Due to the reduced intensity of development allowed within the Central District, the Refined Project may have less potential to result in redevelopment that could impact adjacent historic buildings. However, the proposed project’s impact to historic buildings is considered less than significant with mitigation.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Refined Project would slightly reduce the proposed project’s construction-related GHG emissions due to the reduction in residential dwelling units and nonresidential square footage at buildout. In addition, the project refinement would slightly decrease mobile source GHG emissions due to a decrease of 158,944 VMT (Fehr & Peers 2015) compared to the proposed project. Although there would be a reduction in GHG emissions overall, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Similar to the proposed project, the Refined Project would result in a reduction of GHG emissions per service population, but there would be a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. Additionally, community-wide GHG emissions would not meet the long-term GHG reductions goal under Executive Order S-03-05.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
There would be slightly less overall development allowed under the Refined Project, which would slightly reduce the quantity of hazardous materials being used and transported. Similar to the proposed project, buildout of the Refined Project would involve the use of hazardous materials during construction and could expose construction workers to hazardous materials during demolition or grading in contaminated areas.
However, construction materials such as fuels, paints, and solvents would be used in limited quantities and would not pose a significant safety hazard. Like the proposed project, any remediation and or demolition activities associated with the Refined Project would be required to comply with the appropriate responsible agency (DTSC, RWQCB, LACoFD, or PFD), state standards, and guidelines.
The Refined Project would result in similar operational impacts to the proposed project since it would decrease the industrial land uses within the City. Industrial land uses typically result in an increase in the amount of hazardous materials being transported, used, and stored. Therefore, like the proposed project, the Refined Project would also reduce the number of people exposed to hazardous materials during transport on freeways and local roadways or near schools. The Refined Project would also comply with the Safety Element’s goals, programs, and policies and comply with the existing regulations of several agencies, including DTSC, EPA, Cal/OSHA, PFD, and LACoFD.
The development area under the Refined Project would be similar to the proposed project. Therefore, as with the proposed project, development under the Refined Project could expose people to hazardous substances that may be present in soil or groundwater. Compliance with state law would ensure that impacts of General Plan buildout from listed hazardous materials sites would be less than significant under the Refined Project.
Development under the Refined Project would result in similar impacts related to fire hazard safety. New development would be required to meet the California Fire Code and Building Code requirements as well as the City’s Safety Element to minimize the risk of fire hazards.
Overall, this impact of the Refined Project would be similar to the proposed project, but slightly decreased due to the reduction in overall development allowed.
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
6. Refined Project Environmental Analysis
August 2015 Page 6-7
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Refined Project would have similar hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project. Although both residential and nonresidential intensity would decrease under the project refinement, similar alterations to drainage patterns and hydrological patterns would occur. Similar to the proposed project, runoff would be subject to NPDES permit standards and provisions stipulated in the SWPPP and SUSMP. If necessary, treatment would be employed to remove excess pollutants from runoff during the construction and operational phases of development. Policies that offer additional protection from water quality impairment would be adopted, and runoff would be expected to be treated to the maximum extent practicable. In terms of water quality, the Refined Project would have a less than significant impact, like the proposed project.
Since designated open space areas remain the same and future development is not expected to result in a significant increase in impervious surfaces, the Refined Project’s potential for depletion of groundwater and percolation of pollutants into groundwater aquifers would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. No development or land use changes would occur near the recharge areas for the Raymond Groundwater Basin: the Arroyo Seco and Eaton Canyon Spreading Basins.
As under the proposed project, storm-drain infrastructure for new development projects would be required to be designed in accordance with standards in the LACDPW’s Hydrology Manual. New storm drains must also comply with Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 8.70 to control the rate of discharge so that it would not increase from existing conditions. Projects would be subject to additional review in order to ensure that they do not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. The net effect would therefore be similar under both the proposed project and the Refined Project, and individual projects would not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system.
Similar to the proposed project, the Refined Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death in the case of dam failure. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar for the Refined Project in comparison to the proposed project, and impacts would remain less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
Under the Refined Project, development intensities would be reduced overall, specifically, within the Central District and South Fair Oaks Specific Plan areas. Since the location and designation of land uses would remain similar to those in the General Plan Update, the Refined Project would also be consistent with applicable plans, including the SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS and the State Complete Streets Act. Therefore, land use impacts would generally be the same. Impacts would remain less than significant.
Noise
The Refined Project would reduce short-term construction-related impacts associated with the proposed project since there would be an overall reduction in intensity allowed at buildout. Additionally, the reduction of residential and nonresidential development and construction activities would reduce potential short-term vibration impacts to sensitive receptors. However, due to the unknown number of construction activities that
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
6. Refined Project Environmental Analysis
could occur at any one time, their proximity to sensitive receptors, the longevity of activities, and the specific equipment required, construction-related noise impacts may not be reduced to less than significant levels for some projects. Therefore, like the proposed project construction-related noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Refined Project would reduce residential units by 1,089 and nonresidential square footage by 1,732,254.
The Refined Project would result in 752,143 vehicle trips per day, a decrease of 12,726 from the proposed project. This would result in a decrease in long-term noise impacts from vehicle sources, reducing ambient noise levels and impacts on new noise-sensitive land uses. Therefore, this impact would be less than the proposed project and, as under the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.
The project refinement would result in a decrease in noise from stationary sources since there would be a reduction in nonresidential uses, including commercial and industrial uses that have a higher potential to generate noise from operations or loading docks. Similar to the project, the Refined Project would still be required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance (Municipal Code 9.36), which would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Overall, the project refinement would reduce short-term construction-related and long-term noise impacts associated with the proposed project. However, the Refined Project’s construction-related noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Population and Housing
Buildout of the Refined Project would result in 5,530 fewer jobs and 2,231 fewer residents than the proposed project. Under the Refined Project, the jobs-housing balance in the City at buildout would be slightly lower, at
2.06 (more housing rich), than the proposed project at 2.11. The San Gabriel Valley jobs-housing ratio would be 1.32 without the General Plan Update versus 1.34 with the proposed project. Upon buildout of the Refined Project, the region’s jobs-housing ratio would be 1.33, which represents a nominal difference when compared to buildout of either the adopted General Plan or the proposed project. Therefore, while the Refined Project would have a benefit on the jobs-housing balance in the region, it would not occur to the same degree as the proposed project. The Refined Project would also provide fewer housing units near transit corridors and regional employment centers. Overall, impacts to population associated with the Refined Project would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
Public Services
Buildout of the Refined Project would result in 2,231 fewer residents and 1,089 fewer homes. Impacts associated with fire protection, law enforcement, and library services would therefore be less than those of to the proposed project, since there would be less residential development at full buildout, which would generate fewer new residents. Demands for fire, police, and library services would be updated as part of the City’s annual budget process. Impacts to school services would be less than significant through the application of SB 50 fees on individual project applicants. Overall, impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
6. Refined Project Environmental Analysis
August 2015 Page 6-9
Recreation
The Refined Project would slightly reduce demands on existing recreational facilities due to the reduction in residents and employees. As a result, less parkland would be required to serve the projected population at buildout. Impacts would remain less than significant.
Transportation and Traffic
Fehr & Peers conducted a transportation analysis of the Refined Project, included herein as Appendix F.
Under the Refined Project, a service population of 307,321 would drive 6,804,532 VMT per day and make 752,143 vehicle trips per day, which is equivalent to 22.1 VMT per capita and 2.4 vehicle trips per capita (Fehr & Peers 2015). Therefore the Refined Project would result in a reduced VMT and vehicle trips overall and the same VMT per capita and vehicle trips per capita as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the Refined Project would reduce impacts to VMT per capita and vehicle trips per capita compared to existing conditions.
With respect to the proximity and quality of the bicycle and transit network, the Refined Project would result in similar impacts as the proposed project. As shown in Table 2, the Refined Project has a similar percentage of service population within a quarter mile of Level 1 and 2 bicycle facilities; there is a 0.4 percent decrease and 0.3 percent increase in service population within a quarter mile of Level 1 and 2 facilities, respectively.
This represents a cumulative decrease of 0.1 percent compared to the proposed project. Although there would be a slight decrease of service population within a quarter mile of Level 1 and 2 facilities, there would be a significant improvement over existing conditions. Impacts would remain less than significant.
Table 2 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
Scenario
Total Service
Population
Percent of Total
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Existing 247,286 0.0% 31.7% 50.0%
Proposed Project 315,082 15.2% 54.8% 20.4%
Refined Project 307,321 14.8% 55.1% 20.4%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
As shown in Table 3, the project refinement would result in a slight increase in impact with respect to proximity to the transit network since the percentage of service population near Level 1 transit facilities is reduced. Overall, the Refined Project would result in a slight decrease of 0.5 percent for Level 1 and Level 2 facilities. As with the proposed project, the Refined Project would reduce impacts compared to existing conditions and no new significant impacts would result.
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
6. Refined Project Environmental Analysis
Table 3 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
Scenario
Total Service
Population
Percent of Total
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Existing 247,286 36.6% 30.0% 20.4%
Proposed Project 315,082 50.2% 22.7% 15.3%
Refined Project 307,321 49.5% 22.9% 15.6%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Pedestrian accessibility would be the same under the Refined Project compared to the proposed project, with a PAS of 5.1(B).
Tables 4 and 5 show the results of the CMP analysis for freeway mainline segments and arterial intersections, respectively. The Refined Project would result in the same impacts as the proposed project—a significant impact on I-210 w/Rte134/710 in the PM peak hour for westbound lanes and on I-210 w/Rosemead Boulevard in the AM peak hour for westbound lanes. Compared to the proposed project, the Refined Project would have the same impact on CMP arterial intersections, resulting in a significant impact at Pasadena Avenue/California Boulevard in the AM peak hour.
Table 4 CMP Analysis Results For Freeway Mainline Segments, Refined Project CMP Station
Peak
Hour Dir Lanes Capacity Volume D/C LOS
Change in
D/C
Significant
Impact?
1056
SR 134 w/o
San Rafael
Ave
AM
EB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.100 No
WB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
PM
EB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
WB 5 10,00 8,900 0.890 D 0.060 No
1060
I-210 w/o
Rte 134/710
AM
EB 4 8,000 6,600 0.825 D 0.125 No
WB 4 8,000 6,400 0.800 D 0.262 No
PM
EB 4 8,000 5,900 0.738 C 0.225 No
WB 4 8,000 8,400 1.050 F(0) 0.237 Yes
1061.
1-210 w/o
Rosemead
Blvd
AM
EB 5 10,00 6,700 0.670 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 11,440 1.144 F(0) 0.070 Yes
PM
EB 5 10,00 6,300 0.630 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.000 No
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
6. Refined Project Environmental Analysis
August 2015 Page 6-11
Table 5 CMP Analysis Results for Arterial Intersections, Refined Project CMP Intersection Peak V/C LOS Change in Significant
Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard
AM 0.828 D 0.154 No
PM 0.855 D 0.044 No
Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 1.011 F 0.055 Yes
PM 0.946 E 0.042 No
St. John Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 0.872 D 0.099 No
PM 0.769 C 0.081 No
Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard
AM 0.825 D 0.127 No
PM 0.926 E 0.064 No
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Overall, impacts are the same as the proposed project. Impacts related to CMP mainline segments and arterial intersections would remain significant and unavoidable.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under the Refined Project, impacts to utilities and service systems would be reduced due to the reduction in residential units and overall intensity. The project refinement would result in a reduction of 1,089 residences and 5,530 employees, thereby reducing the demand on water services and energy. The Refined Project would also reduce the generation of wastewater and solid waste. Impacts would be reduced and remain less than significant.
Summary of Impact Analysis
Compared to the proposed project, the Refined Project would have similar impacts for aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, and transportation and traffic impacts. Impacts would be reduced for air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities and service systems. Although the project refinement would reduce environmental impacts in nine impact categories, significant unavoidable adverse impacts identified by the proposed project for air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and traffic would not be eliminated.
6.1.3 CONCLUSION
The above analysis demonstrates that the Refined Project would not result in a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact already disclosed in the EIR. Therefore, revisions to the EIR are not necessary and, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the EIR is not required.
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
6. Refined Project Environmental Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
August 2015
Appendix A. TIA Current Practice and Guidelines
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
CURRENT PRACTICE & GUIDELINES
Prepared by:
Transportation Complete Streets Division
Department of Transportation
20150120
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.2
This document may be reprinted or extracted without permission, provided credit to the City of Pasadena Department of Transportation
For comments or additional questions regarding the Department’s transportation review practice, please contact:
Pasadena Department of Transportation
Transportation Complete Streets Division
http://www.cityofpasadena.net/Transportation/
The Department’s current review practice will be periodically updated and posted on:
http://www.cityofpasadena.net/Transportation/Transportation_Impact_Review/ TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.3
Table of Contents
Section 1: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, & PROCESS ............................................................. 5 Section 2: THRESHOLDs.......................................................................................................... 9 Section 3: PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS 18 I. Overall Process of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)............................................. 18 II. Transportation Impact Analysis- Report Format ......................................................... 19 ATTACHMENTS........................................................................................................................... 23 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)-Sample MOU............................................................... 24 Description of Transportation Performance Metrics................................................................... 26 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.4
SECTION 1:
INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND
PROCESS
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.5
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, & PROCESS
BACKGROUND
The following guidelines support Pasadena’s vision of creating “a community where people can circulate without cars.” 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.
PURPOSE
The ability of a community to balance and facilitate the different components of its transportation system is important to the creation and preservation of a quality living and business environment. The function of a community’s transportation system is to provide for the movement of people and goods, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and other vehicle traffic flows within and through the community.
The Mobility Element of the City’s General Plan sets forth goals and policies to improve overall transportation in Pasadena. The Mobility Element is based on approaches that address the needs of multimodal corridors and streets as well as community neighborhoods that are affected by traffic. These guidelines have been developed to ensure that transportation system improvements necessary to support new development while maintaining quality of life within the community are identified prior to project approval and funded prior to construction.
Transportation impact analyses are an integral part of the environmental review process that is required for all proposed projects that are not categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, jurisdictions have the right to categorically exempt projects consisting of less than five housing units and nonresidential projects with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area (CEQA 15303).
Projects exempt under this class are qualified by consideration of where the project is located. If a project may impact an environmental resource or the location may be of critical concern, the project cannot be categorically exempt. Projects characterized as TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.6
in-fill development may also be categorically exempt if they meet the conditions described in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations
2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses
3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species
4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality
5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services These guidelines have been developed to identify projects that may have transportation impacts and to provide step-by-step instructions for preparing a Transportation Impact Analysis.
PROCESS
Upon receipt of initial Project Plan Review (PPR) from city of Department of Planning and Community Development, the City of Pasadena Department of Transportation (PasDOT) will determine whether or not a transportation review is required relative to CEQA guidelines and City policies. If a review is required, the following steps describe the process for initiating the process:
1. Applicant contacts PasDOT with a request to commence the study
2. PasDOT will estimate the required fees for conducting the study.
3. Upon authorization to proceed and payment of fees, PasDOT will commence the analysis.
Traffic Counts
1. Traffic counts shall be collected in accordance with industry standards and established methodologies and at PasDOT’s discretion.
2. Counts should be collected when schools and colleges are in session. Counts collected when schools and/or colleges are not in session shall be approved by the Director of Transportation.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.7
3. Counts should be collected during AM (7 a.m. to 9 a.m.) and PM (4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) peak hours, unless otherwise specified. Midday and Weekend counts may also be required.
Trip Generation and Applicable Credits
Trip generation is determined by one or more of the following:
1. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9 th Edition or most
current edition.
a. Rates should be calculated using the weighted average formula when applicable
b. Special consideration should be given for ITE rates based on antiquated data or a small sample may require additional data collection to determine the appropriate trip generation
2. Counts conducted for existing projects that are relocating or expanding
3. New rates should be generated using community examples for uses not updated or included in the ITE Trip Generation publication
4. Trip credits are given to certain uses located on major corridors and/or within the Transit Oriented District (TOD). The trip discounts are determined on a case by case basis and must be consistent with the City’s current practice
5. For new uses, parking demand should be based on ITE Parking Generation Handbook and/or parking demand analyses conducted for similar uses in the community
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.8
SECTION 2:
THRESHOLDS USED FOR DETERMINING
TRANSPORTATION REVIEW OF PROJECTS
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.9
SECTION 2: THRESHOLDS
Thresholds for Determining Transportation Review
Pasadena’s current practice for reviewing a project’s transportation impact begins with the submittal to the Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department of either a Project Plan Review (PPR), or an application for a discretionary action, including but not limited to a master development plan, planned development, conditional use permit, variance, hillside development permit, design review, and/or a request to alter the assessor’s map.
PasDOT reviews several types and sizes of projects that could be subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Department has two processes for reviewing a proposed project’s transportation impacts based on project size, consisting of below or equal to communitywide significance thresholds, and above communitywide significance thresholds. Communitywide significance projects are defined as 50,000 square feet of new commercial use, 50 residential units, or any combination of the two. The primary difference between the two types of transportation review is inclusion of street segment and Level of Service (LOS) analyses. Additionally, street segment analysis and LOS analysis may be required for smaller projects at the discretion of the Director of Transportation. The following table summarizes the thresholds of determination.
Table 1: Thresholds for Determining Transportation Review of Projects
TYPE OF
PROJECT EXEMPTION
Category 1:
BELOW
COMMUNITYWIDE
SIGNIFICANCE
Category 2:
COMMUNITYWIDE
SIGNIFICANCE
Residential
(Net # of
units)
10 units or less 11 – 49 units 50+ units
NonResidential
Use (Net)
10,000 Sq Ft or
less than 300
daily trips
10,001 to 49,999
Sq Ft 50,000+ Sq Ft
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.10
Thresholds for Determining Impacts
The guidelines apply to all projects that require environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City’s established Environmental Policy Guidelines, significance thresholds, and transportation review guidelines. The thresholds contained herein determine a project’s expected level of impact on the transportation system and identify appropriate types of mitigation.
Table 2- Metrics’ CEQA Thresholds of Significance
METRIC DESCRIPTION IMPACT THRESHOLD
1. VMT Per
Capita*
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
in the City of Pasadena per
service population (population
+ jobs).
CEQA Threshold: An increase over existing
Citywide VMT per Capita of 22.6.
2. VT Per
Capita
Vehicle Trips (VT) in the City
of Pasadena per service
population (population + jobs).
CEQA Threshold: An increase over existing
Citywide VT per Capita of 2.8.
3. Proximity
and Quality
of Bicycle
Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) within a
quarter mile of bicycle facility
types.
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease in existing
citywide 31.7% of service population (population +
jobs) within a quarter mile of bike facilities.
4. Proximity
and Quality
of Transit
Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) located
within a quarter mile of transit
facility types.
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease in existing
citywide 66.6% of service population (population +
jobs) within a quarter mile of transit facilities.
5. Pedestrian
Accessibility
The Pedestrian Accessibility
Score uses the mix of
destinations, and a networkbased walk shed to evaluate walkability
CEQA Threshold: Any decrease in the Citywide
Pedestrian Accessibility Score
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.11
Table 3- Metrics’ Cap Outside of CEQA
METRIC DESCRIPTION CAP
1. Street
Segment
Analysis
The street segment analysis
assesses traffic intrusion on
local streets in residential
neighborhoods
Increases of 10-15% above existing on streets
with more than 1500 ADT would trigger conditions
of approval to reduce project vehicular trips
2. Auto Level
of Service
Level of Service (LOS) as
defined by the Transportation
Research Board's Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM).
A decrease beyond LOS D Citywide or LOS E
within Transit Oriented Districts (TODs) would
trigger conditions of approval to reduce project
vehicular trips
3. PEQI Pedestrian Environmental
Quality Index
Below average Conditions
4. BEQI Bicycle Environmental Quality
Index
Below average conditions
All metrics in Tables 2 and 3 shall be analyzed for projects of “communitywide significance” under Category 2 in Table 1. All or any of the metrics in Table 3 might be required for analysis for Category 1 projects in Table 1 at the discretion of Director of Transportation.
Street Segment Analysis (Increase in Daily Traffic)
Street Segment Analysis to address impacts to neighborhoods from traffic intrusion.
The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) caps in Table 4 below measure the relative change in daily traffic resulting from an increase in trips or a change in access that alters existing traffic patterns. The relative change in daily traffic is determined as follows:
Percentage of Increase = Net New Project Trips/Existing Daily Traffic A Street Segment analysis is required for all Category 2 projects identified in Table 1, or smaller projects at the discretion of Director of Transportation. The following criteria will be used for street segment analysis:
Applies to “Projects of Communitywide Significance” which are defined as 50,000 square feet of new commercial use, 50 residential units or more, or any combination of the two (Category 2 project in Table 1). May apply to smaller projects identified as Category 1 projects in Table 1 at discretion of Director of Transportation
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.12
The analysis would be limited to “Access” and “Neighborhood Connector” street types within a residential context (Street Types Map below) Table 4- ADT Caps for Requiring Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures If project-related net trips exceed the caps in the table above conditions of approval would require the project applicant to develop and implement a targeted Complete Streets Plan with input from the affected residents, council districts and DOT to encourage use of non-vehicular modes by the project’s patrons, and implement measures to discourage use of residential streets to-and-from the project site. Below is a list of typical measures that would be included in a Complete Streets Plan.
Project specific measures:
Establish a more aggressive Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) target that exceeds city’s AVO average by enhancing the required TDM plan under City’s Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO)
Project turn-restrictions
Revised project access and circulation
Complete Streets measures
Curb Extensions
Pedestrian and Bike Traffic signal upgrades/enhancements Turn-restrictions
Neighborhood Gateways (raised medians)
Traffic circles
Speed humps
Signal metering
Existing ADT Project-Related Vehicular Increase In ADT
0 to 1500 150 or more
1,501 to 3,499 10 percent or more of final ADT
3,500 or more 8 percent or more of final ADT
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.13
Map 1- City of Pasadena Adopted Street Types
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.14
Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
A Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection Level of Service (LOS) analysis will be applied to proposed new development projects that meet or exceed the size thresholds to be Projects of Communitywide Significance, or smaller projects at the discretion of Director of Transportation. The LOS results will be measured for compliance with the intersection LOS caps in Table 5 below.
Table 5- Signalized Intersections LOS Cap
Intersection LOS analysis using HCM criteria shown in Table 6 is conducted for peak hour conditions (morning, mid-day or evening or combination, depending upon size and location of the proposed project). The number of intersections to be analyzed will vary also depending upon size and location of the proposed project. Where the evaluated intersections exceed the LOS caps, conditions of approval will be recommended consistent with the City’s Guiding Principles to encourage walking, biking and transit toand-from the project site to reduce project-related vehicular trips. Below is a list of typical measures that would be included in trip reduction programs:
Project specific measures:
o Establish an Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) Cap or more aggressive AVO target that exceeds the City’s AVO average by enhancing the required TDM plan under the City’s Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO)
o Parking strategies to share parking or reduce on-site parking o Transit passes and/or transit cash-out
o Bikeshare program with 10 or more bikes
o Carshare program with two or more vehicles
o Shuttle service to major transit stops
o On-site transit kiosk
Complete Streets measures
o Pedestrian lighting to and from major transit stops
o Pedestrian and Bike Traffic signal upgrades/enhancements o Installation of non-vehicular improvements at studied intersections Study Intersections Existing + Project LOS Cap
Citywide D
Transit Oriented District (TOD)-see Map 2 E
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.15
Level of Service analysis should be developed in a table form as follows: Intersection Peak Hour Existing Existing w/Project Exceeds LOS Cap?
Delay LOS Delay LOS Yes/No
TABLE 6- HIGHWAY CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
DESCRIPTION DELAY IN
SECONDS
A
Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
< 10.0
B
Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
> 10.0 to
20.0 C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to
35.0 D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35.0 to
55.0 E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay.
These high delay values generally indicate poor (vehicle) progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 to
80.0 F This level is considered oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. > 80.0
Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.16
Map 2- City of Pasadena Adopted Transit Oriented Districts TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.17
SECTION 3:
PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING A
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
(TIA)
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.18
SECTION 3: PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING A TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following procedures have been established for the preparation of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). A TIA is intended to focus on an accurate field inventory of existing circulation elements, and provide recommendations for incorporating existing and/or recommended circulation elements into the design of the proposed project to ensure safety and compatibility. Approval of a TIA generally occurs six (6) to eight (8) weeks after the City receives the authorization to proceed and the deposit to fund the analysis from the applicant.
I. Overall Process of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) a. The Department of Transportation reviews applications for Project Plan Review (PPR) and other discretionary approvals to determine what types of analysis must be prepared in accordance with the City’s established thresholds in Section 2.
b. Based on the project scope provided in the application, DOT staff will prepare a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for review and approval by the applicant or applicant representative and Planning & Community Development Department staff.
c. The applicant shall submit the signed authorization to proceed along with a deposit for preparing the TIA. The fee amount will be based on city’s “fee schedule” adopted by Council at the time of submittal. The deposited fee will be subject to additional billing or refund.
d. Staff will develop, examine, and recommend feasible transportation improvements. The recommendations will be incorporated into the report based on their consistency with the Mobility Element, Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, adopted specific plans, and the Capital Improvement Program.
e. The Department of Transportation case manager may forward the preliminary recommended transportation improvements to the applicant for information. f. Based on the Transportation Impact Analysis findings, the Department of Transportation will notify the Planning & Community Development Department with a list of transportation improvements pertaining to the TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.19
proposed project as part of the approval process.
II. Transportation Impact Analysis- Report Format
Cover Page
A cover page containing the project address and name (if applicable), as well as the date, and consultant contact information.
Table of Contents
Section 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Type, size, and number of parking spaces
2. Vehicular trip generation estimates
3. Circulation Plan
SECTION 2: FIELD SURVEY, DOCUMENT AND/OR IDENTIFY POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING:
1. Digital photo documentary of the project site, key street features, inventory of transportation elements.
2. Existing site (use, access, pedestrian walkways, etc.)
3. Adjacent intersections (both signalized and non-signalized), including lane configurations, type of controls, and any special traffic-related features/conditions (grade, curvature, raised medians, etc.);
4. Residential neighborhoods near the project;
5. General land uses on the same and adjacent blocks of the project;
6. On-street parking restrictions and utilization on the adjacent street and nearby street(s);
7. Transit facilities within 800 feet of the project, including the service provider(s) (Pasadena ARTS, MTA, Foothill Transit,) and location, amenities, and condition of existing bus stops;
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.20
8. Ingress/egress of proposed use, such as sight visibility, potential need for parking restrictions, location of access gate, etc.;
9. Bicycle facilities, including bike lane/route designations on adjacent streets, existing bike racks/parking on or adjacent to site, and proposed on-site bicycle amenities; and,
10. Pedestrian amenities, such as sidewalk widths adjacent to the project and pedestrian indicators at the nearest signalized intersection.
SECTION 3: IDENTIFY PROJECT IMPACTS
1. Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) per Capita: Estimate project’s incremental change in VMT per service population using City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model
2. Vehicle Trips (VT): Estimate project’s incremental change in VT per service population using City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model
3. Bicycle and Transit Facilities: Assess proximity and quality of bicycle and transit networks by estimating project’s change in percent of service population within a quarter mile of bicycle and transit facilities.
4. Pedestrians Accessibility: Estimate Project’s change in Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility Score.
5. Trip Generation: Estimate project’s vehicular trip generation using the Trip Generation Manual, current edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers as the primary document. Other trip production rates can be used if approved by the Department of Transportation. Any adjustments to standard rates, such as for special uses, mixed uses, high transit use, or pass-by trips must be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
6. Study Street Segments and Intersections: The Department of Transportation will identify study street segments and intersections within the primary influence area of the proposed development.
A. Traffic Count Data:
a. The Department of Transportation will require evaluation of all critical time periods based on the proposed uses and site location. b. Unless otherwise specified, peak hours occur between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Pedestrian and bicycle counts must be collected.
B. Study street segments
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.21
a. Describe speed limits, stop control, pedestrian crossings, and parking restrictions)
b. Street segment analysis
C. Study intersections
a. Describe speed limits, stop control, pedestrian crossings, and parking restrictions, and include a diagram of existing lane configurations
b. Display existing peak hour traffic volumes
c. Distribute project trips (include distributions for each peak hour in percentages and volumes). The traffic distribution is a prediction of the future travel paths of site users. It is generally based on population distribution and significant travel paths in the study area. The trip distribution is to be approved by the Department of Transportation prior to preparation of the report.
d. Analyze intersection impacts
e. Conduct CMP analysis (if applicable)
f. Identify potential construction impacts
g. Recommend mitigation measures. Developments must mitigate the increase in traffic caused by their development. Mitigation measures are required when level of service at any study intersection or on any street segment exceeds the thresholds contained in Section 2. If mitigation reflects trip reductions predicted as a result of implementing required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, an approved report must be submitted substantiating such mitigation. All proposed roadway mitigation must be illustrated and a preliminary cost estimate provided to show the new intersection configuration, including lane widths, assignments, widenings, and trip reduction attributed to required TDM strategies.
7. Study Pedestrian and Bike Impacts
The Department of Transportation will identify study street segments within the primary influence area of the proposed development. a. Collect data elements that directly impact pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit operations along the street segment(s), b. Analyze the project impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists using industry standard methodologies such as PEQI, BEQI.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.22
c. Require measures to improve the environmental quality of nonvehicular modes when the findings reveal less than average conditions (Please see Section 2, Table 3).
SECTION 4: IDENTIFY TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
Summarize the transportation impact based on data collected for Section 3 and recommend prioritization for appropriate improvements that address increases in traffic on analyzed street segments.
SECTION 5: GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY ELEMENT CONSISTENCY CHECK Identify and incorporate specific transportation-related elements that support the City’s goal of becoming a city where people can circulate without cars. Also identify and incorporate improvements that will protect nearby residential streets by encouraging project-related traffic to utilize multimodal corridors and/or through neighborhood traffic calming measures.
SECTION 6: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
Summarize key findings and elements to be incorporated into the development of the project, such as changes in access and recommended locations for bicycle amenities.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.23
ATTACHMENTS
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.24
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)-Sample MOU
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.25
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.26
Description of Transportation Performance Metrics
1. VMT PER CAPITA
The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita measure sums the miles traveled for trips within the City of Pasadena Travel Demand Model. The VMT total considers only trips that begin inside the Pasadena and 50% of the distance travelled along roads outside of Pasadena. The City’s VMT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.
Although VMT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, the City can reduce VMT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
2. VT PER CAPITA
Vehicle Trips (VT) per Capita is a measure of motor vehicle trips associated with the City. The measure sums the trips with origins and destination within the City of Pasadena, as generated by the 2013 Tripbased citywide Travel Demand Model. The regional VT is calculated by adding the VT associated with trips generated and attracted within City of Pasadena boundaries, and 50% of the VT associated with trips that either begin or end in the City, but have one trip end outside of the City. The City’s VT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.
As with VMT, VT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, but the City can reduce VT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
3. PROXIMITY AND QUALITY OF BICYCLE NETWORK
The Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of each of three bicycle facility types. The facility types are aggregated into three hierarchy levels, obtained from the City’s 2012 (Draft) Bicycle Transportation Plan categories as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 – BIKE FACILITIES HIERARCHY
LEVEL DESCRIPTION FACILITIES INCLUDED
1 (A) Advanced Facilities Bike Paths (P1)
Multipurpose Paths (PP)
Cycle Tracks/Protected Bike Lanes
2 (B) Dedicated Facilities Buffered Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes (2, P2)
Bike Boulevards (BB)
3 (C) Basic Facilities Bike Routes (3, P3)
Enhanced Bike Routes (E3, PE3)
Emphasized Bikeways (PEB)
Source: City of Pasadena Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2012.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.27
For each bike facility level, a quarter-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total service population (population + jobs) within the buffer are added.
The City can improve measures of Bike Facility Access by improving and expanding existing bike facilities and by encouraging residential and commercial development in areas with highquality bike facilities.
4. PROXIMITY AND QUALITY OF TRANSIT NETWORK
The Proximity and Quality of Transit Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of each of each of three transit facility types, as defined in the Streets Types Plan and in Table 2.
TABLE 2 – TRANSIT FACILITIES HIERARCHY
LEVEL FACILITIES INCLUDED
1 (A) Includes all Gold Line stops as well as corridors with transit service, whether it be a single route or multiple routes combined, with headways of five minutes or less during the peak periods.
2 (B) Includes corridors with transit headways of between six and 15 minutes in peak periods.
3 (C) Includes corridors with transit headways of 16 minutes or more at peak periods.
Source: Draft Streets Types Plan, Pasadena Department of Transportation, March 2013.
For each facility level, a quarter-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total service population (population + jobs) within the buffer are added.
The City can improve the measures of Transit Proximity and Quality by reducing headways on existing transit routes, by expanding transit routes to cover new areas, and by encouraging residential and commercial development to occur in areas with an already high-quality transit service.
5. PEDESTRIAN ACCESIBILITY
The Proximity and Quality of Pedestrian Environment provides a measure of the average walkability in the TAZ surrounding Pasadena residents, based on a Pedestrian Accessibility metric. The Pedestrian proximity metric is a simple count of the number of land use types accessible to a Pasadena resident or employee in a given TAZ within a 5-minute walk. The ten categories of land uses are:
• Retail
• Personal Services
• Restaurant
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 1.28
• Entertainment
• Office (including private sector and government offices) • Medical (including medical office and hospital uses)
• Culture (including churches, religious and other cultural uses) • Park and Open Space
• School (including elementary and high schools)
• College
The resulting count of land use types is then assigned a letter grade from A to D based on the following structure:
• A – greater than or equal to 8 land use types
• B – greater than or equal to 5 land use types and less than 8 land use types • C – greater than or equal to 2 land use types and less than 5 land use types • D – greater than or equal to 0 land use types and less than 2 land use types The City can improve the Resident and Employment Pedestrian Accessibility Scores by:
• Encouraging residential development in areas with high existing Pedestrian Accessibility Scores;
• Encouraging commercial development in areas with high existing Pedestrian Accessibility Scores; and
• Attracting mixed development and new land use types to increase the Pedestrian Accessibility metric values of other areas.
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
August 2015
Appendix B. Caltrans Correspondence
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Ms. Dianna Watson
June 29, 2015
During the May 13th meeting, Caltrans questioned the City’s choice of CEQA VMT/cap Threshold and expressed concern that the citywide VMT/cap threshold may be “higher” than what may be ultimately adopted by SCAG as a regional VMT/cap threshold. Caltrans staff acknowledged that under SB 743 cities are able to adopt CEQA thresholds as long as they are technically supported. Pasadena staff raised the issue of consistency in calculation of the VMT/cap and that depending on how either the VMT or the per capita is calculated the thresholds may not be comparable. Caltrans also raised the issue that future transportation impact fees could be an important opportunity to improve Caltrans owned intersections at freeway ramp termini. The City did commit at the meeting to developing additional policies in the Mobility Element that would address these concerns raised by Caltrans. The following are proposed new policies:
New Policy City of Pasadena will monitor and evaluate the development and adoption of future VMT/cap thresholds for the SCAG region and Los Angeles County.
New Policy City of Pasadena will involve Caltrans in the revision and update of the existing Transportation Impact Fee.
New Policy City of Pasadena will consider improvements to ITS projects involving Caltrans owned intersections at freeway ramp termini in the development of the future transportation impact fee, including but not limited to the I-210 Connected Corridors project.
As discussed at the meeting the City of Pasadena and Caltrans are currently cooperating on the development of the I-210 Connected Corridors project to address congestion relief due to incidents on either freeway or city arterial streets. The goal of the future phases of the project is to also address recurring traffic congestion on freeway and adjacent arterial streets. The City is proposing to introduce the following policy into the Mobility Element to further respond to Caltrans’ concern:
New Policy City of Pasadena will work with Caltrans to evaluate access management needs and strategies to better manage traffic operations on arterial streets located within close proximity of freeway on/off-ramps in an effort to reduce traffic backups and frictions at Caltrans ramp signals.
Additionally, the City committed to amending the Transportation Analysis Guidelines in addition to introducing new policies, as a more appropriate mechanism to respond to certain issues raised by Caltrans at the May 13th meeting. In response to Caltrans’ concern that future developments should assess any impacts to increased queueing on freeway off-ramps, the City will administratively amend Section 2 Table 3 (attached) of the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines as follows:
All projects of “communitywide significance” (communitywide significance projects are defined as 50,000 square feet of new commercial use, 50 residential units, or any combination of the two) will require consultation with Caltrans to determine whether or not additional analysis is needed regarding off-ramp queueing conditions. The analysis
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
August 2015
Appendix C. Community Forum Comments
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
August 2015
Appendix D. Transportation Analysis Report
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Transportation Analysis Report:
Pasadena General Plan Update
600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.261.3050
Submitted by
City of Pasadena
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 3 Overview of Pasadena ............................................................................................................................. 3 Regional Street System ........................................................................................................................... 3 Local City Streets ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Existing Transit Network ......................................................................................................................... 7 Bicycle Network .................................................................................................................................... 11 Pedestrian Network............................................................................................................................... 16
3. Transportation Performance Measures – Definition and Methodology ........................................ 17 Descriptions of New Transportation Performance Measures ................................................................ 17
4. Analysis Scenarios ............................................................................................................................... 21 Scenario Descriptions............................................................................................................................ 22
5. Performance Measure Results ........................................................................................................... 26 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita and Vehicle Trips (VT) per Capita ......................................... 26 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network ............................................................................................. 27 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network ............................................................................................. 34 Pedestrian Accessibility ......................................................................................................................... 41
6. CMP Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 48 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 48 Freeway Segment Analysis .................................................................................................................... 48 Arterial Intersection Analysis ................................................................................................................. 54 Mitigations ............................................................................................................................................ 57
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 59
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Pasadena Travel Demand Forecasting Model Development Report Appendix B: City of Pasadena Travel Demand Forecasting Model Update Memo
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 General Plan Area ........................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 Street Functions .......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Existing Transit Network .............................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4 Existing Bike Network ................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 5 Future Bike Network .................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 6 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network – Scenario 1 ............................................................. 28 Figure 7 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network – Scenario 2 ............................................................. 29 Figure 8 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network – Scenario 3 ............................................................. 30 Figure 9 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network – Scenario 4 ............................................................. 31 Figure 10 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network – Scenario 5 ........................................................... 32 Figure 11 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network – Scenario 6 ........................................................... 33 Figure 12 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network – Scenario 1 ........................................................... 35 Figure 13 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network – Scenario 2 ........................................................... 36 Figure 14 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network – Scenario 3 ........................................................... 37 Figure 15 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network – Scenario 4 ........................................................... 38 Figure 16 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network – Scenario 5 ........................................................... 39 Figure 17 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network – Scenario 6 ........................................................... 40 Figure 18 Pedestrian Accessibility – Scenario 1 ....................................................................................... 42 Figure 19 Pedestrian Accessibility – Scenario 2 ....................................................................................... 43 Figure 20 Pedestrian Accessibility – Scenario 3 ....................................................................................... 44 Figure 21 Pedestrian Accessibility – Scenario 4 ....................................................................................... 45 Figure 22 Pedestrian Accessibility – Scenario 5 ....................................................................................... 46 Figure 23 Pedestrian Accessibility – Scenario 6 ....................................................................................... 47
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Street Functions ............................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2 – ARTS Routes ................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3 – Metro Bus Routes ........................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4 – Pasadena Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................ 13 Table 5 – Summary of Transportation Performance Measures .................................................................... 17 Table 6 – Bike Facilities Hierarchy ................................................................................................................ 18 Table 7 – Transit Facilities Hierarchy ............................................................................................................ 19 Table 8 – Land Use Data Scenario Comparison ........................................................................................... 21 Table 9 – VMT and VT per Capita ................................................................................................................ 26 Table 10 – Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network .................................................................................. 27 Table 11 – Proximity and Quality of Transit Network .................................................................................. 34 Table 12 – Pedestrian Accessibility Score .................................................................................................... 41 Table 13 – LOS Thresholds for CMP Freeway Mainline Segments ............................................................... 49 Table 14 – CMP Analysis Results for Freeway Mainline Segments .............................................................. 51 Table 15 – CMP Analysis Results for Arterial Intersections .......................................................................... 55 Table 16 – Impact Summary ........................................................................................................................ 59 Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
1 1. Introduction
This report documents the transportation analysis conducted for the Pasadena General Plan Update on a series of four future land use alternatives identified by the City of Pasadena. Including an analysis of existing conditions and a “No Project” scenario that follows the currently adopted (2004) General Plan, the six scenarios are:
1. Existing
2. No Project Alternative
3. Preferred General Plan
4. Central District, South Fair Oaks, Lincoln Avenue Alternative
5. Efficient Transportation Alternative
6. Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact Alternative
Chapter 4 – Analysis Scenarios describes the scenarios in more detail.
In November 2014, the Pasadena City Council adopted by resolution Staff’s recommendation to replace two existing transportation performance measures, focused entirely on automobile travel, with five new transportation measures that include measures of automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel, in support of the Mobility Element’s three main policy objectives:
• Enhance livability
• Encourage walking, biking, transit, and other alternatives to motor vehicles • Create a supportive climate for economic viability
The five adopted transportation performance measures are:
1. Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita
2. Vehicle Trips per Capita
3. Proximity and Quality of Bike Facilities
4. Proximity and Quality of Transit Facilities
5. Pedestrian Accessibility
This report presents the methodology, results, and recommendations from the application of the five approved transportation measures to the Pasadena General Plan Update land use scenarios identified by the City.
An analysis of mainline freeway and arterial intersection monitoring locations was conducted to comply with the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements.
A review of current transit facilities and existing bicycle routes and paths throughout the city is also included in the document. Finally, an evaluation of the existing pedestrian network including sidewalks, pedestrian corridors, and areas of high pedestrian activity are described. The general plan area is illustrated in Figure
1. Colorado Blvd
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pky
Sierra Madre Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Oak Grove Dr
Woodbury Rd
Rosem ead Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
Colorado Blvd
Lake Ave
New York Dr
Del Mar Blvd
California Blvd
Allen Ave
Marengo Ave
Hill Ave
Altadena Dr
El Molino Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Lincoln Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Washington Blvd
Walnut St
Fair Oaks Ave
Lombardy Rd
Madre St
Figueroa St
Lida St
M ar e n g o Ave
Rosemont Ave
Lake Ave
Michillinda Ave
Laguna Rd
Oak Knoll Cir
Seco St
Mendocino St
Mountain St
Windsor Ave
Terrace St
Michillinda Ave
Columbia St
Foothill Blvd Orange Grove Blvd
Arroyo Blvd
San Rafael Ave
Ventura St
Santa Anita Ave
W Altadena Dr
Maple St
Green St
Union St
Fremont Ave
Glenarm St
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
Not to Scale
N
Document Path: N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2619 - Pasadena TDF\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Figure0x_GeneralPlanArea.mxd ·|þ}110
Legend
!
! !
!
!
City of Pasadena
N
NOT TO SCALE
GENERAL PLAN AREA
FIGURE 1
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
3 2. Existing Conditions
This chapter documents the City’s existing transportation system. A comprehensive data collection effort was undertaken to develop a detailed description of existing conditions in the study area. The assessment of conditions relevant to this study includes an inventory of existing arterial, freeway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities throughout the City of Pasadena. Existing values of the performance metrics are provided in Chapter 5 – Performance Metric Results. Existing results of the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analyses are provided in Chapter 6 – CMP Analysis.
OVERVIEW OF PASADENA
The City of Pasadena is located in the western part of the San Gabriel Valley, approximately 10 miles northeast of Downtown Los Angeles. Geographically, the City is bordered by seven cities – South Pasadena, Glendale, La Canada Flintridge, Arcadia, Sierra Madre, Los Angeles, San Marino – and unincorporated Altadena. It lies south of the San Gabriel Mountains. The City is fully developed, with a population of 137,122 people according to the 2010 U.S. Census, and contains a wide array of existing residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Two main freeways cross the City: the Foothill Freeway (I-210) and the Ventura Freeway (SR 134); the Arroyo Seco Parkway (SR 110) begins in the southern part of the City. In addition, residents of Pasadena are served by a well-developed transportation network of streets, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and transit services such as the Metro Gold Line, Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System (ARTS), and Foothill Transit.
REGIONAL STREET SYSTEM
Interstate 210 (I-210), or the Foothill Freeway, is a twelve-lane (including carpool lanes), limited-access freeway that operates in an east/west direction through Southern California. The freeway provides regional access between the San Gabriel Valley and the San Fernando Valley, linking up to Interstate 5 north of the city of Pacoima and continuing east before connecting with Interstate 10 in Redlands.
Interstate 710 (I-710), or the Long Beach Freeway, includes a short (less than one mile), unsigned segment operating in a north/south direction between California Boulevard and the Foothill Freeway.
State Route 134 (SR 134), or the Ventura Freeway, is a 10-lane (including carpool lanes) limited access freeway that operates in an east/west direction and begins in Pasadena. The freeway provides regional access among the cities of Pasadena, Burbank, Glendale, and Los Angeles. It extends to Los Angeles in the west, terminating at the junction of US Route 101 and State Route 170.
State Route 110 (SR 110), or the Arroyo Seco Parkway, is a five-lane, limited-access freeway that operates in the north/south direction and terminates in the southern part of the City of Pasadena. The Arroyo Seco Parkway runs from Pasadena to Downtown Los Angeles, where it transitions into Interstate 110 (Harbor Freeway), which runs to San Pedro near the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
LOCAL CITY STREETS
The City of Pasadena categorizes local streets by their use for mobility (the ability to move travelers along the street) and access (the ability to reach uses along the street) while considering the balance of travel modes using the street and the speed at which vehicular traffic travels along it. Using these considerations, Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
4 the City has categorized local streets into two broad categories: Connector Streets and Access Streets.
Connector Streets are further differentiated between Connector-City and Connector-Neighborhood, while Access Streets are subdivided into Access-Street, Access-Yield, Access-Alley, and Access-Shared. Figure 2 shows the locations of each of the street functions described below.
Connector Streets
Connectors provide mobility for people who are traveling from one part of Pasadena to another, between adjacent communities and Pasadena, and between neighborhoods and districts within Pasadena. They are typically the most time-efficient routes to connect between one location and another location beyond an immediate neighborhood, without using the freeway. Connector streets have destinations on them, but access to those destinations needs to be balanced with their function of moving all modes efficiently between Pasadena’s districts or neighborhoods. Table 1 provides further detail on Connector-City and Connector-Neighborhood streets.
Access Streets
Access streets serve the local access needs of Pasadena’s neighborhoods and districts. They are the majority of streets in the City. Their primary purpose is to efficiently connect people walking, bicycling, and driving to destinations on that same street. In some circumstances they serve transit and trucks as well. Through trips on these streets are typically possible, but less time-efficient than on connectors or freeways. Access streets can also provide a lower-speed environment that is attractive to some bicyclists for connecting or through trips. Table 1 provides further detail on Access-Street, Access-Yield, Access-Alley and AccessShared streets.
Access-Street, Access-Yield, and some Access-Shared streets have been consolidated into a single AccessStreet category for mapping. Some Access-Shared streets may currently fall under Access-Alley. !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
Colorado Blvd
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pky
Sierra Madre Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Oak Grove Dr
Woodbury Rd
Rosem ead Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
Colorado Blvd
Lake Ave
New York Dr
Del Mar Blvd
California Blvd
Allen Ave
Marengo Ave
Hill Ave
Altadena Dr
El Molino Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Lincoln Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Washington Blvd
Walnut St
Fair Oaks Ave
Lombardy Rd
Madre St
Figueroa St
Lida St
M ar e n g o Ave
Rosem ont Ave
Lake Ave
Michillinda Ave
Laguna Rd
Oak Knoll Cir
Seco St
Mendocino St
Mountain St
Windsor Ave
Terrace St
Michillinda Ave
Columbia St
Foothill Blvd Orange Grove Blvd
Arroyo Blvd
San Rafael Ave
Ventura St
Santa Anita Ave
W Altadena Dr
Maple St
Green St
Union St
Fremont Ave
Glenarm St
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
Not to Scale
N
Document Path: \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2619 - Pasadena TDF\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Figure0x_stclassifications_v2.mxd ·|þ}110
STUDY AREA AND STREET FUNCTION
FIGURE 2
Legend
Functional Classification
Freeway/Ramp
Connector - Neighborhood
Access - Street
Access - Alley
Connector - City
!
! !
!
!
Other Street
City of Pasadena
N
NOT TO SCALE
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
6 TABLE 1 – STREET FUNCTIONS
Function Description
Connector-City
(4 lanes)
Connector-City streets serve “crosstown” trips connecting between a neighborhood or district and destinations in the City that are not in close proximity. Examples include Walnut and Orange Grove.
ConnectorNeighborhood
(2 or 3 lanes)
Connector-Neighborhood streets connect between neighborhoods and districts in Pasadena that are adjacent or in close proximity to each other. Examples include Linda Vista, Wilson, and Glenarm.
Access-Street
(2 lanes)
Access-Streets are typical local destination-serving streets with enough width that 18 or more feet is available for travel lanes between parked cars. This width allows cars to pass in opposite directions without having to yield. They are the majority of streets in the City.
Access-Yield
Access-Yield streets are local destination-serving streets with curb-to-curb widths less than 30 feet, where there is parking on two sides, or less than 22 feet where there is parking on only one side, resulting in the need of passing vehicles to yield to one another.
Access-Alley
Access-Alleys are streets that provide access predominantly to the rear of adjacent buildings for service purposes such as parking access, delivery, and trash collection. They typically do not provide the most desirable route for pedestrians, bicycles, private automobiles or trucks except when directly accessing a destination on that street.
Access-Shared
Access-Shared are shared streets, such as Mercantile Alley, where the street is designed to intentionally mix bike, pedestrian, delivery and local vehicular traffic in the same right-of-way in a shared condition in which bicycles and vehicles travel at a low speed and yield to pedestrians.
Source: City of Pasadena Draft Streets Types Plan.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
7 EXISTING TRANSIT NETWORK
The City of Pasadena includes a wide-ranging public transportation system, including local bus services, regional bus routes, and light rail. Figure 3 illustrates the existing transit network.
Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System
The Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System (ARTS) is the City’s local transit service, which provides service around Pasadena and local connections to the Metro Gold Line, Metro bus lines, LADOT Commuter Express lines, and Foothill Transit. It connects major destinations and employment centers in Pasadena, including Old Pasadena, the Art Center College of Design, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena City College, Huntington Hospital, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ARTS operates six fixed-route public transit bus routes; these are summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2 – ARTS ROUTES
Route Number Origin Destination Average Peak Headways
10 Old Pasadena Allen Station 25 minutes
20 Fair Oaks (loop route) Lake (loop route) 22 minutes
31/32 Northwest Pasadena Sierra Madre Villa Station 26 minutes 40 Old Pasadena Sierra Madre Villa Station 23 minutes
51/52 Linda Vista/Jet Propulsion Lab Art Center South Campus 42 minutes 60 Pasadena City College Hastings Ranch 47 minutes
Source: Pasadena ARTS 2013
The City of Pasadena also provides a paratransit service, Pasadena Dial-A-Ride, for seniors and passengers with disabilities. Dial-A-Ride provides service within Pasadena, San Marino, Altadena, and the nearby unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Metro operates thirteen bus routes that service local destinations in Pasadena. Metro operates nine local or shuttle bus routes, two local/express routes to Downtown Los Angeles, and two rapid routes. One of the local routes (#180/181) connects directly to the Red Line at Hollywood/Vine, one of the rapid routes (#780) connects to the Red Line in Hollywood, and seven of the routes connect to the Gold Line in Pasadena. The Metro routes that serve Pasadena are summarized in Table 3 below.
EXISTING (2013) TRANSIT NETWORK
FIGURE 3
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
Colorado Blvd
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pky
Sierra Madre Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Oak Grove Dr
Woodbury Rd
Rosemead Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
Colorado Blvd
New York Dr Lake Ave
Del Mar Blvd
California Blvd
Allen Ave
Marengo Ave
Hill Ave
Altadena Dr
El Molino Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Lincoln Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Washington Blvd
Walnut St
Fair Oaks Ave
Lombardy Rd
Madre St
Figueroa St
Lida St
M ar e n g o Ave
Rosemont Ave
Lake Ave
Michillinda Ave
Laguna Rd
Oak Knoll Cir
Seco St
Mendocino St
Mountain St
Windsor Ave
Terrace St
Michillinda Ave
Columbia St
O
Foothill Blvd range Grove Blvd
Arroyo Blvd
San Rafael Ave
Ventura St
Santa Anita Ave
W Altadena Dr
Maple St
Green St
Union St
Fremont Ave
Glenarm St
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
Not to Scale
N
Document Path: \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2619 - Pasadena TDF\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Figure0x_transit.mxd ·|þ}110
N
NOT TO SCALE
Legend
Transit Provider
LADOT Commuter Express
Montebello Bus Lines
South Pasadena Gold Link
Metro
Foothill Transit
!
! !
!
!
Pasadena ARTS
City of Pasadena
Glendale Bee Line
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
9 TABLE 3 – METRO BUS ROUTES
Route Service Dir. Service Route Avg. Peak
Headway
177 Local E-W Jet Propulsion Lab, Arroyo Parkway/Del Mar, Pasadena City College 30 min
180/181 Local E-W Hollywood/Vine Red Line Station, Glendale, Eagle Rock, Old Pasadena, Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line Station, Altadena 36 min 256 Local N-S Commerce, East Los Angeles, CSULA, El Sereno, Highland Park, Old Pasadena, Allen Station, Altadena 43 min
260 Local N-S Compton, Lynwood, Maywood, East Los Angeles, Alhambra, Old Pasadena, Altadena 17 min
264 Local E-W Altadena, Sierra Madre Villa Station, Arcadia, Duarte 51 min 267 Local N-S Altadena, Old Pasadena, Arcadia, El Monte 30 min 266 Local N-S Lakewood, Bellflower, Downey, Pico Rivera, South El Monte, Temple City, Sierra Madre Villa Station 37 min
268 Local N-S La Canada Flintridge, Altadena, Sierra Madre Villa Station, Arcadia, El Monte 31 min
485 Local /
Express N-S Downtown Los Angeles, Alhambra, South Pasadena, OldPasadena, Altadena 40 min 487 Local /
Express E-W Los Angeles, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre Villa Station, Arcadia, El Monte 23 min 686/687 Shuttle N-S Old Pasadena, Altadena, via Los Robles Ave (687) or Allen Ave (686) 40 min
762 Rapid N-S Compton, Lynwood, East Los Angeles, Alhambra, Old Pasadena 23 min
780 Rapid E-W
Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Hollywood, Glendale, Eagle Rock, Pasadena City College, California Institute of
Technology
13 min
LADOT Commuter Express
The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Commuter Express provides one bus route that connects Downtown Pasadena to several neighborhoods within Los Angeles and additional communities.
Commuter Express Route 549 provides express bus transit connection from Pasadena to cities to the west, including Glendale, Burbank, North Hollywood, Sherman Oaks, and Encino. The bus route operates during the morning and evening peak commute periods with 33 minute headways.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
10 South Pasadena Gold Link
The City of South Pasadena operates a shuttle, Gold Link, as part of their Community Transit services. The North Route connects the Gold Line station in South Pasadena to the City of Pasadena during weekday peak hours, with headways of 28 minutes.
Montebello Bus Lines
Montebello Bus Lines operates transit service within the City of Montebello and in the cities surrounding it, to the south of Pasadena. One bus line connects Pasadena to San Gabriel, Rosemead, South San Gabriel, Montebello, and Commerce. Line 20 operates on weekdays and weekends, with peak headways of 31 minutes.
Foothill Transit
Foothill Transit primarily operates transit service east of Pasadena. Two bus lines connect the City of Pasadena to the cities east of Pasadena: Arcadia, Duarte, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont, and Montclair. Line 187 runs on weekdays and weekends with peak headways of 24 minutes.
Line 690 is an express service that runs only on weekdays, westbound to Pasadena during the morning peak and eastbound from Pasadena during the evening peak, with headways of 20 minutes.
Glendale Beeline
The Glendale Beeline provides transit options throughout Glendale, near Pasadena. The Glendale Beeline operates one bus line that connects to Pasadena – Route 3 – which originates in Downtown Glendale and terminates at the Jet Propulsion Lab within the City of Pasadena. This bus route operates on weekdays and Saturdays, with peak headways of 20 minutes.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
11 BICYCLE NETWORK
The City of Pasadena has 18.6 miles of Class II bikeways, 25.1 miles of Class III bike routes, and 37.7 miles of enhanced bike routes, totaling an existing bikeway mileage of 81.4 miles.1 According to City of Pasadena Bicycle Transportation Plan (2012), Pasadena has five categories of bicycle facilities, each with their own design and operational components. Brief descriptions of each type of bicycle facility are provided below:
• Class I Bikeway – Referred to as a bike path, shared-use path, or multi-purpose trail, this bikeway provides a paved right-of-way that is completely separate from any street or highway. This facility may be shared with other non-motorized users.
• Class II Bikeway – Often referred to as a “bike lane,” this facility provides a striped and stenciled lane for one-way travel on a street or highway.
• Class III Bikeway – Often referred to as a “bike route,” this facility provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and is identified only by signage.
1 The information in this section is sourced from the City of Pasadena 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
12 • Enhanced Bike Route – Class III bike routes with “Share the Road” signs. Many of these enhanced bicycle routes also include a parking stripe at 9 feet which narrows the travel lane. • Emphasized Bikeways – Streets that serve as through-streets for bicycles, but not for motor vehicles.
These bikeways often include diverters to maintain a quiet setting for bicyclists.
In addition, Pasadena’s first bicycle boulevard opened on Marengo Boulevard in January 2013. Special bicycle signals at the intersections with Orange Grove Boulevard and Washington Boulevard alert bicyclists when it is their turn to enter the bicycle boulevard, while posted signs divert motorists from entering. The street is closed to vehicular through traffic, but still permits vehicular traffic that enters from side streets.
Table 4 provides an inventory of existing bikeways in Pasadena. These bike facilities are shown in Figure 4.
The City of Pasadena has been improving detection of bicycles at signalized intersections by adjusting the sensitivity of the vehicle detection equipment, and, where possible, installing video detection instead of loop detectors. A citywide bicycle parking effort is underway, with the installation of 300 bicycle parking racks and lockers at 235 locations including train stations, parks, libraries, along city streets, and near civic buildings. The City adds bicycle racks upon request.
To provide connections to other transportation modes, Metro buses, ARTS buses, and LADOT buses have bicycle racks on the front of each bus. Bicyclists are permitted to bring their bicycle on the Metro Gold Line.
At each of the six Gold Line stations in Pasadena, bicycle racks exist to for bicyclists who wish to lock up their bicycle instead of bringing it on the train. Bicycle lockers or a locked bicycle room exist at two of the six stations. At the Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line Station, bicyclists may join with carpools or vanpools at the park-and-ride facility.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
13 TABLE 4 – PASADENA BICYCLE FACILITIES
Street Origin Destination Facility Type
Howard Street/Elizabeth
Street
West Washington
Boulevard Eastern City Limit Class III
Lida Street
Western City Limit/Art
Center College of
Design
Linda Vista Avenue Class II, Class III
Washington Boulevard Rosemont Avenue Eastern City Limit Class III, Enhanced bike route
Mountain Street Lincoln Avenue Altadena Drive Class III Orange Grove Boulevard Columbia St Sierra Madre Villa
Avenue Enhanced bike route
Villa Street Lincoln Avenue Sierra Madre
Boulevard Enhanced bike route
St. John Avenue/Maple
Street
Sierra Madre
Boulevard Del Mar Boulevard Class II, some gaps
Pasadena
Avenue/Corson Street Glenarm Street Sierra Madre Boulevard Class II, some gaps Foothill Boulevard Altadena Drive Rosemead Boulevard Enhanced bike route Cordova Street Arroyo Parkway Hill Avenue Enhanced bike route Del Mar Boulevard Orange Grove
Boulevard Madre Street Class III, Enhanced bike route
Holliston Street/San
Pasqual Street Lake Avenue Eastern City Limit Class III California Boulevard Arroyo Boulevard Allen Avenue Class III, Enhanced bike route
Fillmore Street/
Arden Road
Fillmore Gold Line
Station Wilson Avenue Enhanced bike route
Glenarm Street Pasadena Avenue El Molino Avenue Class II, Class III Linda Vista Avenue Northern City Limits SR 134 Enhanced bike route Rose Bowl Loop Rosemont Avenue/W.
Washington Boulevard West Drive/Seco Street Class II, Class III Oak Grove Drive Berkshire Avenue Unincorporated
County Line Class II
Arroyo Boulevard I-210 Rosemont Avenue Class II, Class III Arroyo
Boulevard/California
Boulevard/Grand Avenue
Rosemont Avenue Columbia Street Class III
Casitas Avenue/Howard
Street/Forest
Avenue/Lincoln Avenue
Northern City Limit Maple Street Class III
Raymond Avenue Montana Street Maple Street Class II, Class III Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
14 Street Origin Destination Facility Type
Marengo Avenue Howard Street Glenarm Street Class II, Class III Los Robles Avenue Northern City Limit Southern City Limit Class III El Molino
Avenue/Madison Avenue Howard Street Fillmore Street Class III Lake Avenue Northern City Limit Arden Road Sharrows (Class III) Wilson Avenue Washington Boulevard Arden Road Enhanced bike route, Class III
Hill Avenue Northern City Limit California Boulevard Enhanced bike route Sierra Bonita Avenue Washington Boulevard Southern City Limit Class III Allen Avenue Northern City Limit California Boulevard Enhanced bike route Craig Street Mountain Avenue Southern City Limit Class III Altadena Drive/Santa
Anita Avenue Northern City Limit Del Mar Boulevard Enhanced bike route Sierra Madre Boulevard Eastern City Limit Del Mar Boulevard Class II New York Drive Western City Limit Sierra Madre
Boulevard Class II
Sierra Madre Villa
Avenue
Sierra Madre
Boulevard I-210 Enhanced bike route
Halstead Street Rosemead Boulevard End of street south of Foothill Boulevard
Enhanced bike route,
Class III
Rosemead Boulevard Sierra Madre
Boulevard Foothill Boulevard Enhanced bike route
Hastings Ranch Drive Sierra Madre
Boulevard Rosemead Boulevard Class III
EXISTING (2013) BICYCLE NETWORK
FIGURE 4
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
Colorado Blvd
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pky
Sierra Madre Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Oak Grove Dr
Woodbury Rd
Rosemead Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
Colorado Blvd
New York Dr Lake Ave
Del Mar Blvd
California Blvd
Allen Ave
Marengo Ave
Hill Ave
Altadena Dr
El Molino Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Lincoln Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Washington Blvd
Walnut St
Fair Oaks Ave
Lombardy Rd
Madre St
Figueroa St
Lida St
M ar e n g o Ave
Rosemont Ave
Lake Ave
Michillinda Ave
Laguna Rd
Oak Knoll Cir
Se co St
Mendocino St
Mountain St
Windsor Ave
Terrace St
Michillinda Ave
Columbia St
O
Foothill Blvd range Grove Blvd
Arroyo Blvd
San Rafael Ave
Ventura St
Santa Anita Ave
W Altadena Dr
Maple St
Green St
Union St
Fremont Ave
Glenarm St
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
Not to Scale
N
Document Path: \\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2619 - Pasadena TDF\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Figure0x_bikeways_v2.mxd ·|þ}110
N
NOT TO SCALE
Legend
Functional Classification
Freeway/Ramp
Class III Bike route
Class III Enhanced Bike Route
Bike Boulevard
Class II Bike Lane
!
! !
!
!
Other Street
City of Pasadena
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
16 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
The City of Pasadena adopted a Pedestrian Plan in 2006 which guides the preservation of pedestrian areas, the design and development of pedestrian-friendly projects, and the integration of pedestrian improvements into street maintenance and traffic management programs.2 The existing conditions within
the City include a connected network of pedestrian facilities, designated pedestrian-friendly zones, and upgraded traffic signal technology that better addresses the needs of pedestrians.
Pasadena’s connected network of pedestrian facilities includes sidewalk coverage, curb cuts, crosswalks, street lighting, landscaping, and signalized intersections. As of 2005, most intersections had curb cuts within the City of Pasadena, with the exception of some areas to the northwest and southwest where the topography is steeper. Similarly, most of the 296 signalized intersections exist in the central part of Pasadena, particularly in the downtown and Old Pasadena areas. Fewer signalized intersections are located to the west of downtown Pasadena. Over 57,000 trees line the streets of Pasadena, providing shade and a pleasant walking environment.
Designated pedestrian-friendly zones, such as the Transit Oriented Districts, cater to pedestrians and improve the walkability of the space around Metro Gold Line stations. Buildings, sidewalk lighting, and landscaping are designed to encourage walking between the transit stations and housing, shopping, employment, and recreation nearby. Six other specific plans also provide specific pedestrian-oriented guidelines for certain areas within the City of Pasadena. For example, sidewalk widths in the Central District are set at a minimum of 10-15 feet.
As part of the Pedestrian Plan, Pasadena is working to upgrade the traffic signals to address the needs of pedestrians, including older pedestrians and pedestrians with disabilities. These upgrades include setting the timing of the pedestrian phase to accommodate slower-than-average walking speeds, placing the activation buttons in an easy-to-reach location, and installing pedestrian heads, countdown pedestrian signals, and leading pedestrian phasing.
Pasadena also has a Suggested Routes to School program which focuses on the safety of children walking and biking to school. The 2006 Pedestrian Plan specifies the range of improvements that are prioritized around schools: in-pavement lighted crosswalks, new sidewalks, and new curb ramps.
2 The information in this section is sourced from the City of Pasadena 2006 Pedestrian Plan.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
17 3. Transportation Performance Measures – Definition and Methodology
Table 5 summarizes the transportation performance measures adopted by City Council, including the threshold established for determining a CEQA impact and the existing value of the metric. The following section provides a description of the methodology used for their calculation.
TABLE 5 – SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
METRIC DESCRIPTION IMPACT THRESHOLD EXISTING VALUE
VMT Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in
the City of Pasadena per service
population (population + jobs)
Any increase over existing
Citywide VMT per Capita 22.6 VMT per capita
VT Per Capita Vehicle Trips (VT) in the City of
Pasadena per service population
(population + jobs)
Any increase over existing
Citywide VT per Capita 2.8 VT per capita
Proximity and
Quality of Bicycle
Network
Percent of service population
(population plus jobs) located
within a quarter mile of each of
three bicycle facility types
Any decrease in the percent
of service population
(population plus jobs)
located within a quarter
mile of a Level 1 or Level 2
Bike Facility
31.7% of population and
jobs
Proximity and
Quality of Transit
Network
Percent of service population
(population plus jobs) located
within a quarter mile of each of
three transit facility types
Any decrease in the percent
of service population
(population plus jobs)
located within a quarter
mile of a Level 1 or Level 2
Transit Facility
66.6% of population and
jobs
Pedestrian
Accessibility
The Pedestrian Accessibility
Score uses the mix of
destinations and a networkbased walk-shed to evaluate
walkability
Any decrease from the
existing Citywide Pedestrian
Accessibility Score
C – 3.9 land use types
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013
DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
1. VMT per Capita
The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita measure sums the miles traveled for trips within the City of Pasadena citywide model. The Citywide VMT is calculated by adding: 1) 100 percent of the VMT traveled within the City of Pasadena boundaries associated with trips that are generated and/or attracted by the land uses within the City, and 2) 50 percent of the VMT traveled outside the City of Pasadena boundaries and associated with trips with one trip end (origin or destination) inside the City and one trip end outside Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
18 the City. The City’s VMT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs, to calculate VMT per Capita. Appendices A and B provide additional detail on the City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model, used to calculate VMT per Capita and VT per Capita (below).
Although VMT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents and workers, the City can reduce VMT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
2. VT per Capita
Vehicle Trips (VT) per Capita is a measure of motor vehicle trips associated with the City. The measure sums the trips with origins and destinations within the City of Pasadena, as generated by the trip-based citywide model. The regional VT is calculated by adding the VT associated with trips generated and attracted within the City of Pasadena boundaries and 50 percent of the VT associated with trips that either begin or end in the City, but have one trip end outside of the City. The City’s VT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs, to calculate VT per Capita.
As with VMT, VT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents and workers, but the City can reduce VT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance of home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.
3. Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
The Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population plus jobs) within a quarter mile of each of three bicycle facility types. The facility types are aggregated into three hierarchy levels, obtained from the City’s 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan categories as shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6 – BIKE FACILITIES HIERARCHY
LEVEL DESCRIPTION FACILITIES INCLUDED
1 Advanced Facilities Bike Paths (P1)
Multipurpose Paths (PP)
Cycle Tracks / Protected Bike Lanes
2 Dedicated Facilities Buffered Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes (2, P2)
Bike Boulevards (BB)
3 Basic Facilities Bike Routes (3, P3)
Enhanced Bike Routes (E3, PE3)
Emphasized Bikeways (PEB)
Source: City of Pasadena Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2012.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
19 For each facility level, a quarter-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total population and jobs within the buffer are added.
The City can improve measures of bike facility access by improving and expanding existing bike facilities and encouraging residential and commercial development in areas with high-quality bike facilities.
4. Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
The Proximity and Quality of Transit Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s population and jobs within a quarter mile of each of three transit facility types, as defined in the Draft Streets Types Plan and in Table 7.
TABLE 7 – TRANSIT FACILITIES HIERARCHY
LEVEL FACILITIES INCLUDED
1 Includes all Gold Line stops as well as corridors with transit service, whether it be a single route or multiple routes combined, with headways of five minutes or less during the peak periods. 2 Includes corridors with transit headways of between six and fifteen minutes in peak periods. 3 Includes corridors with transit headways of sixteen minutes or more in peak periods.
Source: Draft Streets Types Plan, Pasadena Department of Transportation, March 2013.
For each facility level, a quarter-mile network distance buffer is calculated and the total population and jobs within the buffer are added.
The City can improve the measures of Transit Proximity and Quality by reducing headways on existing transit routes, by expanding transit routes to cover new areas, and by encouraging residential and commercial development to occur in areas with an already high-quality transit service.
5. Pedestrian Accessibility
The Proximity and Quality of Pedestrian Environment provides a measure of the average walkability in the TAZ surrounding Pasadena residents, based on a Pedestrian Accessibility Score. The Pedestrian Accessibility Score is a simple count of the number of land use types accessible to a Pasadena resident or worker in a given TAZ within a 5-minute walk. The ten categories of land uses are:
• Retail
• Personal Services
• Restaurant
• Entertainment
• Office (including private sector and government offices) • Medical (including medical office and hospital uses)
• Culture (including religious and other cultural uses) • Park
• School (including elementary and high schools)
• College
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
20 The resulting count of land use types is then assigned a letter grade from A to D based on the following structure:
• A – greater than or equal to 8 land use types
• B – greater than or equal to 5 land use types and less than 8 land use types • C – greater than or equal to 2 land use types and less than 5 land use types • D – greater than or equal to 0 land use types and less than 2 land use types The City can improve the Proximity and Quality of Pedestrian Environment scores by:
• Encouraging residential development in areas with high existing Pedestrian Accessibility Scores; • Encouraging commercial development in areas with high existing Pedestrian Accessibility Scores; and
• Attracting mixed development and new land use types to increase the Pedestrian Accessibility metric values of adjacent areas.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
21 4. Analysis Scenarios
The Pasadena General Plan Update explores a Preferred General Plan and four land use alternatives, including a No Project Alternative. This report also compares these scenarios to existing conditions. Table 8 presents a comparison of land use, population, and employment totals. The six analysis scenarios are described below.
TABLE 8 – LAND USE DATA SCENARIO COMPARISON
Land Use Units1
Scenario 1
Existing
Scenario 2
No Project
Scenario 3
Preferred General
Plan
Scenario 4
Central District,
South Fair Oaks,
Lincoln Avenue
Scenario 5
Efficient
Transportation
Scenario 6
Reduced Air
Quality and
Noise Impact
Single Family DU 21,438 21,441 21,166 21,150 21,166 21,166 Multi Family DU 36,000 42,167 48,815 47,019 48,775 48,940 Senior DU DU 2,203 2,508 1,972 1,972 1,972 1,972
Total DU DU 59,641 66,116 71,953 70,141 71,913 72,078
Lodging KSF 1,185 1,203 1,525 1,525 1,525 1,525
Retail KSF 7,178 13,667 10,577 10,062 10,167 11,050
Personal Services KSF 578 505 779 723 747 836
Restaurant KSF 849 1,992 1,029 975 1,001 1,096
Entertainment KSF 1,340 1,180 1,186 1,186 1,186 1,186
Automotive Related KSF 1,432 470 904 904 904 904
Office KSF 13,624 22,055 22,440 21,412 22,161 22,734
Medical Office KSF 1,078 523 2,081 1,937 2,054 1,503
Government Office KSF 1,012 1,183 1,026 1,026 1,026 1,026 Hospital KSF 2,092 2,051 2,284 2,284 2,284 2,284
Religious Facilities KSF 1,966 1,796 1,796 1,796 1,796 1,796 Cultural KSF 703 783 783 783 783 783
Police and Fire KSF 130 88 88 88 88 88
Park & Recreational Acres 833 832 836 836 836 836
Industrial KSF 4,569 2,567 2,226 2,260 2,119 2,117
Utility Facilities Acres 125 110 110 110 110 110
Population People 135,938 153,463 163,411 159,628 163,456 163,561 Employment Jobs 111,348 148,532 151,671 146,023 149,345 151,444 Service Population2 People 247,286 301,996 315,082 305,651 312,801 315,005 Note: [1] DU – Dwelling Units; KSF – Thousand Square Feet; [2] Service Population = Population + Employment Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
22 SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS
Future Transportation Network and Service Assumptions
In addition to the land use differences described below, all future scenarios (Scenarios 2 through 6) assume the following transportation network and service changes within the City of Pasadena:
• Roadway – Programmed improvements to the roadway network include projects of regional significance as well as local roadway improvements within the City. The only regional project in the model area is the completion of the I-710 Corridor Project, an eight-lane, tunneled extension of the I-710 freeway that connects with I-210. Within the City of Pasadena, three bike lanes will be installed, each of which will remove one lane of vehicle capacity in each direction:
o Washington Boulevard between Altadena Drive and Sierra Madre Boulevard o Orange Grove Boulevard between Allen Avenue and Sierra Madre Villa Avenue o Cordova Street between Marengo Avenue and Hudson Avenue • Bikeways – Figure 5 illustrates the future bike network assumptions. • Travel Demand Management – The City of Pasadena has a TDM ordinance that requires some new developments to implement strategies to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated. Multifamily residential developments of 100 units or more, mixed-use developments with 50 or more residential units or 50,000 square feet or more of non-residential development, and nonresidential projects which exceed 75,000 square feet require TDM measures. Since the ordinance allows for a wide range of TDM strategies, a set of generic TDM measures have been assumed in all future scenarios to reflect the implementation of various programs. These strategies are implemented through the Mode Shift Analysis Tool (MSAT) which is described in detail in the model development reports in Appendices A and B. The following strategies are applied to new development trips to reduce the number of vehicle trips:
o Employer vanpool and shuttle programs to encourage shift from single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to high occupancy vehicles (HOVs)
o Employee ride share programs to further increase HOV mode share o Limiting parking supply citywide
o Continuing to increase on-street parking prices in Downtown Pasadena to competitively price parking supply
• Transit – The MSAT tool also quantifies the benefits of enhancement to the transit network and calculates the decrease in vehicle travel due to additional transit ridership. The following improvements are coded into all future scenarios:
o All Pasadena ARTS buses (see Table 2) will run at 10-minute headways during peak periods. o Expansion of the Gold Line Phase 2 from Pasadena to Azsuza and Montclair Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
NewYork Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni co nl Ave
N FigueroaSt
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
LidaSt
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorado Blvd
Virginia Rd
MountWilson Red Box Rd
laLoma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo Blvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
EChevyChase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Al el n Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr VenturaSt
N San Gabriel Blvd
S Michill ni da Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
S Michillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
\\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F5_2035BikeNetwork.mxd 2035 Bicycle Network
Figure 5
Bicycle Facilities Hierarchy
11%
55%
24%
10%
Level 1 - Advanced Facilities
Includes BikePaths (P1),MultipurposePaths(PP),CycleTracks/Protected Bike Lanes Level 2 - Dedicated Facilities
Includes Buffered BikeLanes, BikeLanes (2,P2), Bike Boulevards (BB) Level 3 - BasicFacilities
Includes Bike Routes (3,P3),Enhanced Bike Routes (E3,PE3),Emphasized Bikeways (PEB) Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
24 Buildout of the Circulation network assumes the transportation network and service changes described above. All improvements within the City are funded through the City’s transportation fee program with the exception of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. However, policies have been included in the General Plan Update to ensure adequate funding of the City’s circulation network. Proposed General Plan Policy
1.30 requires the City to pursue funding opportunities such as grants, impact fees or fair share contributions from development to implement programs and projects that contribute to the City’s Mobility Element objectives. Additionally, the funding of pedestrian and bicycle improvements would be accomplished with Policy 2.10 which requires the City to amend the existing transportation impact fee to include pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Without full funding of citywide circulation improvements there would be a significant impact.
Scenario 1 – Existing Conditions
Scenario 1 represents existing conditions in the City of Pasadena according to year 2013 land use data maintained by the City. These land use data include an estimated 111,300 jobs and a population of 135,900, a total service population of 247,300 within the City boundaries.
Scenario 2 – No Project Alternative
Scenario 2, the No Project Alternative, represents the build out of the City’s existing (2004) General Plan in year 2035. This scenario includes 148,500 jobs (33 percent more than Existing Conditions) and a population of 153,500 (13 percent more than Existing Conditions), a total service population of 302,000 (22 percent more than Existing Conditions) within the City boundaries.
Scenario 3 – Preferred General Plan
Scenario 3 represents the build out of the Preferred General Plan in year 2035. The General Plan was developed based on a set of guiding principles that were established through a process of over 100 meetings and events held to identify community concerns and issues. This scenario includes 151,700 jobs (6 percent more than the existing General Plan) and a population of 163,400 (2 percent more than the existing General Plan), a total service population of 315,100 (4 percent more than the existing General Plan) within the City boundaries.
Scenario 4 – Central District, South Fair Oaks, Lincoln Avenue Alternative Based on direction from City Council, Staff prepared an alternative that reduced the development caps for the Central District, South Fair Oaks, and Lincoln Avenue Specific Plans to the level recommended by the Planning Commission. This scenario includes 146,000 jobs (2 percent less than the existing General Plan) and a population of 159,600 (4 percent more than the existing General Plan), a total service population of 305,600 (1 percent more than the existing General Plan) within the City boundaries.
Scenario 5 – Efficient Transportation Alternative
Based on direction from the Transportation Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission, Staff prepared an Efficient Transportation Alternative to look at ways of improving the efficiency of the transportation network by reducing VMT per capita. This scenario includes 149,300 jobs (1 percent more than the existing General Plan) and a population of 163,500 (7 percent more than the existing General Plan), Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
25 a total service population of 312,800 (4 percent more than the existing General Plan) within the City boundaries.
Scenario 6 – Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact Alternative Staff prepared the Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact Alternative to address concerns that air quality and noise impacts are higher adjacent to freeways and increase significantly when freeways are above ground. The Alternative modifies land use designations within approximately 350 feet of above-ground freeways by changing multi-family designations to single-family and changing mixed-use designations to a similarly dense and exclusively commercial designation. This scenario includes 151,400 jobs (2 percent more than the existing General Plan) and a population of 163,600 (7 percent more than the existing General Plan), a total service population of 315,000 (4 percent more than the existing General Plan) within the City boundaries.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
26 5. Performance Measure Results
This chapter summarizes the results of the five performance measures defined in Chapter 3 for the six scenarios defined in Chapter 4.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) PER CAPITA AND VEHICLE TRIPS (VT) PER CAPITA Under existing conditions, the City’s service population (population plus jobs) of 247,00 drives 5,591,000 vehicle miles (VMT) and makes 687,000 vehicle trips (VT), equivalent to 22.6 VMT per capita and 2.8 VT per capita. Under Scenario 2 (No Project) conditions, service population increases by 22 percent to 302,000; VMT increases by an even higher 25 percent to 7,005,000, while VT increases by a lower-than-proportional rate of 20 percent to 821,000. As a result, VMT per capita under Scenario 2 conditions is higher than under Scenario 1 conditions, while VT per capita is lower. Because its VMT per capita would be higher than the value for existing conditions, Scenario 2 (No Project) would result in a significant impact under the VMT per capita measure.
In all other future scenarios, including the Preferred General Plan, both VMT per capita and VT per capita are lower than under Existing conditions. Under Scenario 3 (Preferred General Plan) conditions, service population increases by 27 percent, while VMT and VT increase by only 25 percent and 19 percent, respectively. No impact is anticipated in Scenarios 3 through 6.
Table 9 summarizes the citywide per-capita VMT and VT results by scenario.
TABLE 9 – VMT AND VT PER CAPITA
Scenario Population Employment
Service
Population VMT VT
VMT per
Capita
VT per
Capita
Scenario 1
Existing 135,938 111,348 247,286 5,591,328 686,619 22.6 2.8 Scenario 2
No Project
153,463 148,532 301,996 7,004,912 755,006 23.2* 2.5
Scenario 3
Preferred General
Plan
163,411 151,671 315,082 6,963,476 764,869 22.1 2.4
Scenario 4
Central District,
South Fair Oaks,
Lincoln Avenue
159,628 146,023 305,651 6,780,985 749,000 22.2 2.5
Scenario 5
Efficient
Transportation
163,456 149,345 312,801 6,893,934 759,044 22.0 2.4
Scenario 6
Reduced Air Quality
and Noise Impact
163,561 151,444 315,005 6,988,992 764,129 22.2 2.4
*Impact is indicated in bold.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
27 PROXIMITY AND QUALITY OF BICYCLE NETWORK
All future scenarios (Scenarios 2 through 6) experience a substantial increase in higher-quality bicycle facility coverage relative to Existing Conditions, resulting from the future improvements illustrated in Figure 5.
Primarily due to this increase in bicycle facilities, but also due to increased land use densities near existing bicycle facilities, the percent of total service population within a quarter mile of Level 1 or 2 bicycle facilities increases in all future scenarios relative to Existing Conditions. No impact is anticipated in Scenarios 2 through 6. Table 10 summarizes the service population and percent of total service population within a quarter mile of Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 bicycle facilities. Figures 6 through 11 illustrate the quarter mile facility coverage and service population density for each scenario.
TABLE 10 – PROXIMITY AND QUALITY OF BICYCLE NETWORK
Scenario Total Service
Population
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Service
Population
Percent of
Total
Service
Population
Percent of
Total
Service
Population
Percent of
Total
Scenario 1
Existing
247,286 0 0.0% 78,415 31.7% 123,670 50.0%
Scenario 2
No Project 301,996 45,415 15.0% 166,596 55.2% 61,018 20.2% Scenario 3
Preferred General Plan
315,082 48,043 15.2% 172,756 54.8% 64,216 20.4%
Scenario 4
Central District, South
Fair Oaks, Lincoln Avenue
305,651 44,982 14.7% 169,525 55.5% 61,606 20.2%
Scenario 5
Efficient Transportation
312,801 47,958 15.3% 170,772 54.6% 64,076 20.5%
Scenario 6
Reduced Air Quality and
Noise Impact
315,005 48,363 15.4% 173,011 54.9% 63,257 20.1%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
NewYork Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual St
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni co nl Ave
N FigueroaSt
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
LidaSt
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorado Blvd
Virginia Rd
MountWilson Red Box Rd
laLoma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo Blvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
EChevyChase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Al el n Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr VenturaSt
N San Gabriel Blvd
S Michill ni da Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
S Michillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|þ}134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F6_Bike_2013popemp_ExistingSc1.mxd Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2013 Population and Employment
Existing - Scenario 1
Figure 6
Note:Level1facilitiesarebikepaths, multipurposepaths, cycletracks/protectedbikelanes.
Level2facilitiesarebufferedbikelanes, bike lanes,andbikeboulevards.
Level3facilitiesarebike routes,enhancedbike routes,andemphasizedbikeways.
Level 2
0-30
31-60
61-120
121-200
> 200
Level 3
0-30
31-60
61-120
121-200
> 200
Population and Employee Density(person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Existing Level 3
Existing Level 2
32%
50%
18%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni coln Ave
N Figueroa St
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
Lida St
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorad o Blvd
Virginia Rd
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
la Loma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo B lvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
E Chevy Chase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Allen Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F7_Bike_2035popemp_NoPrjSc2.mxd Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2035 Population and Employment
No Project Alternative - Scenario 2
Figure 7
Note: Level1facilities arebikepaths, multipurposepaths, cycle tracks/protected bike lanes.
Level2facilities arebufferedbike lanes, bike lanes,andbikeboulevards.
Level3facilities arebikeroutes,enhanced bike routes,andemphasized bikeways.
Level 1
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Level 2
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Level 3
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Existing Level 3
Existing Level 2
Existing Level 1
15%
55%
20%
10%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni coln Ave
N Figueroa St
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
Lida St
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorad o Blvd
Virginia Rd
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
la Loma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo B lvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
E Chevy Chase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Allen Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F8_Bike_2035popemp_PrefGPSc3.mxd Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2035 Population and Employment
Preferred General Plan - Scenario 3
Figure 8
Note: Level1facilities arebikepaths, multipurposepaths, cycle tracks/protected bike lanes.
Level2facilities arebufferedbike lanes, bike lanes,andbikeboulevards.
Level3facilities arebikeroutes,enhanced bike routes,andemphasized bikeways.
Level 1
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Level 2
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Level 3
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Existing Level 3
Existing Level 2
Existing Level 1
15%
55%
20%
10%
E del Mar Blvd
E California Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
E Mountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual St
E Washington Blvd
LindaVistaAve
E Foothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni co nl Ave
N
Figueroa St
N Los Rob el s Ave
MeridianSt
S Los Rob el s Ave
Duarte Rd
LidaSt
Madre St
Foothill Blvd
ColoradoBlvd
Virginia Rd
MountWilsonRedBoxRd
laLomaRd
Longden Ave
NArroyoBlvd
S Lake Ave
HighlandDr
Mission St
SArroyoBlvd
MontereyRd
CrownAve
YosemiteDr
E Sierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
E Woodbury Rd
EChevyChaseDr
E Mendocino St
S Hill Ave
BerkshireAve
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Al el n Ave
W Altadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrestDr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
S M ci hill ni da Ave
E Loma Alta Dr
NRosemeadBlvd
N Allen Ave
W del Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N
Marengo
Ave
W Green St
W Grandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
E Walnut St
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N
Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillindaAve
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
1 ·|þ}34
\\fpla1\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F9_Bike_2035popemp_CtrlSFairLincSc4.mxd Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2035 Population and Employment
Central District, South Fair Oaks, Lincoln Avenue Alternative - Scenario 4 Figure 9
Note: Level 1 facilities are bike paths, multipurpose paths, cycle tracks/protected bike lanes.
Level 2 facilities are buffered bike lanes, bike lanes, and bike boulevards.
Level 3 facilities are bike routes, enhanced bike routes, and emphasized bikeways.
Level 1
0 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 120
121 - 200
> 200
Level 2
0 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 120
121 - 200
> 200
Level 3
0 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 120
121 - 200
> 200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Population and Employees (% of City Total)
Outside Areas
Existing Level 3
Existing Level 2
Existing Level 1
15%
55%
20%
10%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni coln Ave
N Figueroa St
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
Lida St
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorad o Blvd
Virginia Rd
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
la Loma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo B lvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
E Chevy Chase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Allen Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F10_Bike_2035popemp_EffTransportAltSc5.mxd Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2035 Population and Employment
Efficient Transportation Alternative - Scenario 5
Figure 10
Note: Level1facilities arebikepaths, multipurposepaths, cycle tracks/protected bike lanes.
Level2facilities arebufferedbike lanes, bike lanes,andbikeboulevards.
Level3facilities arebikeroutes,enhanced bike routes,andemphasized bikeways.
Level 1
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Level 2
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Level 3
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Existing Level 3
Existing Level 2
Existing Level 1
15%
55%
20%
10%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni coln Ave
N Figueroa St
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
Lida St
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorad o Blvd
Virginia Rd
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
la Loma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo B lvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
E Chevy Chase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Allen Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F11_Bike_2035popemp_AirQual_NoiseImpSc6.mxd Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2035 Population and Employment
Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact Alternative - Scenario 6 Figure 11
Note: Level1facilities arebikepaths, multipurposepaths, cycle tracks/protected bike lanes.
Level2facilities arebufferedbike lanes, bike lanes,andbikeboulevards.
Level3facilities arebikeroutes,enhanced bike routes,andemphasized bikeways.
Level 1
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Level 2
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Level 3
0-30
31- 60
61- 120
121 -200
> 200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Existing Level 3
Existing Level 2
Existing Level 1
15%
55%
20%
10%
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
34 PROXIMITY AND QUALITY OF TRANSIT NETWORK
All future scenarios (Scenarios 2 through 6) experience a substantial increase in higher-quality transit service coverage relative to Existing Conditions, resulting from the increase in peak headways on all ARTS buses.
Primarily due to this service increase, but also due to increased land use densities near existing highfrequency transit service, the percent of total service population within a quarter mile of Level 1 or 2 transit facilities increases in all future scenarios relative to Existing Conditions. No impact is anticipated in Scenarios 2 through 6. Table 11 summarizes the service population and percent of total service population within a quarter mile of Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 transit facilities. Figures 12 through 17 illustrate the quarter mile facility coverage and service population density for each scenario.
TABLE 11 – PROXIMITY AND QUALITY OF TRANSIT NETWORK
Scenario
Total
Service
Population
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Service
Population
Percent of
Total
Service
Population
Percent of
Total
Service
Population
Percent of
Total
Scenario 1
Existing
247,286 90,600 36.6% 74,298 30.0% 50,495 20.4%
Scenario 2
No Project 301,996 149,298 49.4% 69,136 22.9% 46,624 15.4% Scenario 3
Preferred General Plan
315,082 158,321 50.2% 71,413 22.7% 48,219 15.3%
Scenario 4
Central District, South
Fair Oaks, Lincoln Avenue
305,651 150,963 49.3% 70,467 23.1% 47,567 15.6%
Scenario 5
Efficient Transportation
312,801 157,201 50.3% 70,679 22.6% 47,907 15.3%
Scenario 6
Reduced Air Quality and
Noise Impact
315,005 159,357 50.6% 70,582 22.4% 48,004 15.2%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni coln Ave
N Figueroa St
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
Lida St
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorad o Blvd
Virginia Rd
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
la Loma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo B lvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
E Chevy Chase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Allen Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F12_TransExLev_popemp_Sc1.mxd Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2013 Population and Employment
Existing - Scenario 1
Figure 12
Note: Level1facilities include Metro GoldLinestationsand street segments with combined headwaysof5 minutes or less. Level2facilities include streetsegments with combinedbus headwaysof6to15 minutes.
Level3facilities include street segments with headwaysofmorethan 15 minutes.
Level 1
0 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 120
121 - 200
> 200
Level 2
0 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 120
121 - 200
> 200
Level 3
0 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 120
121 - 200
> 200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Existing Level 3
Existing Level 2
Existing Level 1
30%
20%
13%
37%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni coln Ave
N Figueroa St
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
Lida St
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorad o Blvd
Virginia Rd
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
la Loma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo B lvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
E Chevy Chase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Allen Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F13_Trans2035_popemp_NoPrjSc2.mxd Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2035 Population and Employment
No Project Alternative - Scenario 2
Figure 13
Note: Level1facilities include Metro GoldLinestationsand street segments with combined headwaysof5 minutes or less. Level2facilities include streetsegments with combinedbus headwaysof5to15 minutes.
Level3facilities include street segments with headwaysofmorethan 15 minutes.
Level 3
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Level 2
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Level 1
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Future Level 3
Future Level 2
Future Level 1
23%
15%
12%
49%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni coln Ave
N Figueroa St
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
Lida St
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorad o Blvd
Virginia Rd
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
la Loma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo B lvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
E Chevy Chase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Allen Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F14_Trans2035_popemp_PrefGPSc3.mxd Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2035 Population and Employment
Preferred General Plan - Scenario 3
Figure 14
Note: Level1facilities include Metro GoldLinestationsand street segments with combined headwaysof5 minutes or less. Level2facilities include streetsegments with combinedbus headwaysof5to15 minutes.
Level3facilities include street segments with headwaysofmorethan 15 minutes.
Level 1
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Level 2
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Level 3
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Future Level 3
Future Level 2
Future Level 1
23%
15%
12%
50%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni coln Ave
N Figueroa St
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
Lida St
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorad o Blvd
Virginia Rd
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
la Loma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo B lvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
E Chevy Chase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Allen Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F15_Trans2035_popemp_CtrlSFairLincSc4.mxd Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2035 Population and Employment
Central District, South Fair Oaks, Lincoln Avenue Alternative - Scenario 4 Figure 15
Note: Level1facilities include Metro GoldLinestationsand street segments with combined headwaysof5 minutes or less. Level2facilities include streetsegments with combinedbus headwaysof5to15 minutes.
Level3facilities include street segments with headwaysofmorethan 15 minutes.
Level 1
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Level 2
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Level 3
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Future Level 3
Future Level 2
Future Level 1
23%
16%
12%
49%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni coln Ave
N Figueroa St
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
Lida St
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorad o Blvd
Virginia Rd
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
la Loma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo B lvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
E Chevy Chase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Allen Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F16_Trans2035_popemp_EffTransportAltSc5.mxd Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2035 Population and Employment
Efficient Transportation Alternative - Scenario 5
Figure 16
Note: Level1facilities include Metro GoldLinestationsand street segments with combined headwaysof5 minutes or less. Level2facilities include streetsegments with combinedbus headwaysof5to15 minutes.
Level3facilities include street segments with headwaysofmorethan 15 minutes.
Level 1
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Level 2
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Level 3
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Future Level 3
Future Level 2
Future Level 1
23%
15%
12%
50%
Edel Mar Blvd
ECalifornia Blvd
N Lake Ave
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Hill Ave
EMountain St
New York Dr
N Altadena Dr
E Orange Grove Blvd
San PasqualSt
EWashington Blvd
Linda Vista Ave
EFoothill Blvd
E Green St
L ni coln Ave
N Figueroa St
N Los Robles Ave
Meridian St
SLos Robles Ave
Duarte Rd
Lida St
MadreSt
Foothill Blvd
Colorad o Blvd
Virginia Rd
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
la Loma Rd
Longden Ave
N Arroyo B lvd
SLake Ave
Highland Dr
Mission St
S Arroyo Blvd
Monterey Rd
Crown Ave
Yosemite Dr
ESierra Madre Blvd
Huntington Dr
EWoodbury Rd
E Chevy Chase Dr
EMendocinoSt
S Hill Ave
Berksh ire Ave
S Orange Grove Blvd
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
S Allen Ave
WAltadena Dr
del Mar Ave
StarlightCrest Dr Ventura St
N San Gabriel Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
ELoma Alta Dr
N Rosemead Blvd
N Allen Ave
Wdel Mar Blvd
Arroyo Dr
N Marengo Ave
WGreen St
WGrandview Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
EWalnutSt
Oak Grove Ave
Ave 64
N Fair Oaks Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd
SMichillinda Ave
Lake Ave
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
·|}þ134
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F17_Trans2035_popemp_AirQual_NoiseImpSc6.mxd Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
1/4 Mile Area - 2035 Population and Employment
Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact Alternative - Scenario 6 Figure 17
Note: Level1facilities include Metro GoldLinestationsand street segments with combined headwaysof5 minutes or less. Level2facilities include streetsegments with combinedbus headwaysof5to15 minutes.
Level3facilities include street segments with headwaysofmorethan 15 minutes.
Level 1
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Level 2
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Level 3
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 120
120 - 200
>200
Population and Employee Density (person/acre)
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Population and Employees(% ofCityTotal)
Outside Areas
Future Level 3
Future Level 2
Future Level 1
22%
15%
12%
51%
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
41 PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY
All future scenarios (Scenarios 2 through 6) experience an increase in the Pedestrian Accessibility Score, primarily due to an increased diversity of land uses in development areas; however, Scenario 2 – the existing General Plan – receives only a slightly higher score (4.2 or “C”) than Existing Conditions (3.9, also “C”).
Scenarios 3 through 6 receive scores of “B,” reflecting improved land use diversity over Existing conditions and the existing General Plan. No impact is anticipated in Scenarios 2 through 6. Table 12 summarizes the Weighted Pedestrian Accessibility Score – a service population-weighted average of the TAZ-level Pedestrian Accessibility Scores throughout the City – for the six scenarios. For each scenario, Figures 18 through 23 illustrate the Pedestrian Accessibility Score by TAZ as well as the service population that experiences that score (inset maps), informing the calculation of the citywide Weighted Pedestrian Accessibility Score.
TABLE 12 – PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY SCORE
Scenario Weighted Pedestrian Accessibility Score*
Scenario 1
Existing
3.9 (C)
Scenario 2
No Project
4.2 (C)
Scenario 3
Preferred General Plan
5.1 (B)
Scenario 4
Central District, South Fair Oaks, Lincoln
Avenue
5.1 (B)
Scenario 5
Efficient Transportation
5.1 (B)
Scenario 6
Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact
5.0 (B)
*Weighted Pedestrian Accessiblity Score (PAS) is calculated as the average of the PAS of each TAZ, weighted by service population.
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
Huntington Dr
Colorado Blvd
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pky
Colorado St
York Blvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Meridian Ave
Oa k Grove Dr
Woodbury Rd
Ro semead B vl d
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
Colorado Blvd
L
New York Dr ake Ave
Del Mar Blvd
California Blvd
Allen Ave
Monterey Rd
Marengo Ave
Hill Ave
Altadena D
E
r
l Molino Ave
Lin da Vis ta Ave
Lincoln Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Washington Blvd
Walnut St
Fair Oaks Ave
Avenu e 64
Lombardy Rd
Madre St
Figueroa St
Lid a St
Maer ngoAve
Vir ginia Rd
Rosemont Ave
Lake Ave
H ighland Dr
Baldwin Ave
Ar ro yo Dr
E Ch evy Chase Dr
Michillinda Ave
La guna Rd
Oak Knoll Cir
Se c o St
Mendocino St
Mountain St
Grandview Ave
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
Terrace St
Michillinda Ave
Columbia St
Foothill Blvd
Fair Oaks Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Arroyo Blvd
L in daVis ta Rd
Bri de well St
San Rafael Ave
Loma Alta Dr
Ventura St
Explorer Rd
Santa Anita Ave
W
Altadena Dr
Maple St Baldwin Ave
Green St
Union St
Fremont Ave
Glenarm St
Height of the polygon indicates
the service population, defined as
population plus employment.
Pedestrian Accessibility
Land Use Types Accessible Within a 5-minute Walk
Existing - Scenario 1
Figure 18
Pedestrian Accessibility
0 1
2 4
3 5
6 7
8 9
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F18_Existing_PedAccess_Sc1.mxd !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
Huntington Dr
Colorado Blvd
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pky
Colorado St
York Blvd
Sierr a Madre Blvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Meridian Ave
Oa k Grove Dr
Woodbury Rd
Ro s emead B vl d
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
Colorado Blvd
L
New York Dr ake Ave
Del Mar Blvd
California Blvd
Allen Ave
Monterey Rd
Marengo Ave
Hill Ave
Altadena D
E
r
l Molino Ave
Lin da Vis ta Ave
Lincoln Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Washington Blvd
Walnut St
Fair Oaks Ave
Avenue 64
Lombardy Rd
Madre St
Figueroa St
Lid a St
Maer ngoAve
Vir ginia Rd
Rosemont Ave
Lake Ave
Highland Dr
Baldwin Ave
Ar ro yo Dr
E Ch evy Chase Dr
Michillinda Ave
La guna Rd
Oak Knoll Cir
Se c o St
Mendocino St
Mountain St
Grandview Ave
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
Terrace St
Michillinda Ave
Columbia St
Foothill Blvd
Fair Oaks Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Arroyo Blvd
L in daVis ta Rd
Bride well St
San Rafael Ave
Loma Alta Dr
Ventura St
Explorer Rd
Santa Anita Ave
W Altadena Dr
Maple St Baldwin Ave
Green St
Union St
Fremont Ave
Glenarm St
Height of the polygon indicates
the service population, defined as
population plus employment.
Pedestrian Accessibility
Land Use Types Accessible Within a 5-minute Walk
No Project Alternative - Scenario 2
Figure 19
Pedestrian Accessibility
0 1
2 4
3 5
6 7
8 9
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F19_No Project Alternative_Sc2.mxd !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
Huntington Dr
Colorado Blvd
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pky
Colorado St
York Blvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Meridian Ave
Oa k Grove Dr
Woodbury Rd
Ro semead B vl d
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
Colorado Blvd
L
New York Dr ake Ave
Del Mar Blvd
California Blvd
Allen Ave
Monterey Rd
Marengo Ave
Hill Ave
Altadena D
E
r
l Molino Ave
Lin da Vis ta Ave
Lincoln Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Washington Blvd
Walnut St
Fair Oaks Ave
Avenu e 64
Lombardy Rd
Madre St
Figueroa St
Lid a St
Maer ngoAve
Vir ginia Rd
Rosemont Ave
Lake Ave
H ighland Dr
Baldwin Ave
Ar ro yo Dr
E Ch evy Chase Dr
Michillinda Ave
La guna Rd
Oak Knoll Cir
Se c o St
Mendocino St
Mountain St
Grandview Ave
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
Terrace St
Michillinda Ave
Columbia St
Foothill Blvd
Fair Oaks Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Arroyo Blvd
L in daVis ta Rd
Bri de well St
San Rafael Ave
Loma Alta Dr
Ventura St
Explorer Rd
Santa Anita Ave
W
Altadena Dr
Maple St Baldwin Ave
Green St
Union St
Fremont Ave
Glenarm St
Height of the polygon indicates
the service population, defined as
population plus employment.
Pedestrian Accessibility
Land Use Types Accessible Within a 5-minute Walk
Preferred General Plan - Scenario 3
Figure 20
Pedestrian Accessibility
0 1
2 4
3 5
6 7
8 9
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F20_Preferred General Plan_Sc3.mxd !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Huntington Dr
Colorado Blvd
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pky
Colorado St
York Blvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Meridian Ave
Oa k Grove Dr
Woodbury Rd
Ro semead B vl d
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
Colorado Blvd
L
New York Dr
ake Ave
Del Mar Blvd
California Blvd
Allen Ave
Monterey Rd
Marengo Ave
Hill Ave
Altadena D
E
r
l Molino Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Lincoln Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Washington Blvd
Walnut St
Fair Oaks Ave
Avenue 64
Lombardy Rd
Madre St
Figueroa St
Lid a St
MarengoAve
Vir ginia Rd
Rosemont Ave
Lake Ave
Highland Dr
Baldwin Ave
Ar ro yo Dr
E Ch evy Chase Dr
Michillinda Ave
Laguna Rd
Oak Knoll Cir
Se c o St
Mendocino St
Mountain St
Grandview Ave
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
Terrace St
Michillinda Ave
Columbia St
Foothill Blvd
ir Oaks Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Arroyo Blvd
L in daVis ta Rd
Bridewell St
San Rafael Ave
Loma Alta Dr
Ventura St
Explorer Rd
Santa Anita Ave
W
Altadena Dr
Maple St
Baldwin Ave
Green St
Union St
Fremont Ave
Glenarm St
Height of the polygon indicates
the service population, defined as
population plus employment.
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F21_CentralDistrict_SouthFairOaks_LincolnAveAlt_Sc4_v2.mxd Pedestrian Accessibility
Land Use Types Accessible Within a 5-minute Walk
Central District, South Fair Oaks, Lincoln Avenue Alternative - Scenario 4 Figure 21
Pedestrian Accessibility
0 1
2 4
3 5
6 7
8 9
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
Huntington Dr
Colorado Blvd
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pky
Colorado St
York Blvd
Sierr a Madre Blvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Meridian Ave
Oa k Grove Dr
Woodbury Rd
Ro s emead B vl d
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
Colorado Blvd
L
New York Dr ake Ave
Del Mar Blvd
California Blvd
Allen Ave
Monterey Rd
Marengo Ave
Hill Ave
Altadena D
E
r
l Molino Ave
Lin da Vis ta Ave
Lincoln Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Washington Blvd
Walnut St
Fair Oaks Ave
Avenue 64
Lombardy Rd
Madre St
Figueroa St
Lid a St
Maer ngoAve
Vir ginia Rd
Rosemont Ave
Lake Ave
Highland Dr
Baldwin Ave
Ar ro yo Dr
E Ch evy Chase Dr
Michillinda Ave
La guna Rd
Oak Knoll Cir
Se c o St
Mendocino St
Mountain St
Grandview Ave
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
Terrace St
Michillinda Ave
Columbia St
Foothill Blvd
Fair Oaks Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Arroyo Blvd
L in daVis ta Rd
Bride well St
San Rafael Ave
Loma Alta Dr
Ventura St
Explorer Rd
Santa Anita Ave
W Altadena Dr
Maple St Baldwin Ave
Green St
Union St
Fremont Ave
Glenarm St
Height of the polygon indicates
the service population, defined as
population plus employment.
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F22_EfficientTransportationAlternative_Sc5.mxd Pedestrian Accessibility
Land Use Types Accessible Within a 5-minute Walk
Efficient Transportation Alternative - Scenario 5
Figure 22
Pedestrian Accessibility
0 1
2 4
3 5
6 7
8 9
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
Huntington Dr
Colorado Blvd
Los Robles Ave
Arroyo Pky
Colorado St
York Blvd
Sierr a Madre Blvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
Pasadena Ave
Rosemead Blvd
Meridian Ave
Oa k Grove Dr
Woodbury Rd
Ro s emead B vl d
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Gabriel Blvd
Colorado Blvd
L
New York Dr ake Ave
Del Mar Blvd
California Blvd
Allen Ave
Monterey Rd
Marengo Ave
Hill Ave
Altadena D
E
r
l Molino Ave
Lin da Vis ta Ave
Lincoln Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Washington Blvd
Walnut St
Fair Oaks Ave
Avenue 64
Lombardy Rd
Madre St
Figueroa St
Lid a St
Maer ngoAve
Vir ginia Rd
Rosemont Ave
Lake Ave
Highland Dr
Baldwin Ave
Ar ro yo Dr
E Ch evy Chase Dr
Michillinda Ave
La guna Rd
Oak Knoll Cir
Se c o St
Mendocino St
Mountain St
Grandview Ave
San Pasqual Ave
Windsor Ave
Terrace St
Michillinda Ave
Columbia St
Foothill Blvd
Fair Oaks Ave
Orange Grove Blvd
Arroyo Blvd
L in daVis ta Rd
Bride well St
San Rafael Ave
Loma Alta Dr
Ventura St
Explorer Rd
Santa Anita Ave
W Altadena Dr
Maple St Baldwin Ave
Green St
Union St
Fremont Ave
Glenarm St
Height of the polygon indicates
the service population, defined as
population plus employment.
Pedestrian Accessibility
Land Use Types Accessible Within a 5-minute Walk
Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact Alternative - Scenario 6 Figure 23
Pedestrian Accessibility
0 1
2 4
3 5
6 7
8 9
N:\Jobs\Active\2600s\2631 - Pasadena GP EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\F23_ReducedAirQualityandNoiseImpactAlternative_Sc6.mxd Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
48 6. CMP Analysis
This chapter presents the methodology and results for the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) analyses, including arterial intersection and freeway.
BACKGROUND
To address the increasing public concern that traffic congestion is impacting the quality of life and economic vitality of the State of California, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) was enacted by Proposition 111, passed by voters in 1990. The intent of the CMP is to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process, a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other funding sources.
Metro, the local CMP agency, has established an approach to implement the statutory requirements of the CMP. The Metro Board adopted the 2010 CMP in October 2010. The approach includes designating a highway network that includes all State highways and principal arterials within the County and monitoring the network’s congestion. The CMP identifies a system of highways and roadways, with minimum levels of service performance measurements designated at LOS E (unless exceeded in base year conditions) for highway segments and key roadway intersections on this system. For all CMP facilities within the project study area, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) is required, though mixed-use developments that meet minimum density requirements and that are located within a ¼ mile of a fixed rail station are exempt from CMP analysis. The analysis must investigate measures which will mitigate the significant CMP system impacts; develop cost estimates, including the fair share costs to mitigate impacts of the proposed project; and indicate the responsible agency. Selection of final mitigation measures is left at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. Once a mitigation program is selected, the jurisdiction self-monitors implementation through the existing mitigation monitoring requirements of CEQA.
FREEWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Methodology
CMP requires establishment of Level of Service (LOS) standards to measure congestion at specific monitoring locations on the freeway and arterial systems. LOS ranges from LOS A to LOS F, with LOS A representing free-flow conditions and LOS F representing a high level of congestion.
Freeway segment volumes based on model data were used to compare the scenario alternatives to Existing conditions for three mainline CMP freeway monitoring locations identified within the City of Pasadena along the SR 134 and I-210 freeways. These three mainline locations are identified as CMP Freeway Monitoring Stations in the 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County:
• Route 134, at postmile R12.09, w/o San Rafael Avenue
• Route 210, at postmile R23.55, w/o Routes 134/710
• Route 210, at postmile R29.72, Rosemead Boulevard
In accordance with the CMP guidelines, freeway (mainline) operating conditions during peak periods were evaluated using the general procedures established by the CMP. Freeway mainline LOS is estimated with Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
49 calculation of the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. Calculation of LOS based on V/C ratios is a surrogate for the speed-based LOS used by Caltrans for traffic operational analysis. Because the calculation is based on volumes and not speeds, volume data may underrepresent the actual level of demand for freeway travel if high levels of congestion and low travel speeds reduce the level of demand that the freeway is able to serve.
The LOS criteria for freeway segments using V/C ratios as the performance measure can be found in the 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County and Table 13. The hourly capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane was determined based on the existing capacities reported in the 2010 Congestion Management Program.
TABLE 13 – LOS THRESHOLDS FOR CMP FREEWAY MAINLINE SEGMENTS Level of Service Demand-to-Capacity (D/C) Ratio
A 0.00-0.35
B >0.35-0.54
C >0.54-0.77
D >0.77-0.93
E >0.93-1.00
F(0) >1.00-1.25
F(1) >1.25-1.35
F(2) >1.35-1.45
F(3) >1.45
Source: Congestion Management Program, Metro, 2010
Freeway segment volumes based on existing 2013 Caltrans PeMS data were used to establish the CMP LOS conditions during the AM and PM peak hour Existing conditions. The analysis was then performed to evaluate each of the alternatives based on AM and PM peak hour traffic volume per direction data from the City of Pasadena’s Travel Demand Model. The volume forecasts were calculated by adding the difference in volumes between the 2035 scenario model and 2013 Existing conditions model to the collected count data.
CMP mainline freeway monitoring locations where the proposed Project will add 150 or more trips in either direction during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours are subject to CMP analysis.
Threshold
The Project would have a significant impact related to the CMP if it would exceed the established threshold.
The Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (CMP) (Metro, 2010) traffic impact analysis guidelines indicate that a significant Project impact occurs when the following threshold is exceeded:
• The proposed Project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00)
If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed Project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02).
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
50 Results
Table 14 shows the results of the CMP analysis for mainline segments under each of the proposed alternatives. All of the future scenarios have two significant project impacts. One impacted location, westbound I-210 west of Rosemead Blvd, is operating at LOS F under Existing conditions during the AM peak hour. All scenarios would increase the traffic at this location by more than two percent during the peak hour. The other impact also occurs on I-210 westbound, west of the SR 134/I-710 interchange, during the PM peak hour. Under all scenarios, the traffic increases would cause that location to operate at LOS F(0).
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
51 TABLE 14 – CMP ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR FREEWAY MAINLINE SEGMENTS Scenario 1 – 2013 Existing
CMP Station
Peak
Hour
Dir Lanes Capacity Volume D/C LOS Change in
D/C
Significant
Impact?
1056.
SR 134 w/o
San Rafael Ave
AM
EB 5 10,00 7,500 0.750 C - -
WB 5 10,00 8,700 0.870 D - -
PM
EB 5 10,00 8,700 0.870 D - -
WB 5 10,00 8,300 0.830 D - -
1060.
I-210 w/o
Rte 134/710
AM
EB 4 8,000 5,600 0.700 C - -
WB 4 8,000 4,300 0.538 B - -
PM
EB 4 8,000 4,100 0.513 B - -
WB 4 8,000 6,500 0.813 D - -
1061.
I-210 w/o
Rosemead Blvd
AM
EB 5 10,00 6,500 0.650 C - -
WB 5 10,00 10,700 1.070 F(0) - -
PM
EB 5 10,00 6,100 0.610 C - -
WB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D - -
Scenario 2 – 2035 No Project Alternative
CMP Station
Peak
Hour
Dir Lanes Capacity Volume D/C LOS Change in
D/C
Significant
Impact?
1056.
SR 134 w/o
San Rafael Ave
AM
EB 5 10,00 8,600 0.860 D 0.110 No
WB 5 10,00 9,500 0.950 E 0.080 No
PM
EB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
WB 5 10,00 9,000 0.900 D 0.070 No
1060.
I-210 w/o
Rte 134/710
AM
EB 4 8,000 6,600 0.825 D 0.125 No
WB 4 8,000 6,300 0.788 D 0.250 No
PM
EB 4 8,000 5,900 0.738 C 0.225 No
WB 4 8,000 8,500 1.063 F(0) 0.250 Yes
1061.
I-210 w/o
Rosemead Blvd
AM
EB 5 10,00 6,700 0.670 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 11,500 1.150 F(0) 0.080 Yes
PM
EB 5 10,00 6,300 0.630 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.000 No
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
52 TABLE 14 – CMP ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR FREEWAY MAINLINE SEGMENTS, CONT.
Scenario 3 – 2035 Preferred General Plan
CMP Station
Peak
Hour
Dir Lanes Capacity Volume D/C LOS Change in
D/C
Significant
Impact?
1056.
SR 134 w/o
San Rafael Ave
AM
EB 5 10,00 8,600 0.860 D 0.110 No
WB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
PM
EB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
WB 5 10,00 9,000 0.900 D 0.070 No
1060.
I-210 w/o
Rte 134/710
AM
EB 4 8,000 6,700 0.838 D 0.138 No
WB 4 8,000 6,400 0.800 D 0.262 No
PM
EB 4 8,000 5,900 0.738 C 0.225 No
WB 4 8,000 8,500 1.063 F(0) 0.250 Yes
1061.
I-210 w/o
Rosemead Blvd
AM
EB 5 10,00 6,700 0.670 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 11,500 1.150 F(0) 0.080 Yes
PM
EB 5 10,00 6,300 0.630 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.000 No
Scenario 4 – 2035 Central District, South Fair Oaks, and Lincoln Avenue Alternative CMP Station
Peak
Hour
Dir Lanes Capacity Volume D/C LOS Change in
D/C
Significant
Impact?
1056.
SR 134 w/o
San Rafael Ave
AM
EB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.100 No
WB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
PM
EB 5 10,00 9,500 0.950 E 0.080 No
WB 5 10,00 8,900 0.890 D 0.060 No
1060.
I-210 w/o
Rte 134/710
AM
EB 4 8,000 6,600 0.825 D 0.125 No
WB 4 8,000 6,300 0.788 D 0.250 No
PM
EB 4 8,000 5,900 0.738 C 0.225 No
WB 4 8,000 8,400 1.050 F(0) 0.237 Yes
1061.
I-210 w/o
Rosemead Blvd
AM
EB 5 10,00 6,700 0.670 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 11,400 1.140 F(0) 0.070 Yes
PM
EB 5 10,00 6,300 0.630 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.000 No
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
53 TABLE 14 – CMP ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR FREEWAY MAINLINE SEGMENTS, CONT.
Scenario 5 – 2035 Efficient Transportation Alternative
CMP Station
Peak
Hour
Dir Lanes Capacity Volume D/C LOS Change in
D/C
Significant
Impact?
1056.
SR 134 w/o
San Rafael Ave
AM
EB 5 10,00 8,600 0.860 D 0.110 No
WB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
PM
EB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
WB 5 10,00 9,000 0.900 D 0.070 No
1060.
I-210 w/o
Rte 134/710
AM
EB 4 8,000 6,700 0.838 D 0.138 No
WB 4 8,000 6,300 0.788 D 0.250 No
PM
EB 4 8,000 5,900 0.738 C 0.225 No
WB 4 8,000 8,500 1.063 F(0) 0.250 Yes
1061.
I-210 w/o
Rosemead Blvd
AM
EB 5 10,00 6,700 0.670 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 11,400 1.140 F(0) 0.070 Yes
PM
EB 5 10,00 6,300 0.630 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.000 No
Scenario 6 – 2035 Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact Alternative CMP Station
Peak
Hour
Dir Lanes Capacity Volume D/C LOS Change in
D/C
Significant
Impact?
1056.
SR 134 w/o
San Rafael Ave
AM
EB 5 10,00 8,600 0.860 D 0.110 No
WB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
PM
EB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
WB 5 10,00 9,000 0.900 D 0.070 No
1060.
I-210 w/o
Rte 134/710
AM
EB 4 8,000 6,700 0.838 D 0.138 No
WB 4 8,000 6,300 0.788 D 0.250 No
PM
EB 4 8,000 5,900 0.738 C 0.225 No
WB 4 8,000 8,500 1.063 F(0) 0.250 Yes
1061.
I-210 w/o
Rosemead Blvd
AM
EB 5 10,00 6,700 0.670 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 11,500 1.150 F(0) 0.080 Yes
PM
EB 5 10,00 6,300 0.630 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.000 No
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
54 ARTERIAL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Methodology
The CMP Guidelines require analysis of all CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the proposed Project will add 50 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions). The following four CMP arterial monitoring stations (i.e., intersections) were evaluated. The CMP arterial monitoring stations identified for analysis were analyzed using the CMA/Circular 212 method.
• Arroyo Parkway and California Boulevard (CMP ID #119) • Pasadena Avenue and California Boulevard (CMP ID #120) • St. John Avenue and California Boulevard (CMP ID #120) • Rosemead Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard (CMP ID #121) Threshold
The Project would have a significant impact related to the CMP if it would exceed the established threshold.
The Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (CMP) (Metro, 2010) traffic impact analysis guidelines indicate that a significant Project impact occurs when the following threshold is exceeded:
• The proposed Project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00)
If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed Project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C ≥ 0.02).
Results
Table 15 shows the results of the CMP arterial intersection analysis. Four of the future alternatives have one significant project impact each. The Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact Alternative is the only scenario that does have an impact. The No Project Alternative causes an impact at the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard during the PM peak hour. The Preferred General Plan, the Corridors Alternative, and the Efficient Transportation Alternative cause an impact at the intersection of Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard during the AM peak hour.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
55 TABLE 15 – CMP ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS CMP Intersection
Peak
Hour
V/C LOS
Change in
V/C
Significant
Impact?
Scenario 1 – 2013 Existing
119. Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard
AM 0.674 B - -
PM 0.811 D - -
120. Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 0.956 E - -
PM 0.904 E - -
120. St. John Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 0.773 C - -
PM 0.688 B - -
121. Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard
AM 0.698 B - -
PM 0.862 D - -
Scenario 2 – 2035 No Project Alternative
119. Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard
AM 0.830 D 0.156 No
PM 0.859 D 0.048 No
120. Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 0.986 E 0.030 No
PM 0.936 E 0.032 No
120. St. John Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 0.857 D 0.084 No
PM 0.738 C 0.050 No
121. Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard
AM 0.829 D 0.131 No
PM 1.032 F 0.170 Yes
Scenario 3 – 2035 Preferred General Plan
119. Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard
AM 0.833 D 0.159 No
PM 0.868 D 0.057 No
120. Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 1.009 F 0.053 Yes
PM 0.946 E 0.042 No
120. St. John Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 0.888 D 0.115 No
PM 0.776 C 0.088 No
121. Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard
AM 0.831 D 0.133 No
PM 0.932 E 0.070 No
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
56 TABLE 15 – CMP ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS, CONT.
CMP Intersection
Peak
Hour
V/C LOS
Change in
V/C
Significant
Impact?
Scenario 4 – 2035 Central District, South Fair Oaks, and Lincoln Avenue Alternative 119. Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard
AM 0.830 D 0.156 No
PM 0.859 D 0.048 No
120. Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 1.002 F 0.046 Yes
PM 0.948 E 0.044 No
120. St. John Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 0.872 D 0.099 No
PM 0.769 C 0.081 No
121. Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard
AM 0.829 D 0.131 No
PM 0.907 E 0.045 No
Scenario 5 – 2035 Efficient Transportation Alternative
119. Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard
AM 0.838 D 0.164 No
PM 0.866 D 0.055 No
120. Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 1.014 F 0.058 Yes
PM 0.946 E 0.042 No
120. St. John Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 0.894 D 0.121 No
PM 0.776 C 0.088 No
121. Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard
AM 0.831 D 0.133 No
PM 0.907 E 0.045 No
Scenario 6 – 2035 Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact Alternative 119. Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard
AM 0.838 D 0.164 No
PM 0.884 D 0.073 No
120. Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 0.997 E 0.041 No
PM 0.931 E 0.027 No
120. St. John Avenue / California Boulevard
AM 0.900 D 0.127 No
PM 0.782 C 0.094 No
121. Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard
AM 0.816 D 0.118 No
PM 0.901 E 0.039 No
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2014
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
57 MITIGATIONS
The traditional response to mitigate significant traffic-related impacts, which are defined as delays to autos due to overcapacity, or increases in auto trips on street segments, is to increase auto capacity by providing additional lanes or facilities. Widening roads to provide additional travel lanes is challenging because the spaces are already constrained and utilized by other land uses or transportation facilities. Due to the limited right-of-way in Pasadena, capacity improvements of this nature for autos can require a loss or constriction of bicycle lanes or sidewalks. The traffic analysis for this project could not identify any additional capacity improvements for autos that would not have negative secondary impacts such as delaying transit or degrading the pedestrian environment. However, implementation of the proposed goals and policies of the Preferred General Plan regarding walking, bicycling, transit use, transit-oriented development, and TDM would improve mobility within the City.
Mitigations were considered for the freeway and arterial CMP impacts identified above.
Freeway Mainline Segments
• Route 210, at postmile R23.55, w/o Routes 134/710 – in all analyzed future scenarios (Scenarios 2 through 6) the westbound direction is impacted at this location in the PM peak hour. The mitigation measure identified for this location is the addition of a mainline travel lane to the freeway.
Implementing this mitigation within the existing right-of-way would require the removal of the lefthand shoulder, resulting in substandard conditions on the I-210 freeway. Furthermore, a mitigation resulting in increased automobile capacity through roadway widening is inconsistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Route 210, at postmile R29.72, Rosemead Boulevard – in all analyzed future scenarios (Scenarios 2 through 6) the westbound direction is impacted at this location in the AM peak hour. The mitigation measure identified for this location is the addition of a mainline travel lane to the freeway. There is insufficient space to implement this mitigation within the existing right-of-way. Furthermore, a mitigation resulting in increased automobile capacity through roadway widening is inconsistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Arterial Intersections
• Pasadena Avenue and California Boulevard (CMP ID #120) – in Scenarios 3 (Preferred General Plan), 4 (Central District, South Fair Oaks, Lincoln Avenue), and 5 (Efficient Transportation), this location is impacted in the AM peak hour. The mitigation measure identified for this location is the conversion of one westbound through lane to a shared through/right-turn lane. This mitigation measure would degrade the pedestrian environment by creating two lanes of right-turning traffic that would conflict with pedestrians crossing the north and east legs of the intersection, inconsistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies related to improving access to destinations by pedestrians.
Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Rosemead Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard (CMP ID #121) – in Scenario 2 (2035 No Project Alternative), this location is impacted in the PM peak hour. The mitigation measure identified for this location is the conversion of one northbound through lane to a shared through/right-turn lane.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
58 This mitigation measure would degrade the pedestrian environment by creating two lanes of rightturning traffic that would conflict with pedestrians crossing the south and east legs of the intersection, inconsistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies related to improving access to destinations by pedestrians. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Transportation Analysis Report – Pasadena General Plan Update June 2015
59 7. CONCLUSION
This Transportation Analysis Report documents the future transportation conditions that can be reasonably expected to result from the implementation of the Pasadena General Plan Update. The Preferred General Plan and four land use alternatives were analyzed using the City’s travel demand model; impacts related to the City’s five adopted transportation performance measures and the Congestion Management Plan’s arterial and freeway analysis methods were identified. Table 16 summarizes the impacts for the five future scenarios.
The Preferred General Plan traffic analysis indicated significant and unavoidable impacts related to CMP Freeway and CMP Arterial analyses. No Preferred General Plan impacts were identified based on the City’s five adopted transportation performance measures.
All future scenarios result in CMP Freeway impacts and all but Scenario 6 (Reduced Air Quality and Noise Impact) result in CMP Arterial impacts. Scenario 2 (No Project) results in a significant impact related to increased VMT per Capita relative to Existing conditions. None of the other performance measure analyses indicated significant transportation impacts in the future scenarios.
TABLE 16 – IMPACT SUMMARY
Scenario
VMT
per
Capita
VT
per
Capita
Proximity
and Quality
of Bicycle
Network
Proximity
and Quality
of Transit
Network
Pedestrian
Accessibility
CMP
Freeway
CMP
Arterial
Scenario 2 – No Project Yes No No No No Yes Yes
Scenario 3 – Preferred
General Plan No No No No No Yes Yes
Scenario 4 – Central District,
South Fair Oaks, Lincoln
Avenue
No No No No No Yes Yes
Scenario 5 – Efficient
Transportation No No No No No Yes Yes
Scenario 6 – Reduced Air
Quality and Noise Impact No No No No No Yes No
APPENDIX A:
PASADENA TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL
DEVELOPMENT REPORT
APPENDIX B:
CITY OF PASADENA TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL
UPDATE MEMO
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
August 2015
Appendix E. Land Use Element Goals and Policies
Changes
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
General Plan Update: Land Use & Mobility Elements Page 1 City Council August 17, 2015
Attachment E: Land Use Element Goals and Policies Changes
APPENDIX E
LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES CHANGES
Goals & Policies Revisions
Revisions to the language of specific Goals and Policies were suggested by Commissions as well as by agencies throughout the Draft EIR public comment period.
Additional changes were requested by the Planning Commission at the public hearing on July 22, 2015. These changes are summarized below.
Goals and Policies Explanation of Change(s)
Goal 1: Policy 1.4 –Transfer
of Development Capacities
• Modify title from ‘Transfer’ to ‘Conversion’ and remove reference to cumulative trips. Added ‘(d)’ to ensure
development capacity is not exceeded. Any conversion
is subject to environmental review.
Goal 4: Policy 4.9 –
Gateways
• Modify language to include references to distinctive
engineering such as the Colorado Street Bridge, per
comments by the Design Commission.
Goal 5: Policy 5.5 – Civic
Open Space
• Refer directly to the Civic Center, and include a
statement to respect concepts in the Bennett Plan
Goal 5: New Policy 5.7 –
Pedestrian Connections
• Create policy per comments by the Design Commission
and Transportation Advisory Commission calling for the
support and enhancement of the pedestrian
experience.
Goal 6: Sense of Place
Narrative
• Update wording to reflect Pasadena’s history,
transportation system, distinct buildings and
neighborhoods, all of which contribute to the City’s
sense of place.
Goal 6: Policy 6.1 • Include a reference to courtyards, paseos, and alleys per comment by Design Commission.
Goal 6.2 • Replace “sensitive” with “appropriate”, replace “respect” with “complement”
Goal 7: Architectural Design • Remove the word “some” and terms “traditional, creative, innovative” from Goal 7
Goal 8: Historic
Preservation
• Replace the word “reminders” with “valued assets and
important representations” per comment by Pasadena
Heritage.
• Remove a typographical error in Policy 8.6, as noted by Pasadena Heritage.
• Rephrase Policy 8.9 based on comments by Pasadena
Heritage.
• Remove a typographical error in Policy 8.10, as noted by Pasadena Heritage.
Goal 18: Correlation of Land
Use with Mobility • Replace the phrase “with a car” to “without a car” General Plan Update: Land Use & Mobility Elements Page 2 City Council August 17, 2015
Attachment E: Land Use Element Goals and Policies Changes Goals and Policies Explanation of Change(s)
Goal 36 (North Lake): Policy
36.5 • Added new Policy:
Transitional Heights and Setbacks. Protect adjacent
Low and Low-Medium residential areas north of Orange
Grove Boulevard, which contain a number of locally and
nationally recognized historic properties and districts, from the development of mixed use or residential
projects by requiring appropriate transitional heights.
Mixed use or residential projects proposed in these
locations shall be limited to no more than three stories in height for those portions of the project abutting
commercial streets, stepping down to no more than two
stories in height abutting the Low and Low-Medium
residential areas. Appropriate setbacks shall also be
established in order to provide further protection.
Planning Commission
Goal 4: Policy 4.13
• Added new Policy:
Planned Developments. Incentivize high-quality,
contextual, architectural design in Planned
Developments through a discretionary process by
allowing for a 15 percent increase in the allowable
Floor Area Ratio for a project.
Goal 7: Architectural Design
and Quality
• Replace “or” with “and” in the following sentence:
“through traditional physical concepts (orientation,
scale, materials and or non-physical concepts (cultural, climactic, economic)”
Goal 17: Education • Move “a” from “a public education” and place it in front of “diverse educational system”.
Community Places: East
Pasadena
• Remove, “excepting parcels north of Electronic Drive
and Halstead, which would be limited to commercial
uses.”
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
August 2015
Appendix F. Refined Project Transportation
Analysis
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
600 Wilshire Blvd. | Suite 1050 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 261-3050 | Fax (310) 394-7663 www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 5, 2015
To: Arthi Varma, Vicrim Chima & David Sinclair, City of Pasadena From: John Muggridge and Jeff Pierson, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Refined Proposed Project Scenario – Transportation Performance Results LA13-2631
The City of Pasadena has developed a refined version of the Proposed Project as part of the Proposed General Plan Update. These modified development caps in the refined scenario are a combination of the Proposed Project and the Central District, South Fair Oaks, Lincoln Avenue (CDSFOLA) Alternative. Fehr & Peers evaluated the new refined Proposed Project (“Refined Project”) scenario using the Pasadena travel demand model and calculated updated transportation performance measures. The assumptions and results are included in this technical memo.
REFINED PROPOSED PROJECT SCENARIO
Table 1 shows the development caps from the Proposed Project that were analyzed in the EIR and the new Refined Project that is being recommended by the City. Note that the development caps include affordable housing units and pipeline development projects (projects that were previously approved but not yet built).
As compared to the Proposed Project, the Refined Project scenario includes residential development caps that were decreased in the Central District, South Fair Oaks, and East Pasadena specific plans and increased in the East Colorado and Lamanda Park Specific Plans. The net change in residential development is approximately 1,100 fewer dwelling units. As compared to the Proposed Project, the Refined Project scenario includes non-residential development caps that were decreased in the Central District, South Fair Oaks, and Lamanda Park specific plans and increased in the East Colorado specific plan. The net change in non-residential development is approximately 1.75 million less square feet of development.
Arthi Varma
August 5, 2015
TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF DEVELOMENT CAPS IN PROPOSED PROJECT
AND REFINED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE SCENARIOS
Specific Plan Area
Residential (dwelling units) Non-residential (square feet) Proposed Project Refined Project Proposed Project Refined Project Central District 6,147 5,444 3,846,649 2,561,847
South Fair Oaks 1,078 938 1,794,506 1,340,655
East Colorado 334 351 209,223 300,000
Lamanda Park 27 117 714,377 630,000
East Pasadena 1,442 1,090 1,107,875 1,107,875
North Lake 316 316 255,366 255,366
Fair Oaks / Orange Grove 323 323 308,984 308,984
Lincoln Ave 210 210 298,413 298,413
West Gateway 418 418 206,475 206,475
No Specific Plan 2,017 2,017 2,247,091 2,247,091
Total 12,312 11,223 10,988,959 9,256,705
City of Pasadena, 2015.
The parcel land use database was updated using the provided development caps to run the travel demand model and to calculate the transportation performance measures.
TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MEASURES RESULTS
The required citywide transportation performance measures for the City of Pasadena are:
Vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per capita
Vehicle trips (VT) per capita
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
Pedestrian Accessibility
Table 2 below shows the population, employment, vehicle miles travelled, and vehicle trips forecasts for the Refined Project in comparison to the Proposed Project analyzed in the EIR. The existing estimates are also included for reference. The Refined Project forecasts approximately 2,300 less population and 5,600 less employment citywide. The VMT per capita and VT per capita estimates are equal for both the Proposed Project and the Refined Project so no new impacts are identified.
Arthi Varma
August 5, 2015
TABLE 2: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED AND VEHICLE TRIPS PER CAPITA Scenario Population Employment VMT VT VMT per
Capita
VT per
Capita
2013 Existing 135,938 111,348 5,591,328 686,619 22.6 2.8 2035 Proposed Project 163,411 151,671 6,963,476 764,869 22.1 2.4 2035 Refined Project 161,180 146,141 6,804,532 752,143 22.1 2.4 Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Table 3 shows the total service population (population plus employment) as well as the percent of that service population within a quarter mile of Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 bicycle facilities for the new Refined Project in comparison to existing conditions and the Proposed Project analyzed in the EIR. Compared to the previously analyzed Proposed Project, the Refined Project includes a slightly smaller percent of total service population within a quarter mile of a Level 1 or Level 2 facility (69.9% compared to 70.0%). There is no new impact, since the percent of service population within a quarter mile of Level 1 and Level 2 facilities is still substantially greater than under Existing conditions (31.7%).
TABLE 3: PROXIMITY AND QUALITY OF BICYCLE NETWORK
Scenario Total Service
Population Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
2013 Existing 247,286 0.0% 31.7% 50.0%
2035 Proposed Project 315,082 15.2% 54.8% 20.4%
2035 Refined Project 307,321 14.8% 55.1% 20.4%
Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Table 4 shows the total service population (population plus employment) as well as the percent of that service population within a quarter mile of Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 transit facilities for the new Refined Project in comparison to existing conditions and the Proposed Project analyzed in the EIR. Compared to the previously analyzed Proposed Project, the Refined Project includes a slightly smaller percent of total service population within a quarter mile of a Level 1 or Level 2 facility (72.4% compared to 72.9%). There is no new impact, since the percent of service population within a quarter mile of Level 1 and Level 2 facilities is still substantially greater than under Existing conditions (66.6%).
Arthi Varma
August 5, 2015
TABLE 4: PROXIMITY AND QUALITY OF TRANSIT NETWORK
Scenario Total Service
Population Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
2013 Existing 247,286 36.6% 30.0% 20.4%
2035 Proposed Project 315,082 50.2% 22.7% 15.3%
2035 Refined Project 307,321 49.5% 22.9% 15.6%
Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Table 5 shows the Weighted Pedestrian Accessibility Score for the new Refined Project in comparison to existing conditions and the Proposed Project analyzed in the EIR. The Weighted Pedestrian Accessibility Score is equal for both the Proposed Project and the Refined Project.
There is no new impact.
TABLE 5: PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY
Scenario Weighted Pedestrian Accessibility Score
2013 Existing 3.9 (C)
2035 Proposed Project 5.1 (B)
2035 Refined Project 5.1 (B)
Fehr & Peers, 2015.
No new impacts for the Refined Project were identified across the five transportation performances measures.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) ANALYSIS RESULTS
The CMP analysis for the following three freeway and four arterial monitoring locations were updated for the new Refined Project:
1056. SR 134 west of San Rafael Avenue
1060. I-210 west of Route 134/710
1061. I-210 west of Rosemead Boulevard
119. Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard
120. Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard
120. St. John Avenue / California Boulevard
121. Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard
The Refined Project generates smaller increases in traffic volumes compared with the Proposed Project analyzed in the EIR. However, the same locations are still impacted and no new impacts Arthi Varma
August 5, 2015
were identified for the new Refined Project. The results are included in Table 6 below and Table 7 on the following page.
TABLE 6: CMP ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR FREEWAY MAINLINE SEGMENTS CMP Station Peak
Hour Dir Lanes Capacity Volume D/C LOS Change in D/C
Significant
Impact
2013 Existing
1056.
SR 134 w/o
San Rafael Ave
AM EB 5 10,00 7,500 0.750 C - -
WB 5 10,00 8,700 0.870 D - -
PM EB 5 10,00 8,700 0.870 D - -
WB 5 10,00 8,300 0.830 D - -
1060.
I-210 w/o
Rte 134/710
AM EB 4 8,000 5,600 0.700 C - -
WB 4 8,000 4,300 0.538 B - -
PM EB 4 8,000 4,100 0.513 B - -
WB 4 8,000 6,500 0.813 D - -
1061.
I-210 w/o
Rosemead Blvd
AM EB 5 10,00 6,500 0.650 C - -
WB 5 10,00 10,700 1.070 F(0) - -
PM EB 5 10,00 6,100 0.610 C - -
WB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D - -
2035 Proposed Project
1056.
SR 134 w/o
San Rafael Ave
AM EB 5 10,00 8,600 0.860 D 0.110 No
WB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
PM EB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
WB 5 10,00 9,000 0.900 D 0.070 No
1060.
I-210 w/o
Rte 134/710
AM EB 4 8,000 6,700 0.838 D 0.138 No
WB 4 8,000 6,400 0.800 D 0.262 No
PM EB 4 8,000 5,900 0.738 C 0.225 No
WB 4 8,000 8,500 1.063 F(0) 0.250 Yes
1061.
I-210 w/o
Rosemead Blvd
AM EB 5 10,00 6,700 0.670 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 11,500 1.150 F(0) 0.080 Yes
PM EB 5 10,00 6,300 0.630 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.000 No
2035 Refined Project
1056.
SR 134 w/o
San Rafael Ave
AM EB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.100 No
WB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
PM EB 5 10,00 9,600 0.960 E 0.090 No
WB 5 10,00 8,900 0.890 D 0.060 No
1060.
I-210 w/o
Rte 134/710
AM EB 4 8,000 6,600 0.825 D 0.125 No
WB 4 8,000 6,400 0.800 D 0.262 No
PM EB 4 8,000 5,900 0.738 C 0.225 No
WB 4 8,000 8,400 1.050 F(0) 0.237 Yes
1061.
I-210 w/o
Rosemead Blvd
AM EB 5 10,00 6,700 0.670 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 11,400 1.140 F(0) 0.070 Yes
PM EB 5 10,00 6,300 0.630 C 0.020 No
WB 5 10,00 8,500 0.850 D 0.000 No
Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Arthi Varma
August 5, 2015
TABLE 7: CMP ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS Intersection Peak
Hour V/C LOS Change in V/C
Significant
Impact
2013 Existing
119. Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard AM 0.674 B - - PM 0.811 D - -
120. Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard AM 0.956 E - - PM 0.904 E - -
120. St. John Avenue / California Boulevard AM 0.773 C - - PM 0.688 B - -
121. Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard AM 0.698 B - - PM 0.862 D - -
2035 Proposed Project
119. Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard AM 0.833 D 0.159 No PM 0.868 D 0.057 No
120. Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard AM 1.009 F 0.053 Yes PM 0.946 E 0.042 No
120. St. John Avenue / California Boulevard AM 0.888 D 0.115 No PM 0.776 C 0.088 No
121. Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard AM 0.831 D 0.133 No PM 0.932 E 0.070 No
2035 Refined Project
119. Arroyo Parkway / California Boulevard AM 0.828 D 0.154 No PM 0.855 D 0.044 No
120. Pasadena Avenue / California Boulevard AM 1.011 F 0.055 Yes PM 0.946 E 0.042 No
120. St. John Avenue / California Boulevard AM 0.872 D 0.099 No PM 0.769 C 0.081 No
121. Rosemead Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard AM 0.825 D 0.127 No PM 0.926 E 0.064 No
Fehr & Peers, 2015.
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
August 2015
Appendix G. Land Use Diagram Revisions
PASADENA GENERAL PLA N FINAL EIR
CITY OF PASADENA
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
General Plan Update: Land Use & Mobility Elements Page 4 City Council August 17, 2015
Attachment G: Land Use Diagram Revisions
LAND USE DIAGRAM REVISIONS:
FULLER THEOLOGICAL UNION MASTER PLAN
Studied in DEIR Modification
General Plan Update: Land Use & Mobility Elements Page 5 City Council August 17, 2015
Attachment G: Land Use Diagram Revisions
LAND USE DIAGRAM REVISIONS:
SOUTH ORANGE GROVE BOULEVARD (WEST SIDE, BELLEFONTAINE STREET TO ARLINGTON DRIVE) Studied in DEIR Modification
General Plan Update: Land Use & Mobility Elements Page 6 City Council August 17, 2015
Attachment G: Land Use Diagram Revisions
LAND USE DIAGRAM REVISIONS:
9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, VISTA DEL ARROYO, DESIDERIO Studied in DEIR Modification
General Plan Update: Land Use & Mobility Elements Page 7 City Council August 17, 2015
Attachment G: Land Use Diagram Revisions
LAND USE DIAGRAM REVISIONS:
R&D FLEX SPACE (CITYWIDE)
General Plan Update: Land Use & Mobility Elements Page 8 City Council August 17, 2015
Attachment G: Land Use Diagram Revisions
LAND USE DIAGRAM REVISIONS:
710 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Studied in DEIR Modification
Proposal:
Continue single-family and multi-family
designations from west to east.
Proposal:
Designate Waverly School farm as
Institutional.
Proposal:
Designate “Fork-in-the-Road” park as
Studied in the DEIR: Open Space.
Low Density Residential (0-6
DU/ac), Medium Density Residential
(0-16 DU/ac), Institutional
General Plan Update: Land Use & Mobility Elements Page 9 City Council August 17, 2015
Attachment G: Land Use Diagram Revisions
LAND USE DIAGRAM REVISIONS:
2810 EATON CANYON DRIVE
Studied in DEIR Modification
General Plan Update: Land Use & Mobility Elements Page 10 City Council August 17, 2015
Attachment G: Land Use Diagram Revisions
LAND USE DIAGRAM REVISIONS:
3105 EAST SIERRA MADRE BOULEVARD
Studied in DEIR Modification