HomeMy WebLinkAbout13772-03 TA Report (Approved)
North Elsinore Business Park
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
PREPARED BY:
Aric Evatt, PTP
aevatt@urbanxroads.com
Charlene So, PE
cso@urbanxroads.com
Connor Paquin, PE
cpaquin@urbanxroads.com
JUNE 10, 2021
13772‐03 TA Report
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. I
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ III
LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. V
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. VII
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ............................................................................................ VIII
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. IX
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Analysis Findings ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 5
2 METHODOLOGIES ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Level of Service ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................... 9
2.4 Minimum Acceptable LOS ........................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Deficiency Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 10
3 AREA CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Existing Circulation Network ....................................................................................................... 11
3.2 City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element .............................................................. 11
3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................................. 11
3.4 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................. 18
3.5 Existing (2020) Traffic Counts ..................................................................................................... 18
3.6 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 21
3.7 Existing (2020) Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ......................................................................... 21
3.8 Deficiencies and Improvements ................................................................................................. 21
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC .................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 23
4.3 Modal Split .................................................................................................................................. 23
4.4 Project Trip Assignment .............................................................................................................. 25
4.5 Background Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 29
4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic ................................................................................................ 29
5 EAP (2022) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 33
5.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 33
5.2 EAP (2022) Traffic Volume Forecasts .......................................................................................... 33
5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 33
5.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 35
5.5 Deficiencies and Improvements ................................................................................................. 35
6 EAPC (2022) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 37
6.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 37
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
ii
6.2 EAPC (2022) Traffic Volume Forecasts ........................................................................................ 37
6.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 37
6.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 38
6.5 Deficiencies and Improvements ................................................................................................. 38
7 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS ....................................................................... 41
7.1 City of Lake Elsinore Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program ................................................. 41
7.2 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program .......................................................... 41
7.3 Fair Share Contribution ............................................................................................................... 42
8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 43
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
iii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
APPENDIX 1.2: SITE ADJACENT QUEUES
APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING AND HISTORIC TRAFFIC COUNTS – 2018 & 2020
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 3.3: EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 5.1: EAP (2022) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 5.2: EAP (2022) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.1: EAPC (2022) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.2: EAPC (2022) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
iv
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
v
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1‐1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN .................................................................................................. 2
EXHIBIT 1‐2: LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................................ 3
EXHIBIT 1‐3: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 6
EXHIBIT 3‐1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS ....................... 12
EXHIBIT 3‐2: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT .................................... 13
EXHIBIT 3‐3: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS‐SECTIONS ............................ 14
EXHIBIT 3‐4: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AREA TRAILS SYSTEM ................................................................ 15
EXHIBIT 3‐5: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE BIKEWAY PLAN ......................................................................... 16
EXHIBIT 3‐6: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ............................................................. 17
EXHIBIT 3‐7: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES ............................................................................................ 19
EXHIBIT 3‐8: EXISTING (2020) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PCE) .................................................................. 20
EXHIBIT 4‐1: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................ 26
EXHIBIT 4‐2: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................. 27
EXHIBIT 4‐3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 28
EXHIBIT 4‐4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP ............................................................... 30
EXHIBIT 4‐5: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................... 31
EXHIBIT 5‐1: EAP (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................................................... 34
EXHIBIT 6‐1: EAPC (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................................................................... 39
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
vi
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................................................................................. 2
TABLE 1‐2: SUMMARY OF DEFICIENT INTERSECTIONS BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO ..................................... 4
TABLE 2‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS ..................................................................... 8
TABLE 2‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS ................................................................ 9
TABLE 2‐3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ............................................................ 10
TABLE 3‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS ............................................ 21
TABLE 4‐1: TRIP GENERATION RATES .................................................................................................. 24
TABLE 4‐2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............................................................................ 25
TABLE 4‐3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY ......................................................... 32
TABLE 5‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2022) CONDITIONS .................................................... 33
TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2022) CONDITIONS................................................... 38
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
viii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CMP Congestion Management Program
EAP Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project
EAPC Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project North Elsinore Business Park
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
RTA Riverside Transport Authority
SR State Route
TA Traffic Impact Analysis
TIF Transportation Impact Fee
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
v/c Volume to Capacity
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
x
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the traffic analysis (TA) for the proposed North Elsinore
Business Park development (“Project”), which is located north of Riverside Drive (SR‐74), east of
Collier Avenue, and west of El Toro Road in the City of Lake Elsinore, as shown on Exhibit 1‐1.
The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential traffic and circulation system deficiencies that
may result from the development of the proposed Project, and to recommend improvements to
resolve identified deficiencies and to achieve acceptable circulation system operational
conditions in accordance with the City’s General Plan. As directed by City of Lake Elsinore staff,
this traffic study has been prepared in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Traffic Impact
Analysis Preparation Guide, and consultation with City staff during the scoping process. (1) (2)
The approved Project Traffic Study Scoping agreement is provided in Appendix 1.1 of this TA.
1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Project is to construct the following improvements as design features in conjunction with
development of the site:
According to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Collier Avenue is currently built out to its
ultimate roadway half‐section. As such, there are no additional roadway improvement
recommendations. However, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements are
recommended to accommodate site access along the Project’s frontage for Driveways 1, 2, and
3, consistent with the City’s standards.
Project to construct El Toro Road to its ultimate half‐section width as a Local Street (60‐foot right‐
of‐way) in compliance with the circulation recommendations found in the City of Lake Elsinore’s
General Plan.
Additional details and intersection lane geometrics are provided in Section 1.6 Recommendations
of this report.
1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is to consist of the development of 93,255 square feet of general light industrial use
within 12 Buildings (see Exhibit 1‐1). Note that all buildings are proposed to accommodate
ground level, roll‐up garage doors (no dock‐high doors). For purposes of the traffic analysis, it is
anticipated that the Project will be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year
of 2022.
Driveway 1 and Driveway 3 on Collier Avenue are proposed for right‐in/right‐out access only
while Driveway 2 on Collier Avenue is proposed to allow for right‐in/right‐out/left‐in access only.
All driveways on El Toro Road are proposed to allow for full access. Regional access to the Project
site is available from Riverside Drive (SR‐74)/Ortega Highway (SR‐74) and the I‐15 Freeway.
1
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis 13772‐03 TA Report REV 2 EXHIBIT 1‐1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 2
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
1
It should be noted, the site plan has been updated since this report was produced. Driveway 4
along El Toro Road has been removed. The traffic volumes at Driveway 4 would redistribute to
Driveway 5. However, the change in traffic volumes is not anticipated to affect Riverside Drive &
El Toro Road and only a nominal change in volumes is anticipated at Driveway 5. As such, the
analysis has not been updated based on the latest site plan.
Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017) for General Light
Industrial (ITE Land Use Code 110). (3) The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total
of 464 actual trip‐ends per day with 65 AM peak hour trips and 58 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.
1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been
assessed for each of the following conditions:
Existing (2020) Conditions (Baseline)
Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (2022) Conditions
Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (2022) Conditions
1.3.1 EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2020) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions
as they existed at the time this report was prepared. Traffic counts collected in November 2020
and historic traffic counts have been utilized in order to establish a pre‐COVID baseline. A
detailed discussion of the adjustments made to each intersection can be found in Section 3.5
Existing Traffic Counts of this report. Traffic counts were collected based on vehicle classification
and heavy trucks were accounted for in the peak hour operations analysis as a percentage of
total traffic.
1.3.2 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS PROJECT (2022) CONDITIONS
The EAP (2022) conditions analysis determines the traffic deficiencies based on a comparison of
the EAP (2022) traffic conditions to Existing (2020) traffic conditions. To account for background
traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing (2020) conditions of 4.04% is included for
EAP (2022) traffic conditions. The EAP analysis is intended to identify “Opening Year” deficiencies
associated with the development of the proposed Project based on the expected background
growth within the study area.
1.3.3 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS PROJECT PLUS CUMULATIVE (2022) CONDITIONS
The EAPC (2022) traffic conditions analysis determines the potential near‐term cumulative
circulation system deficiencies. To account for background traffic growth, traffic associated with
other known cumulative development projects in conjunction with an ambient growth factor of
4.04% from Existing conditions are included for EAPC (2022) traffic conditions.
3
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
2
1.4 STUDY AREA
To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Lake Elsinore’s traffic study requirements, Urban
Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by City staff prior to the
preparation of this report. The Agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip
generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology and is included in Appendix 1.1.
The following 7 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1‐3 and listed in Table 1‐1 were
selected for this TA based on consultation with City of Lake Elsinore staff and have generally been
selected based on the “50 peak hour trip” criterion. The “50 peak hour trip” criterion is consistent
with the methodology employed by the City of Lake Elsinore and County of Riverside, and
generally represents a minimum number of trips at which a typical intersection would have the
potential to be affected by a given development proposal. Although each intersection may have
unique operating characteristics, this traffic engineering rule of thumb is a widely utilized tool for
estimating a potential study area.
TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction CMP?
1 Driveway 1 & Collier Av. – Future Intersection Lake Elsinore No
2 Driveway 2 & Collier Av. – Future Intersection Lake Elsinore No
3 Driveway 3 & Collier Av. – Future Intersection Lake Elsinore No
4 Riverside Dr. (SR‐74) & Collier Av. (SR‐74) Lake Elsinore, Caltrans No
5 Driveway 4 & El Toro Rd. – Future Intersection Lake Elsinore No
6 Driveway 5 & El Toro Rd. – Future Intersection Lake Elsinore No
7 Riverside Dr. & El Toro Rd. Lake Elsinore No
The intent of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to more directly link land use,
transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs
that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related
deficiencies, and improve air quality. The County of Riverside CMP became effective with the
passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 and updated most recently updated in 2011. The Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC) adopted the 2011 CMP for the County of Riverside in
December 2011. (4) None of the study area intersections are identified as CMP facilities in the
Riverside County CMP.
4
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis 13772‐03 TA Report REV 3 EXHIBIT 1‐2: LOCATION MAP 5
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
4
1.5 ANALYSIS FINDINGS
This section provides a summary of analysis results for EAP (2022) and EAPC (2022) traffic
conditions. A summary of level of service (LOS) results for all analysis scenarios is presented in
Table 1‐2.
1.5.1 EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours
under Existing (2020) traffic conditions.
1.5.2 EAP (2022) CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during
the peak hours under EAP (2022) traffic conditions.
1.5.3 EAPC (2022) CONDITIONS
All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during
the peak hours under EAPC (2022) traffic conditions.
TABLE 1‐2: SUMMARY OF DEFICIENT INTERSECTIONS BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO
Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 N/A N/A
2 N/A N/A
3 N/A N/A
4
5 N/A N/A
6 N/A N/A
7
Legend
A ‐ D =
E =
F =
Driveway 3 & Collier Av.
Riverside Dr. (SR‐74) & Collier Av. (SR‐74)
Driveway 4 & El Toro Rd.
Driveway 5 & El Toro Rd.
Riverside Dr. & El Toro Rd.ExistingEAP (2022)EAPC (2022)Driveway 1 & Collier Av.
Driveway 2 & Collier Av.
6
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
5
1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the improvements needed to accommodate site
access. The site adjacent recommendations are shown on Exhibit 1‐4.
Recommendation 1 – Driveway 1 & Collier Avenue (#1) – The following improvement is
necessary to accommodate site access:
Project to install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct a right turn lane
(Project Driveway).
Recommendation 2 – Driveway 2 & Collier Avenue (#2) – The following improvement is
necessary to accommodate site access:
Project to install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct a right turn lane
(Project Driveway).
Project to modify the existing median and construct an eastbound left turn lane with a minimum
of 100‐feet of storage.
Recommendation 3 – Driveway 3 & Collier Avenue (#3) – The following improvement is
necessary to accommodate site access:
Project to install a stop control on the southbound approach and construct a right turn lane
(Project Driveway).
Recommendation 4 – Driveway 5 & El Toro Road (#6) – The following improvement is necessary
to accommodate site access:
Project to install a stop control on the northbound approach and construct a shared left‐right turn
lane (Project Driveway).
Recommendation 5 – Collier Avenue is an east‐west oriented roadway located on the Project’s
southern boundary. According to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Collier Avenue is
currently built out to its ultimate roadway half‐section. As such, there are no additional roadway
improvement recommendations. However, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping
improvements are recommended to accommodate site access along the Project’s frontage for
Driveways 1, 2, and 3, consistent with the City’s standards.
Recommendation 6 – El Toro Road is an east‐west oriented roadway located on the Project’s
northern boundary. Project to construct El Toro Road to its ultimate half‐section width as a Local
Street (60‐foot right‐of‐way) in compliance with the circulation recommendations found in the
City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan.
On‐site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with
detailed construction plans for the Project site.
Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and City of Lake Elsinore sight distance standards at the
time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.
7
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
6
EXHIBIT 1‐3: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
8
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
7
2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses
summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with City of Lake Elsinore
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 Lake Elsinore requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the
methodology described in the HCM. (5) 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.
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.
9
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
8
TABLE 2‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay (Seconds),
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of
Service, V/C ≤
1.0
Level of
Service, V/C >
1.0
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable
progression and/or short cycle length. 0 to 10.00 A F
Operations with low delay occurring with good
progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.01 to 20.00 B F
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle
failures begin to appear.
20.01 to 35.00 C F
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures
are noticeable.
35.01 to 55.00 D F
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This
is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.01 to 80.00 E F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or
very long cycle lengths.
80.01 and up F F
Source: HCM (6th Edition)
The 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 near‐term
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)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Per the Caltrans Evaluating Transportation Impacts of State Highway System Projects, the traffic
modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 10) has also been
utilized to analyze signalized intersections under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, which include
intersections along Riverside Drive (SR‐74). (2)
10
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
9
2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Lake Elsinore requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using
the methodology described in the HCM. (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 (6th Edition)
At two‐way or side‐street stop‐controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled
movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection
as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of
all movements in that lane. Per the HCM, the highest delay for any individual movement on the
minor street is reported for side‐street stop‐controlled intersections. For all‐way stop controlled
intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole and the average intersection delay
is reported (similar to signalized intersections).
2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by the Caltrans and other
public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic
signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria
presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (CA MUTCD). (6)
The signal warrant criteria for Existing conditions are based upon several factors, including
volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas.
The Caltrans CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if
one or more of the signal warrants are met. (6) Specifically, this TA utilizes the Peak Hour
Volume‐based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for
existing study area intersections for all analysis scenarios. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this
TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g.
located in communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major
streets operating above 40 miles per hour). For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was
the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection.
11
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
10
Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following unsignalized study area
intersection shown in Table 2‐3:
TABLE 2‐3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
5 Driveway 4 & El Toro Rd. Lake Elsinore
6 Driveway 5 & El Toro Rd. Lake Elsinore
7 Riverside Dr. & El Toro Rd. Lake Elsinore
Although unsignalized, traffic signal warrants have not been evaluated for Driveways 1, 2, and 3
along Collier Avenue since the driveways are proposed for restricted access. The Existing
conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section, Section 3 Area
Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analyses for future conditions are presented
in Section 5 EAP (2022) Traffic Conditions and Section 6 EAPC (2022) Traffic Conditions of this
report.
It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the
installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not
require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other
traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly
justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not 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 ACCEPTABLE LOS
The City of Lake Elsinore has established LOS D as the minimum level of service for its
intersections. Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS E or F will be considered deficient for
the purposes of this analysis.
2.5 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
Below are the traffic deficiency criteria:
When existing traffic conditions exceed the General Plan target LOS (e.g., LOS D or better).
When project traffic, added to existing traffic, will deteriorate the LOS to below the target LOS,
and deficiencies cannot be improved through project conditions of approval.
When cumulative traffic exceeds the target LOS, and deficiencies cannot be improved through
the Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) network (or other funding mechanism), project conditions of approval, or other
implementation mechanism.
12
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
11
3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Lake Elsinore
General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations and
traffic signal warrant analyses.
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the agreement with City of Lake Elsinore staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes
a total of 7 intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1‐3. Exhibit 3‐1 illustrates the study area
intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes
for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.
3.2 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
As noted previously, the Project site is located within the City of Lake Elsinore. The roadway
classifications and planned (ultimate) roadway cross‐sections of the major roadways within the
study area, as identified in the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element, are
described subsequently. Exhibit 3‐2 shows the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation
Element, and Exhibit 3‐3 illustrates the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan roadway cross‐sections.
Study area roadways that are classified as an Urban Arterial are identified as having six lanes of
travel. The following study area roadways within the City of Lake Elsinore are classified as an
Urban Arterial:
Collier Avenue (SR‐74), east of Riverside Drive
Riverside Drive (SR‐74)
Study area roadways that are classified as a Major Highway are identified as having four lanes of
travel. The following study area roadways within the City of Lake Elsinore are classified as a Major
Highway:
Collier Avenue, west of Riverside Drive
3.3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The City of Lake Elsinore Area Trails System is shown on Exhibit 3‐4 while the City of Lake Elsinore
Bikeway Plan is shown on Exhibit 3‐5. There is an existing Lake Elsinore Lake, River, Levee
Regional Trail that runs parallel to Collier Avenue in the vicinity of the study area. There is a
proposed Class II bike path along Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive (SR‐74). Existing pedestrian
facilities within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3‐6.
13
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
12
EXHIBIT 3‐1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS
14
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis 13772‐03 TA Report REV 13 EXHIBIT 3‐2: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT 15
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
14
EXHIBIT 3‐3: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS‐SECTIONS
16
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis 13772‐03 TA Report REV 15 EXHIBIT 3‐4: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AREA TRAILS SYSTEM 17
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis 13772‐03 TA Report REV 16 EXHIBIT 3‐5: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE BIKEWAY PLAN 18
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
17
EXHIBIT 3‐6: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
19
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
18
3.4 TRANSIT SERVICE
The Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) currently serves the City of Lake Elsinore. Transit service is
reviewed and updated by RTA periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand
needs. RTA Route 8 runs along Riverside Drive (SR‐74) and Collier Avenue while RTA Routes 9
and 205/206 run along Collier Avenue only. These routes could likely serve the Project in the
future. Existing transit routes in the vicinity of the study area are illustrated on Exhibit 3‐7.
Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or
reduced service where appropriate. As such, it is recommended that the applicant work in
conjunction with RTA to potentially provide additional bus service to the site.
3.5 EXISTING (2020) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour
conditions using traffic count data collected in 2018 and 2020. The following peak hours were
selected for analysis:
Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)
Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM)
Due to the currently ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic, schools and businesses within the study area
were closed or operating at less than full capacity at the time this study was prepared. As such,
historic (2018) traffic counts were utilized in conjunction with a 2.0% per year growth rate
(compounded annually) to reflect adjusted 2020 conditions. The 2018 weekday AM and weekday
PM peak hour count data are 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 and near‐by schools
were in session and operating on normal schedules.
Historic traffic count data was not readily available for the intersection of Riverside Drive & El
Toro Road. As such, 2020 traffic counts have been collected at this intersection. Traffic counts
have also been collected at the adjacent intersection of Riverside Drive & Collier Avenue in order
to compare and develop an adjustment factor based on historic 2018 traffic count data to the
recently collected 2020 traffic count data. This adjustment factor has been applied to the traffic
count data at the intersection of Riverside Drive & El Toro Road to reflect non‐COVID traffic
conditions. Where applicable, traffic volumes have been flow conserved in order to not have any
loss of vehicles. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are
included in Appendix 3.1.
Existing weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes are shown on Exhibit 3‐8. Where actual
24‐hour tube count data was not available, Existing ADT volumes were based upon factored
intersection peak hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for
each intersection leg:
Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 13.72 = Leg Volume
20
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
19
EXHIBIT 3‐7: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES
21
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
20
EXHIBIT 3‐8: EXISTING (2020) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (IN PCE)
22
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
21
A comparison of the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes of various roadway segments within
the study area indicated that the peak‐to‐daily relationship is approximately 7.29 percent. As
such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 13.72 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area
roadway segments assuming a peak‐to‐daily relationship of approximately 7.29 percent (i.e.,
1/0.0729 = 13.72) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate ADT volumes for planning‐level
analyses. Existing weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour intersection volumes are also shown
on Exhibit 3‐8.
3.6 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 the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak
hours under Existing (2020) traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets
are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.
TABLE 3‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS
3.7 EXISTING (2020) TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection
turning volumes. There are no existing unsignalized study area intersections that currently meet
a traffic signal warrant for Existing conditions (see Appendix 3.3).
3.8 DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
As shown in Table 3‐1, the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS
during the peak hours under Existing (2020) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have
been identified.
Delay
Traffic (secs.)
# Intersection Control
1 AM PM AM PM
1Driveway 1 & Collier Av.
2Driveway 2 & Collier Av.
3Driveway 3 & Collier Av.
4Riverside Dr. (SR‐74) & Collier Av. (SR‐74) TS 20.2 24.6 C C
5Driveway 4 & El Toro Rd.
6Driveway 5 & El Toro Rd.
7Riverside Dr. & El Toro Rd. CSS 0.0 7.3 A A
1 CSS = Cross ‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
Future Intersection
Service
Level of
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
23
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
22
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
24
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
23
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
The Project is to consist of the development of 93,255 square feet of general light industrial use
within 12 Buildings (see Exhibit 1‐1). Note that all buildings are proposed to accommodate
ground level garage doors (no dock‐high doors). For purposes of the traffic analysis it is
anticipated that the Project will be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year
of 2022.
Driveway 1 and Driveway 3 on Collier Avenue are proposed for right‐in/right‐out access only
while Driveway 2 on Collier Avenue is proposed to allow for right‐in/right‐out/left‐in access only.
All driveways on El Toro Road are proposed to allow for full access. Regional access to the Project
site is available from Riverside Drive (SR‐74)/Ortega Highway (SR‐74) and the I‐15 Freeway.
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. (3) The trip generation rate is based upon data
collected by ITE for General Light Industrial (ITE Land Use Code 110) and the truck percentages
identified in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition, 2017). (3) As shown in Table 4‐2, the
proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 464 actual trip‐ends per day, with 65 AM
peak hour trips and 58 PM peak hour trips. For the purposes of the operations analysis, the PCE
trip generation shown in Table 4‐2 has been utilized.
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 of passenger cars is heavily
influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding land uses, and the
proximity to the regional freeway system. Given these differences between passenger cars and
trucks, separate trip distributions were generated for both passenger cars and truck trips. Exhibit
4‐1 illustrates the truck trip distribution patterns while Exhibits 4‐2 illustrates the passenger car
trip distribution patterns. The Project trip distribution pattern was reviewed by the City of Lake
Elsinore as part of the traffic study scoping process (see Appendix 1.1).
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips to be reduced by the use of public transit, walking or bicycling have
not been included as part of the Project’s estimated trip generation. Essentially, the Project’s
traffic projections are "conservative" in that these alternative travel modes would reduce the
forecasted traffic volumes.
25
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
24
TABLE 4‐1: TRIP GENERATION RATES
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use 1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicles:
General Light Industrial3 TSF 110 0.616 0.084 0.700 0.082 0.548 0.630 4.960
Passenger Cars:0.598 0.081 0.679 0.080 0.537 0.617 4.563
2‐Axle Trucks:0.003 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.066
3‐Axle Trucks:0.004 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.082
4+‐Axle Trucks:0.012 0.002 0.013 0.001 0.007 0.008 0.248
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):4
General Light Industrial3 TSF 110 0.616 0.084 0.700 0.082 0.548 0.630 4.960
Passenger Cars:0.598 0.081 0.679 0.080 0.537 0.617 4.563
2‐Axle Trucks:0.005 0.001 0.005 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.099
3‐Axle Trucks:0.008 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.164
4+‐Axle Trucks:0.035 0.005 0.039 0.003 0.021 0.024 0.745
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition (2017).
2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Vehicle Mix Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook Supplement (2020), Appendix C.
Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type.
Normalized % ‐ Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2‐Axle trucks, 20.7% 3‐Axle trucks, 62.6% 4 ‐Axle trucks.
4 PCE factors: 2‐axle = 1.5; 3 ‐axle = 2.0; 4+‐axle = 3.0.
Daily
26
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
25
TABLE 4‐2: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
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 only ADT and peak
hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4‐3.
Land Use Quantity In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Project Trip Generation Summary (Actual Vehicles):
General Light Industrial 93.255 TSF
Passenger Cars: 56 8 64 7 50 57 426
2‐axle Trucks: 000000 6
3‐axle Trucks: 000000 8
4+‐axle Trucks: 101011 24
Total Truck Trips:101011 38
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 57 8 65 7 51 58 464
Project Trip Generation Summary (PCE):
General Light Industrial 93.255 TSF
Passenger Cars: 56 8 64 7 50 57 426
2‐axle Trucks: 000000 10
3‐axle Trucks: 101000 16
4+‐axle Trucks: 303022 70
Total Truck Trips:404022 96
Total Trips (PCE)2 60 8 68 7 52 59 522
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.
Units1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
27
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
26
EXHIBIT 4‐1: PROJECT (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
28
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
27
EXHIBIT 4‐2: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
29
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
28
EXHIBIT 4‐3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
30
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
29
4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth of 4.04% (2%
per year compounded annually) for 2022 traffic conditions. This ambient growth rate is added
to existing traffic volumes to account for area‐wide growth not reflected by cumulative
development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes
on surrounding roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects
that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been
filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. EAP (2022) and EAPC (2022) traffic
volumes are provided in Section 5 and Section 6 of this report, respectively.
4.6 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation
with planning and engineering staff from the City of Lake Elsinore. Exhibit 4‐4 illustrates the
cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and
their proposed land uses are shown in Table 4‐3. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual
cumulative projects was manually added to the EAP (2022) forecasts to ensure that traffic
generated by the listed cumulative development projects in Table 4‐3 are reflected as part of the
background traffic to calculate EAPC (2022) traffic forecasts.
For the purposes of this TA, an absorption percentage has been applied to the cumulative
development traffic. It is unlikely that each cumulative development project shown on Exhibit 4‐
4 will be fully constructed and occupied by the year 2022. As such and consistent with other
recent studies within the City of Lake Elsinore, 20% of the cumulative development traffic has
been added to the EAP (2022) traffic volumes. Cumulative ADT and peak hour intersection
turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4‐5.
31
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
30
EXHIBIT 4‐4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP
32
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
31
EXHIBIT 4‐5: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
33
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
32
TABLE 4‐3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
No. Project Name Land Use
City of Lake Elsinore:
LE1 Chevron Gas Station Super Convenience Mkt./Gas Station 12 VFP
Single Family Residential 1,306 DU
Condo/Townhomes 120 DU
LE3 Trieste Residential (Tract 36624) Single Family Residential 75 DU
LE4 Fairway Business Park Warehouse 216.600 TSF
LE5 Ness Industrial Garage Warehouse 12.000 TSF
Single Family Residential 523 DU
Condo/Townhomes 171 DU
Shopping Center 145.00 TSF
South Shore I (Tract 31593)Single Family Residential 521 DU
South Shore II (Tract 36567) Single Family Residential 400 DU
LE8 Chik‐fil ‐a Restaurant Fast Food w/ Drive Thru 4.800 TSF
Fast Food w/ Drive Thru 2.540 TSF
Super Gas Station 18 VFP
LE10 Marina Village Condos (Tract 33820) Condo/Townhomes 94 DU
LE11 Honda Automobile Sales 53.400 TSF
LE12 Lake Elsinore Sports Complex Sports Center 525.000 TSF
LE13 Lakeview Manor Condo/Townhomes 104 DU
Single Family Residential 141 DU
Park 8.3 AC
Hotel 130 RM
Shopping Center 29.500 TSF
LE15 Central & Collier Shopping Center 75.000 TSF
LE16 Village at Lakeshore (TR 33267) Condo/Townhomes 163 DU
LE17 Tige Watersports Shopping Center 34.500 TSF
LE18 Lakeshore Town Center Town Center 237.400 TSF
LE19 Lakeview Plaza Shopping Center 43.000 TSF
Hotel 97 RM
Shopping Center 37.500 TSF
Single Family Residential 1,056 DU
Apartments 345 DU
Shopping Center 679.000 TSF
General Office 679.000 TSF
LE22 Pennington Industrial Park Warehouse 91.140 TSF
Free‐Standing Discount Superstore 151.397 TSF
Specialty Retail 5.300 TSF
Fast Food w/o Drive Thru 12.100 TSF
LE24 Circle KGas Station 4.500 TSF
LE25 Terracina Single Family Residential 365 DU
County of Riverside:
RC1 CUP190006 Discount Tire 8.192 TSF
RC2 TPM37545 Single Family Residential 4 DU
1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit; AC = Acres; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions; RM = Rooms
2 Source: Spyglass Ranch TIA (Revised), Kunzman Associates, February 2007.
LE20 North Peak Plaza
LE21 Alberhill Ridge (Tract 35001)
LE23 Lake Elsinore Walmart
LE2 Ramsgate
LE6 Spyglass Ranch2
Quantity1
LE7
Kassab Travel CenterLE9
LE14 Nichols South
34
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
33
5 EAP (2022) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop EAP (2022) traffic forecasts, 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 EAP (2022) conditions are
consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3‐1, with the exception of the following:
Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site
access are also assumed to be in place for EAP (2022) conditions only (e.g., intersection and
roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and driveways).
5.2 EAP (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% plus the
addition of Project traffic. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes which
can be expected for EAP (2022) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5‐1.
5.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under
EAP (2022) traffic conditions with the roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with
Section 5.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown in Table 5‐1, the study area intersections are
anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under EAP (2022)
traffic conditions, consistent with Existing (2020) traffic conditions. The intersection operations
analysis worksheets for EAP (2022) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.1.
TABLE 5‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2022) CONDITIONS
Delay Level of Delay Level of
(secs.) Service (secs.) Service
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1Driveway 1 & Collier Av.CSS 8.8 9.5 A A
2Driveway 2 & Collier Av.CSS 8.8 9.5 A A
3Driveway 3 & Collier Av.CSS 0.0 9.4 A A
4Riverside Dr. (SR‐74) & Collier Av. (SR‐74) TS 20.2 24.6 C C 20.6 27.3 C C
5Driveway 4 & El Toro Rd.CSS 8.3 8.3 A A
6Driveway 5 & El Toro Rd.CSS 8.3 8.4 A A
7Riverside Dr. & El Toro Rd.CSS 0.0 7.3 A A 8.4 8.6 A A
1 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
EAP (2022)
#Intersection
Traffic
Control1
Existing (2020)
35
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
34
EXHIBIT 5‐1: EAP (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
36
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
35
5.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants have been performed (based on CA MUTCD) for EAP (2022) traffic
conditions based on peak hour intersection turning movements volumes and daily planning level
volumes. Consistent with Existing (2020) traffic conditions, there are no unsignalized
intersections that are anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant for EAP (2022) conditions (see
Appendix 5.2).
5.5 DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
As shown in Table 5‐1, the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable
LOS during the peak hours under EAP (2022) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have
been identified.
37
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
36
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
38
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
37
6 EAPC (2022) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop EAPC (2022) traffic forecasts, 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 EAPC (2022) conditions
are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3‐1, with the exception of the following:
Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site
access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC (2022) conditions only (e.g., intersection and
roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and driveways).
Driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide
site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC (2022) conditions only (e.g., intersection and
roadway improvements along the cumulative development’s frontages and driveways).
6.2 EAPC (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% plus 20%
of the traffic from pending and approved but not yet constructed known development projects
in the area, in conjunction with Project traffic. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak
hour volumes which can be expected for EAPC (2022) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6‐
1.
6.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under
EAPC (2022) traffic conditions with the roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with
Section 6.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown in Table 6‐1, the study area intersections are
anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under EAPC (2022)
traffic conditions, consistent with Existing (2020) traffic conditions. The intersection operations
analysis worksheets for EAPC (2022) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.1.
39
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
38
TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2022) CONDITIONS
6.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants have been performed (based on CA MUTCD) for EAP (2022) traffic
conditions based on peak hour intersection turning movements volumes and daily planning level
volumes. Consistent with Existing (2020) traffic conditions, there are no unsignalized
intersections that are anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant for EAP (2022) conditions (see
Appendix 6.2).
6.5 DEFICIENCIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
As shown in Table 6‐1, the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable
LOS during the peak hours under EAPC (2022) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have
been identified.
Delay Level of
(secs.) Service
AM PM AM PM
1Driveway 1 & Collier Av.CSS 8.9 9.7 A A
2Driveway 2 & Collier Av.CSS 9.0 9.7 A A
3Driveway 3 & Collier Av.CSS 0.0 9.7 A A
4Riverside Dr. (SR‐74) & Collier Av. (SR‐74) TS 22.6 39.9 C D
5Driveway 4 & El Toro Rd.CSS 8.3 8.3 A A
6Driveway 5 & El Toro Rd.CSS 8.3 8.4 A A
7Riverside Dr. & El Toro Rd.CSS 8.4 8.6 A A
1 CSS = Cross ‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Improvement
40
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
39
EXHIBIT 6‐1: EAPC (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
41
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
40
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
42
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
41
7 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Transportation improvements within the City of Lake Elsinore are funded through a combination
of improvements constructed by the Project, development impact fee programs or fair share
contributions. Identification and timing of needed improvements is generally determined
through local jurisdictions based upon a variety of factors.
7.1 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE (TIF) PROGRAM
Transportation improvements throughout the City of Lake Elsinore are funded through a
combination of project improvements, fair share contributions or development impact fee
programs, such as the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program or the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program.
Identification and timing of needed improvements is generally determined through local
jurisdictions based upon a variety of factors. These fees are collected as part of a funding
mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the
projected vehicle trip increases.
Fees from new residential, commercial and industrial development are collected to fund local
facilities. Under the City’s TIF 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 TIF program.
The timing to use the TIF 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 TIF program
establishes a timeline to fund, design, and build the improvements.
7.2 TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM
The TUMF program is administered by the WRCOG based upon a regional Nexus Study most
recently updated in 2016 to address major changes in right of way acquisition and improvement
cost factors. (7) This regional program was put into place to ensure that development pays its fair
share and that funding is in place for construction of facilities needed to maintain the requisite
level of service and critical to mobility in the region. TUMF is a truly regional mitigation fee
program and is imposed and implemented in every jurisdiction in Western Riverside County.
TUMF guidelines empower a local zone committee to prioritize and arbitrate certain projects.
The Project is located in the Southwest Zone. The zone has developed a 5‐year capital
improvement program to prioritize public construction of certain roads. TUMF is focused on
improvements necessitated by regional growth.
43
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
42
7.3 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION
Project improvement may include a combination of fee payments to established programs,
construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future
improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by
development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where
appropriate (to be determined at the City’s discretion).
When off‐site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to
proposed development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution
or require the development to construct improvements. These fees are collected with the
proceeds solely used as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways
and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected population increases.
44
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
43
8 REFERENCES
1. City of Lake Elsinore. Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide. Lake Elsinore : s.n., June 23, 2020.
2. California Department of Transportation. Evaluating Transportation Impacts of State Highway System
Projects. September 2020.
3. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 10th Edition. 2017.
4. Riverside County Transportation Commission. 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management
Program. County of Riverside : RCTC, December 14, 2011.
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). 2017.
7. Western Riverside Council of Governments. TUMF Nexus Study, 2016 Program Update. July 2017.
45
North Elsinore Business Park Traffic Analysis
13772‐03 TA Report REV
44
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
46