Frontier Enterprises September 16, 2019
Basin Slope Stability Analysis Project No.1925-CR
Tentative Tract 20245, Upland, California Page 3
REFERENCES
GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
_____, 2018, “Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, Proposed Single -Family Residential Development, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1045 -121-02 and 1045-151-34, Upland Colonies 59, Upland, San Bernardino County, California,” Project No. 1925 -CR, dated July 12.
Proactive Engineering Consultants, 2019, “Tentative Tract Map 20245, City of Upland,” dated June 13.
MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Client:Frontier Enterprises Job No.:1925-CR
Project:Tract No. 20245 Lab No.:Corona
Location:Upland
Material Type:Gray Brown Gravelly Silty F-M Sand
Material Supplier:-
Material Source:-
Sample Location:Bulk #1
Sampled By:DA Date Sampled:5-Sep-19
Received By:DLI Date Received:5-Sep-19
Tested By:DLI Date Tested:12-Sep-19
Reviewed By:RR Date Reviewed:16-Jun-19
Test Procedure:ASTM 1557 Method:C
Oversized Material (%):13.7 Correction Required: yes no MOISTURE CONTENT (%):12.49522 10.49957 8.396125 14.59474 10.78337 9.061126 7.2458558 12.59526 DRY DENSITY (pcf):115.3096 115.5832 111.806 111.2219
CORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf):0 0 0 0
ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY (pcf):
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES
Maximum Dry Density, pcf 116.0 @ Optimum Moisture, %11.5 Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, %
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Grain Size Distribution:Atterberg Limits:
% Gravel (retained on No. 4)Liquid Limit, %
% Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200)Plastic Limit, % % Silt and Clay (Passing No. 200)Plasticity Index, %
Classification:
Unified Soils Classification:
AASHTO Soils Classification:
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
,
P
C
F
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE DRY DENSITY (pcf):
CORRECTED DRY DENSITY (pcf):
ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY (pcf)
S.G. 2.7
S.G. 2.8
S.G. 2.6
Poly. (DRY DENSITY (pcf):)
OVERSIZE CORRECTED
ZERO AIR VOIDS
Poly. (S.G. 2.7)
Poly. (S.G. 2.8)
Poly. (S.G. 2.6)
Sample Location:
Date Tested:
Shear Strength: =34.2 O ,C =132.00 psf
Notes:
9/12/2019
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
2 - The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions. 1 - The soil specimen used in the shear box was a ring sample remolded to approximately 90% relative compaction from a bulk sample collected during the field investigation.
UplandProject Name:
Project Number:
3 - The tests were run at a shear rate of 0.035 in/min. 1925-CR
Bulk #1
0.0 500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
3.0153.0153.0153.015
Material Name Color Unit Weight
(lbs/3)Strength Type Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deg)
Water
Surface Ru
Eng Fill 115 Mohr-Coulomb 132 34 None 0
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.250
2.500
2.750
3.000
3.250
3.500
3.750
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000+
80 60
40 20
0 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Analysis Description Basin 3:1 Static
Company GeoTek, Inc.Scale 1:200Drawn By NCT
File Name 1925CR Slope Stability for 2to1 Basin.slmdDate9/16/2019, 9:29:25 AM Project
Tentative Tract No. 20245, Upland
SLIDEINTERPRET 7.038
2.0132.0132.0132.013
Material Name Color Unit Weight
(lbs/3)Strength Type Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deg)
Water
Surface Ru
Eng Fill 115 Mohr-Coulomb 132 34 None 0
0.15 Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.250
2.500
2.750
3.000
3.250
3.500
3.750
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000+
80 60
40 20
0 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Analysis Description Basin 3:1 Pseudostatic
Company GeoTek, Inc.Scale 1:200Drawn By NCT
File Name 1925CR Slope Stability for 2to1 Basin.slmdDate9/16/2019, 9:44:42 AM Project
Tentative Tract No. 20245, Upland
SLIDEINTERPRET 7.038
15th Street Basin Modifications – Spillway and Bypass Alternatives September 10, 2019
Page | 10
References
Madole and Associates, Inc., 2017. Drainage Study in the City of Upland for the 15th Street Basin. Prepared for Colonies Partner, June 12.
Q3 Consulting, 2018. Technical Memorandum, 15th Street Basin Modifications Review and Recommendations. Prepared for Frontier Communities, July 31.
N:\10.031.000\REPORTS\15 St Basin Modifications_Spillway Memo.docx
Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019
Appendices
APPENDIX H:
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Upland Colonies
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF UPLAND
PREPARED BY:
Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 336-5979
Alex Wolfe, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 336-5977
JULY 20, 2018
11824-02 Noise Study
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
ii
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... III APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... V LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 On-Site Traffic Noise Analysis .................................................................................................................. 1 Construction Noise Analysis .................................................................................................................... 2 Construction Vibration Analysis .............................................................................................................. 3 Summary of Significance Findings ........................................................................................................... 4 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 7 2 FUNDAMENTALS ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Range of Noise ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.2 Noise Descriptors ........................................................................................................................ 12
2.3 Sound Propagation ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Noise Control .............................................................................................................................. 14
2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation ........................................................................................................... 14
2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 14
2.7 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 14 3 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................................. 17
3.1 State of California Noise Requirements ...................................................................................... 17
3.2 State of California Building Code ................................................................................................ 17
3.3 City of Upland General Plan Safety Element ............................................................................... 17
3.4 Construction Noise Standards..................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Construction Vibration Standards ............................................................................................... 21
3.6 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ........................................................................................... 21 4 METHODS AND PROCEDURES.................................................................................................... 23
4.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................ 23
4.2 On-Site Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs ........................................................................... 23
4.3 Construction Activity ................................................................................................................... 25
4.4 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 25
4.5 Construction Vibration Assessment Methodology ..................................................................... 26 5 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 29
5.1 Exterior Noise Analysis ................................................................................................................ 29
5.2 Interior Noise Analysis ................................................................................................................ 30 6 RECEIVER LOCATIONS................................................................................................................ 33 7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ......................................................................................................... 35
7.1 Construction Noise Analysis ........................................................................................................ 36
7.2 Construction Noise Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................... 40
7.3 Construction Vibration Impacts .................................................................................................. 42
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
iv
8 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 45 9 CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 47
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF UPLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX 5.1: ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT ES-A: ON-SITE MITIGATION SUMMARY .................................................................................. 5 EXHIBIT ES-B: CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION SUMMARY ...................................................................... 6 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................................. 8 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................ 9 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................. 11 EXHIBIT 2-B: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION .......................................................... 16 EXHIBIT 3-A: EXTERIOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS .............................................................. 20 EXHIBIT 6-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................................................................................... 34 EXHIBIT 7-A: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................................... 35
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS ........................................................................... 4 TABLE 4-1: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS ................................................................................... 24 TABLE 4-2: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS ........................................................................................... 24 TABLE 4-3: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) ................................... 24 TABLE 4-4: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................... 26 TABLE 4-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ........................................ 27 TABLE 5-1: UNMITIGATED EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ............................................................. 29 TABLE 5-2: FIRST-FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS (CNEL) ................................................................ 30 TABLE 5-3: SECOND-FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS (CNEL) ........................................................... 31 TABLE 7-1: SITE PREPARATION MOBILE EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ................................................... 36 TABLE 7-2: GRADING MOBILE EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS .................................................................. 37 TABLE 7-3: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STATIONARY EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ................................ 38 TABLE 7-4: PAVING MOBILE EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... 39 TABLE 7-5: ARCHITECTURAL COATING STATIONARY EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ................................ 40 TABLE 7-6: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ............................. 40 TABLE 9-7: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ......................... 41 TABLE 7-8: MITIGATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS ........................................................ 42 TABLE 7-9: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS ..................................... 43 TABLE 7-10: MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS ........................................ 43
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ANSI American National Standards Institute
Calveno California Vehicle Noise
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval
Lmin Minimum level measured over the time interval
mph Miles per hour
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
Project Upland Colonies
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for the proposed Upland Colonies development (“Project”).
The Project site is located on the north side of 15th Street in the City of Upland. The Project is to include the development of 85 single family detached residential dwelling units. This noise study has been prepared to satisfy applicable City of Upland noise standards.
ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
The results of this analysis indicate that future vehicle noise from 15th Street represents the principal source of community noise that will impact the Project site. The Project will also experience some background traffic noise impacts from the Project’s internal local streets, however due to the distance, topography and low traffic volume/speeds, traffic noise from these roads will not make a significant contribution to the noise environment. With the following recommended noise mitigation measures shown on Exhibit ES-A, the on-site noise impacts will be less than significant.
EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
To satisfy the City of Upland 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard for residential land use, the construction of minimum 6-foot high noise barriers is required for outdoor living areas (backyards) of lots adjacent to 15th Street. With the recommended noise barriers shown on Exhibit ES-A, the future exterior noise levels will range from 57.0 to 59.5 dBA CNEL. This noise analysis shows that the recommended noise barriers will satisfy the City of Upland 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use. The recommended noise barrier height represents the minimum wall and/or berm combination height required to satisfy the City of Upland exterior noise level standards.
The recommended noise control barriers shall be constructed so that the top of each wall and /or berm combination extends to the recommended height above the pad elevation of the lot it is shielding. When the road is elevated above the pad elevation, the barrier shall extend to the recommended height above the highest point between the residential home and the road. The barrier shall consist of a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking.
The barrier shall provide a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways, or a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA. (1) The noise barrier shall be constructed using the following materials:
• Masonry block;
• Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1-inch-thick tongue and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot;
• Glass (1/4-inch-thick), or other transparent material with sufficient weight per square foot capable of providing a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA;
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
2 • Earthen berm;
• Any combination of these construction materials.
INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
This noise study evaluates the interior noise levels at the Project’s residential homes based on the City of Upland 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise level standard. The Project buildings are shown to require a Noise Reduction (NR) of up to 19.9 dBA and a windows-closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). To meet the City of Upland 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards the following on-site standard construction measures are required:
• Windows/Glass Doors: All units require windows and sliding glass doors that have well-fitted, well-weather-stripped assemblies, and minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 27. • Exterior Doors (Non-Glass): All exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have well-sealed perimeter gaps to achieve minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 27. (2) • Exterior Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal.
• Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or well- sealed gypsum board of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the attic space.
• Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system (e.g. air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g. fresh air supply) shall be provided which satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
Based on the results of this analysis, the Project will satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard with standard building construction. Exhibit ES-A shows the on-site recommendations.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Construction-related noise impacts are expected to create temporary and intermittent high-level noise conditions at receivers surrounding the Project site when certain activities occur at the closest point to the nearby receiver locations from primary Project construction activity. Using sample reference noise levels to represent the planned construction activities of the Upland Colonies site, this analysis estimates the Project-related construction noise levels at nearby receiver locations. Based on the analysis, the Project-related short-term construction noise levels are shown to exceed the City of Upland Municipal Code 75 dBA Lmax noise level threshold at noise- sensitive receiver locations R2 and R5. Therefore, the unmitigated Project-related construction noise level levels are considered a potentially significant temporary noise impact.
Temporary construction noise mitigation measures are therefore required to reduce the impacts at receiver locations R2 and R5. This includes mitigation in the form of engine compartment sound dampening mats or blankets for large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds),
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
3 and a 50-foot buffer for large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks, as shown on Exhibit ES-B. The construction noise mitigation measures are outlined below. With the mitigation measures identified herein, the noise impact due to Project construction is considered a less than significant impact with mitigation at all receiver locations.
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from temporary Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. The analysis shows that the unmitigated Project-construction vibration levels will exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 80 VdB threshold at receiver locations R5 adjacent to the Project site, and are therefore, considered a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the use of large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks within 50 feet of nearby land uses shall be prohibited unless the vibration levels are shown to be less than the 80 VdB FTA threshold. With the recommended mitigation measures in this study, the Project-related vibration impacts at the nearby receiver locations represents a less than significant impact during the worst-case construction activities at the Project site.
Further, vibration levels at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating at the Project site perimeter.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures are required to reduce construction noise and vibration levels produced by the construction equipment to the nearby sensitive residential land uses. • Large loaded trucks and mobile equipment (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) (3) shall not be used within 50 feet of receiver location R5 if occupied at the time of Project construction, as shown on Exhibit ES-B. Instead, smaller, rubber-tired mobile equipment (less than 80,000 pounds) or equivalent alternative equipment shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration effects.
• Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of large mobile equipment (greater than or equal to 80,000 pounds) which are capable of a minimum 5 dBA noise reduction (FHWA, Construction Noise Special Report). (4) The dampening materials must be capable of the minimum 5 dBA noise reduction and can be made of commercially-available sound dampening materials, including but not limited to polyurethane foam and vinyl sheeting (University of Massachusetts Lowell The Use of Noise Dampening Mats to Reduce Heavy-Equipment Noise). (5) • Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that Project construction activities shall comply with the City of Upland Municipal Code requirements. (6)
• During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
4 equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site.
• The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project site during all Project construction (i.e., to the northern center). • The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck-related noise.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
The results of this Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report. Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact before and after incorporation of Project design features.
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
On-Site Traffic Noise 5 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Construction Noise 7 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Construction Vibration Potentially Significant Less Than Significant "n/a" = No mitigation is required.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
5 EXHIBIT ES-A: ON-SITE MITIGATION SUMMARY
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
6 EXHIBIT ES-B: CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION SUMMARY
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
7 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Upland Colonies (“Project”). This noise study describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, outlines the local regulatory setting, provides the study methods and procedures for traffic and construction noise analysis, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment.
1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed Upland Colonies Project is located on the north side of 15th Street in the City of Upland, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project site is currently vacant. Land uses surrounding the Project site include a golf course to the north, and residential homes to the south, west, and east.
The Interstate 210 (I-210) freeway right-of-way is located roughly 1 mile north of the Project site.
Cable Airport is located approximately 2.6 miles southwest of the Project site, and the Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport is located roughly 4.2 miles south of the Project site.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is to include the development of 85 single family detached residential dwelling units, as shown on Exhibit 1-B.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
8 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
9 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
10 This page intentionally left blank
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
11 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise has been simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.
EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004) March 1974.
2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (7) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
12 at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (8) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.
2.2 NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A- weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.
To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical or percentile noise descriptors L50, L25, L8 and L2, are commonly used. The percentile noise descriptors are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 50 percent, 25 percent, 8 percent, and 2 percent of a stated time. Sound levels associated with the L2 and L8 typically describe transient or short-term events, while levels associated with the L50 describe the steady state (or median) noise conditions. While the L50 describes the median noise levels occurring 50 percent of the time, the Leq accounts for the total energy (average) observed for the entire hour. Therefore, the Leq noise descriptor is generally 1-2 dBA higher than the L50 noise level.
Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Upland relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.
2.3 SOUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
13 2.3.1 GEOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (7)
2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground.
Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receptor such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (9)
2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. (7)
2.3.4 SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby resident. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The FHWA does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (9)
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
14 2.4 NOISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or receptor by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receptor, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receptor concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three elements.
2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor.
Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. (9)
2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (10)
2.7 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (11), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment).
Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions.
As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
15 on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration.
Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment.
The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-B illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
16 EXHIBIT 2-B: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
17 3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas.
Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.
3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared according to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (12) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.
3.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are developed near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise-sensitive land uses must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
3.3 CITY OF UPLAND GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT
The City of Upland has adopted a Noise section in its Safety Element of the General Plan to protect its residents, labor force, and visitors from the harmful effects of noise by establishing exterior and interior noise standards. (13) The noise-related policies in the Safety Element help mitigate potential noise impacts by requiring the implementation of noise reduction techniques in site design and construction to ensure the compatibility of land uses. Mobile sources of noise, such as vehicles and aircraft, are also regulated by the enforcement of Upland’s noise standards. To
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
18 protect City of Upland residents from excessive noise, the Noise Element contains the following policies:
Policy SAF-1.1 Exterior Noise Standards. Require noise mitigation for all development where the projected exterior noise levels exceed those shown in Table SAF-1, to the extent feasible.
Policy SAF-1.2 Exterior Incremental Noise Standards. Require noise mitigation for all development that increases existing noise levels by more than the allowable increment shown in Table SAF-4, to the extent feasible.
Policy SAF-1.3 Interior Noise Standards. Require new development to include noise mitigation to assure acceptable interior noise levels appropriate to the land use type: 45 dBA Ldn for residential, transient lodgings, hospitals, nursing homes, and other uses where people normally sleep; and 45 dBA Ldn (peak hour) for office buildings and similar uses.
Policy SAF-1.4 Location of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses. Prevent noise-sensitive land uses (schools, medical centers and hospitals, senior centers, and residences) from locating in areas with noise levels that exceed those considered normally acceptable for each land use unless measures can be implemented to reduce noise to acceptable levels.
Policy SAF-1.5 Noise Impact Study. Require a noise impact study to evaluate impacts of projects that may exceed 65 Ldn as part of the design review process.
Policy SAF-1.6 Acoustical Study. Require an acoustical study for all new residential developments that lie within the 65 Ldn noise contour on the Future Noise Contour Map, to ensure indoor levels will not exceed City standards. In addition, the City shall continue to enforce the California Building Code for indoor noise levels.
Policy SAF-1.7 Noise Reduction in Site Design. Require measures that attenuate exterior and/or interior noise levels to acceptable levels to be incorporated into all development projects where current and/or future outdoor noise levels may be unacceptable.
Require noise reduction features, the focus of which shall be on site design techniques, so long as they do not conflict with the goals of the Community Character Element. Techniques include:
a. Designing landscaped building setbacks to serve as a buffer between the noise source and receptor.
b. Placing noise-tolerant land uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between the noise source and receptor. c. Orienting buildings to shield noise-sensitive outdoor spaces from a noise source.
d. Locating bedrooms or balconies on the sides of buildings facing away from noise sources.
e. Utilizing noise barriers, such as landscaped berms, to reduce adverse noise levels in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas, avoiding sound walls wherever possible.
Policy SAF-1.8 Vibration Screening Distances. Require new residential and commercial projects located adjacent to major freeways, rail lines or other vibration sources to follow
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
19 the Federal Transit Administration screening distance criteria.
Policy SAF-1.9 Alternative to Sound Walls. Encourage the use of design strategies and other noise reduction methods along transportation corridors in lieu of sound walls to mitigate noise impacts and enhance aesthetics.
Policy SAF-1.10 Motor Vehicle Code. Enforce California Motor Vehicle Code that prohibits amplified sound that can be heard 50 feet or more from a vehicle, and that addresses excessive exhaust noise.
Policy SAF-1.11 Construction Noise. Require construction projects to adhere to the City’s construction hours and incorporate measures to minimize impacts.
Policy SAF-1.12 Operational Noise. Require mixed-use, commercial, and industrial projects to mitigate operational noise impacts to adjoining sensitive uses to meet operational noise thresholds.
This noise study has been prepared consistent with the policies of the General Plan Safety Element for noise. Policies SAF-1.1 and SAF-1.3 identify the exterior and interior noise level standards for the Project.
3.3.1 TRANSPORTATION NOISE STANDARDS
The City of Upland General Plan Safety Element, Policy SAF-1.1 identifies the transportation- related exterior noise compatibility standards for different land uses in Table SAF-1, as shown on Exhibit 3-A. For single-family residential land use such as the Project, the normally acceptable exterior noise level standard is 60 dBA CNEL. Further, Policy SAF-1.3, Interior Noise Standards, identifies an interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL for new residential developments. (13)
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
20 EXHIBIT 3-A: EXTERIOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS
Source: City of Upland General Plan Safety Element, Noise Section, Table SAF-1.
3.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from the construction of the Upland Colonies Project, noise from construction activities are typically limited to the hours of operation established under the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code noise standards for construction are described below for the City of Upland to determine the potential noise impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations.
Construction activities are limited to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, per Section 9.40.100(K) of the City of Upland Municipal Code. Section 9.40.040 of the City of Upland Municipal Code establishes the base ambient noise level for residential land uses, such as those adjacent to the Project site, of 55 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and identifies the maximum allowable noise levels at residential use based on the 55 dBA base ambient noise level standard plus 20 dBA, which equates to a 75 dBA Lmax noise level standard.
For this noise study, the Project-related construction noise level impacts are evaluated based on the maximum allowable noise level for residential uses of 75 dBA Lmax as outlined in the Municipal Code. (6) Appendix 3.1 includes the City of Upland Municipal Code noise standards.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
21 3.5 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION STANDARDS
The City of Upland has not identified or adopted specific vibration level standards. However, the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides guidelines for maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. These guidelines allow 80 VdB for residential uses and buildings where people normally sleep. (11) Operational and construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type.
Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generate little or no ground vibration. Large bulldozers and loaded trucks can cause perceptible vibration levels proximate sensitive receiver locations. The FTA guidelines of 80 VdB for sensitive land uses provide a substantiated basis for determining the relative significance of potential Project-related vibration impacts due to on-site operational and construction activities.
3.6 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN
Cable Airport is located approximately 2.6 miles southwest of the Project site, and the Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport is located roughly 4.2 miles south of the Project site.
Further, the Project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise level contour boundaries of both airports, and as such, does not require specific exterior or interior noise abatement measures to reduce potential aircraft-related noise levels.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
22 This page intentionally left blank
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
23 4 METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the future on-site noise environment, and potential Project-related construction noise and vibration impacts.
4.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The estimated roadway noise impacts from vehicular traffic were calculated using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. (14) The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). In California the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (15) Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period.
4.2 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
The on-site roadway parameters including the ADT volumes used for this analysis are presented on Table 4-1. Based on the City of Upland General Plan Circulation Element, Figure CIR-1, 15th Street is classified as a 2-lane Collector. (16) To predict the future on-site noise environment at the Project site, the ADT volumes identified in the City of Upland General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Table 5.4-4, were utilized for 15th Street. (17) The traffic volumes shown on Table 4-1 reflect future long-range traffic conditions needed to assess the future on- site traffic noise environment and to identify potential mitigation measures (if any) that address the worst-case future conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, soft site conditions were used to analyze the on-site traffic noise impacts for the Project study area. Soft site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation.
Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (18)
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
24 TABLE 4-1: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
Roadway Lanes Classification1
Roadway
Capacity
Volume2
Speed
Limits
(mph)2
Site
Conditions3
15th St. 2 Collector 14,100 35 Soft
1 Source: City of Upland General Plan Circulation Element, Figure CIR-I. 2 Source: City of Upland General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Table 5.4-4. 3 Posted speed limit.
Table 4-2 presents the time of day vehicle splits by vehicle type, and Table 4-3 presents the total traffic flow distributions (vehicle mixes) used for this analysis. The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobile, medium trucks and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA Model based on roadway types.
TABLE 4-2: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Time Period Vehicle Type
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
Daytime (7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.) 77.5% 84.8% 86.5%
Evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) 12.9% 4.9% 2.7%
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) 9.6% 10.3% 10.8%
Total: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Typical Southern California vehicle mix.
TABLE 4-3: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) Roadway Total % Traffic Flow Total Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks All Roadways 97.42% 1.84% 0.74% 100.00%
Source: Typical Southern California vehicle mix.
To predict the future noise environment at residential lots within the Project site, coordinate information was collected to identify the noise transmission path between the noise source and receiver. The coordinate information is based on the Project site plan showing the plotting of the residential building in relationship to 15th Street as previously shown on Exhibit 1-B.
The exterior noise level impacts at the outdoor living areas (backyards) and first-floor building facade were placed five feet above the pad elevation. All second-floor receivers were located 14 feet above the proposed finished floor elevation.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
25 4.3 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment is expected to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Paving
• Building Construction
• Architectural Coating
This construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of Project construction. The construction reference noise level measurements represent a list of typical construction activity noise levels. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to in excess of 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet. Hard site conditions are used in the construction noise analysis which result in noise levels that attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from a point source (i.e. construction equipment). For example, a noise level of 80 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receiver would be reduced to 74 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receiver and would be further reduced to 68 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receiver.
The construction stages used in this analysis are consistent with the data used to support the construction emissions in the Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (19)
4.4 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe the Project construction noise levels, measurements were collected for similar activities at several construction sites. Table 4-4 provides a summary of the construction reference noise level measurements. Since the reference noise levels were collected at varying distances, all construction noise level measurements presented on Table 4-4 have been adjusted to describe a common reference distance of 50 feet.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
26 TABLE 4-4: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
ID Noise Source
Reference
Measurement
Duration
Reference
Distance
To Source
(Feet)
Reference
Noise Levels
@ Reference
Distance
(dBA Lmax)
Reference
Noise Levels
@ 50 Feet
(dBA Lmax)5
1 Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity1 0:01:15 30' 68.1 63.7 1 Dozer Activity1 0:01:00 30' 76.4 72.0
2 Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities2 0:01:00 30' 74.8 70.4 3 Foundation Trenching2 0:01:01 30' 74.9 70.5
4 Rough Grading Activities2 0:05:00 30' 84.8 80.4
5 Framing3 0:02:00 30' 76.7 72.3
6 Concrete Mixer Truck Movements4 0:01:00 50' 73.1 73.1 7 Concrete Paver Activities4 0:01:00 30' 75.7 71.3
8 Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities4 0:01:00 30' 76.3 71.9 9 Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes4 0:00:20 50' 78.8 78.8 10 Concrete Mixer Pour Activities4 1:00:00 50' 79.2 79.2 1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/14/15 at a business park construction site located at the northwest corner of Barranca Parkway and Alton Parkway in the City of Irvine.
2 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/20/15 at a construction site located in Rancho Mission Viejo. 3 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/20/15 at a residential construction site located in Rancho Mission Viejo. 4 Reference noise level measurements were collected from a nighttime concrete pour at an industrial construction site, located at 27334 San Bernardino Avenue in the City of Redlands, between 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on 7/1/15. 5 Reference noise levels are calculated at 50 feet using a drop off rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (point source).
4.5 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
This analysis focuses on the potential ground-borne vibration associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities. Ground-borne vibration levels from automobile traffic are generally overshadowed by vibration generated by heavy trucks that roll over the same uneven roadway surfaces. However, due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity.
However, while vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 4-5. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the human response (annoyance) using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the human response (annoyance) associated with vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: LVdB(D) = LVdB(25 ft) – 30log(D/25)
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
27 TABLE 4-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Vibration Decibels (VdB)
at 25 feet1
Small bulldozer 58
Jackhammer 79
Loaded Trucks 86
Large bulldozer 87
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
28 This page intentionally left blank
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
29 5 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
A noise impact analysis has been completed to determine the noise exposure levels that would result from off-site traffic noise sources, and to identify potential noise mitigation measures that would achieve acceptable Project exterior and interior noise levels. The primary source of traffic noise affecting the Project site is anticipated to be from 15th Street. The Project would also be exposed to nominal traffic noise from the Project’s internal local streets. However, due to the distance, topography and low traffic volume/speed, traffic noise from these roads will not make a substantive contribution to ambient noise conditions. This section analyzes on-site exterior and interior noise levels at the Project buildings.
5.1 EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model, and the parameters outlined in Section 4, the expected future exterior noise levels at the outdoor living areas (backyards) were calculated.
Table 5-1 presents a summary of future exterior noise level impacts at the outdoor living areas (backyards). The on-site transportation noise level impacts indicate that the unmitigated exterior noise levels will range from 57.0 to 66.4 dBA CNEL, as shown on Table 5-1. The on-site traffic noise analysis calculations are provided in Appendix 5.1.
To satisfy the City of Upland 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard for residential land use, the construction of minimum 6-foot high noise barriers is required for outdoor living areas (backyards) of lots adjacent to 15th Street. With the recommended noise barriers shown on Exhibit ES-A, the future exterior noise levels will range from 57.0 to 59.5 dBA CNEL. This noise analysis shows that the recommended noise barriers will satisfy the City of Upland 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use. The recommended noise barrier height represents the minimum wall and/or berm combination height required to satisfy the City of Upland exterior noise level standards.
TABLE 5-1: UNMITIGATED EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Lot Roadway
Unmitigated
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Mitigated
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Barrier
Height
(Feet)
Threshold
(dBA CNEL)
Threshold
Exceeded?
Southwest Lots 15th St. 66.4 59.5 6.0 60 No
South Lots 15th St. 66.4 59.5 6.0' 60 No
Southeast Lots 15th St. 57.0 –1 –1 –1 No
1 No exterior noise mitigation required to satisfy the exterior noise level standard.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
30 5.2 INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
To ensure that the interior noise levels comply with the City of Upland interior noise level standards, future noise levels were calculated at the first and second-floor building façades.
5.2.1 NOISE REDUCTION METHODOLOGY
The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building facade and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction will provide a Noise Reduction (NR) of approximately 12 dBA with "windows open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." (9; 20) However, sound leaks, cracks and openings within the window assembly can greatly diminish its effectiveness in reducing noise. Several methods are used to improve interior noise reduction, including: (1) weather-stripped solid core exterior doors; (2) upgraded dual glazed windows; (3) mechanical ventilation/air conditioning; and (4) exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut outs or openings.
5.2.2 INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL ASSESSMENT
Tables 5-2 and 5-3 show that the buildings within the Project will require a windows-closed condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). Table 5-2 shows that the future exterior noise levels at the first-floor building façades are expected to range from 56.7 to
60.0 dBA CNEL. The first-floor interior noise level analysis shows that the City of Upland 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise level standard can be satisfied using standard windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of 27.
Table 5-3 shows the future unmitigated noise levels at the second-floor building façades are expected to range from 56.7 to 64.9 dBA CNEL. The second-floor interior noise level analysis shows that the City of Upland 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise level standard can be satisfied using standard windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of 27.
TABLE 5-2: FIRST-FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS (CNEL)
Lot
Noise
Level at
Façade1
Required
Interior
NR2
Estimated
Interior
NR3
Upgraded
Windows4
Interior
Noise
Level5
Threshold Threshold
Exceeded?
Southwest Lots 60.0 15.0 25 No 35.0 45 No
South Lots 60.0 15.0 25 No 35.0 45 No
Southeast Lots 56.7 11.7 25 No 31.7 45 No
1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction to satisfy the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for residential use. 3 Minimum interior noise reduction with standard building construction. 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. "NR" = Noise Reduction
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
31 TABLE 5-3: SECOND-FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS (CNEL) Lot
Noise
Level at
Façade1
Required
Interior
NR2
Estimated
Interior
NR3
Upgraded
Windows4
Interior
Noise
Level5
Threshold Threshold
Exceeded?
Southwest Lots 64.9 19.9 25 No 39.9 45 No
South Lots 64.9 19.9 25 No 39.9 45 No
Southeast Lots 56.7 11.7 25 No 31.7 45 No
1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction to satisfy the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for residential use. 3 Minimum interior noise reduction with standard building construction. 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. "NR" = Noise Reduction
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
32 This page intentionally left blank
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
33 6 RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for short-term construction noise impacts, the following receiver locations shown on Exhibit 6-A were identified as representative locations for focused analysis.
Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include: schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noise-sensitive land uses typically include: multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, out-patient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments.
Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include: industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, natural open space, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.
Sensitive receivers near the Project site include existing single-family residential homes to the north, south, east, and west of the Project site, as described below. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures.
R1: Located approximately 158 feet north of the Project site, R1 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) across an existing golf course from the Project site.
R2: Located approximately 48 feet south of the Project site, R2 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) of homes on 15th Street.
R3: Located approximately 83 feet south of the Project site, R3 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) south of 15th Street.
R4: Located approximately 86 feet south of the Project site, R4 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) south of 15th Street.
R5: Located approximately 10 feet west of the Project site, R5 represents the existing residential outdoor living areas (backyards) adjacent to the western Project site boundaries.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
34 EXHIBIT 6-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
35 7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 7-A shows the construction activity boundaries in relation to the nearby sensitive receiver locations.
EXHIBIT 7-A: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
36 7.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels, previously shown on Table 4-4, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Tables 7-1 to 7-5 present the short-term construction noise levels for each stage of construction. Table 7-6 provides a summary of the construction noise levels by stage at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Based on the stages of construction, the noise impacts associated with the proposed Project are expected to create temporarily high noise levels at the nearby receiver locations. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, this analysis shows the highest noise impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity to each receiver location.
TABLE 7-1: SITE PREPARATION MOBILE EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Reference Construction Activity1
Reference
Noise Level
@ 50 Feet
(dBA Lmax)
Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity 63.7
Dozer Activity 72.0
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet: 72.0
Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)
R1 168' -10.5 0.0 61.4
R2 58' -1.3 0.0 70.7
R3 93' -5.4 0.0 66.6
R4 96' -5.7 -5.0 61.3
R5 20' 8.0 -5.0 74.9
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers in the Project study area.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
37 TABLE 7-2: GRADING MOBILE EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Reference Construction Activity1
Reference
Noise Level
@ 50 Feet
(dBA Lmax)
Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity 63.7
Dozer Activity 72.0
Rough Grading Activities 80.4
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet: 80.4
Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)
R1 168' -10.5 0.0 69.8
R2 58' -1.3 0.0 79.1
R3 93' -5.4 0.0 75.0
R4 96' -5.7 -5.0 69.7
R5 20' 8.0 -5.0 83.3
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers in the Project study area.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
38 TABLE 7-3: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STATIONARY EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Reference Construction Activity1
Reference
Noise Level
@ 50 Feet
(dBA Lmax)
Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities 70.4
Foundation Trenching 70.5
Framing 72.3
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet: 72.3
Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)
R1 168' -10.5 0.0 61.7
R2 58' -1.3 0.0 71.0
R3 93' -5.4 0.0 66.9
R4 96' -5.7 -5.0 61.6
R5 20' 8.0 -5.0 75.2
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers in the Project study area.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
39 TABLE 7-4: PAVING MOBILE EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Reference Construction Activity1
Reference
Noise Level
@ 50 Feet
(dBA Lmax)
Concrete Mixer Truck Movements 73.1
Concrete Paver Activities 71.3
Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities 71.9
Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes 78.8
Concrete Mixer Pour Activities 79.2
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet: 79.2
Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)
R1 168' -10.5 0.0 68.7
R2 58' -1.3 0.0 77.9
R3 93' -5.4 0.0 73.8
R4 96' -5.7 -5.0 68.5
R5 20' 8.0 -5.0 82.2
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers in the Project study area.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
40 TABLE 7-5: ARCHITECTURAL COATING STATIONARY EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Reference Construction Activity1
Reference
Noise Level
@ 50 Feet
(dBA Lmax)
Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities 70.4
Framing 72.3
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet: 72.3
Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)
R1 168' -10.5 0.0 61.7
R2 58' -1.3 0.0 71.0
R3 93' -5.4 0.0 66.9
R4 96' -5.7 -5.0 61.6
R5 20' 8.0 -5.0 75.2
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers in the Project study area.
7.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The construction noise analysis shows that the highest construction noise levels will occur when equipment is operating at the closest point to each receiver location. As shown on Table 7-6, the unmitigated construction noise levels experienced at the nearby sensitive receiver locations are expected to range from 61.3 to 83.3 dBA Lmax.
TABLE 7-6: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Location1
Unmitigated Construction Stage Noise Level (dBA Lmax)
Site
Preparation Grading Paving Building
Construction
Architectural
Coating
Highest
Noise Levels2
R1 61.4 69.8 68.7 61.7 61.7 69.8
R2 70.7 79.1 77.9 71.0 71.0 79.1
R3 66.6 75.0 73.8 66.9 66.9 75.0
R2 61.3 69.7 68.5 61.6 61.6 69.7
R3 74.9 83.3 82.2 75.2 75.2 83.3
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 7-A.
2 Highest construction noise levels across all stages of Project construction.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
41 Table 7-7 shows the highest construction noise levels at the potentially impacted receiver locations are expected to approach 83.3 dBA Lmax and will exceed the City of Upland Municipal Code construction noise level standards of 75 dBA Lmax during temporary Project construction activities at receiver locations R2 and R5. The noise impact due to unmitigated Project construction noise levels is, therefore, considered a potentially significant impact at R2 and R5 and mitigation measures are required to reduce the noise levels generated during temporary Project construction activities.
TABLE 9-7: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver
Location1
Highest Construction
Activity Noise Levels2
Noise Level
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 69.8 75 No
R2 79.1 75 Yes
R3 75.0 75 No
R4 69.7 75 No
R5 83.3 75 Yes
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 7-A.
2 Highest construction noise levels as shown on Table 7-6. 3 Construction noise standards based on the maximum 20 dBA above the 55 dBA base ambient noise level standard for residential land use (City of Upland Municipal Code, Section 9.40.040 and 9.40.070) 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level thresholds? Temporary construction noise mitigation measures are therefore required to reduce the impacts at receiver locations R2 and R5. This includes mitigation in the form of engine compartment sound dampening mats or blankets for large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds), and a 50-foot buffer for large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks, as shown on Exhibit 7-A. The construction noise mitigation measures are outlined in the Executive Summary.
The construction noise analysis presents a conservative approach with the highest noise-level- producing equipment for each stage of Project construction operating at the closest point from primary construction activity to the nearby sensitive receiver locations. This scenario is unlikely to occur during typical construction activities and likely overstates the construction noise levels which will be experienced at each receiver location. With the construction noise mitigation measures identified in this noise study, shown on Exhibit 7-A, the worst-case construction noise level increases at the nearby residential receivers would be reduced.
As shown on Table 7-8, the temporary construction noise mitigation measures will reduce the construction noise levels at the potentially impacted receiver locations to range from 64.7 to 74.1 dBA Lmax and will satisfy the 75 dBA Lmax threshold for noise-sensitive receiver locations.
Therefore, the noise impact due to Project construction is considered a less than significant impact with mitigation.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
42 TABLE 7-8: MITIGATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Receiver
Location1
Highest
Construction
Noise Levels2
50-Foot
Buffer
Attenuation
Engine
Mat/Blanket
Attenuation
Mitigated
Construction
Noise Levels
Noise Level
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 69.8 0.0 -5.0 64.8 75 No
R2 79.1 0.0 -5.0 74.1 75 No
R3 75.0 0.0 -5.0 70.0 75 No
R4 69.7 0.0 -5.0 64.7 75 No
R5 83.3 -8.0 -5.0 70.4 75 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 7-A.
2 Highest construction noise levels as shown on Table 7-7. 3 Construction noise standards based on the maximum 20 dBA above the 55 dBA base ambient noise level standard for residential land use (City of Upland Municipal Code, Section 9.40.040 and 9.40.070) 4 Do the mitigated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level thresholds?
7.3 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. The proposed Project’s construction activities most likely to cause vibration impacts are:
• Heavy Construction Equipment: Although all heavy mobile construction equipment has the potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to buildings, the vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage. • Trucks: Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem.
Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration. Construction activities that would have the potential to generate low levels of ground-borne vibration within the Project site include grading. Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided on Table 4-5 and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA, it is possible to estimate the Project vibration impacts. Table 7-9 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations.
Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the FTA, a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference level of 87 VdB at 25 feet. At distances ranging from 20 to 168 feet from primary Project construction activities, construction vibration levels are expected to range from 62.2 to 89.9 VdB, as shown on Table 7-9. Using the construction vibration assessment methods provided by the FTA, Project construction vibration levels will exceed the FTA 80 VdB threshold at receiver location R5, and therefore, is considered a potentially significant impact.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
43 TABLE 7-9: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Receiver
Location1
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)
Receiver Vibration Levels (VdB)2
Threshold
Exceeded?3 Small
Bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 168' 33.2 54.2 61.2 62.2 62.2 No
R2 58' 47.0 68.0 75.0 76.0 76.0 No
R3 93' 40.9 61.9 68.9 69.9 69.9 No
R4 96' 40.5 61.5 68.5 69.5 69.5 No
R5 20' 60.9 81.9 88.9 89.9 89.9 Yes
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 7-A.
2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 4-5. 3 Does the highest vibration level exceed the FTA maximum acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB? Therefore, the use of large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks within 50 feet of nearby land uses shall be prohibited unless the vibration levels are shown to be less than the 80 VdB FTA threshold. The 50-foot buffer zone for large mobile equipment (greater than 80,000 pounds) and loaded trucks is shown on Exhibit 7-A and outlined in the Executive Summary. Table 7-10 shows the mitigation Project construction vibration levels with the 50-foot buffer zone. With the recommended mitigation measures in this study, the Project-related vibration impacts at the nearby receiver locations represents a less than significant impact during the worst-case construction activities at the Project site.
Further, vibration levels at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating at the Project site perimeter.
TABLE 7-10: MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Receiver
Location1
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)
Mitigated Receiver Vibration Levels (VdB)2
Threshold
Exceeded?3 Small
Bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R5 50' 49.0 70.0 77.0 78.0 78.0 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 7-A.
2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 4-5. 3 Does the highest vibration level exceed the FTA maximum acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB?
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
44 This page intentionally left blank
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
45 8 REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Acoustical Consideration. Noise Barrier Design Handbook. [Online] [Cited: November 28, 2016.] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_barriers/design_construction/design/design0
3.cfm.
2. Harris, Cyril M. Noise Control in Buildings. s.l. : McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.
3. Caterpillar. Caterpillar Perfomance Handbook. January 2017.
4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Construction Noise Special Report. Federal Highway Administration. [Online] [Cited: February 8, 2017.] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm .
5. University of Massachusetts Lowell, Department of Work Environment. The Use of Noise Dampening Mats to Reduce Heavy-Equipment Noise. September 2016.
6. City of Upland. Municipal Code, Chapter 9.40 Unnecessary Noise.
7. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.
8. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.
9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. June, 1995.
10. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.
11. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. FTA-VA-90-1003-06.
12. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidlines 2003. October 2003.
13. City of Upland. General Plan Safety Element, Noise. September 2015.
14. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108.
15. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03.
16. City of Upland. General Plan Circulation Element. September 2015.
17. —. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. September 2015.
18. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June 1995. FHWA/CA/TL-95/23.
19. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Upland Colonies Air Quality Impact Analysis. July 2018.
20. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. May 2011.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
46 This page intentionally left blank
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
47 9 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Upland Colonies Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5979.
Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
260 E. Baker Street, Suite 200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(949) 336-5979
[email protected]
EDUCATION
Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • December, 1993 Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • June, 1992
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
PE – Registered Professional Traffic Engineer – TR 2537 • January, 2009 AICP – American Institute of Certified Planners – 013011 • June, 1997–January 1, 2012 PTP – Professional Transportation Planner • May, 2007 – May, 2013 INCE – Institute of Noise Control Engineering • March, 2004
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
ITE – Institute of Transportation Engineers
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of Orange • February, 2011 FHWA-NHI-142051 Highway Traffic Noise Certificate of Training • February, 2013
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
48 This page intentionally left blank
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
APPENDIX 3.1:
CITY OF UPLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
Upland Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames
Title 9 PUBLIC PEACE AND WELFARE
Chapter 9.40 UNNECESSARY NOISE
Note
* Prior ordinance history: Ord. 947.
9.40.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and standards for the regulation of noise levels within the city. (Prior code § 5400.100)
9.40.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, specific words and phrases are defined as follows:
“Ambient noise level” means the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding any intrusive noise. “Average noise level” means the logarithmic average of noise samples taken over a specified length of time. “Commercial purpose” means the use, operation or maintenance of any sound-amplifying equipment for the purpose of advertising any business, goods, or services and/or for the purpose of advertising or attracting the attention of the public to or soliciting patronage from any performance, entertainment, exhibition or event, or for the purpose of demonstrating any such sound equipment.
“Construction material manufacturer” means any use located on the same property as the mining industry, manufacturing products including concrete, asphalt, concrete blocks, concrete pipe, roofing tile or other similar materials.
“Cumulative time period” means an additive period of time composed of individual time segments which may be continuous or interrupted.
“Decibel (dB)” means a measurement unit of sound pressure level which denotes the ratio between two quantities which are proportional to power; the number of decibels corresponding to the ratio of two amounts of power is 10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of this ratio.
“Impact noise” means the sound produced by the impact or collision of one moving object or mass with a second object or mass that is stationary or moving.
“Intrusive noise” means a sound which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise level at a given location. “Mining industry” means any industry which extracts sand and gravel resources from the ground. “Motor driven vehicle” means and includes, but is not limited to, any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, minibike, go-cart or other self-propelled vehicle, on or off road. “Noise” means any sound that is loud or disturbing or that interferes with one’s ability to hear some other sound. “Noise level” means the “A” weighted sound pressure level in decibels audible to humans obtained by using a sound level meter. The unit of noise level measurement shall be designated as dB(A). “Person” means a person, firm, association, co-partnership, joint venture, corporation, or any entity, public or private in nature.
“Simple tone noise” means a noise characterized by a predominant frequency or frequencies so that other frequencies cannot be readily distinguished.
“Sound pressure level of a sound,” in decibels, means 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of this sound to the reference pressure, which reference pressure shall be explicitly stated. (Prior code § 5400.300)
9.40.030 Noise level measurement criteria.
A. Any noise level measurement, made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall be determined by using a sound level meter that meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard Institute for sound level meters, or by using an instrument with associated recording and analyzing equipment that will provide equivalent data.
B. The factors which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. The sound level of the objectionable noise;
2. The sound level of the ambient noise;
3. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities;
4. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates;
5. The number of persons affected by the noise source;
6. The time of day or night the noise occurs;
7. The duration of the noise and its tonal, informational, or musical content;
8. Whether the noise is continuous, recurrent, or intermittent;
9. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity.
C. The above considerations shall be considered in addition to the noise levels set forth in this section in determining a violation. However, noises do not necessarily need to exceed those noise level limits to be considered unnecessary or unusual so as to cause discomfort or annoyance to persons in the area. (Prior code § 5400.400)
9.40.040 Base ambient noise level.
All ambient noise measurements shall commence at the base ambient noise levels in decibels within the respective times and zones as follows:
Decibels Time Zone Use
45 dB(A)10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m.Residential
55 dB(A)7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m.Residential
65 dB(A)Anytime Uses not specified
75 dB(A)Anytime Industrial and commercial
Actual decibel measurements exceeding the above levels at the times and within the zones corresponding thereto shall be employed as the base ambient noise level referred to in this chapter. Otherwise, no ambient noise shall be deemed to be less than the above specified levels. (Prior code § 5400.500)
9.40.050 Exterior noise level measurement.
Exterior noise levels shall be measured at any point relative to the closest point of the source of the noise at the property line on the affected property. Measurements will not be made during extraordinary times, such as during the movement of a nearby train or airplane. (Prior code § 5400.600)
9.40.060 Excessive noise unlawful.
A. It is unlawful for any person at any location to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise, when such noise causes the noise level to exceed any noise level for the cumulative time periods specified below in Section 9.40.070 and Section 9.40.080.
B. Furthermore, notwithstanding any specified noise level, it is also unlawful for any person to wilfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person residing in the area, and it is unlawful for any person in ownership or control of any premises to knowingly permit a violation of this section upon the premises. (Prior code § 5400.700)
9.40.070 Maximum residential noise levels.
Exterior noise shall be measured on the exterior of any residential property, and no noise level shall exceed the following for the duration periods specified:
Noise Level Exceeded Maximum Duration Period
Base ambient noise level (BANL)30 minutes in any hour
5 dB(A) above BANL 15 minutes in any hour
10 dB(A) above BANL 5 minutes in any hour
15 dB(A) above BANL 1 minute in any hour
20 d(B)(A) above BANL Not permitted
(Prior code § 5400.800)
9.40.080 Maximum nonresidential noise levels.
Measured on the exterior of nonresidential properties, no noise level shall exceed the respective base ambient noise levels for nonresidential land uses as determined by development standards established by the regulating agency. (Prior code § 5400.900)
9.40.090 Mining industry allowed noise levels for residential property.
A. Exemptions. This section shall supersede all the provisions of Sections 9.40.040 and 9.46.070 relative to allowed noise for mining industry.
B. Allowed Levels. The allowed maximum exterior average sound level in any hour at any property zoned for residential use shall be as follows:
Mining Industry Use and Days Allowed Times Allowed Levels
Monday—Friday:
Quarry/plant 6 a.m.—6 p.m.55 dB(A)
Construction material manufacturer 5 a.m.—6 p.m.55 dB(A)
Saturday:
Quarry/plant 7 a.m.—3 p.m.55 dB(A)
Construction material manufacturer 5 a.m.—3 p.m.55 dB(A)
All Times:
Quarry/plant 45 dB(A)
Construction material manufacturer 45 dB(A)
C. Exceptions. Exceptions may be granted in the event of a proven emergency situation or required by a public agency and written authorization is obtained from the city manager or designee prior to quarry, plant or construction
material manufacturer operations being conducted. The maximum exterior sound level at any property zoned for residential use shall not exceed 55 dB(A) during such exception.
D. Measurement Parameters.
1. Measurements shall be made to the one-tenth decibel, but shall be reported to the integer value. Values of 0.1 to 0.4 shall be rounded down to the lower integer. Values of 0.5 to 0.9 shall be rounded up to the higher integer.
2. If measurements are made for more than one hour, the subsequent measurements shall be made on one hour increments. For a series of one hour measurements, compliance shall be determined by the highest average hourly reading. Measurements shall be started on the hour and ended on the hour.
3. Measurements of less than one hour, extrapolated to one hour shall not be used to determine compliance or violation.
4. Measurements will be made on the “A” weighted scale and a slow response.
E. Measurement Location. Exterior measurements shall be at locations on residential property that are considered accessible for normal and usual outdoor human activity and which are intended and used for such purposes. The receptor shall be placed at five feet above the ground surface and 10 feet from any reflecting surface.
When these conditions cannot be met, the actual location utilized shall be noted in writing.
F. Calibration. Prior to, and after each measurement period, the sound level meter shall be calibrated using an acoustic calibrator of the coupler type.
Each year, the sound level meter and acoustic calibrator shall be calibrated to manufacturers’ specifications by a laboratory subject to the National Bureau of Standards.
G. Ambient Noise.
1. Compliance applies only to the alleged offending source. Preferably, an ambient measurement will be measured at the affected property while the source is nonoperational and immediately prior to or immediately after the measurement period while the source is operating. If this procedure is not feasible and the source operation cannot be controlled, then an ambient measurement will be made at some other location in the vicinity that in the judgment of the measurement technician is representative of the situation at the affected property.
2. If the ambient level is below the source level by 10 dB(A) or more, then the measurement with the source in operation will be equivalent to the source alone within the prescribed resolution. If the ambient level is less than 10 dB(A) lower than the source, then the ambient level will be subtracted logarithmically from the combined measurement to determine the actual source level. If the ambient level is higher than the source level, the source will be considered to comply regardless of its level.
H. Record Keeping. When applying this section for an enforcement action, the following information, as a minimum, shall be recorded and maintained:
1. The date, start time, stop time, average “A” weighted sound level, meter scale when appropriate, slow or fast response, equipment manufacturer, model number and serial number, and the ambient sound level shall be documented.
2. The location of the source, the property measurement point, and the ambient measurement point shall be documented and scaled dimensionally. Photos are not necessary but encouraged. The data sheets shall be signed and dated by the measurement technician.
3. In the event auxiliary recording devices are used for data storage, then settings shall be listed, and equipment type, manufacturer, model and serial number listed.
I. Verification. If data is to be used for enforcement purposes, the technician will certify in writing that the data recorded was from the source and that all procedures have been complied with in the measurement and reporting. (Prior code § 5400.950)
9.40.100 Noises prohibited—Unnecessary noise standard.
The following acts are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises in violation of this chapter, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive, namely:
A. Impact, Repetitive and Tone Noise Levels. In the event any offending noise consists primarily of impact noise, repetitive noise, or simple tone noise, each of the maximum permitted noise levels specified in Section
9.40.070 of this chapter shall be reduced by five dB(A).
B. Radios, Televisions and Stereos. It is unlawful for any person to play, use, operate, or permit to be played, used or operated any radio, television set, musical instrument, phonograph, stereophonic equipment, jukebox or other machine or device for producing, reproducing or amplifying sound when audible at a distance of 50 feet or more from the source of the sound and/ or when audible within any other residence or establishment.
C. Hawkers and Peddlers. It is unlawful for any person to sell anything by public outcry within any area of the city. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the selling by outcry of merchandise, food, and beverages at licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses, and other similar licensed public entertainment events.
D. Drums and Musical Instruments. It is unlawful for any person to use any drum or other percussion or musical instrument or device of any kind for the purpose of attracting attention by the creation of noise within the city.
E. Machinery, Equipment, Fans and Air Conditioning. It is unlawful for any person to operate, cause to operate or permit the operation of any machinery, equipment, device, pump, fan, compressor, air conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to create any noise which would cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient noise base level by five dB(A).
F. Motor Driven Vehicles. It is unlawful for any person to operate any motor driven vehicle within the city that, due to the nature of the operation of the vehicle, or due to the operating condition of the vehicle, or due to any modification made to the vehicle, generates noise so that a reasonable person is caused discomfort or annoyance.
G. Horns, Signaling Devices. It is unlawful for any person to cause the sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle, street car or other motor driven vehicle on any street or public place of the city, except as a danger warning; to create by means of any such signaling device any unreasonably loud or harsh sound; and to create the sounding of any such device for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time. It is unlawful for any person to use any signaling device except one operated by hand or electricity; to use any horn, whistle or other device operated by engine exhaust; or to use any such signaling device when traffic is for any reason held up.
H. Loudspeakers, Amplifiers for Advertising. It is unlawful for any person to use, operate or permit to be played, used, or operated any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound amplifier, or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound which is cast upon the public streets for the purpose of commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any building or structure.
I. Yelling, Shouting. It is unlawful for any person to yell, shout, hoot, whistle, or sing on the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time or place so as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort, or repose of any persons in the vicinity.
J. Animals and Fowl. It is unlawful for any person to keep or maintain, or to permit such activity, upon any premises owned, or occupied, or controlled by such person any animal or fowl otherwise permitted to be kept which, by any sound, cry, or behavioral noise, causes annoyance or discomfort to a reasonable person in any residential neighborhood.
K. Exhaust. It is unlawful for any person to discharge into the open air the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal combustion engine, motorboat, or motor driven vehicle except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises therefrom.
L. Loading, Unloading, Opening Boxes. It is unlawful for any person to create any loud and excessive noise in connection with loading or unloading any vehicle or the opening and destruction of bales, boxes, crates, and containers.
M. Construction or Repairing of Buildings. It is unlawful for any person to engage in or permit the erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration or repair of any building other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with a permit from the building inspector, which permit may be granted for a period not to exceed three days or less while the emergency continues, and which permit may be renewed for periods of three days or less while the emergency continues. If the building inspector should determine that the public health and safety will not be
impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavation of streets and highways within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and if he or she shall further determine that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest, he or she may grant permission for such work to be done within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the work.
N. Metal Rails, Pillars and Columns—Transportation Thereof. It is unlawful for any person to transport rails, pillars or columns of iron, steel or other material over and along streets and other public places upon carts, trays, cars, trucks, or in any other manner so loaded as to cause loud noises or as to disturb the peace and quiet of such streets or other public places.
O. Hammers, Etc. It is unlawful for any person to operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. any steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or other appliance, the use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise.
P. Blowers. It is unlawful for any person to operate any noise-creating blower or power fan or any internal combustion engine, the operation of which causes noise due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such blower or fan is muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden such noise.
Q. Exceptions. This section shall not apply to persons who are participants in events for which they have obtained a valid permit from the city and have been authorized to engage in such conduct. (Prior code § 5400.1000)
9.40.110 Violation a misdemeanor.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined an amount not exceeding $1,000.00, or be imprisoned in the city or county jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such hereunder. (Prior code § 5400.1100)
9.40.120 Manner of enforcement.
Violations of this chapter shall be prosecuted in the same manner as other misdemeanor violations of the city’s code. (Prior code § 5400.1200)
9.40.130 Additional remedy—Injunction.
As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any device, instrument, vehicle or machinery in violation of any provision hereof and which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or peace of residents in the area shall be deemed, and is declared to be, a public nuisance and may be subject to abatement summarily by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Prior code § 5400.1300)
View the mobile version.
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
APPENDIX 5.1:
ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Upland
Job Number:11824
Analyst:A. WolfeLot No:0
Road Name:15th St.
Scenario:Backyard With Wall
14,100
10%
33.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
43.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation:0.0
Barrier Elevation:0.0
Pad Elevation:0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15
Autos:15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height:6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet
feet
35 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
0.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:77.5%12.9%9.6%97.42%
84.8%4.9%10.3%1.84%
86.5%2.7%10.8%0.74%
0.87 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
10.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0
-7.430 -10.430
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
-16.61 0.92 -1.20 -6.560 -9.560
-20.56 0.95 -1.20 -5.100 -8.100
0.29 0.17
0.01 Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
43.050
42.710
42.562
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
65.4 63.5 61.7 55.7 64.964.3
57.9 59.2
56.4 50.1 48.5 57.257.0
57.8 48.8 50.0 58.558.4
Vehicle Noise:66.9 65.2 62.2 57.3 66.465.9
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
58.0 56.1 54.3 48.3 57.556.9
51.4 54.1
49.9 43.5 42.0 50.750.4
52.7 43.7 44.9 53.453.3
Vehicle Noise:60.1 58.4 55.0 50.6 59.559.1
74.83 80.05
65.11 Road Grade:0.0%
feet
Thursday, July 19, 2018
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Upland
Job Number:11824
Analyst:A. WolfeLot No:0
Road Name:15th St.
Scenario:Backyard With Wall
14,100
10%
33.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
43.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation:0.0
Barrier Elevation:0.0
Pad Elevation:0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15
Autos:15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height:6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet
feet
35 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
0.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:77.5%12.9%9.6%97.42%
84.8%4.9%10.3%1.84%
86.5%2.7%10.8%0.74%
0.87 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
10.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0
-7.430 -10.430
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
-16.61 0.92 -1.20 -6.560 -9.560
-20.56 0.95 -1.20 -5.100 -8.100
0.29 0.17
0.01 Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
43.050
42.710
42.562
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
65.4 63.5 61.7 55.7 64.964.3
57.9 59.2
56.4 50.1 48.5 57.257.0
57.8 48.8 50.0 58.558.4
Vehicle Noise:66.9 65.2 62.2 57.3 66.465.9
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
58.0 56.1 54.3 48.3 57.556.9
51.4 54.1
49.9 43.5 42.0 50.750.4
52.7 43.7 44.9 53.453.3
Vehicle Noise:60.1 58.4 55.0 50.6 59.559.1
74.83 80.05
65.11 Road Grade:0.0%
feet
Thursday, July 19, 2018
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Upland
Job Number:11824
Analyst:A. WolfeLot No:0
Road Name:15th St.
Scenario:Backyard With Wall
14,100
10%
170.0
NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
180.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation:0.0
Barrier Elevation:0.0
Pad Elevation:0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15
Autos:15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height:0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet
feet
35 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
0.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:77.5%12.9%9.6%97.42%
84.8%4.9%10.3%1.84%
86.5%2.7%10.8%0.74%
-8.45
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
10.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
-16.61 -8.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.56 -8.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-1.09
-1.15
-1.31
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
179.969
179.920
179.925
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
56.1 54.2 52.4 46.4 55.655.0
48.6 49.8
47.1 40.7 39.2 47.947.6
48.4 39.4 40.6 49.149.0
Vehicle Noise:57.6 55.8 52.9 48.0 57.056.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
56.1 54.2 52.4 46.4 55.655.0
48.6 49.8
47.1 40.7 39.2 47.947.6
48.4 39.4 40.6 49.149.0
Vehicle Noise:57.6 55.8 52.9 48.0 57.056.6
74.83 80.05
65.11 Road Grade:0.0%
feet
Thursday, July 19, 2018
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Upland
Job Number:11824
Analyst:A. WolfeLot No:0
Road Name:15th St.
Scenario:First Floor With Wall
14,100
10%
33.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
53.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation:0.0
Barrier Elevation:0.0
Pad Elevation:0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15
Autos:15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height:6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet
feet
35 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
0.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:77.5%12.9%9.6%97.42%
84.8%4.9%10.3%1.84%
86.5%2.7%10.8%0.74%
-0.49
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
20.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0
-7.600 -10.600
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
-16.61 -0.44 -1.20 -6.480 -9.480
-20.56 -0.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
0.32 0.16
0.00 Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
53.025
52.686
52.745
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
64.1 62.2 60.4 54.3 63.663.0
56.6 57.8
55.1 48.7 47.2 55.955.6
56.4 47.4 48.6 57.157.0
Vehicle Noise:65.6 63.8 60.9 56.0 65.064.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
56.5 54.6 52.8 46.7 56.055.4
50.1 57.8
48.6 42.2 40.7 49.449.1
56.4 47.4 48.6 57.157.0
Vehicle Noise:60.6 59.0 54.2 51.2 60.059.7
74.83 80.05
65.11 Road Grade:0.0%
feet
Thursday, July 19, 2018
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Upland
Job Number:11824
Analyst:A. WolfeLot No:0
Road Name:15th St.
Scenario:First Floor With Wall
14,100
10%
33.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
53.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation:0.0
Barrier Elevation:0.0
Pad Elevation:0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15
Autos:15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height:6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet
feet
35 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
0.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:77.5%12.9%9.6%97.42%
84.8%4.9%10.3%1.84%
86.5%2.7%10.8%0.74%
-0.49
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
20.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0
-7.600 -10.600
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
-16.61 -0.44 -1.20 -6.480 -9.480
-20.56 -0.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000
0.32 0.16
0.00 Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
53.025
52.686
52.745
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
64.1 62.2 60.4 54.3 63.663.0
56.6 57.8
55.1 48.7 47.2 55.955.6
56.4 47.4 48.6 57.157.0
Vehicle Noise:65.6 63.8 60.9 56.0 65.064.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
56.5 54.6 52.8 46.7 56.055.4
50.1 57.8
48.6 42.2 40.7 49.449.1
56.4 47.4 48.6 57.157.0
Vehicle Noise:60.6 59.0 54.2 51.2 60.059.7
74.83 80.05
65.11 Road Grade:0.0%
feet
Thursday, July 19, 2018
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Upland
Job Number:11824
Analyst:A. WolfeLot No:0
Road Name:15th St.
Scenario:First Floor With Wall
14,100
10%
170.0
NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
190.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation:0.0
Barrier Elevation:0.0
Pad Elevation:0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15
Autos:15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height:0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet
feet
35 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
0.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:77.5%12.9%9.6%97.42%
84.8%4.9%10.3%1.84%
86.5%2.7%10.8%0.74%
-8.80
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
20.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
-16.61 -8.80 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.56 -8.80 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.54
-0.60
-0.76
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
189.971
189.924
189.929
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
55.7 53.8 52.1 46.0 55.354.6
48.2 49.5
46.7 40.4 38.8 47.547.3
48.1 39.0 40.3 48.848.6
Vehicle Noise:57.2 55.5 52.6 47.7 56.756.2
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
55.7 53.8 52.1 46.0 55.354.6
48.2 49.5
46.7 40.4 38.8 47.547.3
48.1 39.0 40.3 48.848.6
Vehicle Noise:57.2 55.5 52.6 47.7 56.756.2
74.83 80.05
65.11 Road Grade:0.0%
feet
Thursday, July 19, 2018
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Upland
Job Number:11824
Analyst:A. WolfeLot No:0
Road Name:15th St.
Scenario:Second Floor With Wall
14,100
10%
33.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
53.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation:0.0
Barrier Elevation:0.0
Pad Elevation:0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15
Autos:15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height:6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad):14.0 feet
feet
35 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
0.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:77.5%12.9%9.6%97.42%
84.8%4.9%10.3%1.84%
86.5%2.7%10.8%0.74%
-0.66
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
20.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
-16.61 -0.60 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.56 -0.48 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.26
-0.46
-1.24
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
54.489
53.944
52.999
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
63.9 62.0 60.2 54.2 63.462.8
56.4 57.8
54.9 48.6 47.0 55.755.5
56.4 47.3 48.6 57.156.9
Vehicle Noise:65.4 63.7 60.7 55.8 64.964.4
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
63.9 62.0 60.2 54.2 63.462.8
56.4 57.8
54.9 48.6 47.0 55.755.5
56.4 47.3 48.6 57.156.9
Vehicle Noise:65.4 63.7 60.7 55.8 64.964.4
74.83 80.05
65.11 Road Grade:0.0%
feet
Thursday, July 19, 2018
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Upland
Job Number:11824
Analyst:A. WolfeLot No:0
Road Name:15th St.
Scenario:Second Floor With Wall
14,100
10%
33.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
53.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation:0.0
Barrier Elevation:0.0
Pad Elevation:0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15
Autos:15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height:6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad):14.0 feet
feet
35 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
0.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:77.5%12.9%9.6%97.42%
84.8%4.9%10.3%1.84%
86.5%2.7%10.8%0.74%
-0.66
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
20.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
-16.61 -0.60 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.56 -0.48 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.26
-0.46
-1.24
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
54.489
53.944
52.999
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
63.9 62.0 60.2 54.2 63.462.8
56.4 57.8
54.9 48.6 47.0 55.755.5
56.4 47.3 48.6 57.156.9
Vehicle Noise:65.4 63.7 60.7 55.8 64.964.4
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
63.9 62.0 60.2 54.2 63.462.8
56.4 57.8
54.9 48.6 47.0 55.755.5
56.4 47.3 48.6 57.156.9
Vehicle Noise:65.4 63.7 60.7 55.8 64.964.4
74.83 80.05
65.11 Road Grade:0.0%
feet
Thursday, July 19, 2018
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Upland
Job Number:11824
Analyst:A. WolfeLot No:0
Road Name:15th St.
Scenario:Second Floor With Wall
14,100
10%
170.0
NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
190.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation:0.0
Barrier Elevation:0.0
Pad Elevation:0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15
Autos:15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height:0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad):14.0 feet
feet
35 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
0.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:77.5%12.9%9.6%97.42%
84.8%4.9%10.3%1.84%
86.5%2.7%10.8%0.74%
-8.81
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
20.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0
0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType
-16.61 -8.81 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.56 -8.80 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-3.81
-3.98
-4.41
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
190.421
190.265
190.000
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
55.7 53.8 52.1 46.0 55.254.6
48.2 49.5
46.7 40.3 38.8 47.547.3
48.1 39.0 40.3 48.848.6
Vehicle Noise:57.2 55.5 52.5 47.6 56.756.2
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
55.7 53.8 52.1 46.0 55.254.6
48.2 49.5
46.7 40.3 38.8 47.547.3
48.1 39.0 40.3 48.848.6
Vehicle Noise:57.2 55.5 52.5 47.6 56.756.2
74.83 80.05
65.11 Road Grade:0.0%
feet
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Upland Colonies Noise Impact Analysis
11824-02 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
Villa Serena Specific Plan City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019
Appendices
APPENDIX I:
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Upland Colonies
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF UPLAND
PREPARED BY:
Aric Evatt, PTP
[email protected]
(949) 660-1994 x204
Charlene So, PE
[email protected]
(949) 660-1994 x222
Connor Paquin
[email protected]
(949) 660-1994 x6635
JUNE 6, 2019
11822-04 TIA Report.docx
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... III APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... V LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................ VII LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... IX LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. XI 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Study Area Intersections ............................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Analysis Findings ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms ..................................................................................... 6
1.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 7
1.7 On-Site Roadway and Site Access Improvements ........................................................................ 8 2 METHODOLOGIES .................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Level of Service ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 13
2.4 Minimum Level of Service (LOS) ................................................................................................. 14
2.5 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................... 15 3 AREA CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Existing Circulation Network ....................................................................................................... 17
3.2 City of Upland General Plan Circulation Element ....................................................................... 17
3.3 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................... 23
3.4 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................. 23
3.5 Existing (2018) Traffic Counts ..................................................................................................... 23
3.6 Existing (2018) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis ..................................................... 31
3.7 Existing (2018) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................... 31
3.8 Recommended Improvements ................................................................................................... 31 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC .................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 35
4.3 Modal Split .................................................................................................................................. 35
4.4 Project Trip Assignment .............................................................................................................. 35
4.5 Background Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 39
4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic ................................................................................................ 39
4.7 Near-Term Conditions ................................................................................................................. 39
4.8 Horizon Year (2040) Volume Development ................................................................................ 42 5 E+P TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 45
5.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 45
5.2 E+P Traffic Volume Forecasts ...................................................................................................... 45
5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 45
5.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 45
5.5 Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements ........................................................................ 45
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
iv
6 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................... 49
6.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 49
6.2 Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project Volume Forecasts ........................................ 49
6.3 Opening Year Cumulative (2020) With Project Volume Forecasts ............................................. 49
6.4 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 49
6.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 54
6.6 Peak Hour Queuing Analysis ....................................................................................................... 54
6.7 Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements ........................................................................ 54 7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 57
7.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 57
7.2 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Volume Forecasts ............................................................ 57
7.3 Horizon Year (2040) With Project Volume Forecasts ................................................................. 57
7.4 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 57
7.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 62
7.6 Peak Hour Queuing Analysis ....................................................................................................... 62
7.7 Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements ........................................................................ 62 8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 65
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
v
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED SCOPING AGREEMENT
APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS – JULY 2018
APPENDIX 3.2: TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS FOR LOCAL SCHOOLS APPENDIX 3.3: EXISTING (2018) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 3.4: EXISTING (2018) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 5.1: E+P CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 5.2: E+P CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.3: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL
WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.4: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL
WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.5: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS QUEUING
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.6: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS
WORKSHEETS
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) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.4: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.5: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS
WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.6: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
vi
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
vii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN .................................................................................................. 2 EXHIBIT 1-2: LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................................ 5 EXHIBIT 1-3: SUMMARY OF DEFICIENT INTERSECTIONS BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO .................................. 9 EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 10 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS ....................... 18 EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF UPLAND GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT .............................................. 19 EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF UPLAND GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS ....................................... 20 EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT ....................... 21 EXHIBIT 3-5: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS ........................................ 22 EXHIBIT 3-6: CITY OF UPLAND BICYCLE ROUTES .................................................................................. 24 EXHIBIT 3-7: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BIKE ROUTES ................................................................ 25 EXHIBIT 3-8: CITY OF UPLAND PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ....................................... 26 EXHIBIT 3-9: CITY OF UPLAND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ....................................................................... 27 EXHIBIT 3-10: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ................................................................................. 28 EXHIBIT 3-11: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES .......................................................................................... 29 EXHIBIT 12: SCHOOLS ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 30 EXHIBIT 3-13: EXISTING (2018) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................. 32 EXHIBIT 3-14: EXISTING (2018) SUMMARY OF LOS ............................................................................. 33 EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................................................................................... 37 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 38 EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP ............................................................... 40 EXHIBIT 5-1: E+P TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................... 46 EXHIBIT 5-2: E+P SUMMARY OF LOS ................................................................................................... 47 EXHIBIT 6-1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................. 50 EXHIBIT 6-2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................ 51 EXHIBIT 6-3: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITHOUT PROJECT SUMMARY OF LOS .................. 52 EXHIBIT 6-4: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITH PROJECT SUMMARY OF LOS......................... 55 EXHIBIT 7-1: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................... 58 EXHIBIT 7-2: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................................. 59 EXHIBIT 7-3: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT SUMMARY OF LOS ....................................... 60 EXHIBIT 7-4: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT SUMMARY OF LOS .............................................. 63
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
viii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................................................................................. 4 TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS ................................................................... 11 TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS .............................................................. 13 TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ............................................................ 14 TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2018) CONDITIONS ............................................ 34 TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............................................................................ 36 TABLE 4-2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY ......................................................... 41 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR E+P CONDITIONS ................................................................ 48 TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) CONDITIONS ............. 53 TABLE 6-2: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) CONDITIONS 56 TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS ................................... 61 TABLE 7-2: PEAK HOUR QUEUING SUMMARY FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS ..................... 64
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
x
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
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
E+P Existing Plus Project
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
N/A Not Applicable
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NP No Project (or Without Project)
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Upland Colonies
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
v/c Volume to Capacity
Vphgpl Vehicles Per Hour Green Per Lane
WP With Project
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
xii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
1 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Upland Colonies development (referred to as “Project”) located north of 15th Street and west of Alta Avenue in the City of Upland, as shown on Exhibit 1-1.
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and to recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions. This traffic study has been prepared in accordance with the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Guidelines for CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Reports (Appendix B, 2016 Update) and the approved traffic study scoping agreement which is provided in Appendix 1.1 of this report. (1)
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is proposed to consist of 66 single family detached residential dwelling units. For the purposes of this traffic study, the Project is anticipated to be developed in a single phase with an Opening Year of 2020. Vehicular traffic access will be provided via Driveways 1 and 2 on 15th Street, both providing full access (i.e., no turning movement restrictions).
Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. (2) The Project is estimated to generate a net total of 623 trip-ends per day on a typical weekday with approximately 50 AM peak hour trips and 65 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.
1.2 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
• Existing (2018)
• Existing plus Project (E+P)
• Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project
• Opening Year Cumulative (2020) With Project
• Horizon Year (2040) Without Project
• Horizon Year (2040) With Project
1.2.1 EXISTING (2018) CONDITIONS
Existing (2018) conditions represents the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared.
1 Page 2649 of 3744
2 Page 2650 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
3 1.2.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Existing Plus Project (E+P) analysis determines circulation system deficiencies that would occur on the existing roadway system in the scenario of the Project being placed upon Existing conditions. The E+P analysis is intended to identify the project-specific traffic impacts associated solely with the development of the proposed Project based on a comparison of the E+P traffic conditions to Existing (2018) conditions.
1.2.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) CONDITIONS
The Opening Year Cumulative (2020) traffic conditions analysis determines the potential near- term cumulative circulation system deficiencies. As directed by City of Upland staff, an ambient growth factor of 4.04% from Existing conditions for 2020 conditions is utilized to account for other cumulative development projects in conjunction with background traffic growth for Opening Year Cumulative traffic conditions (at 2.0% per year, compounded annually over 2 years).
The adopted Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (April 2016) growth forecasts for City of Upland identifies projected growth in population from 74,700 in 2012 to 81,700 in 2040, or a 9.37% increase over the 28-year period. The change in population equates to roughly a 0.32 percent growth rate, compounded annually. Similarly, growth over the same 28-year period in households is projected to increase by 11.58 percent, or 0.39 percent annual growth rate. Finally, growth in employment over the same 28-year period is projected to increase by
37.22 percent, or a 1.14 percent annual growth rate. (3) In other words, the use of a 2.0 percent per year growth rate would likely overstate, as opposed to understate, potential impacts as the rate is in excess of the anticipated regional growth.
1.2.4 HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS
Traffic projections for Horizon Year (2040) with Project conditions were derived from the SCAG transportation model. The Horizon Year (2040) conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if improvements funded through regional transportation mitigation fee programs, such as the County’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, or other approved funding mechanisms can accommodate the long-range cumulative traffic at the target level of service (LOS) identified by the City of Upland (lead agency). If the planned and funded improvements can provide the target LOS, then the Project’s payment into established fee programs will be considered as cumulative mitigation. Other improvements needed beyond the “funded” improvements (such as localized improvements to non-DIF facilities) are identified as such.
3 Page 2651 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
4 1.3 STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS
The following 7 study area intersections listed in Table 1-1 and shown on Exhibit 1-2 were selected for this TIA based on where the Project is anticipated to contribute 50 or more peak hour trips, or if the intersection provides access to the Project.
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction CMP
Intersection?
1 Campus Avenue & 14th Street City of Upland No
2 Driveway 1 & 15th Street – Future Intersection City of Upland No 3 Driveway 2 & 15th Street – Future Intersection City of Upland No 4 Alta Avenue & 15th Street City of Upland No
5 Alta Avenue & 14th Street City of Upland No
6 Alta Avenue & Foothill Boulevard (SR-66) City of Upland No 7 Grove Avenue & Foothill Boulevard (SR-66) City of Upland, City of Rancho Cucamonga
Yes
The “50 peak hour trip” criterion utilized by the City of Upland is consistent with the methodology employed by the County of San Bernardino, and generally represents a minimum number of trips at which a typical intersection would have the potential to be substantively impacted 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 impact (i.e., study area). Some study area intersections have been added at the request of City staff through the scoping process, although the Project is anticipated to contribute less than 50 peak hour trips.
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 impacts, and improve air quality.
Counties within California have developed CMPs with varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. The County of San Bernardino CMP became effective with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 and updated most recently in 2007. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) adopted the 2007 CMP for the County of San Bernardino in December 2007. (1) There is 1 study area intersection identified as a CMP facility (see Table 1-1).
4 Page 2652 of 3744
5 Page 2653 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
6 1.4 ANALYSIS FINDINGS
This section provides a summary of the intersection analysis results for Existing (2018), E+P, Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without and With Project, and Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project conditions.
1.4.1 EXISTING (2018) CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Existing (2018) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements are necessary.
1.4.2 E+P CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak hours with the addition of Project traffic under E+P traffic conditions. As such, no improvements are necessary.
1.4.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without and With Project traffic conditions. As such, no improvements are necessary.
1.4.4 HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions. As such, no improvements are necessary.
1.5 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Transportation improvements within the City of Upland are funded through a combination of direct project mitigation, development impact fee programs or fair share contributions, such as the City of Upland Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. Identification and timing of needed improvements is generally determined through local jurisdictions based upon a variety of factors.
1.5.1 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 SBCTA and concluded that each jurisdiction should include a regional fee component in their local programs to meet the Measure “I” requirement. The regional component assigns specific facilities and cost sharing formulas to each jurisdiction and was most recently updated in September 2017. Revenues collected through these programs are used in tandem with Measure “I” funds to deliver projects identified in the Nexus Study. 6 Page 2654 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
7 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, including within the City of Upland.
1.5.2 CITY OF UPLAND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) PROGRAM The City of Upland adopted the latest update to their DIF program in February 2015. Fees from new residential, commercial and industrial development are collected to fund Measure “I” compliant regional facilities as well as local 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 restricted use 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 Engineering 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. The City also uses this data to ensure that the improvements listed on the facilities list are constructed before the LOS falls below the LOS performance standards adopted by the City. In this way, the improvements are constructed before the LOS falls below the City’s LOS performance thresholds. The City’s DIF program establishes a timeline to fund, design, and build the improvements.
1.5.3 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION
Project mitigation may include a combination of fee payments to established programs (e.g., DIF), construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City of Upland’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.
1.6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section provides a summary of Project impacts and associated mitigation measures. Section 2 Methodologies provides information on the methodologies used in the analyses and Section 5 E+P Traffic Analysis and Section 6 Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Traffic Analysis include the detailed analyses. All the study area intersections operate at acceptable level of service (LOS) for all the scenarios (see Exhibit 1-3). Therefore, there are no direct or cumulative impacts. 7 Page 2655 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
8 1.7 ON-SITE ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
This section summarizes Project site access and on-site circulation recommendations. Vehicular traffic access will be provided via Driveways 1 and 2 on 15th Street, both providing full access (i.e., no turning movement restrictions).
Roadway improvements necessary to provide site access and on-site circulation are assumed to be constructed in conjunction with site development and are described below. These improvements are required to be in place prior to occupancy.
Construction of on-site and site adjacent improvements are recommended to occur in conjunction with adjacent Project development activity or as needed for Project access purposes.
1.7.1 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended site access driveway improvements for the Project are described below.
Exhibit 1-4 illustrates the on-site and site adjacent recommended roadway lane improvements.
Construction of on-site and site adjacent improvements shall occur in conjunction with adjacent Project development activity or as needed for Project access purposes.
Driveway 1 & 15th Street (#2) – Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
Northbound Approach: Not Applicable (N/A)
Southbound Approach: One shared left-right turn lane.
Eastbound Approach: One shared left-through lane.
Westbound Approach: One shared through-right turn lane.
Driveway 2 & 15th Street (#3) – Install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics:
Northbound Approach: N/A
Southbound Approach: One shared left-right turn lane.
Eastbound Approach: One shared left-through lane.
Westbound Approach: One shared through-right turn lane.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.
Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to Caltrans and City of Upland sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.
8 Page 2656 of 3744
9 Page 2657 of 3744
10 Page 2658 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
11 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies described are generally consistent with City of Upland 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 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (5) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.
2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Upland and City of Rancho Cucamonga require signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM 6th Edition. 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 final 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 in Table 2-1. Study area intersections have been evaluated using the Synchro (Version 10) analysis software package.
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 11 Page 2659 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
12 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 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
Consistent with Appendix B of the San Bernardino County CMP, the following saturation flow rates, in vehicles per hour green per lane (vphgpl), will be utilized in the traffic analysis for signalized intersections:
Existing and Opening Year Cumulative Traffic Conditions:
• Exclusive through: 1800 vphgpl
• Exclusive left: 1700 vphgpl
• Exclusive right: 1800 vphgpl
• Exclusive dual left: 1600 vphgpl
• Exclusive triple left: 1500 vphgpl
Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection 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 queue 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 PHFs 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. (5)
12 Page 2660 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
13 2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Upland and City of Rancho Cucamonga require the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described the HCM 6th Edition. (5) 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 6
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.
2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by the California Department of Transportation (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 TIA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) for all unsignalized study area intersections. (6)
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 indicate that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. (6) Specifically, this TIA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic conditions. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TIA 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.
13 Page 2661 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
14 As shown in Table 2-3, traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following unsignalized study area intersections during the peak weekday conditions wherein the Project is anticipated to contribute the highest trips:
TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
2 Driveway 1 & 15th Street – Future Intersection City of Upland 3 Driveway 2 & 15th Street – Future Intersection City of Upland 4 Alta Avenue & 15th Street City of Upland
5 Alta Avenue & 14th Street City of Upland
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 E+P Traffic Analysis, Section 6 Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Traffic Analysis and Section 7 Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Analysis 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 necessarily 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 MINIMUM LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
2.4.1 CITY OF UPLAND
The City of Upland 2015 General Plan has established minimum LOS standards. Specifically, General Plan Policies CIR-1.1c and CIR-1.1d establish minimum standards to be applied o any TIA, as follows:
• Policy CIR-1.1c: Strive to maintain LOS D at all intersections outside of the Downtown Specific Plan area and the Transit Priority Roadways except where such improvements are physically infeasible or would negatively impact bicyclists, pedestrians, or transit patrons. • Policy CIR-1.1d: Strive to maintain LOS E at all intersections within the Downtown Specific Plan area and intersections along the Transit Priority Roadways.
2.4.2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Per the City’s General Plan Mobility Element, the City of Rancho Cucamonga allows LOS D to be used as the maximum acceptable threshold for study area intersections and roadways.
2.4.3 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CMP
Per the San Bernardino County CMP, the acceptable LOS of service for CMP intersections is LOS E or better. The intersection of Grove Avenue and Foothill Boulevard is a CMP intersection. 14 Page 2662 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
15 2.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
To determine whether the addition of Project traffic at a study intersection results in a significant impact, the following thresholds of significance will be utilized:
• Any study intersection that is operating at a LOS A, B, C, or D for any study scenario without Project traffic in which the addition of Project traffic causes the intersection to degrade to LOS E or LOS F shall mitigate that impact so as to bring the intersection back to at least LOS D. • Any study intersection that is operating at LOS E or LOS F for any study scenario without Project traffic shall mitigate any impacts so as to bring the intersection back to at least LOS D.
Cumulative traffic impacts are created as a result of a combination of the proposed Project together with other future developments contributing to the overall traffic impacts requiring additional improvements to maintain acceptable level of service operations with or without the Project. A Project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact can be reduced to less-than- significant if the Project is required to implement or fund its fair share of improvements designed to alleviate its cumulatively considerable contribution to the impact. Cumulatively considerable is defined as the addition of 50 or more peak hour trips, and all facilities that would receive 50 or more peak hour trips from the Project are evaluated in this report.
15 Page 2663 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
16 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
16 Page 2664 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
17 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Upland General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
The study area includes a total of 7 intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1-2 where the Project is anticipated to contribute 50 or more peak hour trips, or have been added at the City’s request. 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 UPLAND GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
3.2.1 CITY OF UPLAND
As previously noted, the Project site is located within the City of Upland. Exhibit 3-2 shows the City of Upland General Plan Circulation Element, and Exhibit 3-3 illustrates the City of Upland General Plan roadway cross-sections.
The roadway classifications and planned (ultimate) roadway cross-sections of the major roadways within the City of Upland in the vicinity of the proposed Project as identified on the City’s General Plan Circulation Element are described subsequently.
Major Arterial can accommodate four travel lanes and may have raised or painted medians.
These roadways experience the most traffic within the City. The following study area roadway within the City of Upland is classified as a Major Arterial:
• Foothill Boulevard (SR-66)
The following study area roadway within the City of Upland is classified as a Secondary Arterial:
• Campus Avenue
3.2.2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Exhibit 3-4 shows the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Circulation Element, and Exhibit 3-5 illustrates the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan roadway cross-sections. The roadway classifications and planned (ultimate) roadway cross-sections of the major roadway within the study area, as identified on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Circulation Element, is described subsequently.
Foothill Boulevard (SR-66) – Foothill Boulevard (SR-66) is classified as a Major Divided Arterial and Major Divided Highway with 120 to 146-foot right-of-way on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Circulation Element.
17 Page 2665 of 3744
18 Page 2666 of 3744
19 Page 2667 of 3744
20 Page 2668 of 3744
21 Page 2669 of 3744
22 Page 2670 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
23 3.3 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Exhibit 3-6 illustrates the City of Upland bicycle routes, which identifies Campus Avenue with existing Class III bike lanes that will be upgraded to Class II bike lanes. Campus Avenue is a priority bike route based on its proximity to Downtown and to improve the connections between Downtown and Memorial Park. Foothill Boulevard (SR-66) is identified with Class II/III bike lanes within the study area. Exhibit 3-7 illustrates the City of Rancho Cucamonga bike routes, which shows Class II bike lanes along Foothill Boulevard (SR-66) within the study area. Exhibit 3-8 identifies the City of Upland parks, trails and recreation facilities. Exhibit 3-9 shows the City of Upland’s pedestrian facilities. A portion of Campus Avenue, north of 14th Street, is identified as a pedestrian needs priority area where sidewalks may be incomplete. Existing pedestrian facilities within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-10.
3.4 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 Foothill Road (SR-66) (and a portion of Campus Avenue and Grove Avenue) via Route 66 and Route 86. The existing bus routes provided within the area by Omnitrans are shown on Exhibit 3-11. Transit 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.
3.5 EXISTING (2018) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in July 2018. 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) The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix
3.1. These raw turning volumes have been flow conserved between intersections with limited access, no access and where there are currently no uses generating traffic (e.g., between ramp- to-arterial intersections, etc.).
The weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour count data is representative of typical 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. However, local schools were not in session. As such, local school traffic was manually added to the study area intersections based on the current student population for the 2017 school year and based on the service boundary for each school (see Appendix 3.2 of this report for trip generation and distribution assumptions). The resulting school only weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-12.
23 Page 2671 of 3744
24 Page 2672 of 3744
25 Page 2673 of 3744
26 Page 2674 of 3744
27 Page 2675 of 3744
28 Page 2676 of 3744
29 Page 2677 of 3744
30 Page 2678 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
31 School only traffic volumes were added to the count data collected in July 2018 to establish the existing baseline traffic volumes for the purposes of this analysis. Existing (2018) conditions represents the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared plus the local school traffic. Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-13.
3.6 EXISTING (2018) CONDITIONS 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 in Table 3-1 which indicates that all study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS.
Consistent with Table 3-1, a summary of the peak hour intersection LOS for Existing conditions are shown on Exhibit 3-14. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.3 of this TIA.
3.7 EXISTING (2018) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. There are currently no study area intersections that warrant a traffic signal.
Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 3.4.
3.8 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
All study area intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS (LOS B or better) for Existing (2018) traffic conditions. As such, no intersection improvements have been recommended.
31 Page 2679 of 3744
32 Page 2680 of 3744
33 Page 2681 of 3744
Ta
b
l
e
3‐1
De
l
a
y
2 Le
v
e
l
of
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
(
s
e
c
s
.
)
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
#
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
3 L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
A
M
P
M
A
M
P
M
1 C
a
m
p
u
s
Av
.
& 14
t
h
St.
TS
1 2
0 1
2 0
1 1
0 1
1 0
9 .
2 8
.
6 A
A
2 D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
1 & 15
t
h
St
.
3 D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
2 & 15
t
h
St
.
4 A
l
t
a
Av
.
& 15
t
h
St.
CSS
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
8 .
7 8
.
6 A
A
5 A
l
t
a
Av
.
& 14
t
h
St.
CSS
0 1
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
12 .
4 1
1 .
6 B
B
6 A
l
t
a
Av
.
& Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
.
(S
R
‐66)
T
S
0 1
0 1
1 0
1 2
d
1 2
0 13
.
8 1
4 .
1 B
B
7 G
r
o
v
e
Av
.
& Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
.
(S
R
‐66)
T
S
1 1
1 1
2 1
1 2
1 1
2 0
14 .
8 1
8 .
6 B
B
1 Wh
e
n
a ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
is
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
,
th
e
la
n
e
ca
n
ei
t
h
e
r
be
st
r
i
p
e
d
or
un
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
.
To
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
as
a ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
th
e
r
e
mu
s
t
be
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
wi
d
t
h
fo
r
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
i
n
g
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
to
tr
a
v
e
l
ou
t
s
i
d
e
th
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
s
2 3
TS
= Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Si
g
n
a
l
;
CS
S
= Cr
o
s
s
‐St
r
e
e
t
St
o
p
Pe
r
th
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
(6
t
h
Ed
i
t
i
o
n
)
,
ov
e
r
a
l
l
av
e
r
a
g
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
de
l
a
y
an
d
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
ar
e
sh
o
w
n
fo
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wi
t
h
a tr
a
f
f
i
c
si
g
n
a
l
or
al
l
‐
wa
y
st
o
p
co
n
t
r
o
l
.
Fo
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
wi
t
h
cr
o
s
s
‐st
r
e
e
t
st
o
p
co
n
t
r
o
l
,
th
e
de
l
a
y
an
d
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
fo
r
th
e
wo
r
s
t
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
(o
r
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
sh
a
r
i
n
g
a
il
l)
h
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
fo
r
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
(2
0 1
8 )
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
L
=
Le
f
t
;
T
=
Th
r
o
u
g
h
;
R
=
Ri
g
h
t
;
d
=
De
f
a
c
t
o
Ri
g
h
t
‐Tu
r
n
La
n
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
La
n
e
s
1 Fu
t
u
r
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fu
t
u
r
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
34 Page 2682 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
35 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 up to 66 single family detached residential dwelling units. For the purposes of this traffic study, the Project anticipated to be developed in a single phase with an anticipated opening year of 2020.
4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development.
Trip generation rates used to estimate Project traffic are shown in Table 4-1. The trip generation rates used for this analysis are based upon information collected by the ITE as provided in their Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. (2) For purposes of this analysis, ITE land use code 210 (Single Family Detached) is used to derive site specific trip generation estimates.
Trip generation rates are shown in Table 4-1 along with the Project trip generation summary. As shown in Table 4-1, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 623 trip-ends per day with 50 AM peak hour trips and 65 PM peak hour trips.
4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. Exhibit 4-1 illustrates the passenger car distribution patterns.
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips to be reduced by 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 alternative travel modes would reduce the forecasted traffic volumes.
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 peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-2.
35 Page 2683 of 3744
Table 4‐1
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Code Units2 In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Residential Detached 210 DU 0.19 0.56 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44 Project Quantity Units
2 In Out Total In Out Total
Upland Colonies 66 DU 13 37 50 41 24 65 623
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition (2017). 2 DU = Dwelling Units
Project Trip Generation Summary
Daily
Project Trip Generation Rates
Project Trip Generation Summary
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
36 Page 2684 of 3744
37 Page 2685 of 3744
38 Page 2686 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
39 4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon a background (ambient) growth factor of 2.0% per year, compounded over 2 years. The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate traffic growth. The total ambient growth is 4.04% for 2020 traffic conditions. This ambient growth rate is added to existing (2018) traffic volumes to account for area-wide growth for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) traffic conditions.
4.6 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines require that other reasonably foreseeable development projects which are either approved or being processed concurrently in the study area also be included as part of a cumulative analysis scenario. The cumulative project list includes known and foreseeable projects that are anticipated to contribute traffic to the study area intersections. Cumulative projects anticipated to contribute measurable traffic (i.e. 50 or more peak hour trips) to study area intersections. Any additional traffic generated by other projects not on the cumulative projects list is accounted for through background ambient growth factors that have been applied to the peak hour volumes at study area intersections as discussed in Section 4.5 Background Traffic.
Lastly, the cumulative projects list in this study is also consistent with other traffic studies for recently approved projects in the City of Upland. Exhibit 4-3 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown in Table 4-2. If applicable, the traffic generated by cumulative projects was manually added to the Opening Year Cumulative (2020) forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects in Table 4-2 are reflected as part of the background traffic.
4.7 NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS
The “buildup” approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast the Opening Year Cumulative (2020) traffic conditions. An ambient growth factor of 4.04% accounts for background (area-wide) traffic increases that occur over time up to the year 2020 from the year 2018. Project traffic is added to assess Opening Year Cumulative (2020) With Project traffic conditions. The 2020 roadway networks are similar to the Existing conditions roadway network with the exception of future roadways and intersections proposed to be developed by the Project.
39 Page 2687 of 3744
40 Page 2688 of 3744
Table 4‐2
ID Project Name Land Use1 Quantity Units2
U1 Colonies at San Antonio Specific Plan Multifamily Housing 263 DU U2 Upland hills Country Club SFDR 68 DU
U3 Tierra Altas Apartments Multifamily (Mid‐rise) Housing 61 DU U4 Spanish Trails SFDR 39 DU
U5 Claremont University Consortium Athletic Fields General Light Industrial 652.018 TSF RC1 11553 E. Foothill Boulevard Private Gym 4.724 TSF
RC2 10319 Dorset Street Employee Training Facility 9.113 TSF RC3 8976 Foothill Boulevard Restaurant 2.750 TSF
RC4 9581 Business Center Drive Indoor Cycling Facility 1.465 TSF RC5 8419 Haven Avenue Fitness Studio 2.276 TSF
1 SFDR = Single Family Detached Residential
2 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Cumulative Development Land Use Summary
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Upland
41 Page 2689 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
42 The near-term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
• Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project
o Existing 2018 volumes Plus School Traffic
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%)
o Cumulative Only Traffic
• Opening Year Cumulative (2020) With Project
o Existing 2018 volumes Plus School Traffic
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%)
o Cumulative Only Traffic
o Project Traffic
4.8 HORIZON YEAR (2040) VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
Traffic projections for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project conditions were derived from the SCAG traffic model using accepted procedures for model forecast refinement and smoothing.
The traffic forecasts reflect the area-wide growth anticipated between Existing conditions and Horizon Year 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 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. The SCAG traffic model 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 255), 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 future Horizon Year peak hour turning movements were then reviewed by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for reasonableness, and in some cases, were adjusted to achieve reasonable growth for 2040 traffic conditions. The result of this traffic forecasting procedure is a series of traffic volumes which are suitable for traffic operations analysis.
42 Page 2690 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
43 The Project only traffic forecasts have been generated by applying the trip generation, distribution and traffic assignment calculations. Project traffic volumes were then added to the refined future year volumes to determine Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions.
Flow conservation checks and forecast adjustments were performed as necessary to ensure that all future traffic volume forecasts are reasonable and to ensure the flow of traffic volumes between closely spaced intersections is maintained. In order words, traffic flow between two closely spaced intersections, such as two freeway ramp 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 of this traffic forecasting procedure is a series of traffic volumes which are suitable for traffic operations analysis.
Post-processing worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) with Project traffic conditions are provided in Appendix 4.1.
43 Page 2691 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
44 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
44 Page 2692 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
45 5 E+P TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Project (E+P) conditions and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.
5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for E+P 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+P conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and at driveways).
5.2 E+P TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus Project traffic. Exhibit 5-1 shows the weekday peak hour volumes which can be expected for E+P traffic conditions.
5.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
E+P peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TIA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 5-1 and shown on Exhibit 5-2, which indicates there are no study area intersections anticipated to operate at unacceptable LOS for E+P conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for E+P traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.1 of this TIA.
5.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
There are no unsignalized study area intersections anticipated to warrant a traffic signal for E+P traffic conditions. Worksheets for E+P traffic conditions signal warrants are provided in Appendices 5.2.
5.5 DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
All study area intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for E+P traffic conditions. As such, no intersection improvements have been recommended.
45 Page 2693 of 3744
46 Page 2694 of 3744
47 Page 2695 of 3744
Table 5‐1
Traffic
# Intersection Control
2 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Campus Av. & 14th St.TS 9.2 8.6 A A 9.3 8.7 A A
2 Driveway 1 & 15th St.CSS 8.6 8.6 A A
3 Driveway 2 & 15th St.CSS 8.9 8.9 A A
4 Alta Av. & 15th St.CSS 8.7 8.6 A A 9.1 9.0 A A
5 Alta Av. & 14th St.CSS 12.4 11.6 B B 13.6 13.2 B B
6 Alta Av. & Foothill Bl. (SR‐66)TS 13.8 14.1 B B 13.9 14.2 B B 7 Grove Av. & Foothill Bl. (SR‐66)TS 14.8 18.6 B B 14.8 18.6 B B 1 2 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop; CSS = Improvement Intersection Analysis for E+P Conditions
Existing (2018)
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.
E+P
Future Intersection
Level of
Service
Level of
Service
Delay1
Future Intersection
(secs.)
Delay1
(secs.)
48 Page 2696 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
49 6 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) conditions and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.
6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) 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 Opening Year Cumulative conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and at driveways).
6.2 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUME FORECASTS To account for background traffic, other known cumulative development projects in the study area were included in addition to 4.04% of ambient growth for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project traffic conditions. The weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1.
6.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITH PROJECT VOLUME FORECASTS The Opening Year Cumulative (2020) With Project scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% and the addition of Project traffic. The weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-2.
6.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without and With Project peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TIA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6-1 for both Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without and With Project traffic conditions.
6.4.1 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS All of the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project conditions. Consistent with Table 6-1, a summary of the peak hour intersection LOS for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-3. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.1 of this TIA.
49 Page 2697 of 3744
50 Page 2698 of 3744
51 Page 2699 of 3744
52 Page 2700 of 3744
Table 6‐1
Traffic
# Intersection Control
2 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Campus Av. & 14th St. TS 9.3 8.7 A A 9.7 8.9 A A
2 Driveway 1 & 15th St.CSS 8.6 8.9 A A
3 Driveway 2 & 15th St.CSS 8.9 8.9 A A
4Alta Av. & 15th St.CSS 8.7 8.6 A A 9.1 9.0 A A
5Alta Av. & 14th St.CSS 12.6 11.8 B B 13.9 13.4 B B
6Alta Av. & Foothill Bl. (SR‐66)TS 14.2 14.6 B B 14.3 14.6 B B 7Grove Av. & Foothill Bl. (SR‐66) TS 15.0 20.1 B C 15.0 20.1 B C 1 2 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop; 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.
Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Conditions 2020 Without Project 2020 With Project
Delay1 Level of
Service
Future Intersection
Delay1 Level of
Service(secs.) (secs.)
Future Intersection
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
53 Page 2701 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
54 6.4.2 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2020) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Similarly, the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2020) With Project conditions.
Consistent with Table 6-1, a summary of the peak hour intersection LOS for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) With Project conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-4. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.2 of this TIA.
6.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
There are no study area intersections anticipated to meet traffic signal warrants for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without and With Project traffic conditions. Worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without and With Project traffic conditions signal warrants are provided in Appendices 6.3 and 6.4, respectively.
6.6 PEAK HOUR QUEUING ANALYSIS
At the request of City staff, a queuing analysis for the intersection of Campus Avenue and 14th Street in order to determine if the left turn pocket storage is sufficient for all approaches and whether the current traffic signal phasing should be modified (currently permissive phasing).
As demonstrated from the peak hour operations (see Section 6.4 of this report), the intersection of Campus Avenue and 14th Street is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the existing signal phasing. As such, no modifications have been recommended.
Table 6-2 summarizes the 95th percentile queues for the left turn lanes at Campus Avenue and 14th Street. As shown in Table 6-2, all of 95th percentile queues can be accommodated within the existing storage, with the exception of the southbound left turn lane during the PM peak hour only. Although the 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, there is sufficient storage within the striped median for vehicles to continue to stack without blocking the adjacent through lane. As such, no restriping is recommended.
Worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without and With Project traffic conditions queuing analyses are provided in Appendices 6.5 and 6.6, respectively.
6.7 DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
All study area intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Without and With Project traffic conditions. As such, no intersection improvements have been recommended.
54 Page 2702 of 3744
55 Page 2703 of 3744
Table 6‐2
Available
Stacking
Intersection Movement
4 Distance
(Feet)AM PM AM PM
Campus Av. & 14th St.NBL 100 24 19 Yes Yes 23 19 Yes Yes SBL 100 66 120 Yes Yes
2 66 142 Yes Yes
2 EBL 60 44 53 Yes Yes 44 54 Yes Yes
WBL 80 25 24 Yes Yes 28 26 Yes Yes
*BOLD = Queue length exceeds available stacking distance. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. 2 Although the 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, however, there is sufficient storage within the striped median for vehicles to continue to stack without blocking the adjacent through lane. As such, no restriping is recommended.
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Peak Hour Queuing Summary for Opening Year Cumulative (2020) Conditions 95th Percentile
Queue (Feet) Acceptable?
1 95th Percentile
Queue (Feet) Acceptable?
1 2020 With Project2020 Without Project
56 Page 2704 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
57 7 HORIZON YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Horizon Year (2040) conditions and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.
7.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Horizon Year (2040) 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 conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and at driveways).
7.2 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes the refined post-process volumes obtained from the SCAG traffic model (see Section 4.8 Horizon Year (2040) Volume Development of this TIA for a detailed discussion on the post-processing methodology). The 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 VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes the refined post-process volumes obtained from the SCAG traffic model, plus the traffic generated by the proposed Project (see Section 4.8 Horizon Year (2040) Volume Development of this TIA for a detailed discussion on the post-processing methodology). The 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.
7.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TIA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7-1 for both Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions.
7.4.1 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
All of the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Horizon Year (2040) Without Project conditions. Consistent with Table 7-1, a summary of the peak hour intersection LOS for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-3. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.1 of this TIA.
57 Page 2705 of 3744
58 Page 2706 of 3744
59 Page 2707 of 3744
60 Page 2708 of 3744
Table 7‐1
Traffic
# Intersection Control
2 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Campus Av. & 14th St.TS 12.7 14.6 B B 13.2 15.4 B B
2 Driveway 1 & 15th St.CSS 8.6 8.6 A A
3 Driveway 2 & 15th St.CSS 8.9 8.9 A A
4 Alta Av. & 15th St.CSS 8.8 8.6 A A 9.1 9.0 A A
5 Alta Av. & 14th St.CSS 15.0 16.3 C C 16.9 19.8 C C
6 Alta Av. & Foothill Bl. (SR‐66)TS 23.6 25.9 C C 24.4 26.4 C C 7 Grove Av. & Foothill Bl. (SR‐66) TS 16.0 29.0 B C 16.0 29.1 B C 1 2 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop; CSS = Improvement Future Intersection
Future Intersection
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
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.
Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2040) Conditions 2040 Without Project 2040 With Project
Delay1 Level of
Service
Delay1 Level of
Service(secs.) (secs.)
61 Page 2709 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
62 7.4.2 HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Similarly, the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Horizon Year (2040) With Project conditions. Consistent with Table 7-1, a summary of the peak hour intersection LOS for Horizon Year (2040) With Project conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-4. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.2 of this TIA.
7.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
There are no study area intersections anticipated to meet traffic signal warrants for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions. Worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions signal warrants are provided in Appendices 7.3 and 7.4, respectively.
7.6 PEAK HOUR QUEUING ANALYSIS
At the request of City staff, a queuing analysis for the intersection of Campus Avenue and 14th Street in order to determine if the left turn pocket storage is sufficient for all approaches and whether the current traffic signal phasing should be modified (currently permissive phasing). As demonstrated from the peak hour operations (see Section 7.4 of this report), the intersection of Campus Avenue and 14th Street is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the existing signal phasing. As such, no modifications have been recommended.
Table 7-2 summarizes the 95th percentile queues for the left turn lanes at Campus Avenue and 14th Street. As shown in Table 7-2, all of 95th percentile queues can be accommodated within the existing storage, with the exception of the southbound left turn lane (during the PM peak hour only) and the eastbound left turn lane (both during the AM and PM peak hours). Although the 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the southbound left turn lane, there is sufficient storage within the striped median for vehicles to continue to stack without blocking the adjacent through lane. As such, no restriping is recommended. However, the eastbound left turn lane storage is limited due to the intersection spacing between Campus Avenue and N. 6th Avenue to the west. Although the 95th percentile queue exceeds the available storage, the existing turn eastbound left turn lane could accommodate the 50th percentile peak hour queues. The queuing issue for the eastbound left turn lane is anticipated for both Without and With Project traffic conditions. A potential solution would be to restripe additional storage west of N. 6th Avenue to continue the eastbound left turn storage in conjunction with “Do Not Block” striping at N. 6th Avenue on 14th Street to prohibit turning vehicles from blocking access to and from N. 6th Avenue. Worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions queuing analyses are provided in Appendices 7.5 and 7.6, respectively.
7.7 DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
All study area intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions. As such, no intersection improvements have been recommended.
62 Page 2710 of 3744
63 Page 2711 of 3744
Table 7‐2
Available
Stacking
Intersection Movement
4 Distance
(Feet)AM PM AM PM
Campus Av. & 14th St.NBL 100 63
2 41 Yes Yes 70
2 40 Yes Yes
SBL 100 76 161
2 Yes Yes
2 83 175
2 Yes Yes
2 EBL 60 75 158
2 No No 76 169
2 No No
WBL 80 28 62 Yes Yes 31 29 Yes Yes
*BOLD = Queue length exceeds available stacking distance.
Peak Hour Queuing Summary for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions 2040 Without Project 2040 With Project
95th Percentile
Queue (Feet) Acceptable?
1 95th Percentile
Queue (Feet) Acceptable?
1 2 Although the 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, however, there is sufficient storage within the striped median for vehicles to continue to stack without blocking the adjacent through lane. As such, no restriping is recommended.
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. 64 Page 2712 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
65 8 REFERENCES
1.San Bernardino Associated Governments. Congestion Management Program for County of San Bernardino. County of San Bernardino : s.n., Updated June 2016.
2.Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation. 10th Edition. 2017.
3.Southern California Association of Governments. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. April 2016.
4.San Bernardino Associated Governments. Congestion Management Program for County of San Bernardino. County of San Bernardino : s.n., Updated December 2007.
5.Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 6th Edition. s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2016.
6.California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). 2014.
65 Page 2713 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report REV
66 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
66 Page 2714 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report.docx
APPENDIX 1.1:
APPROVED SCOPING AGREEMENT
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1.1-1 Page 2717 of 3744
1.1-2 Page 2718 of 3744
1.1-3 Page 2719 of 3744
1.1-4 Page 2720 of 3744
1.1-5 Page 2721 of 3744
1.1-6 Page 2722 of 3744
1.1-7 Page 2723 of 3744
1.1-8 Page 2724 of 3744
1.1-9 Page 2725 of 3744
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1.1-10 Page 2726 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report.docx
APPENDIX 3.1:
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS – JULY 2018
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
T816
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC
Tue, Jul 17, 18 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:1
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 53 2 12 74 5 5 5 1 4 9 27 197 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 7:15 AM 0 73 1 11 91 6 5 6 4 12 5 25 239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 7:30 AM 0 102 4 12 121 5 5 6 7 8 19 32 321 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 10 7:45 AM 3 89 4 22 140 5 6 10 2 11 18 33 343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:00 AM 3 78 9 16 100 3 6 9 5 8 18 15 270 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 11 8:15 AM 1 73 2 20 120 4 8 5 1 4 9 17 264 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 8:30 AM 2 82 6 15 105 4 7 4 3 4 9 28 269 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 11 8:45 AM 2 91 4 26 159 5 3 10 8 7 21 29 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 10 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 11 641 32 134 910 37 45 55 31 58 108 206 2,268 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 10 71 APPROACH %2%94%5%12%84%3%34%42%24%16%29%55%
APP/DEPART 684 /892 1,081 /999 131 /221 372 /156 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 7 342 19 70 481 17 25 30 15 31 64 97 1,198 4 2 5 30 APPROACH %2%93%5%12%85%3%36%43%21%16%33%51%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.868 0.850 0.875 0.774 0.873
APP/DEPART 368 /464 568 /527 70 /119 192 /88 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 2 149 9 23 147 9 12 22 4 9 16 24 426 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 8 4:15 PM 4 167 11 25 113 9 6 18 4 7 14 23 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 10 4:30 PM 3 154 6 28 123 11 17 22 10 6 14 32 426 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 12 4:45 PM 4 167 14 30 124 7 15 30 3 7 21 24 446 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 5:00 PM 6 194 11 23 115 8 24 27 3 11 10 23 455 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 7 5:15 PM 4 196 8 33 137 18 21 28 3 7 16 25 496 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 7 5:30 PM 4 182 16 37 135 7 15 22 4 7 13 27 469 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 9 5:45 PM 2 150 9 33 157 7 13 13 6 7 11 28 436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 VOLUMES 29 1,359 84 232 1,051 76 123 182 37 61 115 206 3,555 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 14 65 APPROACH %2%92%6%17%77%6%36%53%11%16%30%54%
APP/DEPART 1,472 /1,688 1,359 /1,149 342 /498 382 /220 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 18 739 49 123 511 40 75 107 13 32 60 99 1,866 8 4 6 28 APPROACH %2%92%6%18%76%6%38%55%7%17%31%52%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.955 0.896 0.903 0.918 0.941
APP/DEPART 806 /913 674 /556 195 /279 191 /118 0
Campus
NORTH SIDE
14th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 14th
SOUTH SIDE
Campus
E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL ES WS SS NS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
7:15 AM 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 0 0 0 1
7:30 AM 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 22 0 22 0 0 22 0 22 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 2 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 5 4 25 2 36 4 3 25 2 34 1 1 0 0 2
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
4:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
5:15 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2
5:30 PM 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 4 2 6 3 15 2 2 4 3 11 2 0 2 0 4
BICYCLE CROSSINGS
AM
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
PM
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:45 PM
ALL PED AND BIKE
RTOR
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Upland
Campus
14th
U-TURNS
Campus Campus 14th 14th
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
3.1-1 Page 2729 of 3744
T816
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC
Tue, Jul 17, 18 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:2
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:STOP N
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:0 X 0 X X X X 1 0 0 1 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 10 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %25%0%75%0%0%0%0%0%0%67%33%0%
APP/DEPART 4 /0 0 /4 0 /4 6 /2 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %50%0%50%0%0%0%0%0%0%60%40%0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.417 0.583
APP/DEPART 2 /0 0 /3 0 /2 5 /2 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 6 10 0 26 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %33%0%67%0%0%0%0%86%14%38%63%0%
APP/DEPART 3 /0 0 /8 7 /8 16 /10 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 7 0 16 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%0%0%0%67%33%36%64%0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.500 0.000 0.375 0.688 0.800
APP/DEPART 2 /0 0 /5 3 /4 11 /7 0
13th
NORTH SIDE
15th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 15th
SOUTH SIDE
13th
E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL ES WS SS NS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 1 0 2 0 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 0 3 0 4 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BICYCLE CROSSINGS
AM
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
PM
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:30 PM
ALL PED AND BIKE
RTOR
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Upland
13th
15th
U-TURNS
13th 13th 15th 15th
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
3.1-2 Page 2730 of 3744
T816
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC
Tue, Jul 17, 18 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:3
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:STOP N/S
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:0 X 0 X X X X 1 0 0 1 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 3 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 3 14 4 0 37 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %25%0%75%0%0%0%0%50%50%78%22%0%
APP/DEPART 12 /0 0 /18 6 /12 18 /6 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 3 2 8 4 0 25 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %13%0%88%0%0%0%0%60%40%67%33%0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.667 0.000 0.625 0.600 0.694
APP/DEPART 8 /0 0 /10 5 /10 12 /5 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 7 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 8 0 18 0 0 0 0 7 2 8 12 0 57 3 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %31%0%69%0%0%0%0%78%22%40%60%0%
APP/DEPART 26 /0 0 /12 9 /26 20 /17 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 7 0 31 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %31%0%69%0%0%0%0%100%0%42%58%0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.650 0.000 0.750 0.750 0.861
APP/DEPART 13 /0 0 /7 6 /15 12 /9 0
Alta
NORTH SIDE
15th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 15th
SOUTH SIDE
Alta
E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL ES WS SS NS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 3 1 1 6 1 3 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BICYCLE CROSSINGS
AM
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
PM
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:00 PM
ALL PED AND BIKE
RTOR
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Upland
Alta
15th
U-TURNS
Alta Alta 15th 15th
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
3.1-3 Page 2731 of 3744
T816
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC
Tue, Jul 17, 18 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:4
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:STOP N/S
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 3 0 0 1 0 3 2 12 2 1 18 1 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 7 4 1 17 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 2 3 0 2 0 6 1 17 2 1 20 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 6 0 0 0 1 4 1 21 5 0 23 1 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 13 7 1 11 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 3 1 0 1 0 3 4 14 3 0 12 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 7 2 0 0 2 6 0 9 5 0 18 1 50 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 5 0 0 0 1 2 1 17 15 1 20 0 62 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 28 6 0 4 4 29 11 110 43 5 139 3 382 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %82%18%0%11%11%78%7%67%26%3%95%2%
APP/DEPART 34 /20 37 /54 164 /114 147 /194 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 13 3 0 3 1 16 5 57 13 3 78 2 194 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %81%19%0%15%5%80%7%76%17%4%94%2%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.667 0.625 0.694 0.865 0.782
APP/DEPART 16 /10 20 /17 75 /60 83 /107 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 7 1 1 1 0 2 4 23 5 1 26 1 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 7 1 0 0 0 4 4 27 4 0 19 1 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 5 2 0 0 1 3 5 24 4 0 31 1 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 10 3 1 0 0 2 4 33 12 0 23 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 8 0 0 1 2 4 2 23 8 0 15 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 6 1 0 1 1 1 4 32 2 0 15 2 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 6 2 1 1 1 2 6 32 4 0 23 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 7 2 0 0 2 1 3 29 10 1 22 1 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 56 12 3 4 7 19 32 223 49 2 174 6 587 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %79%17%4%13%23%63%11%73%16%1%96%3%
APP/DEPART 71 /50 30 /58 304 /230 182 /249 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 29 7 2 1 1 11 17 107 25 1 99 3 303 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %76%18%5%8%8%85%11%72%17%1%96%3%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.679 0.813 0.760 0.805 0.861
APP/DEPART 38 /27 13 /27 149 /110 103 /139 0 Alta
NORTH SIDE
14th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 14th
SOUTH SIDE
Alta
E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL ES WS SS NS TOTAL 7:00 AM 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 1 0 21 1 23 1 0 21 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 8:15 AM 1 0 1 3 5 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 1 1 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 5 1 22 6 34 5 1 22 4 32 0 0 0 2 2 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 2 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 2 6 2 10 0 2 6 1 9 0 0 0 1 1 RTOR
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Upland
Alta
14th
U-TURNS
Alta Alta 14th 14th
PM
AM
7:00 AM
PM
4:00 PM
ALL PED AND BIKE BICYCLE CROSSINGS
AM
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
3.1-4 Page 2732 of 3744
T816
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC
Tue, Jul 17, 18 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:5
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:0 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 2 0 1 4 0 5 9 74 1 0 109 5 210 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 7:15 AM 1 1 0 2 1 12 5 98 0 3 152 5 280 0 0 0 1 1 0 10 0 0 7:30 AM 2 0 0 7 0 8 12 116 4 0 199 3 351 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 1 0 7:45 AM 1 0 1 5 0 9 11 145 7 6 225 9 419 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 8:00 AM 1 2 1 6 1 4 16 131 3 1 182 10 358 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 8:15 AM 3 3 2 6 3 19 24 115 6 4 162 12 359 0 0 1 0 1 1 11 1 3 8:30 AM 6 1 1 6 4 12 16 133 4 2 162 14 361 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 3 8:45 AM 2 0 1 5 4 13 12 134 2 2 191 8 374 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 18 7 7 41 13 82 105 946 27 18 1,382 66 2,712 0 1 3 1 5 2 44 4 10 APPROACH %56%22%22%30%10%60%10%88%3%1%94%5%
APP/DEPART 32 /176 136 /57 1,078 /994 1,466 /1,485 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 11 6 5 23 8 44 67 524 20 13 731 45 1,497 2 19 3 8 APPROACH %50%27%23%31%11%59%11%86%3%2%93%6%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.688 0.670 0.937 0.822 0.893
APP/DEPART 22 /118 75 /41 611 /551 789 /787 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 5 4 6 13 2 19 22 259 3 1 203 5 542 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 4:15 PM 3 3 4 15 2 19 20 269 6 5 175 13 534 0 0 0 2 2 3 9 1 2 4:30 PM 2 1 4 19 3 22 16 314 4 3 216 9 613 0 0 0 1 1 2 14 1 1 4:45 PM 3 3 6 11 0 20 21 315 5 2 191 4 581 0 0 0 1 1 4 13 0 2 5:00 PM 7 4 4 22 6 34 22 350 3 7 205 3 667 0 0 0 3 3 1 16 0 0 5:15 PM 1 1 4 10 2 15 20 340 6 3 226 10 638 0 0 0 2 2 4 10 0 1 5:30 PM 6 10 4 16 3 15 27 301 2 3 217 7 611 0 0 0 2 2 2 10 0 2 5:45 PM 4 1 1 15 2 20 12 303 3 2 212 7 582 0 2 0 1 3 1 6 0 1 VOLUMES 31 27 33 121 20 164 160 2,451 32 26 1,645 58 4,768 0 2 0 12 14 20 90 2 9 APPROACH %34%30%36%40%7%54%6%93%1%2%95%3%
APP/DEPART 91 /247 305 /66 2,643 /2,615 1,729 /1,840 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 13 9 18 62 11 91 79 1,319 18 15 838 26 2,499 11 53 1 4 APPROACH %33%23%45%38%7%55%6%93%1%2%95%3%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.667 0.661 0.944 0.919 0.937
APP/DEPART 40 /114 164 /37 1,416 /1,406 879 /942 0 Alta
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Alta
E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL ES WS SS NS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 2 1 1 0 4 2 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 2 1 0 2 5 2 1 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 1 2 5 2 10 1 1 4 2 8 0 1 1 0 2 8:00 AM 0 1 2 3 6 0 1 2 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 8:30 AM 2 1 2 1 6 2 1 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 8 7 11 10 36 8 6 9 10 33 0 1 2 0 3 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 4:15 PM 5 2 3 3 13 4 1 2 3 10 1 1 1 0 3 4:30 PM 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 5 4 7 4 20 5 4 6 4 19 0 0 1 0 1 5:00 PM 1 3 1 2 7 1 3 0 2 6 0 0 1 0 1 5:15 PM 4 0 3 3 10 4 0 3 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 4 1 3 0 8 4 1 1 0 6 0 0 2 0 2 TOTAL 21 11 22 15 69 20 10 16 15 61 1 1 6 0 8
BICYCLE CROSSINGS
AM
PM
AM
7:45 AM
PM
4:30 PM
ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
RTOR
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Upland
Alta
Foothill
U-TURNS
Alta Alta Foothill Foothill
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
3.1-5 Page 2733 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH:Alta LOCATION #: 5
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 1:NOTES:AM ▲
PASSENGER PM N
VEHICLES MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:0 2 0 0 2 012 0 120 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 2 0 1 4 0 5 9 68 1 0 106 5 201 0010 1 0201 7:15 AM 1 1 0 2 1 10 3 90 0 3 145 5 261 0001 1 0800 7:30 AM 2 0 0 6 0 8 12 105 4 0 194 3 334 0010 1 0510 7:45 AM 1 0 1 4 0 9 11 136 7 6 211 9 395 0100 1 0211 8:00 AM 1 2 1 6 1 4 15 119 3 1 174 10 337 0000 0 0201 8:15 AM 3 3 2 6 3 17 23 104 6 4 156 12 339 0010 1 1111 3 8:30 AM 6 1 1 6 3 10 15 118 4 2 156 14 336 0000 0 1313 8:45 AM 2 0 1 5 4 12 12 126 1 2 179 8 352 0000 0 0801 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 18 7 7 39 12 75 100 866 26 18 1,321 66 2,555 0131 5 2 41 4 10 APPROACH % 56% 22% 22% 31% 10% 60% 10% 87% 3% 1% 94% 5% APP/DEPART 32 /171 126 /55 992 /912 1,405 /1,417 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 11 6 5 21 7 40 63 477 20 13 697 45 1,407 2 18 3 8 APPROACH % 50% 27% 23% 30% 10% 58% 11% 85% 4% 2% 92% 6% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.688 0.663 0.911 0.835 0.891
APP/DEPART 22 /115 69 /40 561 /503 755 /749 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 3 4 6 13 2 19 20 253 3 1 197 5 526 0000 0 3120 0 4:15 PM 3 3 4 13 2 19 19 261 5 5 171 13 518 0002 2 3902 4:30 PM 2 1 4 17 3 21 16 308 4 3 206 9 594 0001 1 2131 1 4:45 PM 3 3 5 11 0 20 21 297 5 2 185 4 556 0001 1 3130 2 5:00 PM 7 4 4 22 6 34 21 343 3 7 197 3 651 0003 3 1160 0 5:15 PM 1 1 4 10 2 14 20 333 6 3 219 10 623 0002 2 4100 1 5:30 PM 6 10 4 16 3 15 27 291 2 3 210 7 594 0002 2 2100 2 5:45 PM 4 1 1 15 2 20 12 292 2 2 204 5 560 0201 3 1601 VOLUMES 29 27 32 117 20 162 156 2,378 30 26 1,589 56 4,622 0 2 0 12 14 19 89 1 9 APPROACH % 33% 31% 36% 39% 7% 54% 6% 93% 1% 2% 95% 3%
APP/DEPART 88 /241 299 /64 2,564 /2,537 1,671 /1,780 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 18 16 13 61 13 83 80 1,259 13 7 830 25 2,428 8 42 0 4 APPROACH % 38% 34% 28% 38% 8% 52% 6% 93% 1% 1% 95% 3%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.588 0.641 0.921 0.938 0.932
APP/DEPART 47 /123 159 /33 1,352 /1,341 870 /931 0 Alta
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Alta
AM
7:45 AM
PM
5:00 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Alta Alta Foothill Foothill
3.1-6 Page 2734 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH:Alta LOCATION #: 5
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 2:NOTES:AM ▲
2-AXLE PM N
WORK MD ◄ W E ►
VEHICLES/OTHER S
TRUCKS OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:020020120120 0000
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 6 0000 0 0000 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 0 8 0000 0 0100 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 7 0000 0 0000 7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 14 0000 0 0000 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 10 0000 0 0000 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 9 0 0 3 0 15 0000 0 0000 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 9 0 0 4 0 16 0000 0 0100 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 9 0 17 0000 0 0000 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 0 1 1 5 3 49 1 0 33 0 93 0000 0 0200 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 14% 14% 71% 6% 92% 2% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 0 /3 7 /2 53 /50 33 /38 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 31 1 0 19 0 58 0100 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 80% 6% 91% 3% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.625 0.850 0.528 0.853
APP/DEPART 0 /2 5 /2 34 /31 19 /23 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 9 0000 0 0000 4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 1 0 3 0 12 0000 0 0010 4:30 PM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 7 0 13 0000 0 0100 4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 2 0 16 0000 0 1000 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 5 0 11 0000 0 0000 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 6 0 11 0000 0 0000 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 5 0 12 0000 0 0000 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 6 2 19 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 1 0 1 4 0 2 4 50 2 0 37 2 103 0000 0 1110 APPROACH % 50% 0% 50% 67% 0% 33% 7% 89% 4% 0% 95% 5%
APP/DEPART 2 /6 6 /2 56 /55 39 /40 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 26 1 0 22 2 53 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 4% 93% 4% 0% 92% 8%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.250 0.636 0.750 0.697
APP/DEPART 0 /3 1 /1 28 /26 24 /23 0
Alta
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Alta
AM
8:00 AM
PM
5:00 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Alta Alta Foothill Foothill
3.1-7 Page 2735 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH:Alta LOCATION #: 5
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 3:NOTES:AM ▲
3-AXLE PM N
TRUCKS MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:0200 2 0120120 0000
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0100 7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0000 0 0000 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0000 0 0000 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 0 8 0 15 0000 0 0100 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 50% 40% 60% 0% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 0 /2 2 /0 5 /4 8 /9 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 7 0 10 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 67% 0% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.350 0.500
APP/DEPART 0 /1 0 /0 3 /2 7 /7 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0000 0 0000 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 0000 0 0000 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 0000 0 0000 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 4 0 14 0000 0 0000 APPROACH % 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 1 /0 0 /0 9 /9 4 /5 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 9 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.625 0.500 0.750
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 5 /5 4 /4 0
Alta
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Alta
AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:30 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Alta Alta Foothill Foothill
3.1-8 Page 2736 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH:Alta LOCATION #: 5
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 4:NOTES:AM ▲
4 OR MORE PM N
AXLE MD ◄ W E ►
TRUCKS OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:020020120120 0000
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 7 0000 0 0000 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 0000 0 0000 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 6 0000 0 0000 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0000 0 0000 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 5 0000 0 0000 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 0 0 10 0 27 0000 0 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 0 /0 1 /0 16 /16 10 /11 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 7 0 18 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.688 0.583 0.643
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 11 /11 7 /7 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0000 0 0000 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 0000 0 0000 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 7 0000 0 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 2 /2 5 /5 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 6 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.500
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 2 /2 4 /4 0
Alta
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Alta
AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:00 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Alta Alta Foothill Foothill
3.1-9 Page 2737 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH:Alta LOCATION #: 5
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 5:NOTES:AM ▲
RV PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:020020120120 0000
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0000 0 0000 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 1 /1 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.500
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 1 /1 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0
Alta
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Alta
AM
7:00 AM
PM
3:00 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Alta Alta Foothill Foothill
3.1-10 Page 2738 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH:Alta LOCATION #: 5
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 6:NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
BUSES MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:020020120120 0000
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0000 0 0000 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 5 0000 0 0000 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0000 0 0000 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 9 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 11 /11 9 /9 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 6 0 13 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.583 0.750 0.650
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 7 /7 6 /6 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 0000 0 0000 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 5 0000 0 0000 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 5 0000 0 0000 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 12 /12 10 /10 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 5 0 13 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.667 0.625 0.650
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 8 /8 5 /5 0
Alta
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Alta
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:45 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Alta Alta Foothill Foothill
3.1-11 Page 2739 of 3744
T816
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC
Tue, Jul 17, 18 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:6
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 19 19 8 8 12 2 2 44 21 9 117 10 271 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 3 2 7:15 AM 27 11 12 12 19 6 0 77 22 11 134 11 342 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 4 0 7:30 AM 27 14 12 16 25 5 4 83 26 21 177 8 418 0 0 1 1 2 6 4 4 0 7:45 AM 41 20 10 23 18 1 2 107 39 18 189 3 471 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 9 0 8:00 AM 42 17 13 13 15 5 3 96 24 17 153 23 421 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 3 6 8:15 AM 34 18 11 15 22 2 3 85 32 17 146 23 408 0 0 1 0 1 8 2 6 2 8:30 AM 47 21 15 12 21 4 2 90 33 15 142 15 417 0 0 1 0 1 9 2 8 3 8:45 AM 44 26 16 16 30 4 1 98 33 21 141 16 446 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 8 4 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 281 146 97 115 162 29 17 680 230 129 1,199 109 3,194 0 0 4 1 5 59 22 45 17 APPROACH %54%28%19%38%53%9%2%73%25%9%83%8%
APP/DEPART 524 /268 306 /520 927 /893 1,437 /1,513 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 144 69 46 67 80 13 12 371 121 73 665 57 1,718 27 11 22 8 APPROACH %56%27%18%42%50%8%2%74%24%9%84%7%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.899 0.870 0.851 0.946 0.912
APP/DEPART 259 /135 160 /273 504 /485 795 /825 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 40 42 43 35 40 3 3 219 46 20 152 16 659 0 0 0 0 0 21 3 17 3 4:15 PM 51 38 37 38 41 1 7 212 45 21 141 29 661 0 0 1 1 2 11 1 13 5 4:30 PM 39 35 47 23 33 3 12 258 49 18 180 26 723 0 0 2 0 2 27 2 8 3 4:45 PM 49 41 55 41 30 8 2 284 38 23 147 20 738 0 0 0 1 1 21 2 14 5 5:00 PM 44 38 48 42 38 6 5 297 62 23 185 21 809 0 0 3 1 4 13 4 8 7 5:15 PM 47 42 39 43 33 4 5 269 57 10 189 20 758 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 9 4 5:30 PM 52 52 29 37 39 1 6 245 49 11 163 13 697 0 0 2 0 2 19 1 16 3 5:45 PM 43 44 30 36 33 3 5 259 44 14 192 21 724 0 0 4 0 4 12 2 13 6 VOLUMES 365 332 328 295 287 29 45 2,043 390 140 1,349 166 5,769 0 0 12 3 15 133 19 98 36 APPROACH %36%32%32%48%47%5%2%82%16%8%82%10%
APP/DEPART 1,025 /531 611 /814 2,478 /2,669 1,655 /1,755 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 179 156 189 149 134 21 24 1,108 206 74 701 87 3,028 70 12 39 19 APPROACH %34%30%36%49%44%7%2%83%15%9%81%10%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.903 0.884 0.919 0.941 0.936
APP/DEPART 524 /262 304 /412 1,338 /1,448 862 /906 0 Grove
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Grove
E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL E SIDE W SIDE S SIDE N SIDE TOTAL ES WS SS NS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 1 3 1 1 6 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 0 1 2 7:45 AM 0 18 4 2 24 0 18 4 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 9 1 0 10 0 9 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 1 3 1 0 5 1 3 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 4 3 0 7 0 3 3 0 6 0 1 0 0 1 8:45 AM 0 2 2 0 4 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2 44 12 3 61 1 43 12 2 58 1 1 0 1 3 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 7 5 0 12 0 7 4 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 4:15 PM 0 5 2 2 9 0 5 2 1 8 0 0 0 1 1 4:30 PM 0 5 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 4:45 PM 0 2 3 1 6 0 2 2 1 5 0 0 1 0 1 5:00 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 7 2 2 11 0 7 1 1 9 0 0 1 1 2 5:30 PM 0 6 1 0 7 0 5 1 0 6 0 1 0 0 1 5:45 PM 0 4 1 0 5 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 TOTAL 0 38 14 5 57 0 36 10 3 49 0 2 4 2 8 AM
PM
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:30 PM
ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
RTOR
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Upland
Grove
Foothill
U-TURNS
Grove Grove Foothill Foothill
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
3.1-12 Page 2740 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH: Grove LOCATION #: 6
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 1:NOTES:AM ▲
PASSENGER PM N
VEHICLES MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:1 1 1 1 2 112 1 120 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 18 16 7 8 12 2 2 41 19 9 113 10 257 0000 0 5232 7:15 AM 25 9 10 12 19 6 0 71 20 11 129 8 320 0000 0 5430 7:30 AM 27 13 11 13 25 4 4 76 24 20 173 6 396 0010 1 6340 7:45 AM 33 19 9 22 17 1 2 100 36 18 182 3 442 0010 1 3170 8:00 AM 38 17 12 13 14 5 1 85 24 16 146 21 392 0000 0 8436 8:15 AM 33 17 8 15 22 2 3 78 29 17 140 22 386 0010 1 6262 8:30 AM 45 20 14 11 21 4 1 82 28 13 138 15 392 0010 1 8283 8:45 AM 42 24 15 15 27 4 1 89 32 20 132 15 416 0000 0 9383 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 261 135 86 109 157 28 14 622 212 124 1,153 100 3,001 0040 4 50 21 42 16 APPROACH % 54% 28% 18% 37% 53% 10% 2% 73% 25% 9% 84% 7% APP/DEPART 482 /245 294 /493 848 /817 1,377 /1,446 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 131 66 40 63 78 12 7 339 113 71 641 52 1,616 23 10 20 8 APPROACH % 55% 28% 17% 41% 51% 8% 2% 73% 24% 9% 84% 7%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.884 0.911 0.837 0.941 0.914
APP/DEPART 237 /125 153 /262 462 /442 764 /787 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 40 41 41 34 39 3 3 213 44 19 151 16 644 0000 0 21 3 16 3 4:15 PM 50 38 34 38 40 1 7 206 42 19 137 29 641 0011 2 10 1 12 5 4:30 PM 36 34 46 22 31 2 11 253 46 16 176 25 698 0020 2 26 2 8 3 4:45 PM 49 41 54 39 28 7 2 272 33 23 143 20 711 0001 1 21 1 12 5 5:00 PM 43 37 47 42 37 6 5 293 59 22 179 20 790 0031 4 12 4 7 7 5:15 PM 45 42 39 42 33 4 5 261 55 10 185 20 741 0000 0 9494 5:30 PM 49 52 29 37 39 1 6 241 47 10 160 13 684 0020 2 19 1 16 3 5:45 PM 41 42 30 36 31 3 5 253 42 13 184 21 701 0040 4 12 2 13 6 VOLUMES 353 327 320 290 278 27 44 1,992 368 132 1,315 164 5,610 0 0 12 3 15 130 18 93 36 APPROACH % 35% 33% 32% 49% 47% 5% 2% 83% 15% 8% 82% 10% APP/DEPART 1,000 /523 595 /775 2,404 /2,605 1,611 /1,707 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 173 154 186 145 129 19 18 1,079 193 69 683 85 2,940 68 11 36 19 APPROACH % 34% 30% 36% 49% 44% 6% 1% 83% 15% 8% 81% 10% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.891 0.862 0.907 0.949 0.930
APP/DEPART 513 /257 293 /391 1,295 /1,412 839 /880 0 Grove
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Grove
AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:30 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Grove Grove Foothill Foothill
3.1-13 Page 2741 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH: Grove LOCATION #: 6
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 2:NOTES:AM ▲
2-AXLE PM N
WORK MD ◄ W E ►
VEHICLES/OTHER S
TRUCKS OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:111121121120 0000
7:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 0000 0 0000 7:15 AM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 1 12 0000 0 2010 7:30 AM 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 14 0001 1 0100 7:45 AM 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 4 0 16 0000 0 1000 8:00 AM 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 8 0 1 4 1 18 0000 0 1000 8:15 AM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 4 1 16 0000 0 1000 8:30 AM 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 1 2 0 13 0000 0 0000 8:45 AM 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 7 1 1 6 0 20 0000 0 0000 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 9 7 7 4 3 1 2 33 11 4 28 5 114 0001 1 5110 APPROACH % 39% 30% 30% 50% 38% 13% 4% 72% 24% 11% 76% 14% APP/DEPART 23 /14 8 /17 46 /45 37 /38 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 5 2 3 1 2 0 2 24 7 3 16 2 67 2000 APPROACH % 50% 20% 30% 33% 67% 0% 6% 73% 21% 14% 76% 10% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.833 0.375 0.917 0.750 0.838
APP/DEPART 10 /6 3 /12 33 /28 21 /21 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 10 0000 0 0010 4:15 PM 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 4 2 1 3 0 15 0000 0 1010 4:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 2 1 2 1 14 0000 0 0000 4:45 PM 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 9 2 0 2 0 16 0000 0 0010 5:00 PM 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 1 4 1 15 0000 0 1010 5:15 PM 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 2 0 2 0 13 0000 0 0000 5:30 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 9 0000 0 0000 5:45 PM 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 1 4 0 16 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 11 4 7 2 7 0 1 36 13 6 19 2 108 0000 0 2040 APPROACH % 50% 18% 32% 22% 78% 0% 2% 72% 26% 22% 70% 7% APP/DEPART 22 /7 9 /26 50 /45 27 /30 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 4 1 5 1 5 0 1 19 8 3 11 2 60 2030 APPROACH % 40% 10% 50% 17% 83% 0% 4% 68% 29% 19% 69% 13% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.625 0.750 0.636 0.667 0.938
APP/DEPART 10 /4 6 /16 28 /25 16 /15 0
Grove
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Grove
AM
8:00 AM
PM
4:15 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Grove Grove Foothill Foothill
3.1-14 Page 2742 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH: Grove LOCATION #: 6
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 3:NOTES:AM ▲
3-AXLE PM N
TRUCKS MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:1111 2 1121120 0000
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0000 0 0000 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0000 0 0000 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000 7:45 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0000 0 0000 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0000 0 1000 8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0000 0 1000 8:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0000 0 1001 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 4 3 21 0000 0 3001 APPROACH % 29% 29% 43% 100% 0% 0% 0% 67% 33% 0% 57% 43% APP/DEPART 7 /5 1 /2 6 /8 7 /6 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 11 0000 APPROACH % 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 33% 67%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.500 0.000 0.500 0.375 0.917
APP/DEPART 4 /4 0 /2 4 /2 3 /3 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0000 0 0000 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0000 0 0000 4:30 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0000 0 1000 4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 0000 0 0000 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 5 4 1 3 0 18 0000 0 1000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 100% 75% 25% 0% 0% 56% 44% 25% 75% 0%
APP/DEPART 1 /0 4 /6 9 /9 4 /3 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 13 1000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 100% 75% 25% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.250 0.500 0.750 0.500 0.813
APP/DEPART 1 /0 4 /5 6 /7 2 /1 0
Grove
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Grove
AM
7:00 AM
PM
4:00 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Grove Grove Foothill Foothill
3.1-15 Page 2743 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH: Grove LOCATION #: 6
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 4:NOTES:AM ▲
4 OR MORE PM N
AXLE MD ◄ W E ►
TRUCKS OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:111121121120 0000
7:00 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0000 0 1000 7:15 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0000 0 0000 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0000 0 0000 7:45 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 6 0000 0 0020 8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 6 0000 0 0000 8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000 8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 5 0000 0 0000 8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0000 0 0000 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 8 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 3 1 4 0 30 0000 0 1020 APPROACH % 80% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 7% 73% 20% 20% 80% 0%
APP/DEPART 10 /2 0 /4 15 /12 5 /12 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 1 3 0 18 0020 APPROACH % 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 56% 33% 25% 75% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.625 0.000 0.750 0.500 0.750
APP/DEPART 5 /1 0 /4 9 /5 4 /8 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 0000 0 0000 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3 0 9 0000 0 0000 APPROACH % 100% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 67% 33% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 1 /0 2 /2 3 /2 3 /5 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 6 0000 APPROACH % 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 67% 33% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.250 0.250 0.375 0.250 0.300
APP/DEPART 1 /0 1 /1 3 /2 1 /3 0
Grove
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Grove
AM
7:15 AM
PM
4:00 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Grove Grove Foothill Foothill
3.1-16 Page 2744 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH: Grove LOCATION #: 6
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 5:NOTES:AM ▲
RV PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:111121121120 0000
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0000 0 0000 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0000 0 0000 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 1 /1 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.500
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 1 /1 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
APP/DEPART 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0
Grove
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Grove
AM
7:00 AM
PM
3:00 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Grove Grove Foothill Foothill
3.1-17 Page 2745 of 3744
DATE:LOCATION:Upland PROJECT #: SC
7/17/18 NORTH & SOUTH: Grove LOCATION #: 6
TUESDAY EAST & WEST:Foothill CONTROL: SIGNAL
CLASS 6:NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
BUSES MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL NRR SRR ERR WRR LANES:111121121120 0000
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 0000 0 0000 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0000 0 0000 7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 0000 0 0000 8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 0000 0 0000 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 0000 0 0000 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0000 0 0000 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 9 2 0 9 1 26 0 0 0 0 0 0000 APPROACH % 50% 50% 0% 33% 67% 0% 0% 82% 18% 0% 90% 10%
APP/DEPART 2 /2 3 /4 11 /10 10 /10 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 1 0 4 1 15 0000 APPROACH % 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 83% 17% 0% 80% 20%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.500 0.500 0.750 0.625 0.750
APP/DEPART 2 /2 2 /2 6 /6 5 /5 0
03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0000 0 0000 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 6 0000 0 0110 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0000 0 0000 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 4 0000 0 0000 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 0000 0 0000 VOLUMES 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 8 4 1 9 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0110 APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 67% 33% 10% 90% 0%
APP/DEPART 1 /1 1 /5 12 /8 10 /10 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 4 0 4 0 14 0110 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 56% 44% 0% 100% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.250 0.563 1.000 0.583
APP/DEPART 0 /0 1 /4 9 /5 4 /5 0
Grove
NORTH SIDE
Foothill WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foothill
SOUTH SIDE
Grove
AM
7:45 AM
PM
4:45 PM
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
RTORU-TURNS
Grove Grove Foothill Foothill
3.1-18 Page 2746 of 3744
Upland Colonies Traffic Impact Analysis
11822-06 TIA Report.docx
APPENDIX 3.2:
TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS FOR LOCAL SCHOOLS