanes but if their placement were switched with the parking lane, even more people -- including children, seniors, and the less able-bodied -- would feel comfortable riding, and the many people who currently ride not by choice but out of economic necessity would no longer be risking their lives. More cyclists would lead to benefits in traffic, pollution, public health, and local economic activity. 7. I am a Los Angeles resident and an avid biker. I think it is a wonderful idea to put protected bike lanes on Ventura Blvd. I have a wife and son and they don't feel safe biking with speeding cars and buses traveling close by. So a protected bike lane would be wonderful so we could go for family rides and stop at local businesses as we go along the street. 8. Ventura Blvd between Shoup Ave and Woodlake Ave is ridiculously wide and would benefit greatly from reconfiguring the right lanes into improved parking and protected bike lanes. Some more controlled crosswalks would help also. 9. My name is Brian McMorran and I am a Valley resident. I wanted to express my thoughts about the proposal for redesigning Ventura Boulevard in Woodland Hills. I am very happy to see that the current proposal includes reducing the number of traffic lanes, back in parking and segregated bike lanes. These are all improvements we should be striving for as a city throughout the city! However, the current proposal does include painted/striped buffers between the bike lane and traffic lane. I would like to express my support for an alternative proposal where the bike lanes are placed between the curb and parked cars. The recent community meeting made it clear that Ventura Blvd. should be designed with 'place' in mind and in a manner that makes biking and walking more comfortable. Let's make that happen...let's move the bike lanes such that they are parking-protected bike lanes. The parking-protected bike lanes on Reseda Blvd have worked out well, let's build on that success and replicated it for Ventura. I appreciate your time and attention. 10. I vote for Option 1. Last year I worked on an ATP grant proposal for the LA Arts District where we had diagonal parking, and I would have LOVED to have the space to ask for protected lanes. It should be the new norm for bike lanes period---but especially when dealing with a road with such high average speeds as Ventura. 11. I'm writing to express my preference for Option 1 (parking protected bike lanes) regarding the planned bike lanes on Ventura Blvd. in Woodland Hills. I live nearby in Woodland Hills and bike frequently around the area. I also think the reconfiguration of Ventura Blvd. can help revitalize the area. 12. I vote for protected bike lanes. I don't know if this is in the works as well, but Shoup needs lanes.

A-21


13. Frankly, I think both options make no sense-- as usual-- with these city hall "planners" the options are "worse" and "worser". Option 1 is that you'll have to try and back into a diagonal parking spot from Ventura Blvd while trying to avoid getting t-boned by forward moving traffic. - The second option, is like those horrible bike lanes on Reseda Blvd near CSUN. The lanes are never used and are virtually empty all the time. I have family in the area, and have seen these bike lanes at all hours of the day and night, weekdays and weekends, and they are ALWAYS empty. Incredible waste of money. The owners of cafes along this route have seen no noticible increase in foot traffic-at least the owners we've asked--and in fact, the've told me that customers are not going to the cafes as frequently because people can't figure out what the parking spaces are. Parking this way is also dangerous. Drivers are trying to figure out what is going on with the street markings and don't pay attention to the drivers and passengers trying to get out of their vehicles. My mother was almost hit by a car that way. NO. NO. NO .NO. to EITHER of these configurations. They are both dangerous. Ventura Blvd is not a quaint little cobblestone road in Denmark! 14. I agree that the only way to build bike lanes and encourage their use is to have a physical barrier between automobile traffic and the cyclist. Any combination of parked cars, k-rails or distance will work. Simply painting lines in the street just doesn’t work. 15. I'm all for this! My pick is Option 1. Any timeline for when this would happen? 16. I’m a resident of Woodland Hills and love to bike. I am all for making biking safer on city streets. Please consider my vote for Option 1 that is being considered. 17. I'm writing to not only support Option 1 for the bike lanes, but also requesting to make the area pedestrian friendly. The road diet and back-in diagonal parking will help slow speeds and provide more parking, but ultimately, everyone will have to get off their bike or out of their car to access the businesses. Not only should there be crosswalks at every intersection, but also at mid-block as well. There's little point in finding a parking space if you have to backtrack ten minutes in order to walk to the other side of the street. Vertical elements, like islands, beacons, signs and bollards, don't just improve pedestrians' safety, but also gives drivers a visual cue that this space is made for walking. 18. I think creating the parking protected bike lanes (Option 1) for the stretch of Ventura Blvd. between Sale and Royer is a great idea. I attended the unveiling of [Re]visit [Re]seda and was pleased with how the street turned out. I had hope to see something like that in my neighborhood. With regards to Option 2, it's better than the current configuration but I don't think it's enough. If the street is going to be reconfigured, let's go all the way and really improve things. Ventura Boulevard has a lot of potential and compromising the human element will only hurt this makeover exponentially. 19. The most important improvement is to add a signaled crosssing (sic) at Royer Avenue so that pedestrians (and bicyclists) can cross Ventura Blvd. This location clearly needs a crossing since the closest crossing in either direction is a quarter mile away. That means that crossing the road requires walking one half mile out of your way. - Even more important than the crossing's location, is that this would be a much much safer crossing for pedestrians than either Fallbrook or Woodlake Avenues. Because the side street - Royer Avenue - is a low traffic street, crossing here would mean very few turning cars in the intersection at the same time as pedestrians. At both Fallbrook and Woodlake, pedestrians have to deal with high volumes of hurried, aggressive cars turning from many directions.

A-22


-

-

-

-

-

-

A Royer Ave crossing would work the same way as the low car traffic, safe crossing at Sale Avenue and the newer safe crossing installed in 2011 at MaryLee Street, which crosses Topanga Canyon Blvd. My family as I often walk up to a half mile out of our way to use these safe crossings instead of the scary crossings at Shoup, Oxnard or Burbank. Thank you to the politicians/engineers/citizens who are responsible for the crossing at MaryLee I'm certain lives have been saved because of it. A Royer crossing would allow residents to ride bikes and walk between Woodland Hills/Warner Center and Calabasas. Across Ventura on the new crossing, up Gomeres or up a new stairway in the vacant lot (or new park?!), to the pedestrian bridge on Del Valle, the sidewalk along Ave San Luis, then a new sidewalk and traffic calmed segment in front of the apartments, and then through the shopping center, to the safer crossing over Mulholland at the Motion Picture Home entrance. There should also be a protected bike lane along Gomeres (and Del Valle?) to the bridge? The access roads along Arroyo Calabasas / Calabasas Creek, north of Burbank, should be opened up and turned into bike paths. A path could also be built between the shopping center and the creek, south of the freeway, to the Motion Picture Blvd crossing. The vacant hillside on the south side of Ventura has a native Valley Oak tree (only one on Ventura Blvd?), and the largest patch of native milkweed (Monarch butterfly food) in Los Angeles. It should be purchased by the City/County/Conservancy as parkland, and Hollywood style pedestrian steps built up it to provide a path for peds from the Royer crossing, to the pedestrian freeway bridge, and on to the City of LA's own Old Calabasas (half of it is in LA). The cul-de-sac at the top could be reclaimed as parkland as well. The next closest public park is over a mile away! Narrow Ventura Blvd so that the ped/bike crossings are shorter, and to slow down drivers that speed. The speed limit here is only 35 mph, as it should be. The street needs to be redesigned narrower to match the limit. Now, drivers can and do easily go 50 mph and more. Protected Bike Lane network. What we really need is a network of protected bike lanes on every street in Warner Center, which is much higher density housing jobs and retail. Erwin, Oxnard, Owensmouth could be done immediately. Put a bike bridge over the freeway at Owensmouth to connect Warner Center and Ventura Blvd. We also need them all along Ventura. Some thought needs to go into this first segment so that if they don't get much use, they are not used as 'evidence' that protected bike lanes don't work. We should bring some of the best bike infrastructure people (US or European) to see the site to help decide how to do it.

Comments from the Summary Wrap up: KPA staff reviewed the design ideas from Station 3 that had been suggested during the meeting. The facilitator asked participants to describe why they thought there was merit to their vision. Those comments are echoed above. The project team stated that they will analyze all of the suggested ideas.

A-23


Additional Questions/Comments Raised: • • • • • • • •

Make all left turns protected. Use Hawthorne Boulevard as an example for diagonal parking. Make sure the bike lane is protected with parking as a buffer. Make landscape inviting to pedestrians. Need to slow down traffic. Will travel lanes in each direction create a massive congestion? Larchmont is an example of how road diet does not work. Narrow sidewalks to 10ft on both sides.

Next Step: Andrew Pennington from the Office of City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield thanked community members for attending the meeting. KPA staff encouraged attendees to submit their comments by the January 20 th . It was announced that the next Community Advisory Group Meeting would be held on February 15, 2017.

A-24


MEETING NOTES PROJECT NAME:

Community Advisory Group (CAG) Meeting #2 Ventura Blvd. Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

TEAM MEMBER(S) PRESENT:

Sam Gennawey, KPA; Cindy Suh, KPA; Lou Luglio, Sam Schwartz; Dina Saleh, Iteris

NUMBER OF ATTENDEES:

40

MEETING LOCATION:

Woodland Hills Branch Library 22200 Ventura Blvd, Woodland Hills, CA 91364

MEETING DATE/TIME:

February 15, 2017

NOTES BY:

Cindy Suh

MEETING OVERVIEW: Sam Gennawey (KPA) welcomed the audience, introduced the project team members as well as the representatives from the City and Neighborhood Councils. Mr. Gennawey began with a recap of the 1 st CAG meeting and January 2017 Community Meeting. Lou Luglio (Sam Schwartz) reviewed the 3 alternatives that reflect the input from the January 2017 Community Meeting as well as further technical analysis. Mr. Luglio explained the benefits for each alternative. Although the meeting was originally scheduled as a Community Advisory Group meeting, a large group of participants came to the meeting to voice concerns over recent City of Los Angeles actions as they pertain to the homeless. Notably, many expressed the strong concern over the homeless issue, particularly the RV parking. Although this issue is not within the scope of the project, the Council office allowed the time to document the concerns and to explore physical design solutions that may help mitigate the concerns. The issue stated above generated first time interest in the project. Some suggested that they were not aware of the earlier meetings and provided suggestions on how to increase participation. One suggestion would be notifications mailed to residents within a Âź mile radius. They would like to be more involved in the project and during the decision-making process and would want the City to consider how the project will affect their streets. After a review of the proposed alternatives, many of the participants that did not attend previous meetings preferred Ventura Blvd. being the thoroughfare due to the concern for roadway capacity, preferred the economic development as a secondary factor, and wanted to improve the safety concerns. Many were resistant to losing the vehicular capacity on Ventura Blvd., but were not resistant to beautification and increased multi-modal access.

A-25


SUMMARY Comments from Alternative 1: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Reducing the double lanes to a single lane on south side of the Ventura Blvd will not be affective. This will create a big traffic jam, especially near the freeway entrance. No angled parking (car backing in or forward). How about a parallel parking? This alternative may create more accident-prone situations. Afraid that people will not slow down even with the improvements and with the reduced lane, it will create more accidents. Roadway capacity needs to be considered. Will the additional parking spaces be metered? Younger generation people don’t like to pay for parking. Can we put a signage to prohibit large vehicle parking on Ventura Blvd.? This alternative may crowd adjacently located residential streets due to reduced lanes. Homeless issue is a big problem on Ventura Blvd. Especially with the RV parking. Creating more street parking spaces on Ventura Blvd. will encourage homeless RV parking. Adding bike lanes may be dangerous. Have you considered looking into accident reports on Woodlake and Ventura Blvd.? How will this Alternative affect that intersection? Where will we get the funding to support this project? Would rather see diagonal parking spaces with 2 vehicular lanes on both sides.

SUMMARY Below are comments provided by the community members after reviewing Alternative 2 and 3: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Alternative 2 is a better solution. Why reduce lane to slow down traffic? It’s good to have more lanes that allow cars to flow through, especially during rush hours. Need to implement regulated parking system, especially during rush hours. Can we close off the Woodlake freeway on/off ramp? Parking spaces in middle of the street may not be a good thing for delivery trucks. People cross Royer Street all the time. We need to provide more concrete crosswalk system. Might want to consider the bigger picture on future improvements on Ventura Blvd, instead of looking at this study only. How about installing a pedestrian overpass? Can we enforce permit parking only on adjacently located residential streets? Don’t believe we need bike lanes because people already avoid cycling through Ventura Blvd. due to being dangerous for cyclists. How about installing sound wall for adjacent neighbors? How will this project affect local schools? Will this project impact the traffic flow? How will Safe Routes to School be affected?

A-26


• • • • • • •

How about involving the LAPD to get their feedback? Need to consider the trash pick-up issue. Can we make the street greener? How about the empty lots and vacant stores? Can we purchase empty lots/stores and turn that into a parking lot/structure? With that, can we provide a trolley system to transport people to and from on Ventura Blvd.? We need to reach out to Walnut Association. The residents like the laid-back feel of the neighborhood. We don’t want to see big buildings. Please limit the through traffic on adjacently located local streets.

Next Steps: Andrew Pennington, representative for Councilmember Blumenfield, stated that the project team would develop a final alternative based on the comments received from tonight’s meeting and previous meetings.

A-27


MEETING NOTES PROJECT NAME:

Community Advisory Group(CAG) Meeting #1 Ventura Blvd. Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

TEAM MEMBER(S) PRESENT:

Sam Gennawey, KPA; Cindy Suh, KPA; Morgan Whitcomb, Sam Schwartz; Deepak Kaushik, Iteris

NUMBER OF ATTENDEES:

21

MEETING LOCATION:

American Legion Hall 5320 Fallbrook Ave., Woodland Hills

MEETING DATE/TIME:

November 16, 2016

NOTES BY:

Cindy Suh

MEETING OVERVIEW: The meeting objective was to introduce the Study and to document issues, opportunities, hopes, fears, and expectations to guide the Project team. After introductions, Morgan Whitcomb provided the project description and the project schedule of upcoming Community Workshop in January and another Focus Group meeting after that. Sam Gennawey asked thought-provoking questions pertaining to issues of the project locations, design opportunities, and how each CAG member saw the project location in the future.

SUMMARY: Current issues presented at the project site (on Ventura Blvd. from Sale Ave. to Royer Ave.): • • • • • • • • • • •

Ventura Blvd. is too wide. Lack of scale of the street leads to people not being aware of their vehicular speed. Not enough parking spaces. Especially for popular restaurants at lunch time and evening time for customers to park. Too many regulations and obstacles which may prevent design improvements. There are too many driveways. Morning time traffic queue can back up the traffic if there is something happening on the freeway. Making a left turn from Fallbrook to Ventura Blvd. can get congested. Same issue on Ponce to Ventura Blvd. Not pedestrian friendly for crossing Ventura Blvd. Especially when people park on one side and trying to cross to get to the other side. Vehicular traffic is too fast for cyclists. Busy weekend vehicular traffic. Accidents occur at Ventura Blvd. and Fallbrook about once a week. Ventura Blvd. feels like a second 101 freeway.

A-28


• • • • • •

There aren’t enough traffic officers to hand out tickets to those who speed. Bicycle lanes are being used as traffic lanes. Congestion along this stretch only occurs when the 101 freeway is blocked. Ponce Avenue needs a signal due to heavy neighborhood resident cut-through use. Lack of aesthetic beauty. Vehicles turning left into and out of driveways is becoming a problem. Unable to make legal Uturns.

SUMMARY: Improvement Opportunities: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Road diet to slow down vehicular traffic speed. Need to implement traffic calming design. Need to improve on place making. Need to expand the project boundary in the future. Make it more pedestrian friendly. Provide textured crosswalks at intersections. Provide aesthetic enhancements. Make it a neighborhood destination. Provide historical charm and character. Provide left turn lanes and U-turn opportunities. Improve the infrastructure. Provide more parking spaces for new businesses and the ones that are attracting many customers. Diagonal parking may be a short-term solution to the problem. We may want to look into building a supplemental parking structure for businesses. May want to extend the traffic calming design all the way to Shoup or even to east of Shoup. How about adding a roundabout? Instead of adding too many left turn pockets/lanes. Reduce the number of driveways. Reach out to potential businesses to establish within the project location. Add more trees, landscaping, median islands, and parkways to beautify the project site. Diagonal parking spaces in middle of the street may help to calm the traffic. How about looking into taking advantage of the technology? Like Uber app to encourage people to take Uber to restaurants and shops. We may need a signal at Ponce. May want to phase out the design in sections from one street to another (i.e. Sale to Fallbrook, Fallbrook to Royer, Shoup to Sale, etc.). May want to phase in a design to be flexible by only using paint on the road and then installing hardscape at a later time. Need to improve the Fallbrook intersection for traffic calming. We need monument signs (either in the median or above), at each entrance point to the area, giving it an identity. The signs would let drivers know that they are entering a “Village” (Fallbrook Village, for example).

A-29


Project Boundary Comment: The general consensus for traffic calming design and methods needs to go beyond the project boundary. Many have expressed the need for traffic calming extending to Shoup from Sale and from Royer all the way to Woodlake. Many members felt that aesthetic beautification is needed just east of Shoup where the storage unit business is located (many felt unsafe). Next Step: Sam Gennaway announced the next Community Workshop, tentatively scheduled on January 12, 2017. He encouraged CAG members to reach out to the community constituents to participate in the upcoming Workshop.

A-30


Appendix B Detailed Traffic & Parking Counts


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Royer Avenue/Buisness Plaza DW E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Royer Avenue Southbound Thru Right App. Total 0 1 8 0 9 16 0 6 20 0 25 58 0 41 102

Groups Printed- Total Volume Ventura Boulevard Buissness Plaza Driveway Westbound Northbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total 0 181 0 181 0 0 0 0 0 256 5 261 0 0 0 0 2 317 3 322 0 0 0 0 1 334 6 341 0 0 1 1 3 1088 14 1105 0 0 1 1

: LACROVEAM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :1

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total 0 33 0 33 2 38 0 40 0 94 0 94 5 85 1 91 7 250 1 258

Start Time 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total

Left 7 7 14 33 61

08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total

25 16 8 10 59

0 0 0 0 0

20 33 10 6 69

45 49 18 16 128

1 1 0 0 2

321 347 310 296 1274

7 6 4 6 23

329 354 314 302 1299

0 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 1

4 4 2 1 11

88 55 51 53 247

0 0 0 0 0

92 59 53 54 258

466 463 385 372 1686

Grand Total Apprch % Total %

120 52.2 3.8

0 0 0

110 47.8 3.5

230

5 0.2 0.2

2362 98.3 74.9

37 1.5 1.2

2404

1 50 0

0 0 0

1 50 0

2

18 3.5 0.6

497 96.3 15.8

1 0.2 0

516

3152

7.3

76.3

Royer Avenue Ventura Boulevard Southbound Westbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 2 07:30 AM 14 0 6 20 317 3 322 33 58 07:45 AM 0 25 1 334 6 341 7 08:00 AM 25 0 20 45 1 321 329 33 347 354 08:15 AM 16 0 49 1 6 Total Volume 88 0 84 172 5 1319 22 1346 % App. Total 51.2 0 48.8 0.4 98 1.6 PHF .667 .000 .636 .741 .625 .950 .786 .951

0.1

Buissness Plaza Driveway Northbound Left Thru Right App. Total

0 0 0 1

1 50 .250

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000

Int. Total

222 317 436 491 1466

16.4

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total

Int. Total

0

0

0

94

0

94

436

1

1

5

1

0 0 1 50 .250

0 1 2

4 4 13 3.9 .650

85 88 55 322 95.8 .856

91 92 59 336

466 463 1856

.894

.945

.500

0 0 1 0.3 .250

B1

491


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Royer Avenue/Buisness Plaza DW E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: LACROVEAM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :2

Royer Avenue Out In Total 35 172 207 84 0 Right Thru

88 Left

13 Left 1 322 Right Thru

North Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

5 Left

Total Volume

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 411 1346 1757

22 1319 Right Thru

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 1404 336 1740

Peak Hour Data

Left Thru Right 1 0 1 6 2 8 Out In Total Buissness Plaza Driveway

Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:30 AM

+0 mins. +15 mins. +30 mins. +45 mins. Total Volume % App. Total

PHF

14 33 25 16 88 51.2 .667

07:30 AM

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000

6 25 20 33 84 48.8 .636

20 58 45 49 172 .741

2 1 1 1 5 0.4 .625

07:30 AM

317 334 321 347 1319 98 .950

3 6 7 6 22 1.6 .786

322 341 329 354 1346 .951

0 0 0 1 1 50 .250

07:30 AM

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000

0 1 0 0 1 50 .250

0 1 0 1 2 .500

0 5 4 4 13 3.9 .650

94 85 88 55 322 95.8 .856

0 1 0 0 1 0.3 .250

94 91 92 59 336 .894

B2


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Royer Avenue/Buisness Plaza DW E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Royer Avenue Southbound Thru Right App. Total 0 5 11 0 6 14 0 4 11 0 4 11 0 19 47

Groups Printed- Total Volume Ventura Boulevard Buissness Plaza Driveway Westbound Northbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total 2 274 6 282 1 0 2 3 8 247 5 260 2 0 3 5 3 234 10 247 1 0 3 4 2 237 11 250 0 0 3 3 15 992 32 1039 4 0 11 15

: LACROVEPM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :1

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total 8 117 5 130 7 113 1 121 5 121 4 130 5 135 2 142 25 486 12 523

Start Time 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total

Left 6 8 7 7 28

05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total

4 7 7 15 33

0 0 0 0 0

4 4 12 5 25

8 11 19 20 58

4 4 5 4 17

230 266 251 227 974

14 12 9 9 44

248 282 265 240 1035

1 6 1 1 9

0 0 0 1 1

4 9 3 7 23

5 15 4 9 33

4 5 5 7 21

110 126 130 127 493

1 3 4 3 11

115 134 139 137 525

376 442 427 406 1651

06:00 PM 06:15 PM 06:30 PM 06:45 PM Total

11 6 7 11 35

0 0 0 0 0

5 3 3 6 17

16 9 10 17 52

5 8 9 2 24

243 246 182 179 850

10 19 19 15 63

258 273 210 196 937

1 2 0 2 5

0 0 0 0 0

2 5 5 11 23

3 7 5 13 28

4 8 4 8 24

109 113 91 92 405

1 8 0 3 12

114 129 95 103 441

391 418 320 329 1458

Grand Total Apprch % Total %

96 61.1 2

0 0 0

61 38.9 1.3

157

56 1.9 1.2

2816 93.5 59.5

139 4.6 2.9

3011

18 23.7 0.4

1 1.3 0

57 75 1.2

76

70 4.7 1.5

1384 92.9 29.2

35 2.4 0.7

1489

4733

3.3

63.6

Royer Avenue Ventura Boulevard Southbound Westbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:15 PM 266 12 282 05:15 PM 7 0 4 11 4 12 5 05:30 PM 7 0 19 251 9 265 15 20 05:45 PM 0 5 4 227 9 240 06:00 PM 11 0 5 16 5 243 10 258 Total Volume 40 0 26 66 18 987 40 1045 % App. Total 60.6 0 39.4 1.7 94.4 3.8 PHF .667 .000 .542 .825 .900 .928 .833 .926

1.6

Buissness Plaza Driveway Northbound Left Thru Right App. Total

6

1 1 1 9 29 .375

0 0 1

0 1 3.2 .250

9

15

3 7 2 21 67.7 .583

4 9 3 31 .517

Int. Total

426 400 392 406 1624

31.5

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total

Int. Total

5 5

126

3

134

442

130

4

139

7

127 109 492 93.9 .946

3 1 11 2.1 .688

137 114 524

427 406 391 1666

.942

.942

4 21 4 .750

B3


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Royer Avenue/Buisness Plaza DW E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: LACROVEPM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :2

Royer Avenue Out In Total 62 66 128 26 0 Right Thru

40 Left

21 Left 11 492 Right Thru

North Peak Hour Begins at 05:15 PM

18 Left

Total Volume

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 553 1045 1598

40 987 Right Thru

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 1022 524 1546

Peak Hour Data

Left Thru Right 9 1 21 29 31 60 Out In Total Buissness Plaza Driveway

Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 05:15 PM

+0 mins. +15 mins. +30 mins. +45 mins. Total Volume % App. Total

PHF

7 7 15 11 40 60.6 .667

04:45 PM

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000

4 12 5 5 26 39.4 .542

11 19 20 16 66 .825

2 4 4 5 15 1.4 .750

05:00 PM

237 230 266 251 984 94.2 .925

11 14 12 9 46 4.4 .821

250 248 282 265 1045 .926

1 6 1 1 9 27.3 .375

04:45 PM

0 0 0 1 1 3 .250

4 9 3 7 23 69.7 .639

5 15 4 9 33 .550

5 4 5 5 19 3.6 .950

135 110 126 130 501 94.5 .928

2 1 3 4 10 1.9 .625

142 115 134 139 530 .933

B4


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Fallbrook Avenue E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: LACFAVEAM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :1

Fallbrook Avenue Southbound Left Thru Right App. Total 90 41 117 248 111 58 124 293 106 75 186 367 107 92 173 372 414 266 600 1280

Groups Printed- Total Volume Ventura Boulevard Fallbrook Avenue Westbound Northbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total 20 62 43 125 6 76 20 102 37 103 69 209 18 100 18 136 32 102 117 251 18 176 16 210 50 165 101 316 19 148 19 186 139 432 330 901 61 500 73 634

08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total

128 118 109 123 478

77 104 78 70 329

201 213 173 153 740

406 435 360 346 1547

27 23 35 32 117

132 126 136 157 551

80 63 57 52 252

239 212 228 241 920

12 19 10 21 62

133 110 107 118 468

30 29 30 34 123

175 158 147 173 653

22 8 11 15 56

98 56 49 56 259

11 4 4 2 21

131 68 64 73 336

951 873 799 833 3456

Grand Total Apprch % Total %

892 31.6 13.5

595 21 9

1340 47.4 20.2

2827

256 14.1 3.9

983 54 14.8

582 32 8.8

1821

123 9.6 1.9

968 75.2 14.6

196 15.2 3

1287

123 17.9 1.9

508 74.1 7.7

55 8 0.8

686

6621

Start Time 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total

42.7

27.5

Fallbrook Avenue Ventura Boulevard Southbound Westbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 117 07:30 AM 106 75 186 367 32 102 251 50 165 316 07:45 AM 107 92 173 372 101 128 08:00 AM 77 201 406 27 132 80 239 104 213 435 08:15 AM 118 23 126 63 212 Total Volume 459 348 773 1580 132 525 361 1018 % App. Total 29.1 22 48.9 13 51.6 35.5 PHF .896 .837 .907 .908 .660 .795 .771 .805

19.4

Fallbrook Avenue Northbound Left Thru Right App. Total

18

176

19

148 133 110 567 77.8 .805

12 19 68 9.3 .895

16 19 30

29 94 12.9 .783

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total 8 40 4 52 9 48 2 59 26 83 9 118 24 78 19 121 67 249 34 350

210

26

24 22 8 80 18.3 .769

.868

83 78 98

56 315 71.9 .804

9 19

11 4 43 9.8 .566

527 697 946 995 3165

10.4

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total

186 175 158 729

Int. Total

Int. Total

118 121

946

131

68 438

951 873 3765

.836

.946

B5

995


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Fallbrook Avenue E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: LACFAVEAM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :2

Fallbrook Avenue Out In Total 1008 1580 2588 773 348 Right Thru

459 Left

80 Left 43 315 Right Thru

North Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

132 Left

Total Volume

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 868 1018 1886

361 525 Right Thru

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 1366 438 1804

Peak Hour Data

Left Thru Right 68 567 94 523 729 1252 Out In Total Fallbrook Avenue

Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:30 AM

+0 mins. +15 mins. +30 mins. +45 mins. Total Volume % App. Total

PHF

106 107 128 118 459 29.1 .896

07:30 AM

75 92 77 104 348 22 .837

186 173 201 213 773 48.9 .907

367 372 406 435 1580 .908

32 50 27 23 132 13 .660

07:30 AM

102 165 132 126 525 51.6 .795

117 101 80 63 361 35.5 .771

251 316 239 212 1018 .805

18 19 12 19 68 9.3 .895

07:30 AM

176 148 133 110 567 77.8 .805

16 19 30 29 94 12.9 .783

210 186 175 158 729 .868

26 24 22 8 80 18.3 .769

83 78 98 56 315 71.9 .804

9 19 11 4 43 9.8 .566

118 121 131 68 438 .836

B6


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Fallbrook Avenue E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: LACFAVEPM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :1

Fallbrook Avenue Southbound Left Thru Right App. Total 91 42 101 234 81 44 88 213 87 61 85 233 94 45 88 227 353 192 362 907

Groups Printed- Total Volume Ventura Boulevard Fallbrook Avenue Westbound Northbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total 30 185 123 338 12 132 31 175 33 177 123 333 16 126 55 197 39 148 117 304 11 149 33 193 39 172 124 335 13 135 32 180 141 682 487 1310 52 542 151 745

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total 29 102 6 137 36 107 5 148 35 98 4 137 41 103 8 152 141 410 23 574

05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total

98 98 92 90 378

48 38 34 39 159

80 91 90 87 348

226 227 216 216 885

27 31 37 42 137

163 185 170 177 695

120 106 138 133 497

310 322 345 352 1329

14 12 8 17 51

122 164 150 152 588

34 31 34 43 142

170 207 192 212 781

37 34 50 47 168

91 83 112 114 400

10 13 6 9 38

138 130 168 170 606

844 886 921 950 3601

06:00 PM 06:15 PM 06:30 PM 06:45 PM Total

88 88 72 83 331

32 46 37 32 147

78 92 75 65 310

198 226 184 180 788

40 33 34 43 150

173 159 147 124 603

121 106 134 118 479

334 298 315 285 1232

14 17 17 7 55

146 136 124 139 545

33 34 32 29 128

193 187 173 175 728

36 36 31 35 138

94 95 94 88 371

5 7 3 9 24

135 138 128 132 533

860 849 800 772 3281

Grand Total Apprch % Total %

1062 41.2 10.2

498 19.3 4.8

1020 39.5 9.8

2580

428 11.1 4.1

1980 51.1 19

1463 37.8 14

3871

158 7 1.5

1675 74.3 16.1

421 18.7 4

2254

447 26.1 4.3

1181 68.9 11.3

85 5 0.8

1713

10418

Start Time 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total

24.8

37.2

Fallbrook Avenue Ventura Boulevard Southbound Westbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:15 PM 98 91 227 185 38 05:15 PM 31 106 322 138 05:30 PM 92 34 90 216 37 170 345 39 42 352 05:45 PM 90 87 216 177 133 06:00 PM 88 32 78 198 40 173 121 334 Total Volume 368 143 346 857 150 705 498 1353 % App. Total 42.9 16.7 40.4 11.1 52.1 36.8 PHF .939 .917 .951 .944 .893 .953 .902 .961

21.6

Fallbrook Avenue Northbound Left Thru Right App. Total

12 8 17

14 51 6.3 .750

164

150 152 146 612 76.1 .933

31 34

34

43

212

33 141 17.5 .820

193 804

47 36 167 27.7 .835

.948

50

83 112 114

94 403 66.8 .884

13

6 9 5 33 5.5 .635

884 891 867 894 3536

16.4

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total

207 192

Int. Total

130 168

Int. Total

886 921

170

950

135 603

860 3617

.887

.952

B7


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Fallbrook Avenue E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

: LACFAVEPM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :2

Fallbrook Avenue Out In Total 1277 857 2134 346 143 Right Thru

368 Left

167 Left 33 403 Right Thru

North Peak Hour Begins at 05:15 PM

150 Left

Total Volume

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 912 1353 2265

498 705 Right Thru

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 1102 603 1705

Peak Hour Data

Left Thru Right 51 612 141 326 804 1130 Out In Total Fallbrook Avenue

Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 04:30 PM

+0 mins. +15 mins. +30 mins. +45 mins. Total Volume % App. Total

PHF

87 94 98 98 377 41.3 .962

05:15 PM

61 45 48 38 192 21 .787

85 88 80 91 344 37.7 .945

233 227 226 227 913 .980

31 37 42 40 150 11.1 .893

05:15 PM

185 170 177 173 705 52.1 .953

106 138 133 121 498 36.8 .902

322 345 352 334 1353 .961

12 8 17 14 51 6.3 .750

05:30 PM

164 150 152 146 612 76.1 .933

31 34 43 33 141 17.5 .820

207 192 212 193 804 .948

50 47 36 36 169 27.7 .845

112 114 94 95 415 67.9 .910

6 9 5 7 27 4.4 .750

168 170 135 138 611 .899

B8


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Sale Avenue E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Sale Avenue Southbound Thru Right 0 3 0 7 0 6 2 5 2 21

Groups Printed- Total Volume Ventura Boulevard Sale Avenue Westbound Northbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right 2 130 5 137 0 0 3 9 211 1 221 0 0 3 9 248 3 260 2 1 2 7 287 4 298 0 2 9 27 876 13 916 2 3 17

: LACSAVEAM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :1

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total 3 163 0 166 1 159 2 162 2 231 4 237 2 242 5 249 8 795 11 814

Start Time 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total

Left 1 4 12 23 40

08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total

14 8 6 8 36

1 2 0 1 4

4 10 3 4 21

19 20 9 13 61

9 18 13 18 58

236 215 240 238 929

4 5 1 5 15

249 238 254 261 1002

1 4 4 0 9

0 0 0 0 0

2 6 7 11 26

3 10 11 11 35

5 1 4 9 19

261 248 202 225 936

3 1 3 9 16

269 250 209 243 971

540 518 483 528 2069

Grand Total Apprch % Total %

76 61.3 2

6 4.8 0.2

42 33.9 1.1

124

85 4.4 2.2

1805 94.1 46.5

28 1.5 0.7

1918

11 19.3 0.3

3 5.3 0.1

43 75.4 1.1

57

27 1.5 0.7

1731 97 44.6

27 1.5 0.7

1785

3884

App. Total

4 11 18 30 63

3.2

49.4

Sale Avenue Ventura Boulevard Southbound Westbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 12 0 6 18 9 248 3 260 23 2 30 287 298 07:45 AM 5 7 4 08:00 AM 14 1 4 19 9 236 4 249 10 18 5 08:15 AM 8 2 20 215 238 Total Volume 57 5 25 87 43 986 16 1045 % App. Total 65.5 5.7 28.7 4.1 94.4 1.5 PHF .620 .625 .625 .725 .597 .859 .800 .877

Left

2 0 1 4

7 24.1 .438

Sale Avenue Northbound Thru Right

App. Total

3 3 5 11 22

1.5

App. Total

1

2

5

2

9

11

0 0 3 10.3 .375

2 6 19 65.5 .528

3 10 29 .659

231 242

4

5

261

1 10 1 .500

248 982 97.7 .941

3 1 13 1.3 .650

5

310 397 520 588 1815

46

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total

2 2

Int. Total

Int. Total

237 249

520

269

250 1005

540 518 2166

.934

.921

B9

588


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Sale Avenue E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Out 29

: LACSAVEAM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :2

Sale Avenue In Total 87 116

25 5 Right Thru

57 Left

10 Left 13 982 Right Thru

North Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

43 Left

Total Volume

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 1058 1045 2103

16 986 Right Thru

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 1018 1005 2023

Peak Hour Data

Left Thru Right 7 3 19 61 Out

29 90 In Total Sale Avenue

Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:30 AM

+0 mins. +15 mins. +30 mins. +45 mins. Total Volume % App. Total

PHF

12 23 14 8 57 65.5 .620

07:30 AM

0 2 1 2 5 5.7 .625

6 5 4 10 25 28.7 .625

18 30 19 20 87 .725

9 7 9 18 43 4.1 .597

07:45 AM

248 287 236 215 986 94.4 .859

3 4 4 5 16 1.5 .800

260 298 249 238 1045 .877

0 1 4 4 9 25.7 .563

07:30 AM

2 0 0 0 2 5.7 .250

9 2 6 7 24 68.6 .667

11 3 10 11 35 .795

2 2 5 1 10 1 .500

231 242 261 248 982 97.7 .941

4 5 3 1 13 1.3 .650

237 249 269 250 1005 .934

B10


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Sale Avenue E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Sale Avenue Southbound Thru Right 0 6 0 7 0 9 0 4 0 26

Groups Printed- Total Volume Ventura Boulevard Sale Avenue Westbound Northbound Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right 9 333 8 350 7 4 11 8 309 11 328 2 0 13 8 303 7 318 0 1 12 5 317 5 327 5 0 16 30 1262 31 1323 14 5 52

: LACSAVEPM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :1

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total 5 222 5 232 7 243 5 255 7 227 2 236 5 226 3 234 24 918 15 957

Start Time 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total

Left 10 6 10 12 38

05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total

12 5 11 14 42

0 0 0 1 1

4 12 12 5 33

16 17 23 20 76

9 11 6 8 34

306 354 310 351 1321

5 10 4 9 28

320 375 320 368 1383

4 6 4 9 23

0 0 0 0 0

14 23 10 14 61

18 29 14 23 84

5 3 8 3 19

219 219 215 254 907

3 2 2 3 10

227 224 225 260 936

581 645 582 671 2479

06:00 PM 06:15 PM 06:30 PM 06:45 PM Total

7 5 8 6 26

1 0 0 1 2

2 6 3 3 14

10 11 11 10 42

5 3 2 3 13

275 308 281 294 1158

10 9 6 5 30

290 320 289 302 1201

5 5 3 1 14

2 1 0 0 3

19 13 8 9 49

26 19 11 10 66

10 8 6 10 34

222 217 197 201 837

5 4 2 3 14

237 229 205 214 885

563 579 516 536 2194

Grand Total Apprch % Total %

106 58.2 1.5

3 1.6 0

73 40.1 1

182

77 2 1.1

3741 95.8 52.8

89 2.3 1.3

3907

51 23.1 0.7

8 3.6 0.1

162 73.3 2.3

221

77 2.8 1.1

2662 95.8 37.6

39 1.4 0.6

2778

7088

App. Total

16 13 19 16 64

2.6

55.1

Sale Avenue Ventura Boulevard Southbound Westbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 12 0 4 16 9 306 5 320 12 11 354 10 375 05:15 PM 5 0 17 23 05:30 PM 11 0 12 6 310 4 320 14 1 05:45 PM 5 20 8 351 9 368 Total Volume 42 1 33 76 34 1321 28 1383 % App. Total 55.3 1.3 43.4 2.5 95.5 2 PHF .750 .250 .688 .826 .773 .933 .700 .922

Left

4 6 4 9

23 27.4 .639

Sale Avenue Northbound Thru Right

0 0 0 0 0 0 .000

App. Total

22 15 13 21 71

3.1

App. Total

14

18

23

29

10 14 61 72.6 .663

14 23 84 .724

8

219 219 215

3 19 2 .594

907 96.9 .893

254

3

2 2 3 10 1.1 .833

620 611 586 598 2415

39.2

Ventura Boulevard Eastbound Left Thru Right App. Total

5 3

Int. Total

227 224 225

Int. Total

581 645 582

260

671

936

2479

.900

.924

B11


Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268

City of Los Angeles N/S: Sale Avenue E/W: Ventura Boulevard Weather: Clear

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

Out 47

: LACSAVEPM : 04216592 : 11/3/2016 :2

Sale Avenue In Total 76 123

33 1 Right Thru

42 Left

19 Left 10 907 Right Thru

North Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM

34 Left

Total Volume

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 1010 1383 2393

28 1321 Right Thru

Ventura Boulevard Out In Total 1377 936 2313

Peak Hour Data

Left Thru Right 23 0 61 45 Out

84 129 In Total Sale Avenue

Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 05:00 PM

+0 mins. +15 mins. +30 mins. +45 mins. Total Volume % App. Total

PHF

12 5 11 14 42 55.3 .750

05:00 PM

0 0 0 1 1 1.3 .250

4 12 12 5 33 43.4 .688

16 17 23 20 76 .826

9 11 6 8 34 2.5 .773

05:15 PM

306 354 310 351 1321 95.5 .933

5 10 4 9 28 2 .700

320 375 320 368 1383 .922

6 4 9 5 24 26.1 .667

04:00 PM

0 0 0 2 2 2.2 .250

23 10 14 19 66 71.7 .717

29 14 23 26 92 .793

5 7 7 5 24 2.5 .857

222 243 227 226 918 95.9 .944

5 5 2 3 15 1.6 .750

232 255 236 234 957 .938

B12


Page 1

Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: (951) 268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com

City of Los Angeles Ventura Boulevard W/ Fallbrook Avenue 24 Hour Directional Volume Count

Start 11/3/2016 Time Thu 12:00 12:15 12:30 12:45 01:00 01:15 01:30 01:45 02:00 02:15 02:30 02:45 03:00 03:15 03:30 03:45 04:00 04:15 04:30 04:45 05:00 05:15 05:30 05:45 06:00 06:15 06:30 06:45 07:00 07:15 07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 09:00 09:15 09:30 09:45 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 Total Combined Total AM Peak Vol. P.H.F. PM Peak Vol. P.H.F. Percentag e ADT/AADT

Eastbound Morning Afternoon 29 211 24 249 21 256 14 256 11 225 13 231 14 208 12 217 4 234 7 222 238 11 234 12 305 4 282 7 7 222 11 211 19 250 20 213 39 221 67 204 70 228 102 221 130 248 150 207 140 210 148 200 132 203 143 184 187 154 210 199 194 145 246 160 204 145 198 123 215 115 212 94 188 123 211 101 186 92 200 94 209 84 205 68 232 59 223 61 218 44 267 44 237 35 252 32 5655 8362 14017 11:00 974 0.912 -

40.3% ADT 30,393

Hour Totals Morning Afternoon

88

972

50

881

34

928

29

1020

145

888

452

904

563

797

837

658

829

477

785

410

869

272

974 5655

155 8362

14017

Westbound Morning Afternoon 33 257 23 265 22 288 26 278 19 289 16 267 25 263 17 272 15 290 14 305 15 338 6 305 21 297 12 276 15 296 13 317 13 292 24 313 17 288 20 304 343 26 311 54 327 62 312 56 76 301 98 276 133 291 129 248 246 234 282 242 274 218 226 220 205 196 252 164 218 158 209 158 205 137 186 128 202 118 213 117 188 104 200 101 207 90 213 59 230 79 232 50 246 56 262 42 5496 10880 16376

-

-

-

02:30 1059 0.868

-

-

59.7%

LAC002 Site Code: 042-16592

07:00 1028 0.911 -

33.6%

Hour Totals Morning Afternoon

Combined Totals Morning Afternoon

104

1088

192

2060

77

1091

127

1972

50

1238

84

2166

61

1186

90

2206

74

1197

219

2085

198

1293

650

2197

436

1116

999

1913

1028

914

1865

1572

884

676

1713

1153

806

500

1591

910

808

354

1677

626

970 5496

227 10880

1944 11151

382 19242

16376

30393

-

-

-

-

-

05:00 1293 0.942

-

-

-

-

66.4%

AADT 30,393

B13


Page 1

Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: (951) 268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com

City of Los Angeles Ventura Boulevard W/ Fallbrook Avenue 24 Hour Directional Volume Count

Start 11/3/2016 Time Thu 12:00 12:15 12:30 12:45 01:00 01:15 01:30 01:45 02:00 02:15 02:30 02:45 03:00 03:15 03:30 03:45 04:00 04:15 04:30 04:45 05:00 05:15 05:30 05:45 06:00 06:15 06:30 06:45 07:00 07:15 07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 09:00 09:15 09:30 09:45 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 Total Combined Total AM Peak Vol. P.H.F. PM Peak Vol. P.H.F. Percentag e ADT/AADT

Eastbound Morning Afternoon 10 76 12 102 6 107 4 92 2 92 7 96 5 82 3 89 0 102 1 99 2 107 3 98 0 173 4 164 0 102 2 130 1 137 1 136 5 142 9 113 146 9 138 22 167 31 119 28 37 122 16 110 39 128 46 109 52 75 115 86 127 71 104 72 70 54 53 52 68 54 69 37 56 40 78 45 67 37 73 37 77 34 84 33 71 27 97 29 83 18 100 17 83 19 104 19 1936 4134 6070 07:15 416 0.819 -

31.9% ADT 20,908

Hour Totals Morning Afternoon

32

377

17

359

6

406

6

569

16

528

90

570

138

469

398

304

260

197

274

159

329

123

370 1936

73 4134

6070

Westbound Morning Afternoon 19 251 18 254 14 247 5 263 7 240 13 250 19 228 11 220 292 4 264 9 286 13 243 3 17 258 3 247 10 264 7 286 9 250 14 250 15 255 18 249 23 279 46 257 62 262 47 239 94 259 136 225 148 202 180 175 270 177 312 177 335 161 351 156 329 135 316 120 311 113 255 99 231 107 213 97 220 92 205 87 197 70 208 58 186 52 183 48 217 50 222 36 228 24 206 25 5959 8879 14838

-

-

-

05:00 570 0.853

-

-

68.1%

LAC001 Site Code: 042-16592

07:30 1331 0.948 -

40.2%

Hour Totals Morning Afternoon

Combined Totals Morning Afternoon

56

1015

88

1392

50

938

67

1297

29

1085

35

1491

37

1055

43

1624

56

1004

72

1532

178

1037

268

1607

558

861

696

1330

1268

671

1666

975

1211

467

1471

664

869

383

1143

542

774

228

1103

351

873 5959

135 8879

1243 7895

208 13013

14838

20908

-

-

-

-

-

02:00 1085 0.929

-

-

-

-

59.8%

AADT 20,908

B14


Ventura Blvd Parking Survey 1‐8 PM

On Street Parking North Side Royer to Fallbrook Fallbrook to Ponce Ponce to Sale

South Side Royer to Comeres Comeres to Rigoletto Rigoletto to Fallbrook Fallbrook to Ponce Ponce to Sale

Type of Space Inventory Metered 26 Loading 3 Metered 21 Metered 9 59 TOTAL

1:00 13 0 13 5 31

2:00 10 0 13 1 24

3:00 13 0 6 0 19

4:00 11 0 5 0 16

5:00 18 0 4 0 22

6:00 26 1 3 1 31

7:00 25 0 5 2 32

8:00 24 0 11 2 37

Type of Space Inventory Metered 5 Metered 10 Loading 1 Metered 3 Metered 15 Metered 8 Loading 2 44 TOTAL

1:00 1 2 0 0 5 4 0 12

2:00 1 1 0 0 6 2 0 10

3:00 2 1 0 2 6 2 0 13

4:00 1 2 0 2 6 3 0 14

5:00 3 7 0 0 1 3 0 14

6:00 2 8 0 0 3 3 0 16

7:00 5 9 0 1 3 7 0 25

8:00 3 10 1 2 1 5 0 22

Type of Space Inventory Visitors 5 Regular 15 Handicap 2 TOTAL 22

1:00 3 14 2 19

2:00 2 14 2 18

3:00 5 15 1 21

4:00 3 13 2 18

5:00 4 14 1 19

6:00 5 12 2 19

7:00 1 9 1 11

8:00 3 10 0 13

Type of Space Inventory Regular 41 Handicap 2 TOTAL 43

1:00 22 2 24

2:00 22 1 23

3:00 24 1 25

4:00 29 1 30

5:00 41 1 42

6:00 30 0 30

7:00 19 0 19

8:00 11 0 11

Type of Space Inventory Regular 195 Handicap 7 15‐ minute 1 TOTAL 203

1:00 119 6 0 125

2:00 120 5 0 125

3:00 108 4 1 113

4:00 98 3 1 102

5:00 92 5 1 98

6:00 120 2 0 122

7:00 106 2 0 108

8:00 74 3 0 77

Parking Lots

Hugo's Tacos

Val Surf Lot

Smart & Final Lot

B15


Appendix C Level of Service (LOS) & Signal Warrants Analysis


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Ventura Blvd & Royer Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Conditions Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

13 13

322 322 Free 0% 0.95 339

1319 1319 Free 0% 0.95 1388

22 22

88 88 Stop 0% 0.95 93

84 84 0.95 88

None

None

0.88 1411

0.88 1586

0.88 694

1204 4.1

1401 6.8

394 6.9

2.2 97 509

3.5 18 113

3.3 84 536

WB 2 694 0 0 1700 0.41 0 0.0

WB 3 23 0 23 1700 0.01 0 0.0

0.95 14

0.95 23

1149

EB 1 14 14 0 509 0.03 2 12.3 B 0.5

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

EB 2 170 0 0 1700 0.10 0 0.0

EB 3 170 0 0 1700 0.10 0 0.0

WB 1 694 0 0 1700 0.41 0 0.0 0.0

10.9 53.2% 15

ICU Level of Service

SB 1 181 93 88 183 0.99 203 115.8 F 115.8 F

A

Page 1

C1


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ventura Blvd & Fallbrook Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

80 80 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.19 351 0.95 84 0 84 pm+pt 7 4 33.6 33.6 0.38 4.5 3.0 330 c0.04 0.06 0.25 19.1 1.00 0.4 19.5 B

315 315 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.95 332 0 332 NA 4

43 43 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.95 45 34 11 Perm

132 132 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.54 1013 0.95 139 0 139 pm+pt 3 8 25.6 25.6 0.29 4.5 3.0 363 0.04 0.07 0.38 24.4 1.00 0.7 25.1 C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

21.2 21.2 0.24 4.5 3.0 1213 0.07 0.27 27.5 1.00 0.1 27.7 C 26.0 C

4 21.2 21.2 0.24 4.5 3.0 377 0.01 0.03 25.9 1.00 0.0 25.9 C

45.6 0.91 88.8 92.3% 15

Existing Conditions Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

525 361 525 361 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 0.95 0.95 553 380 0 119 553 261 NA pm+ov 8 6 8 17.2 39.1 17.2 39.1 0.19 0.44 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 685 697 c0.16 0.09 0.07 0.81 0.37 34.2 16.7 1.00 1.00 6.9 0.3 41.1 17.0 D B 30.5 C

68 68 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.21 386 0.95 72 0 72 Perm

567 567 1900 4.5 0.95 0.98 1.00 3464 1.00 3464 0.95 597 15 681 NA 2

94 94 1900

459 459 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 0.95 1681 0.95 1681 0.95 483 0 415 Split 6

2 19.3 19.3 0.22 4.5 3.0 83 0.19 0.87 33.5 1.00 66.9 100.4 F

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.95 99 0 0

19.3 19.3 0.22 4.5 3.0 752 c0.20

21.9 21.9 0.25 4.5 3.0 414 0.25

0.91 33.9 1.00 16.5 50.4 D 55.1 E

1.00 33.4 1.00 44.8 78.3 E

SBT

SBR

348 773 348 773 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1756 1583 0.99 1.00 1756 1583 0.95 0.95 366 814 0 233 434 581 NA pm+ov 6 7 6 21.9 34.3 21.9 34.3 0.25 0.39 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 433 691 c0.25 c0.12 0.25 1.00 0.84 33.4 24.8 1.00 1.00 43.8 9.1 77.3 33.9 E C 56.3 E

D 18.0 F

Page 2

C2


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Ventura Blvd & Sale Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Conditions Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

10 10 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 454 0.92 11 0 11 Perm

982 982 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5075 1.00 5075 0.92 1067 3 1078 NA 4

13 13 1900

43 43 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 454 0.92 47 0 47 Perm

986 986 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5073 1.00 5073 0.92 1072 4 1085 NA 8

16 16 1900

7 7 1900

19 19 1900

57 57 1900

0.92 8 0 0 Perm

0.92 21 0 0

0.92 62 0 0 Perm

5 5 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 0.97 1733 0.83 1493 0.92 5 16 78 NA 6

25 25 1900

0.92 17 0 0

3 3 1900 4.5 1.00 0.91 0.99 1677 0.95 1614 0.92 3 12 20 NA 2

4 16.4 16.4 0.38 4.5 3.0 171 0.02 0.06 8.7 1.00 0.2 8.8 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

0.92 14 0 0

8 16.4 16.4 0.38 4.5 3.0 171

16.4 16.4 0.38 4.5 3.0 1913 0.21

0.10 0.27 9.4 1.00 0.9 10.3 B

0.56 10.7 1.00 0.4 11.1 B 11.1 B 10.9 0.34 43.5 46.3% 15

2 16.4 16.4 0.38 4.5 3.0 1912 c0.21 0.57 10.7 1.00 0.4 11.1 B 11.1 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.92 27 0 0

6 18.1 18.1 0.42 4.5 3.0 671

18.1 18.1 0.42 4.5 3.0 621

0.01 0.03 7.5 1.00 0.1 7.6 A 7.6 A

c0.05 0.13 7.8 1.00 0.4 8.2 A 8.2 A B 9.0 A

Page 3

C3


HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Ventura Blvd & Royer Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (Veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Conditions Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

21 21

492 492 Free 0% 0.94 523

987 987 Free 0% 0.94 1050

40 40

40 40 Stop 0% 0.94 43

26 26 0.94 28

None

None

0.84 1093

0.84 1356

0.84 525

722 4.1

1035 6.8

43 6.9

2.2 97 733

3.5 77 185

3.3 97 852

WB 2 525 0 0 1700 0.31 0 0.0

WB 3 43 0 43 1700 0.03 0 0.0

0.94 22

0.94 43

1149

EB 1 22 22 0 733 0.03 2 10.1 B 0.4

Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

EB 2 262 0 0 1700 0.15 0 0.0

EB 3 262 0 0 1700 0.15 0 0.0

WB 1 525 0 0 1700 0.31 0 0.0 0.0

1.1 37.8% 15

ICU Level of Service

SB 1 71 43 28 267 0.27 26 23.3 C 23.3 C

A

Page 1

C4


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ventura Blvd & Fallbrook Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

167 167 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.20 376 0.95 176 0 176 pm+pt 7 4 27.5 27.5 0.31 4.5 3.0 237 c0.06 0.17 0.74 24.5 1.00 11.8 36.4 D

403 403 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5085 1.00 5085 0.95 424 0 424 NA 4

33 33 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.95 35 27 8 Perm

150 150 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.42 782 0.95 158 0 158 pm+pt 3 8 29.9 29.9 0.34 4.5 3.0 363 0.04 0.10 0.44 21.4 1.00 0.8 22.3 C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

19.8 19.8 0.22 4.5 3.0 1136 0.08 0.37 29.1 1.00 0.2 29.4 C 31.2 C

4 19.8 19.8 0.22 4.5 3.0 353 0.00 0.02 26.8 1.00 0.0 26.9 C

35.6 0.82 88.6 79.1% 15

Existing Conditions Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

705 498 705 498 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 0.95 0.95 742 524 0 46 742 478 NA pm+ov 8 6 8 21.0 38.2 21.0 38.2 0.24 0.43 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 838 682 c0.21 0.14 0.17 0.89 0.70 32.6 20.5 1.00 1.00 11.0 3.3 43.7 23.8 D C 34.0 C

51 51 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.16 302 0.95 54 0 54 Perm

612 612 1900 4.5 0.95 0.97 1.00 3440 1.00 3440 0.95 644 22 770 NA 2

141 141 1900

368 368 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 0.95 1681 0.95 1681 0.95 387 0 267 Split 6

143 346 143 346 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1731 1583 0.98 1.00 1731 1583 0.95 0.95 151 364 0 262 271 102 NA pm+ov 6 7 6 17.2 24.9 17.2 24.9 0.19 0.28 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 336 525 0.16 0.02 0.05 0.81 0.19 34.1 24.2 1.00 1.00 13.2 0.2 47.3 24.4 D C 38.5 D

2 24.7 24.7 0.28 4.5 3.0 84 0.18 0.64 28.1 1.00 32.1 60.2 E

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.95 148 0 0

24.7 24.7 0.28 4.5 3.0 959 c0.22

17.2 17.2 0.19 4.5 3.0 326 c0.16

0.80 29.7 1.00 7.1 36.8 D 38.3 D

0.82 34.2 1.00 14.7 48.9 D

SBR

D 18.0 D

Page 2

C5


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Ventura Blvd & Sale Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Existing Conditions Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

19 19 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 414 0.92 21 0 21 Perm

907 907 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5077 1.00 5077 0.92 986 2 995 NA 4

10 10 1900

34 34 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 445 0.92 37 0 37 Perm

1321 1321 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5070 1.00 5070 0.92 1436 5 1461 NA 8

28 28 1900

23 23 1900

61 61 1900

42 42 1900

0.92 25 0 0 Perm

0.92 66 0 0

0.92 46 0 0 Perm

1 1 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.97 1706 0.84 1479 0.92 1 5 78 NA 6

33 33 1900

0.92 30 0 0

0 0 1900 4.5 1.00 0.90 0.99 1658 0.93 1560 0.92 0 23 68 NA 2

4 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 165 0.05 0.13 8.5 1.00 0.3 8.9 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

0.92 11 0 0

8 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 178

18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 2030 0.20

0.08 0.21 8.8 1.00 0.6 9.4 A

0.49 10.1 1.00 0.2 10.3 B 10.2 B 11.5 0.43 45.0 44.1% 15

2 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 2028 c0.29 0.72 11.4 1.00 1.3 12.7 B 12.6 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.92 36 0 0

6 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 624

18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 591

0.04 0.11 8.5 1.00 0.4 8.8 A 8.8 A

c0.05 0.13 8.6 1.00 0.5 9.0 A 9.0 A B 9.0 A

Page 3

C6


Preferred Alternative A

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Ventura Blvd & Royer Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

13 13 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 412 0.95 14 0 14 Perm

322 322 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.95 339 0 339 NA 4

1319 1319 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.95 1388 0 1388 NA 8

22 22 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.95 23 10 13 Perm

88 88 1900 4.5 1.00 0.93 0.97 1697 0.97 1697 0.95 93 7 174 Prot 6

84 84 1900

18.1 18.1 0.50 4.5 3.0 1779 0.10

18.1 18.1 0.50 4.5 3.0 1779 c0.39

0.19 4.9 1.00 0.1 5.0 A 5.0 A

0.78 7.3 1.00 2.3 9.6 A 9.5 A

4 18.1 18.1 0.50 4.5 3.0 207 0.03 0.07 4.6 1.00 0.1 4.7 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

8.9 0.66 36.0 54.0% 15

8 18.1 18.1 0.50 4.5 3.0 795 0.01 0.02 4.5 1.00 0.0 4.5 A

0.95 88 0 0

8.9 8.9 0.25 4.5 3.0 419 c0.10 0.42 11.4 1.00 0.7 12.0 B 12.0 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

A 9.0 A

Page 1

C7


Preferred Alternative A

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ventura Blvd & Fallbrook Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

80 80 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.19 351 0.95 84 0 84 pm+pt 7 4 33.6 33.6 0.38 4.5 3.0 330 0.04 0.06 0.25 19.1 1.00 0.4 19.5 B

315 315 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.95 332 0 332 NA 4

43 43 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.95 45 34 11 Perm

132 132 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.55 1027 0.95 139 0 139 pm+pt 3 8 25.6 25.6 0.29 4.5 3.0 366 0.04 0.07 0.38 24.4 1.00 0.7 25.1 C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

21.2 21.2 0.24 4.5 3.0 844 c0.09 0.39 28.4 1.00 0.3 28.7 C 26.8 C

4 21.2 21.2 0.24 4.5 3.0 377 0.01 0.03 25.9 1.00 0.0 25.9 C

45.7 0.91 88.8 92.3% 15

Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

525 361 525 361 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 0.95 0.95 553 380 0 119 553 261 NA pm+ov 8 6 8 17.2 39.1 17.2 39.1 0.19 0.44 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 685 697 c0.16 0.09 0.07 0.81 0.37 34.2 16.7 1.00 1.00 6.9 0.3 41.1 17.0 D B 30.5 C

68 68 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.21 386 0.95 72 0 72 Perm

567 567 1900 4.5 0.95 0.98 1.00 3464 1.00 3464 0.95 597 15 681 NA 2

94 94 1900

459 459 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 0.95 1681 0.95 1681 0.95 483 0 415 Split 6

2 19.3 19.3 0.22 4.5 3.0 83 0.19 0.87 33.5 1.00 66.9 100.4 F

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.95 99 0 0

19.3 19.3 0.22 4.5 3.0 752 c0.20

21.9 21.9 0.25 4.5 3.0 414 0.25

0.91 33.9 1.00 16.5 50.4 D 55.1 E

1.00 33.5 1.00 44.8 78.3 E

SBT

SBR

348 773 348 773 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1756 1583 0.99 1.00 1756 1583 0.95 0.95 366 814 0 233 434 581 NA pm+ov 6 7 6 21.9 34.3 21.9 34.3 0.25 0.39 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 433 691 c0.25 c0.12 0.25 1.00 0.84 33.5 24.8 1.00 1.00 43.8 9.1 77.3 33.9 E C 56.3 E

D 18.0 F

Page 2

C8


Preferred Alternative A

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Ventura Blvd & Sale Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

10 10 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.23 428 0.92 11 0 11 Perm

982 982 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3532 1.00 3532 0.92 1067 2 1079 NA 4

13 13 1900

43 43 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.23 428 0.92 47 0 47 Perm

986 986 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5073 1.00 5073 0.92 1072 4 1085 NA 8

16 16 1900

7 7 1900

19 19 1900

57 57 1900

0.92 8 0 0 Perm

0.92 21 0 0

0.92 62 0 0 Perm

5 5 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 0.97 1733 0.83 1491 0.92 5 16 78 NA 6

25 25 1900

0.92 17 0 0

3 3 1900 4.5 1.00 0.91 0.99 1677 0.95 1613 0.92 3 12 20 NA 2

4 17.4 17.4 0.39 4.5 3.0 167 0.03 0.07 8.4 1.00 0.2 8.6 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

0.92 14 0 0

8 17.4 17.4 0.39 4.5 3.0 167

17.4 17.4 0.39 4.5 3.0 1384 c0.31

0.11 0.28 9.2 1.00 0.9 10.2 B

0.78 11.8 1.00 2.9 14.7 B 14.6 B 12.4 0.45 44.4 54.5% 15

2 17.4 17.4 0.39 4.5 3.0 1988 0.21 0.55 10.4 1.00 0.3 10.8 B 10.7 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.92 27 0 0

6 18.0 18.0 0.41 4.5 3.0 653

18.0 18.0 0.41 4.5 3.0 604

0.01 0.03 7.9 1.00 0.1 8.0 A 8.0 A

c0.05 0.13 8.3 1.00 0.4 8.7 A 8.7 A B 9.0 A

Page 3

C9


Preferred Alternative A

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Ventura Blvd & Royer Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

21 21 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.25 463 0.94 22 0 22 Perm

492 492 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.94 523 0 523 NA 4

987 987 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.94 1050 0 1050 NA 8

40 40 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.94 43 21 22 Perm

40 40 1900 4.5 1.00 0.95 0.97 1712 0.97 1712 0.94 43 22 49 Prot 6

26 26 1900

16.1 16.1 0.51 4.5 3.0 1808 0.15

16.1 16.1 0.51 4.5 3.0 1808 c0.30

0.29 4.4 1.00 0.1 4.5 A 4.5 A

0.58 5.4 1.00 0.5 5.8 A 5.8 A

4 16.1 16.1 0.51 4.5 3.0 236 0.05 0.09 4.0 1.00 0.2 4.1 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

5.5 0.46 31.5 38.9% 15

8 16.1 16.1 0.51 4.5 3.0 809 0.01 0.03 3.8 1.00 0.0 3.8 A

0.94 28 0 0

6.4 6.4 0.20 4.5 3.0 347 c0.03 0.14 10.3 1.00 0.2 10.5 B 10.5 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

A 9.0 A

Page 1

C10


Preferred Alternative A

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ventura Blvd & Fallbrook Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

167 167 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.20 380 0.95 176 0 176 pm+pt 7 4 27.3 27.3 0.31 4.5 3.0 237 c0.06 0.16 0.74 24.7 1.00 11.8 36.5 D

403 403 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.95 424 0 424 NA 4

33 33 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.95 35 27 8 Perm

150 150 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.34 642 0.95 158 0 158 pm+pt 3 8 30.1 30.1 0.34 4.5 3.0 333 0.05 0.11 0.47 21.5 1.00 1.1 22.6 C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

19.6 19.6 0.22 4.5 3.0 782 0.12 0.54 30.5 1.00 0.8 31.3 C 32.5 C

4 19.6 19.6 0.22 4.5 3.0 350 0.00 0.02 27.0 1.00 0.0 27.0 C

35.8 0.82 88.6 79.1% 15

Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

705 498 705 498 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 0.95 0.95 742 524 0 46 742 478 NA pm+ov 8 6 8 21.0 38.2 21.0 38.2 0.24 0.43 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 838 682 c0.21 0.14 0.17 0.89 0.70 32.6 20.5 1.00 1.00 11.0 3.3 43.7 23.8 D C 34.0 C

51 51 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.16 302 0.95 54 0 54 Perm

612 612 1900 4.5 0.95 0.97 1.00 3440 1.00 3440 0.95 644 22 770 NA 2

141 141 1900

368 368 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 0.95 1681 0.95 1681 0.95 387 0 267 Split 6

143 346 143 346 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1731 1583 0.98 1.00 1731 1583 0.95 0.95 151 364 0 262 271 102 NA pm+ov 6 7 6 17.2 24.9 17.2 24.9 0.19 0.28 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 336 525 0.16 0.02 0.05 0.81 0.19 34.1 24.2 1.00 1.00 13.2 0.2 47.3 24.4 D C 38.5 D

2 24.7 24.7 0.28 4.5 3.0 84 0.18 0.64 28.1 1.00 32.1 60.2 E

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.95 148 0 0

24.7 24.7 0.28 4.5 3.0 959 c0.22

17.2 17.2 0.19 4.5 3.0 326 c0.16

0.80 29.7 1.00 7.1 36.8 D 38.3 D

0.82 34.2 1.00 14.7 48.9 D

SBR

D 18.0 D

Page 2

C11


Preferred Alternative A

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Ventura Blvd & Sale Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

19 19 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 414 0.92 21 0 21 Perm

907 907 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3533 1.00 3533 0.92 986 2 995 NA 4

10 10 1900

34 34 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 414 0.92 37 0 37 Perm

1321 1321 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5070 1.00 5070 0.92 1436 5 1461 NA 8

28 28 1900

23 23 1900

61 61 1900

42 42 1900

0.92 25 0 0 Perm

0.92 66 0 0

0.92 46 0 0 Perm

1 1 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.97 1706 0.84 1479 0.92 1 5 78 NA 6

33 33 1900

0.92 30 0 0

0 0 1900 4.5 1.00 0.90 0.99 1658 0.93 1560 0.92 0 23 68 NA 2

4 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 165 0.05 0.13 8.5 1.00 0.3 8.9 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

0.92 11 0 0

8 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 165

18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 1413 0.28

0.09 0.22 8.9 1.00 0.7 9.6 A

0.70 11.3 1.00 1.6 12.9 B 12.8 B 12.4 0.43 45.0 44.1% 15

2 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 2028 c0.29 0.72 11.4 1.00 1.3 12.7 B 12.6 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.92 36 0 0

6 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 624

18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 591

0.04 0.11 8.5 1.00 0.4 8.8 A 8.8 A

c0.05 0.13 8.6 1.00 0.5 9.0 A 9.0 A B 9.0 A

Page 3

C12


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Ventura Blvd & Royer Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Preferred Alternative B Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

13 13 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 412 0.95 14 0 14 Perm

322 322 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.95 339 0 339 NA 4

1319 1319 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.95 1388 0 1388 NA 8

22 22 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.95 23 10 13 Perm

88 88 1900 4.5 1.00 0.93 0.97 1697 0.97 1697 0.95 93 7 174 Prot 6

84 84 1900

18.1 18.1 0.50 4.5 3.0 936 0.18

18.1 18.1 0.50 4.5 3.0 1779 c0.39

0.36 5.4 1.00 0.2 5.7 A 5.6 A

0.78 7.3 1.00 2.3 9.6 A 9.5 A

4 18.1 18.1 0.50 4.5 3.0 207 0.03 0.07 4.6 1.00 0.1 4.7 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

9.1 0.66 36.0 54.0% 15

8 18.1 18.1 0.50 4.5 3.0 795 0.01 0.02 4.5 1.00 0.0 4.5 A

0.95 88 0 0

8.9 8.9 0.25 4.5 3.0 419 c0.10 0.42 11.4 1.00 0.7 12.0 B 12.0 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

A 9.0 A

Page 1

C13


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ventura Blvd & Fallbrook Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

80 80 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.19 351 0.95 84 0 84 pm+pt 7 4 33.6 33.6 0.38 4.5 3.0 330 0.04 0.06 0.25 19.1 1.00 0.4 19.5 B

315 315 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.95 332 0 332 NA 4

43 43 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.95 45 34 11 Perm

132 132 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.55 1027 0.95 139 0 139 pm+pt 3 8 25.6 25.6 0.29 4.5 3.0 366 0.04 0.07 0.38 24.4 1.00 0.7 25.1 C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

21.2 21.2 0.24 4.5 3.0 844 c0.09 0.39 28.4 1.00 0.3 28.7 C 26.8 C

4 21.2 21.2 0.24 4.5 3.0 377 0.01 0.03 25.9 1.00 0.0 25.9 C

45.7 0.91 88.8 92.3% 15

Preferred Alternative B Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

525 361 525 361 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 0.95 0.95 553 380 0 119 553 261 NA pm+ov 8 6 8 17.2 39.1 17.2 39.1 0.19 0.44 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 685 697 c0.16 0.09 0.07 0.81 0.37 34.2 16.7 1.00 1.00 6.9 0.3 41.1 17.0 D B 30.5 C

68 68 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.21 386 0.95 72 0 72 Perm

567 567 1900 4.5 0.95 0.98 1.00 3464 1.00 3464 0.95 597 15 681 NA 2

94 94 1900

459 459 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 0.95 1681 0.95 1681 0.95 483 0 415 Split 6

2 19.3 19.3 0.22 4.5 3.0 83 0.19 0.87 33.5 1.00 66.9 100.4 F

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.95 99 0 0

19.3 19.3 0.22 4.5 3.0 752 c0.20

21.9 21.9 0.25 4.5 3.0 414 0.25

0.91 33.9 1.00 16.5 50.4 D 55.1 E

1.00 33.5 1.00 44.8 78.3 E

SBT

SBR

348 773 348 773 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1756 1583 0.99 1.00 1756 1583 0.95 0.95 366 814 0 233 434 581 NA pm+ov 6 7 6 21.9 34.3 21.9 34.3 0.25 0.39 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 433 691 c0.25 c0.12 0.25 1.00 0.84 33.5 24.8 1.00 1.00 43.8 9.1 77.3 33.9 E C 56.3 E

D 18.0 F

Page 2

C14


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Ventura Blvd & Sale Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Preferred Alternative B Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

10 10 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 454 0.92 11 0 11 Perm

982 982 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5075 1.00 5075 0.92 1067 3 1078 NA 4

13 13 1900

43 43 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 454 0.92 47 0 47 Perm

986 986 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5073 1.00 5073 0.92 1072 4 1085 NA 8

16 16 1900

7 7 1900

19 19 1900

57 57 1900

0.92 8 0 0 Perm

0.92 21 0 0

0.92 62 0 0 Perm

5 5 1900 4.5 1.00 0.96 0.97 1733 0.83 1493 0.92 5 16 78 NA 6

25 25 1900

0.92 17 0 0

3 3 1900 4.5 1.00 0.91 0.99 1677 0.95 1614 0.92 3 12 20 NA 2

4 16.4 16.4 0.38 4.5 3.0 171 0.02 0.06 8.7 1.00 0.2 8.8 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

0.92 14 0 0

8 16.4 16.4 0.38 4.5 3.0 171

16.4 16.4 0.38 4.5 3.0 1913 0.21

0.10 0.27 9.4 1.00 0.9 10.3 B

0.56 10.7 1.00 0.4 11.1 B 11.1 B 10.9 0.34 43.5 46.3% 15

2 16.4 16.4 0.38 4.5 3.0 1912 c0.21 0.57 10.7 1.00 0.4 11.1 B 11.1 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.92 27 0 0

6 18.1 18.1 0.42 4.5 3.0 671

18.1 18.1 0.42 4.5 3.0 621

0.01 0.03 7.5 1.00 0.1 7.6 A 7.6 A

c0.05 0.13 7.8 1.00 0.4 8.2 A 8.2 A B 9.0 A

Page 3

C15


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Ventura Blvd & Royer Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Preferred Alternative B Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

WBT

WBR

SBL

SBR

21 21 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.25 463 0.94 22 0 22 Perm

492 492 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.94 523 0 523 NA 4

987 987 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.94 1050 0 1050 NA 8

40 40 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.94 43 21 22 Perm

40 40 1900 4.5 1.00 0.95 0.97 1712 0.97 1712 0.94 43 22 49 Prot 6

26 26 1900

16.1 16.1 0.51 4.5 3.0 952 0.28

16.1 16.1 0.51 4.5 3.0 1808 c0.30

0.55 5.2 1.00 0.7 5.9 A 5.8 A

0.58 5.4 1.00 0.5 5.8 A 5.8 A

4 16.1 16.1 0.51 4.5 3.0 236 0.05 0.09 4.0 1.00 0.2 4.1 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

6.0 0.46 31.5 38.9% 15

8 16.1 16.1 0.51 4.5 3.0 809 0.01 0.03 3.8 1.00 0.0 3.8 A

0.94 28 0 0

6.4 6.4 0.20 4.5 3.0 347 c0.03 0.14 10.3 1.00 0.2 10.5 B 10.5 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

A 9.0 A

Page 1

C16


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Ventura Blvd & Fallbrook Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

167 167 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.20 380 0.95 176 0 176 pm+pt 7 4 27.3 27.3 0.31 4.5 3.0 237 c0.06 0.16 0.74 24.7 1.00 11.8 36.5 D

403 403 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.95 424 0 424 NA 4

33 33 1900 4.5 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.95 35 27 8 Perm

150 150 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.34 642 0.95 158 0 158 pm+pt 3 8 30.1 30.1 0.34 4.5 3.0 333 0.05 0.11 0.47 21.5 1.00 1.1 22.6 C

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

19.6 19.6 0.22 4.5 3.0 782 0.12 0.54 30.5 1.00 0.8 31.3 C 32.5 C

4 19.6 19.6 0.22 4.5 3.0 350 0.00 0.02 27.0 1.00 0.0 27.0 C

35.8 0.82 88.6 79.1% 15

Preferred Alternative B Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

705 498 705 498 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 0.95 0.95 742 524 0 46 742 478 NA pm+ov 8 6 8 21.0 38.2 21.0 38.2 0.24 0.43 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 838 682 c0.21 0.14 0.17 0.89 0.70 32.6 20.5 1.00 1.00 11.0 3.3 43.7 23.8 D C 34.0 C

51 51 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.16 302 0.95 54 0 54 Perm

612 612 1900 4.5 0.95 0.97 1.00 3440 1.00 3440 0.95 644 22 770 NA 2

141 141 1900

368 368 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 0.95 1681 0.95 1681 0.95 387 0 267 Split 6

143 346 143 346 1900 1900 4.5 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1731 1583 0.98 1.00 1731 1583 0.95 0.95 151 364 0 262 271 102 NA pm+ov 6 7 6 17.2 24.9 17.2 24.9 0.19 0.28 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 336 525 0.16 0.02 0.05 0.81 0.19 34.1 24.2 1.00 1.00 13.2 0.2 47.3 24.4 D C 38.5 D

2 24.7 24.7 0.28 4.5 3.0 84 0.18 0.64 28.1 1.00 32.1 60.2 E

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.95 148 0 0

24.7 24.7 0.28 4.5 3.0 959 c0.22

17.2 17.2 0.19 4.5 3.0 326 c0.16

0.80 29.7 1.00 7.1 36.8 D 38.3 D

0.82 34.2 1.00 14.7 48.9 D

SBR

D 18.0 D

Page 2

C17


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Ventura Blvd & Sale Ave

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Preferred Alternative B Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

19 19 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.22 414 0.92 21 0 21 Perm

907 907 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5077 1.00 5077 0.92 986 2 995 NA 4

10 10 1900

34 34 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.24 445 0.92 37 0 37 Perm

1321 1321 1900 4.5 0.91 1.00 1.00 5070 1.00 5070 0.92 1436 5 1461 NA 8

28 28 1900

23 23 1900

61 61 1900

42 42 1900

0.92 25 0 0 Perm

0.92 66 0 0

0.92 46 0 0 Perm

1 1 1900 4.5 1.00 0.94 0.97 1706 0.84 1479 0.92 1 5 78 NA 6

33 33 1900

0.92 30 0 0

0 0 1900 4.5 1.00 0.90 0.99 1658 0.93 1560 0.92 0 23 68 NA 2

4 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 165 0.05 0.13 8.5 1.00 0.3 8.9 A

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Ventura Blvd Parking Feasibility Study

0.92 11 0 0

8 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 178

18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 2030 0.20

0.08 0.21 8.8 1.00 0.6 9.4 A

0.49 10.1 1.00 0.2 10.3 B 10.2 B 11.5 0.43 45.0 44.1% 15

2 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 2028 c0.29 0.72 11.4 1.00 1.3 12.7 B 12.6 B

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

0.92 36 0 0

6 18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 624

18.0 18.0 0.40 4.5 3.0 591

0.04 0.11 8.5 1.00 0.4 8.8 A 8.8 A

c0.05 0.13 8.6 1.00 0.5 9.0 A 9.0 A B 9.0 A

Page 3

C18


172

1682

City of Los Angeles Ventura Blvd Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study

C-19 Existing AM Peak Hour Signal Warrant Royer Avenue/Ventura Boulevard


Appendix D Los Angeles Department of Transportation Standard Details


D1


D2


ON-STREET ANGLE PARKING STALLS - SUPPLEMENT TO S-440.0 The following table should be used as a guide to determine the feasibility and numbers of spaces that may be installed with the installation on-street angle parking stalls. DOT Standard Plan S440.0 should be reviewed to determine other restrictions and requirements.

Number of spaces

Continuous linear footage between driveways, fire hydrants, etc. 37.5°

45°

50°

52.5°

60°

67.5°

75°

1

36.8

30.4

26.9

25.2

21.0

17.2

14.1

2

51.6

43.1

38.6

36.5

31.4

26.9

23.4

3

66.4

55.8

50.4

47.8

41.8

36.6

32.7

4

81.2

68.5

62.1

59.1

52.2

46.3

42.0

5

96.0

81.2

73.9

70.4

62.6

56.0

51.3

6

110.8

93.9

85.6

81.7

73.0

65.7

60.6

7

125.6

106.6

97.4

93.0

83.4

75.4

69.9

8

140.4

119.3

109.1

104.3

93.8

85.1

79.2

9

155.2

132.0

120.9

115.6

104.2

94.8

88.5

10

170.0

144.7

132.6

126.9

114.6

104.5

97.8

+14.8

+12.7

+11.75

+11.3

+10.4

+9.7

+9.3

2

4

4

4.1

6.3

8.7

Each additional space (+B) Min. (E) for local/ collector streets

2

Min. cross-section

16.9 2 10 18

17.7 2 10 18

18 4 10 18

18.2 4 10 18

18.4 4.1 11 18

18.2 6.3 11 18

17.8 8.7 11 18

Min. roadway width

46.9

47.7

50.0

50.2

51.5

53.5

55.5

The minimum cross-section assumes angle parking on one side, parallel parking on other, with one lane in each direction. Minimum E and adjacent lane width have been determined based upon design requirement that a vehicle backing out of angle parking space does not back over the double yellow centerline.

tc/angleparking.wpd

D3


D4


Appendix E Preliminary Cost Estimate of Preferred Alternatives


Appendix E Sam Schwartz Engineering, D.P.C. 30 Montgomery Street, Suite 1340 Jersey City, NJ 07302 phone: (973) 639-9629 samschwartz.com

RE: Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study Los Angeles, California

Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost: Preferred Alternative 'A' DESCRIPTION

UNIT

QTY

UNIT PRICE

TOTAL PRICE

MOBILIZATION REGULATORY SIGNS PARKING METER, INSTALLATION OF RELOCATE PARKING METER PARKING STOP, 6 FT. RUBBER PAVEMENT STRIPING, 4" LINE, SOLID (WHITE) PAVEMENT STRIPING, 6" LINE, SOLID (WHITE) PAVEMENT STRIPING, 4" LINE, SOLID (YELLOW) PAVEMENT STRIPING, 24" LINE, SOLID (WHITE) SHARROW - THRU ARROW BICYCLIST SYMBOL WITH ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGS/LEGENDS, CURVED ARROW LANDSCAPING RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT

LUMP SUM SF EACH EACH EACH LF LF LF LF EACH EACH EACH LUMP SUM EACH

1 30 8 45 32 8,100 8,250 6,085 3,495 54 28 64 1 0

$25,000.00 $36.61 $815.00 $395.00 $70.00 $1.57 $1.96 $1.57 $4.41 $130.00 $300.00 $78.40 $25,000.00 $4,500.00

$25,000.00 $1,098.30 $6,520.00 $17,775.00 $2,240.00 $12,717.00 $16,170.00 $9,553.45 $15,412.95 $7,020.00 $8,400.00 $5,017.60 $25,000.00 $0.00

CONCRETE CURB TYPE "A","C", OR "D" (STD. PLAN S-410-2, MOUNTABLE CURB)

LF

0

$26.88

$0.00

SF

0

$7.28

$0.00

LUMP SUM

2

$200,000.00

$400,000.00

COLD PLANE MILL

SF

293,740

$0.30

$88,122.00

REMOVE AND HAUL AWAY, BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, 2" PAVEMENT THICKNESS

SF

293,740

$1.34

$393,611.60

TON

3,549

$280.00

$993,820.33

GAL LUMP SUM

3,264 1

$4.65 $40,000.00

$15,176.57 $40,000.00

CONCRETE PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY, 4" THICK TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM

HOT MIX ASPHALT 9.5M 64 SURFACE COURSE (2") TACK COAT (PG ASPHALT BINDER) WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL

Subtotal $2,082,654.80 20% Contingency $416,530.96 $814.24 Rounding (up to nearest $10,000) Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost $2,500,000.00 1

A unit weight of 145 pcf is assumed for hot mix asphalt.

2

An application rate of 0.10 gal of tack coat (PG Binder) per SY of milled pavement is used for calculating gallons of tack coat required between pavement courses.

M:\16‐07‐2880 Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study for Ventura Blvd\Engineering\CAD\Current\16‐07‐2880 Cost Estimate.xlsx

E‐1


Appendix E Sam Schwartz Engineering, D.P.C. 30 Montgomery Street, Suite 1340 Jersey City, NJ 07302 phone: (973) 639-9629 samschwartz.com

RE: Ventura Boulevard Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study Los Angeles, California

Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost: Preferred Alternative 'B' DESCRIPTION

UNIT

QTY

UNIT PRICE

TOTAL PRICE

MOBILIZATION REGULATORY SIGNS PARKING METER, INSTALLATION OF RELOCATE PARKING METER PARKING STOP, 6 FT. RUBBER PAVEMENT STRIPING, 4" LINE, SOLID (WHITE) PAVEMENT STRIPING, 6" LINE, SOLID (WHITE) PAVEMENT STRIPING, 4" LINE, SOLID (YELLOW) PAVEMENT STRIPING, 24" LINE, SOLID (WHITE) SHARROW - THRU ARROW BICYCLIST SYMBOL WITH ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGS/LEGENDS, CURVED ARROW LANDSCAPING RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT

LUMP SUM SF EACH EACH EACH LF LF LF LF EACH EACH EACH LUMP SUM EACH

1 40 32 75 70 10,285 6,120 5,690 3,310 72 23 46 1 1

$25,000.00 $36.61 $815.00 $395.00 $70.00 $0.55 $1.96 $1.57 $4.41 $130.00 $300.00 $78.40 $25,000.00 $4,500.00

$25,000.00 $1,464.40 $26,080.00 $29,625.00 $4,900.00 $5,656.75 $11,995.20 $8,933.30 $14,597.10 $9,360.00 $6,900.00 $3,606.40 $25,000.00 $4,500.00

CONCRETE CURB TYPE "A","C", OR "D" (STD. PLAN S-410-2, MOUNTABLE CURB)

LF

876

$26.88

$23,546.88

SF

1,602

$7.28

$11,662.56

LUMP SUM

1

$200,000.00

$200,000.00

COLD PLANE MILL

SF

293,740

$0.30

$88,122.00

REMOVE AND HAUL AWAY, BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, 2" PAVEMENT THICKNESS

SF

293,740

$1.34

$393,611.60

TON

3,549

$280.00

$993,820.33

GAL LUMP SUM

3,239 1

$4.65 $40,000.00

$15,063.47 $40,000.00

CONCRETE PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY, 4" THICK TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM

HOT MIX ASPHALT 9.5M 64 SURFACE COURSE (2") TACK COAT (PG ASPHALT BINDER) WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL

Subtotal $1,943,444.99 20% Contingency $388,689.00 $7,866.01 Rounding (up to nearest $10,000) Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost $2,340,000.00 1

A unit weight of 145 pcf is assumed for hot mix asphalt.

2

An application rate of 0.10 gal of tack coat (PG Binder) per SY of milled pavement is used for calculating gallons of tack coat required between pavement courses.

M:\16‐07‐2880 Diagonal Parking Feasibility Study for Ventura Blvd\Engineering\CAD\Current\16‐07‐2880 Cost Estimate.xlsx

E‐2


Appendix F Conceptual Design Plans (80 Scale, 11”x17”)


84(26) 88(40)

DWY

22(40) 1319(987)

IMAR SHAL DWY

ROYER AVE

HUGOS

HUGOS

DWY

DWY

LIQUOR HYD

2

3

RESTAURANT DWY

DWY 4

1

1

1L

VACANT DWY 8

3

Y

ER NURS

DWY

OFFICE DWY

WE BUY

OL RI G

361(498) 525(705) 132(150) 21

2L

2

1 DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

7-ELEVEN

TOP NAILS

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

AUTO

ELECTRIC

HOLIDAY INN DWY HYD

4

WENDY'S EGRESS

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

HYD

DWY

1

1L

2

2

2

1L

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

XX(YY) Existing Condition Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

97 6 2 3 no

1 1L

HYD

Legend AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume No. of existing parallel parking spaces No. of existing parallel loading spaces Existing tree Existing fire hydrant Existing bicyclist symbol with arrow

10(19) 982(907) 13(10)

SALE AVE

PONCE AVE

160

1

DWY

7(23) 3(0) 19(61)

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B

5

4

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

( IN FEET )

4

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

1 inch = 80 ft.

AV

E DWY

1

80

16(28) 986(1321) 43(34)

SMART+FINAL

DWY

0

LE

DWY DWY

RIG

OL

ETT

80(167) 315(403) 43(33)

HABIT

80

1

DWY

25(33) 5(1) 57(42)

7-ELEVEN

2

3 DWY

68(51) 567(612) 94(141)

OS T

BOFA

DWY

SA

2

DWY

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

Average Daily Traffic 30,393

DWY

SCALE

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

2

DWY

DWY

DWY

FAL

IN COFFEE DWY

1L

VALSURF

LBR OO KA VE

773(346) 348(143) 459(368)

13(21) 322(492)

E

OFFIC

5 DWY

VALSURF

GYM DWY

5 DWY

ETT OS T

COMERES RD

5

3

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

Average Daily Traffic 20,908

VENTURA BLVD

),*85( (;,67,1* &21',7,216


DWY

ROYER AVE

IMAR SHAL DWY

HUGOS

HUGOS

LIQUOR

DWY

DWY

DWY

RESTAURANT DWY

VACANT DWY

LOADING

Y

ER NURS

E

OFFIC

IN COFFEE DWY

VALSURF

WE BUY

VALSURF

DWY

DWY

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

RIG OL ETT O

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

GYM DWY

DWY

OFFICE DWY LOADING

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

7-ELEVEN

TOP NAILS

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

AUTO

ELECTRIC

DWY DWY

FAL

LBR

RIG OL ET

DWY

7-ELEVEN

DWY

TO

BOFA

DWY

OO K

DWY

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

LOADING

ST

ST

DWY

DWY

DWY

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

VENTURA BLVD

HABIT

SMART+FINAL

DWY DWY

80 ( IN FEET )

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

DWY

LOADING

LOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

Existing Condition

Alternative 1

97 6 2 3 no

128 5 2 3 some

160

PONCE AVE

DWY

Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

SALE AVE

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B 0

WENDY'S EGRESS

VENTURA BLVD

SCALE 80

HOLIDAY INN DWY

FIGURE 4.2 ALTERNATIVE 1

1 inch = 80 ft. F2


DWY

ROYER AVE

IMAR SHAL DWY

HUGOS

HUGOS

LIQUOR

DWY

DWY

DWY

RESTAURANT DWY

VACANT DWY

LOADING

RY

E NURS

E

OFFIC

IN COFFEE DWY

VALSURF

WE BUY

VALSURF

DWY

DWY

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

RIG OL ETT O

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

GYM DWY

DWY

LOADING

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

VENTURA BLVD WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

7-ELEVEN

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

7-ELEVEN

TOP NAILS

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

AUTO

ELECTRIC

DWY

FAL

RIG OL

DWY

DWY

LBR OO

ETT O

BOFA

DWY

K

DWY

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

OFFICE DWY LOADING

ST

ST

DWY

DWY

DWY

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

VENTURA BLVD

HABIT

SMART+FINAL

DWY DWY

80 ( IN FEET )

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

DWY

LOADING

LOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

Existing Condition

Alternative 2

97 6 2 3 no

121 5 2 3 no

160

PONCE AVE

DWY

Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

SALE AVE

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B 0

WENDY'S EGRESS

VENTURA BLVD

SCALE 80

HOLIDAY INN DWY

FIGURE 4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2

1 inch = 80 ft. F3


DWY

ROYER AVE

IMAR SHAL DWY

HUGOS

HUGOS

LIQUOR

DWY

DWY

DWY

RESTAURANT DWY

VACANT DWY

LOADING

Y

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

ER NURS

WB-67 AASHTO 2011 (US)

LOADING

GYM DWY E

OFFIC

IN COFFEE DWY

VALSURF

DWY

WE BUY

VALSURF

DWY

DWY

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

RIG OL ETT O

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

DWY

OFFICE DWY LOADING

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

7-ELEVEN

TOP NAILS

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

AUTO

ELECTRIC

DWY DWY

FAL

LBR

RIG OL ET

DWY

7-ELEVEN

DWY

TO

BOFA

DWY

OO K

DWY

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

LOADING

ST

ST

DWY

DWY

HABIT

SMART+FINAL

DWY DWY

80 ( IN FEET )

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

DWY

LOADING

LOADING

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

Existing Condition

Alternative 3

97 6 2 3 no

126 6 2 5 some

160

PONCE AVE

DWY

Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

SALE AVE

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B 0

WENDY'S EGRESS

VENTURA BLVD

SCALE 80

HOLIDAY INN DWY

FIGURE 4.5 ALTERNATIVE 3

1 inch = 80 ft. F4


DWY

ROYER AVE

POTENTIAL PLANTERS/LANDSCAPING

PROP. SIGNAL HUGOS

HUGOS

DWY

IMAR SHAL DWY

DWY

LIQUOR HYD

RESTAURANT DWY

DWY

VACANT DWY

HARDWOOD FLOORING DWY

LOADING

RY

E NURS

AASHTO 2011

P

(US)

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

VENTURA BLVD WB-67

P

AASHTO 2011 (US)

AASHTO 2011 (US)

LOADING

WE BUY

VALSURF

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

PROTECTED BIKE LANES (WHERE POSSIBLE)

INCREASED TREE COVERAGE

PROP. REVERSE ANGLE PARKING

HYD

IN COFFEE DWY

DWY

DWY

ST

DWY

RI G OL ETT O

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

P

PROP. CROSSINGS E

OFFIC

VALSURF

HYD

DWY P

GYM DWY

AASHTO 2011 (US)

DWY

AASHTO 2011 (US)

HYD

DWY

LOADING

LOADING

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

VENTURA BLVD WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

HYD

DWY

7-ELEVEN

7-ELEVEN

DWY

RIG OL

PROP. HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYP.)

PROP. CROSSING

DWY

ETT O

BOFA

DWY

DWY FAL LBR OO K

ST

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

TOP NAILS

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

AUTO

ELECTRIC

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

OFFICE DWY

PROP. R2-1 35 MPH SPEED LIMIT SIGN (1 OF 4 NEW)

HABIT

SMART+FINAL

HYD

DWY DWY

P

PONCE AVE

HYD

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

IMPROVED ROADWAY ALIGNMENT Existing Condition

Preferred Alternative 'A'

97 6 2 3 no

105 6 4 6 no

160 Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

HYD

SALE AVE

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B

AASHTO 2011 (US)

( IN FEET )

LOADING

LOADING

SCALE

1 inch = 80 ft.

HYD

DWY

AASHTO 2011 (US)

HYD

PROP. SIGNAL

80

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

WB-67

P AASHTO 2011 (US)

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

0

WENDY'S EGRESS

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

80

HOLIDAY INN DWY HYD

FIGURE 5.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 'A' F5


DWY

ROYER AVE

PROP. SIGNAL

IMAR SHAL DWY

HUGOS

HUGOS

DWY

DWY

LIQUOR HYD

RESTAURANT DWY

DWY

VACANT DWY

LOADING

Y

ER NURS

P

MATCHLINE A THIS SHEET

VENTURA BLVD P

AASHTO 2011 (US)

WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

AASHTO 2011 (US)

DWY

DWY

RIG OL ETT O

P

LE CHIEN COASTLINE

BUFFERED BIKE LANES (WHERE POSSIBLE)

INCREASED TREE COVERAGE

ST

DWY

WE BUY

PROP. REVERSE ANGLE PARKING

HYD

IN COFFEE DWY

(RELOCATED)

VALSURF AASHTO 2011 (US)

FAL COMERES RD LBR OO KA VE

P

PROP. CROSSINGS E

OFFIC

VALSURF

HYD

HYD (TO BE RELOCATED)

DWY

DWY

GYM DWY

AASHTO 2011 (US)

HYD

DWY

OFFICE DWY LOADING

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE A

VENTURA BLVD WB-67

AASHTO 2011 (US)

HYD

DWY

7-ELEVEN

7-ELEVEN

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

TOP NAILS

VACANT

YELLOW SIGN

LIQUOR

LIQUOR

AUTO

ELECTRIC

PROP. R2-1 35 MPH SPEED LIMIT SIGN (1 OF 4 NEW)

FAL

LBR

DWY

DWY

RIG OL ET

PROP. HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYP.)

DWY

TO

BOFA

DWY

OO K

ST

DWY

MATCHLINE B THIS SHEET

LOADING

PROP. MEDIAN

HABIT

SMART+FINAL

HYD

DWY DWY

THIS SHEET MATCHLINE B

LOADING

HYD

LOADING

HYD

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

DWY

JACK

JACK (EGRESS)

BJJ

MEDICAL

SNEAKER

WINE

LUKE

Existing Condition

Preferred Alternative 'B'

97 6 2 3 no

129 5 3 5 some

160 Metered Parking Spaces Designated Loading Spaces Signalized Intersections Marked Crossings Left Turn Restrictions

HYD

SALE AVE

PROP. R4-7 "KEEP RIGHT" SIGN (1 OF 2)

PONCE AVE

P

AASHTO 2011 (US)

( IN FEET )

1 inch = 80 ft.

HYD

DWY

P

SCALE 80

WENDY'S INGRESS

DWY

AASHTO 2011 (US)

WHEEL WORLD BICYCLES

0

WENDY'S EGRESS

VENTURA BLVD

DWY

80

HOLIDAY INN DWY HYD

FIGURE 5.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 'B' F6


51

West Hollywood - On-Call Traffic/Transportation Planning Consulting Services