4.11 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Existing Conditions

Transcription

1 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION This section describes the existing traffic/circulation setting of the project site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan (proposed project). Traffic impacts associated with the proposed project were derived from the project-specific Traffic Impact nalysis (TI) report prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG 2016) and provided in ppendix F Existing onditions Vehicular Transportation Existing Street System The principal local network of streets serving the project site includes Lincoln venue, Valley View Street, Orange venue, and Holder Street. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of these key local streets. The descriptions are based on an inventory of existing roadway conditions. Lincoln venue Lincoln venue is generally a four-lane divided roadway, oriented in the east west direction. The posted speed limit on Lincoln venue is 40 miles per hour (mph). On-street parking is generally not permitted along this roadway in the vicinity of the proposed project. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Lincoln venue at Walker Street, Valley View Street, Holder Street, and Knott venue. Valley View Street Valley View Street is generally a six-lane divided roadway, oriented in the north south direction. Valley View Street borders the project site to the west and currently provides access to the site via one right-turn in/right-turn out only driveway and via Lakeshore rive/ypress ollege West (signalized intersection). The posted speed limit on Valley View Street is 45 mph. On-street parking is generally not permitted along this roadway in the vicinity of the proposed project. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Valley View Street at rescent venue, Lincoln venue, Lakeshore rive/ypress ollege West, Orange venue, and all Road. Orange venue Orange venue is generally a four-lane divided roadway, oriented in the east west direction. Orange venue borders the project site to the south and currently provides access to the site via ypress ollege South. The posted speed limit on Orange venue is 40 mph. On-street parking is ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

2 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION generally permitted along this roadway west of ypress ollege South and generally not permitted along this roadway east of ypress ollege South. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Orange venue at Walker Street, Valley View Street, Holder Street, and Knott venue. Holder Street Holder Street is generally a two-lane undivided roadway north of Lincoln venue, generally a four-lane divided roadway between Lincoln venue and Orange venue, and generally a twolane divided roadway south of Orange venue. It is oriented in the north south direction. Holder Street borders the project site to the east and currently provides access to the site via one inbound-only driveway, via one outbound-only driveway, and via Lakeshore rive/via rroyo rive (signalized intersection). The posted speed limit on Holder Street is 30 mph north of Lincoln venue, and 40 mph south of Lincoln venue. On-street parking is generally permitted along this roadway in the vicinity of the proposed project. Traffic signals control the study intersections of Holder Street at rescent venue, Lincoln venue, Lakeshore rive/via rroyo rive, Orange venue, and all Road. Figure shows an inventory of the existing roadway conditions for the arterials and intersections in the proposed project s traffic study area. This figure identifies the number of travel lanes for key arterials, as well as intersection configurations and controls for the key area study intersections. Existing Traffic Volumes Eighteen key study intersections were identified as the locations at which to evaluate existing and future traffic operating conditions. portion of project-related traffic would pass through each of these intersections, and their analysis reveals the expected relative impacts of the proposed project. Existing daily, M peak hour, and peak hour traffic volumes for the locations evaluated in the TI (ppendix F) were obtained from daily machine and manual peak hour turning movement counts conducted in March and May Since the campus driveways/ access points are included in the list of intersections where traffic data was collected, the traffic data at these locations was used to establish the existing daily, M peak hour, and peak hour trip generation for the campus. The existing trip generation represents an existing baseline enrollment of 16,032 students. Figures and show the existing M and peak hour traffic volumes at the key study intersections evaluated in the TI, respectively. Figure also presents the existing average daily traffic volumes for the key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project. The TI contains the detailed peak hour count sheets for the key intersections evaluated and contains a summary of the existing daily, M peak hour, and peak hour trip generation for the campus. The TI also contains the average daily traffic volumes for the key roadway segments. ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

3 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION Existing Level of Service Table shows the existing peak hour level of service (LOS) calculations for the 18 key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometrics. s presented in Table , all key study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS during the M and peak hours. The TI contains ppendix presents the IU/LOS and HM/LOS calculation worksheets for the key study intersections for the M peak hour and peak hour. Table Existing Peak Hour Intersection apacity nalysis Key Intersection Minimum cceptable LOS Time Period 1. Valley View Street at rescent venue M 2. Holder Street at rescent venue M 3. Walker Street at Lincoln venue E M 4. Valley View Street at Lincoln venue M 5. Holder Street at Lincoln venue M 6. Knott venue at Lincoln venue M 7. Walker Street at Orange venue M 8. Valley View Street at Orange venue E M 9. Holder Street at Orange venue M 10. Knott venue at Orange venue M 11. Valley View Street at all Road M 12. Holder Street at all Road M 13. Valley View Street at riveway. 1 E M 14. Valley View Street at Lakeshore rive/ypress ollege West E M 15. ypress ollege South at Orange venue M ontrol Type IU/HM LOS 8 traffic signal 5 traffic signal 8 traffic signal 8 traffic signal 5 traffic signal 8 traffic signal 8 traffic signal 8 traffic signal 5 traffic signal 5 traffic signal 8 traffic signal 5 traffic signal One-way stop 5 traffic signal One-way stop v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c v/c 15.8 s/v 46.6 s/v v/c v/c 14.8 s/v 14.0 s/v E ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

4 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION Table Existing Peak Hour Intersection apacity nalysis Minimum cceptable LOS Time Period Key Intersection 16. Holder Street at riveway. 2 M 17. Holder Street at riveway. 3 M 18. Holder Street at Lakeshore rive/via rroyo rive M ontrol Type IU/HM LOS Uncontrolled One-way stop 5 traffic signal 9.2 s/v 8.4 s/v 14.3 s/v 11.3 s/v v/c v/c LOS = level of service; IU = Intersection apacity Utilization; HM = Highway apacity Manual; = phase; s/v = seconds per vehicle; v/c = volume to capacity. old IU/LOS or HM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels. lternative Transportation Pedestrian Facilities The ypress ollege campus is currently bounded by sidewalks along Holder Street to the east, Orange venue to the south, and Valley View Street to the west. These sidewalks connect to several crosswalks that provide access to and from the campus. djacent to the campus, signalized crosswalks are provided at the intersections of Holder Street and Via rroyo rive/lakeshore rive, Holder Street and Orange venue, and Valley View Street and Lakeshore rive. Internal pedestrian circulation is facilitated through a series of sidewalks, walkways, and paseos that bound the campus parking lots and connect the various campus buildings and facilities. icycle Paths icycle trails provide access to schools, parks, open space areas, and commercial and employment centers within the ity of ypress (ity) and surrounding communities. bikeway can either be an on-road bikeway which would include both striped bike lanes and signed-only bikeways or an off-road paved bikeway. In some cases, off-road bikeways utilize ity sidewalks, where there is sufficient width to accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians. The bicycle trail system in the ity includes lass I, II, and III paths. lass I bike paths are separate from the street and are the highest-quality bike path. lass II and III paths are both located on the street. lass II paths include a designated bike lane and lass III paths are only marked by a sign. icycles are permitted on campus and bicycle traffic is not separated from vehicular or pedestrian traffic. ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

5 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION us Service The ity is currently served by five Orange ounty Transportation uthority (OT) bus lines (Routes 21, 25, 42, 46, and 50). Routes 21 and 50 serve the ypress usiness Park along Valley View Street and Katella venue, respectively; Route 42 serves the Lincoln venue corridor; Route 46 provides east west service, generally through the middle of the ity; and Route 25 provides north south service along Knott venue. With the exception of Route 25, all of the routes operate 7 days a week, including holidays. Route 25 operates Monday through Saturday, with no Sunday or holiday service. OT routes connect with other transit providers from other cities, including Long each Transit and the Los ngeles Metropolitan Transportation uthority. OT also provides the ESS Service, which is a shared-ride service for people with functional limitations caused by a disability. Rail Transportation The existing Southern Pacific Rail Line, with a northwest southeast alignment, crosses the northeast corner of the ity, adjacent to the ypress ollege campus. The right-of-way was purchased some years ago by the OT for potential use as a commuter rail line. This purchase precludes freight use of the east west rail line, which crosses through the ypress usiness Park at the south end of the ity, since it is a spur line off the purchased main line. ypress is a member of the Western Orange ounty ities ssociation, which is evaluating the feasibility of an urban rail system serving the cities of West Orange ounty. specific alignment for this potential urban rail system has yet been established Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances Federal There are no federal regulations for traffic and circulation that would be applicable to the proposed project or the project area. State alifornia epartment of Transportation The proposed project s traffic study area does not contain any state-owned, alifornia epartment of Transportation (altrans)-maintained roadways that are part of the state highway system. s a general rule, altrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS and LOS on State highway facilities (altrans 2002); however, altrans does not require that LOS be maintained, and acknowledges that this LOS goal may not always be ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

6 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION feasible. Instead, altrans recommends that the lead agency consult with them to determine the appropriate target LOS for a particular state highway facility. Local ity of ypress General Plan The following goals and policies are included in the ity of ypress General Plan (ypress General Plan) and would be applicable to the proposed project: IR-1: Maintain a safe, efficient, economical, and aesthetically pleasing transportation system providing for the movement of people, goods, and services to serve the existing and future needs of the ity of ypress. IR-2: To facilitate alternative modes of transportation, including public transportation, bicycles, ridesharing, and pedestrians, to support the land use plans and related transportation needs. o IR-2.1: Encourage development and improvements which incorporate innovative methods of accommodating transportation demands. o IR-2.4: Encourage development and site design which facilitate implementation of high quality, desirable bicycle routes which meet or exceed established standards. o IR-2.5: Implement adequate sidewalks to meet the required uses and needs, which serves to encourage alternative modes of transportation. icycle routes which utilize sidewalks require establishment of a ity ordinance, per the Vehicle ode. o IR-2.8: Enhance the sidewalk environment to encourage pedestrian activities through streetscape and transit enhancement programs Thresholds of Significance The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to traffic and circulation are based on ppendix G of the alifornia Environmental Quality ct (EQ) Guidelines. ccording to ppendix G of the EQ Guidelines, a significant impact related to traffic and circulation would occur if the project would: 1. onflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance or the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

7 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION 2. onflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to LOS standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves, or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). 5. Result in inadequate emergency access. 6. onflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycles, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Threshold of significance 3 was eliminated from further analysis in the IS/NOP (ppendix ). The nearest airport is Los lamitos Joint Forces Training ase, located 2 miles southwest of the project site. private airstrips exist within 2 miles of the project site. s such, impacts related to air traffic were determined be less than significant or no impact. Traffic Forecasting Methodology To estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the proposed project, a multi-step process was used during preparation of the TI. The first step of this process is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the project development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the proposed project is isolated by comparing operational conditions at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast project traffic. The need for site- ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

8 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated and the significance of the project s impacts identified. Existing Intersection onditions Existing M and peak hour operating conditions for the key study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection apacity Utilization (IU) methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology outlined in hapters 19 and 20 of the Highway apacity Manual (HM) 2010 for unsignalized intersections. IU Method of nalysis In conformance with ity and Orange ounty ongestion Management Program (MP; OT 2015) requirements, existing M and peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the IU method. The IU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/ ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The IU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time, and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the IU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. Per ity requirements, the IU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for through and turn lanes. clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was added to each LOS calculation. For the study intersections within the ities of uena Park and naheim, the IU calculations also use a lane capacity of 1,700 vph for through and turn lanes. clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 was also added to each LOS calculation. The IU value translates to an LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The IU value is the sum of the critical V/ ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. The six qualitative categories of LOS have been defined along with the corresponding IU value range and are shown in Table Table LOS riteria for Signalized Intersections (IU Methodology) LOS IU Value (V/) LOS escription 0.60 EXELLENT. vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no approach phase is fully used VERY GOO. n occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles GOO. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

9 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION Table LOS riteria for Signalized Intersections (IU Methodology) LOS IU Value (V/) LOS escription FIR. elays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower-volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F >1.00 FILURE. ackups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. Source: tes: Transportation Research oard ircular 212 Interim Materials on Highway apacity. LOS = level of service; IU = Intersection apacity Utilization; V/ = volume to capacity. HM Method of nalysis (Unsignalized Intersections) The 2010 HM unsignalized methodology for stop-controlled intersections was used for the analysis of the unsignalized intersections. This methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the LOS for each movement. For all-way stop controlled intersections, the overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle, and LOS is then calculated for the entire intersection. For one-way and two-way stop-controlled (minor street stop-controlled) intersections, this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and determines the LOS for that approach. The HM control delay value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of LOS have been defined along with the corresponding HM control delay value range, as shown in Table Table LOS riteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HM Methodology) Source: tes: LOS HM elay Value (s/v) LOS escription 10.0 Little or no delay >10.0 and 15.0 Short traffic delays >15.0 and 25.0 verage traffic delays >25.0 and 35.0 Long traffic delays E >35.0 and 50.0 Very long traffic delays F >50.0 Severe congestion Highway apacity Manual 2010, hapters 19 and 20 (Unsignalized Intersections). LOS = level of service; HM = Highway apacity Manual; s/v = seconds per vehicle. HM Method of nalysis (Signalized Intersections) ased on the HM operations method of analysis, LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

10 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic, and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions: in the absence of traffic control, in the absence of geometric delay, in the absence of any incidents, and when there are no other vehicles on the road. In hapter 18 of the HM 2010, only the portion of total delay attributed to the control facility is quantified. This delay is called control delay. ontrol delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. In contrast, in previous versions of the HM (1994 and earlier), delay included only stopped delay. Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The six qualitative categories of LOS that have been defined along with the corresponding HM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in Table Source: tes: Table LOS riteria for Signalized Intersections (HM Methodology) LOS ontrol elay per Vehicle (s/v) LOS escription <10.0 This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. >10.0 and <20.0 This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS, causing higher levels of average delay. >20.0 and <35.0 verage traffic delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. >35.0 and <55.0 Long traffic delays. t level, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/ ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E >55.0 and <80.0 Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies (e.g., SNG) to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/ ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F 80.0 Severe congestion. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over-saturation; that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high V/ ratios (below 1.0) with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels. Highway apacity Manual 2010, hapter 18 (Signalized Intersections). LOS = level of service; HM = Highway apacity Manual; s/v = seconds per vehicle; V/ = volume to capacity; SNG = San ernardino ssociated Governments. ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

11 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION LOS riteria ccording to the ypress General Plan, LOS is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours for all ity intersections, except at intersections located along Valley View Street, Lincoln venue, and Katella venue. These arterials carry a significant amount of regional through traffic, and as such, the ity has adopted LOS E as the minimum acceptable condition along these arterials. ccording to the ity of uena Park General Plan, LOS is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours. ccording to the ity of naheim s irculation Element and as stated in the ity of naheim riteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, LOS is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all ity intersections. It should be noted that for any key study intersection located under joint jurisdiction, the ity requirements with the more stringent LOS criteria will be used. ased on this, the LOS requirements for each key study intersection are as follows: LOS o 1. Valley View Street at rescent venue o 2. Holder Street at rescent venue o 4. Valley View Street at Lincoln venue o 5. Holder Street at Lincoln venue o 6. Knott venue at Lincoln venue o 7. Walker Street at Orange venue o 9. Holder Street at Orange venue o 10. Knott venue at Orange venue o 11. Valley View Street at all Road o 12. Holder Street at all Road o 15. ypress ollege South at Orange venue o 16. Holder Street at riveway. 2 o 17. Holder Street at riveway. 3 o 18. Holder Street at Lakeshore rive/via rroyo rive ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

12 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION LOS E o 3. Walker Street at Lincoln venue o 8. Valley View Street at Orange venue o 13. Valley View Street at riveway. 1 o 14. Valley View Street at Lakeshore rive/ypress ollege West Project Traffic haracteristics Project Traffic Generation Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are typically found in the 9th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2012). lthough Trip Generation is a reliable resource for determining the daily and M/ peak hour trips for a junior/community college land use, use of empirical rates developed specifically for ypress ollege from existing traffic counts conducted at the site was determined to be more appropriate. Table shows the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the proposed project (i.e., student growth, net increase of 868 students) and presents the proposed project s forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes. s provided in Table , the trip generation potential of the proposed project was estimated using the empirical rates developed from the existing driveway counts for an existing baseline enrollment of 16,032 students. The TI and the footnotes within Table contain specific details on the development of the trip rates. Table Project Traffic Generation Forecast aily M Peak Hour Peak Hour Project escription 2-Way Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Factors: ypress ollege Empirical Rates (TE/Student) a Generation Forecast: Student Growth (Net Increase 868 Students) 1, a The trip generation rates for the proposed project were developed based on existing daily, M peak hour and peak hour traffic counts collected at the ypress ollege driveways in March The traffic counts revealed that on a typical weekday, the ypress ollege campus generates 27,545 daily trips, 1,870 M peak hour trips (1,623 inbound; 247 outbound) and 1,786 peak hour trips (869 inbound; 917 outbound). These trips were then divided by the existing number of students (i.e., 16,032 students) to determine the daily, M peak hour, and peak hour rates per student. ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

13 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION Table shows that the proposed project (i.e., net increase of 868 students) is forecast to generate 1,491 daily trips, with 101 trips (88 inbound, 13 outbound) forecast during the M peak hour and 96 trips (47 inbound and 49 outbound) forecast during the peak hour on a typical weekday. Project Traffic istribution and ssignment Figure shows the traffic distribution pattern for the proposed project. Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the project site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations: The site s proximity to major traffic carriers (e.g., Valley View Street, Lincoln venue) Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals Review of existing peak hour traffic volumes Ingress/egress availability at the project site The anticipated M and peak hour project traffic volumes associated with the proposed project are shown on Figures and , respectively. Figure also presents the daily project traffic volumes for the key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project. The traffic volume assignments provided in Figures and reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure and the traffic generation forecast presented in Table Traffic Impact nalysis Methodology The relative impacts of the proposed project during the M peak hour and peak hour were evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the 18 key study intersections, both without and with the proposed project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were used to investigate the future V/ relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the project at each key intersection was then evaluated using the traffic impact criteria described in the following section. Impact riteria and Thresholds ity of ypress Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the ity are considered significant if: n unacceptable peak hour LOS at any of the key intersections is projected. ccording to the ypress General Plan, LOS is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours for all ity ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

14 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION intersections, except at intersections located along Valley View Street, Lincoln venue and Katella venue. These arterials carry a significant amount of regional through traffic, and as such, the ity has adopted LOS E as the minimum acceptable condition along these arterials. The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 1% of capacity (IU increase 0.010) at a location operating at an unacceptable LOS. ity of uena Park Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the ity of uena Park are considered significant under the following conditions: IU analysis: o n unacceptable peak hour LOS at any of the key intersections is projected. The ity of uena Park considers LOS to be the acceptable LOS for all intersections. o The project increases traffic demand at the study intersection by 2% of capacity (IU increase 0.020) at an intersection operating at LOS E or F. HM analysis: o n unacceptable peak hour LOS at any of the key intersections is projected. The ity of uena Park considers LOS to be the acceptable LOS for all intersections. o The project increases the delay at the study intersection by at least 2.0 seconds at an intersection already operating at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F). ity of naheim Impacts to local and regional transportation systems located in the ity of naheim are considered significant if: ccording to the ity s irculation Element and stated in the ity of naheim riteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, LOS is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours on all ity intersections. The significance of the potential impacts of the project at each key intersection is determined based on the sliding scale criteria presented in Table s indicated in Table , the project-related increase in IU value that defines a significant impact at signalized intersections varies with LOS. Per the ity s guidelines, a change in IU value, within LOS, equal to or greater than is an impact. Within LOS, a change in IU equal to or greater than is also an impact. With LOS E or F, a change in IU equal to or greater than is considered an impact. For the ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

15 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION unsignalized intersections, this report defines a significant impact as a decrease in LOS by one level or more for those locations operating at LOS, LOS E or LOS F. Table ity of naheim Significant Impact riteria Final Intersection IU value LOS Project-Related Increase in IU Value onsidered Significant >0.700 and equal to or greater than >0.800 and equal to or greater than >0.900 E/F equal to or greater than Source: ity of naheim riteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Traffic Impact nalysis Scenarios The following scenarios are those for which V/ calculations have been performed at the 18 key study intersections for existing plus project and Year 2025 traffic conditions: Existing Traffic onditions Existing Plus Project Traffic onditions Existing Plus Project Traffic onditions with Improvements, if necessary Year 2025 umulative Traffic onditions Year 2025 umulative Plus Project Traffic onditions Year 2025 umulative Plus Project Traffic onditions with Improvements, if necessary Impacts nalysis Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance or the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to LOS standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Existing Plus Project Traffic onditions The existing plus project traffic conditions have been generated based upon existing conditions and the estimated project traffic. These forecast traffic conditions have been prepared pursuant to ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

16 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION the EQ guidelines, which require that the potential impacts of a given project be evaluated upon the circulation system as it currently exists. This traffic volume scenario and the related intersection capacity analyses will identify the roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the direct traffic impacts of the proposed project, if any. Figures and show projected M and peak hour traffic volumes at the 18 key study locations with the addition of the trips generated by the proposed project to existing traffic volumes, respectively. Figure also presents the existing plus project daily traffic volumes for the key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project. Future Traffic onditions mbient Traffic Growth Horizon year, background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using an ambient traffic growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown and future cumulative projects in the study area and to account for regular growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. The future growth in traffic volumes has been calculated at 1% per year. pplied to the Year 2016 existing traffic volumes, this factor results in a 9% growth in existing volumes to the planning horizon Year umulative Projects Traffic haracteristics In order to make a realistic estimate of future on-street conditions prior to implementation of the proposed project, a list of other known related projects (cumulative projects) has been prepared with coordination with the ities of ypress, uena Park, La Palma, naheim, and Stanton. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development. ased on this coordination effort, it was determined that there are 10 cumulative projects located in the ity of ypress, 2 cumulative projects located in the ity of naheim, and 2 cumulative projects located in the ity of Stanton that have either been built, but not yet fully occupied, or are being processed for approval. It should be noted that there were no cumulative projects identified in the ities of uena Park and La Palma within a 2-mile radius of the project site. These 14 cumulative projects have been included as part of the cumulative background setting. Table shows the location and a brief description of each of the 14 cumulative projects. Figure presents a graphic illustration of the location of the cumulative projects. These cumulative projects are expected to generate vehicular traffic, which may affect the operating conditions of the key study intersections. ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

17 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION Table Location and escription of umulative Projects umulative Project Location/ddress escription ity of ypress evelopment TTM Lincoln venue 15 ondominiums TTM and 6182 Lincoln venue 19 ondominiums TTM ypress venue 47 Single-family homes TTM Lincoln venue 57 ondominiums TTM loomfield Street 19 ondominiums Lincoln venue partments 4552 Lincoln venue 67 partments TTM and 5400 Orange venue 52 ondominiums Shopping enter rthwest corner of Katella venue 146,300 SF shopping center and Winners ircle Office uilding 5001 erritos venue 6,000 SF office Food ourt Restaurant 5895 Katella venue 13,920 SF food court restaurant ity of naheim evelopment ar Wash 924 South each oulevard 4,992 SF car wash hevron 984 South each oulevard 4,437 SF Gas Station with onvenience Store ity of Stanton evelopment anquet Hall/onference enter 7516 erritos venue 1,500 SF banquet hall/conference center Used ar Sales each oulevard 24,042 SF used car sales Source: tes: ity of ypress, ity of naheim and ity of Stanton Planning epartment staff. TTM = Tentative Tract Map; SF = square feet Table shows the resultant trip generation for the 14 cumulative projects. s presented in Table , the 14 cumulative projects are forecast to generate a combined total of 16,501 daily trips, with 699 trips (354 inbound and 345 outbound) forecast during the M peak hour and 1,098 trips (565 inbound and 533 outbound) forecast during the peak hour. Table umulative Projects Traffic Generation Forecast aily M Peak Hour Peak Hour Related Project escription 2-Way Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 1. TTM TTM TTM TTM TTM Lincoln venue partments TTM Shopping enter 7, ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

18 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION Table umulative Projects Traffic Generation Forecast aily M Peak Hour Peak Hour Related Project escription 2-Way Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 9. Office uilding Food ourt Restaurant 1, ar Wash hevron 3, anquet Hall/onference enter Used ar Sales umulative Projects Trip Generation Potential 16, ,098 Source: ITE The M and peak hour traffic volumes associated with the 14 cumulative projects in the Year 2025 are shown on Figures and , respectively. Figure also presents the daily cumulative project traffic volumes for the key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project. Year 2025 umulative Traffic Volumes Figures and show the Year 2025 M and peak hour cumulative traffic volumes at the key study intersections, respectively. Figure also presents the Year 2025 daily cumulative traffic volumes for the key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project. It should be noted the cumulative traffic volumes represent the accumulation of existing traffic, ambient growth traffic, and cumulative projects traffic. Figures and provide the Year 2025 forecast M and peak hour traffic volumes, with the inclusion of the trips generated by the proposed project, respectively. Figure also presents the Year 2025 daily cumulative plus project traffic volumes for the key roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project. Peak Hour Intersection apacity nalysis Existing Plus Project nalysis Table shows the peak hour LOS results at the 18 key study intersections for existing plus project traffic conditions. olumn 1 of the IU/LOS values and HM/LOS values in Table presents a summary of existing M and peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table ). olumn 2 provides existing plus project traffic conditions. olumn 3 shows the increase in IU value and/or HM value due to the added peak hour project trips and ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

19 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION indicates whether the traffic associated with the proposed project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria. Table Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection apacity nalysis Key Intersection 1. Valley View Street at rescent venue 2. Holder Street at rescent venue 3. Walker Street at Lincoln venue 4. Valley View Street at Lincoln venue 5. Holder Street at Lincoln venue 6. Knott venue at Lincoln venue 7. Walker Street at Orange venue 8. Valley View Street at Orange venue 9. Holder Street at Orange venue 10. Knott venue at Orange venue 11. Valley View Street at all Road 12. Holder Street at all Road 13. Valley View Street at riveway Valley View Street at Lakeshore rive/ ypress ollege West 15. ypress ollege South at Orange venue 16. Holder Street at riveway. 2 Minimum cceptable LOS E E E E Time Period M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Existing Plus Project Traffic onditions Existing Traffic onditions Significant Impact IU/HM LOS IU/HM LOS Increase Yes/ s/v 46.6 s/v s/v 14.0 s/v 9.2 s/v 8.4 s/v E s/v 49.7 s/v s/v 14.4 s/v 9.2 s/v 8.4 s/v E s/v 3.1 s/v s/v 0.4 s/v 0.0 s/v 0.0 s/v ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

20 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION Key Intersection 17. Holder Street at riveway Holder Street at Lakeshore rive/via rroyo rive Table Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection apacity nalysis Minimum cceptable LOS Time Period M M Existing Plus Project Traffic onditions Existing Traffic onditions Significant Impact IU/HM LOS IU/HM LOS Increase Yes/ 14.3 s/v 11.3 s/v s/v 11.4 s/v LOS = level of service; IU = Intersection apacity Utilization; HM = Highway apacity Manual; s/v = seconds per vehicle. old IU/LOS or HM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels. 0.2 s/v 0.1 s/v olumns 2 and 3 of Table show that traffic associated with the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the 18 key study intersections under the existing plus project traffic scenario, when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria. The 18 key study intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable service level during the M and peak hours with the addition of project traffic to existing traffic. The TI contains the existing plus project IU/LOS and HM/LOS calculations for the 18 key study intersections. Year 2025 Traffic onditions Table shows the peak hour LOS results at the 18 key study intersections for the Year 2025 horizon year. olumn 1 of the IU/LOS and HM/LOS values in Table presents a summary of existing M and peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table ). olumn 2 lists provides cumulative traffic conditions (existing plus ambient plus cumulative projects traffic) based on existing intersection geometry, but without any traffic generated from the proposed project. olumn 3 presents forecast Year 2025 traffic conditions with the addition of project traffic. olumn 4 provides the increase in IU value and/or HM value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the project will have a significant impact based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria. ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

21 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION Table Year 2025 Peak Hour Intersection apacity nalysis Key Intersection 1. Valley View Street at rescent venue 2. Holder Street at rescent venue 3. Walker Street at Lincoln venue 4. Valley View Street at Lincoln venue 5. Holder Street at Lincoln venue 6. Knott venue at Lincoln venue 7. Walker Street at Orange venue 8. Valley View Street at Orange venue 9. Holder Street at Orange venue 10. Knott venue at Orange venue 11. Valley View Street at all Road 12. Holder Street at all Road Minimum cceptable LOS E E Time Period M M M M M M M M M M M M Existing Traffic onditions Year 2025 umulative Traffic onditions Year 2025 umulative Plus Project Traffic onditions Significant Impact IU/HM LOS IU/HM LOS IU/HM LOS Increase Yes/ ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September

22 4.11 TRFFI N IRULTION Key Intersection 13. Valley View Street at riveway Valley View Street at Lakeshore r/ypress ollege West 15. ypress ollege South at Orange venue 16. Holder Street at riveway Holder Street at riveway Holder Street at Lakeshore rive/via rroyo rive Minimum cceptable LOS E E Table Year 2025 Peak Hour Intersection apacity nalysis Time Period M M M M M M Existing Traffic onditions Year 2025 umulative Traffic onditions Year 2025 umulative Plus Project Traffic onditions Significant Impact IU/HM LOS IU/HM LOS IU/HM LOS Increase Yes/ 15.8 s/v 46.6 s/v s/v 14.0 s/v 9.2 s/v 8.4 s/v 14.3 s/v 11.3 s/v E 17.1 s/v 76.4 s/v s/v 15.2 s/v 9.3 s/v 8.5 s/v 14.9 s/v 11.6 s/v F 17.2 s/v 83.4 s/v s/v 15.7 s/v 9.4 s/v 8.6 s/v 15.1 s/v 11.7 s/v LOS = level of service; IU = Intersection apacity Utilization; HM = Highway apacity Manual; s/v = seconds per vehicle old IU/LOS or HM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels a The reported delay is only for the side street traffic and accrues only to existing college traffic. onversely, traffic flows on Valley View Street at this location are not subject to intersection delays because they are not controlled (impeded). Therefore, Valley View Street traffic experiences no intersection delay at this location (forecast to operate at acceptable LOS during the M and peak hours). F 0.1 s/v 7.0 s/v s/v 0.5 s/v 0.1 s/v 0.1 s/v 0.2 s/v 0.1 s/v a ypress ollege Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September