Flares, Valerie
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Joe Valenzuela
Monday, February 07, 2022 12:35 PM
Flares, Valeric
Dyson, Darla
LMA and the Municipal Services Committee Meeting for February 8th, 2022 Follow up
Flagged
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...<https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.
Howdy;
My name is Joe Vatenzuela, I'm a constituent of District 2. I'm writing in regard to the evaluation of the Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) to the Municipal Services Committee.
I'm strongly requesting the removal of the "Residential Neighborhood Cut-Through Intrusion Analysis" component from the LMA. Pasadena transportation plans already direct too much traffic, at too high speeds, onto streets like Washington Blvd, Orange Grove Blvd and Alien Ave with insufficient safety infrastructure. The resulting traffic collisions and pedestrian deaths are all too predictable.
Reducing cut-through traffic in this plan is unrelated to actual safety concerns. It should not be a basis for analysis. jv
1 Flores, Valerie
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Ken Perry
Monday, February 07, 2022 3:35 PM
Flores, Valerie
Gordo, Victor; Gene Masuda; Williams, Felicia; KeepPasadenaMoving Support and Implement Local Mobility Analysis Recommendations Follow up
Flagged
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...<https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.
I am writing to support Local Mobility Analysis recommendations up for a vote at your Feb. 8 Municipal Services Committee meeting.
I applaud the efforts of our Department of Transportation to drive this effort. These recommendations are a way we can continue to manage traffic impacts caused by large developments.
I live on a small north/south street in East Central Pasadena. My small street is used by people and pets to walk, run, play and live. Unfortunately, development has increased traffic on our major streets and drivers are always looking for a short cut to avoid congestion. Not too long ago a nervous driver lost control and ran into a house three doors away from me.
In other words, my neighbors and I are victims of cut-off traffic.
The only problem with Tuesday's agenda item is it can only mitigate traffic caused by large developments. What about all of the development that is adding to our traffic in Pasadena? What about complete street efforts like bike lanes, bollards and bump outs and roundabouts that cause traffic to come to a halt on major corridors sending speeding traffic onto neighborhood streets?
We need to take the good ideas recommended in this report and do something to protect our neighborhood streets. It's only common sense that we keep cut-off traffic off our quiet streets. It is important that we don't let Level of Service - which keeps traffic flowing - from deteriorating even further than it already has.
I hope the Department of Transportation and Pasadena City Council will continue to look for ways to address this serious traffic situation. Let's keep the momentum for this effort going for everything that impacts traffic congestion and safety - not just large development.
Ken Perry
East Central Pasadena Resident
91104
1 ERJKAFQY
PROTECTING PASADENA
February 7, 2022
Municipal Services Committee
City of Pasadena
175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA91109
RE: Outside-CEQA Threshold Measurement/LLG Report
As you might be aware, members of the Madison Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA) have been troubled for years by the amount of backed-up traffic surrounding our neighborhood. When we learned about the staggering number of unmitigated projects planned along South Los Robles and other areas around our boundaries, we knew we had to do something drastic to get the attention of city planners since our previous efforts to raise the alarm seem to have fallen on deaf ears.
It is unfortunate that Pasadena residents had to do the city's job and hire our own traffic engineering firm to substantiate the gridlock and failing intersections we live with every day, but nevertheless, we organized, raised the necessary funds, and hired PRISM Engineering to help us understand traffic reports including 253 South Los Robles. All of this was done so that we could give voice to our deep concerns regarding the need for mitigation. The firm put together an initial report for Mh4NA in regards to the 253 South Los Robles project, and then in March of last year, provided a very technical and investigative follow-up traffic study for Livable Pasadena.
In January of 2020, PRISM performed a complete field survey (videos included), where they observed in-person local traffic operations and driver behavior using detailed traffic data such as Saturation Flow Rate (SFR)* and Peak Hour Factor (PHF)**. This key analytical data must be reviewed when discussing outside-CEQA analysis because, as PRISM'S in-depth field study has confirmed, SFR and PHF are not being evaluated correctly. In all cases, the city is using the default values of 1900 for SFR and .92 for PHF, paired with a significantly outdated version of Synchro's software programs.
These default values are appropriate for suburban areas, but not for our growing and increasingly urban Central District. By employing the correct values for these two factors and using up-to-date software, the PRISM report illustrates how Level of Service (LOS) in these areas drops from a grade of C to a grade of F.
SFR and PHF specifically were measured in the field with over 90 samples. PRISM found that, on average, the values are 25% lower than what the city currently uses.
These lower, field-verified values result in downgraded LOS scores for the intersections in question and most accurately reflect what was actually happening last year in Pasadena. Had the correct, lower values been used, the much-needed outside-CEQA mitigations MHNAwas originally advocating for would have been triggered. These differences are shown side-by-side in Table ES.1 of the published March 2020 study (see below).
Further, with the addition of just one medical office at 650 South Raymond, the intersection ofArroyo Parkway and Glenarm will have three failing LOS grades for turns. Unfortunately, the traffic report provided by DOT shows an outside-CEQA threshold "pass" for this project because intersection turn movements are averaged to create one LOS grade. The wait time to make a left turn onto the freeway in the PM is a wholly unacceptable nine minutes, yet the city does not mitigate this because the grade for the entire intersection is averaged and therefore appears to pass. This makes no sense. By averaging an intersection's LOS grades and not mitigating the individual E's and F's, we are not allowing developments to deliver on their responsibilities regarding our Complete Streets measures, which help us achieve Goal 5 in our General Plan.
PRISM'S investigative report, backed up by video footage and raw data, exposes the fact that DOT is ignoring the significant, negative impacts caused by the sole prioritization of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metrics. DOT must adjust outside-CEQA thresholds, update their software, reconsider extensive trip credits, and modernize their current engineering techniques as the city actively adds more density to our urban core as we see with 590 South Fair Oaks, 766 South Fair Oaks, and the Affinity Project.
These are the straightforward steps that need to be taken if we truly wish to keep our streets safe and functioning properly now and in the future.
We can no longer allow DOT to keep the topic of traffic so complicated that the general population can't possibly understand it. This is why we, as residents, felt it necessary to spend a fortune hiring our own traffic engineer to help explain the technicalities of these issues in layman's terms (as if we can't see it with our own eyes). Everyone knows that all of this new development has caused local traffic to become unbearable, which makes the fact that residents have had to serve city officials privately-funded traffic reports completely incomprehensible.
Current outside-CEQA reports are deeply flawed, and I am completely mystified when they say our streets are functioning in any acceptable way and when neighborhood cut through traffic and cumulative concerns rapidly grow as we add all these massive projects and medical buildings. By getting it so wrong, the city is compromising not only quality of life in Pasadena, but also safety. When accidents inevitably occur on our jammed streets, the city risks liability, especially considering this negligent process and after being warned on-record by a state-certified traffic engineer of the deficiencies in the currently accepted methodology. It is about time city leadership put residents' concerns forward and show those of us who care very deeply about Pasadena how you believe you are working to maintain a livable and well-functioning city. The LLG traffic report is a very good step in the right direction and my hope is ALL their recommendations move forward.
Sincerely,
Erika Foy
*Saturation Flow Rate (SFR) is a measurement of how closely vehicles are spaced as they progress through a signal when it turns green. If the space between cars is tight, then the SFR is high. In Pasadena, the SFR is much lower than the default 1900 used by the city. This means DOT assumes more cars get through each signal, however PRISM has proved this incorrect. The result of using a correct SFR is that we achieve a more clarified and correct LOS. **
'Peak Hour Factor (PHF) is how the software adjusts the LOS based on the worst 15 minutes of an hour. The city is using a default factor that does not take specific traffic operations into consideration, but rather simply flattens the curve of the car count. It is these peak times that need accounting because this is where we see the most frustration in our community. The software must adjust to account for the worst case scenario so these jams can be mitigated.
PRISM Engineering Traffic Study of Central District, Pasadena, CA Fable ES.l Existing Year 2020 Intersection LOS Summary
Table ES.l. Existing Year 2020
Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
Summary, Comparing with City of
Pasadena DOT Recent Results
PRISM EntlMtrfng Exlstln( Y«*r 2020
CltyofPaiadtnaDOT
Exist! n< Year Z019
Analyiedw/SfRAPHF
valu«» »i m*»»ur«d at
tlgnal.andasCBO*
Analytedw/SFR&PHF
valu*» a» meatund »t
»l(n*l, not •I CBO*
Analyzed w/ Synchro
toftwart dtfaults:
SFR=1900, PHf'0.92
INTERSECTION
DESCRIPTION of
SIGNAL CONTROL,
PHASINGS, TIMINGS
PEAK
HOUR
AVG.
DELAYLOS
PCAK
HOUR
AVG.
DELAYLOS
PEAK
HOUR
AVG.
OEIAYLOS
I
Del Mar
Boulevard at
Marengo
Avenue
SKiNAlUfD. 4 PfiQK,
\Semi'Aciuotc<f, ieodAag
[Optimiie Qflowwl.
! Pfotect^ then Pcm^sDvc
Phau left Turn for WSt.
PefmttifvePho$eforoli
otti€f Left Turns. Cycie
Ifngths obtffve<i in field:
90-US sees
AM26.5cAM23.0cAM
lioir'j
10.9 PM9S.9FPM71.8EPM
isoir'l
11.8B
2 California
Boulevard at
Marengo
Avenue
siCNAicro. < moia
\Stml-Aaual«l. iead/iay
\OpVfr^f€Othwcd.
\Pfvtf€le^ then Permifsivf
Phouirftrum/orWBt.
Pcrmiifwe Phase fo foil
ortw l»/( rumi. Cyde
ieng^t obfwved in flefil:
90-lOSira.
AM122.1fAM88.9FAM
1101 f" I
16.3 PM92.4fPM61.3EPM
liaif)
15.6 3
California
Boulevard at
Lake Avenue
ilGNAUED. 4 Phase,
Semi-Actuoted. Permiv^ve
Phov iefl Turn for oil tift
Turns. Cycle lengths
otistrvtilin/ield:SS-10S
sea.
AM177,5FAM149.4F4M(V/4N/A
PM24.2cPM21.0cPM
(»)»"<
W/AN/A
Source: PRISM Engineering
Notes:
All Levtl of Service (LOS) cokulatlons were conducted using Synchro vtr.9, using HCM 2010 mtthodohgy. and using slynal timings and phaslngs observed Infield, 'CBD'Central Business District factor In Synchro. AM Peak ovefage SFR* 1,664 vph, and PM Peak overoye SFIf • l,54Svph, PHF (Peak Hour Factor ranstsfro/n WF "0.25-0.M, dependiny on traffic count ttmt and Interstctlon location, all Intersection oppfoaches measured Independently
(see specific traffic counfs In appendix for detoik on what PHF were used for each turning movement In Synchro HCM 2010 LOS calculations)
** 170-1M South EucOd Avenue Traffic Impact and Environmental Quality Analysis - Outside ofCEQA. Oct. 12, 2017 "650 South Raymond Ave Transportation Impact Anafysis Outside ofC£Qft Evaluation. Apr. 25, 2019 (Specific calculation sheets from the Synchro software are contained in the Appendix)
650 South Raymond Ave
PM Existing4/23/2019
^^ << ^ t ^ ^^ ^
povementEBL EBT EBR WBL WBT. WBR ' NBL; NBTNBR.'J'SBKSS&T.' "Mfr"
',-SBR
Lane Configurations ^ tt>
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.94
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3383
Fit Permitted 0.54 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1017 3383
1900
^
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.25 472
tT.
1900
4.0 0.95
1.00 1.00
0.98 1.00
3539
1.00 3539
1900
»i
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.11 217
HT»
1900
4.0 0.91
1,00
1.00 0.95
1.00 4952
1.00 4952
1900
-T
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.11 217
83 0.80
104
0 104
1900
4.0 0.91
1.00 1.00
0.99 1.00
5119
1.00 5119
1262
0.91 1387
12 1488
1900
Volume (vph) 97 454 328 424 207 41 44 1132 507
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.70 0.92 0.61 0.93 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 123 483 349 461 296 45 72 1217 528
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 013 0 0 98 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 123 824 0 461 328 0 72 1647 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
104
0.92 113
0 0
8 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4826
Permitted Phases 48 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
'.'M
^
,v
.ff
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
IFirS^5fi5'R"§Trffffn-aiT'
470
0.12 0.26
13,1
1.00 1.4
14.5 B
1565
0.24 0.53
15.3 1.00
1.3 16.6
B
16.3 B
218
cO.98
2.11 21.5
1.00 516.8
538.3
F
1637
0.09 0.20
12.7 1.00
0,3
13.0 B
315.0
F
952167
0.33 0.33
0.760.76
18.919.0
1.001.00
2.6 42.6
21.5 Ec
23.1 c
95 C0.48
1.09 22.5
1.00 120.3
142.8
F
2240
0.29 0.66
17.8 1.00
1.6 19.4
B
27.4 c
"•"?'
, ..^Si
.sa
^m
'^••K:y^'Kss's,ssliy^!ws'^^ssi W^9
HCM Average Control Delay 68.4
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.7%
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
E
LSSM^S
8.0 ^^.^^aMm
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
509: Glenarm & Arroyo Pkwy
City of Pasadena
Synchro 6 Report
650 South Raymond Ave
PM Existing+Project4/23/2019
^^ << ^ t /- ^1 ^
MovementEBL EBT EBR WBL^'WBT WBR ' NBL- fN^ 'N8 ?S;S81^^^ Lane Configurations ^ ^
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1,00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.94
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3377
Fit Permitted 0.53 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1016 3377
1900
^
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.24 454
^
1900
4.0 0.95
1.00 1.00
0.98 1.00
3539
1.00 3539
1900
^
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.11 217
++T»
1900
4.0 0.91
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
4952
1.00 4952
1900
^
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.11 217
++T»
1900
4-0
0.91 1.00
1.00 0.99
1.00 5119
1.00 5119
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 470 1562 210 1637
v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 d.02
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.54 2.20 0.20
Uniform Delay, d 1 13.1 15.4 21.5 12.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 1.4 553.2 0.3
Delay (s) 14,5 16.8 574.7 13.0
Level of Service B B F B
Approach Delay (s) 16.5 ^335.5
Approach LOS B F
,—i^'i^jiw—n>ytlB<uwli"UB>»-'-i''-r •'•••• ' ' •" >"••••:»••*'*' InfersS^^^ummary"''"""""^'^^"'3''™""^
95 0.39
0.88 20.6
1.00 64.6
2167
0.33 95
HCM Average Control Delay 7 1.8
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.4%
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group .
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICV Level; of Seryjce,
1900
Volume (vph) 97 457 346 424 208 41 51 1132 507 83 1262 104 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.70 0.92 0.61 0.93 0.96 0.80 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 123 486 368 461 297 45 84 1217 528 104,1387 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 013 0 0 98 0 012 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 123 846 0 461 329 0 84 1647 0 104 1488 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm , ,
Protected Phases 4826
Permitted Phases 4 ; 8 2 6 . ^
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 ^@ Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 K)
2240
0.29 cO.48
0.761.090.66
17.8 19.022.5
1:00 1.001.00
2.6120.31.6
19.4 1.5142.8
FcFB
4.527.4
c c
E
»
8.0 .->iAA4^fes,
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity An<
509: Glenarm & Arroyo Pkwy
City of Pasadena
ilysisSynchro 6 Report
650 South Raymond Ave
AM Existing4/23/2019
^^ << ^ t /- ^1 ^
Movement". 'EBL- EBT EBR' W6L"?WBT WBR^ ?NBL : NBt hfBR.: 'SBL "^SBT:"^^^^^^^ Lane Configurations ^ +'I>
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3453
Fit Permitted 0.48 1.00
Satd.^low(perm) 906 3453
1900
^
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.48 919
+T»
1900
4.0 0.95
1.00 1.00
0.99 1.00
3564
1.00 3564
1900
ti
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.15 292
^^
1900
4.0 0.91
1.00 1.00
0.97 1.00
5040
1.00 5040
1900
^
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.11 217
++T»
1900 1900
4.0 0.91
1.00 1.00
0.98 1.00
5065
1.00 5065
Volume (vph) 85 220 95 333 333 31 78 1295 282 31 997 126 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.75 0.79 0.88 0.86 0.87 0.79 0.93 0.87 0.70 0.95 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 92 293 120 378 387 36 99 1392 324 44 1049 158 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 22 0 0 8 0 0 48 0 0250
Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 392 0 378 415 0 99 1668 0 44 1182 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4826
Permitted Phases 4826
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
;..*..»
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
[ntersecfionSummaF^'
419
0.10 0.22
12.9 1.00
1.2 14.1
B
1597
0.11 0.25
13,0
1.00 0.4
13.4 B
13.5 B
425
c0.41
0.89 19.6
1.00 23.2
42.9 D
1648
0.12 0.25
13.1 1.00
0.4 13.4
B
27.3 c
1282205
0.33 cO.34
0.770.76
19.118.9
1.001.00
2.5 54.71.4
Dc
3.2 c
95 0.20
0.46 15.9
1.00 15.4
31.2 c
2216
0.23 i
..*>,,.•* 0.53
16.5 1-00 ,_:g|
0.9 17.4:.a
17.9-Ig|
-Mee^;^ls-wy,'I-^'.'>'.T^•R%i-^'N''''~^"%'?%l^%^3I@%8^
HCM Average Control Delay 21.3
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5%
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group ,' ',5S :%^
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
c
8.0 -..t ••&
:i21feix-.2d:I.S
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
509: Glenarm & Arroyo Pkwy
City of Pasadena
Synchro 6 Report
650 South Raymond Ave
AM Existing+Project4/23/2019
^^ <"< ^ t ^ ^1 ^
Sllovement-7l"Egr~'BST~EBR~WBL WBt WBR-~NBL ""NBT NBR".SBL' SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11j ^t»
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3449
Fit Permitted 0.47 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 901 3449
1900
»i
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.48 910
+T.
1900
4.0 0.95
1.00 1.00
0.99 1.00
3564
1.00 3564
1900
^
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.15 292
t+T»
1900
4.0 0.91
1.00 1.00
0.97 1.00
5040
1.00 5040
1900
^
1900
4.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95
1805
0.11 217
HT»
1900
4.0 0.91
1.00 1.00
0.98 1.00
5065
1.00 5065
1900
Volume (vph) 85 221 99 333 336 31 93 1295 282 31 997 126 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.75 0.79 0.88 0.86 0.87 0.79 0.93 0.87 0.70 0.95 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 92 295 125 378 391 36 118 1392 324 44 1049 158 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 22 0 0 8 0 0 48 0 0250
Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 399 0 378 419 0 118 1668 0 44 1182 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm ..^,..
Protected Phases 4826
Permitted Phases 4 82 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0,46 0.46 0.44 0.44 0,44 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
:;'^
' ^
•••"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
BicSecCT'Sijmn^??'
417
0.10 0.22
12.9 1.00
1.2 14.1
B
1595
0.12 0.25
13.1 1.00
0.4 13.4
B
13.6 B
421
cO.42
0.90 19.8
1.00 24.5
44.3 D
1648
0.12 0.25
13.1 1.00
0.4 13.5
B
27.9 c
1282205
0.33 cO.40
0.920.76
21.218.9
1.001.00
60.82.5 1.4
c F
5.3 c
95 0.20
0.46 15.9
1.00 15.4
31.2 c
2216
0.23 B
•^
'<
0.53 16.5
1.00 0.9
17.4,,.: ;,|j
B
17.9•»•
i^fl ^^W.WI^W>*B!t^?;fc ^W'i?W?^J^^T;l^^'W';ftft'?W»**M.«WW,y^^ '"'iSisaB
HCM Average Control Delay 22.3
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.7%
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
c
8.0 -sm
^:&8
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
509: Glenarm & Arroyo Pkwy
City of Pasadena
Synchro 6 Report
Flores, Valeric
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Blair Miller
Monday, February 07, 2022 4:31 PM
Flares, Valerie; Wilson, Andy; Rivas, Jessica; hlampton, Tyron; Williams, Felicia Cornejo, Laura; Siques, Joaquin
MSC Agenda Item #1 - February 8, 2022
Itr.MSC.Iocal mobility analysis.02.08.22.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Chair Wilson and Council Members,
I am submitting this letter on behalf of the Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition regarding Agenda Item #1 on the Municipal Services Committee Agenda for February 8,2022.
In brief, the Coalition general supports the updated guidelines, with the following critical caveats:
1) Where there is a conflict between the goals of "Reducing travel times" and "Providing safe, inviting spaces for all users" the conflict should be resolved in favor of safety. This should be included in the updated guidelines.
2) The neighborhood intrusion and cut-through analysis should be required to evaluate engineering solutions such as traffic diverters, speed humps, and raised crosswalks. 3) Council should specify that funds generated by new developments be used to address Pasadena's transportation issues on a comprehensive basis, not project-by-project or block-by- block.
In conjunction with this report but not as a specific amendment to the guidelines, we recommend that Council support projects that improve transportation networks, such as:
Creating more frequent headways on Pasadena Transit routes Updating and implementing a comprehensive Bike Plan that connects residents to shops, services and transit
Improving Pasadena's dismal pedestrian safety record so that people feel safer walking on the streets.
Thank you,
Blair Miller
1 PASAD ENA
»
<;-?
COMPLETE STREETS COALITION
February 8, 2022
City of Pasadena Municipal Services Committee
100 Garfield Avenue
Pasadena CA 91101
RE: Local Mobility Analysis Update, Agenda Item #1
Chair Wilson and Council Members Hampton, Williams and Rivas, The Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition (Pasadena CSC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City's consideration of updates to the Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice and Guidelines.
As you are aware, Pasadena, along with all other cities in California, was required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) until 2019 to evaluate the impact of new commercial and residential developments based on how fast cars could move (Level of Service).
If a new development would generate new car trips which would slow down the ability for drivers to get from Point A to Point B, mitigation measures were required to ensure that traffic could flow at existing or greater speeds.
The reason that the State of California no longer uses "Level of Service" is that it led to street and city design that emphasized vehicle speed over safety. Speed is unsafe for drivers and people traveling by foot, bicycle, or other mode.
Now Pasadena evaluates potential developments based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This new metric acknowledges that building housing and jobs and services close to each other can reduce the number and length of auto trips generated.
However, in addition to VMT, the City looks at the impact of developments on local mobility ("Local Mobility Analysis") using the Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice and Guidelines, with the following mobility priorities:
1 • Reducing travel times
• Protecting residential neighborhoods from excessive through traffic and parking • Providing safe, inviting spaces for all users
• Reducing wait times at intersections
• Encouraging bicycling and other active modes
• Encouraging use of transit
The Coalition supports all of these mobility priorities, with the following comments:
Where there is a conflict between the goals of "Reducing travel times" and "Providing safe, inviting spaces for all users" the conflict should be resolved in favor of safety. High vehicle speeds on roadways are dangerous for the drivers and passengers themselves, and for those traveling by foot, bicycle, or other mode. Lower speeds can be reinforced by improved street engineering, which can also help reduce cut-through traffic.
Traffic can flow freely at lower speeds, especially if there are fewer drivers on the road. Here are some ways to lower the number of cars on the road:
A. Create housing closer to transportation and jobs
B. Unbundle parking from new housing units
C. Eliminate on-site parking minimums and introduce maximums in TOD zones D. Encourage transit use and walking by coupling transit passes with new housing E. Give people safe alternative modes of transportation.
With regard to the changes proposed to the Local Mobility Analysis, the Coalition generally supports these changes, with the following comments:
In addition to discontinuing PEQI and BEQ.I and changing the focus to all street users, the City should explicitly support projects that improve transportation networks, such as:
1) Create more frequent headways on Pasadena Transit routes 2) Update and implement a comprehensive Bike Plan that connects residents to shops, services and transit
3) Improve Pasadena's dismal pedestrian safety record so that people feel safer walking on the streets
Benches for bus stops and other individual improvements are beneficial, but improving our bus system and building out our bike network will give us the ability to circulate without a car, and thus reduce traffic on our roads.
2 The neighborhood intrusion and cut-through analysis should consider engineering solutions, such as traffic diverters, speed humps, and raised crosswalks. Also, much of Pasadena is single-famity neighborhoods bounded by larger arterials, so if an expanded definition of "cut-through, diverted trips" would impact new housing along transportation corridors, that impact would need to be assessed in conjunction with the City's needs for new housing.
We need to embrace our future by providing Pasadena residents with REAL alternatives for circulating without cars.
There will always be Pasadena residents who need to drive: people who are older or disabled, people with young children, people with longer commutes. But not all commutes or errands need to be done by car, especially with Pasadena's climate, geography and population. We know that about half the trips in Pasadena are 3 miles or less, which is a distance easily traveled by bicycle, bus, or walking. Surveys consistently show that concerns over safety are a major obstacle to using these alternative modes.
The sooner we can create safe and convenient alternatives to driving, especially for people who live in new, denser buildings near transit, shops and services, the sooner we can reduce the number of vehicle trips generated.
Funds generated by new developments should be used to address Pasadena's transportation issues on a comprehensive basis, not project-by-project or block-by-block.
Per the Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice and Guidelines: "The vision relies upon an integrated and multimodal transportation system that provides choices and accessibility for everyone living and working in the City. Key strategies to achieve this vision promote non-auto travel including public transit services, parking strategies, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian components that are well coordinated and connected with a larger regional transportation system."
We wholeheartedly support this vision, and we took forward to working with Pasadena DOT staff and other organizations to make it a reality.
Sir^rely,
^^ t l^cdJ^r
Blair Miller
On Behalf of the Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition
3 Flares, Valerie
Subject:FW: February 8 Municipal Services Committee meeting - Local Mobility Analysis recommendations
From: Jeff C
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 8:18 PM
To: Flores, Valerie
Subject: February 8 Municipal Services Committee meeting - Local Mobility Analysis recommendations CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know Vne content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Dear Councilmembers,
My name is Jeff Cyrulewski, and I'm a Pasadena resident. I'm writing to absolutely support Livable Pasadena's ideas on updating the LMA, including the recommendation that DOT update the LMA with all ofLLG's recommendations. And a thank you to LLG and DOT staff for working through this whole process and providing measures that will help traffic flow and safety issues throughout the city.
Thank you,
Jeff Cyrulewski
1