HomeMy Public PortalAbout5A Review of Las Tunas Drive Safety Enhancement and Beautification Project with AttachmentTraffic Impact Analysis
for:
Proposed Las Tunas Drive
Improvements Project
In the City of Temple City
Prepared for:
The City of Temple City
November, 2014
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED LAS TUNAS DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................................1
STUDY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................7
Intersection Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................8
Level of Service Standard ...........................................................................................................................9
Roadway Link Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................................9
EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Existing Roadway System ....................................................................................................................... 10
Baldwin Avenue Road Closure ............................................................................................................. 11
Summary of Intersection Analysis ...................................................................................................... 11
Summary of Roadway Analysis ............................................................................................................ 11
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 16
Options 1 & 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................................ 19
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITH DIVERSIONS ....................................................................................... 25
DIVERSION ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................... 25
Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................................ 32
PARKING ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................. 34
Parallel Parking............................................................................................................................................ 34
Head-in Angled Parking ........................................................................................................................... 34
Back-in Angled Parking............................................................................................................................ 35
PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 37
BICYCLE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................... 38
POTENTIAL MITIGATION ...................................................................................................................................... 39
TRAVEL TIME DATA ................................................................................................................................................ 39
“Before Travel Time” Study ................................................................................................................... 39
“After Travel Time” Study....................................................................................................................... 41
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Traffic Data Collection Sheets
APPENDIX B – Intersection Analysis Worksheets
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................................................................2
Figure 2 – Project Option 1 ............................................................................................................................................................4
Figure 3 – Project Option 2 ............................................................................................................................................................5
Figure 4 – Project Option 3 ............................................................................................................................................................6
Figure 5 – Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 6 – Existing ADT Volumes ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 7 - Western Gateway Preferred Alternative Traffic Conditions ................................................................ 21
Figure 8 - Midtown Segment Preferred Alternative Traffic Conditions ............................................................... 22
Figure 9 - Downtown Segment Preferred Alternative Traffic Conditions ........................................................... 23
Figure 10 – East-West Diversion Routes ............................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 11 – Northbound Diversion Routes......................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 12 – Southbound Diversion Routes ......................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 13 – Final Volumes after Diversions ....................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 14 – Final Volumes after Diversions ....................................................................................................................... 31
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Summary Of Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions .......................................... 13
Table 2 - Summary Of Roadway Operations - Existing Conditions ......................................................................... 15
Table 3 - Summary Of Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Options 1 & 2 ....................................................... 17
Table 4 - Summary Of Roadway Operations – Options 1 & 2 .................................................................................... 18
Table 5 - Summary Of Roadway Operations – Preferred Alternative ................................................................... 24
Table 6 - Summary Of Peak Hour Intersection Operations - Preferred Alternative………........................…33
Table 7 - Las Tunas Drive AM Peak Period Travel Time Survey………………………………………...…...…........40
Table 8 - Las Tunas Drive PM Peak Period Travel Time Survey…………………………………….………..……....40
Table 9 - Las Tunas Drive Travel Time Comparison…………………………………………………….....…….………….41
Table 10 - Summary Of Intersection Operations - Preferred Alternative With Optimization……….………42
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Temple City is evaluating various roadway improvement options along Las Tunas Drive to
facilitate economic growth and to promote safer roadway conditions. Previously, as part of Metro’s Call for
application submittal, preliminary concepts were prepared by an architectural consultant, Freedman Tung
+ Sasaki (FTS) retained by the City in 2012. The preliminary concept included new curb alignment, lane
reductions (diet), bike lanes and reverse angle parking. Three conceptual designs were considered, each
exploring various degrees of transformation of the corridor with respect to vehicular, transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian traffic in the area. The design options propose modifications to street parking, roadway
capacity, bicycle access, and pedestrian crosswalk distances. As part of the preliminary concepts developed
by FTS, a brief traffic review was conducted, which identified potential impacts for various options,
recommendations indicated that a detailed traffic analysis would be required to be in compliance with
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has been retained by the City to prepare a detailed traffic impact analysis
to assess the impacts of each design option on the surrounding transportation network, with a focus on
impacts to traffic, parking, pedestrian, and bicycle operations.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The limits of the study along Las Tunas Drive lie between Muscatel Avenue and Baldwin Avenue, where the
City has proposed street improvements. Figure 1 shows the study area in its regional setting. Las Tunas
Drive is currently a four-lane divided roadway throughout the study area, with two travel lanes in each
direction and a center two-way-left-turn lane. The eastern boundary of the study area borders the City of
Arcadia. The project spans three segments within the City, described as the Western Gateway, Midtown,
and the Downtown Core. A fourth segment, the Eastern Gateway, is located between the Downtown Core
and the City of Temple City’s eastern border. However, intersections in the Eastern Gateway were not
evaluated due to their insignificance relative to other project aspects.
The Western Gateway describes the portion of Las Tunas Drive from Muscatel Avenue to Sultana Avenue.
The Midtown segment is situated directly east of the Western Gateway, from Sultana Avenue to Cloverly
Avenue. The Downtown Core begins immediately after the Midtown segment and ends at Golden West
Avenue. Most commercial developments are located in the Downtown Core, which is the segment with the
most significant changes proposed by the project.
The planned street improvements on Las Tunas Drive are targeted at improving pedestrian safety,
enhancing circulation in the downtown region, and promoting the revitalization of the Downtown Core.
The previous FTS Study has provided three options to improve Las Tunas Drive.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
Muscatel Avenue
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
S
u
l
t
a
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
o
m
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
l
o
v
e
r
l
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
r
i
m
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
K
a
u
f
f
m
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
o
r
k
m
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
-
2
-
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 3
The three project options, previously developed for the City by FTS, are shown on Figure 2, 3, and 4. Each
option is described below:
Option 1 proposes that Las Tunas Drive be converted from its existing configuration of four lanes through
the Midtown, Downtown Core, and Eastern Gateway segments. Option 1 would eliminate one westbound
through lane and retain the center two-way-left-turn lane. The two eastbound through lanes will be
retained. This configuration reflects lower westbound volumes during the morning peak hour. On-street
parking will remain as parallel parking on the north side of the street, while the south side will feature new
back-in angled parking. Back-in parking is a relatively new concept to Southern California with several
cities setting up test streets or pilot programs for trying out back in parking prior to implementation. The
advantages and disadvantages of back-in angled parking are explained in the Parking Analysis portion of
this report.
O ption 2 proposes an identical roadway lane configuration as Option 1, with the primary difference being
variations in the on-street parking layout. On-street parking will be designated as parallel parking with
trees set between parked cars. The north and the south side of Las Tunas Drive will feature parallel parking
facilities.
Option 3 proposes a three-lane configuration with one through travel lane in each direction and a center
two-way-left-turn lane between Encinita Avenue and Golden West Avenue. The parking in Option 3 will be
back-in angled parking on both sides of the street within the Downtown Core segment of Las Tunas Drive,
between Cloverly Avenue and Golden West Avenue, and interspersed with parallel parking on other
segments. Th e goal of Option 3 is to maximize pedestrian space and to transform the Downtown Core into a
more intimate and lively main street attraction. At its December 27, 2012 meeting, City Council determined
that Option 3 is the preferred alternative and will hereon be referred to as the Preferred Alternative.
While the three design options propose varying degrees of
roadway transformation, there are similarities shared
amongst each. As a component of the street improvement
project, existing crosswalks along Las Tunas Drive will
receive corner bulb-out extensions. These bulb-out
extensions serve to shorten crosswalk distances and will
improve visibility of pedestrians. Further discussion on
bulb-outs and their impacts on pedestrian traffic are
provided later in this report.
Other improvements proposed for each of the options include moving bus stops to the far side of
intersections to improve traffic flow and replacing landscaping to maintain a distinct aesthetic theme.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 7
STUDY METHODOLOGY
The study evaluates the Level of Service (LOS) at the signalized intersections and roadway segments listed
below. The LOS standards are specified by the County of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Study Guidelines .
The following study intersections were analyzed:
·Las Tunas Drive at Muscatel Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Rosemead Boulevard
·Las Tunas Drive at Sultana Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Loma Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Encinita Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Alessandro Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Oak Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Cloverly Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Primrose Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Temple City Boulevard
·Las Tunas Drive at Camellia Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Kauffman Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Golden West Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive at Baldwin Avenue
The following additional intersections were analyzed for the Existing and Preferred Alternative with
Diversion Scenarios. Changes in intersection performance will only occur with diverted traffic.
·Garibaldi Avenue at Baldwin Avenue
·Garibaldi Avenue at Temple City Boulevard
·Garibaldi avenue at Rosemead Boulevard
·Temple City Boulevard at Broadway
In addition, 27 roadway segments were analyzed:
·Las Tunas Drive: Between Muscatel Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard
·Las Tunas Drive: Between Hart Avenue and Loma Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive: Between Alessandro Avenue and Oak Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive: Between Primrose Avenue and Temple City Boulevard
·Las Tunas Drive: Between Camellia Avenue and Kauffman Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive: Between Agnes Avenue and Rowland Avenue
·Las Tunas Drive: Between Baldwin Avenue and Bradford Avenue
·Encinita Avenue: Between Garibaldi Avenue and Las Tunas Drive
·Encinita Avenue: Between Las Tunas Drive and Live Oak Avenue
·Garibaldi Avenue: Between Reno Avenue and Rosemead Avenue
·Garibaldi Avenue: Between Rosemead Avenue and Temple City Boulevard
·Garibaldi Avenue: Between Temple City Boulevard and Camellia Avenue
·Longden Avenue: Between Reno Avenue and Rosemead Avenue
·Longden Avenue: Between Temple City Boulevard and Baldwin Avenue
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 8
·Broadway: Between Acacia Street and Rosemead Boulevard
·Broadway: Between Temple City Boulevard and Barela Avenue
·Live Oak: Between Camellia Avenue and Kauffman Avenue
·Workman Avenue: Between Temple City Boulevard and Camellia Avenue
·Woodruff Avenue: Between Temple City Boulevard and Camellia Avenue
·Hermosa Drive: Between Reno Avenue and Rosemead Avenue
·Muscatel Avenue: Between Live Oak Street and Broadway
·Rosemead Boulevard: Between Hermosa Drive and Las Tunas Drive
·Rosemead Boulevard: Between Las Tunas Drive to Broadway
·Temple City Boulevard: Woodruff Avenue and Las Tunas Drive
·Temple City Boulevard: Between Workman Ave and Live Oak Avenue
·Baldwin Avenue: Between Garibaldi and Woodruff Avenue
·Baldwin Avenue: Between Workman Avenue and Live Oak Avenue
Intersection Analysis Methodology
The analysis process includes determining operating conditions at the study intersections for morning and
evening peak hours using peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, and operations on roadway
segments using average daily traffic (ADT) volumes.
The Synchro 8 software (Trafficware) was used to analyze peak hour operations of signalized intersections.
Synchro 8 uses the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The Highway Capacity
Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), establishes a system whereby highway
facilities are rated for their ability to process traffic volumes. Per the HCM Methodology, Level of Service
(LOS) for signalized intersections is defined in terms of average vehicle delay, which is a measure of driver
discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and loss of travel time. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in
terms of the average control delay per vehicle for the peak 15-minute period within the hour analyzed. The
average control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, and final acceleration time in
additional to the stop delay. The Level of Service criteria for the various LOS designations, per the HCM, are
summarized on the following chart.
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LOS Control Delay
(sec/veh) Description
A <10.0 Operations with very low delay and most vehicles do not stop.
B >10.0 - 20.0 Operations with good progression but with some restricted movement.
C >20.0 - 35.0 Operations where a significant number of vehicles are stopping with some backup
and light congestion.
D >35.0 - 55.0 Operations where congestion is noticeable, longer delays occur, and many
vehicles stop. The proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.
E >55.0 - 80.0 Operations where there is significant delay, extensive queuing, and poor
progression.
F >80.0 Operations are unacceptable to most drivers, when the arrival rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 9
Although the County of Los Angeles uses the ICU methodology to analyze traffic impacts, the methodology
is more effective for planning rather than operational purposes. The ICU methodology compares
theoretical hourly vehicular capacity of intersections to the actual number of vehicles passing the
intersection, and reports the performance based on a Level of Service. The terminology "Level of Service" is
used to provide a qualitative evaluation based on certain quantitative calculations, which are related to
empirical values. The ICU methodology does not take into account the effect of signal timing, pedestrians,
bicycles, and other parameters. Since these elements are crucial in evaluating the impacts of the project, the
HCM Methodology was used. Therefore, this report deviates from the conventional County of Los Angeles
approach to traffic analysis.
Level of Service Standard
The County of Los Angeles has established Level of Service standards for signalized intersections. The
County considers Level of Service D or better to be acceptable for peak hour operations, and LOS E or F to
be unacceptable.
Roadway Link Capacity Analysis
Level of Service for roadway segments was determined by analyzing the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio
based on the City’s roadway design capacities. Design capacities are derived from the City of Temple City
Traffic Calming Master Plan, completed and approved in 2012. The capacities specified in the City’s General
Plan vary from those provided in the Traffic Calming Master Plan. However, the City’s General Plan was
adopted in 1987, and the more recent values provided in the Traffic Calming Master Plan were used instead.
The roadway categories, capacities, and LOS thresholds are shown below.
ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE
THRESHOLDS
V/C Ratio LOS
< 0.60 A
0.61 – 0.70 B
0.71 – 0.80 C
0.81 – 0.90 D
0.91 – 1.00 E
> 1.00 F
ROADWAY CATEGORY LANES CAPACITY
(VEHICLES/DAY)
Principal/Major Arterial 6 60,000
4 40,000
Secondary/Minor Arterial 4 30,000
Collector 2 10,000
Local 2 4,000
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 10
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing traffic conditions on Las Tunas Drive and the surrounding street system are described and
analyzed in this section.
Existing Roadway System
Las Tunas Drive – Las Tunas Drive is an east-west Primary Road that extends from the western border of
the City of Temple City to the eastern border. Between Rosemead Boulevard and Baldwin Avenue, Las
Tunas Drive has two through travel lanes in each direction, with a center two-way-left-turn lane, and left
turn pockets at minor street intersections. This segment provides primary access to the City’s main
commercial districts. To the west of Rosemead Boulevard, Las Tunas Drive has three through travel lanes
in each direction with a center two-way-left-turn lane. There is currently on-street parallel parking allowed
throughout the entire segment. The on-street parking is limited to two hours during the day. The posted
speed limit on Las Tunas Drive is 30 miles per hour. The Metro 78 and 378 bus lines operate along the
corridor.
Rosemead Boulevard – Rosemead Boulevard is a north-south Primary Road that carries a significant
volume of traffic through the City and serves traffic throughout the region. Traffic from the Interstate 10
Freeway is likely to use Rosemead Boulevard to reach destinations to the north. Rosemead Boulevard is
the main travel way for commercial land uses. Within the City, Rosemead Boulevard has two through travel
lanes in each direction, with raised medians. Bike lanes and pedestrian amenities are separated via raised
medians. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. The Metro 266 and 489 bus lines operate along the
corridor.
Temple City Boulevard – Temple City Boulevard is a north-south Primary Road with two through lanes in
each direction. Temple City Boulevard provides access to the Interstate 10 Freeway to the south. There are
mainly residential neighborhoods along Temple City Boulevard, with the exception of commercial
developments near Las Tunas Drive. The roadway currently allows for on-street parking and has a posted
speed limit of 30 miles per hour.
Broadway – Broadway is an east-west Secondary Road with two lanes in each direction to the west of Loma
Avenue. Broadway is reduced to one lane in each direction east of Loma Avenue. Broadway, within the
majority of the study area, is located in residential neighborhoods. On-street parking is allowed. The posted
speed limit is 30 miles per hour.
Live Oak Avenue – Live Oak Avenue is an east-west Collector Road with one lane in each direction. The
western terminus of Live Oak Avenue is at Encinita Avenue. To the east, Live Oak Avenue extends into the
City of Arcadia and joins with Las Tunas Drive. Live Oak Avenue provides access to residential
neighborhoods to the south of Las Tunas Drive. From a traffic standpoint, Live Oak Avenue runs parallel to
Las Tunas Drive and would be a likely alternative route for roadway users who want to avoid the
downtown area. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour, and on-street parking is allowed.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 11
Garibaldi Avenue – Garibaldi Avenue is an east-west Collector Road with one lane in each direction.
Garibaldi Avenue terminates at Baldwin Avenue to the east and at San Gabriel Boulevard to the west.
Garibaldi Avenue provides access to residential neighborhoods to the north of Las Tunas Drive. The posted
speed limit is 25 mph, and on-street parking is allowed.
Baldwin Avenue Road Closure
Baldwin Avenue, at the time of this report and at the time that traffic counts were conducted, is closed to
the south of the study area, within the City of El Monte. The closure, which begins at Gidley Street and
extends south of the existing railroad tracks, is a component of the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Baldwin
Avenue Grade Separation Project. Construction of the project, and resulting closure at Baldwin Avenue,
began in May 2013. The road closure is anticipated to continue into 2015. Existing traffic has been
detoured onto Temple City Boulevard and Arden Drive via Lower Azusa Road and Valley Boulevard.
Summary of Intersection Analysis
Existing peak hour traffic counts were conducted at the study intersections, and are presented on Figure 5 .
The counts were collected during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak
periods in May, 2014. Copies of traffic data collection worksheets are provided in Appendix A.
Intersection analysis worksheets can be found in Appendix B.
The study intersections were analyzed per existing traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal timing. The
results of the analysis are summarized on T a b l e 1. Review of this table indicates that all study
intersections operate at LOS D or better during the morning and evening peak hours, with the exception of
the following:
·Las Tunas Drive at Muscatel Avenue (AM LOS E)
·Garibaldi Avenue at Baldwin Avenue (AM LOS F, PM LOS F)
Summary of Roadway Analysis
Existing daily traffic counts were conducted on the study roadway segments, and volumes are presented in
Figure 6. The counts were taken in May 2014. The schedule for the traffic data collection was timed to
ensure that all area schools were in session. Copies of traffic data collection worksheets are provided in
Appendix A-2.
Analysis of roadway segments is based on the peak hour directional volumes on each segment. The results
of the existing conditions analysis for the study roadways are summarized on Table 2 . The results indicate
that all study roadway segments operate at acceptable Level of Service with the exception of the following:
·Las Tunas Drive from Alessandro Avenue to Oak Avenue (LOS E)
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
o
A
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
C
l
o
v
e
r
l
y
A
v
e
P
r
i
m
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a
A
v
e
K
a
u
f
f
m
a
n
A
v
e
L
o
m
a
A
v
e
S
u
l
t
a
n
a
A
v
e
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
1. Las Tunas Drive atMuscatel Avenue
2
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
3
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
S
u
l
t
a
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
4
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
L
o
m
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
5
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
6
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
7
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
O
a
k
A
v
e
n
u
e
8. Las Tunas Drive atCloverly Avenue
9
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
P
r
i
m
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
1
0
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
1
1
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
1
2
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
K
a
u
f
f
m
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
1
3
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
1
4
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
-
1
2
-
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 13
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
S/U
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Int. # Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Las Tunas Drive at Muscatel Avenue S 59.3 E 9.5 A
2 Las Tunas Drive at Rosemead Boulevard S 43.3 D 50.0 D
3 Las Tunas Drive at Sultana Avenue S 3.8 A 4.1 A
4 Las Tunas Drive at Loma Avenue S 4.2 A 3.3 A
5 Las Tunas Drive at Encinita Avenue S 14.5 B 10.1 B
6 Las Tunas Drive at Alessandro Avenue S 2.9 A 3.1 A
7 Las Tunas Drive at Oak Avenue S 13.3 B 6.1 A
8 Las Tunas Drive at Cloverly Avenue S 9.8 A 5.5 A
9 Las Tunas Drive at Primrose Avenue S 3.3 A 4.4 A
10 Las Tunas Drive at Temple City Boulevard S 45.7 D 36.9 D
11 Las Tunas Drive at Camellia Avenue S 2.7 A 7.0 A
12 Las Tunas Drive at Kauffman Avenue S 2.2 A 2.9 A
13 Las Tunas Drive at Golden West Avenue S 10.5 B 9.0 A
14 Las Tunas Drive at Baldwin Avenue S 41.2 D 42.2 D
15 Garibaldi Avenue at Baldwin Avenue U 54.8 F 107.9 F
16 Garibaldi Avenue at Temple City Boulevard S 11.7 A 6.2 A
17 Garibaldi Avenue at Rosemead Boulevard S 10.0 A 5.9 A
18 Temple City Boulevard at Broadway S 12.1 B 11.7 B
Notes:
S = Signalized Intersection, U = Unsignalized Intersection
Bold values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
At a signalized intersection, delay refers to the average control delay for the entire
intersection, measured in seconds per vehicle. At an unsignalized intersection, delay refers to
the average vehicle delay on the worst movement.
Delay values are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual and
performed using Synchro.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
G
a
r
i
b
a
l
d
i
A
v
e
W
o
o
d
r
u
f
f
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
W
o
r
k
m
a
n
A
v
e
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
MuscatelAve
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
L
o
n
g
d
e
n
A
v
e
HermosaDr
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
-
1
4
-
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 15
TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF ROADWAY OPERATIONS - EXISTING CONDITIONS
ROADWAY SEGMENT ROADWAY
CLASSIFICATION CAPACITY1 ADT V/C RATIO LOS
Las Tunas Drive
Muscatel Avenue to Rosemead Boulevard 6-lane Primary Road 60,000 29,765 0.496 A
Hart Avenue to Loma Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 26,904 0.897 D
Alessandro Avenue to Oak Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 27,425 0.914 E
Primrose Avenue to Temple City Boulevard 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 26,813 0.894 D
Camellia Avenue to Kauffman Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 25,827 0.861 D
Agnes Avenue to Rowland Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 24,365 0.812 D
Baldwin Avenue to Bradford Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 21,432 0.714 C
Encinita Avenue Garibaldi Avenue to Las Tunas Drive 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 3,212 0.321 A
Las Tunas Drive to Live Oak Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 5,144 0.514 A
Garibaldi Avenue
Reno Avenue to Rosemead Boulevard 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 2,071 0.207 A
Rosemead Boulevard to Temple City Boulevard 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 3,183 0.318 A
Temple City Boulevard to Camellia Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 2,456 0.246 A
Longden Avenue Reno Avenue to Rosemead Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 7,501 0.750 C
Temple City Boulevard to Baldwin Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 5,428 0.543 A
Broadway Acacia Street to Rosemead Boulevard 4-lane Secondary Road 30,000 14,697 0.490 A
Temple City Boulevard to Barela Avenue 2-lane Secondary Road 10,000 3,111 0.311 A
Live Oak Street Camellia Avenue to Kauffman Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 5,103 0.510 A
Workman Avenue Temple City Boulevard to Camellia Avenue 2-lane Local Street 10,000 896 0.090 A
Woodruff Avenue Temple City Boulevard to Camellia Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 2,273 0.227 A
Hermosa Drive Reno Avenue to Rosemead Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 1,836 0.184 A
Muscatel Avenue Live Oak Street to Broadway 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 4,141 0.414 A
Rosemead Boulevard Hermosa Drive to Las Tunas Drive 4-lane Primary Road 40,000 32,447 0.811 D
Las Tunas Drive to Broadway 4-lane Primary Road 40,000 35,206 0.880 D
Temple City Boulevard Woodruff Avenue to Las Tunas Drive 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 21,887 0.730 C
Workman Avenue to Live Oak Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 23,049 0.768 C
Baldwin Avenue Garibaldi Avenue to Woodruff Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 24,885 0.830 D
Workman Avenue to Live Oak Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 19,587 0.653 B
Bold values indicate roadway segments operating at LOS E or F.
1 Roadway capacity presented in Temple City Traffic Calming Master Plan (2012)
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements 16
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Existing Plus Project analysis scenario provides an evaluation of conditions assuming that the project
alternatives are implemented with existing signal timing along the corridor, and existing traffic flow and
volume remains the same. For this project, there are three project alternatives that would alter the capacity
and performance of the Las Tunas Drive corridor. As previously discussed, Option 1 and 2 would remove a
lane in the westbound direction to provide clearance for additional parking and a bike lane. From an
operational standpoint, Option 1 and 2 are identical and have been analyzed as a single scenario. The
Preferred Alternative (Option 3) proposes the removal of a lane in each direction, resulting in a total of one
travel lane in each direction and a center two-way-left-turn lane between Encinita Avenue and Golden West
Avenue. The analysis results are presented in the following sections.
Options 1 & 2
Summary of Intersection Operation
Intersection Level of Service analysis was conducted for the morning and evening peak hours and the
results are shown on Table 3. As this table indicates, the following intersections would operate at
unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS E or F):
·Las Tunas Drive at Muscatel Avenue (AM LOS E)
·Las Tunas Drive at Encinita Avenue (AM LOS E)
·Las Tunas Drive at Temple City Boulevard (AM LOS F, PM LOS E)
·Las Tunas Drive at Golden West Avenue (AM LOS E)
The intersection of Las Tunas Drive at Muscatel Avenue operates deficiently with or without Option 1 or 2
conditions in the morning peak hour. While the roadway diet does not extend to intersections through the
Western Gateway, the street improvements require changes in lane widths to accommodate proposed
parking and bike lanes. As a result, there are slight decreases in intersection operations that are not within
the road diet segment. Intersection analysis worksheets can be found in Appendix B.
Summary of Roadway Operation
Roadway operations were evaluated to account for the change in roadway geometry along Las Tunas Drive.
Las Tunas Drive is reduced from its existing four-lane configuration to the three-lane configuration
proposed in Options 1 and 2. The results of the Option 1 and 2 roadway analysis are summarized on Table
4. The results indicate that the roadway segments on Las Tunas Drive between Hart Avenue and Kauffman
Avenue would operate deficiently due to the reduction in road capacity. However, the operations along Las
Tunas Drive are more accurately represented by studying the peak hour performance at study
intersections. Based on observations of current conditions, traffic flow along the corridor is relatively low
during non-peak hours.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 17
TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
OPTIONS 1 AND 2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Without Project Options 1 and 2 Without Project Options 1 and 2
Int. # Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Las Tunas Drive at Muscatel Avenue 59.3 E 59.4 E 9.5 A 9.7 A
2 Las Tunas Drive at Rosemead Boulevard 43.3 D 44.2 D 50.0 D 52.8 D
3 Las Tunas Drive at Sultana Avenue 3.8 A 9.3 A 4.1 A 5.2 A
4 Las Tunas Drive at Loma Avenue 4.2 A 7.7 A 3.3 A 5.4 A
5 Las Tunas Drive at Encinita Avenue 14.5 B 64.5 E 10.1 B 13.9 B
6 Las Tunas Drive at Alessandro Avenue 2.9 A 4.8 A 3.1 A 3.3 A
7 Las Tunas Drive at Oak Avenue 13.3 B 42.5 D 6.1 A 7.9 A
8 Las Tunas Drive at Cloverly Avenue 9.8 A 20.1 C 5.5 A 8.2 A
9 Las Tunas Drive at Primrose Avenue 3.3 A 9.2 A 4.4 A 7.1 A
10 Las Tunas Drive at Temple City Boulevard 45.7 D 116.6 F 36.9 D 68.2 E
11 Las Tunas Drive at Camellia Avenue 2.7 A 11.3 B 7.0 A 8.7 A
12 Las Tunas Drive at Kauffman Avenue 2.2 A 8.5 A 2.9 A 4.3 A
13 Las Tunas Drive at Golden West Avenue 10.5 B 59.6 E 9.0 A 14.7 B
14 Las Tunas Drive at Baldwin Avenue 41.2 D 41.2 D 42.2 D 42.2 D
Notes:
Bold values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Delay values are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual and performed using Synchro 8.0.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 18
TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF ROADWAY OPERATIONS – OPTIONS 1 & 2
ROADWAY SEGMENT ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION CAPACITY1 ADT V/C RATIO LOS
Las Tunas Drive
Muscatel Avenue to Rosemead Boulevard 6-lane Primary Road 40,000 29,765 0.744 C
Hart Avenue to Loma Avenue 3-lane Primary Road 22,500 26,904 1.196 F
Alessandro Avenue to Oak Avenue 3-lane Primary Road 22,500 27,425 1.219 F
Primrose Avenue to Temple City Boulevard 3-lane Primary Road 22,500 26,813 1.192 F
Camellia Avenue to Kauffman Avenue 3-lane Primary Road 22,500 25,827 1.148 F
Agnes Avenue to Rowland Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 24,365 0.812 D
Baldwin Avenue to Bradford Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 21,432 0.714 C
Encinita Avenue Garibaldi Avenue to Las Tunas Drive 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 3,212 0.321 A
Las Tunas Drive to Live Oak Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 5,144 0.514 A
Garibaldi Avenue
Reno Avenue to Rosemead Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 2,071 0.207 A
Rosemead Boulevard to Temple City Boulevard 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 3,183 0.318 A
Temple City Boulevard to Camellia Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 2,456 0.246 A
Longden Avenue Reno Avenue to Rosemead Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 7,501 0.750 C
Temple City Boulevard to Baldwin Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 5,428 0.543 A
Broadway Acacia Street to Rosemead Boulevard 4-lane Secondary Road 30,000 14,697 0.490 A
Temple City Boulevard to Barela Avenue 2-lane Secondary Road 10,000 3,111 0.311 A
Live Oak Street Camellia Avenue to Kauffman Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 5,103 0.510 A
Workman Avenue Temple City Boulevard to Camellia Avenue 2-lane Local Street 10,000 896 0.090 A
Woodruff Avenue Temple City Boulevard to Camellia Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 2,273 0.227 A
Hermosa Drive Reno Avenue to Rosemead Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 1,836 0.184 A
Muscatel Avenue Live Oak Street to Broadway 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 4,141 0.414 A
Rosemead Boulevard Hermosa Drive to Las Tunas Drive 4-lane Primary Road 40,000 32,447 0.811 D
Las Tunas Drive to Broadway 4-lane Primary Road 40,000 35,206 0.880 D
Temple City Boulevard Woodruff Avenue to Las Tunas Drive 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 21,887 0.730 C
Workman Avenue to Live Oak Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 23,049 0.768 C
Baldwin Avenue Garibaldi Avenue to Woodruff Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 24,885 0.830 D
Workman Avenue to Live Oak Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 19,587 0.653 B
Bold values indicate roadway segments operating at LOS E or F.
1 Roadway capacity presented in Temple City Traffic Calming Master Plan (2012)
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 19
Preferred Alternative
Summary of Intersection Operation
The Preferred Alternative proposes the road diet in the Downtown Core and in portions of the Midtown
segment. Other segments also experience changes. Intersection Level of Service analysis was conducted
for the morning and evening peak hours with the assumption that all existing traffic volumes will remain on
Las Tunas Drive. The intersection LOS results, as well as the roadway changes for each segment, are shown
in Figures 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9. As these figures indicate, the following intersections would operate at
unacceptable Levels of Service:
·Las Tunas Drive at Muscatel Avenue (AM LOS E)
·Las Tunas Drive at Encinita Avenue (AM LOS E)
·Las Tunas Drive at Temple City Boulevard (AM LOS F, PM LOS F)
·Las Tunas Drive at Golden West Avenue (AM LOS E)
Intersection analysis worksheets can be found in Appendix B.
Summary of Roadway Operation
Roadway operations were evaluated to account for the change in roadway geometry along Las Tunas Drive
per the Preferred Alternative. Las Tunas Drive is reduced from its existing four-lane configuration to the
two-lane configuration between Encinita Ave and Golden West Ave. Cross sections depicting the roadway
configurations for existing conditions and for proposed conditions, prepared by FTS, are shown on the
following page. The cross section also provides a visual of the bike lane, parking, and sidewalk. The results
of the Preferred Alternative roadway analysis are summarized on Table 5. The results indicate that,
s imilarly to the analysis conducted for Option 1 and 2, the roadway segments on Las Tunas Drive between
Hart Avenue and Kauffman Avenue would operate deficiently due to the reduction in road capacity.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 20
Existing Roadway Configuration in Downtown Core. Source: FTS
Preferred Alternative Roadway Configuration in Downtown Core. Source: FTS
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
o
A
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
C
l
o
v
e
r
l
y
A
v
e
P
r
i
m
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a
A
v
e
K
a
u
f
f
m
a
n
A
v
e
L
o
m
a
A
v
e
S
u
l
t
a
n
a
A
v
e
S
u
l
t
a
n
a
A
v
e
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
r
e
e
d
m
a
n
T
u
n
g
+
S
a
s
a
k
i
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
S
u
l
t
a
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
o
r
n
i
n
g
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
D
e
l
a
y
D
e
l
a
y
D
e
l
a
y
5
9
.
3
E
A
9
.
5
4
3
.
3
D
D
5
0
.
0
3
.
8
A
A
4
.
1
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
6
5
.
6
E
5
1
.
8
D
9
.
3
A
B
1
1
.
0
D
5
3
.
2
A
5
.
2
1
2
3
-
2
1
-
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
o
A
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
C
l
o
v
e
r
l
y
A
v
e
P
r
i
m
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a
A
v
e
K
a
u
f
f
m
a
n
A
v
e
L
o
m
a
A
v
e
S
u
l
t
a
n
a
A
v
e
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
C
l
o
v
e
r
l
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
d
t
o
w
n
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
M
o
r
n
i
n
g
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
D
e
l
a
y
D
e
l
a
y
D
e
l
a
y
4
.
2
A
A
3
.
3
1
4
.
5
B
B
1
0
.
1
2
.
9
A
A
3
.
1
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
L
o
m
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
O
a
k
A
v
e
n
u
e
1
3
.
3
B
A
6
.
1
9
.
8
A
A
5
.
5
SultanaAve
L
o
m
a
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
o
A
v
e
C
l
o
v
e
r
l
y
A
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
r
e
e
d
m
a
n
T
u
n
g
+
S
a
s
a
k
i
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
7
.
7
A
6
7
.
8
E
5
.
2
A
4
4
.
5
D
2
2
.
3
C
A
5
.
4
D
5
4
.
9
A
6
.
2
B
1
9
.
2
B
1
6
.
1
4
5
6
7
8
-
2
2
-
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
o
A
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
C
l
o
v
e
r
l
y
A
v
e
P
r
i
m
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a
A
v
e
K
a
u
f
f
m
a
n
A
v
e
L
o
m
a
A
v
e
S
u
l
t
a
n
a
A
v
e
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
M
o
r
n
i
n
g
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
E
v
e
n
i
n
g
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
D
e
l
a
y
D
e
l
a
y
D
e
l
a
y
3
.
3
A
A
4
.
4
4
5
.
7
D
D
3
6
.
9
2
.
7
A
A
7
.
0
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
2
A
A
2
.
9
1
0
.
5
B
A
9
.
0
4
1
.
2
D
D
4
2
.
2
CloverlyAve
P
r
i
m
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a
A
v
e
K
a
u
f
f
m
a
n
A
v
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
P
r
i
m
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
K
a
u
f
f
m
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
r
e
e
d
m
a
n
T
u
n
g
+
S
a
s
a
k
i
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
1
.
4
B
B
1
3
.
4
1
2
7
.
9
F
F
1
5
0
.
5
1
2
.
2
B
B
1
5
.
6
9
.
0
A
A
9
.
3
6
1
.
7
E
C
2
9
.
7
4
1
.
2
D
D
4
2
.
2
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
-
2
3
-
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 24
TABLE 5 - SUMMARY OF ROADWAY OPERATIONS – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
ROADWAY SEGMENT ROADWAY
CLASSIFICATION CAPACITY1 ADT V/C RATIO LOS
Las Tunas Drive
Muscatel Avenue to Rosemead Boulevard 6-lane Primary Road 40,000 29,765 0.744 C
Hart Avenue to Loma Avenue 3-lane Primary Road 22,500 26,904 1.196 F
Alessandro Avenue to Oak Avenue 2-lane Primary Road 10,000 27,425 2.743 F
Primrose Avenue to Temple City Boulevard 2-lane Primary Road 10,000 26,813 2.681 F
Camellia Avenue to Kauffman Avenue 2-lane Primary Road 10,000 25,827 2.583 F
Agnes Avenue to Rowland Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 24,365 0.812 D
Baldwin Avenue to Bradford Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 21,432 0.714 C
Encinita Avenue Garibaldi Avenue to Las Tunas Drive 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 3,212 0.321 A
Las Tunas Drive to Live Oak Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 5,144 0.514 A
Garibaldi Avenue
Reno Avenue to Rosemead Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 2,071 0.207 A
Rosemead Boulevard to Temple City Boulevard 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 3,183 0.318 A
Temple City Boulevard to Camellia Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 2,456 0.246 A
Longden Avenue Reno Avenue to Rosemead Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 7,501 0.750 C
Temple City Boulevard to Baldwin Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 5,428 0.543 A
Broadway Acacia Street to Rosemead Boulevard 4-lane Secondary Road 30,000 14,697 0.490 A
Temple City Boulevard to Barela Avenue 2-lane Secondary Road 10,000 3,111 0.311 A
Live Oak Street Camellia Avenue to Kauffman Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 5,103 0.510 A
Workman Avenue Temple City Boulevard to Camellia Avenue 2-lane Local Street 10,000 896 0.090 A
Woodruff Avenue Temple City Boulevard to Camellia Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 2,273 0.227 A
Hermosa Drive Reno Avenue to Rosemead Avenue 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 1,836 0.184 A
Muscatel Avenue Live Oak Street to Broadway 2-lane Collector Street 10,000 4,141 0.414 A
Rosemead Boulevard Hermosa Drive to Las Tunas Drive 4-lane Primary Road 40,000 32,447 0.811 D
Las Tunas Drive to Broadway 4-lane Primary Road 40,000 35,206 0.880 D
Temple City Boulevard Woodruff Avenue to Las Tunas Drive 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 21,887 0.730 C
Workman Avenue to Live Oak Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 23,049 0.768 C
Baldwin Avenue Garibaldi Avenue to Woodruff Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 24,885 0.830 D
Workman Avenue to Live Oak Avenue 4-lane Primary Road 30,000 19,587 0.653 B
Bold values indicate roadway segments operating at LOS E or F.
1 Roadway capacity presented in Temple City Traffic Calming Master Plan (2012)
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 25
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITH DIVERSIONS
The Preferred Alternative is the approved project design. To more realistically analyze the traffic impacts
associated with this alternative, existing traffic volumes were re-evaluated based on feasible diversion
routes. Traffic trends in the area will inevitably change with the introduction of a road diet on Las Tunas
Drive. These trends are factored into the analysis to better understand impacts to Las Tunas Drive, as well
as impacts to other streets carrying diverted traffic in the city. Diversions are only assumed to take place
during the peak hour periods, typically associated with commute or work to home trips.
DIVERSION ASSUMPTIONS
It is assumed that traffic volumes on Las Tunas Drive will decrease with the implementation of the road diet
in the Downtown Core. Some drivers who currently utilize Las Tunas Drive are anticipated to divert to
adjacent streets to avoid the reduced capacity.
Drivers who typically rely on Las Tunas Drive to travel east or west are anticipated to take permanent
alternate routes when capacity is removed from the roadway. These diverted routes will add traffic most
prevalently along streets running parallel with Las Tunas Drive. Diversion assumptions were developed
based on the most likely routes available to drivers. These likely routes factor in convenience for drivers,
ease of access, and distance of diversion route. For instance, roadways with lower volumes and
intersections connecting to those roadways were designated as diversion routes. The diversion
assumptions are noted below:
From a broad perspective, it is assumed that 15% of commuter traffic traveling east and west along Las
Tunas Drive will re-route and not enter the study area. These commuters are expected to either stay on
freeways or to utilize larger streets in adjacent cities. The percentage deduction is apportioned from the
average of east and west through movements in each direction, as measured by vehicle counts conducted
along Las Tunas Drive. For instance, approximately one thousand vehicles, on average, travel in the
westbound di rection during the morning peak hour. The 15% is deducted from the east-west morning and
evening peak hour through movements at all Las Tunas Drive intersections. The turning movements at
these intersections were not reduced.
Another 15% of vehicles traveling on Las Tunas Drive during the peak hours in the east-west direction will
choose to divert off of Las Tunas Drive to avoid the reduced capacity section resulting from the road diet.
These diverted trips not only remove through volumes from Las Tunas Drive, but also add vehicles to
turning movements and through movements along diversion routes. Garibaldi Avenue, Live Oak Avenue,
and Broadway are identified as the likely streets to carry diverted traffic due to their orientation and
proximity as alternate parallel streets to Las Tunas Drive. In addition, drivers can re-route to these streets
before Las Tunas Drive transitions to its two-lane preferred configuration.
Encinita Avenue runs in the north-south direction and connects to Live Oak Avenue, Garibaldi Avenue, and
Broadway. Since Encinita Avenue is signalized at Las Tunas Drive, it is a favorable turnoff to connect to the
alternate parallel streets.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 26
Live Oak Avenue begins at Encinita Avenue at a T-intersection and eventually intersects Las Tunas Drive
approximately two miles to the east. The convenience of having Live Oak Avenue run parallel to Las Tunas
Drive makes it a preferable route for drivers looking to avoid the road diet.
Broadway is another east/west alternate option, although it ends at Baldwin Avenue to the east. Diverted
traffic that will utilize Live Oak Avenue and Broadway is assumed to do so by turning off Las Tunas Drive at
Encinita Avenue. While Live Oak Avenue provides a shorter diversion route, the intersection of Live Oak
Avenue and Encinita Avenue is unsignalized. On the other hand, Broadway and Encinita Avenue is a
signalized intersection, which may better facilitate the southbound left-turn movement onto Broadway. To
the east, the intersection of Baldwin Avenue and Broadway is an unsignalized T-intersection. Eastbound
diverted traffic may not use Broadway all the way to Baldwin Avenue and may consider turning on Golden
West Avenue to get to Live Oak Avenue for ease of turning left.
The idea is a majority of the east-west diverting traffic would use Live Oak Avenue. Westbound vehicles
would divert north to Garibaldi and eastbound vehicles would divert south to Broadway. These east-west
diversions can be found on Figure 10.
Vehicles from the south traveling northbound on Temple City Blvd and turning onto Las Tunas Drive to east
or west destinations beyond the City will either divert onto Live Oak Avenue or Broadway, respectively.
Vehicles on Live Oak Avenue will eventually join at Las Tunas Drive to the east. Vehicles on Broadway will
continue westerly and are presumed to return to Las Tunas Drive at some point further west outside of the
City. The total percentage of traffic being diverted from the south is relatively small, with 15% expected to
use this route. The diversions from the south are shown on Figure 11.
Traffic from the north currently turning on Las Tunas Drive to go east or west from Rosemead Boulevard,
Temple City Boulevard or Baldwin Avenue may consider Garibaldi Avenue as an alternative because it
spans the entirety of the city and provides a parallel route to Las Tunas Drive. Other east-west streets,
including Longden Avenue and Woodruff Avenue, are not as practical. For example, there is an elementary
school along Longden Avenue that would experience school delays in the morning peak that commuters
would prefer to avoid. Around 15% of existing volumes are expected to divert via these routes from the
north. The routes are shown on Figure 12.
All traffic diversions are anticipated to only occur during the AM and PM peak hours. The final peak hour
volumes, after diversions were factored in, are shown on Figure 13 for intersections along Las Tunas Drive
and on Figure 14 for intersections on diversion routes.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
G
a
r
i
b
a
l
d
i
A
v
e
W
o
o
d
r
u
f
f
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
W
o
r
k
m
a
n
A
v
e
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
denA
v
e
H
e
r
m
o
s
a
D
r
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
-
2
7
-
A
L
L
-
W
A
Y
S
T
O
P
A
L
L
-
W
A
Y
S
T
O
P
A
L
L
-
W
A
Y
S
T
O
P
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
G
a
r
i
b
a
l
d
i
A
v
e
W
o
o
d
r
u
f
f
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
W
o
r
k
m
a
n
A
v
e
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
denA
v
e
H
e
r
m
o
s
a
D
r
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
-
2
8
-
A
L
L
-
W
A
Y
S
T
O
P
A
L
L
-
W
A
Y
S
T
O
P
A
L
L
-
W
A
Y
S
T
O
P
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
G
a
r
i
b
a
l
d
i
A
v
e
W
o
o
d
r
u
f
f
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
W
o
r
k
m
a
n
A
v
e
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
denA
v
e
H
e
r
m
o
s
a
D
r
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
-
2
9
-
A
L
L
-
W
A
Y
S
T
O
P
A
L
L
-
W
A
Y
S
T
O
P
A
L
L
-
W
A
Y
S
T
O
P
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
o
A
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
C
l
o
v
e
r
l
y
A
v
e
P
r
i
m
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a
A
v
e
K
a
u
f
f
m
a
n
A
v
e
L
o
m
a
A
v
e
S
u
l
t
a
n
a
A
v
e
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
1. Las Tunas Drive atMuscatel Avenue
2
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
3
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
S
u
l
t
a
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
4
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
L
o
m
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
5
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
6
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
7
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
O
a
k
A
v
e
n
u
e
8. Las Tunas Drive atCloverly Avenue
9
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
P
r
i
m
r
o
s
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
1
0
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
1
1
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
1
2
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
K
a
u
f
f
m
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
1
3
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
1
4
.
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
t
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
-
3
0
-
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
G
a
r
i
b
a
l
d
i
A
v
e
W
o
o
d
r
u
f
f
A
v
e
L
a
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
W
o
r
k
m
a
n
A
v
e
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
M
u
s
c
a
t
e
l
A
v
e
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
v
d
G
o
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
A
v
e
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
L
o
n
g
d
e
n
A
v
e
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
1
5
.
G
a
r
i
b
a
l
d
i
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
t
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
1
6
.
G
a
r
i
b
a
l
d
i
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
t
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
1
7
.
G
a
r
i
b
a
l
d
i
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
t
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
1
8
.
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
-
3
1
-
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 32
Preferred Alternative
Summary of Intersection Operation
Level of Service analysis was conducted for the morning and evening peak hours with the assumption that
traffic along Las Tunas Drive would divert as a result of roadway changes from the Preferred Alternative.
The results, as well as the roadway changes for each segment, are shown on Table 6. The intersection
operations shown in this table represent the ultimate build-out of the Las Tunas Drive Improvements
Project per the Preferred Alternative. As these figures indicate, the following intersections would operate at
unacceptable Levels of Service:
·Las Tunas Drive at Muscatel Avenue (AM LOS E)
·Las Tunas Drive at Encinita Avenue (AM LOS F)
·Las Tunas Drive at Temple City Boulevard (AM LOS E)
·Garibaldi Avenue at Baldwin Avenue (AM LOS F, PM LOS F)
Muscatel Avenue is already deficient in existing conditions. The intersection deficiency is caused by the
large northbound turn volumes and is not a result of major changes in roadway geometry along Las Tunas
Drive. Encinita Avenue is the primary cross street that drivers would divert from to access streets parallel
to Las Tunas Drive. As a result of the increases in turning volumes at this intersection, the worse Level of
Service is anticipated. Garibaldi Avenue at Baldwin Avenue is an unsignalized intersection that falls on a
diversion route. The deficiency is caused by the worst approach delay, which is the stop-controlled
westbound movement. However, the intersection currently operates at LOS F without the additional traffic
expected from diversions.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 33
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITH DIVERSIONS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Without
Project
Option 3 No
Diversion
of Traffic
Option 3
with
Diversion
Without
Project
Option 3
No
Diversion of
Traffic
Option 3
with
Diversion
Int. # Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Las Tunas Drive at Muscatel Avenue 59.3 E 65.6 E 59.5 E 9.5 A 11.0 B 9.7 A
2 Las Tunas Drive at Rosemead Boulevard 43.3 D 51.8 D 46.3 D 50.0 D 53.2 D 47.5 D
3 Las Tunas Drive at Sultana Avenue 3.8 A 9.3 A 7.1 A 4.1 A 5.3 A 4.9 A
4 Las Tunas Drive at Loma Avenue 4.2 A 7.7 A 4.8 A 3.3 A 5.4 A 4.2 A
5 Las Tunas Drive at Encinita Avenue 14.5 B 67.8 E 95.3 F 10.1 B 54.9 D 53.0 D
6 Las Tunas Drive at Alessandro Avenue 2.9 A 5.2 A 3.9 A 3.1 A 6.2 A 3.6 A
7 Las Tunas Drive at Oak Avenue 13.3 B 44.5 D 19.3 B 6.1 A 19.2 B 9.7 A
8 Las Tunas Drive at Cloverly Avenue 9.8 A 22.3 C 14.2 B 5.5 A 16.1 B 10.0 A
9 Las Tunas Drive at Primrose Avenue 3.3 A 11.4 B 6.6 A 4.4 A 13.4 B 8.8 A
10 Las Tunas Drive at Temple City Boulevard 45.7 D 127.9 F 56.6 E 36.9 D 150.5 F 48.8 D
11 Las Tunas Drive at Camellia Avenue 2.7 A 12.2 B 4.9 A 7.0 A 15.6 B 8.2 A
12 Las Tunas Drive at Kauffman Avenue 2.2 A 9.0 A 4.6 A 2.9 A 9.3 A 5.6 A
13 Las Tunas Drive at Golden West Avenue 10.5 B 61.7 E 19.9 B 9.0 A 29.7 C 13.5 B
14 Las Tunas Drive at Baldwin Avenue 41.2 D 41.2 D 38.4 D 42.2 D 42.2 D 39.5 D
15 Garibaldi Avenue at Baldwin Avenue 54.8 F 54.8 F 87.5 F 107.9 F 107.9 F 226.1 F
16 Garibaldi Avenue at Temple City Boulevard 11.7 A 11.7 A 13.6 B 6.2 A 6.2 A 7.8 A
17 Garibaldi Avenue at Rosemead Boulevard 10.0 A 10.0 A 10.1 B 5.9 A 5.9 A 6.0 A
18 Temple City Boulevard at Broadway 12.1 B 12.1 B 13.0 B 11.7 B 11.7 B 13.4 B
Notes:
Bold values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Delay values are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual and performed using Synchro 8.0.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 34
PARKING ANALYSIS
As a r esult of the project’s design elements, the lane reductions along the corridor will provide the surplus
roadway width required to incorporate bike lanes and new parking layouts. The ultimate goal is to
facilitate a safer, more pedestrian-friendly environment along the corridor.
Currently, there is parallel parking along Las Tunas Drive. The proposed Las Tunas Drive Improvement
Project proposes a combination of parking throughout the four segments along Las Tunas Drive. Each
parking type has its benefits and caveats, which are described below:
Parallel Parking
Parallel parking spaces, per the preferred alternative, are
planned on three out of the four roadway segments along
Las Tunas Drive. Parallel parking is typical on street
segments and is the preferable mode of parking when
there are right-of-way constraints that prohibit other
parking types. While parallel parking can be
accommodated with minimal allocation of roadway width,
there are several disadvantages. One disadvantage of
parallel parking is the negative impact on traffic flow. In
cases where there are parked vehicles in close proximity,
drivers may utilize extra time to maneuver into constricted spaces. As a result, traffic flow is impeded as
upstream vehicles wait or merge into another lane. Furthermore, constricted spaces may be discouraging
to drivers who are hesitant in their parking capabilities. In addition, vehicle doors open out adjacent to
traffic flow. Nevertheless, the segments of Las Tunas Drive that are planned to provide parallel parking do
so with consideration of other roadway features, such as the addition of new bike lanes
Head-in Angled Parking
Head-in angled parking is a common alternative to parallel parking and is often used when there is
adequate curb-to-curb width to accommodate the parking stalls. The act of angled parking takes
considerably less time than parallel parking due to the simplicity of driving directly into a stall. This
process would not inhibit traffic flow for vehicles behind the parking vehicle. A parallel parker, on the other
hand, would momentarily impede traffic to carry out the parking movement.
The disadvantages of head-in angled parking, however, stem from visual impairments associated with the
exiting movement. A driver is required to reverse into the traffic stream with a limited cone of vision. As a
result, vehicles, cyclists, or even pedestrians may fall within a driver’s blind spot.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 35
Back-in Angled Parking
The Preferred Alternative (Option 3) incorporates back-in angled parking. However, back-in angled parking
is reserved for the “Downtown Core” segment of Las Tunas Drive, where the full road diet will be
constructed. The Downtown Core is expected to be the primary commercial generator of the City of Temple
City, and is anticipated to experience the most pedestrian traffic.
The benefits of back-in angled parking are largely centered on safety improvements for vehicles, cyclists,
and pedestrians utilizing the facilities. Back-in angled parking, as opposed to conventional head-in angled
parking, provides drivers with better sight angles when maneuvering with conflicting vehicles and cyclists.
In a standard head-in angled parking scenario, drivers exiting from the parking space must turn their head
in a clockwise motion and reverse into oncoming traffic. This reverse movement requires the driver to
perceive gaps in traffic and to be cautious of pedestrians and cyclists who may be out of visual range. On the
other hand, back-in parking requires the driver to initially reverse into a parking space, and to exit with a
forward movement. When a driver begins a parking maneuver from the curb lane, the process involves
pulling ahead of an empty space, and reversing into it. With the driver seat positioned at the back of the
parking stall, the driver can have a complete view of incoming vehicles and cyclists by looking to the left.
Vehicles in back-in angled parking stalls are positioned with trunks and doors opening towards the
sidewalk. This orientation serves as a way to guide drivers and passengers towards the pedestrian
walkways, rather than into traffic.
There are several caveats to back-in angled parking, the most critical of which is public reaction to such a
shift in parking conventions. The concept of back-in angled parking is unique to many, and the sudden
introduction of such a system will certainly generate confusion and frustration. There is a learning curve
that is to be expected, and incidents may arise from the initial confusion.
Furthermore, the nature of back-in angled parking restricts the driver’s visibility of the curb while parking.
Drivers may have issues in determining the depth at which to stop a vehicle to prevent vehicle overhang or
to avoid the collision of tires with the curb.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 36
Kimley-Horn observed the operations of a segment of back-in angled parking in the City of Ventura to
assess the reaction of drivers to the parking style. The City of Ventura is currently one of the limited
locations in Southern California to utilize back-in angled parking. The back-in angled parking is provided on
the roadway segment immediately south of City Hall. During the observation period, several drivers were
unaware of the parking style and parked incorrectly. When asked afterwards, some were quick to express
their dismay at the new parking style. However, others were not opposed to the layout.
City of Ventura Back-in Angled Parking. The City of Ventura has implemented a segment of back-in parking
along the City Hall frontage.
The Preferred Alternative will convert the existing on-street parking in the Downtown Core segment into
back-in parking on the north and south sides of Las Tunas Drive. Parking spaces in the Midtown segment,
between Encinita Avenue and Cloverly Avenue, will be back-in parking in the eastbound direction and
parallel parking in the westbound direction. Parking in the Western Gateway segment, between Rosemead
and Sultana Avenue, will likewise include back-in parking in the eastbound direction and parallel parking in
the westbound direction. The remainder of all on-street parking will be parallel parking. Conceptual plans
completed by FTS indicate that the Preferred Alternative will yield a total of 351 parking spaces, which is 22
more spaces than existing conditions. Most parking spaces are gained from the conversion of existing
parallel parking into angled parking.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 37
PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS
The street improvements propose bulb-outs and pedestrian mid-block crossings to enhance pedestrian
walkability along the corridor. These changes to the street are critical in providing a safer means of
traversing the streetscape for pedestrians. Bulb-outs are common design features that promote pedestrian
safety by minimizing the length of the crosswalk, and thus minimizing the time that pedestrians spend in
the street. The bulb-outs also allow larger groups of pedestrians to cross during a single pedestrian phase.
The figure below shows a typical section in the Downtown Segment per the Preferred Alternative design.
The bulb-outs not only provide shorter walk distances for pedestrians, but also provide refuge for vehicles
parked in the back-in configuration. Moreover, the bulb-outs extend further into the intersection,
generating more space for pedestrians to wait. The reduction in roadway capacity serves to limit vehicular
traffic through the area, thus increasing safety for pedestrians on the sidewalk, near parked vehicles, and on
the crosswalk. There are 24 existing crosswalks within the project limits. The project design specifies that
5 new crosswalks will be installed and that all 29 crosswalks will feature bulb-outs.
Typical Bulb-outs Along Las Tunas Drive. Source: FTS
Traffic counts were conducted in the morning and evening peak hour periods in May 2014. The counts
include the number of pedestrians utilizing the crosswalks at the fourteen study intersections. Pedestrian
count sheets can be found in Appendix A.
The count sheets indicate a generally low volume of pedestrians utilizing the crosswalks, with the exception
of major cross streets such Rosemead Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard. Furthermore, the public park
located on the northwest corner of Las Tunas Drive and Golden West Avenue attracts pedestrian traffic.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 38
BICYCLE ANALYSIS
The City of Temple City’s Bicycle Master Plan, approved in 2011, indicates that Las Tunas Drive will be a
Class II Bike Lane between Baldwin Avenue and Muscatel Avenue. A Class II Bike Lane provides separate
striping, signage, and stenciling for one-way travel on a street. In the proposed project layout, Class II Bike
Lanes will be provided adjacent to the back-in angled parking spaces.
Currently, there are no bicycle facilities along Las Tunas Drive. Las Tunas Drive is a four-lane roadway, with
adequate width for on-street parallel parking.
A cross s ection showing the proposed bike lane configuration was previously introduced on Page 20. The
layout can also be seen on the previous page, with bike lanes shown in yellow.
Data collected at the study intersections show minimal bicycle volumes on Las Tunas Drive and on cross
streets within the study area. One of the project’s goals is to encourage bicycle and pedestrian safety
throughout th e Las Tunas Drive corridor, and to promote lower vehicle usage in the study area. As a result,
bicycle volumes after the implementation of street improvements will be higher than existing conditions.
The street improvements will increase safety for cyclists. The proposed back-in angled parking
configuration is intended to decrease conflicts between parked vehicles and cyclists. By orienting parked
vehicles to provide drivers with better sight distance, drivers exiting their parking spaces can maneuver
into the traffic stream with greater attention to cyclists.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 39
POTENTIAL MITIGATION
Operations along Las Tunas Drive are generally satisfactory, with the exception of the heavier intersections
such as Temple City Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard. Signal coordination will be updated along Las
Tunas Drive to correspond with the road diet modifications. The signal timing adjustments will improve
traffic progression, increasing the efficiency of movements along Las Tunas Drive and minimizing
impedance along the corridor.
The intersections studied along the diverted route will operate at acceptable Level of Service, with the
exception of the intersection of Garibaldi Avenue and Baldwin Avenue. The intersection of Garibaldi
Avenue and Baldwin Avenue is currently unsignalized, with stop control on Garibaldi Avenue. The Existing
Conditions analysis indicates that the intersection currently operates at LOS F based on the worst approach
delay. In this case, the westbound lane experiences the worst delay due to the heavy conflicting volumes in
the north and south direction. However, LOS F at an unsignalized intersection does not always correlate
with poor operations at the intersection as a whole.
TRAVEL TIME DATA
This section of the report summarizes the results of the travel time data obtained along Las Tunas Drive
between Muscatel Avenue and Baldwin Avenue, approximately 1.65 miles in length. A before travel time
study was conducted, which consisted of recording the data to determine baseline levels for Measures of
Effectiveness (MOEs) for the corridor such as travel time and average speed on the corridor, etc. prior to
implementation of optimized signal timing coordination. A similar travel time study will be completed after
the optimized signal timing coordination plans with the street improvements are implemented along the
corridor to document the changes in MOEs.
The results presented represent typical weekday before travel time conditions. Weekday travel time data
was collected on a Wednesday and Thursday in November 2014. Weekday travel time runs were conducted
each day during the AM and PM peak periods: AM peak hour data was collected between 7:00 AM and 9:00
AM and PM peak hour data was collected between 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
“Before Travel Time” Study
Before travel-time survey data was collected using the Tru-Traffic Time-Space/Platoon-Progression
Diagram Generator (Tru-Traffic) software package. The data was collected in real-time by navigating the
Las Tunas Drive corridor and by linking a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver to a laptop computer.
Six runs were recorded along the corridor in both directions (eastbound/westbound) for each of the
weekday AM and PM peak periods.
The results of the before travel time survey study for each peak period are summarized in Tables 7 and 8
below and include the following data:
§Average Travel Time - Cumulative Travel Time since beginning of Run (seconds)
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 40
§Average Number of Stops in a Run (Cumulative)
§Average Speed – Cumulative Actual Average Speed since beginning of Run (mph)
AM Peak Period
Table 7 presents the results of the Las Tunas Drive AM peak period “Before” study for the eastbound and
westbound directions between Muscatel Avenue and Baldwin Avenue.
Table 7: Las Tunas Drive AM Peak Period Travel Time Survey
Las Tunas Drive (AM) Eastbound Las Tunas Drive (AM) Westbound
Before Data Before Data
Avg Travel Time (sec) 311.1 Avg Travel Time (sec) 321.2
Avg # of Stops 3.1 Avg # of Stops 3.7
Avg Speed (mph) 17.4 Avg Speed (mph) 16.6
Table 7 indicates that the Average Travel Time in the westbound direction is higher than the eastbound
direction during the AM peak period, which is expected as commuter traffic heads towards Los Angeles in
the morning. According to the AM peak period travel time data, it takes approximately 5.2 minutes to travel
the corridor in the eastbound direction. In contrast, it takes 5.4 minutes to travel the corridor in the
westbound direction. As a result, the average speed in the westbound direction is less than the eastbound
direction.
PM Peak Period
Table 8 presents the results of the Las Tunas Drive PM peak period “Before” study for the eastbound and
westbound directions between Muscatel Avenue and Baldwin Avenue.
Table 8: Las Tunas Drive PM Peak Period Travel Time Survey
Las Tunas Drive (PM) Eastbound Las Tunas Drive (PM) Westbound
Before Data Before Data
Avg Travel Time (sec) 377.5 Avg Travel Time (sec) 281.3
Avg # of Stops 5.2 Avg # of Stops 2.2
Avg Speed (mph) 14.3 Avg Speed (mph) 19.4
Table 8 indicates that the Average Travel Time and Average Number of Stops in the eastbound direction are
greater than the westbound direction during the PM peak period, which is expected as commuter traffic
travels away from Los Angeles in the afternoon. According to the PM peak period travel time data, it takes
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
November 2014
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 41
approximately 6.3 minutes to travel the corridor in the eastbound direction. In contrast, it takes 4.7
minutes to travel the same distance in the westbound direction. Thus, the average speed in the eastbound
direction is less than the westbound direction.
“After Travel Time” Study
The data collected in the “Before Travel Time” study will later be compared with the “After Travel Time”
study that will be completed after the implementation of optimized signal timing on Las Tunas Drive.
Kimley-Horn wi ll develop optimized signal timing using Synchro, and recommend any changes to the signal
phasing at each signalized intersection that may improve the efficiency of operations.
Since the “After Travel Time” study will not be completed until after the street improvements and optimized
signal timing are implemented, an arterial analysis using Synchro was prepared to evaluate the future
condition with the street improvements. Based on the traffic volumes at the intersections for the preferred
alternative with diversions and preliminary signal timing the following is a preliminary summary of MOE’s
for the corridor.
In the AM peak hour the average travel time in the eastbound direction is 437.7 seconds (7.3 mins) with an
average speed of 13.8 miles per hour. In the westbound direction the average travel time is 614.5 seconds
(10.2 mins) for an average speed of 9.6 miles per hour.
In the PM peak hour the average travel time in the eastbound direction is 553.4 seconds (9.2 mins) with an
average speed of 10.9 miles per hour. In the westbound direction the average travel time is 454.6 seconds
(7.6 mins) for an average speed of 13.0 miles per hour.
The westbound direction assumes one travel lane between Golden West Avenue and Encinita Avenue. In
addition, fine tuning of the traffic signal timing through the corridor will still need to be performed. The
“After Travel Time” MOE’s presented above are preliminary.
Table 9 shows a comparison of data collected via the “Before Travel Time” study and the results of the
Synchro preliminary arterial analysis. Table 10 compares the Level of Service identified in the preliminary
analysis to the Level of Service identified earlier in this report.
Table 9: Las Tunas Drive Travel Time Comparison
Before
Data
After
Simulation
Before
Data
After
Simulation
Las Tunas Drive Eastbound
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Avg Travel Time (sec) 311.1 437.7 377.5 553.4
Avg Speed (mph) 17.4 13.8 14.3 10.9
Las Tunas Drive Westbound
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Avg Travel Time (sec) 321.2 614.5 281.3 454.6
Avg Speed (mph) 16.6 9.6 19.4 13.0
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
Kimley-Horn | Las Tunas Drive Improvements Project 42
TABLE 10 - SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITH OPTIMIZATION
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Without
Optimization With Optimization Without
Optimization With Optimization
Int. # Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Las Tunas Drive at Muscatel Avenue 59.5 E 59.5 E 9.7 A 9.7 A
2 Las Tunas Drive at Rosemead Boulevard 46.3 D 46.3 D 47.5 D 47.5 D
3 Las Tunas Drive at Sultana Avenue 7.1 A 8.1 A 4.9 A 5.1 A
4 Las Tunas Drive at Loma Avenue 4.8 A 4.0 A 4.2 A 3.4 A
5 Las Tunas Drive at Encinita Avenue 95.3 F 56.0 E 53.0 D 50.4 D
6 Las Tunas Drive at Alessandro Avenue 3.9 A 3.7 A 3.6 A 3.7 A
7 Las Tunas Drive at Oak Avenue 19.3 B 19.1 B 9.7 A 10.1 B
8 Las Tunas Drive at Cloverly Avenue 14.2 B 9.3 A 10.0 A 6.9 A
9 Las Tunas Drive at Primrose Avenue 6.6 A 6.3 A 8.8 A 7.3 A
10 Las Tunas Drive at Temple City Boulevard 56.6 E 48.3 D 48.8 D 37.4 D
11 Las Tunas Drive at Camellia Avenue 4.9 A 4.7 A 8.2 A 6.4 A
12 Las Tunas Drive at Kauffman Avenue 4.6 A 5.1 A 5.6 A 5.4 A
13 Las Tunas Drive at Golden West Avenue 19.9 B 19.4 B 13.5 B 13.4 B
14 Las Tunas Drive at Baldwin Avenue 38.4 D 38.4 D 39.5 D 39.5 D
Notes:
Bold values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Delay values are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual and performed using Synchro 8.0.
LAS TUNAS TIA, 2014-12-05
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5
L
A
S
T
U
N
A
S
T
I
A
,
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
-
0
5