HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2018 1107 REG CCSA ITEM 09DCITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of November 7, 2018
ACTION Received and filed
report
BY M. Benson
D. Consider the Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study Prepared by Kimley-Horn and
Associates. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file.
Item: 9.D.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director, and
Sean Corrigan, City Engineer/Public Works Director
DATE: 11/07/2018 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider the Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study Prepared by Kimley-
Horn and Associates
BACKGROUND
On September 7, 2016, the City Council authorized staff to request proposals for a
study of traffic on State Route 118 (SR-118) that is conjoined with Los Angeles Avenue
(LA Avenue) in order to help with future decisions on traffic improvements as well as
with preparation of an update to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In
December 2016, Kimley-Horn and Associates was selected to prepare this study, and in
May 2017, the City entered into a professional services agreement with Kimley-Horn for
this study. A copy of the study is attached.
In addition to the study, staff continues to work on a number of issues related to
congestion relief and safety along Los Angeles Avenue, including:
1. Widening SR-118/LA Avenue to achieve three through lanes in each direction
within Moorpark, with just the sections between Spring Road & Moorpark Avenue
and the section west of Tierra Rejada Road outstanding;
2. Police Department’s focused truck traffic safety enforcement;
3. Working with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol on major improvements
proposed the SR 118 weigh stations;
4. Providing GPS clocks to Caltrans to eliminate timing “drift” issues in their Los
Angeles Avenue signals: and
5. Programming upgrades to SR-118/Los Angeles Avenue traffic signals and fiber
optic interconnection in the 2018-19 budget.
Item: 9.D.
248
Honorable City Council
11/07/2018 Regular Meeting
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The following is a summary of key activities associated with the SR-118/Los Angeles
Avenue Traffic Study:
June 2017 Kimley-Horn collected 24-hour directional traffic counts with
vehicle classification at four locations on LA Avenue: West of
Tierra Rejada Road, west of Moorpark Avenue, west of
Spring Road, and west of the SR-23 Freeway. City, Kimley-
Horn, and Caltrans staff held a kick-off meeting on June 28,
2017 to discuss project scope, parameters, project-related
concerns, and Caltrans review process. Caltrans staff
indicated a willingness to implement coordinated signal
timing improvements as a typical operations and
maintenance review, accelerating the approval process and
not requiring an encroachment permit.
August 2017 Field review confirmed intersection geometry, posted speed
limits, signal phasing, parking, pedestrian activity, heavy
vehicle volumes, bus stops, movements with uneven lane
distribution, queue spillover or blockage, and oversaturated
intersection movements.
January 2018 A signal timing analysis was completed and implemented for
10 signalized intersections, prioritizing traffic along Los
Angeles Avenue. After long delays on the adjoining streets
were observed, timing was adjusted to better accommodate
traffic on these streets. Signal timing was fine-tuned on
January 24 and 31.
February 2018 Controller clocks, which had drifted by up to 4 minutes after
being set in January, were re-set. Travel times were
measured and compared to the “before” situation.
March-April 2018 Kimley-Horn submitted a draft report to the City in March,
with recommendations for long-term capital improvement
projects to address congestion along Los Angeles Avenue to
maintain Level of Service C conditions in 2035, assuming
buildout of the remaining vacant land in the City by that time.
Level of Service C is a common target for most cities with
limited right of way and funding and is defined as restricted
flow that remains stable but with significant interactions with
others in the traffic stream. Kimley-Horn also coordinated
249
Honorable City Council
11/07/2018 Regular Meeting
Page 3
and met with Caltrans staff to fine tune the signal timing,
including the left turn splits, cycle lengths, and time-of-day
operations. Additional “after” travel times were measured.
Due to signal synchronization, travel time from one end of
the study area to the other was reduced by 15-20%, the
number of stops was reduced by 53-54%, speed increased
by 14-21%, and delay was reduced by 36-44%. The City
has paid for the replacement of a couple of the controller
clocks since this work was completed.
October 2018 Staff provided comments and questions and the study report
was revised to address staff comments and questions.
Final long-term recommendations of the report include:
• Upgrading of signals with countdown pedestrian heads, new controllers, GPS
clocks, fiber optic communication, adaptive timing, and video detection.
• Increasing the westbound left storage length at Tierra Rejada Road and at Spring
Road.
• Increasing the eastbound left storage at Spring Road.
• Changing the northbound approach lane configuration at Tierra Rejada Road to
left, through/left, and right.
• Adding eastbound and westbound turn lanes between Moorpark Avenue and
Spring Road.
• Further evaluating and implementing protected-permissive phasing where
warranted.
• Installing signals and optimizing the signal timing at Millard Avenue and Shasta
Avenue.
• Preparing a detailed transportation analysis of North Hills Parkway to understand
the regional impacts and to identify mitigation measures to the transportation
network.
250
Honorable City Council
11/07/2018 Regular Meeting
Page 4
Items studied and not recommended include:
• Removing the signal at Park Lane is not recommended, as it worsens the Los
Angeles Avenue intersections with Moorpark Avenue and Leta Yancy Road for
overall worse conditions.
• Constructing a pedestrian bridge at Moorpark Avenue is not recommended as
the optimized signal timing is sufficient for pedestrians, and the number of
conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles is low.
• Increasing curb return radii is not recommended as it would not have a significant
benefit on traffic conditions and it would lengthen the crossings for pedestrians.
The study also looked at raised medians, and noted that they can increase the safety of
drivers and pedestrians by reducing head-on collisions and providing a refuge for
pedestrians crossing a wide road. They can also improve aesthetics and allow for
additional places for traffic signage. However, they could also increase emergency
response times and increase delay for left-turning vehicles by restricting access.
Finally the study did not expect a significant reduction in truck volume by the installation
of a truck scale. It should, however, be noted that the truck scale would better ensure
the safety of the roadway as it would discourage overloaded trucks and allow for safety
inspections.
In the past month or so, Caltrans has been making repairs to the pavement on Los
Angeles Avenue and has broken some of the magnetic loop detectors at the
intersections, which has reset the signal controllers to their default operation. By the
time of this Council meeting, it is expected that these detectors will have been repaired
and the controllers reset.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
Attachment: October 2018 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
251
City of Moorpark
Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
OCTOBER 2018
Prepared By:
660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050, Los Angeles, CA 90017
252
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction and Project Area ............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Coordination with Agencies ............................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Existing Signal System and Timing ................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Traffic Volume Data ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Field Review and System Evaluation.............................................................................................. 6
2.4.1 Corridor Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 6
2.4.2 Parking Facilities and Activity .................................................................................................. 9
2.4.3 Percentage Heavy Vehicle Volume.......................................................................................... 9
2.4.4 Bus Routes and Usage ........................................................................................................... 9
2.4.5 Uneven Lane Distribution ........................................................................................................ 9
2.4.6 Unsignalized Intersections ..................................................................................................... 10
2.4.7 Oversaturated Intersections................................................................................................... 10
2.4.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Timing .............................................................................................. 11
2.4.9 Inventory of Traffic Controller Cabinets .................................................................................. 11
2.5 Travel Time Surveys .................................................................................................................... 12
3.0 Optimized Signal Timing .................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 Conditions for Optimized Timing Plan Development ..................................................................... 13
3.2 Cycle Length Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Split Optimization ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.4 Offset and Phase Sequence Optimization .................................................................................... 14
3.5 Implementation and Fine-Tuning .................................................................................................. 14
3.6 Performance Measurement of Optimized Timing .......................................................................... 14
4.0 Infrastructure Improvements ............................................................................................................ 16
4.1 Traffic Signal Improvements ......................................................................................................... 16
4.1.1 Equipment Upgrades............................................................................................................. 16
4.1.2 Protected-Permitted Left-Turn Phasing .................................................................................. 18
4.1.3 Remove Signal at Park Lane ................................................................................................. 19
4.1.4 Signalizing Millard Avenue and Shasta Avenue ..................................................................... 20
4.2 Geometric Improvements ............................................................................................................. 21
4.2.1 Additional and/or Longer Turn Lanes ..................................................................................... 21
4.2.2 Larger Curb Return Radii ...................................................................................................... 21
4.2.3 Pedestrian Bridge .................................................................................................................. 22
4.2.4 Raised Medians .................................................................................................................... 22
4.2.5 Commercial Vehicle Scales ................................................................................................... 22
4.2.6 Additional Travel Lanes ......................................................................................................... 23
4.2.7 Parallel/Bypass Routes ......................................................................................................... 23
5.0 Final Recommendation and Next Steps ........................................................................................... 24
253
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Project Limits ........................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2 – 24-Hour Average Daily Traffic Volumes Summary .................................................................... 4
Table 3 – Uneven Lane Distribution Summary ......................................................................................... 9
Table 4 – Oversaturated Movements Summary ..................................................................................... 11
Table 5 – Traffic Signal Controller Cabinet Summary ............................................................................. 12
Table 6 – “Before” Travel Time Summary .............................................................................................. 12
Table 7 – “After” Travel Time Summary ................................................................................................. 15
Table 8 – Summary of Overall Operational Improvements ...................................................................... 15
Table 9 – Traffic Signal Equipment Improvement Summary ................................................................... 18
Table 10 – Level of Service Analysis for Protected-Permissive Phasing ................................................. 19
Table 11 – Level of Service Analysis for Signal Removal at Park Lane ................................................... 20
Table 12 – Travel Time Analysis for Signalizing Millard Avenue and Shasta Avenue .............................. 21
Table 13 – Queue Length Summary of 2035 Current Optimized Conditions ........................................... 21
Table 14 – Travel Time Comparison between Optimized and Improvement Scenarios ........................... 23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Existing Project Area ............................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 – Existing Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3 – 2035 Traffic Volumes………………………………………………………………………………..…17
254
1 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT AREA
Kimley-Horn was retained by the City of Moorpark to conduct an operational assessment of the signal
system along Los Angeles Avenue, between Tierra Rejada Road/Gabbert Road at the west City limit and
State Route 118 Eastbound Ramps on the east. The purpose of this traffic study is to provide short-term,
solutions to improve signal coordination and recommend long-term capital improvement projects needed
to maintain the City’s Level of Service C goal under 2035 traffic conditions.
Los Angeles Avenue (State Route 118) is the backbone of the City of Moorpark’s east-west circulation
network, providing access to residential, industrial, and major commercial centers. Los Angeles Avenue
(L.A. Avenue) is a two-lane facility from the City’s western limits to Tierra Rejada Road/Gabbert Road, a
six-lane facility between Tierra Rejada Road and Moorpark Avenue, a four-lane facility between Moorpark
Avenue and Spring Road, and a six-lane facility between Spring Road and its terminus with State Route
23. L.A. Avenue between Moorpark Avenue and State Route 23 is also signed as State Route 23.
The City has previously completed a project to interconnect and coordinate all the traffic signals in the
corridor. The corridor is owned and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
and any improvements to signal timing and coordination will be implemented by Caltrans.
Table 1 presents the limits of the project corridor, including the major intersections along the corridor and
type of control at the intersection.Figure 1 illustrates the study area and highlights the traffic signals within
the project.
Table 1 – Project Limits
Corridor Limits Intersection Control
Los Angeles Avenue Between Tierra Rejada Road
and SR 118 Eastbound Ramps
Tierra Rejada Road Signalized
Maureen Lane Signalized
Shasta Avenue Unsignalized
Leta Yancy Road Signalized
Park Lane Signalized
Moorpark Avenue (SR 23) Signalized
Millard Street Unsignalized
Spring Road Signalized
Miller Parkway Signalized
Marketplace Signalized
SR 23 SB Ramps Signalized
SR 118 EB Ramps Signalized
255
%KV[QH/QQTRCTMÄ.QU#PIGNGU#XG5KIPCN5[PEJTQPK\CVKQP5VWF[#TGC(+)74'+PVGTUGEVKQP+&256
3 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
The traffic signals within the study area currently have time-based coordination, and are connected via
copper signal interconnect. This older type signal system is now classified as a "legacy" system in the
National ITS Architecture, which provides a framework to guide the planning and deployment of Intelligent
Transportation Systems. Copper signal interconnect is not the preferred design for current or future
systems; however, it still provides a serviceable backbone for the City. In addition, the current field
equipment and copper interconnect cable network can provide the basis for a transitional communications
system for future improvements.
The primary objective of this signal system assessment was to identify deficiencies and provide a
framework to meet the existing and future intersection and traffic control system needs of the study area.
The first step of this signal system assessment is data collection. During this first step, existing timing, traffic
count data, field conditions, and “before” travel time surveys are collected. The second step is to use the
field data to create optimized signal timing. The optimized signal timing is then implemented into the field
and “after” travel time surveys are performed. The optimized signal timing are short term measures that will
improve the operations of Los Angeles Avenue immediately. The third step, infrastructure improvements,
analyzes long-term capital improvement projects that would maintain the City’s Level of Service (LOS) C
goal under 2035 traffic conditions. The fourth step is to provide final recommendations based on the results
of the infrastructure improvements analysis.
2.0 DATA COLLECTION
To assess existing operations and operational capabilities along the Los Angeles Avenue corridor, the
Kimley-Horn team collected various traffic data. Data collection included coordinating with Caltrans to obtain
existing signal timing sheets; collecting traffic volumes; conducting a field review to inventory signal
equipment and signal phasing; observe pedestrian and vehicular activity; and conduct travel time surveys.
The following sections summarize the data collection process and existing study area conditions.
2.1 COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES
A kick-off meeting was conducted with the City of Moorpark and Caltrans on Wednesday, June 28, 2017,
to discuss the project scope, parameters, project-related concerns, and the Caltrans review process.
Following the discussion with Caltrans staff, it was determined that short term benefits could be achieved
by developing and implementing coordinated signal timing improvements with Caltrans support. This
approach was considered as a typical operations and maintenance review, and was expected to accelerate
the approval process and not require an encroachment permit.
2.2 EXISTING SIGNAL SYSTEM AND TIMING
All traffic signals along the corridor are fully-actuated and have Type 170 controllers with C8 Version 4
firmware. The traffic signals are coordinated by time-based operation during the Weekday AM, Mid-Day
and PM peak hours. The coordination timing was implemented in 2007.
257
4 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
2.3 TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA
Kimley-Horn collected 24-hour directional tube counts with vehicle classification were collected for two (2)
consecutive days on June 6 and June 7, 2017, at the following four (4) locations:
Los Angeles Avenue between Montair Drive and Tierra Rejada Road
Los Angeles Avenue between Park Lane and Moorpark Avenue
Los Angeles Avenue between Millard Street and Spring Road
Los Angeles Avenue between Marketplace and State Route 23 Southbound Ramps
The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes, including the percentage heavy vehicle traffic, and are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 – 24-Hour Average Daily Traffic Volumes Summary
Location Day
EB
Average
WB
Average Total
%
Heavy
Vehicles
Los Angeles Avenue
(between Montair Drive and Tierra Rejada Road)Weekday 11,589 11,406 22,995 20%
Los Angeles Avenue
(between Park Lane and Moorpark Road)Weekday 14,930 16,533 31,463 20%
Los Angeles Avenue
(between Millard Street and Spring Road)Weekday 18,311 18,161 36,472 18%
Los Angeles Avenue
(between Marketplace and SR 23 Southbound Ramps)Weekday 20,750 23,587 44,337 15%
As shown in Table 2, Los Angeles Avenue carries between 22,995 and 44,337 vehicles daily, with 15% to
20% of traffic consisting of heavy vehicles, which is considered very high. ADT data was analyzed to
determine peak periods for AM and PM turning movement count data collection.
Turning movement counts, including vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle counts, were collected at the twelve
intersections shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 in prior sections of this report. Turning movement counts were
collected at the intersections for six (6) hours on Wednesday, June 7, 2017, during the following times:
Weekday AM Peak 6:30 AM to 9:30 AM
Weekday PM Peak 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM
Peak hour turning movement counts for the Weekday AM peak and Weekday PM Peak are shown on
Figure 2.
258
%KV[QH/QQTRCTMÄ.QU#PIGNGU#XG5KIPCN5[PEJTQPK\CVKQP'ZKUVKPI
9GGMFC[2GCM*QWT6TCHHKE8QNWOGU(+)74'
+PVGTUGEVKQP+&#/
2/ 2GCM*QWT6TCHHKE8QNWOGU#/
2/ *GCX[8GJKENGU2GTEGPVCIG259
6 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
2.4 FIELD REVIEW AND SYSTEM EVALUATION
A field review as conducted on August 30, 2017, to collect various traffic data and to observe existing traffic
operations along the corridor. The field review included confirmation of the following elements:
Intersection Geometry
Posted Speed Limits
Signal Phasing
Parking Conditions
Pedestrian Activity
Heavy vehicle volumes and flow patterns
Bus stop locations, routes, and usage
Movements with uneven lane distribution, queue spillover, or blockage
Oversaturated intersection movements/locations (i.e. excessive queuing)
The following sections summarize the project corridor, and highlight key observations made during the field
review. Field review worksheets are included in Appendix A.
2.4.1 CORRIDOR CHARACTERISTICS
Los Angeles Avenue is an east/west arterial with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The surrounding land
uses include commercial/retail, office, residential, and industrial. Within the study area, Los Angeles Avenue
varies between 4 lanes (2 lanes in each direction) and 6 lanes (3 lanes in each direction) wide, with a two-
way left-turn lane for much of the corridor length.
Los Angeles Avenue is 4 lanes wide at Tierra Rejada Road, transitioning to 6 lanes wide just before
Maureen Lane. It remains 6 lanes wide until Moorpark Road, where it transitions back to 4 lanes. It widens
to 6 lanes east of Spring Road, with an additional eastbound climbing lane between Miller Parkway and
Marketplace, dropping back down to six lanes east of Marketplace. A project study report for widening to 6
lanes between Moorpark Road and Spring Road has been completed by Caltrans.
Heavy congestion occurs at the intersection with Spring Road during the peak hours, with westbound
queues backing up to Science Drive/Miller Parkway approximately 1,500’ to the east.
Intersection Features:
Gabbert Road/Tierra Rejada Road (Signalized):
This intersection, located on the western end of the study area, provides access to industrial uses to
the north via Gabbert Road, and to major residential subdivisions and Moorpark High School to the
south via Tierra Rejada Road. Gabbert Road serves as a Los Angeles Avenue bypass via Poindexter
Avenue. Tierra Rejada also serves as a Los Angeles Avenue bypass, providing access to State
260
7 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
Route 23. During the field review, heavy queues in the westbound left-turn lane were observed at the
intersection during the AM peak period, and in the westbound through lanes during the PM peak period.
Maureen Lane (Signalized):
This intersection, located approximately 1,500’ east of Gabbert Road/Tierra Rejada Road, provides
access to industrial uses to the north and residential to the south. During the field review, heavy queues
were observed in the eastbound left-turn lane during the AM peak period, and in the westbound through
lanes during the PM peak hour.
Shasta Avenue (Unsignalized):
This intersection is a “T” intersection with stop control on the minor approach. The intersection serves
a residential subdivision to the north, and is located approximately 1,300’ east of Maureen Lane. Shasta
Avenue would become a full-access intersection upon construction of a new residential subdivision that
has been approved for the parcel on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue. The project would construct
approximately 283 single-family detached and attached homes. During the field review, no operational
deficiencies were observed at the intersection.
Leta Yancy Road (Signalized):
This intersection, located approximately 900’ east of Shasta Avenue, provides access to commercial
retail on the north and residential on the south. Leta Yancy Road would also provide additional access
to the proposed residential project on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue. During the field review,
no operational deficiencies were observed at the intersection.
Park Lane (Signalized):
This intersection, located approximately 900’ east of Leta Yancy Road, provides access to commercial
retail and Chaparral Middle School on the north, and commercial and residential on the south. During
the field review, no operational deficiencies were observed at the intersection.
Moorpark Avenue (Signalized):
This intersection, located approximately 1,000’ east of Park Lane, provides access to residential uses
on the north and south of Los Angeles Avenue. Moorpark Avenue also provides regional access to the
City from the north (Fillmore, Santa Paula) as the continuation of State Route 23 North. Moorpark
Avenue also provides access to the Moorpark Metrolink Station, City Hall, and Walnut Canyon School.
During the field review, heavy queues were observed in the eastbound left-turn lane during the AM
peak period, in the westbound left-turn lane during the PM peak period, and the westbound through
lanes were observed to queue back to Millard Street during the PM peak hour.
Millard Street (Unsignalized):
This intersection, located approximately 1,000’ east of Moorpark Avenue, provides access to residential
uses to the north and south, and is stop-controlled on the minor approaches. During the field review,
261
8 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
the intersection was blocked by westbound and eastbound queues from Moorpark Avenue and Spring
Road, respectively, during the AM and PM peak periods.
Spring Road (Signalized):
This intersection, located approximately 1,200’ east of Millard Street, is a major north-south collector
road in the City, connecting to Moorpark Avenue (State Route 23) to the north and Tierra Rejada Road
to the south. Spring Road provides access to residential, commercial, and industrial uses, including the
Moorpark Downtown District on High Street. Spring Road also provides access to the Moorpark
Metrolink Station and the City’s Emergency Services.
During the field review, excessive queues were observed on all approaches to the intersection, blocking
left turn storage. Westbound queues were observed to extend to Science Drive/Miller Parkway during
the AM and PM peak periods, eastbound queues were observed to extend back to Moorpark Avenue
during the AM period and to Millard Street during the PM peak period. Heavy queues were also
observed in the southbound left-turn lanes. Illegal turning maneuvers were observed at the entrance of
the Moorpark Pines Apartments, with vehicles turning left from Los Angeles Avenue failing to yield to
through vehicles.
Science Drive/Miller Parkway (Signalized):
This intersection, located approximately 1,700’ east of Spring Road, provides access to industrial uses
on the north, and commercial and residential uses on the south. Miller Parkway connects to Tierra
Rejada Road to the south. During the field review, queues on westbound Los Angeles Avenue were
observed to extend back to Marketplace during the AM peak period, exacerbated by the extension of
westbound queuing from Spring Road.
Marketplace (Signalized):
This “tee” intersection, located approximately 700’ east of Science Drive/Miller Parkway, provides
access to major regional commercial retail on the south. During the field review, the eastbound through
lanes were observed to queue back to Miller Parkway during the AM peak period.
State Route 23 Southbound Ramps (Signalized):
This intersection, located approximately 1,200’ east of Marketplace, provides regional access from
westbound State Route 118, and regional access to southbound State Route 23. The southbound and
eastbound right turns are free movements (traffic does not stop). During the field review, no operational
deficiencies were observed at the intersection.
State Route 118 Eastbound Ramps (Signalized):
This intersection, located approximately 600’ east of the State Route 23 Southbound Ramps, provides
regional access from northbound State Route 23, and regional access to southbound State Route 23.
The eastbound right turn is a free movement (traffic does not stop). During the field review, no
operational deficiencies were observed at the intersection.
262
9 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
2.4.2 PARKING FACILITIES AND ACTIVITY
On-Street parking is not permitted on Los Angeles Avenue within the study area. This serves to reduce the
number of conflicts and induced friction along the corridor.
2.4.3 PERCENTAGE HEAVY VEHICLE VOLUME
Typically, the average percentage of heavy vehicles (buses and trucks with three or more axles) varies
between 2% to 5% of the total vehicular traffic on a roadway. The observed percentage of heavy vehicles
on Los Angeles Avenue is between 15 - 20% depending on the location surveyed. Los Angeles Avenue is
a major route for trucks traveling between Los Angeles County and points north as a result of the significant
grade on U.S. 101 between Camarillo and Thousand Oaks as well as to avoid the commercial scales also
located at the top of the Conejo Grade. The high heavy vehicle percentage leads to extended start-up times
and slower speeds at signalized intersections along the corridor.
2.4.4 BUS ROUTES AND USAGE
The City operates local transit, Moorpark City Transit, within the project limits. There are two routes
operating between 6:15 am and 6:00 pm. Route 1 is a predominantly counter-clockwise loop through the
city, with stops on Los Angeles Avenue at Leta Yancy Road and Maureen Lane. Route 2 is a predominantly
clockwise loop, with stops on Los Angeles Avenue at Maureen Lane, Leta Yancy Road, and Park Lane.
There are no dedicated bus turnouts for any stop on Los Angeles Avenue. Buses operate on 1 hour and 5
minute headways. During the field review, no conflicts or queuing resulting from bus activities were
observed.
2.4.5 UNEVEN LANE DISTRIBUTION
Uneven lane distribution, defined as one lane utilized significantly more than an adjacent lane or lanes,
often occurs at intersections where there are multiple turn lanes and a downstream attraction that requires
traffic to use one lane more heavily. During the field visit, uneven lane distribution was observed, and coded
in the model, at the following locations and during the time duration noted in the Table 3 below:
Table 3 – Uneven Lane Distribution Summary
Location Time Period Direction Lane
Tierra Rejada PM WB Left-turn lane #1
Spring Road
AM and PM EB Left-turn lane #1
PM NB Left-turn lane #1
PM SB Left-turn lane #1
Miller Parkway PM WB Left-turn lane #1
PM NB Left-turn lane #1
263
10 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
In addition to the uneven turn lane distributions, the #3 (curb-adjacent) through lane between Tierra Rejada
Road and Moorpark Road was observed to be underutilized. Most traffic was observed to be utilizing the
#1 and #2 lanes, with heavy vehicles utilizing the #2 lane.
2.4.6 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The two unsignalized intersections along the corridor, Shasta Avenue and Millard Street, were observed to
have low sidestreet volumes during field observations. However, queues on Los Angeles Avenue were
observed to extend in front of Millard Street from Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road during the AM and
PM peak periods, blocking access to and from Millard Street.
2.4.7 OVERSATURATED INTERSECTIONS
An intersection with oversaturated conditions, defined as one where the approach volume is greater than
the intersection capacity, results in traffic during a specific amount of time when not all traffic is being served
in one signal cycle. The goal is to identify these locations to determine if there is a need to adjust the turning
movement volumes to capture the actual approach volume, rather than just those vehicles that are being
served (counted).
During the field review, some study intersections were observed to be at-capacity or over-capacity during
various peak periods. The oversaturated conditions occur for peak 15-30 minute intervals during each AM
and PM peak periods. These movements were given special consideration during the signal timing analysis,
and in selection of optimum cycle lengths and splits. Adjustments to the signal timing may potentially
increase the effective capacity of these movements.
In order to quantify the degree of oversaturation, the following metrics were used:
Extremely Heavy – Movements observed to have spillover from left-turn pockets resulting in
blockage of through lanes, or residual traffic after the end of a cycle.
Moderately Heavy – Movements that were at-capacity most of the cycles but experienced
intermittent cycles of heavy influx of traffic.
Heavy – These movements were noted to have continuous flow of heavy traffic but were served
during each cycle. No residual traffic was observed to remain at the end of the cycle.
Table 4 summarizes the critical intersections identified from the field review, and where the traffic models
indicate the intersections or movements are at or nearing capacity during various peak periods.
264
11 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
Table 4 – Oversaturated Movements Summary
Location Time Period Lane(s)Remarks
Tierra Rejada Road PM WB Left Moderately Heavy
AM/PM WB Thru Heavy
Maureen Lane AM EB Left Heavy
Moorpark Avenue
AM EB Left Heavy
PM WB Left Moderately Heavy
PM EB Thru Moderately Heavy
PM WB Thru Extremely Heavy
Spring Road
AM/PM EB Thru Extremely Heavy
AM/PM WB Thru Extremely Heavy
AM/PM SB Left Moderately Heavy
Marketplace AM EB Thru Extremely Heavy
2.4.8 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TIMING
Pedestrian clearance intervals were observed to be based on the previous standard, where the interval is
calculated by the distance from curb ramp to curb ramp divided by a walking speed of 4.0 feet/second. As
required the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), the pedestrian clearance
time (“Flashing Don’t Walk”) should be based on a walking speed instead of 3.5 feet/second unless it is
justified by an engineering study. Kimley-Horn calculated the new pedestrian clearance intervals based on
the current CA MUTCD guidelines for this project.
The CA MUTCD further mandates the provision of bicycle/motorcycle detection on all modified approaches
on a traffic actuated signal in the State. The guidelines provide a formula to calculate the minimum green
timing based on a typical bicyclist speed on 10 mph and an effective startup time of 6 seconds. The formula
was used in signal timing analysis for calculation of minimum green timing at all study intersections.
Decreasing the pedestrian walking speed and providing minimum green timing for bicyclists result in more
green time for side street movements. Increasing the split time for side streets causes an increase in natural
cycle length at many intersections.
2.4.9 INVENTORY OF TRAFFIC CONTROLLER CABINETS
An inventory of traffic signal controller cabinets was assembled based on available data.Table 5 highlights
the existing traffic signal equipment housed within the controller cabinet at the study intersections.
Appendix A includes the field photos of the controller cabinets.
265
12 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
Table 5 – Traffic Signal Controller Cabinet Summary
Intersection
Cabinet
Type
Controller
Type Firmware Detection Remarks
Tierra Rejada Road 332 170E C8 version 4 Loops Review / revise phase assignments
provided in timing sheet.
Maureen Lane 332 170E C8 version 4 Loops -
Leta Yancy Road 332 170E C8 version 4 Loops -
Park Lane 332 170E C8 version 4 Loops -
Moorpark Avenue 332 170E C8 version 4 Loops -
Spring Road 332 170E C8 version 4 Loops
Existing conditions, review / revise splits
for AM peak timing plan, exceeds
programmed cycle length.
Science Drive/Miller Parkway 332 170E C8 version 4 Loops -
Marketplace 332 170E C8 version 4 Loops -
SR 23 Southbound Ramps 332 170E C8 version 4 Loops -
SR 118 Eastbound Ramps 332 170E C8 version 4 Loops -
2.5 TRAVEL TIME SURVEYS
“Before” implementation floating vehicle travel time surveys were conducted on August 30, 2017, for the
following peak periods (for which the new coordination plans will be developed) to measure the existing
travel time and delays along the study corridor:
Weekday AM Peak 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Weekday PM Peak 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Floating car travel time surveys traversed the corridor on an east-to-west, west-to-east route from Tierra
Rejada Road to the State Route 118 Eastbound Ramps. The results of the “Before” study for each corridor
and peak period are summarized below in Table 6. A total of 6 travel runs were conducted in each direction
for each peak period. Detailed travel time summaries for the corridors are included in the Appendix C.
Table 6 – “Before” Travel Time Summary
Time Period Direction
Average
Travel Time
(min:sec)
Average
Stop Delay
(min:sec)
Average
Stops
Average
Speed
Time Below
10 mph
Weekday AM Peak Westbound 5:08 2:03 2.0 27.2 1:15
Eastbound 5:20 2:16 1.7 25.4 1:15
Weekday PM Peak Westbound 5:49 2:45 2.6 23.9 1:37
Eastbound 5:43 2:38 1.9 24.0 1:20
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2018
266
13 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
3.0 OPTIMIZED SIGNAL TIMING
As a short-term measure to immediately improve traffic operations, signal timing analysis was completed
and implemented for the AM peak and PM peak periods for the 10 traffic signals along Los Angeles Avenue
in January 2018. Kimley-Horn marked-up signal timing sheets with recommended changes, assisted
Caltrans with timing implementation, and conducted fine-tuning of the timing plans. After observing the
existing traffic operations along the corridor, new signal timing plans were developed to prioritize traffic
along mainline. When these timings were implemented, long delays for side streets were observed. To
improve overall traffic flow, splits and offsets were adjusted to accommodate the side streets more
efficiently. After fine-tuning of the newly implemented timing plans, a floating car “after study” was
conducted to field measure the system performance in comparison to current timing plans.
The following sections summarize the signal timing development, signal timing analysis procedures
including signal grouping, cycle length analysis, split optimization, offset optimization, and performance
measure evaluation that were used for developing signal synchronization plans for the study corridor.
3.1 CONDITIONS FOR OPTIMIZED TIMING PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Kimley-Horn developed Synchro models for AM peak and PM peak periods by using geometric information
captured during field review, most recent signal timing plans provided by Caltrans, and turning movement
counts collected during peak hours. These models were then calibrated to field conditions and used to
evaluate proposed signal grouping and proposed cycle lengths for the corridor. Kimley-Horn developed
timing plans for immediate implementation.
3.2 CYCLE LENGTH EVALUATION
Selecting the optimum cycle length is a critical step in developing signal coordination plans. A higher cycle
length may provide for better progression along the corridors, but typically increases side street delay and
queuing. At the same time, decreasing the cycle length to reduce the side street delay may increase the
overall delay and queuing. Along the main street and overall intersection, a cycle length that is significantly
lower than an intersection’s natural cycle length may result in an over-saturated condition, resulting in a
case where the movements don’t meet the minimum timing. Careful consideration was given to determine
the optimal cycle length, taking into account the trade-off between arterial progression and side-street delay.
Signals were grouped into one single zone based on their natural cycle lengths, level of platooning traffic,
and travel time between intersections. The critical intersections e.g. Moorpark Avenue/Los Angeles
Avenue, that have a very high natural cycle length (135 seconds in AM peak and 145 seconds in PM peak)
and are likely to increase the cycle lengths of the other signals in the grouping, were also evaluated for
operation in “Free” mode. For this corridor, due to higher percentage of heavy vehicles (15%-20%)
throughout the corridor, higher optimized cycle lengths were determined (140 seconds in AM peak and 150
seconds in the PM peak) to benefit the corridor operations for slow starting/moving heavy vehicles and the
resulting slowdown and friction that these vehicles cause along the corridor.
267
14 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
A detailed analysis based on the direction provided Caltrans regarding calculation of new Flashing Don’t
Walk time, yellow time (as per CA MUTCD) and bicycle timing was conducted and split lengths, phase
sequencing, and offsets were optimized for the Synchro models reflecting current traffic conditions.
3.3 SPLIT OPTIMIZATION
Once cycle lengths were selected, phase splits for the coordinated intersections were initially developed
using Synchro software. The splits were adjusted based on field observations and signal timing experience
to achieve the best overall intersection performance. Green time was allocated to each approach in
proportion to the overall intersection volume and capacity. Minimum splits for through phases were
calculated based on minimum pedestrian and clearance times. Intersection splits were balanced with the
objective of maintaining a “smooth” main street progression without degrading the levels of service of side
street movements. When adjusting splits, a maximum volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.80, and a preferred
v/c ratio of 0.75 or less, was targeted. Where it was not possible to provide v/c ratios below 0.80 for all
movements due to capacity constraints, splits were balanced between each approach to provide optimal
overall intersection operations.
3.4 OFFSET AND PHASE SEQUENCE OPTIMIZATION
Offsets were developed in Synchro and included an evaluation of alternate phase sequencing (i.e. lead/lag
phasing) and corridor traffic conditions (progression priority). Where applicable, phase sequence changes
were tested for each time period to determine advantages and disadvantages of its use throughout the day.
In addition, the use of “twice per cycle left-turn” (TPCLT) was reviewed, but was determined to be not
beneficial for the corridor east-west operations.
3.5 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINE-TUNING
Kimley-Horn marked-up signal timing sheets with recommended changes, assisted Caltrans with timing
implementation, and finetuned the signals. The optimized signal timing was implemented on January 22 nd
and 23rd. Kimley-Horn re-visited Los Angeles Avenue to observe traffic operations and fine tune the
optimized signal timing on January 24th and January 31st. During the site visits, Kimley-Horn noticed the
operations of Los Angeles Avenue had deteriorated and was not operating as expected. Upon further
investigation, the signal controller clocks in the intersection controller cabinets had drifted significantly. In
some locations, the signal controller clocks had drifted by up to 4 minutes. Caltrans reset the controller
clocks on February 1st. Kimley-Horn also observed an increase in side street delay with the new timing
plans. During fine tuning, splits and offsets were adjusted to decrease side street delay while maintaining
adequate progression on mainline Los Angeles Avenue.
3.6 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT OF OPTIMIZED TIMING
Once the optimized timing was finalized, performance measures for the AM and PM peak time periods were
summarized and compared to the performance measures for the existing operation. Similar to the “Before”
travel time runs presented in Section 2.5, travel time runs were also performed for the optimized timing.
“After” implementation floating vehicle travel time surveys were conducted on February 1st and 2nd after the
signal improvements were implemented. The same MOEs were recorded for the same peak periods as the
“Before” travel time run.
268
15 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
The results of the “After” study for each corridor and peak period are summarized below in Table 7. A total
of 6 travel runs were conducted in each direction for each peak period. Detailed travel time summaries for
the corridors are included in the Appendix B.
Table 7 – “After” Travel Time Summary
Time Period Direction
Average
Travel Time
(min:sec)
Average
Stop Delay
(min:sec)
Average
Stops
Average
Speed
Time Below
10 mph
Weekday AM Peak Westbound 4:41 1:37 0.7 29.1 0:54
Eastbound 4:11 1:07 1.0 32.1 0:43
Weekday PM Peak Westbound 5:07 1:06 1.6 27.5 1:12
Eastbound 4:40 0:59 0.5 33.5 0:30
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2018
Table 8 presents a summary of overall operational improvements along Los Angeles Avenue from traffic
signal synchronization. As shown below in Table 8, due to the synchronization of traffic signals, there has
been a 15% to 20% reduction in travel time, a 53% to 54% reduction in number of stops, 14% to 21%
improvement in speed and a 36% to 44% reduction in delay, depending on the peak period from pre-project
conditions.
Table 8 – Summary of Overall Operational Improvements
Study Periods Travel Time
% Reduction
Number of Stops
% Reduction
Average Speed
% Increase
Total Delay
% Reduction
AM Peak 15.3%54.1%14.1%36.7%
PM Peak 20.4% 53.3% 21.7% 44.0%
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2018
The Synchro timing sheets for the optimized AM and PM peak hour models are provided in Appendix C of
this report.
269
16 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
4.0 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
In addition to the short-term immediate improvements of the optimized signal timing, Kimley-Horn has
identified a list of possible long-term capital improvement projects that would address the congestion within
the study area by improvements to the City’s physical infrastructure system. Additionally, this section
compares the MOEs of potential improvement projects (“proposed improvement conditions”) to the MOEs
of the “current optimized conditions” to identify which improvements are needed to maintain the City’s Level
of Service C goal under 2035 traffic conditions. Current optimized conditions represent the optimized signal
timing developed in Section 3 with 2035 traffic volumes.
Proposed improvement conditions and current optimized conditions were modeled using 2035 traffic
volumes developed by Kimley-Horn. The 2035 traffic volumes were calculated using a 0.8% compound
annual growth rate. The growth rate was calculated based on the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) growth projections for the City of Moorpark. Peak hour turning movement counts for
2035 Weekday AM peak and Weekday PM Peak are shown on Figure 3.
Proposed improvement conditions and current optimized conditions are evaluated using Synchro models
developed by Kimley-Horn. This analysis only evaluates the PM weekday peak hour because it represents
the most conservative analysis based on higher traffic volumes.
4.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
This section examines future improvements to the traffic signal network beyond the signal timing and
coordination presented in Section 3. Improvements such as upgrading the traffic signal equipment and
modifying the signals were assessed and recommendations are provided.
4.1.1 EQUIPMENT UPGRADES
Kimley-Horn recommends several improvements to the existing traffic signal equipment on Los Angeles
Avenue to assist in maintaining traffic flow on the corridor in the near and extended future. Most
improvements are inexpensive and can be rolled out over time, while other improvements are more
expensive.Table 9 highlights the potential improvements, relative cost of each improvement, the suggested
implementation schedule, and potential benefits to corridor operations:
270
+PVGTUGEVKQP+&%KV[QH/QQTRCTMÄ.QU#PIGNGU#XG5KIPCN5[PEJTQPK\CVKQP(WVWTG
9GGMFC[2GCM*QWT6TCHHKE8QNWOGU(+)74'#/
2/ 2GCM*QWT6TCHHKE8QNWOGU
#/
2/ *GCX[8GJKENGU2GTEGPVCIG271
18 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
Table 9 – Traffic Signal Equipment Improvement Summary
Recommended Improvement Type Cost Schedule Benefit
GPS Clocks at two intersections Local
$2,000/
Intersection 1 month
Will help maintain the signal controller clock at
Moorpark Road and at Tierra Rejada to
maintain coordination/synchronization. The
existing interconnect can then be used to send
the clock information to all other signal
controllers.
Countdown Pedestrian Signal Heads Local
~$5,000/
intersection 1 year Improved pedestrian operations,
Traffic Signal Controller Upgrades
(Model 2070 Controller)Local ~$10,000/
intersection 1 year Futureproofing, additional signal operation
capabilities.
Adaptive Traffic Signal System Systemic ~$200,000 2–5 years
Allows the corridor to “adapt” to traffic
demands, altering signal timing per
phase/cycle to better serve traffic.
Fiber Optic Communications Systemic ~$250,000 2–5 years
Provides Caltrans with advanced monitoring
capabilities, and the ability to update traffic
signal timing remotely. Fiber Optics or some
form of communication will be required for the
Adaptive Traffic Signal System.
Video Detection
Provides construction-proof vehicle detection
capability, and adjustable configuration of
vehicle/bike detection zones.
Several of the recommended local improvements, including countdown pedestrian signal heads, traffic
signal controller upgrades, and GPS, are Caltrans-mandated equipment updates at all the intersections
under its jurisdiction. System improvements will provide significant benefit to the corridor, allowing the
corridor to adapt to minute-by-minute changes in traffic demand. It is noted that significant coordination with
Caltrans staff will be required to implement, and would not be considered a programmed improvement by
Caltrans.
4.1.2 PROTECTED-PERMITTED LEFT-TURN PHASING
This analysis examines the impact of changing the left-turn phasing from protected to protected-permissive
for eastbound and westbound left-turn movements on Los Angeles Avenue. Synchro models were
developed to measure the operational impacts of changing the left-turn phasing. Table 10 displays the
HCM 2000 LOS and delay for the current optimized conditions with protected left-turn phasing and the
proposed improvement conditions with protected-permissive left-turn phasing. HCM 2000 values are
reported because HCM 2010 does not analyze intersections with split-phasing. Synchro worksheets for this
improvement scenario can be found in Appendix D.
272
19 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
Table 10 – Level of Service Analysis for Protected-Permissive Phasing
Los Angeles Avenue
Intersection Movement
Left-turn Movement LOS (Delay)Intersection LOS (Delay)
Current
Optimized
Proposed
Improvement
Current
Optimized
Proposed
Improvement
Tierra Rejada Road WBL Dual left-turn lanes*D (38.8) D (37.5)EBL F (82.7)C (28.9)
Maureen Lane WBL F (83.9)B (17.6)C (22.6)C (24.2)EBL F (88.1)A (8.3)
Leta Yancy Road WBL D (43.4) A (7.4)B (18.4) B (12.6)EBL F (86.8)A (3.1)
Park Lane WBL D (35.1)A (4.1)B (16.4)B (12.6)EBL E (73.9)A (5.5)
Moorpark Avenue (SR 23)WBL E (74.3) C (33.6)D (43.4) C (33.0)EBL F (91.0)D (49.1)
Spring Road WBL F (87.8)D (38.6)D (53.1)D (53.2)EBL Dual left-turn lanes*
Miller Parkway WBL Dual left-turn lanes*D (35.1) C (34.3)EBL E (68.9)B (13.7)
Marketplace WBL E (56.5)C (33.1)B (13.6)B (12.3)
SR 23 SB Ramps WBL D (50.5) A (9.8) D (35.7) D (35.1)
*Locations with dual left-turn lanes are not recommended for protected-permissive phasing
From Table 10, all left-turn movements benefit from protected-permissive phasing. This analysis only
evaluated the operational impact of changing the left-turn phasing. Additional review that includes the CA-
MUTCD compliance, history of the left turn signal phasing and previous collision analysis should be
completed prior to modifying the signal phasing at these intersections.
4.1.3 REMOVE SIGNAL AT PARK LANE
This analysis examines the proposed improvement condition where the traffic signal at Park Lane is
eliminated. Under this proposed improvement condition, vehicles traveling on Los Angeles Avenue are
restricted to through and right-turn movements. Vehicles traveling on Park Lane are restricted to right-turn
only movements. Existing westbound left-turning vehicles at Park Lane/Los Angeles Avenue would be
routed to the westbound left-turn at Moorpark Avenue. Existing eastbound left-turning vehicles at Park
Lane/Los Angeles Avenue would be routed and distributed between the eastbound left-turns at Moorpark
Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue and Leta Yancy/Los Angeles Avenue. The northbound left and through
vehicles at Park Lane/Los Angeles Avenue would make a U-turn at Moorpark to go westbound on Los
Angeles Avenue. The southbound left and through vehicles at Park Lane/Los Angeles Avenue would make
a U-turn at Leta Yancy to eastbound on Los Angeles Avenue.
273
20 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
Table 11 presents the LOS for the intersections affected by the removal of the Park Lane/Los Angeles
Avenue traffic signal under the current optimized conditions and proposed improvement conditions. The
removal of the Park Lane signal improves the traffic operations at Park Lane; however, the Leta Yancy and
Moorpark Avenue intersections operate at LOS F under the proposed improvement conditions. It is not
recommended to remove the signal at Park Lane/Los Angeles Avenue. Synchro sheets can be found in
Appendix D.
Table 11 – Level of Service Analysis for Signal Removal at Park Lane
Scenario LOS (Delay, sec.)
Leta Yancy Rd Park Lane Moorpark Avenue
Current Optimized Conditions B (18.4) B (16.4 D (43.4)
Proposed Improvement Conditions D (42.1)A (1.4)1 F (334.5)
Reporting HCM 2000 LOS and delay values because HCM 2010 does not analyze U-Turning movements
1Unsignalized intersection delay
4.1.4 SIGNALIZING MILLARD AVENUE AND SHASTA AVENUE
This analysis examines the impact of signalizing the Millard Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue and Shasta
Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue intersections. Currently, these intersections are two-way stop controlled and
operating at LOS A.Table 12 shows travel time and average travel speed of Los Angeles Avenue under
the current optimized condition, proposed improvement condition, and proposed improvement with
optimized offsets condition. The proposed improvement condition includes traffic signals at the Millard
Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue and Shasta Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue intersections. The proposed
improvement with optimized offset condition includes traffic signals at the Millard Avenue/Los Angeles
Avenue and Shasta Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue intersections with optimized offsets. Travel time and
travel speeds were calculated using Synchro’s arterial analysis.
The existing east leg lane configuration of Millard Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue is a through/left and
through/right. For the improvement scenarios, a 100’ westbound left-turn bay was added to the Millard
Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue intersection to provide storage length for left-turning vehicles without any
additional signal timing optimization. Under the proposed improvement conditions, the additional signals at
Millard Street/Los Angeles Avenue and Shasta Avenue/Los Angeles Avenue are expected to increase the
signal delay and travel time in the eastbound and westbound directions when compared to the current
optimized conditions. However, if the offsets are optimized in the proposed improvement conditions, the
increase in signal delay and travel time in the eastbound direction is minimal and the signal delay and travel
time decreases in the westbound condition. It is recommended to install traffic signals at Millard Avenue
and Shasta Avenue with optimized offsets. Synchro worksheets can be found in Appendix D.
274
21 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
Table 12 – Travel Time Analysis for Signalizing Millard Avenue and Shasta Avenue
Scenario Direction Signal Delay
(sec)
Travel Time
(sec)
Arterial Speed
(mph)
Current Optimized Conditions Westbound 3:12 7:08 19.9
Eastbound 2:23 6:12 22.2
Proposed Improvement Conditions Westbound 6:21 10:29 13.5
Eastbound 3:22 7:23 18.7
Proposed Improvement Conditions
With Optimized Offsets
Westbound 2:43 6:51 20.7
Eastbound 2:26 6:27 21.4
4.2 GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS
4.2.1 ADDITIONAL AND/OR LONGER TURN LANES
This analysis examines the impact of increasing the storage length of left-turn bays or adding an additional
turn lane at certain intersections.Table 13 lists locations where the 95th percentile queue exceeds the
capacity of the existing turn bay lengths. The 95th percentile queue was calculated using Synchro’s queuing
analysis. The 95th percentile queue is defined as the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic
volumes. Most queue length capacity issues can be resolved by increasing the existing turn bay length
which is feasible given the existing painted and raised medians.
Table 13 – Queue Length Summary of 2035 Current Optimized Conditions
Location Deficiency Identified 95th Percentile Queue for
2035 Optimized Scenario
Recommended Improvements
Tierra
Rejada
NB Left Turn Pocket 310 feet
Convert NB approach lane configuration
from left, through, right-turn lanes to left,
through/left, and right. This lane
configuration is possible because the
intersection currently has split phasing.
WB Left Turn Pocket 250 feet
Increase WB left turn pocket storage
length by 100’ to accommodate heavy
queues
Spring
EB Left Turn Pocket 173 feet
Increase EB left turn pocket storage
length by 75’ to accommodate heavy
queues
WB Left Turn Pocket 140 feet
Increase WB left turn pocket storage
length by 50’ to accommodate heavy
queues
4.2.2 LARGER CURB RETURN RADII
This analysis examines the benefit of increasing the curb radius at locations where there are no right-turn
lanes. The purpose of increasing curb radii is to ease turning maneuvers for trucks. Most signalized
275
22 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
intersections along Los Angeles Avenue have right-turn lanes except for eastbound and westbound at
Maureen Lane, westbound at Leta Yancy Road, eastbound and westbound at Park Lane, and eastbound
Moorpark Avenue. However, at these locations the existing through/right lane is at least 18 feet wide which
provides a wide turning radius. Increasing the curb radii would not have a significant impact because of the
existing wide through/right lanes. It is important to note that increasing the curb radii could increase the
length of the crosswalk resulting in an increase in the pedestrian’s exposure time in the intersection. Also,
an increase in crosswalk length would require an increase in pedestrian crossing time potentially causing
additional travel time delay to vehicles.
4.2.3 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
This analysis examines the need and benefits of pedestrian bridges. Pedestrian counts were not collected,
but low pedestrian volumes were observed during several site visits. The optimized signal timing includes
sufficient time for pedestrians to cross Los Angeles Avenue. Pedestrian crossing time was calculated using
the standard practice of 3.5 feet/second. Pedestrian bridges are typically considered where the number of
conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles is high and/or the risk to crossing pedestrians is high. The
project area has low vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and the existing pedestrian facilities are adequate;
therefore, it is not recommended to install pedestrian bridges.
4.2.4 RAISED MEDIANS
This analysis examines the impact of installing raised medians along Los Angeles Avenue. Raised medians
can increase the safety of drivers and pedestrians. Raised medians can reduce head-on collisions by
preventing cross over traffic and raised medians can provide refuge for pedestrians crossing the road. Also,
raised medians can improve the aesthetics of the corridor and provide additional locations for signs and
street lighting.
Raised medians could potentially increase the emergency response time due to restricted access and could
also increase delay for left-turning vehicles. Raised medians allow left-turning vehicles to turn only at
established openings causing vehicles to take circuitous routes.
During peak periods, left-turning vehicles were observed using the painted medians as either additional
storage length or to access the left-turn bays when the through vehicles are blocking the entrance to the
turn bay. Painted medians are not designed for vehicle activity and the observed queueing indicates the
potential need for longer turn bays; however, the flexibility of the painted median offers additional capacity
compared to a raised median in the event of high volumes.
4.2.5 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SCALES
This analysis examines the impact of the installation of and operation of permanent commercial vehicle
scales on Los Angeles Avenue. There is an existing commercial vehicle scale on US 101 at the top of the
276
23 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
Conejo Grade. Many commercial vehicles use Los Angeles Avenue as an alternative route to the steep
grades on US 101.
The installation of a permanent commercial vehicle scale on Los Angeles Avenue might deter some trucks,
but the scales are not expected to divert enough truck trips to result in a significant impact. It’s reasonable
to assume Los Angeles Avenue with a commercial vehicle scale will remain the preferred truck route over
the significant grades of US 101. Therefore, the installation of a permanent commercial vehicle scale may
not result in a significant reduction of truck volumes.
4.2.6 ADDITIONAL TRAVEL LANES
This analysis examines the impact of adding a third travel lane on Los Angeles Avenue between Moorpark
Avenue and Spring Road in both directions. This proposed improvement would provide three continuous
travel lanes in both directions from Gabbert Road/Tierra Rejada Road to Spring Road.Table 14 compares
the PM peak hour travel speeds of the current optimized conditions to the additional third travel lane
(proposed improvement) conditions along Los Angeles Avenue.
Table 14 – Travel Time Comparison between Optimized and Improvement Scenarios
Condition Direction Travel Speed (mph)Travel Time (mm:ss)
Current Optimized Conditions Westbound 19.9 7:08
Eastbound 22.2 6:12
Optimized Proposed Improvement Conditions Westbound 22.3 6:21
Eastbound 22.9 6:02
The additional travel lanes provide additional capacity and is expected to improve the travel time and
improve speeds. Also, the additional travel lanes eliminate vehicle weaving at the lane drops. Travel speeds
were calculated using the arterial analysis in Synchro. Travel time reports are shown in Appendix D.
4.2.7 PARALLEL/BYPASS ROUTES
North Hills Parkway is a proposed bypass route for Los Angeles Avenue from Spring Road to Los Angeles
Avenue west of Tierra Rejada Road/Gabbert Road. North Hills Parkway will serve approximately 3,000
existing, approved, and proposed homes. In addition to serving existing and future development, North Hill
Parkway is expected to divert trips. Because the limits are only from Spring to west of Tierra Rejada, North
Hills Parkway is expected to be a trip diverter primarily only for local trips that currently use LA Avenue. The
diverted trips, however, would be offset by the increase in trips on LA Avenue due to the additional trips on
the network from future development. If North Hills Parkway had a direct 23 freeway connection, it is
expected that there would be significant trip diversion away from LA Avenue.
To quantify the impacts, a comprehensive transportation modeling of the cumulative traffic from future
development would need be completed. This larger area-wide modeling should consider future
developments, identify the impacts on the regional transportation network, and identify possible mitigation
measures.
277
24 Los Angeles Avenue Traffic Study
October 2018
5.0 FINAL RECOMMENDATION AND NEXT STEPS
Based on the results of the improvements analysis in Section 4, Kimley-Horn recommends the following
improvements:
Upgrade pedestrian heads, controllers, GPS, communication, consider adaptive timing, and
detection
Increase WBL storage length at Tierra Rejada and Spring Road
Increase EBL storage length at Spring Road
Change NB approach lane configuration at Tierra Rejada from left, through, and right to left,
through/left, and right
Add eastbound and westbound through lanes between Moorpark and Spring Road
Further evaluate and implement protected-permissive phasing where warranted
Optimize the signal timing for the proposed new traffic signals at Millard Ave and Shasta Ave on
Los Angeles Avenue
Consider a detailed transportation analysis of North Hills Parkway to understand the regional
impacts and to identify mitigation measures to the transportation network
Kimley-Horn recommends that a step-wise approach be taken for deployment of traffic signal equipment
improvements and geometric improvements to enhance the study area traffic operations. A strong policy
framework guiding the implementation of these measures is necessary to ensure the successful
deployment of these improvements. The future steps would include developing preliminary
engineering/conceptual plans, followed by final design and implementation of approved list of
improvements as identified in this report. After the improvement measures are implemented, another “After”
study could be conducted to collect the field performance measures and compare these measures of
effectiveness (MOE’s) such as travel time, number of stops, and average speed to the pre-project or
“Before” conditions. The Before/After comparison would provide the basis for estimating success of the
implemented measures.
278