5.3 Traffic and Circulation

Transcription

1 5.3 Traffic and Circulation

2 5.3 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION This section is based upon the Traffic Impact Study for Azusa Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (Traffic Impact Study), dated December 9, 2010, prepared by KOA Corporation (KOA), and the Supplemental Analysis Scenario (Existing Plus Project Conditions), dated February 11, 2011, prepared by KOA, which are included as Appendix 15.3, Traffic Impact Study. The purpose of the Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate development of the proposed project from a traffic and circulation standpoint. This analysis considers impacts on local intersections and regional transportation facilities. Mitigation measures are recommended, if necessary, to avoid or reduce project impacts on traffic and circulation EXISTING SETTING EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM Intersections The locations of the study intersections are listed below, along with the local jurisdictions in which they are located; refer to Exhibit 5.3-1, Location of Study Intersections. Jurisdictions that are included within the study area include the City of Azusa, City of Irwindale, County of Los Angeles, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). For affected facilities located on the border of two or more jurisdictions, multiple jurisdictions are listed: 1. Irwindale Avenue/Foothill Boulevard City of Irwindale 2. Irwindale Avenue/I-210 westbound off-ramp City of Irwindale, Caltrans 3. Irwindale Avenue/I-210 eastbound on & off ramps City of Irwindale, Caltrans 4. Irwindale Avenue/1st Street City of Irwindale, City of Azusa 5. Azusa Avenue/1st Street City of Azusa 6. Alameda- I-210 westbound ramps/1st Street City of Azusa 7. Azusa Avenue/I-210 eastbound off-ramp City of Azusa 8. Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street City of Irwindale, City of Azusa 9. Vincent Avenue/Gladstone Street City of Azusa 10. Azusa Avenue/Gladstone Street City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles 11. Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway City of Irwindale 12. Vincent Avenue/ Arrow Highway City of Irwindale, City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles 13. Azusa Avenue/ Arrow Highway City of Irwindale, City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles, City of Covina Regional/Local Roadways The larger San Gabriel Valley has regional vehicle access provided by the Interstate 210 Foothill Freeway (I-210), I-10 San Bernardino Freeway (I-10), and State Route 60 Pomona Freeway (SR-60). Sub-regional north-south access is provided by Interstate 605 San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605). The study area roadway network includes interchanges along I-210 (at Irwindale Avenue and Azusa Avenue). To the west of the study area, access to I-605 is provided at Live Oak Avenue (to/from the north) and Arrow Highway (to/from the south). The primary roadways within the study area are described below. Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

3 Source: KOA Corporation, September 30, NOT TO SCALE 03/11 JN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WASTE MANAGEMENT MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY TRANSFER STATION AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY Location of Study Intersections Exhibit 5.3-1

4 Irwindale Avenue. Irwindale Avenue is a north-south arterial roadway with a striped centerline. The roadway provides three travel lanes in each direction from Foothill Boulevard to Adelante Street and two travel lanes in each direction from Adelante Street to Arrow Highway. On-street parking is generally permitted on both sides of the roadway between 1st Street and Gladstone Street. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph). Vincent Avenue. Vincent Avenue is a north-south secondary roadway providing two travel lanes in each direction with a striped centerline and left turn pockets at major intersections. On-street parking is generally permitted along the west side of the roadway and prohibited on the east side. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Azusa Avenue. Within the study area, Azusa Avenue is a north-south arterial roadway providing two travel lanes in each direction with a striped centerline. On-street parking is generally permitted along some segments of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Foothill Boulevard. Foothill Boulevard is an arterial roadway that provides two travel lanes in each direction with a two-way continuous left-turn lane in the center. On-street parking is permitted along some segments of the roadway, but these areas are not contiguous. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. 1st Street. Within the study area, 1st Street is an east-west secondary roadway providing two travel lanes in each direction with a striped centerline. On-street parking is generally prohibited along both sides of the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Gladstone Street. Gladstone Street is an east-west secondary roadway providing two travel lanes in each direction with a striped centerline. Access to and from the project site would be provided via the Vincent Avenue/Gladstone Street driveway located at the existing landfill facility. On-street parking is permitted along some segments of the roadway, but these areas are not contiguous. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Arrow Highway. Within the study area, Arrow Highway is an east-west arterial roadway with a twoway continuous left-turn lane in the center. The roadway provides three eastbound travel lanes and two westbound travel lanes from Irwindale Avenue to Vincent Avenue and two travel lanes in each direction from Vincent Avenue to Azusa Avenue. On-street parking is generally permitted along both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The methodologies used to perform the future traffic volume forecasts and the explicit traffic operations analysis as part of the Traffic Impact Study are summarized in this Section. The traffic impact analysis is based on potential impacts that would result from the increase in truck trips to and from the proposed MRF/TS and HHWF that would be generated by project implementation. For a detailed discussion of the analytical methodology, please refer to Appendix 15.3, Traffic Impact Study. Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

5 Traffic impacts from the proposed project were analyzed using weekday a.m. and p.m. peak period volumes at the study intersections. The Traffic Impact Study follows the guidelines and policies of the City of Azusa for traffic impact studies. This analysis included the following: 1. Defining the study approach; 2. Determining the existing traffic conditions; 3. Forecasting the trip generation of the proposed land uses at the project site; 4. Assigning project-generated trips to the study area roadway system; and 5. Evaluating the impact of project s traffic increase at the study intersections. Overall Analysis Methodology KOA Corporation coordinated with the City at the start of this study to achieve consensus on assumptions such as study intersection locations, ambient growth and area/related projects, and trip generation calculations. In order to document these assumptions, KOA submitted a final scoping document for this report to the City on November 9, Buildout scenarios were added to the report, based on additional scoping comments received from the City on May 27, The scoping document acknowledged that the courses of action for incorporating impact standards of the City of Irwindale (for those study intersections partially or fully maintained by that City). Freeway analysis tasks were included in the analysis, primarily for the nearest freeway interchange (Irwindale Avenue/I-210) and the access ramps of that interchange, based on Caltrans review policies and published guidelines. The analysis of traffic impacts examines the following conditions: 1. Existing Conditions (Year 2009); 2. Existing plus project at time of expected approval; 3. Forecast Growth Baseline (existing plus cumulative projects) Conditions (Year 2014); 4. Forecast Growth Plus Project Conditions (Year 2014); 5. Cumulative Baseline (buildout plus cumulative projects) Conditions (Year 2035); and 6. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (Year 2035). The year for the project operations analysis (Year 2014) was chosen based on the anticipated date of achievement of peak operations for the proposed project. The forecast buildout year of analysis (Year 2035) was chosen based on the buildout year of the current area traffic model maintained by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Existing Conditions The Traffic Impact Study and this EIR section includes a description of the existing roadway conditions and identifies the existing traffic control and approach lane configuration at each intersection studied. In order to define existing traffic conditions at the study intersections, turning movement counts were collected manually during peak periods. New counts were compiled by KOA for the study intersections from data collected on November 10, Count data represented weekday conditions during the a.m. peak period (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and the p.m. Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

6 peak period (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). The four highest consecutive 15-minute periods of traffic volumes from each of the intersection peak-hour counts were utilized to define the peak-hour of analysis. Vehicle/axle classification counts (for the collection of standard vehicle and truck volume data) were conducted at all of the study intersections, with the exception of the following locations: Azusa Avenue/1st Street; Alameda- I-210 westbound ramps/1st Street; Azusa Avenue/I-210 eastbound off-ramp; and Azusa Avenue/Arrow Highway. The Irwindale Avenue corridor, to the south and north of the I-210 freeway, primarily serves industrial businesses. The Azusa Avenue corridor serves more of a mix of commercial center and residential uses, with some industrial uses also present within the corridor. Therefore, truck counts were focused on the Irwindale Avenue corridor and the local routes to and from the existing landfill site. The classification counts were conducted in order to acknowledge the presence of a sizeable proportion of trucks within the traffic stream at most of the study intersections. Trash trucks and heavy trucks (four or more axles) were counted separately. Trash truck volumes were factored by a Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factor of 2.0, and heavy truck volumes were factored by a PCE factor of 3.0. These factors are conservatively based on typical factors used in other area truck studies and the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model. Factors used for project-generated truck volumes are taken from landfill-industry rates, as those truck trips can be attributed directly to the proposed MRF/TS and HHWF. The traffic count summaries are provided in Appendix B of the Traffic Impact Study. Project Year Growth For the analysis of background traffic during the 2014 project year, an annual traffic growth rate factor was utilized to provide for regional increases in traffic volumes, apart from local development projects. To apply this ambient growth rate to existing volumes, a conservative factor of 1.05 was utilized. This rate provided for a one percent rate of growth over the five-year period between the existing conditions (year 2009 based on the traffic counts) and future conditions analysis (year 2014) years. In order to define regional traffic growth that would affect operations at the study intersections during the future analysis year of 2014, project traffic was added to future pre-project volumes. The project year was defined as 2014 based on the anticipated first year of full operations of the project. In order to define future background traffic growth from new trips generated from outside the study area (regional cut-through traffic, large projects in other cities, etc.), an ambient growth rate was applied to the future analysis. Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

7 This annual growth rate was defined in consultation with the City of Azusa (City). The annual rate of one percent was utilized to increase existing (year 2009) traffic volumes to future (year 2014) base/pre-project traffic volumes. Trips that would be generated from reasonably foreseeable and known planned development projects in the area (cumulative projects outlined in Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Analysis, of this EIR) were also added to the analysis network. Buildout Year Growth An additional buildout-year scenario was included in the analysis, based on the buildout year of the area traffic model maintained by SCAG. The current SCAG model has a buildout year of 2035, and the previous model had a buildout year of Output from the SCAG model, in terms of peakhour roadway segment (link) volumes for the existing and buildout model timeframes, was used to develop an average annual ambient growth rate for the study area. Output from both the 2030 and 2035 model buildout scenarios were compared, and the year-2030 model scenario was used to calculate the applied growth rate. The year 2030 volume increases are more conservative than those in the year-2035 model, and more closely matched sub-regional growth rates defined in the County of Los Angeles Congestion Management Program (CMP). Growth within all of the area roadway corridors was averaged and applied to the study area, in order to avoid complications with anomalies at the level of the study area roadways that could be generated from a regional model. The application of the annual growth rate served to increase the existing scenario volumes to year 2035 buildout volumes. As in the project-year analysis (year 2014), trips that would be generated from cumulative projects were also added to the analysis network. Planned Development Projects In addition to future ambient growth, traffic from cumulative projects (approved and pending) was considered before examining significant traffic impacts from the proposed project, as outlined in Section 4.0 of this EIR. Peak-hour trips that would be generated from each of the cumulative projects were computed based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (8 th Edition). Project Trip Generation and Distribution The project trip generation was calculated based on activity numbers by tonnage and trucks produced by Waste Management, for existing local Waste Management trucking activity, estimated diversion of third party trucks from existing area landfills, and planned outgoing waste/recovery streams. The distribution pattern was based on existing origins of Waste Management waste trucks and the estimated destination of outgoing streams. Section provides a detailed discussion of project trip generation and distribution. LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY Per the City s traffic analysis guidelines, the Transportation Research Board Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) Circular 212 Planning methodology (CMA methodology) has been utilized to determine the Level of Service (LOS) at signalized intersections. The concept of roadway LOS under the CMA methodology is calculated as the volume of vehicles that pass through the facility Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

8 divided by the capacity of that facility, or the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. A facility is at capacity (V/C of 1.00 or greater) when extreme congestion occurs. The V/C ratio value is based upon volumes by lane, signal phasing, and approach lane configuration. The LOS values range from LOS A to LOS F. LOS A indicates excellent operating conditions with little delay to motorists, whereas LOS F represents congested conditions with excessive vehicle delay; refer to Table 5.3-1, Definitions of Level of Service for Signalized Intersections. LOS E is typically defined as the operating capacity of a roadway. The City of Azusa defines LOS D as the worst acceptable operating condition. Table Definitions of Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Volume/Capacity Ratio Definition A EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. B VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C GOOD. Occasionally, drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E POOR. Represents the most vehicles that intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F Greater than FAILURE. Backups from nearby intersections or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. Source: Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Study, dated December 9, HIGHWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR FREEWAY RAMP INTERSECTIONS Congestion Management Program The CMP was created statewide as a result of Proposition 111 and is implemented locally by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The CMP for Los Angeles County requires that the traffic impact of individual development projects of potentially regional significance be analyzed. A specific system of arterial roadways plus all freeways comprise the CMP system. Per CMP Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis is conducted where: Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

9 At CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway on-ramps or off-ramps, where the proposed project would add 50 or more vehicle trips during either a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours. At CMP mainline freeway-monitoring locations, where the project would add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during the either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours. Highway Capacity Analysis for Freeway Ramp Intersections A supplemental analysis was undertaken in order to provide a LOS analysis that meets Caltrans guidelines for the freeway ramp study intersections. The data used for the CMP methodology analysis (used for the primary LOS analysis) was applied to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology accepted by Caltrans. Caltrans publishes guidelines on the calculations of potential impacts to state facilities from planned development projects. I-210 is maintained by Caltrans and is a CMP freeway route within the project study area. The highway capacity analysis is based on the Caltrans traffic impact guidelines. Existing volumes were compiled from Caltrans data, via Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data reports from Data for year 2009 is the most recent available data summarized by Caltrans at the time of the Traffic Impact Study. Growth factors used within the primary traffic impact analysis were utilized to increase the existing I-210 volumes from the year 2009 to the area SCAG traffic model buildout year of The total applied growth factor was 29.5 percent based on the compounded addition of one percent of ambient growth per year over the 26-year period between the year 2009 and the year For a long-term projection of traffic growth, a one percent per year rate is conservative. Therefore, the buildout year volumes calculated for the I-210 facility were compared to the trips that would be generated by the project, to provide an understanding of the percent share of project traffic versus the mainline freeway flow. The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, published by Caltrans, defines a formula for the computation of equitable share responsibility for freeway facility mitigation measures, where projects have been identified. This formula is as follows: Vehicle trips generated by the project during the peak hour (Traffic volume on facility at build-out) (Existing volumes + area project volumes) Existing traffic volumes, and known cumulative projects volumes, are removed from these volumes to isolate background growth that is not attributable to any specific project. The highest project share of traffic was also chosen between the back and ahead locations. The terms back and ahead refer to the direction on the freeway facility from the analyzed location. Per Caltrans definitions for data collection and analysis on the I-210 facility, back volumes are further west on the facility and ahead volumes are further east on the facility (in relation to the overall facility direction of travel within the region). Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

10 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 5.3-2, Summary of Intersection Performance Existing (2009) Conditions, provides the V/C ratios and LOS values for each study intersection, for the existing conditions scenario. Table Summary of Intersection Performance Existing (2009) Conditions Study Intersections Existing 2009 Conditions A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Irwindale Avenue and Foothill Boulevard E E 2 Irwindale Avenue and I-210 WB Off-Ramp A A 3 Irwindale Avenue and I-21 EB On/Off Ramps C B 4 Irwindale Avenue and 1st Street A B 5 Azusa Avenue and 1st Street B C 6 Alameda/I-210 WB Ramps and 1st Street B B 7 Azusa Avenue and I-210 EB Off-Ramp A B 8 Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street E C 9 Vincent Avenue and Gladstone Street B C 10 Azusa Avenue and Gladstone Street C D 11 Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway F E 12 Vincent Avenue and Arrow Highway C C 13 Azusa Avenue and Arrow Highway D D Source: Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Study, dated December 9, During the existing (Year 2009) conditions scenario, three of the 13 study intersections operate at a deficient LOS of E or worse within the weekday peak hours: Irwindale Avenue/Foothill Boulevard. Operates at LOS E within both the a.m. peak and p.m. peak hours. Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street. Operates at LOS E within the a.m. peak hour. Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway. Operates at LOS F within the a.m. peak hour and at LOS E within the p.m. peak hour. The other study intersections all operate at LOS values of D or better, which are considered to represent good operating conditions. The existing peak-hour turn movement volumes at the study intersections are illustrated in Appendix 15.3, Figure 5 (Existing [2009] A.M. Peak-Hour Turn Volumes) and Figure 6 (Existing [2009] P.M. Peak-Hour Turn Volumes) of the Traffic Impact Study. The operations worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix 15.3, as Appendix C of the Traffic Impact Study. Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

11 FORECAST YEAR 2014 BASELINE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE This section documents the forecast year 2014 baseline traffic conditions at the study intersections with ambient growth and traffic from cumulative projects, but without operation of the proposed project. This scenario represents future no-project conditions. The study intersection volumes include the ambient traffic growth for the study area through Figure 7 (Future [2014] Ambient Growth A.M. Peak-Hour Turn Volumes) and Figure 8 (Future [2014] Ambient Growth P.M. Peak-Hour Turn Volumes) of the Traffic Impact Study provide the a.m. and p.m. peak-hour volumes with ambient growth in traffic. Area Project Trip Assignment Exhibit 4-1, Cumulative Project Locations, illustrates the locations of the cumulative projects considered. The trip assignment of the cumulative projects by turning movement is provided in Figure 10 (A.M. Peak Hour Area Projects Trip Assignment) and Figure 11 (P.M. Peak Hour Area Projects Trip Assignment) of the Traffic Impact Study. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service To calculate forecast study intersection operations for this analysis scenario, ambient growth and cumulative projects trips were both added to volumes from the existing conditions scenario. Table 5.3-3, Intersection Performance Future (2014) No-Project Conditions, summarizes the operations for the study area intersections without project implementation. Six of the following study intersections would operate at LOS E or worse within the weekday peak hours, in this 2014 scenario, as compared to the existing conditions scenario: Irwindale Avenue/Foothill Boulevard. Would worsen from LOS E to F within both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Azusa Avenue/I-210 Eastbound Off-Ramp. Would worsen from LOS B to E in the p.m. peak hour. Irwindale Avenue/Gladstone Street. Would continue to operate at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour. Azusa Avenue/Gladstone Street. Would worsen from LOS D to E in the p.m. peak hour. Irwindale Avenue/Arrow Highway. Would continue to operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and worsen from LOS E to F in the p.m. peak hour. Azusa Avenue/Arrow Highway. Would worsen from LOS D to E in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS D to F in the p.m. peak hour. Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

12 Table Intersection Performance Future (2014) No-Project Conditions Study Intersections Future 2014 No Project A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Irwindale Avenue and Foothill Boulevard F F 2 Irwindale Avenue and I-210 WB Off-Ramp A A 3 Irwindale Avenue and I-21 EB On/Off Ramps C C 4 Irwindale Avenue and 1st Street A B 5 Azusa Avenue and 1st Street B D 6 Alameda/I-210 WB Ramps and 1st Street C D 7 Azusa Avenue and I-210 EB Off-Ramp B E 8 Irwindale Avenue and Gladstone Street E D 9 Vincent Avenue and Gladstone Street C C 10 Azusa Avenue and Gladstone Street D E 11 Irwindale Avenue and Arrow Highway F F 12 Vincent Avenue and Arrow Highway D D 13 Azusa Avenue and Arrow Highway E F Source: Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Study, dated December 9, The intersection turn volumes for this scenario are illustrated in Appendix 15.3, Figure 12 (Future [2014] No-Project A.M. Peak-Hour Turn Volumes) and Figure 13 (Future [2014] No-Project P.M. Peak-Hour Turn Volumes). The operations worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix 15.3, as Appendix E of the Traffic Impact Study. Highway Capacity Analysis for Freeway Ramp Intersections Table 5.3-4, Recent Caltrans Volume Data for I-210 in the Project Vicinity, discusses the existing back and ahead volumes for the freeway study area intersections. Table Recent Caltrans Volume Data for I-210 in the Project Vicinity Dist Route County P.M. Pre Postmile Description LA R Duarte, Jct. Rte. 605, San Gabriel River Freeway 18, , ,000 19, , ,000 Interchange LA R Irwindale, Irwindale Avenue Interchange 19, , ,000 18, , , LA R Azusa, Vernon Avenue Interchange 18, , ,000 18, , , LA R Azusa, Azusa Avenue Interchange 18, , ,000 17, , ,000 Source: KOA Corporation, Inc., Traffic Impact Study Azusa Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, dated December 9, Back Peak Hour Back Peak Month Back AADT Ahead Peak Hour Ahead Peak Month Ahead AADT Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

13 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE The project site is served by bus transit lines operated by Foothill Transit. Lines within the study area are described below. Foothill Transit Line 185 operates as a local north-south bus route that provides service between Azusa, West Covina, and Hacienda Heights. Within the study area, the line provides service along Irwindale Avenue. This service operates at an approximate frequency of 30 to 35 minutes during weekday peak periods. Foothill Transit Line 187 operates as a local east-west bus route that provides service between Montclair, Claremont, Glendora, and Pasadena. The line provides service along Foothill Boulevard within the study area. This service operates at an approximate trip frequency of 20 minutes during weekday peak periods. Foothill Transit Line 280 operates as a local north-south bus route that provides service between Azusa and Puente Hills Mall. The line travels along Azusa Avenue within the study area. This operates at an approximate trip frequency of 20 minutes during weekday peak periods. Foothill Transit Line 492 operates as a local east-west bus route that provides service between Montclair, Arcadia, and El Monte. The line provides service along Arrow Highway within the study area. This service operates at an approximate frequency of 30 minutes during weekday peak periods. Foothill Transit Line 494 operates as a local east-west bus route that provides service between San Dimas, Glendora, and El Monte. Within the study area, the line provides service along Foothill Boulevard. This service operates at an approximate trip frequency of 30 to 40 minutes during weekday peak periods. Foothill Transit Line 690 operates as an east-west service bus route that provides service between Montclair and Pasadena. The line provides service along I-210 within the study area. This service operates at an approximate trip frequency of 10 to 35 minutes during weekday peak periods REGULATORY SETTING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Caltrans publishes a document entitled Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which provides guidelines and recommended elements of traffic studies for projects that could potentially impact state facilities such as State Route highways and freeway facilities. This is a State-level document that is used by each of the Caltrans District offices, including District 7 in Los Angeles County. The Guide defines when traffic studies should be conducted to address impacts to state facilities, but does not define quantitative impact standards. The Guide states that Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) are used to evaluate Caltrans facilities, and that the agency strives to maintain a LOS value of C on its facilities. The Guide states, however, that the appropriate target LOS varies by facility and congestion level, and is defined differently by Caltrans depending on the analyzed facility. In Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

14 most congested areas of Los Angeles County, Caltrans is primarily concerned with facilities operating at LOS F. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) Metro is responsible for the continuous improvement of an efficient and effective transportation system for the County of Los Angeles. Metro s service area covers approximately 1,433 square miles. State statute requires that a congestion management program be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for every county that includes an urbanized area and shall include every city and the county government within that county. As the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, Metro is responsible for implementing the CMP for the County. Since the CMP became effective with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990, it has become an effective tool in linking transportation, land use, and air quality decisions for the Country. The CMP addresses the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. Statutory elements of the CMP include Highway and Roadway System monitoring, multi-modal system performance analysis, the Transportation Demand Management Program, the Land Use Analysis Program, and local conformance for all the County s jurisdictions. CITY OF AZUSA City of Azusa General Plan The Mobility Element of the Azusa General Plan is intended to complement the City s land uses by reducing traffic congestion and pollution; creating more prosperous and vital neighborhoods; and promoting healthier environments. The Mobility Element provides a comprehensive approach to local transportation choices as a distinct, but integral part of the regional circulation patterns and realities. The Azusa General Plan states that the following idea for mobility can bring about significant change for the City and is applicable to the project area: Increase roadway capacity at the western and southern edges of the City thus relieving through traffic on Azusa Avenue. According to the Mobility Element, heavy truck activity is evident on the west side of the City, primarily associated with the mining industry and supply of warehouses and factories. The mining operation is located in the northwest and west part of the City, although truck access actually occurs through the Cities of Duarte and Irwindale. The Mobility Goals and Policies that pertain to the proposed project include the following: Citywide Access and Circulation Goal 1 Balance the roadway with the planned land uses in the city. Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

15 Policy 1.2 Maintain Level of Service D on roadway segments and at signalized intersections throughout the City, except in the downtown area, the University District, and in the vicinity of freeway interchanges where Level of Service E shall be maintained in these areas. (M1) Policy 1.3 Require the cost of improvements to the existing circulation system and new circulation system necessitated by new development to be borne by that development that gains benefit. (M3) Policy 2.4 To simplify traffic flow, improve the following intersections and/or road segments: Foothill Boulevard and Alosta Avenue, Sierra Madre Avenue and San Gabriel Avenue, San Gabriel Avenue extension to Azusa Avenue (between Baseline and 2nd Street), Azusa Avenue extension to Newburgh Street (between Arrow Highway and Newburgh Street). (M6) Policy 2.5 Improve the operational efficiency of the roadway system, with implementation of traffic management measures, to minimize delay and congestion but without adversely impacting transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. (M7) Goal 7 Focus truck traffic onto appropriate arterial corridors within the city, and keep truck traffic out of residential neighborhoods. Policy 7.1 Modify the truck route network in accordance with the truck route plan (figure M-4). (M19 and M20) Goal 8 Encourage walking, biking, and the use of transit through a variety of land use development and urban design measures. Policy 8.1 Plan for an adequate amount, not an oversupply, of parking for autos, carpool vans, and bicycles for each land use. (M13) Policy 8.2 Allow and encourage shared use parking in order to gain the maximum efficiency from the parking supply and to minimize the overall amount of parking provided in the city. (M13 and M21) Policy 8.6 Promote the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to encourage the use of transit, ridesharing, and non-motorized modes for travel both within the City and outside of the City. (M4 and M11) Mobility Implementation Programs M3 Traffic Impact Studies New developments are required to prepare traffic impact studies addressing multimodal transportation impacts, and develop mitigation measures, as necessary, for significant impacts. Mitigation measures include but are not limited to, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and transportation demand management measures as well as traffic/roadway solutions. Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

16 M11 New Development and Substantially Renovated Development Circulation Requirements Require new developments to: Include both on-street bike lanes and/or off street bike paths linking the developments to the surrounding neighborhoods, districts, and centers. Consider requiring new developments, employers with many employees, and significantly renovated development projects to contribute to a park and ride construction and maintenance fund. Require new developments and substantially renovated developments to install and implement transit amenities including bus turnouts, pedestrian shelters, and other streetscape. Require new developments to develop TDM programs to minimize auto trips and to encourage use of transit, ridesharing, bicycling and walking. M20 Codes Enforcement Through vehicle and other codes enforcement ensure that trucks adhere to the routes IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Significant Study Intersection Traffic Impact Criteria Traffic impacts are identified if a project would result in a significant adverse change in traffic conditions on an analyzed facility. A significant impact is typically identified if traffic generated by a project would cause service levels to deteriorate beyond a threshold limit specified by the overseeing agency. Impacts can also be significant if an intersection is already operating below the poorest acceptable level and project traffic would substantially worsen the condition, thereby causing a further decline below the threshold as noted below in Table 5.3-5, Allowable V/C Increase. The City of Azusa policies on traffic studies define a project-related increases in the V/C ratio of a facility as a significant impact; refer to Table This impact standard has been applied consistently to other recent traffic studies conducted for projects within the City: Table Allowable V/C Increase Level of Service Final V/C* Project Related V/C Increase E and F 0.90 or more Equal to or greater than * Final V/C is the V/C ratio at an intersection, considering impacts from the project, ambient, and related project growth, but without proposed traffic impact mitigations. Source: KOA Corporation, Inc., Traffic Impact Study Azusa Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, dated December 9, Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

17 Some of the study intersections are located within the City of Irwindale or are on the border with other jurisdictions that include unincorporated neighborhoods of the County of Los Angeles. The City of Irwindale has the following LOS-based impact standards that were reviewed for the impact analysis, as applicable to the jurisdiction of each study intersection: When a freeway mainline, freeway ramp, or arterial corridor operates at LOS D or better under existing, future, or cumulative baseline conditions, the addition of project trips degrades the segment to LOS E or F. The project mitigation should bring the facility to operate at LOS D, at a minimum. When a freeway mainline, freeway ramp, or arterial corridor operates at LOS F under existing, future, or cumulative baseline conditions, the addition of more than 50 peak-hour project trips contributes to the continuing operational failure at the segment. The project mitigation should bring the facility to pre-project conditions. Where intersections are located on the border with County areas, a majority of the corners of each study intersection are under the jurisdiction of the city. Therefore, standards defined by the City of Azusa and the City of Irwindale were the primary determinants of significant impacts. Significance Criteria Environmental impact thresholds as indicated in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Initial Study Checklist Form) are also used as significance thresholds in this analysis. As such, a project would create a significant impact if it would: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit (refer to Impact Statements TRA-1 and TRA-2); Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways (refer to Impact Statement TRA-3); Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant; Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (refer to Impact Statement TRA- 4); Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

18 Result in inadequate emergency access; refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant; and Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (refer to Impact Statement TRA-5) IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION TRA-1 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC FOR EXISTING AND FORECAST CONDITIONS WHEN COMPARED TO THE TRAFFIC CAPACITY OF THE STREET SYSTEM. Impact Analysis: The project site is located in an industrial area of the City of Azusa. The western portion of the site was formerly occupied with a waste tire reclamation processing facility. The eastern portion of the project is a vacant landscaped area that serves as the entrance to the Waste Management Azusa Land Reclamation landfill. The proposed project would construct a MRF/TS, scale house, and HHWF at the existing landfill. This section defines the weekday daily and peakhour vehicle volumes that would be generated by the proposed project in a three-step process including trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. The MRF/TS and HHWF would use the existing landfill access driveway, north of the Vincent Avenue/Gladstone Street intersection. Project trips were distributed to the study area roadway network from this intersection outward. Project Trip Generation Traffic studies for many typical land uses (general office, retail/commercial, light industrial, etc.) use floor area, acreage, or per-employee rates defined by Trip Generation (currently in 8 th edition), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, for the calculation of trip generation. The proposed project is a very specific use for which trips cannot be estimated based on typical rates. The floor area of on-site buildings or covered areas (a typical input to trip generation calculations) does not encapsulate all on-site activity, and similar projects vary greatly in the use of on-site acreage for varying operational needs. The trip generation calculations for the proposed project were based on activity numbers by tonnage and trucks produced by Waste Management. These calculations were based on existing local Waste Management trucking activity, estimated diversion of third party trucks from the Puente Hills Landfill (upon closure), and planned outgoing waste/recovery streams from the proposed project. Table 5.3-6, Trip Generation Tonnage and Daily Trip Estimate, summarizes the total daily truck activity expected to be generated by the proposed project assuming a maximum rate of 3,800 tons per day (tpd). The incoming and outgoing columns within Table denote material flows and not truck trip directions to and from the site. Inbound flows are carried primarily by municipal waste Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

19 collection trucks and other smaller trucks. Outbound flows are carried primarily by larger transfer trucks that take waste or sorted materials to other regional landfills or processing facilities. Table Trip Generation Tonnage and Daily Trip Estimate Trip Generator Waste Quantity (tons) Amount per Incoming Trucks (Route Trucks) (Tons) Landscaper Trucks Amount per Incoming Trucks (Tractor Trailers) Number of Incoming Trucks (Route Trucks) Number of Incoming Trucks (Tractor Trailers) Amount per Outgoing Trucks (Tractor Trailers) (Tons) Number of Outgoing Trucks (Tractor Trailers) Total Trucks Municipal Solid Waste 2, Green Waste Recyclables Total *Trips accounted for but not included in overall totals, as these trucks are currently traveling between the Waste Management Azusa Land Reclamation and El Sobrante landfills and the empty side of the current round trip would be used for recyclables transport with the proposed project Notes: 1.All incoming trucks assumed to arrive full and leave empty, all outgoing trucks assumed to arrive empty and depart full. 2.Each landscaper load was assumed to weigh one ton. Source: KOA Corporation, Inc. Traffic Impact Study Azusa Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, dated December 9, Table 5.3-7, Trip Generation Employee and Non-Factored Truck Trips, summarizes the daily and peakhour trips that would be generated by the project, based on current per-hour breakdowns of Waste Management truck activity. Employee trips are also included, based on anticipated project employment shifts and a ratio of 1.2 for the average number of passengers per vehicle. This number assumes that some carpooling would take place and that some employees would regularly use public transit. Table Trip Generation Employee and Non-Factored Truck Trips Trip Generator Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out* Total In Out* Total Municipal Solid Waste , Green Waste Landscapers Recyclables Employees Total (estimated) , *For all trip types, except for employees and landscapers, 25 percent of the related outbound trips were assumed to occur outside of the peak hour, since there is a high likelihood that a portion of the return truck trips would occur outside of the analyzed hour. Notes: 1. There would be two employee shifts: 37 people from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and 32 people from 5:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. 2. All numbers are roundtrips and based on with-buffer estimates (an additional 10 percent) provided by Waste Management. 3. The a.m. and p.m. peak hours are based on the peak hourly distribution as defined by existing Waste Management area hauling activity. Source: KOA Corporation, Inc., Traffic Impact Study Azusa Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, dated December 9, Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

20 Table 5.3-8, Trip Generation Truck Trip PCE Factors, summarizes the PCE factors that were used to calculate total project truck trips. These factors were applied to the calculated project truck trips, in order to estimate the increased capacity required for trucks versus standard vehicles. The PCE factor values were based on Solid Waste Facility Permit information from CalRecycle. Trip Generator Table Trip Generation Truck Trip PCE Factors Proportion Self-Haul (1.5 Factor) Proportion Route (2.7 Factor) Proportion Transfer (3.7 Factor) Municipal Solid Waste * Percent 23 Percent Green Waste Percent 25 Percent Landscapers 100 Percent -- - Recyclables Percent 44 Percent Employees * These proportions only apply to the p.m. peak, as a.m. transfer truck activity typically occurs outside of the peak hour. The a.m. peak activity for municipal solid waste is only for route trucks. 1. PCE factors based off Solid Waste Facility Permit from CalRecycle. Source: KOA Corporation, Inc., Traffic Impact Study Azusa Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, dated December 9, Based on the trip generation calculations within Table 5.3-9, Trip Generation Total Project Trips, the proposed project would generate a total 4,294 daily vehicle trips, of which 372 trips would occur during the a.m. peak hour (224 trips inbound, 148 trips outbound) and 720 trips would occur during the p.m. peak hour (400 trips inbound, 320 trips outbound). Inbound and outbound totals differ due to the different types of trucks that haul inbound and outbound material flows. Transfer trucks are much larger than typical collection trucks. In addition, material flows can often not be processed fully in one hour, so some of the matching outbound movements would occur outside of the analyzed peak hour. The PCE factors in Table were applied to these totals truck trip generation totals, in order to estimate the increased capacity required for trucks versus standard vehicles. It should be noted that PCE factors do not apply to employee trips. Trips related to the relocation of the existing day laborers site were not quantified as it is an existing uses that is only being relocated approximately 500 feet east of its current location along Gladstone Street. Furthermore, the trips associated with the day laborers site are sporadic, with approximately 50 laborers in the morning hours steadily decreasing throughout the day. 1 Table Trip Generation Total Project Trips Trip Generator Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Municipal Solid Waste 1,475 1,475 2, Green Waste Landscapers Recyclables Employees* Total (estimated) 2,147 2,147 4, *Truck PCE factors do not apply to employee trips. Source: KOA Corporation, Inc., Traffic Impact Study Azusa Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, dated December 9, communication from Mr. Sam Gonzalez, Azusa Police Department, dated January 4, Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation

21 Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution is the process of assigning the directions from which traffic would access a project site. Trip distribution is dependent upon the land use characteristics of the project and the general locations of other land uses to which project trips would originate or terminate. The project truck distribution rates are based on the trip origin patterns of existing Waste Management hauling operations, and the estimated destination of outgoing waste/recoverable streams. The project site would be configured to use the existing landfill access driveway to the north of the intersection of Vincent Avenue and Gladstone Street. This roadway/driveway intersection is included in the study area. The project employee trip distribution is based on the roadway network within the study area and the location of freeway access points to I-210 (the major access point to and from the project site). Figure 14 (Project Trip Distribution Route Truck Trips) of the Traffic Impact Study (as provided in Appendix 15.3) illustrates the distribution percentages for the route truck trips. Figure 15 (Project Trip Distribution Transfer Truck Trips) of the Traffic Impact Study illustrates the overall distribution percentages for the transfer truck trips. Figure 16 (Project Trip Distribution Employee Vehicle Trips) of the Traffic Impact Study illustrates the overall distribution percentages for the employee vehicle trips. Project Trip Assignment The final product of the trip assignment process is a full accounting of project trips, by direction and turning movement, at the study intersections. The project trips were assigned based on distribution inputs to the traffic analysis. The route truck trip assignments are shown in Figure 17 (A.M. Peak Route Truck Trip Assignment) and Figure 18 (P.M. Peak Route Truck Trip Assignment) of the Traffic Impact Study. The transfer truck trip assignment is illustrated in Figure 19 (P.M. Peak Transfer Truck Trip Assignment) of the Traffic Impact Study. The employee trip assignments are shown in Figure 20 (A.M. Peak Employee Trip Assignment) and Figure 21 (P.M. Peak Employee Trip Assignment) of the Traffic Impact Study. EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS The Existing With Project scenario was prepared as a result of a recent Sixth District Court of Appeal decision in Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351, which invalidated an EIR prepared for a roadway extension project for using projected traffic conditions in the year 2020, based on expected growth under the City of Sunnyvale s General Plan and in neighboring communities as its baseline to evaluate the roadway project s traffic and related impacts. The City in that case took this approach because the project lacked funding and would have taken several years to design and construct. In rejecting the EIR s analysis, the court found that use of such a baseline could not be upheld since, in the court s view, CEQA requires a straightforward assessment of the impacts produced by the project alone on the existing environment normally meant to be those conditions at the time of issuance of the Notice of Preparation. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125, subd. (a).) Thus, according to the court s reasoning, the analysis within an EIR must consider the impacts of a project at or prior to the date of project approval. Public Review Draft March Traffic/Circulation