Birtcher Logistics Center
Rialto (MC2020-0031)
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF RIALTO
PREPARED BY:
Aric Evatt, PTP
[email protected]
Charlene So, PE
[email protected]
D
ECEMBER 20, 2021
13681-03 TA Report REV
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. I APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ III LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. V LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. VII LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. IX 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Summary of Findings – Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service ........................................... 1
1.2 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Deficiencies ................................................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 11
1.7 Truck Access and Circulation....................................................................................................... 16 2 METHODOLOGIES .................................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Level of Service ........................................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 19
2.4 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................... 20
2.5 Queuing Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 21
2.6 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) ............................................................................. 21
2.7 Deficiency Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 22
2.8 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 23 3 AREA CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Existing Circulation Network ....................................................................................................... 25
3.2 City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element .......................................................................... 25
3.4 Truck Routes ............................................................................................................................... 25
3.5 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................. 25
3.6 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................... 31
3.7 Existing (2021) Traffic Counts ..................................................................................................... 31
3.8 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 34
3.9 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 34
3.10 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................... 36
3.11 Queuing Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 36 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC .................................................................................................... 39
4.1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 39
4.2 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 43
4.3 Modal Split .................................................................................................................................. 43
4.4 Project Trip Assignment .............................................................................................................. 43
4.5 Background Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 43
4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic ................................................................................................ 47
4.7 Near-Term Conditions ................................................................................................................. 47
4.8 Horizon Year (2040) Volume Development ................................................................................ 51 5 EAP (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 53
5.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 53 Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
ii
5.2 EAP (2023) Traffic Volume Forecasts .......................................................................................... 53
5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 53
5.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 55
5.5 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................... 55
5.6 Queuing Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 56
5.7 Project Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements ............................................................ 57 6 EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 59
6.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 59
6.2 EAPC (2023) Traffic Volume Forecasts ........................................................................................ 59
6.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 59
6.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 61
6.5 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................... 61
6.6 Queuing Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 62
6.7 Recommended Improvements ................................................................................................... 64 7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 67
7.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 67
7.2 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ................................................. 67
7.3 Horizon Year (2040) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ...................................................... 67
7.4 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 70
7.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 71
7.6 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................... 71
7.7 Queuing Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 71
7.8 Deficiencies and Improvements ................................................................................................. 73 8 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS ....................................................................... 75
8.1 City of Rialto Development Impact Fee Program ....................................................................... 75
8.2 Measure “I” Funds ...................................................................................................................... 75
8.3 Fair Share Contribution ............................................................................................................... 75 9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 77 Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
iii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT APPENDIX 1.2: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
APPENDIX 1.3: SITE ADJACENT QUEUES
APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 3.3: EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 4.1: POST PROCESSING WORKSHEETS, VOLUMES & MODEL DATA APPENDIX 5.1: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 5.2: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 5.3: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 5.4: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS WITH
IMPROVEMENTS
APPENDIX 5.5: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS WITH IMPROVEMENTS APPENDIX 6.1: EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.2: EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.3: EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.4: EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS WITH
IMPROVEMENTS
APPENDIX 6.5: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS WITH IMPROVEMENTS APPENDIX 7.1: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.2: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.3: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.4: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS
WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.5: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 7.6: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
APPENDIX 7.7: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
APPENDIX 7.8: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS
WORKSHEETS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
APPENDIX 7.9: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
iv
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
v
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................................ 2 EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN .................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 12 EXHIBIT 1-5: CONCEPT STRIPING FOR WILLOW AVENUE ..................................................................... 14 EXHIBIT 1-5: TRUCK ACCESS ............................................................................................................... 16 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS ....................... 26 EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF RIALTO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT ................................................ 27 EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF RIALTO ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS ................................................................. 28 EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF RIALTO TRUCK ROUTES ..................................................................................... 29 EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES ............................................................................................ 30 EXHIBIT 3-6: CITY OF RIALTO BICYCLE FACILITIES ................................................................................ 32 EXHIBIT 3-7: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ................................................................................... 33 EXHIBIT 3-8: EXISTING (2021) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................... 35 EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................ 44 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................. 45 EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 46 EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP ............................................................... 48 EXHIBIT 4-5: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................... 49 EXHIBIT 5-1: EAP (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................................................... 54 EXHIBIT 6-1: EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................................................................... 60 EXHIBIT 7-1: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................... 68 EXHIBIT 7-2: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................................. 69
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
vi
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................................................................................. 6 TABLE 1-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ....................................................................... 8 TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO ........................... 8 TABLE 1-4: SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS ................... 15 TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS ................................................................... 18 TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS .............................................................. 19 TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ............................................................ 20 TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS ............................................ 36 TABLE 3-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS .................................. 36 TABLE 3-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS............................... 37 TABLE 4-1: EXISTING TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ........................................................................... 40 TABLE 4-2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES ................................................................................... 41 TABLE 4-3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............................................................................ 41 TABLE 4-4: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON (ACTUAL VEHICLES) ........................................ 42 TABLE 4-5: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON (PCE) .............................................................. 42 TABLE 4-6: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY ......................................................... 50 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS .................................................... 55 TABLE 5-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS .......................................... 56 TABLE 5-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS ....................................... 57 TABLE 5-4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS ................ 58 TABLE 5-5: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS .. 58 TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANAL YSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS .................................................. 61 TABLE 6-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS ........................................ 62 TABLE 6-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS ..................................... 63 TABLE 6-4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS .............. 64 TABLE 6-5: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS 65 TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS ................................... 70 TABLE 7-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS ........................ 71 TABLE 7-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS ..................... 72 TABLE 7-4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 73 TABLE 7-5: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 74 TABLE 8-1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS ................................................................................ 76
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
viii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CMP Congestion Management Program
DIF Development Impact Fee
EAP Existing Ambient Growth plus Project
EAPC Existing Ambient Growth plus Project Plus Cumulative GHG Greenhouse Gas
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HY Horizon Year
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
NP Without Project
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PCE Passenger Car Equivalents
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
sf Square Feet
TA Traffic Analysis
v/c Volume to Capacity
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
vphgpl Vehicles per Hour Green per Lane
WP With Project
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
x
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
1 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This report presents the results of the traffic analysis (TA) for the proposed Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto (“Project”), which is located at the northwest corner of Valley Boulevard and Willow Avenue in the City of Rialto. The Project’s location in relation to the surrounding area is shown on Exhibit 1-1.
The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and where necessary recommend improvements to achieve acceptable operations consistent with General Plan level of service goals and policies.
This TA has been prepared in accordance with the City of Rialto ’s Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements, County of San Bernardino Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (dated July 9, 2019), San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Guidelines for CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Reports (Appendix B, 2016 Update) , and consultation with City staff during the TA scoping process. (1) (2) (3) The City approved Project Traffic Study Scoping agreement is provided in Appendix 1.1 of this TA.
1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay - based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in the transition from LOS to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) , the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (O PR) published its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory). (4) It is our understanding that the City of Rialto is currently in development of City specific VMT analysis guidelines and impact thresholds based on OPR’s Technical Advisory . As such, City Staff has provided Urban Crossroads with draft guidelines that the City intends to adopt. The City of Rialto Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (LOS) (October 2021) (5) (City Guidelines) It is our understanding the City of Rialto utilizes the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool ). The Screening Tool allows users to select an assessor’s parcel number (APN) to determine if a project’s location meets one or more of the screening thresholds for land use projects identified in the City Guidelines . The City Guidelines have been utilize d to prepare this VMT analysis. The VMT analysis is included in Appendix 1.2. The Project is to construct the following improvements as design features in conjunction with development of the site:
• Willow Avenue is currently built out to its ultimate half-section according to the City’s General Plan. As such, no roadway improvements are recommended. However, the Project should modify the existing curb and gutter and sidewalk to accommodate the future Project driveways. • Project to construct Valley Boulevard at its ultimate half-width as a Major Arterial (120-foot right- of-way) from the western Project boundary to Willow Avenue consistent with the City’s standards. Project to construct a raised median along Valley Boulevard, with a break to allow left- turn in access at Driveway 1.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
2 EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
3 Additional details and intersection lane geometrics are provided in Section 1.6 Recommendations of this report.
The development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to require the construction of any off-site improvements, however, there are improvement needs identified at off-site intersections for future traffic analysis scenarios where the Project would contribute traffic (as measured by 50 or more peak hour trips). As such , the Project Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s contributions towards off-site intersection deficiencies is fulfilled through payment of fair share or participation in the pre -existing fee programs that would be assigned to construction of the identified recommended improvements. The Project Applicant would be require d to pay requisite fair share contributions and fee payments consistent with the City’s requirements (see Section 8 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms).
1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Exhibit 1-2 illustrates the preliminary Project site plan. The Project is proposed to consist of a single 4 92,410 square foot warehouse building . It is anticipated that the Project would be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2023. For the purpose of this analysis, the following driveways will be assumed to provide access to the Project site:
• Driveway 1 on Valley Boulevard – Full Access (passenger cars and trucks) • Driveway 2 on Valley Boulevard – Right-in/Right-out Only Access (passenger cars only) • Driveway 3 on Willow Avenue – Full Access (passenger cars and trucks) Regional access to the Project site will be provided by the I-10 Freeway via Riverside Avenue.
The site is currently occupied by a variety of users. Trip generation estimates for the existing uses have been developed using si te specific data collected at the existing driveways on Willow Avenue and Valley Boulevard. Although the traffic counts were conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the purpose of surveying the existing uses is to take credit against the proposed use. Since the existing use operations were lower than normal, the traffic counts collected at the driveways would be lower than normal. As such, understated driveway counts would result in identifying a conservative net change between the existing uses and proposed Project.
The trip generation rate and vehicle and truck mix are sourced from the City of Rialto ’s Public Works Department’s Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (2013). In order to develop the traffic characteristics o f the proposed project, trip- generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition, 2012) for Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150) were used. (6) Passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors were applied to the trip generation rates to convert trips made by heavy trucks (2-axle, 3-axle, and 4+-axle trucks) to PCE values.
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate 1,522 two-way actual vehicle trips per day, with 129 AM peak hour trips and 1 41 PM peak hour trips. The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project’s trip generation characteristics are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
4 EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
5 1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this TA , potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
• Existing (2021)
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2023) • Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2023) • Horizon Year (2040) Without Project
• Horizon Year (2040) With Project
1.3.1 EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2021) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. Due to the currently ongoing COVID- 19 pandemic, schools and businesses within the study area were closed or operating at less than full capacity at the time this study was prepared. As such, historic 2019 traffic counts were utilized in conjunction with a 2% per year growth rate (compounded annually) to reflect 2021 conditions.
The 2019 weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour count data is representative of typical weekday peak hour traffic conditions in the study area and were conducted when local schools were in session.
1.3.2 EAP (2023) CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions analysis determines traffic deficiencies that would occur on the existing roadway system with the addition of Project traffic.
To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 2% per year, com pounded annually, for a total of 4.04% is included for EAP (2023 ) traffic conditions. The ambient growth is consistent with the growth used by other projects in the area within the City of Rialto.
1.3.3 EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (E APC) conditions analysis determines the potential near-term cumulative circulation system deficiencies. To account for background traffic growth, traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects in conjunction with an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 2 % per year, compounded annually, for a total of 4.04% is included for EAPC (2023 ) traffic conditions. The ambient growth is consistent with the growth used by other projects i n the area. A comprehensive list of cumulative projects was compiled from information provided by the City of Rialto and other near-by agencies for consideration in this TA.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
6 1.4 STUDY AREA
To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Rialto’s requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a TA scoping package for review by City staff prior to the preparation of this report. The Agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology and is provided in Appendix 1.1.
1.4.1 INTERSECTIONS
The following 7 study area intersection s shown on Exhibit 1 -2 and listed on Table 1-1 were selected for this TA based on consultation with City of Rialto staff. T he “50 peak hour trip” criterion generally represents a minimum number of trips at which a typical intersection would have the potential to be affected by a given development proposal. Although each intersection may have unique operating characteristics, this traffic engineering rule of thumb is a widely utilized tool for estimating a potential area of influence (i.e., study area).
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Jurisdiction CMP?
1 Driveway 1 & Valley Bl. – Future Intersection Rialto No 2 Driveway 2 & Valley Bl. – Future Intersection Rialto No 3 Willow Av. & Driveway 3 – Future Intersection Rialto No 4 Willow Av. & Valley Bl. Rialto Yes
5 Riverside Dr. & Valley Bl. Rialto No
6 Riverside Dr. & I-10 WB Ramps Rialto, Caltrans No
7 Riverside Dr. & I-10 EB Ramps Rialto, Caltrans No
The intent of a CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related deficiencies , and improve air quality. Counties within California have developed CMPs with varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. S tudy area intersections that are identified as CMP facilities in the County of San Bernardino per the SBCTA CMP are indicated on Table 1-1. (3) An alternative access has been evaluated for Driveway 3 on Willow Avenue, which assumes a two-way left-turn lane to allow vehicles to queue in the median while turning left into the Project site. The results of this alternative access analysis are provided in the intersection operations analysis tables.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
7 EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
8 1.4.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS
The following 2 study area roadway segments listed in Table 1-2 were selected for this TA at the request of City of Rialto staff during the scoping process.
TABLE 1-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Roadway Segment Segment Limits
1 Valley Bl. Willow Av. to Lilac Avenue
2 Valley Bl. Willow Av. to Riverside Av.
1.5 DEFICIENCIES
This section provides a summary of deficiencies by analysis scenario . Section 2 Methodologies provides information on the methodologies used in the analysis and Section 5 EAP (2023) Traffic Conditions, Section 6 EAPC (2023 ) Traffic Conditions, and Section 7 Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Conditions includes the detailed analysis. A summary of LOS re sults for all analysis scenarios is presented on Table 1-3.
TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO
1.5.1 EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS
Intersections
The following study area intersection currently operates at an unacceptable LOS during one or more peak hours under Existing (2021) traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#5) – LOS F PM peak hour only Roadway Segments
The study area roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable LOS under Existing (2021) traffic conditions based on the City’s planning level da ily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria.
# Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Drive way 1 & Valle y Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 5
6 7
LOS=A-D LOS=E LOS=F
Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd.
Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps
Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps
Existing
Drive way 2 & Valle y Blvd.
HY NP (2040) HY WP (2040)
Willow A v. & Drive way 3
Willow A v. & Valle y Blvd.
EAPC (2023)EAP (2023)
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
9 Intersection Queues
The following movements currently experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Existing traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) WBL – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) NBL – PM peak hour only • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Ramps (#7) SBL – AM and PM peak hours
1.5.2 EAP (2023) CONDITIONS
Intersections
The following study area intersection is anticipated to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS during one or more peak hours under EAP (2023) traffic conditions, consistent with Existing (2021) traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours (although AM peak hour goes from LOS E to LOS F)
Roadway Segments
The study area roadway segments are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS under EAP (2023 ) traffic conditions based on the City’s planning level da ily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria, consistent with Existing (2021) traffic conditions.
Intersection Queues
The following movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for EAP (2023) traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) EBR – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) WBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) NBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Ramps (#7) SBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing)
1.5.3 EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS
Intersections
The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Westbound Ramps (#6) – LOS E AM peak hour only • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Ramps (#7) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
10 Roadway Segments
The study area roadway segments are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions based on the City’s planning level da ily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria, consistent with Existing (2021) traffic conditions.
Intersection Queues
The following movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) EBR – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) WBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) NBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Westbound Ramps (#6) NBL – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Ramps (#7) SBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing)
1.5.4 HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS
Intersections
The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & I-10 WB Ramps (#6) – LOS F AM peak hour; LOS E PM peak hour • Riverside Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (#7) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours Roadway Segments
The study area roadway segments are anticipated to continue to operate at an ac ceptable LOS under Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions based on the City’s planning level da ily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria, consistent with Existing (2021) traffic conditions.
Intersection Queues
The following movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95 th percentile traffic flows for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) EBR – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) WBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) NBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Westbound Ramps (#6) NBL – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Westbound Ramps (#6) SBR – AM peak hour only Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
11 • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Ramps (#7) SBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing)
1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
1.6.1 SITE ADJACENT AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the improvements needed to accommodate site access. The site adjacent recommendations are shown on Exhibit 1 -4. Queuing analysis results for the Project driveways and site adjacent intersection of Willow Avenue and Slover Avenue is provided in Appendix 1.3.
Recommendation 1 – Driveway 1 & Valley Boulevard (#1) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop sign on the southbound approach and construct a southbound shared left- right turn lane.
• Project to stripe an eastbound left turn lane.
Recommendation 2 – Driveway 2 & Valley Boulevard (#2) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop sign on the southbound approach and construct a southbound right turn lane. Driveway to be restricted to right-in/right-out access only.
Recommendation 3 – Willow Avenue & Driveway 3 (#3) – The following improvement s are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop sign on the eastbound approach and construct an eastbound shared left- right turn lane.
• Alternative improvements: Project stripe a two-way left-turn lane along Willow Avenue to allow a refuge for left turning vehicles into Driveway 3 (see Exhibit 1 -5). The intersection is anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS without or with the striped median, however, the striped median would allow for Project vehicles turning into the driveway to move out of the through lane and not cause northbound vehicles to queue.
Recommendation 4 – Willow Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Modify the curb on the northeast and northwest curbs to provide a 50 -foot radius to accommodate the wide turning radius of heavy trucks.
Recommendation 5 – Valley Boulevard is an east-west oriented roadway located on the Project’s southern boundary. Project to construct Valley Boulevard at its ultimate half- width as a Major Arterial (120-foot right-of-way) from the western Project boundary to Willow Avenue consistent with the City’s standards. Project to construct a raised median along Valley Boulevard, with a break to allow left-turn in access at Driveway 1.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
12 EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
13 Recommendation 6 – Willow Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway located on the Project’s southern boundary. According to the City of Rialto General Plan, Willow Avenue is currently built out to its ultimate half-section. As such, there are no roadway improvements. However, existing curb and gutter and sidewalk should be modified to accommodate the future Project driveways.
Under the alternative access conditions, the Project should stripe a two-way left-turn lane along the Project’s frontage on Willow Avenue.
1.6.2 OFF-SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended improvements needed to address the cumulative deficiencies are summarized in Table 1-4. For those improvements listed in Table 1-4 and not constructed as part of the Project, the Project Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s contributions towards deficient intersections is fulfilled through payment of fees or fair share that would be assigned to construction of the identified recommended improvements.
Table 1 -4 also summarize s the applicable cost associated with each of the recommended improvements based on the preliminary construction cost estimates found in Appendix G of the San Bernardino County CMP in conjunction with a cost escalation factor of 1.71 to reflect current costs. A rough order of magnitude cost has been prepared to determine the appropriate contribution value based upon the Project’s fair share of traffic as part of the project approval process. Based on the Project fair share percentages, the Project’s fair share cost is estimated at $26,258. These estimates are a rough order of magnitude only as they are intended only for disclosure purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation.
Recommendation 7 – Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay the Project’s fair share amount of $ 13,129 for the improvements identified in Table 1 -4 at intersections located within the City of Rialto, or as agreed to by the City and Project Applicant.
Recommendation 8 – The Developer’s fair-share amount for the intersections that either share a mutual border with or are wholly located within the jurisdiction of Caltrans that have recommended improvements which are not covered by a pre -existing fee program is $ 13,129.
Developer shall be required to pay the amount shown above to the City of Rialto prior to the issuance of building permits. The City of Rialto shall hold Developer’s Fair Share contribution in trust and shall apply Developer’s Fair Share Contribution to any fee program adopted or agreed upon by the City of Rialto and other agencies.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
14 EXHIBIT 1-5: CONCEPT STRIPING FOR WILLOW AVENUE
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
15 TABLE 1-4: SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS
# Intersection Location Jurisdiction EAP (2023) EAPC (2023) 2040 With Project 5 Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. Rialto Restri pe No. 2 l ane EBT as a shared through-right turn
lane
Same Same No Construct $0 -- $0
Total $0 $0
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB
Ramps
Rialto,
Caltrans
None Restripe the SB through lane
to provide a SB shared
through-right turn lane
Same No Fair Share $42,750 9.9% $4,241
Modify TS to 120 seconds $128,250 $12,723
Total $171,000 $16,965
7 None Add NB right turn lane Same No Fair Share $85,500 4.3% $3,717 Modify TS to 120 seconds $128,250 $5,576
Total $213,750 $9,293
$384,750 $26,258
$13,129
$13,129
1 Improvements are included in the SBCTA Nexus Study Fee program or the SSBCTA Measure I Funding. 2 Identifies the Project's responsibility to construct an improvement or contribute fair share or fee payment towards the implementation of the improvements shown. 3 4 Program improvements constructed may be eligible for fee credit, at discretion of City. See Table 8-1 for Fair Share Calculations. 5 Total project fair share contribution consists of the improvements which are not already included in the City of Rialto's DIF for those intersections wholly or partially within the City of Rialto. 6 Total project fair share contribution consists of the improvements which are not already included in a fee program for those intersections wholly or partially within Caltrans' jurisdiction.
Rialto,
Caltrans
Riverside Av. & I-10 EB
Ramps
Analysis Scenarios Improvements
included in Fee
Program?1
Project
Responsibility2 Total Cost3 Fair
Share %4
Estimated
Fair Share
Cost
Total Costs for Horizon Year (2040) Improvements
Costs have been estimated using the data provided in Appendix G of the San Bernardino County CMP (2016 Update) for preliminary construction costs. Appendix G costs escalated by a factor of 1.71 to reflect 2021 conditions, except for Traffic Signals.
Total Project Fair Share Contribution to Caltrans 6
Total Project Fair Share Contribution to Rialto 5
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
16 1.7 TRUCK ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Due to the typical wide turning radius of large trucks, a truck turning template has been overlaid on the site plan at the Project driveway anticipated to be utilized by heavy trucks in order to determine appropriate curb radii and to verify that trucks wi ll have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers (see Exhibit 1 -6). As shown on Exhibit 1 -6, the proposed curb radii at Driveways 1 should accommodate a 40-foot curb radius on the northwest and northeast corners to support the ingress and egress of heavy trucks. Driveway 3 as designed could support the turning maneuvers of heavy trucks without the painted median. A truck turn template has also been overlaid assuming a two -way left-turn lane median along Willow Avenue , which indicates the curb on southwest corner of Willow Avenue & Driveway 3 should be modified to provide a 50-foot radius to accommodate the wide turning radius of heavy trucks.
C
ITY OF RIALTOCITY OF RIALTOCITY OF RIALTOCITY OF RIALTOEXHIBIT 1-5: TRUCK ACCESS
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
17 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with City of Rialto ’s Traffic Study Guidelines.
2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A , representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop-and-go conditions. LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.
2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control.
The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway.
The 6
th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various int ersection approaches. (7) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.
2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rialto require signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM. (7) Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and fin al acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described on Table 2-
1. Consistent with City of Rialto traffic study guidelines, a saturation flow rates of 1900 in vehicles per hour green per lane (vphgpl) has been utilized in the traffic analysis for signalized intersections:
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
18 TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay (Seconds),
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C ≤
1.0 Level of
Service, V/C >
1.0 Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. 0 to 10.00 A F
Operations with low delay occurring with good
progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.01 to 20.00 B F Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
20.01 to 35.00 C F
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.01 to 55.00 D F
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.01 to 80.00 E F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or
very long cycle lengths.
80.01 and up F F
Source: HCM (6th Edition)
The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 10) has been utilized to analyze signalized intersections within the City of Rialto . Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized i ntersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and que ue length. The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network.
The peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15- minute volumes. Common practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15 -minute rate of flow.
However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g., PHF = [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15-minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour . Existing PHF s have been used for all analysis scenarios. Per the HCM , PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour. (7)
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
19 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 10) has also been utilized to analyze signalized intersections under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, which include interchange to arterial ramps (i.e., I-10 Freeway ramps at Riverside Avenue, etc.). Signal timing for the freeway arterial -to-ramp intersections has been obtained from Caltrans. It should be noted that for the purposes of this analysis, no optimization of signal timing has been performed for the LOS analysis unless noted otherwise (for improvements).
2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rialto and County of San Bernardino require the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology de scribed in the HCM. (7) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2).
TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Level of
Service, V/C
≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C
> 1.0
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A F
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B F
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C F
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D F
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E F
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F F Source: HCM (6th Edition)
At two -way or side -street stop- controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For all -way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, the delay is reported for the worst single movement/lane (typically occurs on the side street).
2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). (8)
The signal warrant criteria for Existing study area intersections are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. (8) Specifically, this TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
20 for existing traffic conditions. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g. , located in communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets operating above 40 miles per hour). For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection.
Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets.
Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following study area intersection shown on Table 2-3:
TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Jurisdiction
1 Driveway 1 & Valley Bl. – Future Intersection Rialto
3 Willow Av. & Driveway 3 – Future Intersection Rialto
Although unsignalized, the future intersection of Driveway 2 & Valley Boulevard is anticipated to have restricted access (right -in/right-out only). As such, traffic signal warrants have not been evaluated for this intersection. The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section, Section 3 Area Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analyses for future conditions are presented in Section 5 EAP (2023) Traffic Conditions, Section 6 EAPC (2023) Traffic Conditions, and Section 7 Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Conditions of this report.
It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessari ly correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.
2.4 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Roadway segment operations have been evaluated using the City of Rialto Roadway Capacity Thresholds provided in the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines . (1) Per the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines, roadway segments within the study area should maintain LOS D capacitie s along roadways. These roadway capacities are “rule of thumb” estimates for planning purposes and are affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (ho rizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian bicycle traffic. In other words, while using average daily traffic (ADT) for planning purposes is suitable with regards to evaluating potential volume to capacity with future forecasts, it is not suitable for operational analysis because it does not account for the factors listed previously. As such, where the ADT based roadway segment analysis indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a review of the more Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
21 detailed peak hour intersection analysis and progression analysis are undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. Therefore, roadway segment widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through lanes.
The City’s Traffic Study Guidelines identify that if a roadway segment exceeds 1,500 feet and the V/C ratio exceeds 1.0 (deficient roadway segment), the roadway segment must be improved even if improvements to the intersections on either end do not exceed LOS D.
2.5 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis has been performed for the I-10 Freeway & Riverside Avenue interchange and the adjacent intersection of Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard. The 95th percentile queuing of vehicles has been assessed at the off-ramps and study area intersections to determine potential queuing deficiencies at the intersection and the interchange identified above. Specifically, the queuing analysis is utilized to identify any potential queuing and “spill back” onto the I -10 Freeway mainline from the off-ramps or out of the turn pockets or into adjacent through lanes.
The traffic progression anal ysis tool and HCM intersection analysis program, Synchro, has been used to assess the potential deficiencies /needs of the intersections with traffic added from the proposed Project. Storage (turn-pocket) length recommendations at the ramps have been based upon the 95th percentile queue resulting from the Synchro progression analysis. There are two footnotes which appear on the Synchro outputs. One footnote indicates if the 95 th percentile cycle exceeds capacity. Traffic is simulated for two complete cycles of the 95 th percentile traffic in Synchro in order to account for the effects of spillover between cycles. In practice, the 95 th percentile queue shown will rarely be exceed ed and the queues shown with the footnote are acceptable for the design of storage bays. The other footnote indicates whether or not the volume for the 95
th percentile queue is metered by an upstream signal. If the upstream intersection is at or near capacity, the 50 th percentile queue represents the maximum queue experienced.
A vehicle is considered queued whenever it is traveling at less than 10 feet/second. A vehicle will only become queued when it is either at the stop bar or behind another queued vehicle. The 95 th
percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95 th percentile traffic volumes during the peak hour and is derived from the average (50th percentile) queue plus 1.65 standard deviations.
The queue length reported is for the lane with the highest queue in the lane group. The 95 th percentile queue is not necessarily ever observed it is simply based on statistical calculations.
2.6 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
Minimum Acceptable LOS and associated definitions of intersection deficienc ies has been obtained from each of the applicable surrounding jurisdictions.
2.6.1 CITY OF RIALTO
The following LOS will be utilized for study area intersections located within the City: The City of Rialto 2010 General Plan Update has established minimum LOS standards.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
22 Specifically, General Plan Policies 4 -1.20 and 4- 1.21 establish the minimum standards to be applied to any TIA, as follows:
• Policy 4-1.20: Design City streets so that signalized intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better during the morning and evening peak hours and require new development to mitigate traffic impacts that degrade LOS below that level.
• Policy 4 -1.21: Design City streets so that unsignalized intersections operate with no vehicular movement having an average delay greater than 120 seconds during the morning and evening peak hours and require new development to mitigate traffic impacts that increase delay above that level.
The City’s Traffic Study Guidelines identifies LOS D as the minimum LOS for intersections and roadway segments, with the exception of Riverside Avenue south of the Metrolink tracks to the City’s southern border, which can operate at LOS E.
2.6.2 CALTRANS
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), approved in 2013, endeavors to change the way transportation impacts will be determined according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). T he Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has recommended the use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the replacement for automobile de lay-based LOS. Caltrans acknowledges automobile delay will no longer be considered a CEQA impact for development projects and will use VMT as the metric for determining impacts on the State Highway System ( SHS). However, LOS D has been utilized as the target LOS for Caltrans facilities, consistent with other recent studies in the City of Rialto.
2.6.3 S
AN BERNARDINO COUNTY CMP
The CMP definition of deficiency is based on maintaining a level of service standard of LOS E or better, where feasible , except wh ere an existing LOS F condition is identified in the CMP document. However, for the purposes of this analysis, LOS D has been utilized for all study area intersections.
2.7 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies.
2.7.1 I
NTERSECTIONS
This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies at intersections within the City of Rialto . Consistent with the City’s traffic study guidelines, new development is required to improve traffic deficiencies exceeding these levels.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
23 Deficiencies are deemed to occur at any intersection in which the Project c auses the LOS to fall below LOS D or the peak hour delay to increase as follows:
• LOS A/B = By 10.0 seconds
• LOS C = By 8.0 seconds
• LOS D = By 5.0 seconds
• LOS E = By 2.0 seconds
• LOS F = By 1.0 seconds
2.7.2 CALTRANS FACILITIES
To determine whether the addition of project traffic to the State Highway facilities would result in a deficiency, the following will be utilized:
• The TA finds that the LOS of a ramp -to-arterial intersection will degrade from D or better to E or F.
2.8 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
In cases where this TA identifies that the Project would contribute additional traffic volumes to traffic deficiencies, Project fair share costs of improvements necessary to address deficiencies have been identified. The Project’s fair share cost of improvements is determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to new traffic, and new traffic is total near- term future (EAPC) traffic less existing baseline traffic:
Project Fair Share % = Project (2040) AM/PM Traffic / (EAPC AM/PM Total Traffic – Existing AM/PM Traffic)
The project fair share percentage has been calculated for both the AM peak hour and PM peak hour and the highest of the two has been selected. The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented in Section 7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanism s of this TA. The cost of implementing the improvements shown on Table 1-4 have been estimated based on the preliminary construction cost estimates found in Appendix G of the San Bernardino County CMP in conjunction with a total cost escalation factor of 1. 71 to more closely approximate current costs. These cost estimates have been utilized in conjunction with the Project fair share percentages to determine the Project’s fair share cost of the recommended improvements (see Table 8-1). These estimates are a rough order of magnitude only as they are intended only for discussion purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or physical improvements.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
24 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
25 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provid es a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations, traffic signal warrant, and queuing analyses.
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the agreement with City of Rialto staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes a total of 7 existing and future intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1-3. Exhibit 3 -1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.
3.2 CITY OF RIALTO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Exhibit 3-2 shows the City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element, and Exhibit 3 -3 illustrates the City of Rialto General Plan roadway cross-sections.
Major Arterials can accommodate six travel lanes and an 18 -foot raised median within a 120 - foot right-of-way. These facilities are intended to carry large volumes of relativ ely high-speed traffic between the region to different parts of the City. An example of a Major Arterial within the study area includes:
• Valley Boulevard
Collectors can accommodate two travel lanes with 8 -foot shoulders for parking on either side within a 64-foot right-of-way. An example of a collector within the study area includes:
• Willow Avenue
3.4 TRUCK ROUTES
The City of Rialto’s truck routes are shown on Exhibit 3-4. Valley Boulevard and Riverside Avenue are both identified as truck routes. The truck trip distribution patterns for the proposed Project have been developed through consultation with the City during the TA scoping process and are consistent with other nearby studies.
3.5 TRANSIT SERVICE
The study area is currently served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, with bus service along Riverside Avenue and part of Valley Boulevard. The existing transit routes within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3 -5.
There are currently no routes that run adjacent to the Project. T ransit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs.
Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
26 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
27 EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF RIALTO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
28 EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF RIALTO ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
29 EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF RIALTO TRUCK ROUTES
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
30 EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
31 3.6 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The City of Rialto’s bicycle facilities are shown on Exhibit 3 -6. The County of San Bernardino does not have an exhibit showing bikeways and trails. Field observations indicate nominal pedestrian and bicycle activity within the study area. As shown on Exhibit 3 -7, pedestrian facilities are built out along portions of Valley Boulevard, Willow Avenue, and Riverside Avenue.
3.7 EXISTING (2021) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in January, February, and May of 2019. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) • Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) Due to the currently ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, schools and businesses within the study area were closed or operating at less than full capacity at the time this study was prepared. As such, historic 2019 traffic counts were utilized in conjunction with a 2% per year growth rate (compounded annually) to reflect 2021 conditions. The 2019 weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour count data is representative of typica l weekday peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity or detour routes and near -by schools were in session and operating on normal schedules.
The traffic counts include the following vehicle classifications: Passenger Cars, 2 -Axle Trucks, 3- Axle Trucks, and 4 or More Axle Trucks. To represent the effects large trucks, buses and recreational vehicles have on traffic flow; all trucks were converted into PCE. By their size alone, these vehicles occupy the same space as two or more passenger cars. In addition, the time it takes for them to accelerate and slow- down is much longer than for passenger cars and vari es depending on the type of vehicle and number of axles. For the purpose of this analysis, a PCE factor of 1.5 has been applied to 2-axle trucks, 2.0 for 3-axle trucks, and 3.0 for 4+-axle trucks to estimate each turning movement. These factors are consi stent with the values recommended for use in the CMP and the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
32 EXHIBIT 3-6: CITY OF RIALTO BICYCLE FACILITIES
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
33 EXHIBIT 3-7: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
34 Existing weekday ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-8. Where actual 24-hour tube count data was not available, Existing ADT volumes were based upon factored intersection peak hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg:
Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 13.22 = Leg Volume A comparison of the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes of various roadway segments within the study area indicated that the peak- to-daily relationship is approximately 7. 57 percent. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 13.22 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak -to-daily relationship of approximately 7. 57 percent (i.e., 1/0.0757 = 13.22) and was assumed to sufficiently estima te average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning -level analyses. Existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-8. Note volumes shown are in actual vehicles. The PCE volumes used for the peak hour operations analyses can be found in the applicable appendix with the intersection operations analysis worksheets.
3.8 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized on Table 3-1, which indicates all existing study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours, with the exception of the following intersection:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#5) – LOS F PM peak hour only The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.
3.9 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
All of the study area inters ections are currently signalized. As such, no traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted for Existing traffic conditions.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
35 EXHIBIT 3-8: EXISTING (2021) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
157(157) 109(109)
← 743(743) ← 743(743) ← 713(713) ← 290(290)
↓
↲ ↳
4(4)
↲
↓
↳
175(175)
↑ 47(47)
↰
↑
↱
76(76)
↰
↑
↱
826(826) → 826(826) → 778(778) → 299(299) →
1(1) 400(400)
523(523)
← 1(1)↲
↓ 332(332) ↓
↳
↰
↑ 633(633) ↑
↱
1(1) →
## 254(254)
##
##
##
##
##
AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
## Average Daily Trips
5 Riverside Av. & Valley Bl.
29(29)
107(107)
20,750
4,500
136(136)
20,750
4,500
23,300
32,050
1(1)
2(2)
4(4)
526(526)
1397(1397)
205(205)
15,550
98(98)
51(51)
695(695)
1153(1153)
556(556)
12,900
38,600
421(421)
44,90021,700
206(206)
1 Dwy. 1 & Valley Bl. 2 Dwy. 2 & Valley Bl. 3 Willow Av. & Dwy. 3 4 Willow Av. & Valley Bl. 6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB
Ramps
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB
Ramps
20,750 20,750
4,500
15020,750
41,850
11,750
441(441)
1049(1049)
959(959)
283(283)
1502(1502)
##(##)
46,450
11,300
41,8509,600
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
36 TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS
3.10 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The City of Rialto Traffic Study Guidelines provide roadway volume capacity values. The se roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only and are used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the Existing (2021) conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of Rialto Roadway Capacity Thresholds. As shown in Table 3-2, all study area roadway segments currently operate at an acceptable LOS based on the City’s planning level daily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria.
TABLE 3-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS
3.11 QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings are presented on Table 3-3. It is important to note that available staking lengths are consistent with the measured distance between the intersection and the freeway mainline or the intersection turn pockets . As shown on Table 3 -3, the following movements are currently experiencing queuing issues during the weekday AM or PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) WBL – AM and PM peak hours Traffic
# Intersection Control2 AM PM AM PM
1 Drive way 1 & Valle y Blvd.
2 Drive way 2 & Valle y Blvd.
3 Willow A v. & Drive way 3
4 Willow A v. & Valle y Blvd. TS 10.9 10.7 B B
5 Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. TS 65.4 88.8 E F
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 29.3 19.2 C B
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 29.0 37.2 C D
* BOLD = Unacceptable LOS
1 2 TS = Traffic Signal
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Future Intersecti on
Future Intersecti on
Future Intersecti on
(secs.)
Delay1 Level of
Service
Roadway LOS Existing
# Roadway Section Capacity1 2021 V/C2 LOS3
1 4U 36,000 20,733 0.58 A
2 4U 36,000 23,304 0.65 B
1 These maximum roadway capacities assume 9,000 vehicles per lane per day for arterials. 2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
Willow A v. to L ilac A v.Valle y Blvd. Willow A v. to Rive rside A v.
Segment Limits
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
37 • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) NBL – PM peak hour only • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Ramps (#7) SBL – AM and PM peak hours Worksheets for Existing traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 3.3.
TABLE 3-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS
AM PM
Willow A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 165 13 26 Yes Yes
EBR 140 0 0 Yes Yes
WBL 130 3 5 Yes Yes
WBR 240 30 68 Yes Yes
NBL 110 3 4 Yes Yes
Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 150 73 108 2 Yes Yes EBR 375 331 226 Yes Yes
WBL 210 403 2 317 2 No No
WBR 180 0 43 Yes Yes
NBL 265 237 2 411 2 Yes No
SBL 240 84 135 Yes Yes
Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps WBL 1,935 291 294 Yes Yes WBL/T/R 445 251 314 2 Yes Yes
WBR 400 178 228 Yes Yes
NBL 160 160 142 Yes Yes
SBR 205 82 66 Yes Yes
Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps EBL 1,245 281 2 388 2 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 2,725 204 404 2 Yes Yes
EBR 425 190 273 2 Yes Yes
SBL 205 224 2 219 2 No No
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
AM Peak PM Peak
1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable.
Intersection Movement
Available Stacking
Distance (Feet)
95th Percentile Queue
(Feet) Acceptable? 1
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
38 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
39 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The Project is proposed to consist of the development of a 492,410 square foot warehouse buil ding. It is anticipated that the Project would be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2023 .
Access to the Project site will be provided to Valley Boulevard via two proposed driveways and Willow Avenue via one proposed driveway. Regional access to the Project site will be provided by the I-10 Freeway via Riverside Avenue.
4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
4.1.1 EXISTING USE
The site is currently occupied by a variety of users. Trip generation estimates for the existing uses have been developed using site specific data collected at the existing driveways on Willow Avenue and Valley Boulevard. The existing site was surveyed during typical weekday conditions on August 19, 2020 (Wednesday). Vehicle trips were categorized by vehicle type at each location (i.e., passenger vehicles and heavy trucks, by axle type). Although the traffic counts were conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the purpose of surveying the existing uses is to take credit against the proposed use. Since the existing use operations were lower than normal, the traffic counts collected at the driveways would be lower than normal. As such, understated driveway counts would result in identifying a conservative net change between the existing uses and proposed Project.
According to the existing site tenant information, all tenants were occupied and operating at full capacity at the time driveway traffic c ounts were collected. Table 4-1 presents the trip generation of the existing uses based on the data provided in Attachment A. The peak periods of 6-9 AM and 3-6 PM were observed to determine the peak one hour in the morning and evening peak hours. The trip generation summary illustrates the daily, and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project in actual and PCE vehicles. As shown in Table 4-1, the existing uses generates a total of 230 actual trip-ends per day with 18 actual AM peak hour trips and 16 actual PM peak hour trips.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
40 TABLE 4-1: EXISTING TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
4.1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
The trip generation rate and vehicle and truck mix are sourced from the City of Rialto ’s Public Works Department’s Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (2013). In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip- generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE ) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition, 2012) for Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150) were used. Table 4 -2 presents the trip generation rates in both actual vehicles and PCE . The City of Rialto requires the following warehouse trip generation rates and vehicle mix for all warehousing projects within the City (no use of ITE high-cube warehouse trip generation rates are permitted).
The resulting trip generation summary for the proposed Project are shown on Table 4 -3. As shown in Table 4-3, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,752 actual trip-ends per day with 147 actual AM peak hour trips and 157 actual PM peak hour trips.
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Existing Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles)
Passenger Cars: 8 3 11 2 8 10 154
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 2 1 3 20
4+-axle Trucks: 2 4 6 3 0 3 52
Total Trucks: 3 4 7 5 1 6 76
Existing Use Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)1 11 7 18 7 9 16 230 Existing Trip Generation Summary (PCE)
Passenger Cars: 8 3 11 2 8 10 154
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
3-axle Trucks: 2 0 2 4 2 6 40
4+-axle Trucks: 6 12 18 9 0 9 156
Total Trucks (PCE): 8 12 20 13 2 15 202
Existing Use Total Trips (PCE)1 16 15 31 15 10 25 356
1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
41 TABLE 4-2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES
TABLE 4-3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
Warehousing 3 TSF 150 0.240 0.060 0.300 0.080 0.240 0.320 3.560
0.144 0.036 0.180 0.048 0.144 0.192 2.136
0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.029
0.027 0.007 0.034 0.009 0.027 0.036 0.399
0.067 0.016 0.083 0.022 0.067 0.089 0.996
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trip
Warehousing 3 TSF 150 0.240 0.060 0.300 0.080 0.240 0.320 3.560
0.144 0.036 0.180 0.048 0.144 0.192 2.136
0.003 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.044
0.054 0.014 0.068 0.018 0.054 0.072 0.798
0.201 0.048 0.249 0.066 0.201 0.267 2.988
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual , Ninth Edition (2012). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Vehicle and Truck Mix Source: City of Rialto Public Works Department Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (2013). 4 PCE rates are per City of Rialto Public Works Department Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements (2013).
Passenger Cars (60.0%)
Units2
ITE LU
Code
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4-Axle+ Trucks (28.0%) (PCE = 3.0) 4
2-Axle Trucks (0.8%)
3-Axle Trucks (11.2%)
4-Axle+ Trucks (28.0%)
Passenger Cars (60.0%)
2-Axle Trucks (0.8%) (PCE = 1.5) 4
3-Axle Trucks (11.2%) (PCE = 2.0) 4
Land Use Quantity Units1
In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Project Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles):
Warehousing 492.410 TSF
Passenger Cars: 71 18 89 24 71 95 1,052
2-axle Trucks: 1 0 1 0 1 1 14
3-axle Trucks: 13 3 16 4 13 17 196
4+-axle Trucks: 33 8 41 11 33 44 490
Total Trucks: 47 11 58 15 47 62 700
Warehousing Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2
118 29 147 39 118 157 1,752
Project Trip Generation Summary (PCE):
Warehousing 492.410 TSF
Passenger Cars: 71 18 89 24 71 95 1,052
2-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 1 1 2 22
3-axle Trucks: 27 7 34 9 27 36 394
4+-axle Trucks: 99 24 123 32 99 131 1,472
Total Trucks: 127 32 159 42 127 169 1,888
Warehousing Total Trips (PCE)2
198 50 248 66 198 264 2,940
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
42 4.1.3 NET NEW PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
A trip generation comparison of the proposed Project less the trips associated with the existing uses is summarized on Table 4-4 for actual vehicles and Table 4-5 for PCE. As shown in Table 4- 4, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate an additional 1,522 trip-ends per day with 129 more actual AM peak hour trips and 141 more actual PM peak hour trips in comparison to the existing uses. The net increase trip generation shown in Table 4-5 (PCE) has been utilized for the purposes of this TA.
TABLE 4-4: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON (ACTUAL VEHICLES)
TABLE 4-5: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON (PCE)
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
43 4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land uses and surrounding regional access routes are considered to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. Truck distribution patterns are based on truck routes, the site’s proximity to the region al freeway system and likely distribution of traffic if a future tenant is known. Passenger car distribution patterns are based on existing and planned land uses in the area along with the planned circulation system. Exhibit 4-1 illustrates the truck trip distribution patterns for the Project and Exhibit 4-2 illustrates the passenger car trip distribution patterns.
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips (non- truck) to be reduced by the use of public transit, walking or bicycling have not been included as part of the Project’s estimated trip generation. Essentially, the Project’s traffic projections are "conservative" in that these alter native travel modes would reduce the forecasted traffic volumes (non-truck trips only).
4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-3.
4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 2.0% per year. The total ambient growth is 2.0% for 2023 traffic conditions (growth over 2 years). The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area -wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. The traffic generated by the proposed Project is manually added to the base volume to determine EAP/EAPC forecasts.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
44 EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
45 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
46 EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
42(11) 22(8) 30(9)
← 1(3) ← 42(11) ← 61(17) ← 3(1)↲ ↳ ↲ ↲
↓
↲ ↳
6(2) 2(6)
↰
↑ 1(3)
↰
13(66) → 12(63) → 1(3) →
6(30) 18(90)
40(12)
↲
↓
↳
↑ 48(14)
## Average Daily Trips
1 Dwy. 1 & Valley Bl. 2 Dwy. 2 & Valley Bl. 3 Willow Av. & Dwy. 3 4 Willow Av. & Valley Bl. 5 Riverside Av. & Valley Bl. 850
1(3)
13(66)
800
200
1(3)
Nominal
450
3(1)
6(30)
1,300900
150
6(2)
3(1)
1,250100 800 500 900 1,300
88(25)
30(9)
1(3)
450
1,250
9(50)
8(40)
300
650
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB
Ramps
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB
Ramps
48(14)
650
8(40)
300
350 350
##(##) AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
47 The near-term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
• EAP (2023)
o Adjusted Existing 2021 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%)
o Project Traffic
• EAPC (2023)
o Adjusted Existing 2021 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%)
o Cumulative Development traffic
o Project Traffic
4.6 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Rialto . The cumulative projects listed are those that would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to study area intersections.
Cumulative projects from t he neighbori ng jurisdictions of City of Fontana and County of San Bernardino have also been included. Exhibit 4-4 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative develo pment projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4-6. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the EAPC (2023 ) forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects on Table 4-6 is reflected as part of the background traffic. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the cumulative projects are added in conjunction with the ambient growth identified in Section 4.5 Background Traffic . Cumulative ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4 -5 for near -term traffic conditions.
4.7 NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS
The “buildup” approach has been utilized which combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast the EAP (2023) and EAPC (2023) traffic conditions.
An ambient growth factor of 4.04% accounts for background (area -wide) traffic increases that occur over time up to the year 2023 from the year 2021 (one percent over a 2 -year period ).
Project traffic is added to assess EAP ( 2023) and EAPC (2023 ) traffic conditions , respectively .
Traffic volumes generated by cumulative development projects are included to assess the EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. The 2023 roadway networks are similar to the existing conditions roadway network with the exception of future intersections and driveways proposed to be developed by the Project. It should be noted that Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative (EAC) traffic forecasts were also developed f or applicable County of San Bernardino study area intersections only to determine the change in delay and identify whether the Project has an adverse effect on a pre-project deficiency.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
48 EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
49 EXHIBIT 4-5: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
50(38)
← 84(55) ← 84(55) ← 70(35) ← 5(23)
↓
↲ ↳
↓ 25(40)
↑ 8(33)
↰
↑
↱
63(129) → 63(129) → 55(96) → 4(17) →
67(140)
94(32)
↲
↓ 276(188) ↓
↳
↰
↑ 135(51) ↑
↱
285(168)
## Average Daily Trips
1 Dwy. 1 & Valley Bl. 2 Dwy. 2 & Valley Bl. 3 Willow Av. & Dwy. 3 4 Willow Av. & Valley Bl. 5 Riverside Av. & Valley Bl. 1,600
90(162)
400
1,600
14(20)
16(61)
2,100
2,100
1,600
1,600
30(81)
0(15)
3,7501,600 1,600 1,600 2,100
115(50)
21(137)
58(71)
1,600
6,150
40(142)
142(200)
2,750
8,450
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB
Ramps
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB
Ramps
169(270)
238(170)
8,450
271(390)
194(268)
11,200
22(90)
2,550
398(297)
3,050 3,050
##(##) AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
50 TABLE 4-6: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
ID Project Name Land Use Quantity Units1
City of Rialto:
RIA1 Panattoni I-10 (Cactus Av. & El Rivino Rd.) Warehouse 2,475.745 TSF RIA2 CapRock III Warehouse 582.000 TSF
Discount Super Store 198.000 TSF
Tire Store 9.861 TSF
Retail 25.436 TSF
Fast Food w/ Drive-Thru 5.484 TSF
RIA4 Kore Infrastructure Biosolids Facility 288 TPD
RIA5 NEC of Sycamore Av. and Cameron Wy. Trucking --2 -- RIA6 South of Santa Ana Av., East of Riverside Av. Warehouse 370.000 TSF RIA7 South of Valley Bl., West of Cactus Av. Warehouse --2 -- RIA8 SEC of Riverside Av. and Industrial Dr. Trucking --2 -- RIA9 NWC of Riversid Av. and Industrial Dr. Truck Drop --2 -- RIA10 NWC of Riverside Av. and Santa Ana Av. Warehouse 527.900 TSF Super Convenience Market/Gas
Station 16 VFP
Diesel Station 2 VFP
RIA12 South of Jurupa Av., West of Riverside Av. FedEx --2 -- RIA13 SWC of Riverside Av. & Slover Av. Speciality Retail & Fast Food w/ Drive-Thru 8.510 TSF
RIA14 North of Valley Bl., West of Riverside Av. Warehouse --2 -- RIA15 South of Slover Av., East of Cactus Av. Wheeler Trucking --2 -- RIA16 Lilac Avenue Warehouse Warehouse 47.460 TSF
RIA17 SC Fuels (19839 Santa Ana Avenue) Warehouse 48.302 TSF RIA18 Old Dominion Freight Line Expansion Truck Trailer Yard 407 Spaces RIA19 Flyers Energy Addition Warehouse 9.350 TSF
RIA20 Onyx Paving Contractor's Yard 0.770 AC
RIA21 Bakery Addition Bakery 14.000 TSF
RIA22 Lynn Trucking Truck Parking Yard 3.070 AC
Car Wash/Repair 8.827 TSF
RIA23 Riverside Pallet Yard Pallet Yard 3.580 AC
RIA24 Angelus Black - Concrete Block Manufacturing 178.475 TSF County of San Bernardino:
Fast Food Restaurant With Drive-
Thru 3.265 TSF
Retail Store 7.200 TSF
Warehouse 20.750 TSF
SB2 SEC of Linden Av. and Valley Bl. Fast Food Restaurant 1.500 TSF SB3 Valley Bl., West of Linden Av. Office Building 0.250 AC SB4 Linden Av., north of Slover Av. Tire Store 3.000 TSF SB5 Slover Av. between Locust Av. and Laurel Av. High-Cube Warehouse 344.000 TSF SB6 Locust Av. and 7th St. Single Family Residential 198 DU SB7 NEC and NWC of Cedar Av. and Orange St. Warehouse 395.000 TSF SB8 NWC of Cedar Av. and Jurupa Av. High-Cube Warehouse 677.000 TSF SB9 Cedar Truck Yard Truck Storage 8.940 AC
Super Convenience Market/Gas
Station 12 VFP
Automated Car Wash 1.000 Tunnel
Fast Food Restaurant With Drive-
Thru 9.907 TSF
SB11 Cedar Avenue Technology Center Warehouse 184.770 TSF SB12 Cactus and Slover Warehouse Warehouse 257.855 TSF
City of Fontana:
High-Cube Transload & Short-
Term Storage 3183.100 TSF
Warehouse 290.590 TSF
1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; AC = Acres; TPD = Tons Per Day; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions 2 Quantity and land use unknown. City of Rialto provided estimated trips and PCE AM and PM.
F1 West Valley Logistics Center
SB10 Cedar / Slover Retail
RIA11 SEC of Riverside Av. and Santa Ana Av.
SB1 NWC of Slover Av. and Locust Av.
RIA3 Newmark Merrill Companies
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
51 4.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
Traffic projections for Horizon Year (2040) without Project conditions were derived from the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) using accepted procedures for model forecast refinement and smoothing for study area intersections located within the County of San Bernardino. The current version of the SBTAM (Version 2.20, March 2019) reflects the local input in the adopted 2016 SCAG RTP within the County of San Bernardino. The post processing volume worksheets are provided in Appendix 4.1 of this TA. In addition the support SBTAM model plots are also included.
The traffic forecasts reflect the area-wide growth anticipated between Existing (2021) conditions and Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions. In most instances the traffic model zone structure is not designed to provide accurate turning movements along arterial roadways unless refinement and reasonableness checking is performed. Therefore, the Horizon Year (2040) peak hour forecasts were refined using the model derived long range forecasts, base (validation) year model forecasts, along with existing peak hour traffic count data collected at each analysis location. The SBTAM has a base (validation) year of 2012 and a horizon (future forecast) year of 2040. The difference in model volumes (2040-2012) defines the growth in traffic over the 28-year period.
The refined future peak hour approach and departure volumes obtained from the model output data are then entered into a spreadsheet program consistent with the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP Report 765), along with initial estimates of turning movement proportions. A linear programming algorithm is used to calculate individual turning movements which match the known directional roadway segment forecast volumes computed in the previous step. This program computes a likely set of intersection turning movements from intersection approach counts and the initial turning proportions from each approach leg.
The SBTAM uses an AM peak period -to-peak hour factor of 0.35 and a PM peak period- to-peak hour factor of 0.27. These factors represent the relationship of the highest single AM peak hour to the modeled 3-hour AM peak period (an even distribution would result in a factor of 0.33) and the highest single PM peak hour to the modeled 4 -hour PM peak period (an even distribution would result in a factor of 0.25).
Typically, the model growth is prorated and is subsequently added to the existing (base validation) traffic volumes to represent Horizon Year traffic conditions. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, reductions to traffic forecasts from either EAPC traffic conditions were not assumed as part of this analysis. As such, in conjunction with the addition of cumulative projects that are not consistent with the General Plan, additional growth has also been applied on a movement-by-movement basis, where applicable, t o estimate reasonable Horizon Year (2040) forecasts. Specifically, Horizon Year (2040) turning volumes were compared to EAPC volumes in order to ensure a minimum growth as a part of the refinement process. The minimum growth (no less than 10%) includes any additional growth between EAPC and Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions that is not accounted for by the traffic generated by cumulative development projects and ambient growth rates assumed between Existing ( 2021) and EAPC conditions. Future estimated peak hour traffic data was used for new intersections and intersections with an Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
52 anticipated change in travel patterns to further refine the Horizon Year (2040) peak hour forecasts.
The future Horizon Year (2040) Without Project peak hour turning movements were then reviewed by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for reasonableness, and in some cases, were adjusted to achieve flow conservation, reasonable growth, and reasonable diversion between parallel routes. Flow conservation checks ensure that traffic flow betwee n two closely spaced intersections, such as two adjacent driveway locations, is verified in order to make certain that vehicles leaving one intersection are entering the adjacent intersection and that there is no unexplained loss of vehicles. The result o f this traffic forecasting procedure is a series of traffic volumes which are suitable for traffic operations analysis.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
53 5 EAP (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (E AP) conditions and the resulting intersection operations, traffic signal warrant, and queuing analyses.
5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations a nd traffic controls assumed to be in place for E AP conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for E AP conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).
5.2 EAP (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% and the addition of Project traffic . The weekday ADT, weekday AM, and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for EAP (2023) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.
5.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAP (2023) peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized on Table 5-1 for EAP (2023) traffic conditions, which shows the following study area intersection is anticipated to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS during one or more peak hours, consistent with Existing traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hour s (AM peak hour went from LOS E to LOS F)
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP (2023) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.1 of this TA.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
54 EXHIBIT 5-1: EAP (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
42(11) 22(8) 105(172) 35(114)
← 474(776) ← 515(784) ← 503(758) ← 203(303)↲ ↳ ↲ ↲
↓
↲
↓
↳
2(4)
↲
↓
↳
198(182)
6(2) 2(6)
↰
↑ 18(52)
↰
↑
↱
41(79)
↰
↑
↱
771(859) → 784(925) → 763(873) → 223(314) →
6(30) 2(1) 492(506)
412(556)
← 0(1)↲
↓ 471(345) ↓
↳
↰
↑ 369(672) ↑
↱
0(1) →
350(264)
## Average Daily Trips
1 Dwy. 1 & Valley Bl. 2 Dwy. 2 & Valley Bl. 3 Willow Av. & Dwy. 3 4 Willow Av. & Valley Bl. 5 Riverside Av. & Valley Bl. 850
1(3)
13(66)
22,350
200
1(3)
35(53)
1174(723)
52(102)
16,200
5,200
33(31)
1(0)
195(141)
25,550
33,350
22,500
4,850
6(2)
224(143)
159(213)
47,95021,650 22,350 500 22,500 23,850
1(1)
2(2)
1(4)
150
412(573)
630(1454)
30(9)
95(217)
5,200
49,600
619(509)
1316(1131)
12,050
44,150
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB
Ramps
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB
Ramps
244(294)
883(1577)
44,150
757(1199)
403(578)
40,150
561(478)
13,750
1225(998)
10,300 12,550
##(##) AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
55 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS
5.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted on all future Project driveways for EAP traffic conditions. The planning level (ADT -based) traffic signal warrant has been utilized for these future intersections as they do not currently exist. Based on the posted speed limits, the driveways on Valley Boulevard have utilized the Rural ADT -based traffic signal warrant and the driveway on Willow Avenue has utilized the Urban ADT-based traffic signal warrant. None of the Project driveways are anticipated to meet the planning level, ADT-based traffic signal warrant for EAP (2023) traffic conditions (see Appendix 5.2).
5.5 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The City of Rialto Traffic Study Guidelines provide roadway volume capacity values. The se roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only and are used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. Table 5 -2 provides a summary of the E AP (2023) conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of Rialto Roadway Capacity Thresholds. As shown in Table 5-2, all study area roadway segments are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS under EAP (2023 ) traffic conditions based on the City’s planning level da ily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria.
Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of
Traffic (secs.) Service (secs.) Service
Control2 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Drive way 1 & Valle y Blvd. CSS 13.9 24.5 B C
2 Drive way 2 & Valle y Blvd. CSS 10.4 11.5 B B
3 Willow A v. & Drive way 3 CSS 10.1 9.6 B A
-Al ternati ve Access CSS 10.1 9.6 B A
4 Willow A v. & Valle y Blvd. TS 10.9 10.7 B B 11.3 11.5 B B 5 Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. TS 65.4 88.8 E F 101.2 138.0 F F 6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 29.3 19.2 C B 31.9 25.3 C C 7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 29.0 37.2 C D 31.6 41.0 C D * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement Existing (2021)
# Intersection
EAP (2023)
Future Intersecti on
Future Intersecti on
Future Intersecti on
Future Intersecti on
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
56 TABLE 5-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS
5.6 QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for EAP (2023) are presented on Table 5-3. As shown on Table 5-3, the turning movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows with the addition of Project traffic under EAP traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) EBR – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) WBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) NBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Ramps (#7) SBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing)
Worksheets for EAP (2023) traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 5.3.
Roadway LOS
# Roadway Section Capacity1 V/C2 LOS3 V/C2 LOS3
1 4U 36,000 20,733 0.58 A 22,487 0.62 B
2 4U 36,000 23,304 0.65 B 25,544 0.71 C
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 These maximum roadway capacities assume 9,000 vehicles per lane per day for arterials. 2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
Valle y Blvd. We st of Willow A v.
Segment Limits Existing (2021)
Willow A v. to Rive rside A v.
EAP (2023)
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
57 TABLE 5-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS
5.7 PROJECT DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
5.7.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS The effectiveness of the recommended improvement strategies to address EAP (2023 ) traffic deficiencies are presented on Table 5-4. Worksheets for EAP (2023 ) conditions, with improvements, HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix 5.4.
In order to address the peak hour intersection deficiency and the EAP queuing issue for the eastbound right turn movement at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Valley Boulevard, it is recommended that the Project restripe the number two eastbound thr ough lane as a shared through-right turn lane. Upon completion of the proposed restriping, the existing signal timing should be reviewed, and a one-time adjustment should be implemented in order to improve the queues for the other deficient turn lanes at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Valley Boulevard.
AM PM AM PM
Willow A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 165 13 26 Yes Yes 14 28 Yes Yes EBR 140 0 0 Yes Yes 0 0 Yes Yes
WBL 130 3 5 Yes Yes 3 5 Yes Yes
WBR 240 30 68 Yes Yes 49 77 Yes Yes
NBL 110 3 4 Yes Yes 4 4 Yes Yes
Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 150 73 108 2 Yes Yes 76 118 Yes Yes EBR 375 331 226 Yes Yes 415 2 543 2 No No
WBL 210 403 2 317 2 No No 423 2 357 2 No No
WBR 180 0 43 Yes Yes 0 42 Yes Yes
NBL 265 237 2 411 Yes No 413 2 502 2 No No
SBL 240 84 135 Yes Yes 86 145 Yes Yes
Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps WBL 1,935 291 294 Yes Yes 368 2 349 2 Yes Yes WBL/T/R 445 251 314 2 Yes Yes 304 2 365 2 Yes Yes
WBR 400 178 228 Yes Yes 242 253 Yes Yes
NBL 160 160 142 Yes Yes 166 150 Yes Yes
SBR 205 82 66 Yes Yes 126 75 Yes Yes
Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps EBL 1,245 281 388 2 Yes Yes 338 2 420 2 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 2,725 204 404 2 Yes Yes 272 2 446 2 Yes Yes
EBR 425 190 273 2 Yes Yes 247 2 310 2 Yes Yes
SBL 205 224 219 No No 271 2 265 2 No No
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Intersection Movement
Available
Stacking
Distance
(Feet)
Existing (2021) EAP (2023)
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
58 TABLE 5-4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
5.7.2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES ON ROADWAY SEGMENTS As shown on Table 5 -2, there are no roadway segment deficiencies anticipated for EAP ( 2023) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been recommended.
5.7.3 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES FOR QUEUES Table 5 -5 shows the peak hour queuing summary, assuming the intersection improvements identified in Table 5-4. As shown in Table 5 -5, the queues are anticipated to improve, however the northbound left turn lane is anticipated to continue to experience queuing issues. Given the proximity of the adjacent intersection and freeway to Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard, it is not feasible to lengthen the northbound left turn pocket although the queuing is anticipated to improve from Existing traffic conditions with the implementation of the improvements identified in Table 5 -4. The signa l timing modifications discussed in Section 5.7.1 may improve the northbound left turn queue once the restriping has been implemented. Worksheets for E AP (2023) traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 5.5 (with improvements).
TABLE 5-5: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Delay2 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 5 Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd.
TS 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 101.2 138.0 F F
TS 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 34.4 32.8 C C
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
3 TS = Traffic Signal
4 Project to restripe the number 2 EB lane to restripe as a shared through-right turn lane.
Intersection Approach Lanes1
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; 1 = Improvement AM PM
Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 150 77 119 Yes Yes EBR 375 113 124 Yes Yes
WBL 515 362 2 315 2 Yes Yes
WBR 180 0 31 Yes Yes
NBL 265 320 2 363 2 No No
SBL 240 88 192 2 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Intersection Movement
Available
Stacking
Distance
(Feet)
EAP (2023)
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
59 6 EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2023) traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations, traffic signal warrant, and queuing analyses.
6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAPC (2023) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and driveways). • Driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions only.
6.2 EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% in conjunction with the addition of cumulative project development and Project traffic. The weekday ADT, weekday AM, and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1.
6.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section
6.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown on Table 6-1, the following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & I-10 WB Ramps (#6) – LOS E AM peak hour only • Riverside Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (#7) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.1.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
60 EXHIBIT 6-1: EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
61 TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANAL YSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS
6.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted on all future Project driveways for EAPC traffic conditions. Based on the posted speed limits, the driveways on Valley Boulevard have utilized the Rural ADT-based traffic signal warrant and the driveway on Willow Avenue has utilized the Urban ADT-based traffic signal warrant. None of the Proje ct driveways are anticipated to meet the planning level, ADT -based traffic signal warrant for E APC (2023) traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.2).
6.5 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The City of Rialto Traffic Study Guidelines provide roadway volume capacity values. The se roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only and are used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. Table 6-2 provides a summary of the EAPC (2023) conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of Rialto Roadway Capacity Thresholds. As shown in Table 6-2, both study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an accept able LOS under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions based on the City’s planning level da ily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria.
Delay1 Level of
Traffic (secs.) Service
# Intersection Control2 AM PM AM PM
1 Drive way 1 & Valle y Blvd. CSS 16.1 29.1 C D
2 Drive way 2 & Valle y Blvd. CSS 11.2 11.9 B B
3 Willow A v. & Drive way 3 CSS 10.4 10.3 B B
-Al ternati ve Access CSS 10.4 10.3 B B
4 Willow A v. & Valle y Blvd. TS 12.6 14.6 B B
5 Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. TS 164.6 191.8 F F
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 65.3 54.8 E D
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 87.5 123.9 F F
* BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
EAPC (2023)
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
62 TABLE 6-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS
6.6 QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for EAPC (2023) are presented on Table 6-3. As shown on Table 6 -3, the turning movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under EAPC traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) EBR – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) WBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) NBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Westbound Ramps (#6) NBL – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Ramps (#7) SBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing)
Worksheets for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 6.3.
Roadway LOS
# Roadway Section Capacity1 V/C2 LOS3
1 4U 36,000 24,297 0.67 B
2 4U 36,000 27,840 0.77 C
1 These maximum roadway capacities assume 9,000 vehicles per lane per day for arterials. 2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
Valle y Blvd. Willow A v. to Rive rside A v.
Segment Limits EAPC (2023)
We st of Willow A v.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
63 TABLE 6-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS
AM PM
Willow A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 165 19 44 Yes Yes
EBR 140 0 0 Yes Yes
WBL 130 4 5 Yes Yes
WBR 240 76 104 Yes Yes
NBL 110 4 4 Yes Yes
Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 150 89 130 Yes Yes EBR 375 625 2 905 2 No No
WBL 210 495 2 428 2 No No
WBR 180 0 42 Yes Yes
NBL 265 585 2 557 2 No No
SBL 240 86 145 Yes Yes
Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps WBL 1,935 573 2 501 2 Yes Yes WBL/T/R 445 539 2 518 2,3 Yes Yes
WBR 400 461 2 389 2 Yes Yes
NBL 160 270 2 295 2 No No
SBR 205 201 211 Yes Yes
Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps EBL 1,245 554 2 572 2 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 2,725 495 2 578 2 Yes Yes
EBR 425 453 2,3 465 2,3 Yes Yes
SBL 205 340 2 358 2 No No
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 3 Although 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, the adjacent through lane has sufficient storage to accommodate any spillover without spilling back and affecting the I-10 Freeway mainline. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An Intersection Movement
Available
Stacking
Distance
(Feet)
EAPC (2023)
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
64 6.7 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
This section provides a summary of Project deficiencies and recommended improvements. Based on the City of Rialto and County of San Bernardino deficiency criteria discussed in Section 2. 7 Deficiency Criteria, the following intersections were found to be deficient.
6.7.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS The effectiveness of the recomm ended improvement strategies to address EAPC (2023) traffic deficiencies are presented on Table 6-4. T he Project Applicant shall restripe the improvement identified at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Valley Boulevard (see Section 5.7) and shall contribute to the other remaining improvements through payment of regional DIF fees or fair share contribution as identified on Table 1 -3. Worksheets for EAPC ( 2023) conditions, with improvements, HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix 6.5.
TABLE 6-4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
6.7.2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES ON ROADWAY SEGMENTS As shown previously on Table 6 -2, there are no roadway segment deficiencies anticipated for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been recommended.
Delay2
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 5 Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd.
TS 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 160.2 190.9 F F
TS 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 60.6 49.8 E D
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps
TS 2 3 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 65.4 54.8 E D
TS 2 3 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 41.8 32.9 D C
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps
TS 0 3 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 107.4 174.5 F F
TS 0 3 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 37.1 41.1 D D
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
3 TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement
4 Improvement consists of modifying the cycle length to 120-seconds. 5 Improvement consists of restriping the southbound approach to restripe number 4 lane as a shared through-right turn lane. 6 Project to restripe the number 2 EB lane to restripe as a shared through-right turn lane.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free-right turn lane 1 = Improvement - With Improvements 4,5
- Without Improvements 4
- With Improvements 4
- Without Improvements
- With Improvements 6
Intersection Approach Lanes1
- Without Improvements 4,5
Service
Level of
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
65 6.7.3 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES FOR QUEUES Table 6-5 shows the peak hour queuing summary, assuming the intersection improvements identified in Table 6-4. As shown in Table 6 -5, the queues are anticipated to improve, however the northbound left turn lane is anticipated to continue to experience queuing issues. Given the proximity of the adjacent intersection and freeway to Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard, it is not feasible to lengthen the northbound left turn pocket although the queuing is anticipated to improve from Existing traffic conditions with the implementation of the improvements identified in Table 6 -4. The signal timing modifications discussed in Section 5 .7.1 may improve the northbound left turn queue once the restriping has been implemented. Worksheets for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 6.6 (with improvements).
TABLE 6-5: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
AM PM
Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 150 92 127 Yes Yes EBR 375 143 168 Yes Yes
WBL 515 466 2 398 2 Yes Yes
WBR 180 0 32 Yes Yes
NBL 265 485 2 422 2 No No
SBL 240 88 210 2 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance Intersection Movement
Available
Stacking
Distance
(Feet)
EAPC
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
66 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
67 7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Horizon Year ( 2040) Without and With Project traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations, traffic signal warrant, roadway segment, and queuing analyses.
7.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2022) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3 -1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Horizon Year only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and driveways). • Driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Horizon Year conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the cumulative development’s frontages and driveways). • Other parallel facilities, that although not evaluated for the purposes of this analysis, are anticipated to be in place for Horizon Year traffic conditions and would affect the travel patterns within the study area.
7.2 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes the refined post- process volumes obtained from the SBTAM (see Section
4.7 Horizon Year (2040) Volume Development of this TA for a detailed discussion on the post- processing methodology). The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-1.
7.3 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes the refined post- process volumes obtained from the SBTAM, plus the traffic generated by the proposed Project (Project Buildout). The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which can be expected for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-2.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
68 EXHIBIT 7-1: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
137(222) 38(127)
← 613(911) ← 613(911) ← 563(854) ← 226(357)
↓
↲
↓
↳
4(8)
↲
↓
↳
245(244)
↑ 28(90)
↰
↑
↱
47(101)
↰
↑
↱
919(1088) → 919(1088) → 887(996) → 248(360) →
4(2) 595(611)
513(634)
← 0(1)↲
↓
↳
822(587) ↓
↳
↰
↑ 502(780) ↑
↱
0(1) →
698(475)
## Average Daily Trips
1 Dwy. 1 & Valley Bl. 2 Dwy. 2 & Valley Bl. 3 Willow Av. & Dwy. 3 4 Willow Av. & Valley Bl. 5 Riverside Av. & Valley Bl. 900 26,350
200
38(68)
1444(974)
57(112)
17,850
6,000
49(55)
2(0)
226(190)
28,100
36,700
24,750
5,300
277(245)
175(251)
54,450
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB
Ramps
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB
Ramps
25,600 24,600 550 24,750 26,250
1(2)
2(3)
1(6)
200
483(657)
716(1750)
167(314)
5,700
638(605)
15,100
1893(1445)
54,550
716(628)
1709(1463)
0(33)
13,250
54,850
11,350 13,800
454(621)
1180(1906)
54,850
1130(1855)
656(931)
53,350
##(##) AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
69 EXHIBIT 7-2: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
42(11) 22(8) 167(231) 38(127)
← 614(914) ← 655(922) ← 624(871) ← 229(358)↲ ↳ ↲ ↲
↓
↲
↓
↳
4(8)
↲
↓
↳
245(244)
6(2) 2(6)
↰
↑ 29(93)
↰
↑
↱
47(101)
↰
↑
↱
919(1088) → 932(1154) → 899(1059) → 249(363) →
6(30) 4(2) 613(701)
553(646)
← 0(1)↲
↓
↳
822(587) ↓
↳
↰
↑ 550(794) ↑
↱
0(1) →
698(475)
## Average Daily Trips
1 Dwy. 1 & Valley Bl. 2 Dwy. 2 & Valley Bl. 3 Willow Av. & Dwy. 3 4 Willow Av. & Valley Bl. 5 Riverside Av. & Valley Bl. 1,750
1(3)
13(66)
27,150
400
1(3)
38(68)
1444(974)
57(112)
17,850
6,450
52(56)
2(0)
232(220)
29,400
36,700
25,650
5,450
6(2)
280(246)
175(251)
55,700
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB
Ramps
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB
Ramps
25,700 25,350 1,100 25,650 27,550
1(2)
2(3)
1(6)
200
571(682)
716(1750)
30(9)
168(317)
6,150
646(645)
15,400
1893(1445)
55,800
725(678)
1717(1503)
0(33)
13,550
55,450
11,700 14,150
454(621)
1228(1920)
55,450
1130(1855)
656(931)
53,350
##(##) AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
70 7.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
7.4.1 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Horizon Year (2040) Without Project conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section 7.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown on Table 7-1, the following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#5) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & I-10 WB Ramps (#6) – LOS F AM peak hour; LOS E PM peak hour • Riverside Avenue & I-10 EB Ramps (#7) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative Without Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.1.
7.4.2 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As shown on Table 7-1, there are no additional study area intersections anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS during one or both peak hours for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions, in addition to the locations identified above for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.2 of this TA.
TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS
2040 With Project
Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of
Traffic (secs.) Service (secs.) Service
# Intersection Control2 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Driveway 1 & Valley Blvd. CSS 16.6 18.0 C C ---- ---- 2 Driveway 2 & Valley Blvd. CSS 11.4 12.3 B B ---- ---- 3 Willow Av. & Driveway 3 CSS 10.7 10.6 B B ---- ----
-Alternative Access CSS 10.6 10.6 B B ---- ----
4 Willow Av. & Valley Blvd. TS 13.0 25.2 B C 13.6 25.8 B C 0.6 0.6 5 Riverside Av. & Valley Blvd. TS 150.4 >200.0 F F 193.2 >200.0 F F 42.8 ---- 6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps TS 84.4 55.6 F E 88.3 69.4 F E 3.9 13.8 7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps TS 122.0 152.7 F F 122.0 164.1 F F 0.0 11.4 * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All-Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are h
Difference in
Delay
2040 Without Project
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
71 7.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
All of the existing intersections are currently signalized and only the future Project driveways would be unsignalized. As such, traffic signal warrant analysis has not been performed for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions.
Traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted on all future Project driveways for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions. Based on the posted speed limits, the driveways on Valley Boulevard have utilized the Rural ADT -based traffic signal warrant and the driveway on Willow Avenue has utilized the Urban ADT -based traffic signal warrant. None of the Project driveways are anticipated to meet the planning level, ADT-based traffic signal warrant for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 7.3).
7.6 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The City of Rialto Traffic Study Guidelines provide roadway volume capacity values. The se roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only and are used at the General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet traffic demand. Table 7 -2 provides a summary of the Horizon Year (2040) conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of Rialto Roadway Capacity Thresholds. As shown in Table 7-2, both study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under EAPC (2023) traffic conditions based on the City’s planning level da ily roadway capacity thresholds and minimum LOS criteria.
TABLE 7-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS
7.7 QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for Horizon Year (2040) are presented on Table 7-3. As shown on Table 7-3, the turning movements are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows under Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) EBR – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) WBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard (#4) NBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing) • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Westbound Ramps (#6) NBL – AM and PM peak hours • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Westbound Ramps (#6) SBR – AM peak hour only Roadway LOS
# Roadway Section Capacity1 V/C2 LOS3 V/C2 LOS3
1 4U 36,000 24,497 0.68 B 26,413 0.73 C
2 4U 36,000 28,974 0.80 C 30,272 0.84 D
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 These maximum roadway capacities assume 9,000 vehicles per lane per day for arterials. 2 V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
3 LOS = Level of Service
We st of Willow A v.Valle y Blvd.
2040 With
ProjectSegment Limits
2040 Without
Project
Willow A v. to Rive rside A v.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
72 • Riverside Avenue & I-10 Eastbound Ramps (#7) SBL – AM and PM peak hours (consistent with Existing)
With the addition of Project traffic, only the southbound right turn movement at Riverside Avenue and the I -10 Westbound Ramps is anticipated to go from acceptable to deficient (and only during the PM peak hour). Worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 7.4 and Appendix 7.5, respectively.
TABLE 7-3: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS
AM PM AM PM
Willow A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 165 21 50 Yes Yes 22 59 Yes Yes EBR 140 0 0 Yes Yes 0 0 Yes Yes
WBL 130 6 9 Yes Yes 6 10 Yes Yes
WBR 240 61 160 Yes Yes 87 137 Yes Yes
NBL 110 4 8 Yes Yes 4 7 Yes Yes
Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 150 80 144 Yes Yes 80 144 Yes Yes EBR 375 661 2 696 2 No No 722 2 1,011 2 No No
WBL 210 548 2 474 2 No No 548 2 474 2 No No
WBR 180 0 44 Yes Yes 0 44 Yes Yes
NBL 265 464 2 571 2 No No 623 2 612 2 No No
SBL 240 93 168 2 Yes Yes 93 168 2 Yes Yes
Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps WBL 1,935 633 2 556 2 Yes Yes 648 2 569 2 Yes Yes WBL/T/R 445 584 2,3 585 2,3 Yes Yes 616 2,3 593 2,3 Yes Yes WBR 400 462 2,3 444 2,3 Yes Yes 522 2,3 452 2,3 Yes Yes NBL 160 314 2 343 2 No No 314 2 343 2 No No
SBR 205 335 2 165 No Yes 357 2 357 2 No No
Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps EBL 1,245 588 2 627 2 Yes Yes 627 2 638 2 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 2,725 534 2 646 2 Yes Yes 567 2 654 2 Yes Yes
EBR 425 502 2 509 2,3 Yes Yes 525 2 527 2 Yes Yes
SBL 205 373 2 358 2 No No 382 2 396 2 No No
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 3 Although 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, the adjacent through lane has sufficient storage to accommodate any spillover without spilling back and affecting the I-10 Freeway mainline.
Intersection Movement
Available
Stacking
Distance
(Feet)
2040 Without Project 2040 With Project
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
73 7.8 DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
This section provides a summary of deficiencies, based on the City of Rialto ’s deficiency criteria discussed in Section 2.7 Deficiency Criteria, and improvements needed to improve operations back to acceptable levels.
7.8.1 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS The effectiveness of the recommended improvement strategies to address Horizon Year (2040) traffic deficiencies are presented in Table 7-4. Worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project conditions, with improvements, HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendices 7.6 and 7.7, respectively.
TABLE 7-4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
7.8.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES ON ROADWAY SEGMENTS As shown previously on Table 6 -2, there are no roadway segment deficiencies anticipated for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been recommended.
7.7.3 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES FOR QUEUES Table 7 -5 shows the peak hour queuing summary, assuming the intersection improvements identified in Table 7-4. As shown in Table 7 -5, the queues are anticipated to improve, however the northbound left turn lane is anticipated to continue to experience queuing issues. Given the proximity of the adjacent intersection and freeway to Riverside Avenue & Valley Boulevard, it is not feasible to lengthen the northbound left turn pocket although the queuing is anticipated to improve from Existing traffic conditions with the implementation of the improvements identified in Table 7 -4. The signal timing modifications discussed in Section 5.7.1 may improve the northbound left turn queue once the restriping has been implemented. Worksheets for Horizon Delay2 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 5 Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd.
TS 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 50.4 53.0 D D
TS 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 64.5 71.7 E E
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps
TS 2 3 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 51.6 39.7 D D
TS 2 3 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 53.2 40.4 D D
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps
TS 0 3 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 47.1 48.2 D D
TS 0 3 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 54.1 54.5 D D
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
3 TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement
4 Project to restripe the number 2 EB lane to restripe as a shared through-right turn lane. 5 Improvement also consists of modifying the cycle length to 130-seconds. 6 Improvement consists of restriping the southbound approach to restripe number 4 lane as a shared through-right turn lane.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; 1 = Improvement - Without Project 5
- Wi th Project5
- Without Project 5,6
- Wi th Project5,6
Intersection Approach Lanes1
- Without Project 4
- Wi th Project4
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
74 Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions , with improvements, queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 7.8 and Appendix 7.9, respectively.
TABLE 7-5: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS WITH
IMPROVEMENTS
AM PM AM PM
Rive rside A v. & Valle y Blvd. EBL 150 81 139 Yes Yes 81 139 Yes Yes EBR 375 132 98 Yes Yes 152 197 Yes Yes
WBL 515 511 2 445 2 Yes Yes 511 2 445 2 Yes Yes
WBR 180 0 42 Yes Yes 0 42 Yes Yes
NBL 265 348 2 436 2 No No 498 2 475 2 No No
SBL 240 95 236 2 Yes Yes 95 236 2 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Intersection Movement
Available
Stacking
Distance
(Feet)
2040 Without Project 2040 With Project
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
75 8 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Transportation improvements within the City of Rialto are funded through a combination of direct project mitigation, development impact fee program s or fair share contributions, such as the City of Rialto Development Impact Fee ( DIF) program. Identification and timing of needed improvements is generally determined through local jurisdictions based upon a variety of factors.
8.1 CITY OF RIALTO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
In 2006, the City of Rialto adopted their DIF program incorporating the regional component of Measure I. The fee schedule was updated in June 2020. Fees from new residential, commercial and industrial development are collected to fund Measure I compliant regional facilities. Under the City’s DIF program, the City may grant to developers a credit against specific components of fees when those developers construct certain facilities and landscaped medians identified in the list of improvements funded by the DIF program.
After the City’s DIF fees are collected, they are placed in a separate interest -bearing account pursuant to the requirements of Government Code sections 66000 et seq. The timing to use the DIF fees is established through periodic capital improvement programs which are overseen by the City’s Public Works Department. Periodic traffic counts, review of traffic accidents , and a review of traffic trends throughout the City are also periodically performed by City staff and consultants. The City uses this data to determine the timing of the improvements listed in its facilities list.
8.2 MEASURE “I” FUNDS
In 2004, the voters of San Bernardino County approved the 30 -year extension of Measure “I”, a one-half of one percent sales tax on retail transactions, through the year 2040, for transportation projects including, but not limited to, infrastructure improvements, commuter rail, public transit, and other identified improvements. The Measure “I” extension requires that a regional traffic impact fee be created to ensure development is paying its fair share. A regional Nexus study was prepared by the SBCTA and concluded that ea ch jurisdiction should include a regional fee component in their local programs in order to meet the Measure “I” requirement. The regional component assigns specific facilities and cost sharing formulas to each jurisdiction and was most recently updated i n November 2011. Revenues collected through these programs are used in tandem with Measure “I” funds to deliver projects identified in the Nexus Study. While Measure “I” is a self-executing sales tax administered by SBCTA, it bears discussion here because the funds raised through Measure “I” have funded in the past and will continue to fund new transportation facilities in San Bernardino County.
8.3 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION
Project improvements may include a combination of fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
76 development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City’s discretion).
When off- site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to proposed development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution or require the development to construct improvements. Detailed fair share calculations, for each peak hour, has been provided on Table 8-1 for the applicable deficient study area intersections.
As discussed previously in Section 1.6 Recommendations, b ased on the Project fair share percentages shown in Table 8 -1, the Project shall pay the following fair share for the improvements identified in Table 1-4:
• City of Rialto: $13,129
• Caltrans: $13,129
TABLE 8-1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS
# Intersection Existing Project 2040 With
Project
Total New
Traffic
Project % of
New Traffic1
6 Riverside Av. & I-10 WB Ramps
AM: 4,155 193 6,211 2,056 9.4%
PM: 4,458 213 6,605 2,147 9.9%
7 Riverside Av. & I-10 EB Ramps
AM: 4,238 106 6,676 2,438 4.3%
PM: 4,540 97 6,961 2,421 4.0%
BOLD =
Note: Volumes based on PCE.
Highest fair share percentage is highlighted.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
77 9 REFERENCES
1. City of Rialto Public Works Department. Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines and Requirements.
City of Rialto : s.n., December 2013 (Adopted February 5, 2014).
2. County of San Bernardino. Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. County of San Bernardino : s.n., July 9, 2019.
3. San Bernardino Associated Governments. Congestion Management Program for County of San Bernardino. County of San Bernardino : s.n., Updated June 2016.
4. Office of Pl anning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
State of California : s.n., December 2018.
5. City of Rialto. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (LOS). October 2021.
6. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation Manual. 9th Edition. 2012.
7. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 6th Edition. s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2016.
8. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). 2014.
Birtcher Logistics Center Rialto Traffic Analysis
13681-05 TA Report
78 This Page Intentionally Left Blank