Traffic / Circulation / Parking

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS C. TRAFFIC / CIRCULATION / PARKING

This section addresses the potential impacts of the proposed pipeline for both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project with regard to traffic on the surrounding street system during construction and on-going operations, including on- and off-street parking, access to transit service as well as pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The information and analysis in this section (except where footnoted otherwise) is based on the Transportation Report, (the “Traffic Report”), dated June, 2007, prepared for the proposed pipeline by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. This section is a summary of that report and includes an evaluation of the traffic conditions on the existing street network surrounding the proposed pipeline. The Traffic Report, which is incorporated herein by this reference, is included as Appendix E to this Draft EIR.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The proposed pipeline is approximately 24 miles in length and would begin at the Vopak Inland Terminal, a tank farm and storage facility in the Wilmington area of the City of Los Angeles. In Phase 1 of the Project, leaving Vopak the pipeline would travel north along Alameda Street to the Watson Pump Station in the City of Carson, passing LAXFUEL’s off-airport storage facility at the Kinder Morgan Carson and Shell Carson terminals. In Phase 2, from the Watson Pump Station, the pipeline would then continue north along Wilmington Avenue passing through the communities of Carson, unincorporated Los Angeles County, Compton, additional areas within the City of Los Angeles as well as the cities of Gardena and Hawthorne before entering the LAX property, traversing twenty (20) separate roadways. The proposed pipeline would terminate at LAXFUEL’s tank farm located within the LAX facility itself. The affected jurisdictions and their roadways for which the rights-of-way (“ROW”) would be affected under construction of the Project are shown in Table 16 and Table 17, Affected Jurisdictions and Roadways.

Specifically, the proposed jet fuel pipeline route would pass through six jurisdictions, including the cities of Los Angeles, Carson, Compton, Gardena, and Hawthorne, and unincorporated Los Angeles County, between its origin in Wilmington and terminus at LAX. With the exception of railroad crossings and linkages across the Dominguez Channel and LAX property, the proposed pipeline would be located within the alignments of public streets and highways.

Existing Conditions

Existing Roadway System

The regional freeway and highway system within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline consists of an interconnected network of local streets, arterial streets, freeways and carpool lanes that allows for the operation of private autos, carpools, private and public buses, and trucks. The network of freeways and state highways supports high-capacity limited-access travel, whereas the arterial network provides high levels of signalized street capacity and serves as a feeder system for the regional freeways and local street system. The freeway and highway system is the primary means of regional travel, providing for direct vehicular access to employment, services, and goods. Given the geographic breadth of the proposed pipeline, this background on the regional roadway system is provided to identify areas where impacts could occur.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 173

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 16 Affected Roadways and Jurisdictions – Phase 1

Affected Roadway Roadway Segment Total Length Jurisdictions Vopak Site Roadway - 1,770 feet City of Los Angeles Grant Street Leeds Ave. to Alameda St. 2,331 feet City of Los Angeles Grant St. to Lomita Blvd. 5,290 feet City of Los Angeles Alameda Street Lomita Blvd. to Dominguez St. 12,680 feet City of Carson Dominguez Street Alameda St. to Wilmington Ave. 3,700 feet City of Carson Wilmington Avenue Dominguez St. to Del Amo Blvd. 2,850 feet City of Carson Source: TRC Solutions, May 2007.

Table 17 Affected Roadways and Jurisdictions – Phase 2

Affected Roadway Roadway Segment Total Length Jurisdictions Del Amo Blvd. to Victoria St. Unincorporated Los 7,920 feet (approx.) Angeles County Wilmington Avenue Victoria St. (approx.) to Artesia 2,500 feet City of Compton Blvd. Artesia Boulevard Wilmington Ave. to Anderson Ave. 1,900 feet City of Compton Anderson Avenue Artesia Blvd. to Walnut St. 700 feet City of Compton Anderson Ave. to Central Ave. 1,200 feet City of Compton Walnut Street Central Ave. to Avalon Blvd. 5,200 feet City of Carson Walnut Ave. to Alondra Blvd. 4,200 feet City of Carson Avalon Boulevard Unincorporated Los Alondra Blvd. to San Pedro St. 630 feet Angeles County Unincorporated Los San Pedro Street Avalon Blvd. to Compton Blvd. 2,800 feet Angeles County Unincorporated Los Compton Boulevard San Pedro St. to Broadway St. 4,775 feet Angeles County Compton Blvd. to Redondo Beach Unincorporated Los Figueroa Street 730 feet Blvd. Angeles County Redondo Beach Figueroa St. to Vermont Ave. 2,635 feet City of Los Angeles Boulevard Redondo Beach Blvd. to Rosecrans Vermont Avenue 3,430 feet City of Los Angeles Ave. Rosecrans Avenue Vermont Ave. to Crenshaw Blvd. 10515 feet City of Gardena Rosecrans Ave. to 135th St. 2,635 feet City of Hawthorne Unincorporated Los Crenshaw Boulevard 135th St. to 132nd St. 1,320 feet Angeles County 132nd St. to 120th St. 3,850 feet City of Hawthorne 120th Street Crenshaw Blvd. to Hawthorne Blvd. 7,775 feet City of Hawthorne Hawthorne Boulevard 120th St. to Imperial Hwy. 2,650 feet City of Hawthorne Hawthorne Blvd. to I-405 5,300 feet City of Hawthorne Imperial Highway I-405 to LAX surface road 15,770 feet City of Los Angeles LAX Surface Roads - 5,300 feet City of Los Angeles Source: TRC Solutions, May 2007.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 174

City of Los Angeles December 2007

State Highways

The following freeways extend through the vicinity of the proposed pipeline system:

San Diego Freeway (Interstate-405)

The key north-south transportation roadway on the west side of Los Angeles, this freeway generally provides five travel lanes per direction, plus additional lanes at ramps or interchanges. The San Diego Freeway serves the entire western portion of the Los Angeles basin, including LAX. Connecting Los Angeles to south Orange County, it is heavily traveled by commuters and freight haulers along its entire length and is known as one of the busiest and most congested freeways in the county. Through the Project area, the San Diego Freeway runs nearly 12.5 miles from Interstate-105 (Imperial Highway/Century Freeway) to Alameda Street in the City of Carson.

Harbor Freeway (Interstate-110)

The Harbor Freeway is one of the principal north-south freeways in the County and runs from Gaffey Street in San Pedro to the Hollywood Freeway (Interstate-101) in downtown Los Angeles, north of which it continues as the Pasadena Freeway (a.k.a. the Historic Arroyo Seco Parkway). In the Project area, the I-110 provides five travel lanes per each direction, plus additional lanes at ramps and interchanges, including dedicated HOV lanes in both directions.

Century Freeway (Interstate-105)

The Century Freeway runs east-west in southern Los Angeles County. The Interstate-105 is often referred to as the Century Freeway, but is officially known as the Glenn Anderson Freeway for the Congressman who advocated its construction. The freeway’s common name derives from nearby Century Boulevard, which parallels its route. The Century Freeway begins at Sepulveda Boulevard (State Route 1) on the southern edge of LAX, adjacent to the city of El Segundo. It proceeds eastward from there crossing the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers before terminating just east of the San Gabriel River Freeway (Interstate-605) in Norwalk. In addition to being below grade for most of its route, the Century Freeway is also notable for the Los Angeles Metro Rail Green Line that runs along its center median. In the Project area, the I-105 is primarily an eight-lane freeway, including dedicated HOV lanes in both directions.

State Route 91 (SR-91)

State Route 91 also referred to as SR-91, is a major east-west highway serving several regions within the Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Its eastern terminus is located in the City of Riverside at the junction with State Route 60 where the Pomona Freeway (to the west), the Moreno Valley Freeway (to the east), the Escondido Freeway, Interstate-215(to the north and southeast) all intersect. Its western terminus is at Vermont Avenue in Gardena as it turns into Artesia Boulevard. In the Project area, the 91 freeway is an 8-lane freeway, that becomes an eight lane arterial once it turns into Artesia Boulevard.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 175

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Surface Roads

Surface roads within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline are described below:

Grant Street

Grant Street is a short east-west two-lane local roadway that serves the adjacent industrial uses. The proposed pipeline follows Grant Street for a short segment east of Alameda Street before it connects to the Vopak Terminal.

Alameda Street

Alameda Street is a four- to six-lane divided roadway that travels north-south within the Project area. The proposed pipeline follows Alameda Street before turning west near Dominguez Street in northeast Carson. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is prohibited on both sides of Alameda Street and the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.

Dominguez Street

Dominguez Street is a two- to four-lane, east-west street that is perpendicular to Alameda Street in northwest Carson. Dominguez Street in the Project area is less than one mile long running from Wilmington Avenue on the west and stopping at the railroad tracks before intersecting with Alameda Street. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is allowed on both sides of Dominguez Street and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

Wilmington Avenue

Wilmington Avenue is a four to six-lane divided roadway that runs north-south through the Project area. Wilmington Avenue has an at grade railroad crossing just north of Del Amo Boulevard. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is prohibited on both sides of Wilmington Avenue and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

Artesia Boulevard

In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.

Anderson Avenue

Anderson Avenue is an undivided one-lane roadway that runs east west through the Project area. The proposed pipeline would run along this roadway from Artesia Boulevard to Walnut Street. In the Project vicinity, the posted speed limit is 35 or 40 miles per hour depending on location.

Walnut Street

Walnut Street is a four-lane roadway that runs east-west through the Project area. The proposed pipeline stretches along Walnut Street from Wilmington Avenue to Avalon Boulevard. In the Project vicinity, on- street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 176

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Avalon Boulevard

Avalon Boulevard is a six-lane divided roadway that runs north-south through the Project area. The proposed pipeline follows Avalon Boulevard in Carson from Walnut Street to San Pedro Street. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.

San Pedro Street

San Pedro Street is a four- to six-lane roadway that runs north-south through the Project area. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

Compton Boulevard

Compton Boulevard is a four-lane undivided roadway that runs east-west in a predominantly industrial part of Los Angeles County. The proposed pipeline follows Compton Boulevard from San Pedro Street to Figueroa Street. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

Figueroa Street

Figueroa Street is a north-south four-lane roadway with a two-way left-turn lane. The proposed pipeline follows a short segment of Figueroa Street between Compton Boulevard and Redondo Beach Boulevard. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is allowed in some areas of the street and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

Redondo Beach Boulevard

Redondo Beach Boulevard is a four to six-lane roadway that runs east-west in the Project area. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is allowed in some areas of the street and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

Vermont Avenue

Vermont Avenue is a six-lane divided roadway that runs north-south, parallel to the I-110 freeway on the east side. In the Project area the proposed pipeline follows Vermont Avenue. In the Project vicinity, on- street parking is allowed in some areas of the street and the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.

Rosecrans Avenue

Rosecrans Avenue is a six-lane roadway that runs east-west through the Project area from the City of Gardena to the City of Hawthorne and serves, among other things, adjacent retail uses. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

Crenshaw Boulevard

Crenshaw Boulevard is a six-lane divided roadway that runs north-south through the Project area in the City of Hawthorne, just east of the Hawthorne Municipal Airport. Crenshaw Boulevard has an at-grade

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 177

City of Los Angeles December 2007

railroad crossing just south of Northrop Avenue. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 35 or 40 miles per hour depending on location.

120th Street

120th Street is a four-lane roadway that runs east-west north of the Hawthorne Municipal Airport. Through the Project area, 120th Street runs roughly parallel to the I-105 freeway, on the south side of the freeway. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

Hawthorne Boulevard

Hawthorne Boulevard is an eight-lane divided roadway that runs north-south through the Project area connecting 120th Street and Imperial Highway. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour.

Imperial Highway

Imperial Highway is a six-lane roadway in most areas of the study area. Imperial Highway begins at the Anaheim-Orange boundary and runs through several cities until it stops at Dockweiler State Beach in Los Angeles, south of LAX. For much of the way, Imperial Highway is signed as California State Route 90. The total length of Imperial Highway is approximately 41 miles, of which 14 miles run through Orange County and 27 miles through Los Angeles County. Imperial Highway has an at-grade railroad crossing just west of Aviation Boulevard. In the Project vicinity, on-street parking is allowed on some areas of the street and the posted speed limit is 35 to 50 miles per hour depending on location.

Public Transit System

Public transit services that serve the Project area consist of local shuttles, municipal and areawide public bus operations, rapid rail transit operations, regional commuter rail services, and inter-regional passenger rail service.

Figure 30, Public Transit Systems on Affected Roadways, illustrates the public transit facilities on the roadways affected by the proposed pipeline. As shown, existing bus services are provided along the majority of the roadways affected by the proposed pipeline, with the exception of Grant Street, Dominguez Street, Artesia Boulevard, Anderson Avenue, San Pedro Street, and Compton Boulevard. In summary, 14 MTA bus routes and 6 local bus routes run through the affected roadway segments under existing conditions.

The public transit services within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline and their providers are described below:

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is the largest provider of public transit services in the study area. Within the Project vicinity, Metro provides regular bus service, rapid bus service, and regional and inter-region rail services.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 178

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Figure 30: Public Transit Systems on Affected Roadways.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 179

City of Los Angeles December 2007

City of Los Angeles

The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) provides commuter bus services (i.e., DASH and Commuter Express) to Downtown Los Angeles and other major centers. LADOT also provides call-n-ride services (e.g., Cityride) to serve the City’s senior and mobility-impaired residents.

City of Carson

The City of Carson has its own bus system, Carson Circuit, which provides bus services throughout Carson and connections to the Metro Blue Line and regional bus services from Torrance Transit, Metro, Long Beach Transit, and the Gardena Municipal Bus Lines.

City of Compton

The City of Compton has its own bus system, Compton Renaissance Transit System, which provides daily local transit service throughout the City of Compton.

City of Gardena

The Gardena Municipal Bus Lines (GMBL) is a transit system run by of the City of Gardena, and it provides Gardena residents with four fixed bus routes and demand-response vehicles that provide bus services to elderly and handicapped people.

City of Hawthorne

The City of Hawthorne provides dial-a-ride service for the senior and mobility impaired residents.

Bus services are provided along the majority of the roadways affected by the proposed pipeline, with the exception of Grant Street, Dominguez Street, Artesia Boulevard, Anderson Avenue, San Pedro Street, and Compton Boulevard. In summary, 14 MTA bus routes and 6 local bus routes run through the affected roadway segments under existing conditions.

Parking

Approximately half of the affected roadways allow on-street parking under existing conditions. This information is not only important from a traffic perspective, but on-street parking can also relate to local business issues. The documentation of the existing on-street parking provides a proper environmental setting and also would be useful to the affected Agencies during the construction phases of the proposed pipeline.

Bicycle and Pedestrian System

Bicycle systems in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline are composed of local and regional bikeways and trails that include on-street and off-street facilities that are generally classified into the following three types:

• Class I Bikeway – Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with interaction between the two minimized;

• Class II Bikeway – Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway; and

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 180

City of Los Angeles December 2007

• Class III Bikeway – Provides signage which indicates that bicycle use shares the road with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.

As identified in the Traffic Report, the majority of the affected roadways do not provide bikeways. One Class I off-street bike path is provided on Crenshaw Boulevard and Class II on-street bike lanes are provided on Imperial Highway west of the I-405/I-105 interchange area. A majority of the roadways along the proposed pipeline have sidewalks for pedestrians.

Roadway System Analysis

Methodology

The operational characteristics of the roadway network are described using the term “level of service” (LOS). LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade, from A (the best) to F (the worst), is assigned. These grades represent the experience of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving. The LOS grades are generally defined as follows.

• LOS A represents free-flow travel with an excellent level of comfort and convenience and the freedom to maneuver.

• LOS B has stable operating conditions, but the presence of other road users causes a noticeable, though slight, reduction in comfort, convenience, and maneuvering freedom.

• LOS C has stable operating conditions, but the operation of individual users is substantially affected by the interaction with others in the traffic stream.

• LOS D represents high-density, but stable flow. Users experience severe restriction in speed and freedom to maneuver, with poor levels of comfort and convenience.

• LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity. Speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uniform level. Freedom to maneuver is difficult with users experiencing frustration and poor comfort and convenience. Unstable operation is frequent, and minor disturbances in traffic flow can cause breakdown conditions.

• LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown conditions. This condition exists wherever the volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of the roadway. Long queues can form behind these bottleneck points with queued traffic traveling in a stop-and-go fashion.

In order to maintain consistency with the 2004 Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles County (2004 CMP) and other traffic study guidelines identified by affected jurisdictions, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to calculate intersection LOS. The ICU method is derived from research published in the 1970s and is a planning-level analysis tool that provides intersection LOS and volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. The V/C ratio defines the proportion of an hour necessary to accommodate all the traffic moving through the intersection assuming all approaches were operating at full capacity. Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) ratios also provide an ideal means for quantifying intersection operating characteristics. For example, if an intersection has a CMA value of 0.70, the intersection is operating at 70% capacity with 30% unused capacity. Once the V/C ratio (i.e., CMA value) has been calculated, operating characteristics are assigned a level of service grade (A through F) to estimate the level of congestion and stability of the traffic flow. As such, Table 18 below

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 181

City of Los Angeles December 2007

documents the relationship between the various V/C ratios and Level of Service for signalized intersections.

Table 18 Level of Service Definitions

LOS V/C Ratio Operating Conditions At LOS A, there are no cycles that are fully loaded, and few are even close to loaded. No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red A 0.00 – 0.60 indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. LOS B represents stable operation. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a B >0.60 – 0.70 substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted with platoons of vehicles. In LOS C stable operation continues. Full signal cycle loading is still intermittent, but C >0.70 – 0.80 more frequent. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. LOS D encompasses a zone of increasing restriction, approaching instability. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period, but D >0.80 – 0.90 enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive back-ups. LOS E represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can E >0.90 – 1.00 accommodate. At capacity (V/C = 1.00) there may be long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection and delays may be great (up to several signal cycles). LOS F represents jammed conditions. Back-ups from location downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach under F >1.00 consideration; hence, volumes carried are not predictable. V/C values are highly variable, because full utilization of the approach may be prevented by outside conditions. Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000)

Existing Conditions

Existing traffic operations were analyzed under 2007 conditions based on field collected data that included traffic counts, geometrics, and traffic controls. The analysis was conducted for seventeen (17) study intersections, and the intersections were selected in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline where the greatest effects of the Project would occur. Detailed technical calculations are contained in the Traffic Report, attached hereto as Appendix E, of this Draft EIR. These intersections, listed below, represent the locations most likely to be affected by traffic generated by the proposed pipeline.

1. Alameda Street and Pacific Coast Highway 2. Alameda Street and 223rd Street 3. Dominguez Street and Wilmington Avenue 4. Wilmington Avenue and Del Amo Boulevard 5. Wilmington Avenue and WB SR091 Ramps 6. Walnut Street and Central Avenue 7. Walnut Street and Avalon Boulevard 8. Avalon Boulevard and Alondra Boulevard

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 182

City of Los Angeles December 2007

9. San Pedro Street and Compton Boulevard 10. Compton Boulevard and Broadway Street 11. Crenshaw Boulevard and 120th Street 12. 120th Street and WB I-105 Ramps 13. 120th Street and Hawthorne Boulevard 14. Hawthorne Boulevard and Imperial highway 15. Imperial Highway and NB I-405 Ramps 16. Imperial Highway and La Cienega Boulevard 17. Imperial Highway and Douglas Street

Traffic volumes were collected for all study intersections during the AM (7:00 – 9:00) and PM (4:00 – 6:00) peak periods on mid-week days in spring 2007 when public and private schools were in session.

No unusual circumstances occurred during data collection and the counts are representative of average weekday travel in the study area. By applying the capacity procedures mentioned above to the intersection data, the CMA values and the corresponding LOS for existing traffic conditions were calculated at each intersection during AM and PM peak hours. The LOS values are summarized in Table 19, Existing Intersection LOS.

The intersection evaluations provide an indicator of the existing traffic conditions at the most critical locations in the study area. They are intended to provide a context for the analysis of Project impacts. These data will also provide useful information when the detailed construction and traffic control plans for the Project are being developed.

As summarized in Table 19 below, most of the 17 study intersections are currently operating at acceptable urban levels (LOS D or better) during both peak commute hours. Only one location exhibits LOS E or LOS F operations during one or both of the peak hours. This intersection is along the primary transportation corridors in the area (Wilmington Avenue and Del Amo Boulevard) or at or near high congestion areas. However, operations at this intersection, and throughout the study area, improve from the level of service shown in Table 19 below, during the off-peak hours, due to a decline in hourly traffic volumes.

REGULATORY CONTEXT

This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework within which the Project would be carried out, inclusive of Phases 1 and 2. The various transportation evaluation requirements were reviewed as they relate to the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. It is important to understand that, for the most part, these jurisdictional guidelines (i.e., traffic study guidelines, etc.) are not directly applicable to the proposed pipeline since there are essentially no post-Project transportation impacts (i.e., operational impacts) within the study area during Phases 1 and 2 since the pipeline operations occur underground or within static facilities.

However, this is not to say there are no effects on transportation due to the proposed pipeline and ancillary facilities, as during the construction of the proposed pipeline for both Phases 1 and 2 there would be disruptions to various forms of transportation including traffic, transit, on-street parking, bicycles, pedestrians, etc. These construction related issues are typically governed by the local

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 183

City of Los Angeles December 2007

jurisdiction’s policies and requirements related to construction work within their public rights-of-way (ROW). A separate “encroachment permit” process typically governs this public ROW construction work, which occurs subsequent to approval of a proposed pipeline.

Table 19 Existing Intersection LOS

Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Control V/C LOS V/Ca LOS 1. Alameda Street / Pacific Coast Highway Signalized 0.502 A 0.624 B 2. Alameda Street / 223rd Street Signalized 0.560 A 0.817 D 3. Dominguez Street / Wilmington Avenue Signalized 0.507 A 0.530 A 4. Wilmington Avenue / Del Amo Boulevard Signalized 0.907 E 0.985 E 5. Wilmington Avenue / WB SR-91 Ramps Signalized 0.835 D 0.881 D 6. Walnut Street / Central Avenue Signalized 0.667 B 0.687 B 7. Walnut Street / Avalon Boulevard Signalized 0.590 A 0.636 B 8. Avalon Boulevard / Alondra Boulevard Signalized 0.518 A 0.657 B 9. San Pedro Street / Compton Boulevard Signalized 0.297 A 0.400 A 10. Compton Boulevard / Broadway Street Signalized 0.274 A 0.296 A 11. Crenshaw Boulevard / 120th Street Signalized 0.865 D 0.891 D 12. 120th Street / WB I-105 Ramps Signalized 0.806 D 0.694 B 13. 120th Street / Hawthorne Boulevard Signalized 0.643 B 0.783 C 14. Hawthorne Boulevard / Imperial highway Signalized 0.721 C 0.770 C 15. Imperial Highway / NB I-405 Ramps Signalized 0.512 A 0.633 B 16. Imperial Highway / La Cienega Boulevard Signalized 0.525 A 0.646 B 17. Imperial Highway / Douglas Street Signalized 0.511 A 0.653 B Note: V/C ratio for signalized intersections based on application of ICU Methodology. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007.

For Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed pipeline, most of the construction of the pipeline facilities would occur within the public rights-of ways of the various jurisdictions. The Project would be required to comply with each of the local jurisdiction’s construction requirements and based on information obtained during research, for each of the jurisdictions where the proposed pipeline construction would occur, it was mutually agreed that the transportation impacts related to the construction of the proposed pipeline would be appropriately addressed through qualitative evaluations, given the temporary and short-term nature of the potential impacts. In addition, specific “action items” (e.g., obtaining an encroachment permit, preparation of detailed traffic control plans for approval by the agency with jurisdictional control, etc.) would be required of the Project.

State Level

Where construction of Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed pipeline would affect highways under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, including surface streets designated as state highways, all freeways, freeway ramps, and freeway ramp terminals, coordination with Caltrans is required. This would include coordination with Caltrans (as well as with the local agencies) to develop detour and/or traffic management plans where in-street activities would affect access to freeway ramps, to obtain encroachment permits for work within state ROW and to obtain permits for the transportation of equipment or materials requiring the use of oversized vehicles.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 184

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Caltrans also provided specific comments on the NOP for the proposed pipeline. Based on their comments and the general requirements of this Draft EIR, the proposed pipeline would be required to obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for work within their ROW. In addition, transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials by an “oversized” vehicle would require a separate Caltrans transportation permit if these vehicles are to travel on any state highways.

The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies 29 provides consistent guidance for Caltrans staff who reviews local development projects. According to this guide, Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on state highway facilities. However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing state highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing measurement of effectiveness (MOE) should be maintained. However, as previously indicated, these guidelines are typically applicable to the operational phase of projects, following completion of construction. Based upon Caltrans review of the NOP, there was not a request for application of these guidelines to the proposed pipeline.

Local Level

Local jurisdictions have the primary responsibility for managing the various roadways that comprise their local street network. These agencies, including the City of Los Angeles (which is the lead agency for the Project), other cities directly affected (due to construction) by the proposed pipeline, and Los Angeles County, have relatively well defined procedures and policies guiding the evaluation of project related transportation impacts. The proposed pipeline, however, is unique since there are virtually no traffic and transportation issues associated with the Phase 1 and Phase 2 operations of the completed Project. Therefore, the traditional traffic study guidelines were referenced to develop background for evaluation of the proposed pipeline, but ultimately those guidelines were not applicable for evaluating the significance of the impacts of the Project.

All of the jurisdictions have existing procedures in place (policies for handling construction work with the public ROW) to reduce potential construction impacts. These existing procedures would be applicable to the construction of the proposed pipeline and are recommended to be a condition of Project development. As such, the following local policies and regulations were reviewed as they relate to Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed pipeline.

The City of Los Angeles also provides the following parameters to address construction related impacts:

Designated truck routes and hours

The City of Los Angeles allows major and secondary arterials to be used as truck routes. Some local streets have weight limitations or restrictions that would limit truck traffic. Typically, trucks would not travel on these streets except to obtain access to a specific site. The City of Los Angeles policy is to allow trucks to travel in a “reasonable fashion” to and from a work site. The City of Los Angeles reviews each haul-route permit for specific application of its general guidelines.

29 Caltrans, June 2001.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 185

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Construction clearance requirements

The construction clearance requirements for the City of Los Angeles are as follows:

• 5-foot clearance between a traffic lane and the nearest vertical obstruction is required. This can be reduced to 3 feet with the approval of LADOT.

• 2-foot clearance to a raised curb is required. This can be reduced to zero with the approval of LADOT.

• A minimum 10-foot-wide traffic lane must be maintained through construction zones.

• The minimum taper requirement for channeling traffic flow lanes is 25:1 to 30:1. Factors such as speed, type of facility, location, and other geometric characteristics of the specific roadway under construction will dictate the actual tapering ratio that would be used.

Speed Limit

The City of Los Angeles also restricts the speed limit to 25 mph in construction areas.

Other affected cities do not have specifically defined policies similar to those identified above, but the guidelines used for the preparation of traffic impact studies by other affected jurisdictions are consistent with or similar to the City of Los Angeles traffic guidelines described above.

Qualitative analyses of the proposed pipeline impacts are provided, as agreed to in meetings with the various jurisdictions where the construction would occur. These qualitative evaluations will identify the various transportation impact issues that can arise, as a result of the type of construction associated with the Project. In addition, specific measures (e.g., preparation of detailed traffic control plans for approval by the local agency) would be required of the proposed pipeline to minimize any potential impacts, even if the impacts have been determined to be less than significant.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

In order to reduce construction-related traffic impacts as much as is technically feasible during both phases of the Project, the Applicant would implement several measures to help reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. In particular, the Applicant would develop and implement traffic control plans (TCPs), prepared by a registered traffic engineer, for the entire pipeline route (i.e., Phases 1 and 2) at all locations where construction activities would interact with the existing transportation system. For example, the use of flaggers, warning signs, lights, barricades, cones, preparation of an emergency access plan, detours, removal of on-street parking to create a temporary travel lane, and other various measures found to be necessary would be implemented. Input and approval of the TCPs from the various responsible public agencies would be obtained prior to commencement of construction activities.

Thresholds of Significance

The environmental impacts of Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed pipeline with respect to Traffic, Circulation, and Parking were determined based on the findings of the Traffic Report prepared for the proposed pipeline. Supplemental research was also conducted in order to provide additional information necessary to address all topics below.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 186

City of Los Angeles December 2007

As discussed in the Initial Study that was prepared for the Project, which is included as Appendix E to this Draft EIR, several transportation issues were determined to result in either a less than significant impact or no impact. Specifically, the Project’s Initial Study concluded the following: (1) the proposed pipeline would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; (2) the proposed pipeline would not result in a change in traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; and (3) the proposed Project would not result in inadequate parking capacity.

As a result, the analysis presented below addresses the Project’s potential impacts for both phases with regard to the following: (1) changes to the capacity of the existing street system; (2) the potential increase in hazards due to a design feature during construction; (3) the potential to disrupt emergency access in and around the proposed pipeline during construction; and (4) the potential to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. For the purpose of the Project, the criteria listed below are used to assess the significance of Project (including both the pipeline and ancillary facilities) impacts on surrounding transportation system during construction, operation, and maintenance/repair periods.

Thus, based on the information contained herein, as well as the Project’s Initial Study, a significant impact to the issues identified above would occur if the construction or operation of the proposed pipeline would result in any of the following conditions:

1. The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to: (1) cause an unacceptable reduction in level of service on the roadways in the Project vicinity by increasing vehicles trips associated with construction workers or equipment; or (2) cause a substantial reduction in the capacity of a roadway segment without implementation of measures to assure continued traffic flow along that roadway segment or the availability of suitable alternative routes with adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic.

2. The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to disrupt bus service in a manner inconsistent with the practices and procedures of the affected service provider.

3. The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to require removal of on- street parking in an area that lacks suitable, alternative on-street or off-street parking.

4. The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to obstruct bicycle or pedestrian access or flow without the availability of suitable, alternative access or through routes.

5. The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to obstruct or substantially impede emergency access.

6. The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to obstruct access to businesses, residences, or other facilities, without reasonable accommodations.

7. The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to disrupt rail traffic by conducting construction activities within, adjacent to, or across a railroad ROW.

8. The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to create a hazardous traffic condition.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 187

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Project Impacts

All transportation impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed pipeline system, including emergency access and parking, apply equally to all segments of the pipeline for both phases of the Project except as otherwise described below. Impacts related to the construction and operations of ancillary facilities are also discussed below. Construction related impacts are described first, followed by a discussion of potential operational impacts.

Construction Related Impacts

A pipeline is inherently more likely to affect transportation facilities during construction than during operation because there is typically only a minimal amount, if any, surface activity required to operate and maintain a pipeline after construction is complete. Consequently, the bulk of the traffic/transportation analysis for both phases of the Project is devoted to the potential impacts during the construction phase of the proposed pipeline. In addition to the proposed pipeline, the Project includes ancillary facilities including a new pump station at the Vopak Inland Terminal, a new delivery connection to the Watson Pump Station, and a new receiving system at LAX. All proposed ancillary facilities would be located in existing industrial areas and outside of public roadway ROW; therefore, the Project’s potential impact on the roadway system, public transit, on-street parking, bicycle/pedestrian, and rail systems due to the construction of the proposed ancillary facilities would be less than significant for Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. Furthermore, no additional impacts would occur as a function of Phases 1 and 2 combined for the following reasons: (1) Phases 1 and 2 would be separated by both time and distance; (2) both phases are independent of one another and would require only a minimal amount of surface activity to operate and maintain the pipeline after completion; and (3) the ancillary facilities would be located in existing industrial areas and outside of public roadway ROW in both phases.

Nevertheless, construction of the proposed pipeline is expected to result in minor disruptions and affect the transportation system. Construction and testing of the Phase 1 portion of the proposed pipeline system would take approximately five months to complete, while Phase 2 would take approximately six months, based on a rate of completion of 300 to 500 feet of pipeline a day per site with multiple sites being under construction at the same time. At locations where the pipeline would be crossing the freeways, work areas would be set up on both sides of the freeway to accommodate the extension of the pipeline, without affecting travel on the mainline freeway.

Construction of the pipeline itself would typically require an area approximately 15 feet wide by 3,000 feet long on the affected roadways, during the actual construction work (e.g.; digging the trench, setting the pipeline, etc.). In public roadways, any single location ordinarily would be affected for no more than 10 working days. In addition, potholing would be required only at utility crossings of the pipeline route, and every 50-100 feet in locations where utilities are lying parallel to, and within 2-3 feet of the proposed pipeline. Generally, a pothole crew would be a few days ahead of the main spread in any one location for a period of 2-4 hours. Potholing would require a street area of 10-15 feet wide by 200-400 feet long to be coned off. To address these and all other construction impacts, detailed construction plans and schedules would be developed in coordination with each affected jurisdiction. Thus, the following sections describe anticipated construction impacts to the roadway systems along the pipeline route, public transit, on-street parking, bicycle/pedestrian travel, and rail systems in the area surrounding the proposed pipeline. Impacts to existing emergency access to existing businesses and residences and adjacent use access are also discussed below.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 188

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Roadway System

Construction of Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed pipeline within the study area would consist of trenching, laying of pipeline, and repair of the affected roadways. The pipeline route is divided into individual roadway segments to help identify potential environmental impacts. As a result, due to the length of the proposed pipeline, there would be 18 different roadway segments addressed in this analysis.

For both phases of the Project, construction activities would occur, to the maximum extent feasible, during day time working hours. From a traffic perspective this would be considered the “worst case”, since it has the greatest potential to affect peak hour traffic, although maximizing the hours per day of construction would reduce the number of construction days at any one location. Each of the affected jurisdictions would establish the specific hours and locations where construction would occur. These limitations would be imposed through the traffic control plans that would be submitted for approval by the affected jurisdiction prior to the start of any construction work. This is a reasonable approach since this issue cannot be fully addressed until the exact pipeline location within a specific right of way is known (e.g., peak hour traffic may be highly directional allowing construction on one side of the street). Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that construction work could occur during standard permitted time periods as established by each individual jurisdiction.

In general, construction crews would arrive at and depart from the construction site outside of peak traffic hours (i.e., 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) each day. Specifically, there would be a total of up to 272 workers during Phase 2 construction with approximately one-third of that number (i.e., approximately 90 workers) participating in the construction of Phase 1, all of whom would arrive before 7:00 AM and leave before 4:00 PM. The location of worker parking and related impacts are discussed below under the On-Street Parking System heading. As a result, construction worker travel would not cause an unacceptable reduction in level of service on any of the proposed roadway segments, as not all workers would use automobiles as a means of transportation to and from the Project site and their arrival/departure times would be outside of peak traffic hours. As such, the only impacts affecting the existing street system are the temporary construction activities associated with the laying of the pipeline underneath the ground surface. These impacts are summarized for each of the Project’s 18 roadway segments in Table 20 and Table 21, Phase 1 and Phase 2 Roadway Segment Construction Impacts.

Based on the preceding analysis, construction of the proposed pipeline would result in short-term impacts to traffic patterns and result in temporary traffic congestion on the affected roadways and potentially on the surrounding roadway system during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. However, significant impacts would be avoided during both phases through preparation of TCPs, (e.g., restriping, removing raised medians, directional guides, cones, installing street plates after construction hours, etc.) as proposed by the Applicant as a Project design feature. Potential impacts would, therefore, be less than significant with implementation of Project design features for Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. Impacts of the two phases combined would be less than significant for the following reasons: (1) Phases 1 and 2 are separated by both time and distance; and (2) implementation of TCPs would sufficiently reduce impacts, such that the phases combined would not result in impacts that would exceed the significance thresholds relative to traffic, circulation, and parking.

Public Transit System

Construction of Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed pipeline has the potential to result in temporary closure and/or relocation of the bus routes and subsequent stops within the area of the proposed pipeline. Table 22 and Table 23, Phase 1 and Phase 2 Public Transit Facilities Affected, summarize potential impacts to affected bus routes and stops for each affected roadway within the proposed pipeline.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 189

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 20 Phase 1 - Affected Roadway Construction Impacts

Travel Lanes Road Construction ROW Affected Roadway Median Jurisdiction Width Duration Roadway Lane Closures Impact Discussion Roadway Segment Type NB/EB SB/WB (ft) (Working Closure Days) Width Closure of one The roadway would have an Leeds Ave. travel lane adequate width of roughly 35- Grant Street to Alameda Los Angeles 1 1 50 Undivided 5-8 15 Feet between the feet to accommodate two-way St. Vopak Site and traffic flow. Impacts are less Alameda St. than significant. One lane would serve traffic in one direction of the four lane Grant St. to Divided- Los Angeles 3 3 66 15 Feet highway. Implementation of Lomita Blvd. TWLTL Closure of one suitable measures (e.g., use flag travel lane Alameda person to guide traffic through 42-69 between Grant Street implementation of TCPs) Lomita Blvd. St. and Divided would assure continued traffic to Dominguez St. Carson 2-3 2-3 66 (Mostly 15 Feet flow along this segment. Dominguez Raised) Impacts are less than St. significant. Closure of one To reduce impacts, suitable travel lane measures (e.g., flag person to Alameda St. between guide traffic through TCPs) Dominguez to Undivided Carson 1-2 1-2 35 8-14 15 Feet Alameda St. would be implemented to Street Wilmington (Mostly) and assure continued traffic flow Ave. Wilmington along this roadway. Impacts Ave. are less than significant.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 190

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 20 (Continued) Phase 1 - Affected Roadway Construction Impacts

Travel Lanes Road Construction ROW Affected Roadway Median Jurisdiction Width Duration Roadway Lane Closures Impact Discussion Roadway Segment Type NB/EB SB/WB (ft) (Working Closure Days) Width One lane would serve traffic in one direction along the four lane highway. Implementation of suitable measures (e.g., Closure of one restriping roadway or remove travel lane Dominguez the raised median to Wilmington Divided- between St. to Del Carson 2 2 60 25-42 15 Feet accommodate two-lane traffic Avenue Raised Dominguez St. Amo blvd. in the affected direction and Artesia through implementation of Blvd. TCPs) would assure continued traffic flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 191

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 21 Phase 2 - Affected Roadway Construction Impacts

Travel Lanes Road Construction ROW Affected Roadway Median Jurisdiction Width Duration Roadway Lane Closures Impact Discussion Roadway Segment Type NB/EB SB/WB (ft) (Working Closure Days) Width One lane would serve traffic in Del Amo Divided- one direction along the four Blvd. to County 3 3 60 15 Feet Raised lane highway. Implementation Victoria St. Closure of one of suitable measures (e.g., restriping roadway or remove travel lane Wilmington between the raised median to 25-42 Avenue Dominguez St. accommodate two-lane traffic Victoria St. in the affected direction Divided- and Artesia to Artesia Compton 2 2 60 15 Feet through implementation of TWLTL Blvd. Blvd. TCPs) would assure continued traffic flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant. Closure between Artesia Blvd. and Walnut St. The roadway would have an and the adequate width of roughly 24- Anderson Artesia Blvd. necessary feet to accommodate two-way Compton 1 1 39 Undivided 2-5 15 Feet Avenue to Walnut St. setup at traffic flow at a relatively low Artesia Blvd. demand. Impacts are less than and Anderson significant. Ave. to accommodate a bore pit.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 192

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 21 (Continued) Phase 2 - Affected Roadway Construction Impacts

Travel Lanes Road Construction ROW Affected Roadway Median Jurisdiction Width Duration Roadway Lane Closures Impact Discussion Roadway Segment Type NB/EB SB/WB (ft) (Working Closure Days) Width Implementation of suitable Anderson measures (e.g., restriping Divided- roadway or remove the raised Ave. to Compton 2 2 42 15 Feet Closure of one Raised median to accommodate two- Central Ave. travel lane lane traffic in the affected Walnut between 14-24 direction through Street Anderson Ave. implementation of TCPs) Central Ave. and Avalon Divided- would assure continued traffic to Avalon Carson 2 2 42 15 Feet Blvd. TWLTL flow along this segment. Blvd. Impacts are less than significant. To reduce impacts, implementation of suitable Walnut Ave. Divided- measures (e.g., restriping to Alondra Carson 3 3 74 15 Feet Raised roadway or remove the raised Blvd. Closure of one median to accommodate two- travel lane Avalon lane traffic in the affected 9-15 between Boulevard direction through Walnut St. and implementation of TCPs) Alondra San Pedro St. Divided- would assure continued traffic Blvd. to San County 3 3 74 15 Feet Raised flow along this segment. Pedro St. Impacts are less than significant.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 193

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 21 (Continued) Phase 2 - Affected Roadway Construction Impacts

Travel Lanes Road Construction ROW Affected Roadway Median Jurisdiction Width Duration Roadway Lane Closures Impact Discussion Roadway Segment Type NB/EB SB/WB (ft) (Working Closure Days) Width The roadway would have an adequate width to accommodate two-way traffic Closure of one flow at a relatively low travel lane demand. However, to reduce Avalon Blvd. San Pedro Undivided between impacts further, to Compton County 2 2 56 6-10 15 Feet Street (Mostly) Avalon Blvd. implementation of suitable Blvd. and Compton measures (e.g., guide traffic Blvd. through implementation of TCPs) would assure continued traffic flow. Impacts are less than significant. The roadway would have an adequate width for two-way traffic flow at a relatively low Closure of one demand. Nevertheless, suitable San Pedro St. travel lane Compton measures (e.g., guide traffic to Figueroa County 2 2 60 Undivided 10-16 15 Feet between San Boulevard through implementation of St. Pedro St. and TCPs) would assure continued Figueroa St. traffic flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 194

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 21 (Continued) Phase 2 - Affected Roadway Construction Impacts

Travel Lanes Road Construction ROW Affected Roadway Median Jurisdiction Width Duration Roadway Lane Closures Impact Discussion Roadway Segment Type NB/EB SB/WB (ft) (Working Closure Days) Width The roadway would have an adequate width to accommodate space for another Closure of one travel lane. Nevertheless, Compton travel lane implementation of suitable Figueroa Blvd. to Divided- between County 2 2 60 2-3 15 Feet measures (e.g., guide traffic Street Redondo TWLTL Compton Blvd. through implementation of Beach Blvd. and Redondo TCPs) would assure continued Beach Blvd. traffic flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant. Given the directional roadway width on this segment, construction would require temporary closure of two travel lanes but would continue to Closure of two have another travel lane to travel lanes Figueroa St. serve traffic flows. Redondo Divided- between to Vermont Los Angeles 3 3 60 6-19 15 Feet Implementation of suitable Beach Blvd. TWLTL Figueroa St. Ave. measures (e.g., restripe and Vermont roadways through Ave. implementation of TCPs) would assure continued traffic flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 195

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 21 (Continued) Phase 2 - Affected Roadway Construction Impacts

Travel Lanes Road Construction ROW Affected Roadway Median Jurisdiction Width Duration Roadway Lane Closures Impact Discussion Roadway Segment Type NB/EB SB/WB (ft) (Working Closure Days) Width The roadway would have an adequate width to accommodate two traffic flow Closure of one lanes to serve traffic in the travel lane affected direction. To further Redondo between reduce impacts, Vermont Beach Blvd. Divided- Los Angeles 3 3 78 5-8 15 Feet Redondo implementation of suitable Avenue to Rosecrans Raised Beach Blvd. measures (e.g., guide traffic Ave. and Rosecrans through implementation of Ave. TCPs) would assure continued traffic flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant. Given the directional roadway width on this segment, Vermont construction would require Ave. to Divided- temporary closure of one travel Gardena 3 3 62 15 Feet Crenshaw TWLTL lane but would continue to have Blvd. Closure of one another travel lane to serve travel lane traffic. Implementation of Rosecrans between suitable measures (e.g., 22-36 Avenue Vermont Ave. restriping roadway or remove and Crenshaw the raised median to Crenshaw Blvd. accommodate two-lane traffic in Blvd. to Divided- the affected direction through Hawthorne 3 3 62 15 Feet Crenshaw TWLTL implementation of TCPs) would Blvd. assure continued traffic flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 196

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 21 (Continued) Phase 2 - Affected Roadway Construction Impacts

Travel Lanes Road Construction ROW Affected Roadway Median Jurisdiction Width Duration Roadway Lane Closures Impact Discussion Roadway Segment Type NB/EB SB/WB (ft) (Working Closure Days) Width Given the directional roadway Rosecrans width on this segment, Divided- Ave. to 135th Hawthorne 3 3 64 15 Feet construction would require TWLTL St. temporary closure of two travel lanes but would continue to Closure of two have another travel lane to serve travel lanes traffic flows. Implementation of Crenshaw 135th St. to Divided- between suitable measures (e.g., County 3 3 64 16-27 15 Feet Boulevard 132nd St. Raised Rosecrans restriping roadway or remove Ave. and 120th the raised median to St. accommodate two-lane traffic in the affected direction through 132nd St. to Divided- implementation of TCPs) would Hawthorne 3 3 64 15 Feet 120th St. TWLTL assure continued traffic flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant. Construction would reduce roadway capacity in one Closure of one direction for the 4-lane segment travel lane leaving one lane to serve traffic Crenshaw between in one direction. Implementation Blvd. to Divided 120th Street Hawthorne 2 2-3 50 16-27 15 Feet Crenshaw of suitable measures (e.g., Hawthorne (partly) Blvd. and restripe roadways through Blvd. Hawthorne implementation of TCPs) would Blvd. assure continued traffic flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 197

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 21 (Continued) Phase 2 - Affected Roadway Construction Impacts

Travel Lanes Road Construction ROW Affected Roadway Median Jurisdiction Width Duration Roadway Lane Closures Impact Discussion Roadway Segment Type NB/EB SB/WB (ft) (Working Closure Days) Width Given the directional roadway width on this segment, construction would require temporary closure of one travel lane but would continue to Closure of one have three other lanes to serve 120th St. to travel lane Hawthorne Divided- traffic flows. Implementation Imperial Hawthorne 4 4 102 6-9 15 Feet between 120th Boulevard Raised of suitable measures (e.g., Hwy. St. and restripe roadways through Imperial Hwy. implementation of TCPs) would assure continued traffic flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant. Construction would reduce roadway capacity in one Hawthorne Divided- direction for the 6-lane segment Blvd. to I- Hawthorne 3 3 52 15 Feet leaving one lane to serve traffic TWLTL Closure of one 405 in one direction. travel lane Implementation of suitable Imperial between 39-64 measures (e.g., remove raised Highway Hawthorne median through Blvd. and LAX implementation of TCPs) I-405 to LAX Divided- Service Street. Los Angeles 2-3 2-3 52 15 Feet would assure continued traffic Surface Road TWLTL flow along this segment. Impacts are less than significant. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 198

City of Los Angeles

Table 22 Phase 1 - Public Transit Facilities Affected

Affected Bus Service Streets Routes Stations Grant Street - - Alameda Street MTA Route 202 Carson Street Dominguez Street - - Wilmington Avenue MTA Route 205 Del Amo Boulevard Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007.

Table 23 Phase 2 - Public Transit Facilities Affected

Affected Bus Service Streets Routes Stations Dimondale Drive CCTS Route A Wilmington Avenue Gladwick Street CCTS Route E University Drive Artesia Boulevard - - Anderson Avenue - - MTA Route 130 Walnut Street - TT Route 6 MTA Route 52 MTA Avalon Boulevard Route 352 169th Street CCTS Route H San Pedro Street - - Compton Boulevard - - Figueroa Street TT Route 1 Redondo Beach Boulevard TT Route 3 Vermont Avenue GMBL Line 1 Redondo Beach Boulevard Vermont Avenue GMBL Line 2 Rosecrans Avenue Rosecrans Avenue MTA Route 125 - MTA Route 126 Rosecrans Avenue MTA Route 210 Crenshaw Boulevard El Segundo Boulevard MTA Route 710 120th Street TT Route 2 MTA Route 126 120th Street Crenshaw Boulevard MTA Route 622 MTA Route 40 MTA Route 126 Hawthorne Boulevard Imperial Highway MTA Route 622 MTA Route 740 MTA Route 120 Imperial Highway MTA Route 622 Hawthorne Boulevard CE Route 438 Note: CCTS=Carson Circuit Transit System; TT=Torrance Transit; GMBL=Gardena Municipal Bus Lines; CE=LADOT Commuter Express Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 199

City of Los Angeles December 2007

As shown in Table 22 and Table 23, 22 bus routes would be affected by the construction of the proposed pipeline system. The specific bus stops to be affected by the Project would be determined after the final engineering assessment of the proposed pipeline is complete and identifies the side of the streets the proposed pipeline would follow. In summary, construction and related activities would occur at one affected bus stop for on average 10 working days (or 2 weeks).

Generally, transit agencies have established procedures to deal with the impacts on transit service due to construction projects. The procedures include detours of bus routes, relocation of bus stops either upstream or downstream of the construction site, or closure of affected bus stops during the course of construction.

Construction of the proposed pipeline may cause temporary disruption of existing bus routes and/or block the access to bus stops. However, Project impacts would be temporary and only occur during the construction phase. In addition, the potential public transit impacts would be avoided through preparation of TCPs that are consistent with the procedures established by the affected transit agencies.

Based on the preceding analysis, construction of the proposed pipeline would result in short-term impacts to the existing public transit system along the route of the proposed pipeline during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. However, significant impacts would be avoided for both phases through preparation of TCPs, as proposed by the Applicant as a Project design feature. As such, potential impacts would be less than significant during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project, with implementation of this Project design feature. Impacts of the two phases combined would be less than significant for the following reasons: (1) Phases 1 and 2 are separated by both time and distance; and (2) implementation of Project design features would sufficiently reduce impacts, such that the phases combined would not result in impacts that would exceed the significance thresholds relative to traffic, circulation, and parking.

On-Street Parking System

Existing on-street parking facilities along the pipeline route are shown in Table 24 and Table 25, Existing On-Street Parking Conditions. Construction of the proposed pipeline system would result in the temporary loss of on-street parking spaces and/or restricted access to on-street parking on the side of the street currently under construction at that time. Parking may also be required to be removed in order to maintain two-way travel during construction. As such, on-street parking would be re-located to adjacent roadway segments along all areas of the proposed pipeline, whether near residential or commercial land use areas. Based on field observations, these adjacent roadway segments were found to adequately accommodate the temporary parking needs for the duration of construction of each segment. In addition, the Project Applicant would also work with owners of adjacent properties to maintain access to their off- street parking lots during construction of the pipeline.

At this time, the specific number of parking spaces that could be affected by the Project would be determined after the final engineering assessment of the proposed pipeline is complete, which would identify the side of the street the proposed pipeline would follow. Project construction occurring on affected roadways would cause temporary loss of on-street parking spaces and/or restricted access to on- street parking as described above. However, Project impacts would be temporary and only occur during the Project’s construction of Phases 1 and 2. In addition, the Project impacts would be avoided through preparation of TCPs.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 200

City of Los Angeles December 2007

Table 24 Existing On-Street Parking Conditions – Phase 1

On-Street Parking Affected Roadway Roadway Segment Jurisdiction NB/EB SB/WB Grant Street Leeds Ave. to Alameda St. Los Angeles Yes Yes Grant St. to Lomita Blvd. Los Angeles No No Alameda Street Lomita Blvd. to Dominguez St. Carson Yes No Dominguez Street Alameda St. to Wilmington Ave. Carson Yes Yes Wilmington Avenue Dominguez St. to Del Amo Blvd. Carson No No Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007.

Table 25 Existing On-Street Parking Conditions – Phase 2

On-Street Parking Affected Roadway Roadway Segment Jurisdiction NB/EB SB/WB Del Amo Blvd. to Victoria St. (approx.) County No No Wilmington Avenue Victoria St. (approx.) to Artesia Blvd. Compton No No Artesia Boulevard Wilmington Ave. to Anderson Ave. Compton No No Anderson Avenue Artesia Blvd. to Walnut St. Compton Yes Yes Anderson Ave. to Central Ave. Compton No No Walnut Street Central Ave. to Avalon Blvd. Carson No No Walnut Ave. to Alondra Blvd. Carson No No Avalon Boulevard Alondra Blvd. to San Pedro St. County No No San Pedro Street Avalon Blvd. to Compton Blvd. County Yes Yes Compton Boulevard San Pedro St. to Figueroa St. County Yes Yes Figueroa Street Compton Blvd. to Redondo Beach Blvd. County Yes Yes Redondo Beach Figueroa St. to Vermont Ave. Los Angeles Yes Yes Boulevard Vermont Avenue Redondo Beach Blvd. to Rosecrans Ave. Los Angeles Yes Yes Vermont Ave. to Crenshaw Blvd. Gardena Yes Yes Rosecrans Avenue Crenshaw Blvd. to Crenshaw Blvd. Hawthorne Yes Yes Rosecrans Ave. to 135th St. Hawthorne Yes Yes Crenshaw Boulevard 135th St. to 132nd St. County Yes Yes 132nd St. to 120th St. Hawthorne Yes Yes 120th Street Crenshaw Blvd. to Hawthorne Blvd. Hawthorne Yes Yes Hawthorne Boulevard 120th St. to Imperial Hwy. Hawthorne Yes Yes Hawthorne Blvd. to I-405 Hawthorne Yes Yes Imperial Highway I-405 to LAX surface road Los Angeles No No Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007.

Based on the preceding analysis, construction of the proposed pipeline would result in short-term impacts to the on-street parking system during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. However, significant impacts would be avoided for both phases through preparation of TCPs, as proposed by the Applicant as a Project design feature. Potential impacts of the Project during both Phases 1 and 2 would, therefore, be less than significant with implementation of this Project design feature. Impacts of the two phases combined would be less than significant for the following reasons: (1) Phases 1 and 2 are separated by both time

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 201

City of Los Angeles December 2007

and distance; and (2) implementation of TCPs would sufficiently reduce impacts, such that the phases combined would not result in impacts that would exceed the significance thresholds relative to traffic, circulation, and parking.

Bicycle/Pedestrian System

Construction of Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed pipeline would result in temporary closures and/or restricted access to bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the side of the street that is under construction. As identified in the Traffic Report, only two affected roadway segments have designated bike facilities. Specifically, a Class I bike path is located along Crenshaw Boulevard outside of the street ROW. As proposed pipeline construction activities would be solely limited to the street ROW, potential impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, Class II bike lanes are located along Imperial Highway within the street ROW. Construction of the proposed pipeline would require temporary closure and/or restrict the access to the bike lanes on the side of Imperial Highway during Phase 2 construction. However, the Project Applicant would work with the affected jurisdictions to provide alternate bike routes where needed. Thus, potential impacts would be considered less than significant. Although pedestrian sidewalks are not directly within the construction area of the proposed pipeline, construction activities adjacent to sidewalks would adversely affect pedestrian safety. However, the Project Applicant would work with each affected jurisdiction to provide pedestrian safety measures through TCPs.

Overall, Project construction would temporarily block and/or restrict access to bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as bikeways and sidewalks during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project, as well as for both phases combined. Thus, based on the preceding analysis, construction of the proposed pipeline would result in short-term impacts to the existing bicycle and pedestrian system along the proposed pipeline route during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project, and both phases combined. However, significant impacts would be avoided for both phases through preparation of TCPs, as proposed by the Applicant as a Project design feature. Potential impacts would, therefore, be less than significant with implementation of this Project design feature for Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. Impacts of the two phases combined would be less than significant for the following reasons: (1) Phases 1 and 2 are separated by both time and distance; and (2) implementation of Project design features would sufficiently reduce impacts, such that the phases combined would not result in impacts that would exceed the significance thresholds relative to traffic, circulation, and parking.

Emergency Access

Construction of Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed pipeline would result in temporary partial roadway closures, increased traffic congestion, and increased truck traffic associated with construction activities. In addition, construction of the proposed ancillary facilities would also result in increased construction truck traffic in those industrial areas within which the ancillary facilities would be located. These could temporarily increase response times for emergency services, such as fire protection, police, and ambulance, along, and in proximity to, the affected roadways. In response to those potential impacts, the Project Applicant would coordinate with each affected jurisdiction to assist in planning and coordinating alternate emergency vehicle routes. The emergency access plan would outline the procedures for coordination with emergency service providers prior to Project construction.

Based on the preceding analysis, construction of the proposed pipeline would result in short-term impacts to emergency access in areas surrounding the construction of the proposed pipeline during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project, as well as for both phases combined. However, significant impacts would be avoided during both Phases 1 and 2 through preparation of traffic control plans, as proposed by the Applicant as a Project design feature. Potential impacts would, therefore, be less than significant with

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 202

City of Los Angeles December 2007

implementation of this Project design feature for Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. Impacts of the two phases combined would be less than significant for the following reasons: (1) Phases 1 and 2 are separated by both time and distance; and (2) the preparation of traffic control plans would sufficiently reduce impacts, such that the phases combined would not result in impacts that would exceed the significance thresholds relative to traffic, circulation, and parking.

Adjacent Uses Access

Construction of Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed pipeline would require the temporary closure of roadway areas of 15 feet in width on each affected roadway, which could temporarily block access to driveways of residential areas, business, or other public or private properties adjacent to the construction zone. In response to those potential impacts, the Project Applicant would coordinate with the affected surrounding properties and jurisdictions to prepare an adjacent land uses access plan as part of the proposed TCPs. The adjacent uses access plan would identify existing or potential alternate accesses to surrounding properties that may be blocked by the construction zone.

Based on the preceding analysis, construction of the proposed pipeline would result in short-term impacts to adjacent uses access due to temporary street closures during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. However, significant impacts would be avoided during both phases through preparation of TCPs, as proposed by the Applicant as a Project design feature. Potential impacts would, therefore, be less than significant with implementation of this Project design feature during both Phases 1 and 2. Impacts of the two phases combined would be less than significant for the following reasons: (1) Phases 1 and 2 are separated by both time and distance; and (2) implementation of TCPs would sufficiently reduce impacts, such that the phases combined would not result in impacts that would exceed the significance thresholds relative to traffic, circulation, and parking.

Rail System

Several rail tracks have at-grade intersections with the affected roadways under existing conditions. However, construction of the proposed pipeline would not disrupt rail traffic, as the pipeline would go underneath the rail tracks. Therefore, potential impacts on the rail system due to the construction of the proposed pipeline system would be less than significant during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. In addition, since the pipeline would go underneath the tracks for both phases of the Project, thereby precluding significant impacts during both phases, no additional impacts to the rail system would occur as a function of the two phases combined.

Traffic Safety

Construction of Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed pipeline would require temporary partial roadway closures, increased traffic congestion, and increased truck traffic associated with construction activities. These would temporarily create a hazardous traffic condition for the affected roadways. In response to those potential impacts, the Project Applicant would coordinate with the affected jurisdictions to prepare TCPs. The TCPs would include signage, striping, delineation of detours, flagging operations, and other devices to be used during construction to guide motorists safely through the construction zone. As such, based on the preceding analysis, construction of the proposed pipeline would result in short-term impacts to traffic safety in the area surrounding the construction of the proposed pipeline during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. However, significant impacts would be avoided for both phases through preparation of TCPs, as proposed by the Applicant as a Project design feature. As such, potential impacts with regard to traffic safety would be less than significant during both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project. Impacts of the two phases combined would be less than significant for the following reasons: (1) Phases 1 and 2 are

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 203

City of Los Angeles December 2007

separated by both time and distance; and (2) implementation of TCPs would sufficiently reduce impacts, such that the phases combined would not result in impacts that would exceed the significance thresholds relative to traffic, circulation, and parking.

Operational Impacts

Operation of Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed pipeline would have negligible impacts on the area’s transportation system under normal circumstances as only inspection and maintenance activities would generate short-term vehicular traffic. Specifically, after the completion of the proposed pipeline and ancillary facilities, inspection of the pipeline would be conducted every five years for maintenance purposes. This maintenance procedure is typically performed from a pump station and receiving facilities and would not generate any effects on transportation systems. If the inspection results call for a need for repair of the proposed pipeline or ancillary facilities, the Project Applicant would coordinate with the affect jurisdiction(s) to develop a TCP for the repair period. Typically, the repair period at one location would affect less roadway area, in comparison to activities during the Project’s construction period, as well as occur for a shorter duration (2-3 days). If a major pipeline repair were required at a particular location, the temporary transportation impacts would be similar to the construction impacts addressed above for each segment and the implementation of the TCPs would apply under this circumstance as well. Based on the above analysis, impacts due to operations of the proposed pipeline and ancillary facilities would be less than significant during both Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed Project. Impacts of the two phases combined would be less than significant for the following reasons: (1) Phases 1 and 2 are separated by both time and distance; and (2) implementation of TCPs would sufficiently reduce impacts, such that the phases combined would not result in impacts that would exceed the significance thresholds relative to traffic, circulation, and parking.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Given the geographic area covered by the proposed pipeline, there is a possibility that other construction projects (i.e., related projects) would occur along the same routes as the pipeline during either phase or both phases of the Project. While there is a potential for cumulative impacts to occur, the duration of the impact would be very limited given the rate of construction for the proposed Project. Furthermore, should such an impact occur, it is anticipated that the affected jurisdiction(s) would require that such effects would be addressed through the preparation of TCPs by each project. The preparation of such TCPs would ensure that cumulative construction-related traffic impacts would be appropriately addressed. Therefore, the construction impacts of the proposed pipeline under cumulative conditions during Phases 1 and 2 would be less than significant. Impacts of the two phases combined would be less than significant for the following reasons: (1) Phases 1 and 2 are separated by both time and distance; and (2) implementation of TCPs would sufficiently reduce impacts, such that the phases combined would not result in impacts that would exceed the significance thresholds relative to traffic, circulation, and parking.

MITIGATION MEASURES

There are no proposed mitigation measures, as the implementation of regulatory TCPs during Phases 1 and 2 of the Project would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

There are no mitigation measures proposed.

Smart Energy Transport System IV.C. Traffic / Circulation / Parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 204