The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2012/02/13 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, February 13, 2012 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairman: Peter Agarwal • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Victoria Ramirez • Commissioners: Todd Ament, Stephen Faessel, Michelle Lieberman, Harry Persaud, John Seymour • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, February 9, 2012, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, during regular business hours. You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net 02/13/12 Page 2 of 7 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. 02/13/12 Page 3 of 7 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05566 VARIANCE NO. 2011-04882 (DEV2011-00064) Location: 501 East Cerritos Avenue The applicant proposes to permit an auto sales dealership within an existing industrial building with less parking spaces than required by Code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Continued from the January 18, and January 30, 2012 Planning Commission meetings. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05586 (DEV2011-00138) Location: 121 – 295 West Center Street Promenade The applicant proposes to establish eight restaurants and a barbershop, to include outdoor dining, the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption and indoor and outdoor entertainment within the ground floor retail spaces of the mixed use buildings on Center Street Promenade in Downtown Anaheim. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Continued from the January 30, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net 02/13/12 Page 4 of 7 ITEM NO. 4 VARIANCE NO. 2012-04885 (DEV2012-00001) Location: 518 South Brookhurst Street The applicant proposes to establish a restaurant within an existing commercial retail center with less parking spaces than required by Code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05589 VARIANCE NO. 2012-04884 (DEV2011-00145) Location: 730 North Euclid Street The applicant proposes to amend a previously-approved conditional use permit to add modular classrooms to an existing private school with less parking spaces than required by Code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net 02/13/12 Page 5 of 7 ITEM NO. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05468 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04803 (DEV2009-00058) Locations: 909 South Dale Avenue 2823 West Ball Road 904 South Calico Circle 912 South Calico Circle The applicant requests to permit the expansion of an existing church by replacing an existing 3,290 square foot social hall with an 18,990 square foot social hall, including the renovation of an adjacent outdoor plaza area with less parking spaces than required by Code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 32 (Infill Development). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011-00344 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2011-00247 (DEV2011-00099) Location: 2695 East Katella Avenue The applicant proposes the following: an increase to the number of events held at Honda Center for a total of up to 222 annual events in order to accommodate an additional sports franchise tenant without decreasing the number of events currently held at facility; physical improvements to the arena building including interior modifications and an exterior expansion; and, to rezone approximately 22.5 acres of the 42.5-acre Honda Center site from the T (PTMU) (Transition – Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay) Zone to the PR (PTMU) Zone (Public Recreational - Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay) Zone in order to provide a consistent zoning designation for the entire site. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report No. 2011-00344. Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Susan Kim skim@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, February 27, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. 02/13/12 Page 6 of 7 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:30 p.m. February 8, 2012_ (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting. La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal. Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo. Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139, antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada. 02/13/12 Page 7 of 7 S C H E D U L E 2012 February 27 March 12 March 26 April 9 April 23 May 7 May 21 June 4 June 18 July 2 July 16 July 30 August 13 August 27 September 10 September 24 October 8 October 22 November 5 November 19 December 3 December 17 December 31 I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL C-G (SABC)ANAHEIM MARKETPLACEINDOOR SWAP MEET I (SABC)RELIGIOUS USE I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL IINDUSTRIAL I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL E CERRITOS AVE S ALLEC STE E. BALL RD S. LEWIS STS. HARBOR BLVDE. KATELLA AVE E. CERRITOS AVES. ANAHEI M BLVDW. BALL RD W. KATELLA AVE S. SUNKIST STW. DISNEY WAY 5 0 1 E as t C e r r ito s A ven u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 0 6 4 Subject Property APN: 082-140-37082-130-31 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Ae rial Pho to:May 20 10RAILROAD E CERRITOS AVE S ALLEC STE E. BALL RD S. LEWIS STS. HARBOR BLVDE. KATELLA AVE E. CERRITOS AVES. ANAHEI M BLVDW. BALL RD W. KATELLA AVE S. SUNKIST STW. DISNEY WAY 5 0 1 E as t C e r r ito s A ven u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 0 6 4 Subject Property APN: 082-140-37082-130-31 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Ae rial Pho to:May 20 11 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 -1- PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES) AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05566 AND VARIANCE NO. 2011-04882 (DEV2011-00064) (501 EAST CERRITOS AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on January 18, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; WHEREAS, this property is developed with an industrial building. The property is located in the I (Industrial) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Industrial land uses; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the proposed use for a automobile sales facility is properly one for which a conditional use permit is permitted under authority of Code Section No. 18.10.030.010 (Automotive Car Sales & Rental). 2. That the proposed use for an automobile sales facility, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because it involves very little customer traffic and; therefore, is compatible with surrounding industrial uses. 3. That the size and shape of the site of the automobile sales facility is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety. 4. That the traffic generated by the a automobile sales facility will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5. That granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. -2- PC2012-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance for less parking than required by Code should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces. (33 spaces required; 24 spaces provided). 1. That the variance, under the conditions imposed will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the industrial building than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to this use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of the automobile sales facility because the on-site parking for this use will adequately accommodate peak parking demands of all uses on the site; 2. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking for the industrial building will adequately accommodate the peak parking demands of both for the automobile sales facility and furniture warehouse business; 3. The variance will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas provided for the automobile sales facility since all parking is contained on-site and will not encroach into other parking facilities and the supply of parking is adequate for the both the industrial use and the automobile sales facility. Further, the project does not propose new ingress or egress points and is designed to allow adequate on-site circulation and therefore will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the use. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15303, Class 1 (Existing) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05566 and Variance No. 2011- 04882 and subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. -3- PC2012-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the hours of operation or the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2012-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on February 13, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of February, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -5- PC2012-*** -6- PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05566 & VARIANCE NO. 2011-04882 (DEV2011-00064) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 A Drainage Impact and Improvement Fee (for Central Anaheim) shall be paid based upon the area of pavement that was added without permits in front of the building adjacent to Cerritos Avenue. The fee shall be paid within 90 days of approval of this permit. Public Works- Development Services 2 The property owner shall execute and record a covenant to relocate at the property owner’s sole expense the freestanding sign located within the ultimate 53 foot right- of-way easement of Cerritos Avenue. The covenant shall be recorded within 90 days of approval of this permit. Public Works- Development Services 3 Rooftop address numbers for the police helicopter. Minimum size 4’ in height and 2’ in width. The lines of the numbers are to be a minimum of 6” thick. Numbers should be spaced 12” to 18” apart. Numbers should be painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the roofing material. Numbers should face the street to which the structure is addressed. Numbers are not to be visible from the ground level. Police Department 4 The property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. Planning Department - Code Enforcement Division 5 That no more than four vehicles shall be displayed for sale on the premises at any time. Planning Department – Code Enforcement 6 The three parking spaces proposed along the south side of the building (adjacent to Cerritos Avenue) shall be reserved for employees or display vehicles only. If necessary, the space labeled as Parking Space No. 1 on Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) may be utilized for disabled parking if properly designed for such use. The two parking spaces labeled Parking Space Nos. 4 and 5 on the Site Plan shall be reserved for customer parking. These spaces shall be signed accordingly within 90 days of approval of this permit. Public Work, Traffic and Transportation Division -7- PC2012-*** 7 All parking areas shown on Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) shall be striped and resurfaced, if necessary to accommodate said striping, according to that plan. These improvements shall be completed within 90 days of approval of this permit. Planning Department – Planning Services Division 8 No inoperable vehicles shall be stored outside of the building and no on-site vehicle repair, other than the washing and detailing of vehicles, shall be permitted on-site. Planning Department – Planning Services Division 9 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) and Exhibit No. 2 (Floor Plan), and as conditioned herein. Planning Department – Planning Services Division Toufic Masri 501 E Ceritos Ave Anaheim, CA 92805 714-7097903 CUP# 2011-05566 (Dev Case# 2011-00064) I.Statement of Operation TM Motors have started doing business back in 2005 based on a verification use permit given by the city of Anaheim. Our business mode of opertion involves wholesaling and retailing vehicles. We have been conducting business since the license was given to us almost 7 years ago. The majority of our business is wholesale. The business is a small sacale operation, employing 2 salespersons who are involved in buying and selling vehicles. Office use for the auto sales opertion is 1,000 sqaure feet. Repairs and maintenance are sent out to local shops. No repairs or dismantling are conducted on the premises. Also TM Motors does not sell auto parts or accessories. Hours of operations are M-F 10-5, Sat & Sun 10-3. II.Signage Sign has existed for 30 years. It has not been enlarged or resized beside from changing the signage content. The sign was hit by a truck before work has commenced on the front property. It has been moved and re-ercted and cut from the bottom, shortening it by 2.5 feet. The new place where it was erected is 20 feet from its original location to prevent the same accident. This was shown and explained to Inspector Ken Marsh over 6 months ago. III.Parking use The existing parking requirements were set when the building was erected back in 1964. No new structural addition to the building has been made since then. The front paved access to the building actually now provides additional parking spaces to the building over what is required. On top of that additional spaces were designated in the rear of the building in an used yard (shown on map) to increase its attractivess. All these extra spaces have been provided in excess of what the of the status of the builiding requires. IV.Parking Space Crossover The 2 parking space that slightly cross over what is indicated by the easement are not new. They have existed since the building and easement inseption V.Street Front Right-of-Way The paved front area of the building was done to provide access to the front unit of the building as there are no other way to access the front unit without this driveway. The east side of the driveway with its distance from the main street (Cerritos Ave) complies with what the adjacent property's setback. However the west side is 13 feet away from the street. This has been done in alignemnt with the building front inclination. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C -G (D M U )R E T A IL RM-4PARKING LOT C -G (D M U )M IX E D U S E 9 5 D U C -G (D M U )P A R K IN G S T R U C T U R E I (SABC)SELF STORAGE FACILITY C-GKRAEMERBUILDINGAPTS O -L O F F IC E S C -G M E D IC A L O F F IC E C -G (D M U )R E T A IL I (M U )A P A R T M E N T S IR E S T A U R A N T S C -G (D M U )C IT Y H A L L O-LVACANT BUILDING C-GCITY HALL C-G (SABC)RETAIL R M -4 (S A B C )A P T S 2 2 D U C -G (D M U )A N A H E IM IC E C -G R E L IG IO U S U S E C-GKRAEMERBUILDINGOFFICES RM-4APARTMENTS6 DU C -G (D M U )P A R K IN G S T R U C T U R E R M -4 R E L IG IO U S U S E C -G (S A B C )A P T S6 D U C -G (D M U )P O S T O F F IC E C -G (D M U )M U S E U M C -G S E R V IC E S T A T IO N RM-3 (SABC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R S -3 S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E C -G (D M U )M IX E D U S E I (SABC)VACANT C-GRETAIL W B R O A D W A Y S ANAHEI M BL VDW LINCOLN AVES ANAHEI M BLVDS L EMON STW O A K S T S CL EMENTI NE STE C E N T E R S T W O A K S T W C E N T E R S T R E E T P R O M E N A D E S. EAST STE . L I N C O L N A V E W . B R O A D W A Y N. EAST STN. HARBOR BLVDS. M A N C H E S T E R A V E N. ANAHEI M BLVDE . B R O A D W A Y W . L IN C O L N AVES. ANAHEI M BLVDE . B R O A D W A Y 2 0 1 West Cent er St re et Pro mena de D E V N o. 2011-00138 Subject Property APN: 037-011-55037-011-57037-011-54036-193-32 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 11 W B R O A D W A Y S ANAHEI M BL VDW LINCOLN AVES ANAHEI M BLVDS L EMON STW O A K S T S CL EMENTI NE STE C E N T E R S T W O A K S T W C E N T E R S T R E E T P R O M E N A D E S. EAST STE . L I N C O L N A V E W . B R O A D W A Y N. EAST STN. HARBOR BLVDS. M A N C H E S T E R A V E N. ANAHEI M BLVDE . B R O A D W A Y W . L IN C O L N AVES. ANAHEI M BLVDE . B R O A D W A Y 2 0 1 West Cent er St re et Pro mena de D E V N o. 2011-00138 Subject Property APN: 037-011-55037-011-57037-011-54036-193-32 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 11 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING, IN PART, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05586 (DEV2011-00138) (121 – 295 WEST CENTER STREET PROMENADE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for a conditional use permit to establish eight restaurants and a barbershop, to include outdoor dining, the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, and indoor and outdoor entertainment within the ground floor retail spaces of the mixed use buildings in Downtown Anaheim, for those certain real properties located at 121 – 295 West Center Street Promenade in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the properties are currently developed with six story parking structures with retail spaces on the ground floor and are located in the C-G (DMU Overlay) zone; the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Mixed Use land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did schedule a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on January 30, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against the proposed amendment to said conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith, and the Commission continued this item for two weeks to the February 13, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to permit restaurants, alcoholic beverage sales for on-premises consumption, and entertainment is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section Nos. 18.08.030.010 and 18.38.220.020.0206 (Alcoholic Beverage Sales-On- Sale; Recreation-Commercial Outdoor; Restaurants-Semi Enclosed) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The proposed restaurants will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because it will be integrated into existing ground floor retail units within the Downtown area. This permit also contains conditions to prohibit any outdoor entertainment activity, with one exception, to ensure that adjacent residential uses will not be adversely affected. - 2 - 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim because the proposed restaurants will be integrated into a existing ground floor retail units within the Downtown area. The restaurants require 54 parking spaces. The remaining ground floor retail spaces owned by the applicant require 31 spaces, for a total of 85 required spaces. A total of 1,416 spaces are provided within the two parking structures above the restaurants and 2,254 remaining spaces are available in six other parking facilities within the downtown area, all of which are owned by the Redevelopment Agency. These Agency-owned structures are used to accommodate parking for various uses within the downtown mixed use development area. There are also 64 time-restricted spaces available for the retail customers on Center Street Promenade, which is a private street. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area because the proposed use will be located within the Downtown area and conditions will be imposed to ensure that adjacent residential uses will not be adversely affected by any on-site activities. WHEREAS the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approve, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05586 (DEV2011-00138) to permit eight restaurants and a barbershop, to include outdoor dining, the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, and indoor and outdoor entertainment within the ground floor retail spaces of the mixed use buildings in Downtown Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05586, denying the request for outdoor entertainment, except in one area, subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. - 3 - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the hours of operation or the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February 13, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of February, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - - 6 - EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05586 (DEV2011-00138) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 At all times when the restaurants are open for business, the premise shall be maintained as a bona fide eating establishment and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant. Police 2 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40% of gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcohol and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. Police 3 The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. Police 4 There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Police 5 Subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. Police 6 There shall be no entertainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted on the premises at any time unless the proper permits have been obtained from the City of Anaheim. Police 7 The number of persons attending the event shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. Police, Fire 8 At all times that entertainment is permitted, except during times of entry or exit, emergencies, and deliveries, the doors shall remain closed. Police, Fire - 7 - 9 All employees shall be clothed in such a way as to not expose “specified anatomical areas” as described in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Police 10 Any violation of the application or conditions of approval shall be sufficient grounds to revoke the permit. Police, Code Enforcement 11 The business shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks. Police 12 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. Police 13 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. Police 14 The any permitted event or activity shall not create sound levels, which violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim as described in Section 4.16.100.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Police, Code Enforcement 15 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Police 16 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police 17 Adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Police 18 A maximum of nine (9) alcoholic beverage licenses shall be permitted within the nine subject ground floor retail spaces Planning - 8 - only, as shown on Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. These alcoholic beverage licenses shall be for on-premises consumption only in conjunction with a bonafide eating establishment. 19 Entertainment shall be allowed inside the restaurant spaces only. Outdoor entertainment shall not be allowed within the patio or food court areas, with the exception of the outdoor area adjacent to the 209-213 West Center Street Promenade space, where non-amplified music would be allowed until 10:00 p.m. Police, Code Enforcement 20 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and as conditioned herein. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G (BCC)RETAIL RM-4EL CORTEZAPARTMENTS65 DU C-G (BCC)RETAIL C-G (BCC)BANK RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-G (BCC)RETAIL C-G (BCC)RETAILRM-4SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TRELIGIOUS USE C-G (BCC)OFFICES RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-G (BCC)RETAIL RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE S BROOKHURST STS VALLEY STW OR AN G E AV ES ARCHER STW ELM AVE S ARCHER STW. BALL RD W. BROADWAY S. EUCLID STS. MAGNOLIA AVEW. LINCOLN AVEW. LINCOLN AVE 5 1 8 S o u t h B r o o kh u r st St r e e t D E V N o . 2 0 1 2 -0 0 0 0 1 Subject Property APN: 128-171-55 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 S BROOKHURST STS VALLEY STW OR AN G E AV ES ARCHER STW ELM AVE S ARCHER STW. BALL RD W. BROADWAY S. EUCLID STS. MAGNOLIA AVEW. LINCOLN AVEW. LINCOLN AVE 5 1 8 S o u t h B r o o kh u r st St r e e t D E V N o . 2 0 1 2 -0 0 0 0 1 Subject Property APN: 128-171-55 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2012-04885 (DEV2012-00001) (518 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET, SUITES 1 AND 2) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Variance No. 2012-04885 to establish a restaurant within an existing commercial retail center with less parking than required by Code for that certain real property located at 518 South Brookhurst Street in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State Of California, as more particularly shown in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "subject property"); and WHEREAS, this 1.3-acre property is developed with a 19,440 square foot commercial retail center. The property is located in the C-G (General Commercial) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Corridor Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 13, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the requested restaurant with fewer parking spaces than allowed by code should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces. (130 spaces required; 88 spaces proposed) 1. The variance, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed restaurant than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions because the on-site parking within the shopping center will adequately accommodate peak parking demands for all uses combined. The submitted parking justification letter states that, because the two businesses with the highest parking demand (the proposed restaurant and an existing Hookah Lounge) have non-conflicting peak hours, that ample parking will be available on-site. Parking surveys were also conducted during the peak daytime and early evening hours when a maximum of 29 parking spaces, or 33% of the total spaces available, were occupied. - 2 - PC2012-*** 2. The variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking will be adequate to accommodate the peak parking demands of the proposed restaurant. 3. The variance will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas provided for the restaurant since all parking is contained on-site and will not encroach into other parking facilities and the supply of parking is adequate for the restaurant. Further, the project does not propose new ingress or egress points and is designed to allow adequate on-site circulation and therefore will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. 4. The granting of the variance under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed land use will be compatible with the surrounding area because the use is integrated with other uses on the property and is not a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance No. 2012-04885, subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the hours of operation or the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. - 3 - PC2012-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February 13, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of February, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2012-*** - 5 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” VARIANCE NO. 2012-04885 (DEV2012-00001) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage. Planning 2 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 (Site Plan and Floor Plan), and as conditioned herein. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 3 VAR2012-04885 SITE PHOTOS ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-GOFFICES RM-3DUPLEX RM-4GLEANOAKS TERRACEAPARTMENTS66 DU C-GRETAIL O.C.F.C.D. RM-4BROADWAY ROYALEAPARTMENTS121 DU C-GVILLA CATALPAAPTS18 DU C-GANAHEIM PLAZA(NORTH) RM-4TRIPLEX C-GRETAIL C-GPOST OFFICE C-GRESTAURANT C-GMEDICAL OFFICE RM-4GRAMERCY APARTMENTS66 DU C-GPARKING LOT C-GRETAIL RM-4MONTE VERDEAPTS150 DU C-GRETAIL RM-4APARTMENTS48 DU RM-3DUPLEX RM-3TRIPLEX RM-4PORTOFINO COVEAPARTMENTS260 DU RM-3DUPLEX RM-4FOURPLEX N EUCLID STW CATALPA DR W GLENOA KS AVE W. LA PALMA AVE N. EUCLID STW. LINCOLN AVE N. HARBOR BLVDN. BROOKHURST STW. CRESCENT AVE N. LOARA STW. ROMNEYA DR W. LI N C O L N A V E 7 3 0 N o r t h Eu c li d S t r e e t D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 1 4 5 Subject Property APN: 034-300-56 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 N EUCLID STW CATALPA DR W GLENOA KS AVE W. LA PALMA AVE N. EUCLID STW. LINCOLN AVE N. HARBOR BLVDN. BROOKHURST STW. CRESCENT AVE N. LOARA STW. ROMNEYA DR W. LI N C O L N A V E 7 3 0 N o r t h Eu c li d S t r e e t D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 1 4 5 Subject Property APN: 034-300-56 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3709, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2012-04884, AND AMENDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. ZA94-21 (CUP2011-05589 AND DEV2010-00145) (730 NORTH EUCLID STREET) WHEREAS, on August 18, 1994, the Anaheim Zoning Administrator did, by its Resolution No. ZA94-21, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3709 to permit a private educational facility with less parking than required by Code; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 3709 (Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05589) and permit Variance No. 2012-04884 to add modular classrooms to an existing private school with less parking than required by Code for that certain real property located at 730 North Euclid Street in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State Of California, as more particularly shown in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "subject property"); and WHEREAS, this 1.8-acre property is developed with a 33,000 square foot 3-story office building. The property is located in the C-G (General Commercial) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Office Low land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 13, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed request to permit the expansion of an existing private university with a variance to allow fewer parking spaces than required by Code in the C-G (General Commercial) Zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.08.30.010 (Educational Institutions - Business). 2. The proposed amendment to the conditional use permit, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the proposed expansion would be compatible with surrounding uses which include offices, a fast food restaurant, and an apartment complex. - 2 - PC2012-*** 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed project in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the site is large enough to accommodate all uses on the property. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit and the variance under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance to permit less parking than required by Code in conjunction with a private university expansion should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum required parking spaces (489 spaces required; 142 proposed) 1. The requested variance, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off- street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use based upon conclusions contained in the parking study prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers, dated December 5, 2011, determining the necessary demand for parking spaces for the proposed project. The study concludes that the demand for the entire university, including the nursing school expansion, is less than required by Code based upon the staggered class schedules and the use of shuttles by international students who make up a majority of the student body. For these reasons, this request will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary. 2. The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because all parking will be contained on the subject property. 3. The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because all parking will be contained on the subject property. 4. The variance will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because the streets and highways are designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 5. The variance will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the project does not propose new ingress or egress points and is designed to allow adequate on-site circulation. - 3 - PC2012-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove specified does hereby grant the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3709 (Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05589) to add modular classrooms to an existing private school and Variance No. 2012-04884 to allow less parking than required by Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby amend and restate the conditions of approval adopted in connection with Resolution No. ZA94- 21, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3709, to read as stated in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which conditions are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, except as expressly amended herein, the provisions contained in Resolution No. ZA94-21, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3709, shall remain in full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this approval is granted for a period of three (3) years and that amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City- Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. - 4 - PC2012-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February 13, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of February, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2012-*** - 6 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3709 AND VARIANCE NO. 2012-04884 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05589 AND DEV2011-00145) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 1 The proper building permits shall be obtained for the proposed modular buildings. Planning, Building, Fire GENERAL 2 Adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Police 3 Due to the temporary nature of the proposed use, this permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of this approval. Planning 4 The granting of the parking variance is contingent upon operation of this facility in conformance with the assumptions and/or conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the parking study dated December 5, 2011 prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers, which formed the basis for approval of said variance. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions and/or conclusions, as contained in the parking study, may subject this variance to termination pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 - Procedures of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Planning 5 No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for storage or other outdoor use. Code Enforcement 6 The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control, in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular maintenance and removal of trash or debris. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Code Enforcement 7 This property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans, technical studies and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and as conditioned herein, which include the Site Plans and Floor Plans (Exhibit Nos. 1-3). Said plans and studies are on file in the Planning Department. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. TRELIGIOUS USE C-GRETAIL RM-4APARTMENTS12 DU RM-4CASA ALEGRAAPTS RM-4DOVE MANORAPARTMENTS19 DU RM-4APARTMENTS8 DU RM-4SUMMER CRESTAPARTMENTS183 DU C-GRETAIL RM-4BRIGHTON COURTAPTS22 DU C-GSERVICESTATION RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4SUNSET PLAZAAPARTMENTS106 DU C-GOFFICES C-GRETAIL RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-GAMVETS C-GREST. TSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TPARKING LOT TDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLRS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE W BALL RD S DALE AVEW ROM E AVE S BIRCHLEAF DRW DE VOY DR W ELMLAWN D R W LYN ROSE DR S CALICO CIRW DE VOY DR W. BALL RD S. DALE AVEW. ORANGE AVE S. MAGNOLIA AVEW. BRO ADWAY S. WESTERN AVES. GILBERT ST. BEACH BLVD. CERRITOS AVE. CERRITOS AVE 9 0 9 Sou th Dale Avenue D E V N o. 2009-00058 Subject Property APN: 126-232-09 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 11 W BALL RD S DALE AVEW ROM E AVE S BIRCHLEAF DRW DE VOY DR W ELMLAWN D R W LYN ROSE DR S SHARON CIRS CALICO CIRW DE VOY DR W. BALL RD S. DALE AVEW. ORANGE AVE S. MAGNOLIA AVEW. BRO ADWAY S. WESTERN AVES. GILBERT ST. BEACH BLVD. CERRITOS AVE. CERRITOS AVE 9 0 9 Sou th Dale Avenue D E V N o. 2009-00058 Subject Property APN: 126-232-09 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 11 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05468 AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04803 (DEV2009-00058) (909 SOUTH DALE AVENUE, 2823 WEST BALL ROAD, 904 SOUTH CALICO CIRCLE and 912 SOUTH CALICO CIRCLE) WHEREAS, on March 4, 1963, the Anaheim Planning Commission did, by its Resolution No. 668, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 380, to construct a church; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 1980, the Anaheim Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC80-64, did grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2067, to permit the expansion of an existing church; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 1995, the Anaheim Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC95-155, did grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3796, to construct a chapel and waiting room in conjunction with an existing church with waivers of minimum setbacks and number of required parking spaces; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2004, the Anaheim Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2004-27, did amend Conditional Use Permit No. 3796, to construct an accessory parking lot for an existing church with waivers of minimum structural and landscape setbacks and maximum fence height; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05468 and Variance No. 2009-04803, as described below; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to permit the expansion of an existing church by replacing an existing 3,290 square foot social hall with an 18,990 square foot social hall, including the renovation of an adjacent outdoor plaza area with less parking spaces than required by Code; and WHEREAS, the subject property is developed with a church facility and is located in the T (Transition) and RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family) Zones, and the Anaheim General Plan designates these properties for Low Density and Low-Medium Density Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 13, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been dul y given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment to conditional use permit and variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and - 2 - PC2012-*** WHEREAS, said Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed request to permit the expansion of an existing church by replacing an existing 3,290 square foot social hall with an 18,990 square foot social hall, including the renovation of an adjacent outdoor plaza area with less parking spaces than required by Code is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.14.030.040.0402 and 18.04.030.040.0402 (Community and Religious Assembly). 2. The proposed conditional use permit, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located the church will continue to operate in a consistent manner which is not detrimental to the adjacent properties. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed project in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the facilities on the property will be used during off-setting times. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the church will operate the facilities during off-setting hours and all of the buildings will not be used simultaneously. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit and the variance under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area through conditions of approval for the use and is not a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance to permit less parking spaces than required by Code should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum required parking spaces (444 spaces required; 192 proposed) 1. The variance is hereby approved based upon operational standards described by the applicant and the parking observation conducted determining the necessary demand for parking spaces for the proposed project. The parking observation concludes that the demand for the church services is less than the number of spaces provided. Additionally, the property is conditioned to operate in a manner off-setting the uses and the buildings are not permitted to operate simultaneously. For these reasons, this request will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary. - 3 - PC2012-*** 2. The variance will not will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because all parking will be contained on the subject property. 3. The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because all parking will be contained on the subject property. 4. The variance will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because the project does not propose new ingress or egress points and is designed to allow adequate on-site circulation. 5. The variance will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the project does not propose new ingress or egress points and is designed to allow adequate on-site circulation and therefore will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the property. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15332, Class 32 (Infill Development) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove specified does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05468 to expansion of an existing church by replacing an existing 3,290 square foot social hall with an 18,990 square foot social hall, including the renovation of an adjacent outdoor plaza area and grant Variance No. 2009-04803. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, except as expressly amended herein, the provision of Resolution No. PC2004-27, amending Conditional Use Permit No. 3796, shall remain in full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. - 4 - PC2012-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2012-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February 13, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of February, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 6 - PC2012-*** - 7 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05468 AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04803 (DEV2009-00058) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT 1 In the event that either of the two single-family residential properties on Calico Circle is sold to an entity not affiliated with the church, the properties shall not be considered as part of the church facility for the purposes of this conditional use permit. Planning Department, Planning Services 2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit to the Building Department for review and approval, a Water Quality Management Plan, in accordance with the latest WQMP requirements which went into effect as of August 17, 2011, that: • Addresses site design best management practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or “zero discharge” areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporates the applicable routine source control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). • Incorporates treatment control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. • Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the treatment control BMPs. • Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the treatment control BMPs, and describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the treatment control BMPs. Planning Department, Building Division PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 3 Any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer’s expense. Landscape and/or hardscape screening of all pad mounted equipment shall be required and shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering Division 4 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour demands for the Public Utilities, Water - 8 - PC2012-*** project. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Engineering Division PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 5 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles within fire lanes shall be painted red to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division 6 The business shall be equipped with an alarm system (silent or audible). Police Department 7 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Numbers should be visible during hours of darkness. Police Department 8 Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516, and return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. This form is available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678 Police Department 9 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. Police Department 10 Adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Police Department 11 Gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standards and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division 12 The water backflow equipment shall be above ground and located outside the required street setback area and fully screened from all public streets. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside the required street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the Water Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division - 9 - PC2012-*** Engineering and Cross Connection Inspector for review and approval. 13 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering Division ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATIONS 14 No congregation or church meetings shall occur at the residential units located on Calico Circle and they shall only be used as residences for church leaders or employees. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 15 The hours of operation for the church, chapel, social hall, classrooms and multi-purpose room shall be limited to the hours outlined in Figure C of the Letter of Operation. As indicated, the church building and the social hall shall not operate simultaneously. Changes to the letter of operation are subject to review and approval by the Planning Director and shall be based on the demonstrated availability of an adequate number of parking spaces to support any requested operational change. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 16 This property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans, technical studies and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and as conditioned herein, which include the Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevation Plans (Exhibit Nos. 1-14). Said plans and studies are on file in the Planning Department. Planning Department, Planning Services Division ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-GVACANT O-L (PTMU)VOCATIONALSCHOOL RAILROAD IKatellaAYRES HOTEL I (PTMU)KatellaARENA PLAZA T (PTMU)ArenaPARKING LOT O-L (PTMU)OFFICES PR (PTMU)ArenaHONDA CENTER C-GRANCHO DEL RIO(HORSES) PR (PTMU)ArenaPARKING LOT E KATELLA AVES DOUGLASS RDE C E R R IT O S A V E E. BALL RD E . KATELLA AVES. SUNKIST STS. STATE COLLEGE BLVDS. DOUGLASS RD2 6 9 5 Ea st Katella Avenue D E V N o. 2011-00099 Subject Property APN: 253-521-31375-311-13253-521-16253-521-17375-311-10253-521-04253-601-02375-311-11 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 11 E KATELLA AVES DOUGLASS RDE C E R R IT O S A V E E. BALL RD E . KATELLA AVES. SUNKIST STS. STATE COLLEGE BLVDS. DOUGLASS RD2 6 9 5 Ea st Katella Avenue D E V N o. 2011-00099 Subject Property APN: 253-521-31375-311-13253-521-16253-521-17375-311-10253-521-04253-601-02375-311-11 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 11 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 -1- PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011-00344 FOR THE HONDA CENTER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. WHEREAS, in June of 1990, the Anaheim City Council approved documents, including certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 299, which led to the construction of the Anaheim Arena in 1993. WHEREAS, in 2003, the City approved and entered into its current Facility Management Agreement with Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (AAM) and, in 2006, Honda Motor Company became the title sponsor and the arena name was changed to Honda Center; and WHEREAS, Honda Center was originally designed and constructed to be home to two professional sports franchises and the City and its facility management partners have worked throughout the years to bring a second professional sports franchise to Honda Center; and WHEREAS, the EIR No. 299 analyzed up to 162 events per year at the Anaheim Arena and Honda Center currently averages up to 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of up to 11,264 people; and WHEREAS, the maximum number of events held in any one year at Honda Center, over the last five years was 162 events in 2008. WHEREAS, the City and AAM would like to increase the maximum number of events by 60 from the previous high of 162 events for a total of 222 events per year, which would increase these average number events from three events per week to four events per week. The purpose of the additional events would be to accommodate a second professional sports franchise at Honda Center without reducing the number of events currently held at Honda Center. The proposed increase in events would not result in a change in the Honda Center’s maximum seating capacity of 18,900; and WHEREAS, AAM has submitted plans to the City for minor improvements on the south side of the existing facility including an approximate 5,846 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, a 5,846 square foot team store and a 9,114 square feet open area on the Main Level (Level 200); and, above the main level improvements, a 9,518 square feet restaurant to serve event attendees and a 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the Club Level (Level 300). Other proposed improvements to the interior of the building include locker room, office space, bunker suite and balcony suite renovations; electrical upgrades and an increase in the capacity of -2- PC2012-*** the loading dock. None of the proposed improvements would increase the maximum seating capacity of the existing arena; however, the improvements would result in the loss of approximately 15-20 parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim Planning Director on behalf of the Executive Director of City of Anaheim Department of Sports, Entertainment, and Convention, has initiated a request per Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.76.030 to reclassify properties utilized as the Honda Center’s eastern parking lots from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned increase in events, minor improvements and zone reclassification are collectively referred to as the “Honda Center Enhancement Project”; and WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Honda Center Enhancement Project, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA") and the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines"); and WHEREAS, the City submitted a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Honda Center Enhancement Project on September 2, 2011 for a 30-day review. The scoping period identified in the NOP was from September 2, 2011 until October 4, 2011; and WHEREAS, interested parties were invited to attend a public scoping meeting held on September 21, 2011, in the Anaheim Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805. The purpose of the scoping meeting was to provide members of the public with an opportunity to learn about the project, ask questions, and provide comments about the scope and content of the information addressed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2012, Draft EIR No. 2011-00344 prepared for the Honda Center Enhancement Project was sent to the State Clearinghouse, State and local agencies, special districts, public libraries and other known interested parties, and was made available to the general public, thereby commencing a 45-day period, from January 6, 2012 until February 21, 2012, for public review and comment on the Draft EIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, in conformance with Sections 15132 and 15362(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR shall consist of the Draft EIR; comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons, organizations and public agencies that submitted comments on the Draft EIR; and the responses of the City, as Lead Agency, to significant points raised in the review and consultation process; and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared for the Honda Center Enhancement Project. A copy of the Final EIR will remain on file in the Anaheim Planning Department; and -3- PC2012-*** WHEREAS, on February 13, 2012, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did hold a public hearing, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against Draft EIR2011-0344 and to investigate and make findings in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Planning Commission did receive evidence and reports concerning the contents and sufficiency of Draft EIR No. 2011-00344; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the information and evidence received concerning Draft EIR No. 2011-00334, does hereby find and determine as follows: The Draft EIR has been presented to and independently reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission; The Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission; and The Draft EIR has been processed and completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, and all applicable CEQA Guidelines. WHEREAS, to the extent authorized by law, the City desires and intends to use said Final EIR as the environmental documentation required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for the Honda Center Enhancement Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in Draft EIR No. 2011-00344 and does hereby recommend that the City Council certify EIR No. 2011-00344, and determine that said EIR fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the Honda Center Enhancement Project. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting February 13, 2012. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures. ______________________________________________ CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ______________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2012-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on February 13, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of February, 2012. ______________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2011-00247, UNCONDITIONALLY (DEV2011-00099) (HONDA CENTER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim Planning Director on behalf of the Executive Director of City of Anaheim Department of Sports, Entertainment, and Convention, has initiated a request per Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.76.030 to reclassify approximately 22.5 acres utilized as the Honda Center’s eastern parking lots from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone as part of the Honda Center Enhancement Project; and WHEREAS, the Honda Center Enhancement Project also includes an increase in the number of events held at Honda Center to up to 222 events per year and minor interior and exterior improvements; and WHEREAS, the Honda Center and its surrounding parking lots are located within the Platinum Triangle on approximately 42.5 acres located within the Transition (T) Zone/ Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone (22.5 acres) and the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone (20 acres); and WHEREAS, the Anaheim General Plan designates said properties for Mixed Use land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 13, 2012 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That this City-initiated proposal will establish a resolution of intent to reclassify certain properties within the Platinum Triangle associated with Honda Center as described above. 2. That Reclassification No. 2011-00247 is being considered in conjunction with Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 2011-00344 prepared for the Honda Center Enhancement Project. - 2 - PC2012-*** 3. That Reclassification No. 2011-00247 is consistent with the goals and policies established for the development of the Platinum Triangle as set forth in the City of Anaheim General Plan. 4. That Reclassification of the subject properties from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone is consistent with the property’s existing Mixed Use General Plan land use designation. 5. That the proposed Reclassification No. 2011-00247 is consistent with the goals and policies established for the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. 6. The proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community and is compatible with the properties to the north, south, west, and east. Moreover, the proposed reclassification is consistent with the current zoning for Honda Center and its central and western parking lots. 7. That the proposed reclassification does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established within and immediately surrounding the Platinum Triangle and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Reclassification, designated as Reclassification No. 2011-00247, and does hereby find and determine, based upon its independent review and analyses of Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 2011-00344 ("EIR No. 2011-00344") prepared in connection with the Honda Center Enhancement Project, and the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), that EIR No. 2011-00344 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for said Reclassification and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed Reclassification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Reclassification No. 2011-00247 to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to reclassify those certain properties within the Platinum Triangle, associated with the Honda Center, as described above, unconditionally. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council at its sole discretion. - 3 - PC2012-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February 13, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of February, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Attachment No. 4 Draft Environmental Impact Report Click on link: http://www.anaheim.net/articlenew2222.asp?id=4555 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 344 AND NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE HONDA CENTER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Subject: Notice is hereby given that Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 344 (State Clearinghouse Number 2011091007) for the Honda Center Enhancement Project is available for a 45-day public review period from January 6, 2012 to February 21, 2012; and, Notice is also hereby given that the Anaheim City Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing at the Anaheim City Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, on February 13, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.; and, It is anticipated that the City Council will hold a Public Hearing at the Anaheim City Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. To consider the following actions related to the Honda Center Enhancement Project:  Environmental Impact Report No. 344 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 303.  Approve Zoning Reclassification No. 2011-00247 (to rezone a portion of the project site from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone). Project Location: Honda Center is located at 2695 East Katella Avenue, in the south-central portion City of Anaheim within the Platinum Triangle. Honda Center and its adjacent surface parking lots are bound on the north by Stanley Cup Way and the Union Pacific Railroad, to the east by the Santa Ana River, to the south by Katella Avenue and to the west by State Route 57 (SR-57) freeway. Honda Center is less than a half mile northeast of Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station and the future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). Project Description: The proposed project includes an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center through the addition of another permanent sports franchise tenant, as well as other permanent improvements described below. The original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Honda Center (formerly known as The Arrowhead Pond) prepared in 1990 analyzed up to 162 events per year. Honda Center currently averages up to 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of 11,264 people. The maximum number of events, in any one year, over the last five years was 162 events in 2008. The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events by 60 from the previous high of 162 events for a total of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average three events per week at Honda Center, and the proposed project would result in four events per week on average. The purpose of the additional events would be to accommodate a second professional sports franchise tenant at Honda Center without reducing the number of events currently held at the Honda Center. The Honda Center has a maximum seating capacity of 18,900, and the proposed project would not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity of current and future events. In addition to an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center, the proposed project would involve other minor improvements on the south side1 of the existing facility including an approximate 5,846 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, a 5,846 square foot team store and a 9,114 square feet open area on the Main Level (Level 200); and, a 9,518 square feet restaurant to serve event attendees and a 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the Club Level (Level 300). Other interior improvements include locker room, office space, bunker suite and balcony suite renovations; electrical upgrades and an increase in the capacity of the loading dock. None of the proposed improvements would increase the permanent seating capacity of the existing arena; however, the improvements would result in the loss of approximately 15-20 parking spaces. The proposed project includes a zone reclassification for a portion of the project site from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone, which would be consistent with the zoning for the remainder of the project site. Additional implementation measures may include, but are not limited to, building permits to allow the improvements listed above and agreements between the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Flood Control District and between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Arena Management, LLC. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 344 analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed project as described above to the degree of specificity required by Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Significant effects on the environment anticipated as a result of implementation of this project include air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation/traffic. The proposed certification of EIR No. 344 includes an adoption of a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 303. Notice of Availability of Recirculated DEIR No. 344: Please be informed that the City of Anaheim has released DEIR No. 344 (State Clearinghouse No. 2011091007) prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines for a 45-day public review period, starting January 6, 2012. DEIR No. 344 will be available for public review and for purchase at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 and for viewing on the City’s website: www.anaheim.net/planning (click on the link to Planning & Zoning, followed by the link to Current Environmental Documents). Copies of the DEIR will also be available for review at the following locations: 1 Please note a previous proposal located the proposed improvements on the east side of the existing Honda Center. They have since been relocated to the south side facing Katella Avenue.  Anaheim Central Library, 500 W. Broadway, Anaheim, CA  Sunkist Branch Library, 901 S. Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on the DEIR for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your comments should be sent at the earliest possible date but must arrive not later than 5:00 p.m. on February 21, 2012. Please submit your written comments to Susan Kim, Senior Planner, at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805 or by email at skim@anaheim.net. Notice of Public Hearings: Please also be informed that the Anaheim City Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings in the Anaheim City Council Chamber in the Civic Center, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, on the dates and times listed below to hear public testimony, and consider DEIR No. 344 and the Proposed Project Actions. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Date: February 13, 2012 Public Hearing: 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Date: April 3, 2012 (anticipated) Public Hearing: 5:30 p.m. ANY WRITINGS OR DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO A MAJORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING (OTHER THAN WRITINGS LEGALLY EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE) WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED TO ATTEND SAID MEETINGS AND BE HEARD. IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY ONE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM’S DECISIONS IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSON OR CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. A COPY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DESCRIBING THE COMMISSION’S DECISION ON THESE PROJECTS WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY WEBSITE WWW.ANAHEIM.NET/PLANNING (UNDER DOCUMENT DOWNLOADS, SELECT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA), AFTER 3;00 P.M. ON THE DAY AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Who to Contact? For more information, please call Susan Kim, Senior Planner, at (714) 765-4958 or email at skim@anaheim.net. BY ORDER OF THE CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION AND BY THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL DATE PUBLISHED: Friday, January 6, 2012 DATE MAILED: Thursday, January 5, 2012 DDRRAAFFTT HONDA CENTER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 344 SCH NO. 2011091007 prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 714.765.5139 Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER|DC&E 3 MacArthur Plance, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel: 714.966.9220  Fax: 714.966.9221 E-mail: information@planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com Contact: William Halligan, Esq. Vice President, Environmental Services COA-56.0E JANUARY 2012 Table of Contents Section Page Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page i 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................1-1 1.2.1 EIR Format .........................................................................................................1-2 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This EIR............................................................................1-4 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION....................................................................................................1-4 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY...................................................................................................1-4 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ...............................................................1-5 1.5.1 No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative..........................................................1-5 1.5.2 No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative.........................1-6 1.5.3 Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative.....................................................1-6 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ..........................................................................................1-8 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY........................................................................................1-8 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION........................................1-9 2. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ......................................2-1 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY..................................................2-2 2.3 DEIR SCOPING MEETING...........................................................................................2-3 2.4 SCOPE OF THIS EIR......................................................................................................2-4 2.4.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant.........................................................2-4 2.4.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts.............................................................2-4 2.4.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts..........................................................2-5 2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE...........................................................................2-5 2.6 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION........................................................................................2-6 2.7 MITIGATION MONITORING.......................................................................................2-6 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION....................................................................................................3-1 3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES....................................................................................3-1 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS...................................................................................3-2 3.3.1 Project Background.............................................................................................3-2 3.3.2 Operational Characteristics.................................................................................3-9 3.3.3 Description of the Proposed Project .................................................................3-10 3.4 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR..................................................................................3-11 Table of Contents Section Page Page ii  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING................................................................................................4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................4-1 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................4-1 4.2.1 Regional Location...............................................................................................4-1 4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations......................................................................4-1 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING........................................................................4-3 4.3.1 Location and Land Use.......................................................................................4-3 4.3.2 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................4-4 4.3.3 Climate and Air Quality......................................................................................4-4 4.3.4 Geology and Landform.......................................................................................4-4 4.3.5 Hydrology...........................................................................................................4-5 4.3.6 Noise...................................................................................................................4-5 4.3.7 Scenic Features...................................................................................................4-6 4.3.8 Public Services and Utilities...............................................................................4-6 4.3.9 General Plan and Zoning ....................................................................................4-6 4.3.10 Traffic and Transportation ..................................................................................4-7 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................................4-9 5.1 AIR QUALITY.............................................................................................................5.1-1 5.1.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.1-1 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................5.1-11 5.1.3 Environmental Impacts..................................................................................5.1-13 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................5.1-17 5.1.5 Existing Regulations......................................................................................5.1-17 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation .......................................................5.1-18 5.1.7 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................5.1-18 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................................5.1-19 5.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.............................................................................5.2-1 5.2.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.2-1 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................5.2-13 5.2.3 Environmental Impacts..................................................................................5.2-14 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................5.2-19 5.2.5 Existing Regulations......................................................................................5.2-19 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation .......................................................5.2-20 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................5.2-20 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................................5.2-21 Table of Contents Section Page Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page iii 5.3 LAND USE AND PLANNING....................................................................................5.3-1 5.3.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.3-1 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................5.3-2 5.3.3 Environmental Impacts....................................................................................5.3-2 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts.........................................................................................5.3-9 5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions................................................5.3-9 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation .........................................................5.3-9 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................5.3-10 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................................5.3-10 5.4 NOISE...........................................................................................................................5.4-1 5.4.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.4-1 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................5.4-9 5.4.3 Environmental Impacts..................................................................................5.4-10 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................5.4-16 5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions..............................................5.4-19 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation .......................................................5.4-19 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................5.4-19 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................................5.4-19 5.5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC.........................................................................5.5-1 5.5.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.5-1 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................5.5-17 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts..................................................................................5.5-18 5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts.....................................................................................5.5-116 5.5.5 Existing Regulations....................................................................................5.5-119 5.5.6 Level of Significance before Mitigation......................................................5.5-120 5.5.7 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................5.5-120 5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation........................................................5.5-177 5.6 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS......................................................................5.6-1 5.6.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................5.6-1 5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................5.6-6 5.6.3 Environmental Impacts....................................................................................5.6-7 5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................5.6-10 5.6.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions..............................................5.6-10 5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation .......................................................5.6-11 5.6.7 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................5.6-11 5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation..........................................................5.6-11 Table of Contents Section Page Page iv  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS.......................................................6-1 6.3.1 Air Quality..........................................................................................................6-1 6.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................6-1 6.3.3 Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................................6-1 7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................7-1 7.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................7-1 7.1.1 Purpose and Scope..............................................................................................7-1 7.1.2 Project Objectives...............................................................................................7-2 7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS...............................................................7-3 7.2.1 Alternative Sites..................................................................................................7-3 7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS........................................7-4 7.4 NO PROJECT/EXISTING LAND USE ALTERNATIVE..............................................7-7 7.4.1 Air Quality..........................................................................................................7-7 7.4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................7-7 7.4.3 Land Use and Planning.......................................................................................7-7 7.4.4 Noise...................................................................................................................7-7 7.4.5 Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................................7-7 7.4.6 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................7-7 7.4.7 Conclusion..........................................................................................................7-8 7.5 NO ENHANCEMENTS WITH NEW HONDA CENTER EVENTS ALTERNATIVE ..............................................................................................................7-8 7.5.1 Air Quality..........................................................................................................7-8 7.5.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................7-9 7.5.3 Land Use and Planning.......................................................................................7-9 7.5.4 Noise...................................................................................................................7-9 7.5.5 Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................................7-9 7.5.6 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................7-9 7.5.7 Conclusion........................................................................................................7-10 7.6 ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE .................................7-10 7.6.2 Air Quality........................................................................................................7-12 7.6.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................7-12 7.6.4 Land Use and Planning.....................................................................................7-12 7.6.5 Noise.................................................................................................................7-13 7.6.6 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................7-13 7.6.7 Utilities and Service Systems ...........................................................................7-13 Table of Contents Section Page Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page v 7.6.8 Conclusion........................................................................................................7-13 7.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ................................................7-14 8. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT...................................................................8-1 8.3 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY ....................................................................8-1 9. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...9-1 10. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT...............................10-1 11. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED............................................................11-1 12. QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONS PREPARING EIR .......................................................12-1 13. BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................13-1 13.1 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................13-1 13.2 WEBSITES....................................................................................................................13-5 13.3 MODELS.......................................................................................................................13-9 13.4 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION................................................................................13-9 APPENDICES A. Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study B. NOP Responses C. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study D. Noise Technical Study E. Traffic Study List of Figures Figure Page Page vi  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Figure 3-1 Regional Location.....................................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-2 Local Vicinity............................................................................................................3-5 Figure 3-3 Aerial Photograph .....................................................................................................3-7 Figure 3-4 Proposed Site Plan...................................................................................................3-13 Figure 3-5 Level 200 Floor Plan...............................................................................................3-15 Figure 3-6 Level 300 Floor Plan...............................................................................................3-17 Figure 3-7 View from Katella and Douglass ............................................................................3-19 Figure 3-8 View of the South Entrance.....................................................................................3-21 Figure 3-9 View from Katella and Santa Ana River Trail........................................................3-23 Figure 3-10 Existing Zoning and Property Ownership...............................................................3-25 Figure 5.5-1 Project Study Area .................................................................................................5.5-3 Figure 5.5-2 Honda Center Trip Distribution ...........................................................................5.5-29 Figure 5.5-3 2011 Baseline No Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS.........................................5.5-31 Figure 5.5-4 2011 Baseline With Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS............................................................................................5.5-33 Figure 5.5-5 2011 Baseline With Concurrent Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS......................5.5-35 Figure 5.5-6 2011 Baseline With Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS....................................5.5-37 Figure 5.5-7 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS...................................................................................5.5-39 Figure 5.5-8 2013 Opening Year with No Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS........................5.5-57 Figure 5.5-9 2013 Opening Year With Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS...................................................................................5.5-59 Figure 5.5-10 2013 Opening Year With Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS....................5.5-61 Figure 5.5-11 2013 Opening Year With Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS...........................5.5-63 Figure 5.5-12 2013 Opening Year With Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS..........................................................................5.5-65 Figure 5.5-13 2030 Future Year No Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS...................................5.5-91 Figure 5.5-14 2030 Future Year With Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS...................................................................................5.5-93 Figure 5.5-15 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS....................5.5-95 Figure 5.5-16 2030 Future Year with Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS...............................5.5-97 Figure 5.5-17 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS..........................................................................5.5-99 Figure 5.5-18 On- and Off-Site Parking Supply.......................................................................5.5-117 List of Tables Table Page Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page vii Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation...........................................................................1-10 Table 2-1 NOP Responses.........................................................................................................2-2 Table 3-1 Honda Center Events and Event Population .............................................................3-9 Table 3-2 Honda Center Event Attendance...............................................................................3-9 Table 4-1 General Plan Buildout Potential for Purposes of Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................4-10 Table 5.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants..........................................5.1-7 Table 5.1-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin..................5.1-9 Table 5.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary.........................................................5.1-11 Table 5.1-4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds.....................................................................5.1-12 Table 5.1-5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ............................................................5.1-14 Table 5.1-6 Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions...............................................5.1-15 Table 5.1-7 Localized Offsite Construction Emissions...........................................................5.1-16 Table 5.2-1 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures Toward 2020 Target..............................5.2-4 Table 5.2-2 Greenhouse Gases and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 .............................................................................................5.2-9 Table 5.2-3 Honda Center Operational Characteristics...........................................................5.2-15 Table 5.2-4 Service Population of Honda Center....................................................................5.2-16 Table 5.2-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory..................................................................5.2-17 Table 5.2-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory with Scoping Plan Reductions.................5.2-18 Table 5.3-1 Consistency with City of Anaheim Relevant General Plan Policies......................5.3-5 Table 5.3-2 Consistency with Compass Blueprint Visioning Principles...................................5.3-7 Table 5.3-3 Consistency With Regional Transportation Plan ...................................................5.3-9 Table 5.4-1 Change in Sound Pressure Level............................................................................5.4-2 Table 5.4-2 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources.............................................................5.4-3 Table 5.4-3 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility....................................................5.4-5 Table 5.4-4 Existing Ambient Noise Environment ...................................................................5.4-8 Table 5.4-5 Year 2011 Traffic Noise Levels...........................................................................5.4-12 Table 5.4-6 Year 2013 Traffic Noise Levels...........................................................................5.4-13 Table 5.4-7 Year 2030 Traffic Noise Levels...........................................................................5.4-15 Table 5.4-8 Cumulative Conditions - Year 2013 Traffic Noise Levels...................................5.4-17 Table 5.4-9 Cumulative Conditions - Year 2030 Traffic Noise Levels...................................5.4-18 Table 5.5-1 Intersection Level of Service..................................................................................5.5-7 Table 5.5-2 Caltrans Intersection LOS Criteria.........................................................................5.5-8 Table 5.5-3 Arterial Segment Daily Capacity Assumptions......................................................5.5-8 Table 5.5-4 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp Level of Service........................................5.5-9 Table 5.5-5 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Level of Service.......................................................5.5-10 Table 5.5-6 Existing Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS............................................................5.5-10 Table 5.5-7 2011 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS.........................................................5.5-13 Table 5.5-8 Existing Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS..........................................................5.5-15 Table 5.5-9 City of Anaheim Intersection Significant Impact Criteria....................................5.5-17 Table 5.5-10 Honda Center Trip Generation – Sold Out Event ................................................5.5-21 Table 5.5-11 2011 Baseline PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS..................................................5.5-25 Table 5.5-12 011 Baseline Arterial Segment Daily LOS ..........................................................5.5-43 Table 5.5-13 Existing Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS..........................................................5.5-45 List of Tables Table Page Page viii  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.5-14 2011 Baseline Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS........................................5.5-49 Table 5.5-15 2011 Baseline Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS........................................5.5-50 Table 5.5-16 2011 Baseline Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS.............................................5.5-51 Table 5.5-17 2013 Opening Year Peak Hour Intersection LOS................................................5.5-55 Table 5.5-18 2013 Opening Year Arterial Segment Daily LOS................................................5.5-69 Table 5.5-19 2013 Opening Year Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS........................................5.5-71 Table 5.5-20 2013 Opening Year Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS...............................5.5-75 Table 5.5-21 2013 Opening Year Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS...............................5.5-76 Table 5.5-22 2013 Opening Year Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS....................................5.5-77 Table 5.5-23 2030 Future Year Peak Hour Intersection LOS ...................................................5.5-81 Table 5.5-24 2030 Future Year Arterial Segment Daily LOS...................................................5.5-89 Table 5.5-25 2030 Future Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS..................................................5.5-103 Table 5.5-26 2030 Future Year PM Peak Hour Ramp Termini Intersection LOS ..................5.5-109 Table 5.5-27 2030 Future Year Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS ................................5.5-111 Table 5.5-28 2030 Future Year Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS ................................5.5-112 Table 5.5-29 2030 Future Year Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS.....................................5.5-113 Table 5.5-30 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation................................................5.5-125 Table 5.5-31 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation.......................................5.5-129 Table 5.5-32 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation ..............5.5-131 Table 5.5-33 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation .................5.5-141 Table 5.5-34 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation ....................................................................................................5.5-145 Table 5.5-35 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation................5.5-151 Table 5.5-36 2011 Baseline Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3)............................................................................................5.5-155 Table 5.5-37 2011 Baseline Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) .............5.5-156 Table 5.5-38 2013 Opening Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3)............................................................................................5.5-157 Table 5.5-39 2013 Opening Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) .............5.5-158 Table 5.5-40 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1)............................................................................................5.5-159 Table 5.5-41 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 1)........5.5-161 Table 5.5-42 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2)............................................................................................5.5-162 Table 5.5-43 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 2)........5.5-164 Table 5.5-44 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3)............................................................................................5.5-165 Table 5.5-45 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3)........5.5-167 Table 5.5-46 Summary of the 2011 Baseline Project Impact and Mitigation Measures.........5.5-171 Table 5.5-47 Summary of the 2013 Opening Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................5.5-172 Table 5.5-48 Summary of the 2030 Future Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................5.5-173 Table 5.6-1 APUD Water Supplies, Normal Water Year, Acre Feet per Year (AFY)1.............5.6-5 Table 5.6-2 Water Demands, APUD, 2005-2035 Acre-Feet per Year (AFY)...........................5.6-5 Table 5.6-3 Forecast Wastewater Generation, Proposed Added Land Uses .............................5.6-8 List of Tables Table Page Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page ix Table 7-1 Summary of Development Alternatives....................................................................7-6 Table 7-2 Alternative Impact Comparison Matrix...................................................................7-14 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant........................................................................8-1 Abbreviations and Acronyms Page x  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AB Assembly Bill ACM Asbestos-Containing Materials ADT Average Daily Traffic AQMP Air Quality Management Plan AST Aboveground Storage Tank ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures bgs below ground surface BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geologic Survey CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CLSA California Library Services Act CMP Congestion Management Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide CRS Community Rating System CSO Combined Sewer Overflows CUP Conditional Use Permit CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency CWA Clean Water Act Abbreviations and Acronyms Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page xi dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act FDPA Flood Disaster Protection Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HCM Highway Capacity Manual HMS Hazardous Materials Sites database HVAC Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning System HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUDA Industry Urban Development Agency IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan LACFD Los Angeles County Fire Department LACSD Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County LADPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Ldn day-night noise level LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee Leq equivalent continuous noise level LOS Level of Service LST Localized Significance Thresholds LUFT Leaking Underground Fuel Tank MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MEP Maximum Extent Practical mgd million gallons per day MRF Materials Recovery Facility MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets msl mean sea level Abbreviations and Acronyms Page xii  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 MSW Municipal Solid Waste MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Habitat Preservation Authority NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NOX nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations NPL National Priorities List O3 ozone OES California Office of Emergency Services Pb lead PCE perchloroethylene PM particulate matter POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works PPV Peak Particle Velocity RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REC Recognized Environmental Conditions RMP Risk Management Plans RMS root mean square ROG/VOC Reactive Organic Gases/Volatile Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SERC State Emergency Response Commission SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas SGVWC San Gabriel Valley Water Company Abbreviations and Acronyms Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page xiii SIC Standard Industrial Codes SoCAB South Coast Air Basin SOx sulfur oxides SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure SQMP Stormwater Quality Management Plan SRA Source Receptor Area SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminants TCE trichloroethylene TNM Transportation Noise Model tpd tons per day tpd-6 tons per day (six-day average) TRI Toxic Release Inventory TTCP Traditional Tribal Cultural Places UBC Uniform Building Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDOT United States Department of Transportation USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UST Underground Storage Tank UWMP Urban Water Management Plan V/C volume-to-capacity ratio VdB velocity decibels VOC Volatile Organic Compounds WDR Waste Discharge Requirements WIP Well Investigation Program WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California WRP Water Reclamation Plant Abbreviations and Acronyms Page xiv  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-1 1. Executive Summary 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Honda Center Enhancement Project and Associated Actions (Proposed Project) in the City of Anaheim, California. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a public document designed to provide the public, local, and state governmental agency decision makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision making. This document focuses on those impacts determined to be potentially significant as discussed in the Initial Study completed for this project (see Appendix A). This project is considered a Project EIR. A Project EIR is prepared when the lead agency determines, upon preliminary review or upon review of an Initial Study (IS), that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment. As stated in Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Project EIR should focus primarily on changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR should examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. The City of Anaheim, as lead agency, has determined that preparation of a Project EIR (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 11) is appropriate. This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Anaheim’s CEQA procedures. This EIR will be used to evaluate the impacts associated with implementing the Proposed Project. Use of an EIR provides the City of Anaheim, as lead agency, with the opportunity to consider the environmental impacts that will be created by the Proposed Project and project alternatives, and mitigation measures that can reduce project impacts to the extent possible or to below a level of significance. The City of Anaheim has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical sub-consultant reports. Data for this EIR was obtained from on-site field observations; discussions with affected agencies; analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, data, and similar literature; and specialized environmental assessments (air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic). 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. The six main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are listed below: 1. To disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities. 1. Executive Summary Page 1-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 2. To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. 3. To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. 4. To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects. 5. To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. 6. To enhance public participation in the planning process. An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide objective, factually supported, full- disclosure analyses of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environ- mental impacts and alternatives, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided. 1.2.1 EIR Format This EIR has been formatted as described below. Section 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the Proposed Project, the format of this EIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project. Section 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the project, the Notice of Preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification. Section 3. Project Description: A detailed description of the project, the objectives of the Proposed Project, the project area and location, approvals anticipated to be included as part of the project, the necessary environmental clearances for the project, and the intended uses of this EIR. Section 4. Environmental Setting: A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and regional perspective. The environmental setting provides baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. Section 5. Environmental Analysis: Provides, for each environmental parameter analyzed, a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-3 identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the Proposed Project; the level of significance of the adverse impacts of the project after mitigation is incorporated and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area. Section 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Proposed Project. Section 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Describes the impacts of the alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative, No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative, and Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative. Section 8. Impacts Found Not to be Significant: Briefly describes the potential impacts of the project that were determined not to be significant by the Initial Study and were therefore not discussed in detail in this EIR. Section 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project: Describes the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the project. Section 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project: Describes the growth-inducing impacts of the Proposed Project. Section 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted: Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR for the Proposed Project. Section 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR: Lists the people who prepared this EIR for the Proposed Project. Section 13. Bibliography: A bibliography of the technical reports and other documentation used in the preparation of this EIR for the Proposed Project. Appendices. The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the front cover) contain the following supporting documents:  Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study  Appendix B: Comments on Notice of Preparation  Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study  Appendix D: Noise Technical Study  Appendix E: Traffic Study 1. Executive Summary Page 1-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This EIR The EIR will be prepared as a Project EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines: …this type of EIR should focus on the changes in the environment that would result from the development. The EIR shall examine all aspects of the project, including planning, construction and operation. In its review of the Proposed Project, the City determined that the Proposed Project may have significant environmental effects. As a result, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared for the Proposed Project. This report is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Anaheim decision- makers. The process will culminate with City Council hearings to consider certification of a Final EIR and a decision whether to approve the Proposed Project. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION Honda Center is located at 2695 East Katella Avenue, in the south-central portion City of Anaheim within the Platinum Triangle. Honda Center and its adjacent surface parking lots are bound on the north by Stanley Cup Way and the Union Pacific Railroad, to the east by the Santa Ana River, to the south by Katella Avenue and to the west by State Route 57 (SR-57) freeway. Honda Center is less than a half mile northeast of Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station and the future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and proposed Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC). In addition to these venues and transit facilities, the Platinum Triangle encompasses the City National Grove of Anaheim, residential and mixed use development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail development. 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project includes an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center through the addition of another permanent tenant, as well as other permanent improvements described below. The 1990 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Honda Center (formerly Arrowhead Pond) analyzed up to 162 events per year. Honda Center currently averages up to 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of up to 11,264 people. The maximum number of events, in any one year, over the last five years was 162 events in 2008. The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events by 60 from the previous high of 162 events for a total of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average three events per week at Honda Center, and the proposed project would result in four events per week on average. The purpose of the additional events would be to accommodate a second professional sports franchise at Honda Center without reducing the number of events currently held at the Honda Center. The Honda Center has a maximum seating capacity of 18,900, and the proposed project would not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity of current events (see Table 3-1). In addition to an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center, the proposed project would involve other minor improvements on the south side of the existing facility including an approximate 5,846 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, a 5,846 square foot team store and a 9,114 square feet open area on the Main Level (Level 200); and above the main level improvements, a 9,518 square feet restaurant to serve event attendees and a 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the Club Level (Level 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-5 300). Other interior improvements include locker room, office space, bunker suite and balcony suite renovations; electrical upgrades and an increase in the capacity of the loading dock. The Level 200 elevations will have a height of 17 feet 9 inches. The Level 300 at roofline would have a height of 18 feet for a total overall height of 35 feet nine inches. None of the proposed improvements would increase the permanent seating capacity of the existing arena; however, the improvements would result in the loss of approximately 15-20 parking spaces. The proposed project includes a zone reclassification for a portion of the project site from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone, consistent with the zoning for the remainder of the project site. Additional implementation measures may include, but are not limited to, building permits to allow the improvements listed above and agreements between the City of Anaheim and OCFCD and between the City of Anaheim and AAM. 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA states that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (14 Cal. Code of Reg. 15126.6[a]). As described in Section 7.0 of this EIR, three project alternatives were identified and analyzed for relative impacts as compared to the Proposed Project: 1. No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative 2. No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative 3. Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative Please refer to Chapter 7.0 of this EIR for a complete discussion of how the alternatives were selected and the relative impacts associated with each alternative. The following presents a summary of each of the alternatives analyzed in the EIR. 1.5.1 No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the structure and operation of the Honda Center would remain unchanged. No additional tenants or events would occur at the facility, and none of the proposed facility improvements would be undertaken. Use of the Honda Center would continue to average about 153 events per year, including Anaheim Ducks NHL events. This alternative would reduce impacts compared to the Proposed Project in all six categories analyzed in the EIR: air quality, GHG, land use and planning, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities. However, the Proposed Project would not have any significant and unavoidable impacts, with the exception of transportation and traffic. This alternative would avoid the significant traffic impacts of the project, however, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. 1. Executive Summary Page 1-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 1.5.2 No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative This alternative would allow up to 222 events per year at Honda Center but would not construct any of the renovations and upgrades included in the Proposed Project. As a result, this Alternative would not include the proposed team store, restaurant space, or outdoor grand terrace. The seating capacity of Honda Center in this alternative would be the same as for the Proposed Project, 18,900. The slight increase in employees working at the restaurant and expanded store in the Proposed Project would not occur in this alternative. Employment density in square feet per employee is estimated as one employee per 617 square feet for both retail (except regional retail) and service (including restaurant) uses (Natelson Company 2001). Thus, the reduction in operational employment in this alternative would be (15,364/617), or 25 employees, for the restaurant and (4,046/617), or seven employees, for the expanded store, for a total of 32 employees. Thirty-two employees would be about 0.16 percent of the total New Honda Center Event population. The numbers of spectators and team members would be the same in this alternative as in the Proposed Project. This alternative would reduce impacts compared to the Proposed Project in the categories of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation and traffic as it relates to construction; and would have similar impacts in the category of land use and planning. This alternative would satisfy most but not all of the project objectives. However, this alternative would not eliminate the significant air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation/traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project. 1.5.3 Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative To assess the traffic impacts associated the Proposed Project, a total of five (5) scenarios under three horizon years are analyzed by this Draft Environmental Impact Report, as outlined below: 2011 Baseline Analytical Project Direct Impacts Scenario: 1) 2011 Baseline (No Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event1 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event2 4) 2011 Baseline with Project3 5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2013 Opening Year Analytical Impacts Scenario and Near-Term Impacts Scenario: 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 1 Average Attendance Honda Center Event is assumed to be an average attendance event or 11,264 seats as described in the September 2, 2011 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 344 for Honda Center Enhancement Project. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. 2 Angel Stadium Event is assumed to be an average Angel Stadium baseball game attendance of 29,402 based on year 2010 season attendance figures provided by the City of Anaheim. Traffic conditions are adjusted accordingly from traffic counts taken for the August 24, 2011 event. 3 Project is assumed to be an 18,900 seat sold out capacity condition. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-7 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2030 Future Year Long-Term Impacts Scenario (General Plan Buildout): 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Upon completion of the traffic conditions assessment for each scenario above, Project impacts and mitigation were identified through an evaluation of the following three comparisons of with and without Project conditions: 1) No Events vs. Project 2) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project 3) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative would allow the same number events as the Proposed Project (up to 222 events), develop all of the enhancements to the facility planned in the Proposed Project and include the proposed zone reclassification. This alternative would also involve roadway improvements to reduce significant traffic impacts in the 2011 Baseline, 2013 Opening Year, and 2030 Future Year Conditions for Comparisons 1, 2, and 3, to less than significant levels. Intersections, arterial segments, and freeways that would be significantly impacted by the proposed project, for Comparisons 1, 2, and 3 are shown in Tables 5.5-44 through 5.5-46. The purpose of this alternative is to eliminate the significant transportation and traffic impacts of the Proposed Project. All proposed improvements to public roadways would be constructed by the City of Anaheim or its contractor. Honda Center would be responsible for the full cost of construction of improvements needed for mitigating significant impacts in the 2011 Baseline and 2013 Opening Year with Project scenarios. Honda Center would be responsible for fair-share payments toward the cost of construction of improvements needed for mitigating significant impacts in the 2030 Proposed Project plus Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. The necessary improvements would result in additional right-of-way and impact existing structures, parking, and landscaping. Under this Alternative, improvements would be required at 47 locations, including 11 intersections, 26 arterial roadway segments, 5 freeway ramps, and 5 freeway weaving segments. For a list of improvement locations, see Tables 5.5-44 through 5.5-46. This alternative would be environmentally inferior in four resource areas; air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and noise, mainly due to construction of the additional roadway improvements. The necessary improvements would result in additional right-of-way and impact pedestrian connections, existing and proposed bike lanes, existing structures, parking, and landscaping. However, the significant transportation and traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be avoided. This Alternative would also be in conflict with many of the City’s goals and policies included in the General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Compass Blueprint which promote the use of alternative forms of transportation including 1. Executive Summary Page 1-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 walking, biking, busses, and trains. As stated above, the improvements necessary to fully mitigate the traffic impacts of the Proposed Project plus Angel Stadium Event scenario would result in additional right-of-way and impact pedestrian connections, existing and proposed bike lanes, existing structures, parking, and landscaping. This alternative would meet most of the project objectives established for the Proposed Project. However, the proposed roadway improvements would impact adjacent land uses and result in greater impacts than those associated with the Proposed Project. This alternative would reduce impacts that occur when an event at Honda Center and an event at Angels Stadium happen concurrently. However, this condition only occurs a few times per year. 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the Proposed Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to: 1. Whether this EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project. 2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. 3. Whether the proposed physical improvements are compatible with the character of the existing area. 4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified. 5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides those identified in the EIR. 6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the Proposed Project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. 1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR must identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. The areas of known controversy concerning the Proposed Project relate to traffic, pedestrian safety, and noise. This DEIR has taken these issues into consideration and the comments received from the various agencies and jurisdictions in response to the NOP. Written comments received during the NOP period, which extended from September 2 to October 4, 2011, are contained in Appendix B. A summary of the NOP comments is provided in Section 2.2, Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, of this DSEIR. Prior to preparation of the DEIR, a public scoping meeting was held on September 21, 2011, at the City of Anaheim City Hall, Council Chambers. The scoping meeting was held to determine the concerns of responsible and trustee agencies, stakeholders, and the community regarding the Proposed Project. No issues were raised during the scoping meeting. 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 1-9 1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Table 1-1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this EIR. Impacts are identified as significant or less than significant, and for all significant impacts mitigation measures are identified. The level of significance after imposition of the mitigation measures is also presented. 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 1-10  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.1 AIR QUALITY 5.1-1: The Proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Not applicable. 5.1-2: The Proposed Project would not generate construction emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s regional construction thresholds or cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Not applicable. 5.1-3: The Proposed Project would generate an increase in daily transportation emissions of VOC, NOx, and CO that exceed SCAQMD’s regional operational thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Potentially significant. See mitigation measures 2-1 through 2-3. Significant and unavoidable. 5.1-4: Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Not applicable. 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 1-11  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.1-5: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive land uses to substantial pollutant concentrations from mobile sources. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Not applicable. 5.1-6: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive land uses to substantial pollutant concentrations from stationary sources. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Not applicable. 5.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.2-1: The Proposed Project would increase the number of events held at Honda Center, resulting in a substantial increase in GHG emissions. Potentially significant. 2-1 Honda Center shall request a Comprehensive Energy Audit by the Anaheim Public Utilities, which is a free service offered by the utility. According to the Anaheim Public Utilities, customers can reduce energy by as much as 10 to 25 percent of month through efficiency reductions. Energy reductions can be accomplished through retrofits and/or offsets provided by renewable energy generation onsite. Potential combination of measures that could be taken to achieve a reduction in energy demand includes: a. Replacement of indoor and outdoor lighting fixtures with LED or compact fluorescent fixtures. b. Retrofitting air conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems and/or calibrating systems for efficiency (e.g., increasing average indoor temperature settings in summer and during hockey events). c. Replacing restaurant refrigerators, freezers, and other appliances with Energy Star rated appliances to reduce plug-load. d. Installation of photovoltaic system (e.g., carports with solar panels or rooftop-mounted solar panels) or wind-energy-system at Honda Center to offset energy use generated during an event. For example, a 750 kW-ac photovoltaic system is estimated to produce 1,242,163 kWh per year based on the California Public Utilities Commission’s Clean Power Estimator. Significant and unavoidable. 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 1-12  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 2-2 The City of Anaheim shall continue coordinating with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), which operates Metrolink service on Orange County Line in conjunction with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The City of Anaheim shall coordinate with SCRRA to discuss the potential for providing special event service to Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim on weekends and during the week. A list of events, including the day or the event, time of the event, and duration of the event at Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim shall be provided to SCRRA to initiate these discussions. Barriers to implement Special Event Service on the Orange County Line shall be discussed. Potential funding options to overcoming barriers to implement special event Service on the Orange County line should be indentified and considered, including funding for additional train operators and trains that coincide with commuter service. 2-3 To encourage use of transit by visitors to Honda Center, ticket holders shall be provided information on the Metrolink and Amtrak services available on the day of the event, including Metrolink and Amtrak scheduling. 5.3 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.3-1: The proposed zoning reclassification for a portion of the project site would not conflict with the Public Recreational (PR) zoning or the Platinum Triangle mixed use overlay zone. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Not applicable. 5.4 NOISE 5.4-1: Build-out of the proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise Less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Not applicable. 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 1-13  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. 5.4-2: Build-out of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Cumulative noise increases on Sunkist Street between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road would be significant. Potentially Significant. 4-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall contribute fair-share funding to repave Sunkist Street between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road with rubberized asphalt. Studies have shown that asphalt rubber overlays resulted in a reduction in road noise in the order of 6 dB. (Rymer and Donavan, 2005) Less than significant. 5.5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 5.5-1: Trip generation associated with the Proposed Project would impact levels of service on the existing area roadway system. Potentially significant. 5-1 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy and/or prior to the amending of any agreements between the City and AAM that results in a new tenant that would cause the current event cap to exceed 162 events per year (whichever occurs first), AAM shall update their existing Traffic Management Plan to include operational improvements designed to improve traffic flow (e.g. ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs, interconnect infrastructure upgrades) at the following intersections:  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue 5-2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy and/or prior to the amending any agreements between the City and AAM that results in a new tenant that would cause the current event cap to exceed 162 events per year (whichever occurs first), AAM shall provide fair-share funding to the City of Anaheim for the following operational improvements designed to improve traffic flow (e.g. ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs, interconnect infrastructure upgrades) at the following Significant and unavoidable 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 1-14  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation intersections:  Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue  Lewis Street / Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive  Sportstown / Katella Avenue 5-3 With respect to the physical improvements that are located in the City of Orange that are deemed feasible in Table 5.5-48, the City of Anaheim shall continue to work collaboratively with the City of Orange through the efforts initially established in 2009 to develop a joint traffic impact fee program that is consistent with the obligations imposed by the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code section 66000 et seq.), and which is designed to assess and mitigate cross border traffic impacts that occur as a result of project being processed in either the City of Anaheim or the City of Orange. However, notwithstanding the fact that a bona-fide cross border fee program in place between the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange does not yet exist, prior to the conditions precedent set forth above in MM 5-2, AAM shall provide payment to the City of Orange for the proposed project’s fair share amount necessary to construct the improvements that are located in the City of Orange that are deemed feasible in Table 5.5-48. Because the City may have to adopt a statement of overriding considerations for these improvements located in the City of Orange notwithstanding the project’s payment of fair share fees to the City of Orange. The improvements that are subject to this mitigation measure are as follows:  Segment of Main Street between Katella Avenue and Struck Avenue – Upgrade to 6-lane arterial. 5.5-2: Adequate parking is provided on and in close proximity to the Project Site and no significant pedestrian safety hazards are anticipated. Potentially significant. 5-4 At least four months before the first event in excess of 162 events at Honda Center, the management entity for Honda Center shall prepare a new traffic management plan for the New Honda Center Events and present such plan to the City of Anaheim Traffic and Transportation Services Division for review and approval. The traffic management plan shall include signal and intersection control by uniformed police officers, signage, lane control, access control, and pedestrian control. Before opening of ARTIC the applicant Less than significant. 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 1-15  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation shall again update the traffic management plan to address the potential increase in pedestrian volume from ARTIC across the intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. 5.6 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.6-1: Project-generated sewage could be adequately treated by Orange County Sanitation District. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 5.6-2: Water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements. Less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Not Applicable 1. Executive Summary Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 1-16  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 2-1 2. Introduction 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to taking action on those projects. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA, as set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 15000, et seq. The EIR is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the Proposed Project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage, and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21067, the lead agency is “the public agency which has the principal responsi- bility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.” The City of Anaheim has the principal responsibility for approval of the Honda Center Enhancement Project. For this reason, the City of Anaheim is the CEQA lead agency for this project. The intent of the EIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Honda Center Enhancement Project to allow the City of Anaheim to make an informed decision regarding approval of the project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 3.4, Intended Uses of the EIR. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the:  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.)  State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (herein referenced as CEQA Guidelines), as amended (14 CCR Sections 15000 et seq.) The overall purpose of this EIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public of the environmental effects of the development and operation of the Proposed Project. This EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the project, including effects that may be significant and adverse, evaluates a number of alternatives to the project, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects. 2. Introduction Page 2-2 The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY The City of Anaheim issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on September 2, 2011 (See Appendix A). Comments received during the public review period, which extended from September 2, 2011, to October 4, 2011, are contained in Appendix B. The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR. Based on this process and the Initial Study for the project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered Potentially Significant are addressed in this EIR. Issues identified as Less Than Significant or No Impact are not addressed beyond the discussion contained in the Initial Study. Refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A for discussion of how these initial determinations have been made. Table 2-1 NOP Responses Agency or Interested Party Comment EIR Section Where Comment Is Addressed Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (10/4/11) Proposed project is not located within airport impact zones. Information regarding required Federal Aviation Administration procedures for alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level. Not applicable. City of Orange: Department of Community Development (10/4/11) Potential impacts related to traffic, pedestrian safety, parking, and noise. Request that the EIR address these issues including studying traffic above existing conditions, identifying mitigation to prevent “spillover” parking effects in the City of Orange, and including a cumulative scenario (long-term build-out) within the noise analysis. Sections 5.4, Noise, and 5.5, Transportation and Traffic. City of Santa Ana: Planning & Building Agency (10/3/11) No comments at this time. Not applicable. Department of Toxic Substances Control (9/30/11) Potential hazardous materials impacts. The Initial Study determined that the Proposed Project would have a Less Than Significant Impact on hazards and hazardous materials. Various hazardous materials are currently used and stored at Honda Center, and the Proposed Project would be expected to result in a small increase in these materials. However, existing permitting and record-keeping processes would ensure that less than significant hazard to the public or the environment would occur as result of project implementation. Additionally, the Honda Center is not listed as a hazardous materials site. 2. Introduction Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 2-3 Table 2-1 NOP Responses Agency or Interested Party Comment EIR Section Where Comment Is Addressed Department of Transportation: District 12 (10/3/11) Concerns related to traffic impacts including intersections with SR-57. Request that the Highway Capacity Manual be used to analyze traffic impacts on State Transportation Facilities. Information regarding required Caltrans encroachment permit. Section 5.5, Transportation and Traffic. Native American Heritage Commission (9/9/11) Potential cultural resources impacts. The Initial Study determined that the Proposed Project would have No Impact on cultural resources. The project site does not contain any cultural resources and there are no known prehistoric/historic archaeological sites located within the project area. No grading to an increased depth will be required as part of project implementation and the potential for impacting any subsurface cultural resources is considered remote. Orange County Public Works (10/4/11) Concern regarding content of required Water Quality Management Plan and Area-wide NPDES Permit, including examination of opportunities for “Low-Impact Development”. Request that additional documentation address impacts on land owned by the Orange County Flood Control District, including those inconsistent with the applicable Parking Concession Agreement and those related to the required encroachment permit. Request that the nearby Santa Ana River trail and bikeway are addressed in the EIR. The Initial Study determined that the Proposed Project would have a Less Than Significant Impact on hydrology and water quality. However, the project will be required to comply with the County’s Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) which will address concerns related to water hydrology and water quality. Trails and bikeways are discussed in Section 5.3, Land Use and Planning and Section 5.5, Transportation and Traffic. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) (10/4/11) Request that the EIR include a reference to OCTA’s 4th District Bikeways Collaborative. Section 5.5, Transportation and Traffic. Orange County Water District (9/28/11) Request that the EIR analyze traffic impacts of the Proposed Project on Ball Road, Phoenix Club Drive, and the SR-57 freeway. Section 5.5, Transportation and Traffic. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (9/16/11) Request for copy of the Draft EIR and addition documentation for SCAQMD review. Information related to CEQA procedures for analyzing air quality impacts. Section 5.1, Air Quality. 2.3 DEIR SCOPING MEETING Prior to preparation of this DEIR, a public scoping meeting was held on September 21, 2011, at Anaheim City Hall, City Council Chambers. The scoping meeting was held to determine the concerns of 2. Introduction Page 2-4 The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 responsible and trustee agencies, stakeholders, and the community regarding the Proposed Project. No issues were raised during the scoping meeting. 2.4 SCOPE OF THIS EIR Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form, the City of Anaheim staff determined that an EIR should be prepared for the Proposed Project. The scope of the EIR was determined based upon the City’s Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and the scoping meeting conducted by the City of Anaheim on September 21, 2011. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance. The information contained in Chapter 3, Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future project-related environmental impacts. 2.4.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant Twelve environmental impact categories are identified here as not being significantly affected by, or affecting the Proposed Project and are therefore not discussed in detail in this EIR. This determination was made by the City of Anaheim in its preparation of the Initial Study. The following topical issues are not addressed in the EIR:  Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forestry Resources  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology and Soils  Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Hydrology and Water Quality  Mineral Resources  Population and Housing  Public Services  Recreation 2.4.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts Six environmental factors have been identified as potentially significant impacts if the Proposed Project is implemented:  Air Quality  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Noise  Land Use and Planning  Transportation and Traffic  Utilities and Service Systems These environmental factors are discussed in detail in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR. 2. Introduction Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 2-5 2.4.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts This EIR identifies three significant and unavoidable adverse impact areas, as defined by CEQA that would result from implementation of the Proposed Project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on a project-specific basis, cumulatively significant, and/or potentially significant. Potentially significant impacts are those that fall within the responsibility of another agency and implementation of the mitigation measures cannot feasibly be assured by the City of Anaheim. If the City, as the lead agency, determines that unavoidable significant adverse impacts would result from the project, the City must prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations before it can approve the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects and, therefore, the adverse effects are considered to be acceptable. The impact areas that were found to be significant and unavoidable are:  Air Quality  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Traffic and Transportation 2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The following documents are incorporated by reference in this EIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and are available for review at the City of Anaheim’s Planning Department.  City of Anaheim General Plan, May 2004, as amended: A comprehensive, long-term plan that is a blueprint for the City of Anaheim’s growth and development. It covers issues ranging from the physical development of the jurisdiction, such as general locations, and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure, to social concerns. It is organized into ten Elements (Land Use, Circulation, Green, Public Services and Facilities, Growth Management, Safety, Noise, Economic Development, Housing, and Community Design Elements) that address a wide range of subjects and provide goals and policies.  City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final EIR No. 330, State Clearinghouse Number 2003041105, May 2004, The Planning Center: A document that addressed the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update. It provided information pertaining to existing and future environmental settings within the City’s jurisdiction.  The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, August 2004, EDAW, Inc., as amended: A plan that serves as the blueprint for development within the Platinum Triangle. It establishes planning principles, applicable land use policies, allowable development intensities, and design guidelines.  The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 332, State Clearinghouse No. 2004121045, October 2005, The Planning Center: A document that addressed the environmental effects associated with adopting the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. It provided information pertaining to existing and future environmental settings within the City’s jurisdiction.  The Platinum Triangle Subsequent EIR No. 339, State Clearinghouse No. 2004121045, October 2010, The Planning Center: A document that addressed the environmental effects associated with 2. Introduction Page 2-6 The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 adopting the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. It provided information pertaining to existing and future environmental settings within the City’s jurisdiction.  Anaheim Arena EIR No. 299, State Clearinghouse No. 89070512, December 1989, Phillips Brandt Reddick: A document that addressed the environmental effects associated with approval of the Anaheim Arena as approved in 1990 and completed in 1993. The City of Anaheim General Plan, Final EIR No. 330, The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, Final SEIR No. 332, Final SEIR No. 339, and Final EIR No. 299 are also available on the City’s website, www.anaheim.net. 2.6 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION This EIR is being circulated for public review for a period of 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the EIR to the City of Anaheim address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City of Anaheim will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each comment. A Final EIR (FEIR) will then be prepared incorporating all of the comments received, responses to the comments, and any changes to the EIR that result from the comments received. This FEIR will be presented to the Anaheim City Council for potential certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who commented on the EIR will be notified of the availability of the FEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City. The EIR is available to the general public for review at the following locations:  City of Anaheim, Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805  Anaheim Central Branch Library 500 West Broadway Anaheim, CA 92805  Anaheim Sunkist Branch Public Library 901 South Sunkist Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806  City of Anaheim, Planning Department Website www.anaheim.net/planning (click on the link to Planning and Zoning, followed by the link to Environmental Documents) 2.7 MITIGATION MONITORING Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 or adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to 21080(c). Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-1 3. Project Description 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION Honda Center is located at 2695 East Katella Avenue, in the south-central portion City of Anaheim (see Figure 3-1, Regional Location) within the Platinum Triangle. Honda Center and its adjacent surface parking lots are bound on the north by Stanley Cup Way and the Union Pacific Railroad, to the east by the Santa Ana River, to the south by Katella Avenue and to the west by State Route 57 (SR-57) freeway (see Figure 3-2, Local Vicinity). Honda Center is less than a half mile northeast of Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station and the future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC). In addition to these venues and transit facilities, the Platinum Triangle encompasses the City National Grove of Anaheim, residential and mixed use development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail development. An aerial photograph of the project site and its surroundings is shown on Figure 3-3. 3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The following objectives have been established for the Proposed Project and will aid decision makers in their review of the Proposed Project, its associated environmental impacts, and Alternatives: 1. Implement the City’s applicable General Plan Goals and Policies including, but not limited to, establishment of the Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center that provides residents, visitors and employees with a variety of housing, employment, shopping and entertainment opportunities that are accessed by arterial highways, transit systems and pedestrian promenades. 2. Implement the Planning Principles of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP). 3. Provide additional entertainment opportunities within a mixed-use environment in close proximity to arterial highways, transit systems and pedestrian promenades consistent with regional planning goals and policies. 4. Approve a zone reclassification for a portion of the project site from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone, so that the zoning is consistent throughout the Project Site. 5. Increase the number of events at Honda Center including, but not limited to, a possible NBA team. 6. Implement various improvements to Honda Center to accommodate and enhance current and future additional event activity. 7. Expand the entertainment sporting options at the Honda Center to continue to position the City as a world class entertainment destination 3. Project Description Page 3-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS “Project” is defined by the CEQA Guidelines1 Section 15378 as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1) An…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700.” 3.3.1 Project Background In June of 1990, the Anaheim City Council approved documents that led to the construction of a new world- class arena and in 1993, the Anaheim Arena opened its doors to a sold-out performance by Barry Manilow. Later that same year, the NHL announced its fourth expansion team, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, who would make Anaheim its home. At the same time Arrowhead Water became the naming rights sponsor, thus the arena became the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim. In 2003, the City approved and entered into the current Facility Management Agreement with Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (AAM) and, in 2006, Honda Motor Company became the title sponsor and the arena name was changed to Honda Center. The success of Honda Center is evident, as it is one of the premiere entertainment and sports venues in the country and has been the recipient of numerous industry awards over the years. It has been nominated for “Venue of the Year” in the United States by Pollstar Magazine on seven separate occasions and most recently was ranked fourth in the country by Billboard Magazine for 2010 concert and ticket sales. Honda Center is proud to be home to the NHL’s Anaheim Ducks and to the prestigious John R. Wooden College Basketball Classic. Since 1993, the venue has hosted a significant number of world-class events and shows, including: NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Western Regionals (1998, 2001, 2003, 2011), NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament First and Second Round (2008), 1999 NCAA Frozen Four, 2003 World Gymnastics Championships, 2004 U.S. Team Trials - Gymnastics, 2005 World Badminton Championships, four-time host to UFC Championship bouts, U2, Bette Midler, Paul McCartney, Eagles, Barbra Streisand, AC/DC, Gwen Stefani, Luis Miguel, Rod Stewart, David Bowie, Andrea Bocelli, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill, Phil Collins, Toby Keith, Alan Jackson, Madonna, Prince, Van Halen, Gloria Estefan, Jimmy Buffett, Bon Jovi, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen, and Elton John. Additionally, the current manager, Anaheim Arena Management, LLC, has continued to improve the facility, investing more than $22 million in capital improvements since 2003. As the venue was designed and constructed to be home to two professional sports franchises, the City and its facility management partners have worked throughout the years to bring a second professional sports franchise to Honda Center. 1 References to "CEQA" are to Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. References to "CEQA Guidelines" are to Title 14, California Code of Regulations sections 15000 et seq. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3-1 Regional L ocation 0 5 Scale (Miles) SITESITE 15 1010 605 405 405 405 5 5 15 91 90 91 91 39 22 55 74 241 241 261 133 133 241 73 1 1 57 60 60 71 19 105 3. Project Description 3. Project Description Page 3-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3-2 L ocal Vicinity Orange Anaheim Garden Grove Santa Ana Orangewood Av Katella Av Gene Autry Way Ball Rd Chapman Av Lampson Av Garden Grove Bl Cerritos Av Harbor BlLewis StState College BlSunkist StAnahei m Bl East StBatavia StGlassell StMain StAngel Stadium of Anaheim Existing Amtrack/Metrolink Station Future ARTICSanta Ana RiverSC E E ase me nt 0 3,000 Scale (Feet) SiteSite 22 22 57 5 5 3. Project Description 3. Project Description Page 3-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3-3 Aerial Photograph OrangeOrange AnaheimAnaheim Katella AveKatella Ave Orangewood AveOrangewood Ave Cerritos AveCerritos Ave Site Boundary Platinum Triangle Boundary City BoundaryState College BlvdState College BlvdEckhoff StEckhoff StDouglass RdDouglass RdExisting Amtrack/Metrolink Station Existing Amtrack/Metrolink Station Honda Center Honda Center 0 1,000 Scale (Feet) 57 Source: Google Earth Pro 2011 Angel Stadium of Anaheim Angel Stadium of Anaheim Santa Ana RiverSanta Ana RiverFuture ARTIC Future ARTIC 3. Project Description 3. Project Description Page 3-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Project Description Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-9 3.3.2 Operational Characteristics The 650,000-square-foot Honda Center opened on June 19, 1993, after two years of construction. It can accommodate a maximum of 18,900 spectators depending on seating configuration, and the parking lots surrounding Honda Center have 3,775 parking spaces to accommodate visitors. More than 1,500 additional parking spaces are provided off-site by agreement and/or by private operators. Honda Center facilities are in operation on event days, although some functions (e.g., ticket sales) are open on nonevent days. Maximum capacities for hockey, basketball, and other events (e.g., concerts, circus, etc.) are shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Honda Center Events and Event Population Event Type Seating Capacity Staff/ Employees Team Members/ Production1 Basketball Games2 18,336 950 200+3 Hockey Games4 17,174 950 200 18,325 – End Stage Concerts and Other Events 18,900 – Center Stage 1,000 (max) 200 Maximum Number of Events (last 5 years) 162 Nonevent Days 203 Source: Starkey 2011. 1 Team members and production staff include players, coaches, trainers, media, road crew, and others not included as spectators. 2 Basketball games include Lakers Preseason, the John Wooden Classic, the Big West Tournament, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Tournament, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), games. 3 For the purpose of this air quality and GHG technical report, up to 250 team members are assumed for a basketball game for a conservative modeling scenario. 4 The National Hockey League (NHL) has 41 home games during the regular season. During the Stanley Cup Playoffs and Stanley Cup, up to 20 additional games could occur. In 2010, Honda Center welcomed more than 1.3 million guests, of which over 600,000 attended the Ducks’ hockey games (Starkey 2011). Table 3-2 identifies a five-year snapshot of attendance, number of events, and the average number of visitors during an event based on the annual attendance. Average attendance per event was calculated based on the highest 3-year average of attendance in order to provide a conservative estimate of future annual attendance. Based on Honda Center attendance history over the last five years, there are, on average, 11,264 visitors per event and currently up to 153 events per year (e.g., approximately three events per week). Table 3-2 Honda Center Event Attendance Year Visitors Events Average Visitors per Event 2006 1,600,000 154 10,390 2007 1,760,000 144 12,222 2008 1,590,000 162 9,815 2009 1,460,000 136 10,735 2010 1,300,000 120 10,833 Highest 3-year Average 153 11,264 Source: Starkey 2011. 3. Project Description Page 3-10  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Environmental Efforts Honda Center is an environmentally-conscious facility that pursues a variety of strategies aimed at using resources in a sustainable manner. Such efforts are anticipated to expand even further due to the arena’s new membership in the Green Sports Alliance. Honda Center currently recycles all cardboard, glass, plastic, aluminum, paper (including programs) and lighting. The arena’s restaurants use locally grown produce and use seafood and beef purchased from sustainable sources. Recent efforts have expanded the number of disposable items that are made from recycled materials, which include napkins and cups, while napkin and condiment dispensers have been upgraded to reduce waste. Since 2010, Honda Center has also donated over 10,000 meals to charity in a partnership with the Anaheim Ducks, Aramark, and the national Rock and Wrap It Up non-profit organization. The Rock and Wrap It Up program, which has participants across North America, is aimed at reducing poverty by collecting unused food from major events and facilities and donating it to local charities. Eco-friendly programs at Honda Center also include efforts to reduce automobile trips to the facility. On October 14th, 2011, the Anaheim Ducks began partnering with Metrolink to offer the “Ducks Express”, a special discounted train service that links hockey fans in South Orange County and northern San Diego County to Honda Center for Ducks games. Ducks Express trains arrive at Anaheim Station where free shuttles take fans straight to the arena. The service was designed to promote the use of public transit and to create an easy, convenient, and environmentally conscious way to get to Honda Center. 3.3.3 Description of the Proposed Project The proposed project includes an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center through the addition of another permanent tenant, as well as other permanent improvements described below. The 1990 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Honda Center (formerly Arrowhead Pond) analyzed up to 162 events per year. Honda Center currently averages up to 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of up to 11,264 people. The maximum number of events, in any one year, over the last five years was 162 events in 2008. The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events by 60 from the previous high of 162 events for a total of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average three events per week at Honda Center, and the proposed project would result in four events per week on average. The purpose of the additional events would be to accommodate a second professional sports franchise at Honda Center without reducing the number of events currently held at the Honda Center. The Honda Center has a maximum seating capacity of 18,900, and the proposed project would not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity of current events (see Table 3-1). In addition to an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center, the proposed project would involve other minor improvements on the south side2 of the existing facility including an approximate 5,846 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, a 5,846 square foot team store and a 9,114 square feet open area on the Main Level (Level 200); and above the main level improvements, a 9,518 square feet restaurant to serve event attendees and a 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the Club Level (Level 300). Other interior improvements include locker room, office space, bunker suite and balcony suite renovations; electrical upgrades and an increase in the capacity of the loading dock. 2 Please note a previous proposal located the proposed improvements on the east side of the existing Honda Center. They have since been relocated to the south side facing Katella Avenue. 3. Project Description Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 3-11 The Level 200 elevations will have a height of 17 feet 9 inches. The Level 300 at roofline would have a height of 18 feet for a total overall height of 35 feet nine inches. None of the proposed improvements would increase the permanent seating capacity of the existing arena; however, the improvements would result in the loss of approximately 15-20 parking spaces. A site plan showing the location of the proposed improvements is shown on Figure 3-4. The Level 200 floor plan is shown on Figure 3-5 and the Level 300 floor plan is shown on Figure 3-6. Renderings of the proposed improvements are shown on Figures 3-7 through 3-9. The proposed project includes a zone reclassification for a portion of the project site from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone, consistent with the zoning for the remainder of the project site (see Figure 3-10). Additional implementation measures include, but are not limited to, building permits to allow the improvements listed above and agreements between the City of Anaheim and OCFCD and between the City of Anaheim and AAM. 3.4 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This DEIR examines the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, including the various actions by the City and other agencies that are necessary to implement the Proposed Project. It is the intent of this DEIR to enable the City of Anaheim, responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The anticipated approvals required for the Proposed Project are as follows: Lead Agency Action City of Anaheim  Certification of the Environmental Impact Report No. 344 (SCH#2011091007) and adopt Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 303.  Approve Zoning Reclassification No. 2011-00247 (to reclassify a portion of the project site from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone). Responsible Agencies Action California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8, Santa Ana  Issue a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for construction activities and/or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. South Coast Air Quality Management District  Issue any needed Air Quality Permits for demolition or construction. Orange County Flood Control Flood Control District (“OCFCD”)  Encroachment permits may be required if any improvements are proposed within OCFCD right-of-way. 3. Project Description Page 3-12  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. KATELLA AVE Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3-4 Proposed Site Plan 0 600 Scale (Feet) Source: Rengel & Company Architects 2011 3. Project Description DOUGLASS RDSanta Ana River 3. Project Description Page 3-14  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Project Description L evel 200 Floor Plan Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3-5 0 40 Scale (Feet) 3. Project Description Page 3-16  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Project Description L evel 300 Floor Plan Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3-6 0 30 Scale (Feet) 3. Project Description Page 3-18  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Corcoran Group Collaborative 2011 3. Project Description View from Katella and Douglass Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3-7 3. Project Description Page 3-20  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Project Description View of the South Entrance Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3-8 Source: Corcoran Group Collaborative 2011 3. Project Description Page 3-22  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Corcoran Group Collaborative 2011 3. Project Description View from Katella and Santa Ana River Trail Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3-9 3. Project Description Page 3-24  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3-10 Existing Zoning and Property Ownership 0 500 Scale (Feet) Source: City of Anaheim 2008 3. Project Description 3. Project Description Page 3-26  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-1 4. Environmental Setting 4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to provide, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a “description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and a regional perspective.” The environmental setting will provide a set of baseline physical conditions that will serve as a tool from which the lead agency will determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.2.1 Regional Location Honda Center is located at 2695 East Katella Avenue, in the south-central portion City of Anaheim within the Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle is located at the confluence of Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 57 (SR-57). The City of Anaheim is located approximately 25 miles (40 km) southeast of Downtown Los Angeles. Honda Center and its adjacent surface parking lots are bound on the north by Stanley Cup Way and the Union Pacific Railroad, to the east by the Santa Ana River, to the south by Katella Avenue and to the west by State Route 57 (SR-57) freeway. Honda Center is less than a half mile northeast of Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station and the future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC). In addition to these venues and transit facilities, the Platinum Triangle encompasses the City National Grove of Anaheim, residential and mixed use development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail development. 4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations Air Quality Management Plan An air basin generally has similar meteorological and geographic conditions throughout the basin. California is geographically divided into 15 air basins, and the City of Anaheim is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). This air basin contains the largest urban area in the western United States. It is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SoCAB includes all of the non-desert portions of San Bernardino, Los Angeles (non–Antelope Valley portion), and Riverside Counties and all of Orange County. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources. Every three years since 1979, SCAQMD 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 has prepared a new AQMP, with updates to the previous plan and a 20-year horizon. The most recent adopted comprehensive plan was adopted on June 1, 2007, and builds upon the approaches for attainment in the 2003 AQMP. The 2007 AQMP incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. It proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of SOX, directly emitted PM2.5, NOX, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 2015. The eight-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOX and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024, assuming a bump-up (extended attainment date) is obtained. The AQMP provides local guidance for the State Implementation Plan, which provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas; areas that do not meet these standards are in nonattainment. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment are marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The Proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable policies and standards of the AQMP is analyzed in detail in Section 5.1, Air Quality. Southern California Association of Governments Orange County and the City of Anaheim are at the southern edge of a six-county metropolitan region composed of Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties. SCAG is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the SCAQMD, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. Orange County and its jurisdictions constitute the Orange County Subregion of the SCAG region. This subregion is governed by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG). SCAG has developed plans to achieve specific regional objectives. The plans most applicable to the Proposed Project are discussed below. Compass Blueprint In 2004, SCAG adopted the Compass Blueprint. The Compass Blueprint is a voluntary guidance document that identifies how and where an alternative future vision for southern California’s future can be implemented. The policies in the Compass Blueprint aim to reduce emissions of various pollutants and greenhouse gasses, increase mobility and accessibility, and improve quality of life through strategic land use changes. Goals for areas identified in the Compass Blueprint as growth opportunity areas include locating new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing, encouraging in-fill development, promoting development with a mix of uses, creating walkable communities, providing a mix of housing types, and focusing development in urban areas. A portion of the Platinum Triangle has been designated by SCAG as a strategic area in which to focus growth. This area contains the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) that will be served by Amtrak, Metrolink commuter rail, and Orange County Transportation Authority bus services. In addition, potential high-speed rail service to San Francisco and Las Vegas, Nevada could be provided. The Platinum Triangle is consistent with the overall Compass Blueprint in that it directs additional housing and 4. Environmental Setting Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-3 mixed-use opportunities near to existing and future jobs and locates new jobs, such as those generated by the Proposed Project, in close proximity to transit. The Proposed Project’s consistency with the Compass Blueprint is addressed in detail in Section 5.3, Land Use and Planning. Regional Transportation Plan The voluntary guidance offered in the 2004 Compass Blueprint document formed the policy basis for population, housing, and employment growth projections that were used in the 2004 and 2008 Regional Transportation Plans and will be used in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). SCAG adopts the RTP to help coordinate development of the region’s transportation improvements. On May 8, 2008, SCAG adopted the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): Making the Connections. The 2008 RTP is a $531.5 billion plan that emphasizes the importance of system management, goods movement, and innovative transportation financing. It provides a regional investment framework to address the region's transportation and related challenges, and looks to strategies that preserve and enhance the existing transportation system and integrate land use into transportation planning. The Proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable RTP policies is analyzed in detail in Section 5.3, Land Use and Planning. 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.3.1 Location and Land Use Honda Center is located on a 42.6-acre site located within the City of Anaheim. The Honda Center is a 650,000 square foot arena for sports and entertainment events and can accommodate a maximum of 18,900 spectators (depending on seating configuration). The parking lots surrounding the Honda Center have 3,775 parking spaces to accommodate visitors. Additional parking is provided off-site by agreement and/or by private operators. Land uses surrounding the Honda Center are primarily commercial and light industrial, including restaurants, offices, of some distribution facilities. The Honda Center and its adjacent surface parking lots are bound on the north by Stanley Cup Way and the Southern Pacific Railroad, to the east by the Santa Ana River, to the south by Katella Avenue and to the west by State Route 57 (SR-57) freeway. The Honda Center is less than a half mile northeast of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station. In June of 1990, the Anaheim City Council approved documents that led to the construction of a new world- class arena and in 1993, the Anaheim Arena opened its doors to a sold-out performance by Barry Manilow. Later that same year, the NHL announced its fourth expansion team, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, who would make Anaheim its home. At the same time Arrowhead Water became the naming rights sponsor, thus the arena became the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim. In 2003, the City approved and entered into the current Facility Management Agreement with Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (AAM) and, in 2006, Honda Motor Company became the title sponsor and the arena name was changed to Honda Center. The success of Honda Center is evident, as it is one of the premiere entertainment and sports venues in the country and has been the recipient of numerous industry awards over the years. It has been nominated for “Venue of the Year” in the United States by Pollstar Magazine on seven separate occasions and most recently was ranked fourth in the country by Billboard Magazine for 2010 concert and ticket sales. Honda Center is proud to be home to the NHL’s Anaheim Ducks and to the prestigious John R. Wooden College Basketball Classic. Since 1993, the venue has hosted a significant number of world-class events and shows, including: NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Western Regionals (1998, 2001, 2003, 2011), NCAA Men’s Basketball 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Tournament First and Second Round (2008), 1999 NCAA Frozen Four, 2003 World Gymnastics Championships, 2004 U.S. Team Trials - Gymnastics, 2005 World Badminton Championships, four-time host to UFC Championship bouts, U2, Bette Midler, Paul McCartney, Eagles, Barbra Streisand, AC/DC, Gwen Stefani, Luis Miguel, Rod Stewart, David Bowie, Andrea Bocelli, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill, Phil Collins, Toby Keith, Alan Jackson, Madonna, Prince, Van Halen, Gloria Estefan, Jimmy Buffett, Bon Jovi, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen, and Elton John. Additionally, the current manager, Anaheim Arena Management, LLC, has continued to improve the facility, investing more than $22 million in capital improvements since 2003. As the venue was designed and constructed to be home to two professional sports franchises, the City and its facility management partners have worked throughout the years to bring a second professional sports franchise to Honda Center. Please refer to Section 3.3.2, Operational Characteristics, for additional information on the current operational characteristics for the existing facility. 4.3.2 Biological Resources The project site is completely developed and there are no native biological resources within the Project Site. 4.3.3 Climate and Air Quality The Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SoCAB is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SoCAB includes all of the nondesert portions of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties and all of Orange County. Basinwide conditions are characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate onshore daytime breezes, and moderate humidity. Anaheim is located outside of the marine microclimatic zone and summers are generally cooler than areas along the coast. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The City’s average daily high temperature ranges from 51 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to 89°F in August in a typical year. The average annual precipitation is nearly 14 inches, although the region is subject to significant variations in annual precipitation with occasional summer thundershowers. The topography and climate of southern California combine to produce unhealthful air quality in the SoCAB. Low temperature inversion, light winds, shallow vertical mixing, moist semi-arid climate, and extensive sunlight, in conjunction with a shallow marine layer that hinders horizontal and vertical dispersion of air pollutants, combine to create degraded quality, especially in inland valleys of the basin. 4.3.4 Geology and Landform The Honda Center is located near the southeastern margin of the Central Block within the Peninsular Range Province, extending from Los Angeles County to southern Baja California. The Project Site has been previously graded to construct the existing Honda Center and is flat. The area was primarily formed by alluvial stream deposition from the Santa Ana River that forms a 2,000-foot-thick section below the project area, consisting of horizontally bedding sands and silts. Sedimentary formations underlying the area are comprised of consolidated and semiconsolidated sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerates of Cretaceous to late Tertiary age. Soils underlying the project area are characterized by moderate to moderately rapid permeability, slow runoff, and a slight erosion potential. 4. Environmental Setting Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-5 Major fault lines that run within proximity of the project area are the Newport-Inglewood fault, the Whittier fault, and the El Modeno fault. The nearest active faults to the project area are the Newport-Inglewood fault located approximately 13 miles southwest of the project area and the Whittier fault, located approximately ten miles northeast of the project area. The nearest potentially active fault is the El Modeno fault, which is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the project site. 4.3.5 Hydrology The Honda Center is located within the Santa Ana River watershed. The Santa Ana River, located adjacent to the Project Site, is the major drainage system in the City. The river originates in the San Bernardino Mountains, traveling in a southwesterly direction to the sea at the Huntington Beach/Newport Beach boundary. Drainage within the Platinum Triangle is generally conveyed by two major sub-drainages. The central portion of the Platinum Triangle drains into the Southeast Anaheim Channel (E12) while the western portion drains into Spinnaker Storm Drain (CO5P21). E12, parallel to State College Boulevard, is a 9-foot by 9-foot concrete box that conveys urban run-off, discharging into the Santa Ana River north of Chapman. The Project Site is predominately covered with impervious surfaces. Runoff occurs primarily in sheet flow across parking areas in a southeast direction, to the surrounding street system, designed to convey the theoretical 10- year storm event. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), the Project Site is located in the X Zone that is protected by levees (FIRM Map No. 06059C0142J). The levees located to the east of the project site along the Santa Ana River are designed to contain the 1% chance flood (100-year flood). While overtopping of the levee or failure of the levee is possible, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial modifications to the existing Honda Center or its parking lots and, thus, would not result in greater flooding impacts. 4.3.6 Noise The Project Site is located in the vicinity of a freeway, a railway station, and several major roadways. Noise sources include state highways, arterials, railroad, and aircraft overflights. However, the project area and surrounding properties currently consist of the Honda Center, institutional, industrial, commercial, business office, and hotel, and retail land uses that are not generally considered to be noise sensitive. Temporary construction activities and sporting events also provide additional noise sources. Construction noise is generally high-level, short-duration noise, generated from heavy construction equipment and excavation and grading activities. Events at Honda Center produce high-level, short-duration noise, generated from technical equipment, parking areas, and increased associated traffic. The Honda Center is bordered by Stanley Cup Way and the Union Pacific Railroad to the north, SR-57 to the west, and Katella Avenue to the south. Douglass Road traverses through the site in a north/south orientation and separates the western surface lot from the arena and eastern surface parking lot. Honda Center is less than a half mile northeast of Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station and the future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC), serving as a major railway corridor connecting Anaheim with both Los Angeles and San Diego. Consequently, long-term noise sources result predominately from automobiles, trucks, and trains. Major noise exposure as a result of traffic on Katella Avenue and the SR-57 is audible throughout the site. 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 4.3.7 Scenic Features The area surrounding the Honda Center contains relatively flat topography and is primarily urban in character. There are no distinct natural landscape features or natural visual resources or vistas visible from Honda Center. Additionally, there is no is natural open space on the project site of within its vicinity. Existing views within and surrounding the Project Site are generally limited, resulting from the lack of topography, large size of the area, and existing development. No scenic corridors or designated scenic highways are located in the project vicinity. Major arterial streetscapes are dominated by commercial and office buildings, light industrial complexes, retail, associated landscaping, and overhead utility lines. Structures adjacent to the project area range from one-story to multistory office, institutional, industrial and commercial buildings and hotels. 4.3.8 Public Services and Utilities Public services are currently provided to the Honda Center by a number of providers. Police services are provided by the Anaheim Police Department, with assistance during emergencies and major planned events from neighboring cities’ Police Departments, such as Garden Grove and Orange, and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Fire services are provided by the Anaheim Fire Department. Utilities are currently provided to the Honda Center by a number of utility providers. Electricity is provided by Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD), Electrical Services Division. Power supply comes primarily from APUD owned interest in the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant and the Intermountain Power Project in Utah through APUD interstate and Southern California Edison (SCE) interstate high-voltage transmission lines. Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SGC), which has gas lines along Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, Gene Autry Way, and Lewis Street. Telephone and cable TV service is provided by Verizon and Adelphia. Water service is provided by the APUD, Water Division. Reserve supply will be purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Wastewater and sewer services are provided by the City of Anaheim’s local sanitary sewer system, and are tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Solid waste pickup is provided by Anaheim Disposal, Inc., under contract to the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works to provide waste hauling services throughout the City. 4.3.9 General Plan and Zoning The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element designates the Honda Center site and surrounding area as Mixed Use. Areas designated as Mixed-Use are designed to function differently from the typical patterns of individual, segregated land uses. Uses and activities are designed together in an integrated fashion to create a dynamic urban environment that serves as the center of activity for the surrounding area. The designation provides opportunities for an integrated mix of residential, retail, service, entertainment and office opportunities in a pedestrian-friendly environment. Because of their more intense, compact nature of development, Mixed-Use areas encourage the use of transit service and other forms of transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle travel. Zoning Designations The City’s Zoning Code and Zoning Map, which are used to implement the designations set out by the General Plan, identify the Project Site, as shown in Figure 3-10, Existing Zoning and Property Ownership, as 4. Environmental Setting Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-7 occurring within a Public Recreation (PR) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone and the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. The intent of the “PR” Zone is to establish for the benefit of the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim and its visitors, a zone to preserve, regulate and control the orderly use and enjoyment of City-owned properties and facilities and adjacent private property. Property within the purview of the Public Recreational Zone includes (a) City-owned property, whether the same is exclusively occupied by the City or is used by others on the basis of some agreement with or concession by the City, and (b) adjacent private property, whose use and development has an impact on the use and enjoyment of City-owned property and facilities. The intent of the "T" Zone is to provide for a zone to include land that is used for agricultural uses, in a transitory or interim use, restricted to limited uses because of special conditions, or not zoned to one of the City’s other zoning districts for whatever reason, including recent annexation. Additionally, the City’s Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and corresponding Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone identify the site as belonging to the Arena District. This designation would allow for the development of a maximum of 425 housing units, 100,000 sq ft of office space, and 100,000 sq ft of commercial space within the Arena District. 4.3.10 Traffic and Transportation Automobile Traffic Traffic levels in the vicinity of the Honda Center increase prior to and after events. Event related traffic has occurred in the area for the past 18 years from Honda Center events and over 40 years from Angel Stadium events, and, therefore local residents and commuters are familiar with event related traffic activity. Both venues provide direct access to the regional transportation system so localized impacts are minimized to the extent feasible through effective management of event related traffic activity. As there are several types of events held annually at the Honda Center, traffic management plans have been developed to efficiently manage the ingress and egress of traffic from the parking lots in the immediate vicinity of the Honda Center. Traffic management plans include signal and intersection control by uniformed police officers, signage, lane control, access control, pedestrian control, etc. Additionally, future geometric improvements are expected at the Sunkist Street and Ball Road intersection as a southbound left turn lane and westbound through lane will be added under General Plan Buildout conditions. Public Transportation Several modes of public transportation provide access to Honda Center, including passenger rail and bus service. Passenger Rail Service The Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station is at the north end of the Angels Stadium of Anaheim parking lot 0.4 mile southwest of Honda Center. Two passenger rail services serve the station. The Amtrak Pacific Surfliner operates between San Diego and San Luis Obispo seven days per week. Eleven trains in each direction, northbound and southbound, stop at Anaheim on weekdays (Amtrak 2011). Metrolink is a commuter rail 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 service. One Metrolink line, the Orange County line, serves the Anaheim station seven days per week; on weekdays 13 northbound and 12 southbound trains stop at Anaheim (Metrolink 2011). Transit Bus Service Public bus service is provided in Orange County by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). OCTA Route 50 operates on Katella Avenue past Honda Center. Route 50 provides east-west service between the City of Orange and Long Beach seven days per week; peak hour weekday frequency is about 30 minutes (OCTA 2011a). OCTA Route 153 operates on Katella Avenue between Struck Avenue and Main Street, providing north-south service between Anaheim and Brea seven days per week with hourly frequency (OCTA 2011b). The southern terminus of this route, on Katella Avenue, is approximately 0.3 mile east of Honda Center and is walkable using sidewalks. Routes 50 and 135 include regular bus service and station-link bus service. A Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT) program is currently being planned for Orange County by OCTA and several planned routes would provide access to the area surrounding Honda Center. Proposed new bus lines include routes on Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, which would offer express access to the Platinum Triangle from other areas of Orange County. Eventually, OCTA plans to offer multiple lines traveling between Orange and Riverside County, further broadening the geographic area accessible to and from Honda Center by bus transit. Proposed BRT routes are expected to dramatically improve travel time for residents and visitors traveling in the region. Anaheim Resort Transit (ART) is a private non-profit transportation operator in Anaheim that also provides service to Honda Center. ART Route 15 travels between the Anaheim Resort area, Angels Stadium, Honda Center, and other area landmarks. A spur of the circular Route 15 stops at the Ayres Hotel directly across Katella Avenue from Honda Center. Service frequency varies by season but is generally hourly, seven days a week, between the hours of 8am and midnight (ART 2011). Bicycle and Pedestrian Access The City of Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan and Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element both demonstrate a commitment to the future expansion of bicycle access to the Platinum Triangle area. The Circulation Element shows that existing bicycle access to the Honda Center includes a Class II bikeway on Sunkist Street leading from the central area of Anaheim towards the Platinum Triangle, and the Santa Ana River Trail (City of Anaheim 2004a). The Santa Ana River Trail is a regional Class I bikeway following the Santa Ana River for 30 miles, from the Pacific Ocean to the Riverside County border. In Anaheim, the trail traces the eastern boundary of the Platinum Triangle and travels directly adjacent to the Honda Center site. This proximity gives bicyclists direct access to the Honda Center from elsewhere in the region. Planned bikeways identified in the Circulation Element will provide increased access to the Honda Center area over time, with routes planned for Orangewood Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Douglass Road, and the railroad right-of-way that serves as the Platinum Triangle’s northern boundary (City of Anaheim 2004a). In addition to the Santa Ana River Trail, pedestrian access to Honda Center is provided by sidewalks on major arterial streets adjacent to and surrounding the arena. Douglass Road and Katella Avenue both offer sidewalks on both sides of the street. Opportunities for pedestrians to cross Katella Avenue include a signalized crossing at the intersection of Douglass and Katella, and the Santa Ana River Trail, which crosses Katella on both sides 4. Environmental Setting Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-9 of the river. Honda Center is a 0.5 mile walk from the Amtrak/Metrolink Station and a 0.5 walk from the proposed ARTIC Station. 4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be “…two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 (b)(1)) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources, either: A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions. The cumulative impact analysis contained in this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) uses method B but this EIR has also included past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects that have not yet been added into regional growth and planning documents, such as general plans. Thus, for example, if a known project has been proposed that is seeking a general plan amendment, that project has been included in the cumulative impacts analyses to ensure that the full range of cumulative impacts are properly analyzed. SCAG has adopted growth forecasts for each subregion within the region—Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial Counties—through the year 2030. The City of Anaheim is located in the Orange County Council of Governments Subregion. Therefore, the cumulative impact analysis for the proposed Honda Center project utilized the regional growth projections contained in the Destination 2030 Final Draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, February 2004, for the Orange County Council of Governments Subregion. Because events held at the Honda Center have a regional draw and influence, cumulative citywide impacts have been addressed in the context of overall growth projected for the region, which includes projects underway and planned in the City of Orange adjacent to the Platinum Triangle. As shown in Table 4-1, General Plan Buildout Potential for Purposes of Cumulative Impact Analysis, the adopted City of Anaheim General Plan includes a total of 55,463 single-family units, 73,697 multi-family units, 14,885,342 square feet of commercial, 15,021,049 square feet of office, and 30,614,730 square feet of industrial at build-out of the City. The City has adopted growth projections for planning horizon year post- 2030 (representing General Plan build-out), based upon the City's General Plan, and demographic forecasts adopted by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) in June, 2000. The County of Orange, its cities, and public agencies, have executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the OCCOG to contract with the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton, to develop and periodically update demographic growth projections for Orange County, based on adopted General Plans and 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-10  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 historic growth trends. OCP-2004 is the most current adopted growth projection that has been disaggregated into TAZs for use in traffic studies. Table 4-1 General Plan Buildout Potential for Purposes of Cumulative Impact Analysis Existing Land Use Adopted General Plan Remaining Buildout Potential Single-Family Dwelling Units 45,807 55,463 9,656 Multifamily Dwelling Units 55,979 73,697 17,718 Total Dwelling Units 101,786 129,159 27,373 Population 337,700 403,773 66,073 Commercial Square Footage 9,029,400 14,885,342 5,855,942 Office Square Footage 7,775,167 15,021,049 7,245,882 Industrial Square Footage 44,467,380 30,614,730 –13,852,650 Total Square Footage 61,271,947 60,521,121 –750,826 Commercial Employment 25,829 95,453 69,624 Office Employment 25,569 58,793 33,226 Industrial Employment 121,189 63,292 –57,897 Other Employment 29,793 33,858 4,065 Total Employment 202,378 251,397 49,018 Source: City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final EIR No. 330, State Clearinghouse Number 2003041105. (May 2004; The Planning Center) Notes: The figures contained herein are based on GIS mapping data prepared as part of the General Plan and Zoning Code Update. 2002 existing dwelling unit data and nonresidential square footage provided by the City of Anaheim. Dwelling unit projections assumes 50-50 split of single-family and multifamily dwelling units in the Low Medium Density, Hillside Low Medium Density, and Hillside Medium Density categories for the Existing General Plan. 2002 population source: California Department of Finance (January 2002) Population projections assume average household size of 3.3 for non-mixed-use designations and 1.5 for mixed-use designations. 2002 employment data provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Employment is based on existing square footage of employment-generating land uses and traffic trips. Hotel rooms are included in the Commercial square footage. Open space acreage is not shown. The City of Anaheim has developed an Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) utilizing OCP and Anaheim's General Plan, for purposes of forecasting cumulative growth within the City of Anaheim and regionally. Regional growth outside of the City of Anaheim is included in the ATAM model and includes traffic, air quality, and noise impacts from other projects located both within and outside of the City’s boundaries. In this was, ATAM is a socioeconomic-based traffic model that uses regional growth projections to calculate future traffic volumes; ATAM is supplemented with other known projects to insure that the cumulative impact analyses are highly comprehensive. The growth projections adopted by the City and surrounding area for ATAM are used for the cumulative impact analyses of this DEIR. For the TAZs used in the ATAM, the OCP-2004 projections were modified for the project traffic analysis as follows to reflect more recent data relevant to growth projections in and near the Platinum Triangle, where the Honda Center is located, including the following: 1) City of Orange General Plan Update: The Orange City Council adopted the 2010 General Plan on March 9, 2010. The General Plan consists of 11 elements that together meet state requirements for the General Plan. The elements are land use, circulation and mobility, natural 4. Environmental Setting Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 4-11 resources, public safety, noise, growth management, cultural resources, infrastructure, urban design, economic development, and housing (not included in this update). The General Plan also includes an implementation plan. Development pursuant to the General Plan land use policy would result in an increase of approximately 23,478 dwelling units and 35.7 million square feet of nonresidential building floor area over existing conditions. A net population increase of 57,844 persons is also anticipated at build-out. It serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of the City and establishes an overall development capacity. 2) Amendment No. 14 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan: The Proposed Project consists of two components: (1) the build-out of development within the C-R District; and (2) an increase in the maximum permitted development in the PR District to provide for the expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center (the “Proposed Project”). The City of Anaheim is currently preparing a supplemental EIR to analyze the Proposed Project. The SEIR will analyze maximum build-out of the C-R District using the allowed densities or 75 rooms per lot/parcel, whichever is greater. In addition, for purposes of establishing a baseline figure from which to measure the increase in hotel rooms at build-out, this process will convert existing commercial uses into hotel room equivalents. There are currently 10,888 hotel rooms and approximately 419,000 square feet of commercial development within the C-R District. This results in a baseline hotel room equivalent of 11,587 hotel rooms. A maximum of 32,500 hotel rooms are permitted in the C-R District. Therefore, the SEIR will analyze the addition of up to 20,913 additional hotel rooms within this area. The SEIR will also analyze an increase in the maximum permitted development in the PR District to provide for expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center to allow an addition of 406,359 square feet of Convention Center space (including exhibit halls, ballrooms, flexible meeting space, office and meeting rooms, and an interior bridge/skyway) and 125,000 square feet of commercial space (including, but not limited to, retail stores and restaurants); and, Hotel Development, including up to 900 hotel rooms, 40,000 square feet of meeting and ballroom space, and 55,000 square feet of commercial space (including retail stores, spa facilities, bars and nightclubs, and restaurants). This would increase the maximum permitted development in the PR District to a total of 2,158,363 square feet of Convention Center/meeting space, 2,500 hotel rooms, and 180,000 square feet of commercial space. 3) Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC): The City of Anaheim, in collaboration with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), prepared an EIR to analyze the impacts associated with relocation of the existing Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrack Station south of Katella Avenue in Katella District to approximately one quarter mile east along the existing OCTA railroad right-of-way (ROW) to the new ARTIC District. ARTIC would include the development of an Intermodal Terminal, Public Plaza/Drop-Off Area, the Stadium Pavilion, the Tracks/Platforms, Douglass Road Improvements, Katella Avenue improvements, and Surface Parking/Access. The Intermodal Terminal is proposed to be a three-level building of approximately 310,000 gross square feet that is comprised of approximately 140,000 square feet at-grade or above-grade and approximately 170,000 square feet below the building. There will be two levels at-grade or above-grade and one level below the building. The Intermodal Terminal will include the Public Hall/Waiting Area, which is located on the first level of the Intermodal Terminal. This space is designed to enhance the traveling public’s experience. This area has access to exterior terraces, Tracks/Platforms, and the Public 4. Environmental Setting Page 4-12  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Plaza/Drop-Off Area; and Program Space, which is located on all three levels of the Intermodal Terminal. The below-building level includes spaces for OCTA, mechanical and ventilation, and building services. The at-grade uses will include terminal operations, passenger-oriented retail/restaurants, and passenger waiting areas. The above-grade uses will include passenger- oriented retail/restaurants, and passenger waiting areas. The Bus Transit Center is located on the lower level of the Intermodal Terminal. This Transit Center will include bus islands, waiting areas, bus bays, driving lanes, and driving ramps for surface street access. The Bus Transit Center will contain a 16-bay bus facility (two, eight bay islands) located directly below the Intermodal Terminal. The Bus Transit Center will be an open air facility for ventilation. A waiting area will be provided on each bus island. 4) The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project: On October 26, 2010, the City of Anaheim City Council certified SEIR No. 339 and approved the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project. The project increased the amount of residential, commercial, office, and institutional development intensities permitted in the Platinum Triangle. With approval of the project, a total of 18,909 residential units, 4,909,682 square feet of commercial, 14,340,522 square feet of office, and 1,500,000 square feet of institutional are allowed within the Platinum Triangle. Development that occurs within the Platinum Triangle is implemented through the processing of subdivision maps and the submittal of plans for building permits unless a conditional use permit or a variance are required. Development in the PTMU Overlay Zone also requires approval of a Master Site Plan and/or a Final Site Plan and a Development Agreement. 5) Ball Road Basin General Plan Amendment and Zoning Reclassification: This is a request from the Orange County Water District to change the General Plan designation on several properties located at Ball Road and South Phoenix Club Drive from Open Space to General Commercial and reclassify the properties from the Transition (T) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone. There are no development plans associated with this request. This approach to the Regional Growth Projections Method of using adopted local growth projections along with recent updates that incorporate the major projects such as those listed above is appropriate for evaluating cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Project. This is especially true given the size and long-term nature of the project, which is better considered within the context of adopted growth projections than by attempting to list reasonably foreseeable individual development projects that may occur nearby over the next several years. The cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project have been addressed for each environmental category discussed in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Analysis, of this DEIR. 5. Environmental Analysis Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-1 5.1 AIR QUALITY This section of the EIR evaluates the potential for the Honda Center Enhancement Project (Proposed Project) to impact air quality in the local and regional context. The analysis in this section is based on the following: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study for: The Honda Center, The Planning Center|DC&E, November 2011. A complete copy of this study is included in Appendix C to this EIR. 5.1.1 Environmental Setting South Coast Air Basin The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SoCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semipermanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. (SCAQMD 2005). Temperature and Precipitation The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest to the project site is the Santa Ana Station Monitoring Station (ID 049087). The average low is reported at 43.0°F in January while the average high is 84.7°F in August (WRCC 2011). In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages 13.79 inches per year in the project area (WRCC 2011). Humidity Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coast, are frequent. Low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB (SCAQMD 2005). Wind Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting their eastward transport. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (SCAQMD 2005). Inversions In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollu- tant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area (SCAQMD 2005). Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below. Other pollutants, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), a natural by-product of animal respiration that is also produced in the combustion process, have been linked to phenomena such as global climate change. These emissions are unregulated and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has not yet adopted thresholds for them applicable to residential and commercial development projects. GHG emissions that affect global climate change, including CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases, are discussed in Section 5.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion, engines and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SoCAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-3 associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated under the California and National AAQS as being in attainment of CO criteria levels. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds composed primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of VOCs include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by VOCs, but rather by reactions of VOCs to forms of secondary pollutants such as ozone (SCAQMD 2005). There are no ambient air quality standards established for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, the SCAQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant (SCAQMD 2005). Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a byproduct of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The principal form of NO2 produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 part per million (ppm). NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated as an attainment area for NO2 under the National AAQS and nonattainment under the California AAQS. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2 (SCAQMD 2005). When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. The SoCAB is designated as attainment under the California and National AAQS. Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5 ) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on arid landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading (i.e., fugitive dust). Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems (SCAQMD 2005). The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) scientific review concluded that PM2.5, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM10 to contribute to health effects and at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a carcinogen. The SoCAB is a nonattainment area for PM2.5 and PM10 under California and National AAQS.1 Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when VOCs and NOx, both by- products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for the formation of this pollutant. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Additionally, O3 has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth and premature death. O3 can also act as a corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated as extreme nonattainment under the California AAQS (1-hour and 8-hour) and National AAQS (8-hour). Lead (Pb) concentrations decades ago exceeded the state and federal AAQS by a wide margin, but have not exceeded state or federal air quality standards at any regular monitoring station since 1982 (SCAQMD 2005). However, in 2008 the USEPA and CARB adopted more strict lead standards and special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources2 recorded very localized violations of the new state and federal standards. As a result of these localized violations, the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB was designated in 2010 as nonattainment under the California and National AAQS for lead (SCAQMD 2010). The project is not characteristic of industrial-type projects that have the potential to emit lead. Therefore, lead is not a pollutant of concern for the project. Toxic Air Contaminants The public’s exposure to air pollutants classified as toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code §7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under state law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to 1 CARB approved the SCAQMD’s request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010 because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24-hour PM10 standards during the period from 2004 to 2007. However, the USEPA has not yet approved this request. 2 Source-oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead-related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 identified that the Trojan Battery Company and Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (SCAQMD 2010). 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-5 below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold. Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. Since the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB has designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB 1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines. In 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 2000, SCAQMD conducted a study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,400 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 71 percent of the air toxics risk. In 2008, the SCAQMD conducted its third update to its study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,200 in one million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for approximately 84 percent of the air toxics risk (SCAQMD 2008). In the vicinity of the project site, excess cancer risk is 1,034 in a million (SCAQMD 2011). It should be noted that several recent studies from University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) have indicated that background TAC studies may over estimate background cancer risks from TAC, such as DPM (Enstrom 2005). Other Effects of Air Pollution Air pollution creates numerous impacts to our economy, including lost workdays due to illness, a desire on the part of businesses to locate in areas with a healthy environment, and increased expenses from medical costs. Pollutants may also lower visibility and cause damage to property. Certain air pollutants are responsible for discoloring painted surfaces, eating away at stones used in buildings, dissolving the mortar that holds bricks together, and cracking tires and other items made from rubber. In conformance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments, the federal EPA has prepared a monetary cost/benefit analysis related to implementation requirements. By the year 2010, the EPA estimates that its emissions- reduction programs would cost approximately 27 billion dollars. The programs are estimated to result in a savings benefit of 110 billion dollars, for a net benefit of 83 billion dollars. While these values are for the nation as a whole, a net benefit ratio of about 4:1 is noted, and a similar ratio could be expected for the California and its residents. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Another direct cost/benefit issue relates to federal funding. Areas that do not meet the federal air quality standards may lose eligibility for federal funding for road improvements and other projects that require federal or California Department of Transportation approval. Cleaner air also yields benefits to ecological systems. Just as humans are affected by air pollution, so are plants and animals. Animals must breathe the same air and are subject to the same types of negative health effects. Certain plants and trees may absorb air pollutants that can stunt their development or cause premature death. The benefits of Clean Air Act Amendments programs that can be quantified within the overall monetary benefits include increased agricultural and timber yields, reduced effects of acid rain on aquatic ecosystems, and reduced effects of nitrogen deposited to coastal estuaries. Many ecological benefits, however, remain difficult or impossible to quantify, or can only be quantified for a limited geographic area. The magnitude of quantified benefits and the wide range of unquantified benefits nonetheless suggest that as we learn more about ecological systems and can conduct more comprehensive ecological benefits assessments, estimates of these benefits could be substantially greater. Regulatory Framework AAQS have been promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels for criteria pollutants. The project site is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the SCAQMD, as well as the California CAAQS adopted by CARB and federal NAAQS. Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns. These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 5.1-1, these pollutants include O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-7 Table 5.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Primary Standard Major Pollutant Sources 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Ozone (O3) 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles. Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. Annual Average * *1 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm1 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 24 hours 0.04 ppm *1 Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 * Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5 ) 24 hours * 35 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). Monthly 1.5 µg/m3 * Quarterly * 1.5 µg/m3 Lead (Pb) 3-Month Average * 0.15 µg/m3 Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes. Visibility Reducing Particles 8 hours ExCo =0.23/km visibility of 10≥ miles1 * Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Primary Standard Major Pollutant Sources Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm * Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of sulfur- containing organic substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm * Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Source: CARB 2010 ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter 1 When relative humidity is less than 70 percent. * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. Air Quality Management Planning The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The most recent comprehensive plan was adopted on June 1, 2007, and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2007 AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of SOx, directly emitted PM2.5, and focused control of NOx and VOC by 2015. The eight-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOx and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024, assuming an extended attainment date is obtained. Area Designations The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards through the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Areas are classified as attainment or nonattainment areas for particular pollutants, depending on whether they meet ambient air quality standards. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment range in magnitude from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme. Attainment classifications apply to individual pollutants: 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-9  Unclassified: the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment for a pollutant  Attainment: the California AAQS were not violated at any site in the area during a three-year period for that pollutant  Nonattainment: there was at least one violation of a state AAQS for that pollutant in the area  Nonattainment/Transitional: a subcategory of the nonattainment designation; signifies that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant The attainment status for the SoCAB is shown in Table 5.1-2. The SoCAB is also designated as attainment of the California AAQS for sulfates. According to the 2007 AQMP, the SoCAB will have to meet the new federal 8-hour O3 standard by 2024, PM2.5 standards by 2015, and the recently revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2020. The SCAQMD has recently designated the SoCAB as nonattainment for NO2 (entire basin) and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California AAQS. Table 5.1-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone – 1-hour Extreme Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment1 Ozone – 8-hour Extreme Nonattainment Severe-17 Nonattainment2 PM10 Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment3 PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment4 NO2 Nonattainment5 Attainment/Maintenance SO2 Attainment Attainment Lead Nonattainment6 Nonattainment6 All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: CARB 2010. 1 Under prior standard. 2 SCAQMD may petition for Extreme Nonattainment designation. A Sever-17 designation means that the area has a 8-hr ozone design value of 0.127 ppm up to but not including 0.187 ppm; has a maximum of 17 years to attain. 3 Annual standard revoked September 2006. CARB approved the SCAQMD’s request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24-hour PM10 standards from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request. 4 The EPA granted the request to redesignate the SoCAB from nonattainment to attainment for the CO National AAQS on May 11, 2007 (Federal Register Volume 71, No. 91), which became effective June 11, 2007. 5 The state NO2 standard was made more stringent in 2007 from 0.25 ppm to 0.18 ppm. Under the revised standards, the entire SoCAB was designated nonattainment on March 25, 2010. In addition, the EPA adopted a new 1-hour NOx standard of 0.100 ppm on January 22, 2010. 6 The Los Angeles portion of the SoCAB was designated nonattainment for lead under the new federal and existing state AAQS as a result of large industrial emitters. Remaining areas within the SoCAB are unclassified. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-10  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. Baseline Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site and project area are best documented by measurements made by SCAQMD. The project site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 17 – Central Orange County (Inland Orange County). The air quality monitoring station closest to the project is the Anaheim Monitoring Station. However, this station does not monitor SOx. Consequently, data was obtained from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station for this criteria pollutant. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 5.1-3. The data show that the area occasionally exceeds the state and federal one-hour and eight-hour O3 standards and regularly exceeds the state PM10 and federal PM2.5 standards. The CO, SO2, and NO2 standards have not been exceeded in the last five years in the project vicinity. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-11 Table 5.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels during Such Violations Pollutant/Standard 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ozone (O3)1 State 1-Hour  0.09 ppm State 8-hour  0.07 ppm Federal 8-Hour > 0.075 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 6 5 3 0.113 0.089 2 7 1 0.127 0.100 2 10 5 0.105 0.086 0 2 1 0.093 0.077 0 0 0 0.063 0.056 Carbon Monoxide (CO)1 State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm Federal 8-Hour  9.0 ppm Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0 2.90 0 0 2.91 0 0 3.44 0 0 2.73 0 0 0.191 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)1 State 1-Hour  0.18 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.114 0 0.086 0 0.093 0 0.068 0.066 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)2 State 1-Hour  0.04 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.005 0 0.004 0 0.003 0 0.004 0 0.002 Coarse Particulates (PM10)1 State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3 Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 7 0 104.0 6 13 489.03 3 0 61.0 1 0 63.0 NA 0 37.2 Fine Particulates (PM2.5)1 Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 7 56.2 14 79.4 5 67.8 4 64.5 0 NA Source: CARB 2010. ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: or micrograms per cubic meter. 1 Data obtained from the Anaheim Monitoring Station. 2 Data obtained from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. 3 Statistic includes an exceptional event, such as a wildfire. The second-highest concentration reported is 75.0 ppm. 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would: AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AQ-2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. AQ-3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). AQ-4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AQ-5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-12  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with Threshold AQ-5 would be less than significant. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. South Coast Air Quality Management District Significance Criteria The analysis of the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the significance thresholds on SCAQMD’s website.3 CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and project operation. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts and localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Regional Significance Thresholds SCAQMD has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine a project’s direct and cumulative impact on air quality in the SoCAB. Table 5.1-4 lists SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Table 5.1-4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Coarse Inhalable Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Fine Inhalable Particulates (PM2.5) 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Localized Significance Thresholds SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at the project site (offsite mobile-source emissions are not included the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analyses are applicable for all projects of five acres and less; however, they can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required. Projects larger than five acres can determine the localized significance for construction by performing dispersion modeling based on the AAQS. Because the project is not an industrial project that has the potential to emit substantial sources of stationary emissions operational LSTs are not an air quality impact of concern associated with the project. 3 SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds are current as of March 2011 and can be found here: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-13 CO Hotspots Localized CO impacts are determined based on the presence of congested intersections. The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether the project would cause substantial concentrations of CO. A project is considered to have significant impacts if project-related mobile-source emissions result in an exceedance the California one-hour and eight-hour CO standards. 5.1.3 Environmental Impacts Modeling Methodology SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) as well as updates included on SCAQMD’s website, which are intended to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-specific air quality impacts. This Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in environmental impact reports and was used extensively in the preparation of this analysis. Modeling was conducted using emission factors and methodologies in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2011.1.1, EMFAC2007, and CalEEMod user’s guide (SCAQMD 2011). IMPACT 5.1-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN. [THRESHOLDS AQ-1] Impact Analysis: The regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB is compiled by the SCAQMD and the SCAG. Regional population, housing, and employment projections used by SCAG are based on the City’s General Plan land use designations and planned developments. The emissions inventory in the AQMP is based on these projections. These demographic trends are incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan compiled by SCAG, to determine priority transportation projects determine the future efficiency of the transportation system within the SCAG region. If a project results in changes that affect the existing population, housing, or employment growth patterns and therefore SCAG’s demographic projections, it could affect the assumptions in SCAQMD’s AQMP. The Proposed Project is considered a regionally significant project because of the size of the facility and the extent of the proposed increase use of the facility. However, the Proposed Project would not increase capacity of Honda Center. Consequently, the project would not affect the southern California region’s demographic projections. Increasing the number of events held at Honda Center and the increase in emissions on sold out vs. average attendance event days would not conflict with the AQMP. IMPACT 5.1-2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS THAT EXCEED SCAQMD’S REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLDS OR CUMULATIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO THE NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS OF THE SOCAB. [THRESHOLDS AQ-2 AND AQ-3] Impact Analysis: Construction activities generate criteria air pollutant emissions from use of off-road construction equipment, on-road vehicles associated with construction employees and material deliveries, fugitive dust generated during grading, and off-gas emissions during application of architectural coatings and paving. Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would occur during construction of 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-14  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 improvements on the south side4 of the existing facility, including an approximate 5,846 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, a 5,846 square foot team store and a 9,114 square feet open area on the Main Level (Level 200); and above the main level improvements, a 9,518 square feet restaurant to serve event attendees and a 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the Club Level (Level 300). Other interior improvements include locker room, office space, bunker suite and balcony suite renovations; electrical upgrades and an increase in the capacity of the loading dock. Interior renovations would not require use of large off-road construction equipment and therefore are not included in the modeling below. Construction phasing and equipment was provided by Honda Center and modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. As shown Table 5.1-5, construction activities would not result in emissions that exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. No significant impacts would occur. Table 5.1-5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Pollutants (lb/day) Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 20 12 9 <1 2 1 SCAQMD Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1. Equipment list and phasing provided by Honda Center. IMPACT 5.1-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE AN INCREASE IN DAILY TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS OF VOC, NOX, AND CO THAT EXCEED SCAQMD’S REGIONAL OPERATIONAL THRESHOLDS AND CUMULATIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO THE NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS OF THE SOCAB. [THRESHOLDS AQ-2 AND AQ-3] Impact Analysis: An inventory of Honda Center’s maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions are shown in Table 5.1-6. Project-related air pollutants come from area-, energy-, and mobile-source emissions. The Proposed Project would not increase seating capacity at Honda Center. Therefore, maximum daily emissions generated by events at Honda Center would not increase from baseline conditions as a result of the project. However, it should be noted that these maximum daily emissions would occur an additional 60 days per year with the proposed project. Therefore, for the purposes of this EIR, although Honda Center currently generates both average attendance events and sell out events, impacts are based on the incremental increase caused by sell out events at Honda Center. Significance is based on the comparison of Sell Out Honda Center Events vs. Average Attendance Honda Center Events. As shown in Table 5.1-6, sell out events generate substantially more traffic than average attendance events at Honda Center. As a result, these emissions exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, and CO and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. 4 Please note a previous proposal located the proposed improvements on the east side of the existing Honda Center. They have since been relocated to the south side facing Katella Avenue. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-15 Table 5.1-6 Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (in pounds per day) Operations Phase VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Sell Out Honda Center Event1 Natural Gas <1 4 3 <1 <1 <1 Transportation 285 339 2,857 4 37 37 Maximum Daily Emissions on an Event Day 285 343 2,860 4 37 37 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds2 55 55 550 150 150 55 Average Attendance Honda Center Event Natural Gas <1 4 3 <1 <1 <1 Transportation 222 264 2,226 3 29 28 Maximum Daily Emissions on an Event Day 222 268 2,229 3 29 28 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds2 55 55 550 150 150 55 Comparison of Sell Out and Average Attendance Events at Honda Center Difference Between a Sell Out Event & Average Attendance Event at Honda Center 79 95 795 1 10 11 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds2 55 55 550 150 150 55 Difference Exceeds SCAQMD’s Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No Source: EMFAC2007 and SCAQMD 2011. 1 Emissions on a day without a Honda Center event are assumed to be negligible for the purpose of this analysis and therefore the emissions shown in the table under “Sell Out Honda Center Event” represent the increase on days with sell out events compared to an existing non-event day. The proposed project would result in one additional event per week, which would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for the additional event day. 2 The project would not result in a net increase in the maximum daily emissions at Honda Center. However, for the purposes of this environmental assessment, impacts are based on the incremental increase between sold out events and average attendance events. IMPACT 5.1-4: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. [THRESHOLD AQ-4] Impact Analysis: The proposed project’s construction activities have the potential to expose existing sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations. LSTs were developed by SCAQMD to determine if a project would generate significant localized air quality impacts. SCAQMD’s thresholds are based on the California AAQS, which represent the most stringent applicable AAQS and have been established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Unlike mass emissions, which refer to the amount of pollutant emitted in pounds per day (e.g., Table 5.1-5), localized pollutant concentration levels refer to the amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3). Because the effect of pollutants emitted during construction or operation depends on the proximity of the source to the receptor, LSTs are based on the location of the emission source relative to the sensitive receptors, as well as the quantity of emissions. Table 5.1-7 shows construction emission rates and LSTs in SRA 17. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment occurring on the project site are included in the analysis. As shown in Table 5.1-7, project-related daily construction emissions would not exceed the construction LSTs or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-16  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.1-7 Localized Offsite Construction Emissions Pollutants (lb/day) Source NO21 CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 8 8 1 1 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 103 1,313 161 87 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1. SCAQMD 2003, and SCAQMD 2006: Equipment list and phasing provided by Honda Center. Based on LSTs for a project site in SRA 17 for a 1-acre site with sensitive receptors located at a distance of 1,675 feet for PM10 and PM2.5 and non- receptors at 390 feet for NOx and CO. Only onsite air pollutant emissions as per SCAQMD guidance. 1 The two principle NOx species are NO and NO2 with the vast majority (95 percent) of NOx emissions being NO. Adverse health effects are associated with NO2 and not NO. IMPACT 5.1-5: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE LAND USES TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES. [THRESHOLD AQ-4] Impact Analysis: Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hot spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (LOS) E or worse without improvements (Caltrans 1997). The 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook includes methodology to conduct localized CO modeling for traffic generated by a project. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SoCAB was designated as nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated as in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. As identified within SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. A CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles5 at the peak morning and afternoon time periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). Event traffic at Honda Center does not produce this volume of traffic in a one-hour period; therefore, the project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not increase arena 5 The four intersections were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day and LOS E in the morning peak hour and LOS F in the evening peak hour. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-17 capacity and would not increase air pollutant emissions at intersections in the vicinity of the project site. No localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would occur as a result of the project. IMPACT 5.1-6: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE LAND USES TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES. [THRESHOLD AQ-4] Impact Analysis: SCAQMD only considers onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment. While regional daily emissions generated by operation of Honda Center are substantial as a result of vehicle travel, onsite emissions generation by stationary sources represent a fraction of total operational emissions. Operation of Honda Center does not generate substantial quantities of onsite, stationary-sources emissions. Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing. While not considered a “stationary” source of emissions, cars idling at Honda Center parking generate exhaust emissions after an event. However, the Proposed Project would not increase seating capacity at Honda Center nor cars generated by events. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in emissions generated onsite. Onsite emissions generated at full event days and average event days would be similar. Consequently, no localized impacts would occur. 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative projects include new development and general growth within the project area. As air emissions are typically confined to the existing air basin, so the cumulative project area encompasses the entire SoCAB. The greatest source of emissions within the SoCAB is from mobile sources. The SoCAB is designated as nonattainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS for O3, PM10, PM2.5, and lead (Los Angeles County only) and nonattainment of the CAAQS for NO2 (CARB 2010). Construction and operation of cumulative projects would further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the SoCAB. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted by cumulative project emissions, SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds (SCAQMD 1993). Temporary construction-related regional emissions for the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD’s emission thresholds. The project would not result in an increase in stadium seating or a change in operations on an event day. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would also not generate an increase in criteria air pollutant emissions generated per day or exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Although Honda Center currently generates both average attendance events and sell out events, for the purpose of the EIR, impacts for the Proposed Project are based on the incremental increase caused by sell out events at Honda Center. Significance is based on the comparison of Sell Out Honda Center Events vs. Average Attendance Honda Center Events. Sell out events generate substantially more traffic than average attendance events at Honda Center. As a result, these emissions exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, and CO and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Therefore, the proposed project would significantly contribute to cumulative impacts in the SoCAB. In consideration of the preceding factors, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be significant, and therefore the project’s incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable. 5.1.5 Existing Regulations The following measures are existing plans, programs, or policies that apply to the Proposed Project and will help to reduce and avoid their respective potential impacts related to air quality: 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-18  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  CARB Rule 2485 – Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM)  SCAQMD Rule 201 – Permit to Construct  SCAQMD Rule 402 – Nuisance Odors  SCAQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust  SCAQMD Rule 1108 – Cutback Asphalt  SCAQMD Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings  SCAQMD Rule 1301 – New Source Review  SCAQMD Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities  40 CFR Part 85 – Control of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources  40 CFR Part 89 – Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines  Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24)  Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20)  Motor Vehicle Standards (AB 1493) 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts 5.1-1, 5.1-2, 5.1-4, 5.1-5 and 5.1-6 would be less than significant. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.1-3 Sold out events compared to average attendance events at Honda Center would generate an increase in daily transportation emissions of VOC, NOx, and CO that exceed SCAQMD’s regional operational thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. 5.1.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.1-3 The following mitigation measures are included in Section 5.1-2, Greenhouse Gas Emission, and would also reduce criteria air pollutant emissions generated on a day with a sold out Honda Center event. 2-1 Honda Center shall request a Comprehensive Energy Audit by the Anaheim Public Utilities, which is a free service offered by the utility. According to the Anaheim Public Utilities, customers can reduce energy by as much as 10 to 25 percent of month through efficiency reductions. Energy reductions can be accomplished through retrofits and/or offsets provided by renewable energy generation onsite. Potential combination of measures that could be taken to achieve a reduction in energy demand includes: a. Replacement of indoor and outdoor lighting fixtures with LED or compact fluorescent fixtures. b. Retrofitting air conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems and/or calibrating systems for efficiency (e.g., increasing average indoor temperature settings in summer and during hockey events). 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.1-19 c. Replacing restaurant refrigerators, freezers, and other appliances with Energy Star rated appliances to reduce plug-load. d. Installation of photovoltaic system (e.g., carports with solar panels or rooftop-mounted solar panels) or wind-energy-system at Honda Center to offset energy use generated during an event. For example, a 750 kW-ac photovoltaic system is estimated to produce 1,242,163 kWh per year based on the California Public Utilities Commission’s Clean Power Estimator. 2-2 The City of Anaheim shall continue coordinating with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), which operates Metrolink service on Orange County Line in conjunction with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The City of Anaheim shall coordinate with SCRRA to discuss the potential for providing special event service to Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim on weekends and during the week. A list of events, including the day or the event, time of the event, and duration of the event at Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim shall be provided to SCRRA to initiate these discussions. Barriers to implement Special Event Service on the Orange County Line shall be discussed. Potential funding options to overcoming barriers to implement special event Service on the Orange County line should be indentified and considered, including funding for additional train operators and trains that coincide with commuter service. 2-3 To encourage use of transit by visitors to Honda Center, ticket holders shall be provided information on the Metrolink and Amtrak services available on the day of the event, including Metrolink and Amtrak scheduling. 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.1-3 Measure 2-1 through 2-3 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, the effectiveness of these mitigation measures is uncertain and cannot be quantified. Therefore, regional criteria air pollutant emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Page 5.1-20  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page left blank intentionally. 5. Environmental Analysis Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-1 5.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to address GHG emissions This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the Proposed Project to impact or be impacted by global climate change. The analysis in this section is based on the following: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study for: Honda Center, The Planning Center|DC&E, November 2011. A complete copy of this study is included in Appendix C to this EIR. 5.2.1 Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Regulation on an International Level Currently, there is no international regulatory program regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from various nations. A brief summary of the state of international climate change regulation is set forth below. In 1992, 154 nations, including the United States, entered into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a nonbinding agreement under which industrialized countries pledged to work to reduce GHG emissions. Five years later, in 1997, the parties to the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community, with the objective of reducing their collective omissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels during the “commitment period” of 2008-2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 182 countries, but has not been ratified by the United States. Indeed, in 1995, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a 95-0 vote, stating the Senate’s directive that the United States should not enter into any protocol that did not set binding targets for developing, as well as industrialized, nations. It should be noted that many of the industrialized countries which ratified the Kyoto Protocol have not and/or are not expected to meet their Kyoto targets.1 The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012. Formal negotiations to replace the protocol officially began in December 2007 at the UNFCCC Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia. Whether a workable agreement can be reached, however, remains to be seen, as the United States continues to press for an agreement which requires firm commitments from developing nations, and countries like China and India continue to oppose binding targets (BBK News 2007). Recently, at the United Nations Conference in Durban South Africa, Canada indicated it was withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol and other major industrialized nations also stated their intention not to sign the protocol Regulation of GHG Emissions on a National Level The federal government has taken a number of steps toward addressing global climate change over the past 30 years, but thus far, such actions have been mostly policy oriented. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, which required an investigation into climate change. In 1987, Congress enacted the Global Climate Protection Act for the purpose of establishing a national climate program that will assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their 1 Canada, which currently has emissions that are 30 percent above 1990 levels, announced in 2009 that it would not be able to meet its obligations under Kyoto (Environment Canada 2010). Likewise, Japan has not indicated that it will not comply with its targets, but as of 2005, its emissions were approximately 8 percent higher than in 1990 (Kestenbaum 2007). 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 implications (15 USC § 2902.). The act required the establishment of various programs to further climate change research (15 USC § 2904(d).). On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act. After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the EPA announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. The EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but do allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation. The EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. Regulation of GHG Emissions on a State Level AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-3-05, signed June 1, 2005. The Executive Order requires the state’s global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and by 80 percent of 1990 levels by the year 2050. It is projected that GHG emissions in California by 2020 will be approximately 596 million metric tons (MMTons) of CO2e by 2020 (CARB 2008). In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTons (471 million tons) of CO2e for the state (CARB 2008). The 2020 target requires emissions reductions of 169 MMTons, 28.5 percent of the projected emissions compared to projected year 2020 emissions (i.e., 28.5 percent of 596 MMTons) (CARB 2008). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) defines the projected 2020 emissions as business-as-usual (BAU) in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical in 2002 through 2004. In order to effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 metric tons (MTons) per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012. The Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool was established through the Climate Action Registry to track GHG emissions. In June 2008, CARB released a draft of the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which was revised in October 2008. The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. Key elements of CARB’s GHG reduction plan are: 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-3  Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;  Increases the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. Retail sellers of electricity are required to increase the portion of electricity they provide each year by renewable energy to achieve the 33 percent goal;  Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system for large stationary sources;  Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;  Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard  Creating target fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation. Table 5.2-1, Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target, shows the proposed reductions from regulations and programs outlined in the Scoping Plan. While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, CARB estimates that land use changes implemented by local governments that integrate jobs, housing, and services are estimated to result in a reduction of 5 MMTons of CO2e, which is approximately 3 percent of the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local government plays in successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of today’s levels by 2020 to ensure that municipal and community-wide emissions match the state’s reduction target. Measures that local governments take to support shifts in land use patterns are anticipated to emphasize infill and refill, compact, low-impact developments over growth on undevelopment, greenfield areas, resulting in fewer per capita miles driven by passenger vehicle. According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles travelled by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 MMTons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.2-1 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures Toward 2020 Target Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target of 169 MMTons CO2e Percentage of Statewide 2020 Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19% Energy Efficiency 26.3 16% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9% Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets1 5 3% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3% Goods Movement 3.7 2% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1% Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 1% High Speed Rail 1.0 1% Industrial Measures 0.3 0% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20% Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87% Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12% Sustainable Forests 5 3% Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade program) 1.1 1% Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 1% Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions 27.3 16% Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target 174 100% Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1% Local Government Operations To Be Determined2 NA Green Buildings 26 15% Recycling and Waste 9 5% Water Sector Measures 4.8 3% Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1% Total Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target 42.8 NA Source: CARB. 2008, 1 Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. 2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 target. SB 97 In addition to the requirements under AB 32 to address GHG emissions and global climate change in general plans and CEQA documents, Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines for addressing global warming emissions and mitigating project-generated GHG emissions. OPR transmitted the proposed guidelines to the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) and the guidelines were adopted on December 30, 2009. The amended CEQA Guidelines became effective on March 18, 2010. 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-5 The new CEQA Guidelines concerning GHG emissions do not include or recommend any particular threshold of significance; instead, they leave that decision to the discretion of the lead agency. However, with respect to adopting thresholds of significance, newly added CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c) provides:[A] lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence. The new CEQA Guidelines also do not suggest or recommend the use of any specific GHG emission mitigation measures. Instead, newly added CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(c) provides that lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Among other things, CNRA noted in its public notice for these changes to the CEQA Guidelines that the impacts of GHG emissions should be considered in the context of a cumulative impact, rather than a project impact. The public notice states: While the Proposed Amendments do not foreclose the possibility that a single project may result in greenhouse gas emissions with a direct impact on the environment, the evidence before [CNRA] indicates that in most cases, the impact will be cumulative. Therefore, the Proposed Amendments emphasize that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions should center on whether a project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is cumulatively considerable. Executive Order S-03-05 In summary, current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32 and Executive Order S-03-05. AB 32 establishes a goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 and describes a process for achieving that goal. Executive Order S- 03-05 sets a goal for the following for reduction of GHG emissions:  2000 levels by 2010  1990 levels by 2020  80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 Energy Conservation Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2008 (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]).2 Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and nonfederally regulated appliances. On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The green building 2 Although new building energy efficiency standards were adopted in April 2008, these standards did not go into effect until 2009. 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 standards that became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code established voluntary standards on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011. Renewable Power Requirements A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) established under Senate Bills (SBs) 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity are required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. CARB has now approved an even higher goal of 33 percent by 2020. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. In addition to the States RPS, Senate Bill 1368 limits long-term investments in baseload generation by utility power plants to meet emissions performance standard established by CEC and the California Public Utilities Commission. New, or capital investment in, electricity generating facilities owned by or under contract to publically owned utilities are required to achieve an emissions standard of 1,100 lbs per megawatt-hour (MWh). Vehicle Emission Standards/Improved Fuel Economy Vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I) and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light duty auto to medium duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020.3 In summary, current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32 and Executive Order S-03-05. Regulation of GHG Emissions on a Regional Level In 2008, SB 375 was adopted and was intended to represent the implementation mechanism necessary to achieve the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the Scoping Plan for the transportation sector as it relates to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Implementation is intended to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations with local land use planning. This coordination is expected to reduce per capita GHG emissions that result from travel. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). SCAG is the MPO for the southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino County, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. SCAG's targets are an 8 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emissions levels by 2020 and a 13 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emissions levels by 2035. 3 CARB’s user guide for the Pavley I + Low Carbon Fuel Standard Postprocessor provides more detail. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/tools/pavleylcfs-userguide.pdf (accessed August 2010). 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-7 The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built environment in 2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that more time is needed for large land use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in the interim are anticipated to come from improving the efficiency of the region's existing transportation network. The proposed targets would result in 3 MMTons of GHG reductions by 2020 and 15 MMTons of GHG reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the passenger vehicle target in CARB's Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met (CARB 2010). SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plan. For the SCAG region, the first SCS is anticipated to be adopted in April 2012 (SCAG 2011). The SCS will set forth a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide regional growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. However, the SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. If the SCS is unable to achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets, the MPO is required to prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy that shows how the GHG emissions reduction target could be achieved through other development patterns, infrastructure, and/or transportation measures. Regulation of GHG Emissions on a Local Level City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element The General Plan Update for the City of Anaheim was adopted in May 2004. The City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element, while not specifically addressing GHG emissions or climate change, establishes goals and policies that are representative of those activities expected to reduce emissions. These include topics addressing conservation of natural resource, vehicle emissions reduction, reducing vehicle work trips, expanding transit trips, sound land use planning, efficient, clean-burning public transit, energy conservation, and building performance standards (see also Section 5.4, Land Use and Planning). City of Anaheim Green Resolution, Green Connection, and Green Building Programs In 2006, the City Council adopted a Resolution setting a series of goals for the City, grounded in the principles of environmental soundness and sustainable development. The City’s Green Resolution includes a goal to reduce energy use by 20 percent and water use by 15 percent by 2015. Anaheim Public Utilities, through Anaheim’s Green Connection Program, is exploring a variety of different ways to meet these green goals. For example, the City offers several incentive-based program through Anaheim Public Utilities.4 The City’s Green Building Programs promote the following in the design and construction of new development and redevelopment:  Sustainable Sites. Takes into consideration future needs including access to public transportation, parking capacity, accommodation for alternative fuel vehicles, protection or restoration of open space, storm water management, and prevention of the heat island effect and light pollution. 4 A list of the City of Anaheim Public Utilities incentives for business efficiency can be found on the City’s webpage at: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=990. 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  Water Efficiency. Requires water-efficient landscapes, water-efficient equipment and appliances, and innovative wastewater technologies to reduce costs, help preserve water supplies and prevent pollution.  Energy Efficiency. Encourages energy-efficiency measures such as use of daylighting, renewable energy, superior insulation, and high-efficiency appliances and equipment.  Cleaner Atmosphere. Reduction of greenhouse gas and chlorofluorocarbons in heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems and refrigeration to preserve and protect the environment.  Wiser Use of Materials and Resources. All materials used in construction should provide the best value in terms of the life of the product and future maintenance costs. At the same time, materials must be selected with environmental concerns in mind. Green builders consider not only the finished products they will use in construction, but also the methods of raw material acquisition, product manufacturing, packaging, transportation and use. Green building also means being conscious of waste management. Recycling and reusing materials when practical helps prevent overusing landfills.  Indoor Environmental Quality. Green buildings provide good indoor air quality, lighting, acoustics and temperature control for the health and comfort of inhabitants. This requires the use of the most environmentally friendly building materials and innovative designs with special attention to ventilation, insulation, and HVAC systems. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Climate change is a term that refers to the variation of Earth’s climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activities. The climate system is interactive, consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere (ocean, rivers, and lakes), the cryosphere (sea ice, ice sheets, and glaciers), the land surface, and the biosphere (flora and fauna). The atmosphere is the most unstable and rapidly changing part of the system. It is made up of 78.1 percent nitrogen (N2), 20.9 percent oxygen (O2), and 0.93 percent argon (Ar). These gases have only limited interaction with the incoming solar radiation and do not interact with infrared (long-wave) radiation emitted by the Earth. However, there are a number of trace gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3), that absorb and emit infrared radiation and therefore have an effect on climate. These are GHGs, and while they comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total volume mixing ratio in dry air, they play an essential role in influencing climate (IPCC 2001). Non-CO2 GHGs are those listed in the Kyoto Protocol5 (CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons [HFC], perfluorocarbons [PFC], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6])and those listed under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments6 (chlorofluorocarbons [CFC], hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFC], and halons). Table 5.2-2 lists a selection of some of the GHGs and their relative global warming potentials (GWP) as compared to CO2. Although not included in this table, water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG, also the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant in the atmosphere (IPCC 2001). The major GHGs are briefly described below the table. 5 Kyoto Protocol: Established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and signed by more than 160 countries (excluding the United States) stating that they commit to reduce their GHG emissions by 55 percent or engage in emissions trading. 6 Montreal Protocol and Amendments: International Treaty signed in 1987 and subsequently amended in 1990 and 1992. Stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere (CFC, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) are to be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform). 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-9 Table 5.2-2 Greenhouse Gases and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 GHG Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Global Warming Potential Relative to CO21 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 1 Methane (CH4)2 12 (±3) 21 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 120 310 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-23 264 11,700 HFC-32 5.6 650 HFC-125 32.6 2,800 HFC-134a 14.6 1,300 HFC-143a 48.3 3,800 HFC-152a 1.5 140 HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900 HFC-236fa 209 6,300 HFC-4310mee 17.1 1,300 Perfluoromethane: CF4 50,000 6,500 Perfluoroethane: C2F6 10,000 9,200 Perfluorobutane: C4F10 2,600 7,000 Perfluoro-2-methylpentane: C6F14 3,200 7,400 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 Source: USEPA. 1 Based on 100-Year Time Horizon of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the air pollutant relative to CO2. 2 The methane GWP includes the direct effects and those indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.  Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste, including waste in solid waste landfills.  Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.  Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High GWP gases.  Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are greenhouse gases covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-10  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 break down ozone. These gases are also ozone-depleting gases and are therefore being replaced by other compounds that are also GHGs covered under the Kyoto Protocol.  Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were introduced as alternatives, along with HFCs, to the ozone-depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global warming potential.  Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas that is soluble in alcohol and ether, and is slightly soluble in water. SF6 is a strong greenhouse gas used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator.  Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms. Although ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also greenhouse gases.  Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in serving many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. While they do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, they are strong greenhouse gases (USEPA 2008a, IPCC 2001, IPCC 2007). California’s GHG Sources and Relative Contribution California is the second largest emitter of GHG in the United States, only surpassed by Texas, and the tenth largest GHG emitter in the world (CEC 2005).This is due to both its physical land area and its large population and employment base. However, because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2001 California ranked fourth lowest in carbon emissions per capita and fifth lowest among states in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption per unit of Gross State Product (total economic output of goods and services) (CEC 2006). In 2004, California produced 492 million metric tons (MMTons) of CO2-equivalent (CO2e).7 Of these GHG emissions 81 percent were CO2 emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, 2.8 percent were from other sources of CO2, 5.7 percent were from methane, and 6.8 percent were from N2O (CEC 2006). The remaining 2.9 percent of GHG emissions were from high global warming potential gases, which include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (CEC 2006). CO2 emissions from human activities make up 84 percent of the total GHG emissions (CEC 2006). California’s transportation sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 40.7 percent of the state’s total emissions (CEC 2006). Electricity consumption is the second largest source, comprising 22.2 percent. While out-of-state electricity generation comprises 22 to 32 percent of California’s total electricity supply, it contributes 39 to 57 percent of the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption in the state (CEC 2006). Industrial activities are California’s third largest source of GHG emissions, comprising 20.5 7 CO2-equivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHG have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-11 percent of state’s total emissions (CEC 2006). Other major sources of GHG emissions include mineral production, waste combustion and land use, and forestry changes. Agriculture, forestry, commercial, and residential activities compose the balance of California’s greenhouse gas emissions (CEC 2006). Human Influence on Climate Change For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere remained relatively constant (IPCC 2007). During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and climate change pollutants that are attributable to human activities. The amount of CO2 has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million (ppm) per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (IPCC 2007). These recent changes in climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants (CAT 2006). Climate-change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty (IPCC 2007). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report projects that the global mean temperature increase from 1990 to 2100, under different climate-change scenarios, will range from 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.4°F). In the past, gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. However, many scientists believe that human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic timeframe but within a human lifetime (IPCC 2007. However, as set forth below, many scientists disagree with the climate change scenarios identified by the IPCC. Potential Climate Change Impacts for California Climate change is not a local environmental impact; it is a global impact. Unlike criteria pollutants, CO2 emissions cannot be attributed to a direct health effect. However, human-caused increases in GHG have been shown to be highly correlated with increases in the surface and ocean temperatures on Earth (IPCC 2007). What is not clear is the extent of the impact on environmental systems. Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are also hard to predict. Likewise, there are varying degrees of uncertainty in environmental impact scenarios. Because of this uncertainty, the IPCC uses five different confidence levels to quantify climate change impacts on the environment: Very High Confidence (95 percent or greater), High Confidence (67 to 95 percent), Medium Confidence (33 to 67 percent), Low Confidence (5 to 33 percent), and Very Low Confidence (5 percent or less). In California and western North America, 1) observations in the climate have showed a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures, 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation is falling as snow, 3) there is a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, 4) there is an advance snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the spring, and 5) there is a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms (CAT 2006). According to the California Climate Action Team (CAT), even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 5.2-1), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C (1.1°F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable. 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-12  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 CAT and Cal/EPA use the results from the recent analysis of global climate change impacts for California under three IPCC scenarios: lower emissions (B1), medium-high emissions (A2), and high emissions (A1F1); each is associated with an increasing rise in average global surface temperatures. According to the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) 2006 report, “Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California,” global climate change risks to California include public health impacts (poor air quality made worse and more severe heat), water resources impacts (decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack, challenges in securing adequate water supply, potential reduction in hydropower, and loss of winter recreation), agricultural impacts (increasing temperatures, increasing threats from pests and pathogens, expanded ranges of agricultural weeds, and declining productivity), coast sea level impacts (rising coastal sea levels, increasing coastal floods, and shrinking beaches), forest and biological resource impacts (increasing wildfires, increasing threats from pest and pathogens, declining forest productivity, and shifting vegetation and species distribution), and electricity impacts (increased energy demand). Specific climate change impacts that could affect the project include health impacts from a reduction in air quality, water resources impacts from a reduction in water supply, and increased energy demand. Scientific Debate Regarding the Scope and Extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming As a matter of public policy, through the enactment of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and other legislation, the State of California has declared that the continued rise in concentrations of GHG emissions pose a threat to the health and welfare of the people of the State. Thus, this EIR sets forth a comprehensive analysis consistent with the framework provided by state and regional authorities, of the proposed project’s impacts with respect to climate change. Nevertheless, there continues to be significant debate among scientists on the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming and whether California’s commitments to reduce GHG emissions will have any measurable affect on global climate change trends. Significant scientific debate continues to exist regarding the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming.8 During the past two years additional evidence and factual material has been disclosed and debated that calls into question the integrity of scientific methodologies of the IPCC – which has served as the primary basis for much of the proposed regulatory action throughout the world.9 Thus, while the State of California has embarked upon a comprehensive regulatory program and has declared that climate change poses a significant threat to the health and welfare of the citizens of the State, it is nevertheless true that scientific debate exists regarding the cause and extent of anthropogenic global warming. In addition, assuming that the State of California can achieve its greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals set forth in AB 32, it is unclear as to whether the achievement would have any effect on any global warming trends caused by fossil fuel combustion. While California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan outlines strategies to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 169.4 MMTons (CARB 2008), these savings 8 In 2008, 650 scientists from around the globe submitted a several hundred page report calling into question the claims made by the IPCC that global warming exits and is caused by humans (U.S. Senate Minority Report 2008). 9 The factual material consists of the following: (1) the charge that the IPCC is a political organization and not a scientific organization (Singer 2008 and Tol 2007); (2) extensive criticism that the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report lacked any sort of meaningful scientific peer review (Holland 2007); (3) the assertion that the Fourth Assessment Report contains numerous errors and unsubstantiated factual assertions such as the use of the “Hockey Stick” (Gray 2010 and Monckton 2008), leaked emails from the University of East Anglia (Delingpole 2009), various claims contained in the Fourth Assessment Report were false, including, but not limited to the claims that the Himalayan Glaciers would melt by 2035, that African crop production would be cut by 50 percent by 2020; and the claim that sea levels would rise based on melting ice having equal displacement with water, among others (Webster 2010, IPCC 2010, and Leake 2010). 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-13 are not nearly enough to compensate for the expected increase in emissions in developing countries during the same period alone. China has surpassed the United States as the world’s largest GHG emitter and GHG levels are projected to increase by 75 percent to more than double existing levels.10 India’s emissions are projected to increase fourfold by 2030 (The Economist 2008).11 Similarly, Brazil, the largest economy in South America, GHG emissions increased by more than 60 percent between 1990 and 2004, and are projected to continue to rise at a similar pace (International Energy Agency 2006). Both of those increases, however, are insignificant compared to the increases projected for China. Consequently, it is clear that similar steps to reduce emissions must be taken in developed and developing nations to reduce GHG emissions worldwide. 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would: GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. The analysis of the proposed project’s GHG impacts follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the significance thresholds on SCAQMD’s website.12 SCAQMD has proposed thresholds of significance for GHGs. South Coast Air Quality Management District Significance Criteria To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency: 10 A recent study conducted by economists at the University of California, Berkeley and UC San Diego estimated that China’s CO2 emissions are growing by as much as 11 percent annually and that a ton of CO2 emitted from China comingles with a ton of carbon dioxide emitted from Southern California in approximately seventy two hours (Auffhammer and Carson 2008). A 2009 analysis of Chinese emissions by the French Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations projects that even if the Chinese government reduces carbon emissions by about 40-45 percent per unit of gross domestic product, China will still have an approximate 75 percent increase in CO2 emissions by 2020 (The Times of India 2009). A different study by the Climate Change Institute at Australian National University suggested that China’s emissions may grow even more: doubling by 2020 (The Times of India 2009). China’s increase in emissions alone could be three to four times higher than the combined cuts promised by the United States and the European Union (The Times of India 2009). 11 According to projections from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), carbon emissions from Brazil alone are expected to increase from 216 MMTons in 1990 and 356 MMTons in 2005 to 541 MMTons in 2020, nearly double the amount of emissions which will be saved by the implementation of AB 32. During that period, India’s emissions are projected to increase by about 1,253 MMTons (EIA 2008). 12 SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds are current as of March 2011 and can be found here: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html. 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-14  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Tier 1 If a project is exempt from CEQA, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. Tier 2 If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project’s geographic area (i.e., city or county), project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD is proposing a screening-level threshold of 3,000 MTons annually for all land use types or the following land-use-specific thresholds: 1,400 MTons for commercial projects, 3,500 MTons for residential projects, or 3,000 MTons for mixed-use projects. This bright-line threshold is based on a review of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed the bright-line thresholds identified above. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the bright-line threshold would have a nominal, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions: Tier 3 If GHG emissions are less than the screening-level threshold, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. Tier 4 If emissions exceed the screening threshold, a more detailed review of the project’s GHG emissions is warranted. SCAQMD is proposing to adopt an efficiency target for projects that exceed the screening threshold. The current recommended approach is per capita efficiency targets. SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percent emissions reduction target. Instead, SCAQMD proposes a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MTons per year per service population (MTons/year/SP) for project-level analyses and 6.6 MTons/year/SP for plan level projects (e.g., program-level projects such as specific plans and general plans).13 If projects exceed these per capita efficiency targets, GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures. 5.2.3 Environmental Impacts Methodology This GHG analysis analyzes potential operational phase impacts related to an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center to accommodate an additional professional sports franchise. Honda Center is permitted to host up to 162 events per year. Over the last five years, Honda Center has averaged 11,264 visitors during an event and 153 events per year. To estimate air quality and GHG emissions from increasing the number of events in a year, information on operation of the event center was obtained from Honda Center during surveys and follow-up conversations in June through July 2011, and is shown in Table 5.2-3. 13 It should be noted that the Working Group also considered efficiency targets for 2035 for the first time in this Working Group meeting. 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-15 Table 5.2-3 Honda Center Operational Characteristics Source Information Energy Use  Winter: 1,217,583.90 kWH  Summer: 1,974,389.70 kWH Natural Gas Use  Winter: 16,666 Therms  Summer: 5,100 Therms Water Use1  Winter: 1,530,000 gallons  Summer: 1,860,000 gallons Waste  1.5 Tons of garbage per event  0.5 Tons of recycling per event Transportation  Average one-way travel distance for event patrons is 31.1 miles based on Ticketmaster sales (main customer base is Orange, Riverside, and north San Diego counties)2  Average 4,000 cars, 5 buses, and between 4 and 20 trucks per event.2 Source: Starkey 2011. 1 Modeling assumes 95 percent of water use is indoor water use because of the amount of surface parking and limited landscaping. 2 While cash sales and season ticket holders distance is unknown, it is probable that these purchases occur in a similar service area, close to Honda Center. Therefore, tickets purchased at will-call, via cash, or season tickets sales, which represent approximately 30 percent of ticket sales, are assumed to occur at a similar distance as Ticketmaster the 90th percentile distance. Based on Ticketmaster sales, over 90 percent of the ticket sales occur within 28.7 miles of Honda Center. Assumes ticket sales in locations farther than 4 hours away are “visitors” to the southern California region (e.g., vacation trips which may coincide with other destinations in southern California) and trips were calculated from the Los Angeles International Airport. Therefore, a 31.1 mile trip length is considered a conservative estimate of average trip length for patrons of Honda Center. 3 Modeling assumes a conservative fleet mix of 98.4% passenger vehicles (62.7% LDA, 8.5% LDT1, 27.2% LDT2 based on EMFAC2007), 1% medium duty trucks, 0.5% heavy duty trucks, and 0.1% urban buses based on estimates provided by Honda Center of parked vehicles during an event. Assumes a similar fleet mix for both event and nonevent days. SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) as well as updates included on SCAQMD’s website, which are intended to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-specific air quality impacts. This Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in environmental impact reports and was used extensively in the preparation of this analysis. Modeling was conducted using emission factors and methodologies in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2011.1.1 and CalEEMod user’s guide (SCAQMD 2011). Criteria air pollutant and GHG modeling files are included as an appendix to this technical study. The following assumptions were utilized in the analysis:  Average attendance per event is assumed to be similar to historic levels for future events held in Honda Center (11,264 visitors), based on the highest 3 years of attendance from 2006 to 2011.  Transportation emissions were modeled using CARB’s EMFAC2007 for year 2011. Both existing and project emissions are modeled for year 2011 because no construction is necessary for Honda Center to accommodate a second professional sports franchise and would result in a worst-case emissions inventory. Assumes a 5 percent reduction in trips as a result of proximity to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), transit service provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and location within the Platinum Triangle mixed-use area. Additional assumptions on transportation emissions, including trip generation during an event, are included as Appendix A to this technical study. 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-16  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  While operation of Honda Center on nonevent days generates water and energy demand, the demand for these services is assumed to be proportional to the average annual population of the facility. Consequently, the increase in water demand and energy use (natural gas and purchased energy) is assumed to be proportional to the increase in the number of events.  The increase in waste disposal is based on existing estimates of waste disposal after an event and increased proportionately.  Service population is based on an average annual population at Honda Center. The traditional metric for service population is typically characterized as people who live or work at the project site (i.e., residents and employees). However, defining the service population metric in this manner excludes other users of the facility who drive to the event, use water, generate waste, and contribute to the energy demand. Consequently, for an entertainment land use, the service population has been defined as staff/employees, team members/production members, and visitors to Honda Center (see Table 5.2- 4). Table 5.2-4 Service Population of Honda Center Existing Project Average Annual Visitors 1,723,333 2,500,523 Average Annual Employees/Staff and Team/Production Members 343,619 465,663 Average Number of People Onsite Per Day per year (Service Population) 5,663 8,127 Increase in the average number of people onsite per day per year 2,464 Source: Starkey 2011. Based on average annual attendance during an event and employees on nonevent days. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.2-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EVENTS HELD AT HONDA CENTER, RESULTING IN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN GHG EMISSIONS. [THRESHOLDS GHG-1 AND GHG-2] Impact Analysis: Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. The analysis below provides the conclusions on the project-specific impact toward the cumulative impact of global climate change. The State of California, through its governor and its legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 10+ years. This will occur primarily through the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375, which address GHG emissions on a statewide cumulative basis. The proposed project would result in an increase in GHG emissions from transportation sources, offsite energy production required for onsite activities, natural gas used on site for heating and cooking, water use, and waste disposal. Lifecycle emissions are not required to be analyzed due to the speculative nature of such 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-17 analysis.14 Project-related GHG emissions are shown in Table 5.2-5. Table 5.2-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory GHG Emissions MTons/Year Source Existing Project Net Increase Transportation 23,755 32,926 9,171 Purchased Energy 12,342 17,712 5,370 Natural Gas 693 994 301 Total Energy 13,035 18,706 5,671 Water and Wastewater 151 220 68 Waste Disposal 126 183 57 Total All Sectors2 37,068 52,035 14,967 GHG Emissions per Service Population1 6.5 6.4 -0.1 Notes: MTons: metric tons 1 Because of the type of regional event services provided by Honda Center, the traditional definition of Service Population is not directly applicable to Honda Center operations. Consequently, for the purpose of the GHG assessment. Service population is based on historical average daily spectators, staff/employee, and team/production member provided by Honda Center. 2 GHG emissions from construction activities are nominal and therefore not included in the inventory above. Per SCAQMD’s guidance, amortized construction emissions would be2 MTons per year. GHG Emissions Impacts The proposed project would generate a net increase of 14,967 MTons of GHG per year compared to existing conditions. In other words, the total emissions associated with an additional 69 events per year at sell out capacity would generate a net increase in 14,967 MTons of GHG per year. The total increase in GHG emissions onsite from the project would exceed SCAQMD’s proposed screening threshold of 3,000 MTons for all land use types.15 When the proposed screening threshold is exceeded, SCAQMD provides another tier of evaluation with the per capita threshold of 4.8 MTons per service population. The increase in GHG emissions cited above does not include gradual reductions in GHG emissions from an increase in fuel efficiency and higher utilization of renewable power in the local energy grid by year 2020 in accordance with AB 32, which is the efficiency target year. Table 5.2-6 presents GHG emissions of the project with Scoping Plan emission reductions and a comparison of total project emissions in comparison to SCAQMD’s proposed efficiency target of 4.8 MTons in 2020. For the purpose of this assessment, service population includes average daily employees and average daily visitors based on historic annual attendance at Honda Center (see Table 5.2-4). The proposed project would result in annual emissions of 5.0 MTons per service population with the project. An increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center results in a decrease in per capita GHG emissions because the building generates emissions regardless of whether it is in use or not (see Table 14 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. Because the origin of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has concluded that calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2008). 15 This threshold is based on SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTons combined threshold proposed by SCAQMD’s Working Group, which is based on a survey of the GHG emissions inventory of CEQA projects. Approximately 90 percent of CEQA projects GHG emissions inventories exceed 3,000 MTons, which is based on a potential threshold approach cited in CAPCOA’s white paper, “CEQA and Climate Change.” 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-18  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 5.2-5). Thus, increase the number of events per year increases the intensity and efficiency and the existing land use. However, GHG emissions associated with the project would exceed SCAQMD’s proposed per capita significance threshold; and therefore, the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be potentially significant. A total of 1,819 MTons would need to be reduced in order to achieve a per capita efficiency goal of 4.8 MTons per service population in accordance with SCAQMD’s proposed efficiency metric. Table 5.2-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory with Scoping Plan Reductions Year 2020 GHG Emissions MTons/Year Source Project Percent of Inventory Transportation1 24,126 59% Purchased Energy2 15,303 37% Natural Gas 994 2% Total Energy 16,297 40% Water and Wastewater 220 <1% Waste Disposal 183 <1% Total All Sectors 40,826 100% GHG Emissions Per Service Population3 5.0 NA Notes: MTons: metric tons; Emissions may not add to 100% due to rounding. 1 Based on the EMFAC2007 Pavley I + LCFS Postprocessor Version 1.0. 2 SCE derives approximately 19.4 percent of its energy from renewable energy sources (SCE 2011). Assuming a similar percentage increase in renewable power for Anaheim Public Utilities between 2011 and 2020, in accordance with the state’s 33 percent RPS goal. 3 Because of the type of regional event services provided by Honda Center, the traditional definition of service population is not directly applicable to Honda Center operations. Consequently, for the purpose of the GHG assessment, service population is based on historical average daily spectators, staff/employee, and team/production member provided by Honda Center. Consistency with GHG Reduction Goals and Policies A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. While actions taken in California alone cannot stabilize the climate, the state’s actions set an example and help to drive the global progress toward reduction of GHG. If the industrialized world were to follow the emission reduction targets established by California, and industrializing nations reduced emissions according to the lower emissions path (lower emissions IPPC scenario B1), medium or higher warming ranges of global temperature increases might be avoided, along with the most severe consequences of global warming (IPCC 2007). In 2007, the CEC published “The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals” (CEC 2007). In this publication, the CEC acknowledged that California’s land use patterns shape energy use and the production of GHG. Transportation contributes a large percentage of the state’s GHG emissions, and research shows that increasing a community or development’s density and accessibility to job centers are the two most significant factors for reducing vehicle miles traveled through design (CEC 2007). In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline the state’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide year 2020 BAU GHG emissions (i.e., GHG emissions in the absence of statewide emission reduction measures). CARB identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU. Compliance with the federal and statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented over the next 10 years, as outlined above, would reduce Honda Center’s GHG emissions. In 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-19 addition, increasing the number of annual events results in a decrease in per capita GHG emissions since the building generates emissions regardless of whether it is in use or not (see Table 5.2-5). Thus, increase the number of events per year increases the intensity and efficiency and the existing land use. In addition, several modes of public transportation provide access to Honda Center, including passenger rail and bus service. The Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station is at the north end of the Angels Stadium of Anaheim parking lot 0.4 mile southwest of Honda Center. Two passenger rail services serve the station. The Amtrak Pacific Surfliner operates between San Diego and San Luis Obispo seven days per week. Eleven trains in each direction, northbound and southbound, stop at Anaheim on weekdays (Amtrak 2011). Metrolink is a commuter rail service. One Metrolink line, the Orange County line, serves the Anaheim station seven days per week; on weekdays 13 northbound and 12 southbound trains stop at Anaheim (Metrolink 2011). Honda Center is a 0.5 mile walk from the Amtrak/Metrolink Station and a 0.5 walk from the proposed ARTIC Station. Public bus service is provided in Orange County by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). OCTA Route 50 operates on Katella Avenue past Honda Center. Route 50 provides east-west service between the City of Orange and Long Beach seven days per week; peak hour weekday frequency is about 30 minutes (OCTA 2011a). OCTA Route 153 operates on Katella Avenue between Struck Avenue and Main Street, providing north-south service between Anaheim and Brea seven days per week with hourly frequency (OCTA 2011b). The southern terminus of this route, on Katella Avenue, is approximately 0.3 mile east of Honda Center and is walkable using sidewalks. Routes 50 and 135 include regular bus service and station-link bus service. The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and for this reason the project would have a less than significant impact under this second threshold. 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts As described under Impact 5.2-1, project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Hence, GHG impacts are by nature a cumulative impact. Consequently, it is speculative to determine how an individual project’s GHG emissions would impact California. Therefore, impacts identified under Impact 5.2-1 are not project-specific impacts to global warming, but the Proposed Project’s contribution to this cumulative impact. Because the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions were considered significant even with mitigation, the project’s GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change impacts are considered cumulatively considerable and therefore significant for GHG emissions. 5.2.5 Existing Regulations  CARB Rule 2485 – Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM)  SCAQMD Rule 201 – Permit to Construct  SCAQMD Rule 402 – Nuisance Odors  SCAQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust  SCAQMD Rule 1108 – Cutback Asphalt  SCAQMD Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings  SCAQMD Rule 1301 – New Source Review  SCAQMD Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities  40 CFR Part 85 – Control of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources  40 CFR Part 89 – Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Nonroad Compression-Ignition 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-20  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Engines  Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24)  Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20)  Motor Vehicle Standards (AB 1493) 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be potentially significant without mitigation:  Impact 5.2-1 The Proposed Project would increase the number of events held at Honda Center, resulting in a substantial increase in GHG emissions. 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.2-1 2-1 Honda Center shall request a Comprehensive Energy Audit by the Anaheim Public Utilities, which is a free service offered by the utility. According to the Anaheim Public Utilities, customers can reduce energy by as much as 10 to 25 percent of month through efficiency reductions. Energy reductions can be accomplished through retrofits and/or offsets provided by renewable energy generation onsite. Potential combination of measures that could be taken to achieve a reduction in energy demand includes: a. Replacement of indoor and outdoor lighting fixtures with LED or compact fluorescent fixtures. b. Retrofitting air conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems and/or calibrating systems for efficiency (e.g., increasing average indoor temperature settings in summer and during hockey events). c. Replacing restaurant refrigerators, freezers, and other appliances with Energy Star rated appliances to reduce plug-load. d. Installation of photovoltaic system (e.g., carports with solar panels or rooftop-mounted solar panels) or wind-energy-system at Honda Center to offset energy use generated during an event. For example, a 750 kW-ac photovoltaic system is estimated to produce 1,242,163 kWh per year based on the California Public Utilities Commission’s Clean Power Estimator. 2-2 The City of Anaheim shall continue coordinating with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), which operates Metrolink service on Orange County Line in conjunction with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The City of Anaheim shall coordinate with SCRRA to discuss the potential for providing special event service to Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim on weekends and during the week. A list of events, including the day or the event, time of the event, and duration of the event at Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim shall be provided to SCRRA to initiate these discussions. Barriers to implement Special Event Service on the Orange County Line shall be discussed. Potential funding options to 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.2-21 overcoming barriers to implement special event Service on the Orange County line should be indentified and considered, including funding for additional train operators and trains that coincide with commuter service. 2-3 To encourage use of transit by visitors to Honda Center, ticket holders shall be provided information on the Metrolink and Amtrak services available on the day of the event, including Metrolink and Amtrak scheduling. 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.2-1 As described previously, Honda Center would need to reduce GHG emissions by 1,819 MTons in order to achieve an efficiency metric of 4.8 MTons per service population. Mitigation Measure 2-1 through 2-3 would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. However, the effectiveness of these mitigation measures are uncertain and can not be quantified. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Page 5.2-22  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-1 5.3 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.3.1 Environmental Setting Existing Land Uses On-Site Honda Center is located on a 42.6-acre site located within the City of Anaheim. The Honda Center is a 650,000 square foot arena for sports and entertainment events and can accommodate a maximum of 18,900 spectators (depending on seating configuration). The parking lots surrounding the Honda Center have 3,775 parking spaces to accommodate visitors. Additional parking for the Honda Center is provided off-site by agreement and/or by private operators. Surrounding Land Uses The Honda Center property is bound on the north by Stanley Cup Way and the Union Pacific Railroad, to the east by the Santa Ana River, to the south by Katella Avenue and to the west by State Route 57 (SR-57) freeway (see Figure 2, Local Vicinity). The Honda Center is within a half mile northeast of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station and the future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC). Land uses surrounding the Honda Center are primarily commercial and light industrial, including restaurants, offices, of some distribution facilities. Existing General Plan Designations The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element designates the Honda Center site and surrounding area as Mixed Use. Areas designated as Mixed-Use are designed to function differently from the typical patterns of individual, segregated land uses. Uses and activities are designed together in an integrated fashion to create a dynamic urban environment that serves as the center of activity for the surrounding area. The designation provides opportunities for an integrated mix of residential, retail, service, entertainment and office opportunities in a pedestrian-friendly environment. Because of their more intense, compact nature of development, Mixed-Use areas encourage the use of transit service and other forms of transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle travel. Existing Zoning Designations There are two zoning designations onsite, as shown in Figure 3-8, Existing Zoning and Property Ownership. The central and western parts of the site are zoned Public Recreational (PR), and within the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. The eastern part of the project site is zoned Transition (T) and is also within the PTMU Overlay Zone. The intent of the “PR” Zone is to establish for the benefit of the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim and its visitors, a zone to preserve, regulate and control the orderly use and enjoyment of City-owned properties and facilities and adjacent private property. Property within the purview of the Public Recreational Zone includes (a) City-owned property, whether the same is exclusively occupied by the City or is used by others on the basis of some agreement with or concession by the City, and (b) adjacent private property, whose use and development has an impact on the use and enjoyment of City-owned property and facilities. 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.3-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 The intent of the “T” Zone is to provide for a zone to include land that is used for agricultural uses, in a transitory or interim use, restricted to limited uses because of special conditions, or not zoned to one of the City’s other zoning districts for whatever reason, including recent annexation. The City’s Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and corresponding PTMU Overlay Zone identify the project site as belonging to the Arena District. Application of the PTMU Overlay Zone in the Arena District, which is coterminous with the project site’s boundaries, allows for the development of a maximum of 425 housing units, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 100,000 square feet of commercial space. The Overlay Zone does not change the underlying zoning designation of each parcel in the District. However, it is intended to provide new opportunities for mixed-use development, provided that specific legal provisions and development standards are met. The City’s Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan, providing development standards, identifying allowable land uses, and specifying other regulations. By establishing rules regarding the use of property and site development standards (e.g., building heights and setbacks, parking standards, etc.), the Zoning Code provides detailed guidance for development based on, and consistent with, the land use policies established within the General Plan. 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: LU-1 Physically divide an established community. LU-2 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. LU-3 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:  Threshold LU-1  Threshold LU-3 These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.3.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-3 IMPACT 5.3-1: THE PROPOSED ZONING RECLASSIFICATION FOR A PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC RECREATIONAL (PR) ZONING OR THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE. [THRESHOLD LU-2] Impact Analysis: The City of Anaheim General Plan, the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP), and the Zoning Code establish standards for development within the project area subject to approval of any required permits and/or a Standardized Development Agreement for properties that are developed in accordance with the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Proposed Project includes an application for a zoning reclassification for the eastern portion of the site currently zoned Transition (T) to Public Recreation (PR). Upon approval of the requested zone change, the entire Honda Center site would be zoned PR. Consistency with Zoning Designations for the Project Area The Proposed Project includes an application for a zoning reclassification for the eastern portion of the site currently zoned Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to Public Recreation (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone. The proposed zoning classification would make portions of the property within the T/PTMU consistent with the zone classification for the remainder of the Project Site (PR/PTMU). The intent of the "T" Zone is to provide for a zone to include land that is used for agricultural uses, in a transitory or interim use, restricted to limited uses because of special conditions, or not zoned to one of the City’s other zoning districts for whatever reason, including recent annexation (Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.40.020). The portion of the site zoned T/PTMU is used for surface parking, and there is no agricultural use on the site. The Honda Center opened in 1993 as the Anaheim Arena and thus is not a transitory or interim use. While a portion of the project site zoned T/PTMU is owned by the Orange County Flood Control District, (OCFCD), the area so zoned is located in the X Zone that is protected by levees, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate maps (FIRM Map No. 06059C0142J). The levees located to the east of the project site along the Santa Ana River are designed to contain the 1% chance flood (100-year flood). While overtopping of the levee or failure of the levee is possible, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial modifications to the existing Honda Center or its parking lots and, thus, would not result in greater flooding impacts. In addition, the proposed zone reclassification would not change the OCFCD’s existing use of its property for flood control purposes. Therefore, there is no reason for the property to remain in the T Zone. Additionally, the reclassification of the properties to the PR Zone would be consistent with the adjacent properties within the project site and subject properties include (a) City-owned property, whether the same is exclusively occupied by the City or is used by others on the basin of some agreement with or concession by the City, and (b) adjacent private property, whose use and development has an impact on the use and enjoyment of City-owned property and facilities. Additionally, the City’s Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and corresponding PTMU Overlay Zone identify the site as belonging to the Arena District. This designation allows for the development of a maximum of 425 housing units, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 100,000 square feet of commercial space within the Arena District. The proposed zoning reclassification would not alter the 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.3-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 development standards, permitted intensities, or other land use regulations of the Arena District as set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.20. As indicated in subsection 18.20.010.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the PTMU Overlay Zone has the following major objectives:  Create a unique integrated, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity and reduces dependence on the automobile for everyday needs, through a streetscape that is connected, attractive, safe and engaging.  Develop an overall urban design framework to ensure that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with the character of the area in which they are located.  Encourage compatibility between residential, commercial and sports entertainment uses.  Reinforce Transit Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities around the existing Amtrak/Metrolink and the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARCTIC) stations.  Maintain and enhance connectivity and linkages with convenience services, dining, retail and recreation facilities within walking distance, by providing ground floor commercial uses in key locations.  Provide a mix of housing types.  Create great long-lasting neighborhoods that maintain value through buildings with architectural qualities that create attractive street scenes.  Provide a variety of open space, including private, recreational-leisure areas and public parks.  Create a balance of landscape and architecture by providing sufficient planting space.  Encourage parking solutions that are incentives for creative planning and sustainable neighborhood design.  Stimulate market-driven development investment. The proposed reclassification and Zoning Code Amendment would not degrade the integrity of or conflict with the PTMU Overlay Zone objectives. The proposed project would provide additional entertainment uses within walking distance of a mix of existing and planned land uses in the PTMU Overlay Zone, including the future ARTIC. The project would place additional sports entertainment use in a facility already used for that purpose; thus, the proposed use would not create incompatibility with surrounding land uses. The project would not conflict with any of the objectives of the PTMU Overlay Zone. Consistency with the General Plan The applicable components of the General Plan goals and policies are excerpted and addressed in Table 5.3-1. 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-5 Table 5.3-1 Consistency with City of Anaheim Relevant General Plan Policies Relevant Policy Compliance with Policy LAND USE ELEMENT Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimize impacts to surrounding land uses. Policy 1 Ensure that land uses develop in accordance with the Land Use Plan and Zoning Code in an effort to attain land use compatibility. Consistent: The Proposed Project would add an additional tenant to the existing Honda Center, thereby increasing the number of annual events. The existing and proposed uses are consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element and zoning designations. Policy 2 Promote compatible development through adherence to Community Design Element policies and guidelines. Consistent: See Compliance with Policy findings under the Community Design Element. Policy 3 Ensure that developers consider and address project impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods during the design and development process. Consistent: Project impacts upon surrounding areas are evaluated in appropriate sections throughout this EIR. However, no residential neighborhoods are located in proximity to the Project Site. Policy 4 Require new or expanded uses to provide mitigation or buffer between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur. Consistent: Honda Center is buffered from existing land uses to the east by the Santa Ana River, and from existing land uses to the west by the SR-57 freeway. Land uses surrounding the Honda Center are primarily commercial and light industrial, including restaurants, offices, of some distribution facilities and are not considered sensitive land uses. Goal 15.1: Establish the Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center that provides residents, visitors and employees with a variety of housing, employment, shopping and entertainment opportunities that are accessed by arterial highways, transit systems and pedestrian promenades. Policy 3 Encourage mixed-use projects integrating retail, office and high density residential land uses. Consistent: The Proposed Project would add an additional tenant to the existing Honda Center, thereby increasing the number of annual events. These sports and entertainment uses are consistent with the goals for the Platinum Triangle. Policy 4 Maximize and capitalize upon the view corridor from the Santa Ana (I-5) and Orange (SR-57) Freeways. Consistent: The proposed enhancements to Honda Center would not change the existing Platinum Triangle height and massing regulations and would not diminish the view corridors from I-5 and SR-57. Policy 5 Maximize views and recreational and development opportunities afforded by the area’s proximity to the Santa Ana River. Consistent: The proposed project would enhance Honda Center, which is located west of the Santa Ana River. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Goal 6.3: Create a major, mixed-use regional center in the Platinum Triangle providing employment, shopping, entertainment, and housing for residents, employees and visitors. Policy 2 Encourage mixed-use and higher density development within the Platinum Triangle. Consistent: The Proposed Project would result in various improvements to the existing Honda Center, including an approximate 5,846 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, a 5,846 square foot team store, and a 9,114 square foot open area on the Main Level (Level 200); and above the main level improvements, a 9,518 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees and a 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the Club Level (Level 300). These uses are consistent with the goals established for the Platinum Triangle. 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.3-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.3-1 Consistency with City of Anaheim Relevant General Plan Policies Relevant Policy Compliance with Policy COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Goal 15.1: The Platinum Triangle will become a dynamic, mixed-use center of regional interest, providing retail, office, residential, employment, and entertainment opportunities. Policy 4 Develop a strong pedestrian orientation throughout the area, including wide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, gathering places, ground-floor retail, and street-level landscaping. Consistent: The existing Honda Center is adequately served by pedestrian paths and sidewalks. The Proposed Project would add an approximate 12,000-square-foot exterior grand terrace to the Honda Center, providing an outdoor gather place consistent with this Policy. Source: City of Anaheim General Plan Consistency with the Adopted Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan The Proposed Project would not degrade the integrity of or conflict with the Platinum Triangle MLUP planning principles, which include:  Balance and integrate uses.  Stimulate market-driven development.  Create a unique, integrated, walkable urban environment.  Reinforce transit-oriented development opportunities.  Maintain and enhance connectivity.  Create great neighborhoods. The Proposed Project would add enhancements to Honda Center and add an additional tenant to a facility with a mix of entertainment uses including sports entertainment use. Honda Center is within walking distance of the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station and the planned Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). SCAG Compass Blueprint In 2004, SCAG adopted the Compass Blueprint. The Compass Blueprint is a voluntary guidance document that identifies how and where an alternative future vision for Southern California’s future can be implemented. The policies in the Compass Blueprint aim to reduce emissions of various pollutants and greenhouse gases, increase mobility and accessibility, and improve quality of life through strategic land use changes. Goals for areas identified in the Compass Blueprint as growth opportunity areas include locating new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing, encouraging infill development, promoting development with a mix of uses, creating walkable communities, providing a mix of housing types, and focusing development in urban areas. A portion of the Platinum Triangle has been designated by SCAG as a strategic area in which to focus growth. The proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) that will be served by Amtrak, Metrolink commuter rail, Anaheim Resort Transit, and Orange County Transportation Authority bus services, is located less than one-half mile south of Honda Center. In addition, potential high-speed rail service to San Francisco and Las Vegas, Nevada and a fixed Guideway connection to The Anaheim Resort (Anaheim Rapid Connection) are proposed. The project is consistent with the overall Compass 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-7 Blueprint in that it directs additional sports and entertainment uses and associated jobs near housing and mixed-use opportunities within the Platinum Triangle and locates new jobs near to transit. Table 5.3-2 describes the project’s consistency with the Compass Blueprint visioning principles. Table 5.3-2 Consistency with Compass Blueprint Visioning Principles Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents GV P1.1 Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive. Consistent: Honda Center is located in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities. GV P1.2 Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing. Consistent: Honda Center is located within the mixed-use Platinum Triangle area where a total of 18,909 units are proposed. GV P1.3 Encourage transit-oriented development. Consistent: Honda Center is located in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities. In addition, the Platinum Triangle, where Honda Center is located, provides opportunities for transit-oriented development in close proximity to existing and future rail and bus transportation facilities. GV P1.4 Promote a variety of travel choices. Consistent: See response to Policy GV P1.3. Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities GV P2.1 Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. Consistent: The Proposed Project would result in various improvements to the existing Honda Center, including an approximate 5,846 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, a 5,846 square foot team store, and a 9,114 square foot open area on the Main Level (Level 200); and above the main level improvements, a 9,518 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, and a 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the Club Level (Level 300). GV P2.2 Promote developments that provide a mix of uses. Consistent: Honda Center is located within the Platinum Triangle, which is a mixed-use area that will ultimately contain 18,909 housing units, 4.9 million square feet of commercial, 14.3 million square feet of office, and 1.5 million square feet of institutional. GV P2.3 Promote “people scaled,” pedestrian-friendly (walkable) communities. Consistent: Honda Center is located in the Platinum Triangle which is a higher density mixed-use community while still promoting pedestrian-oriented walkable environment. The mix of uses will provide opportunity for residents to walk to shopping, services, and employment. GV P2.4 Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods. Consistent: The Proposed Project would not displace any single-family residential units. Land uses surrounding the Honda Center are primarily commercial and light industrial, including restaurants, offices, of some distribution facilities and are not considered sensitive land uses. Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people GV P3.1 Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types in each community to meet the housing needs of all income levels. Not applicable GV P3.2 Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth. Not applicable 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.3-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.3-2 Consistency with Compass Blueprint Visioning Principles GV P3.3 Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. Consistent: The Proposed Project would provide various types of jobs, and entertainment opportunities for all people and would not discriminate against race, ethnicity, or income class. The increased number of employment opportunities from construction to operation of Honda Center would ensure equal opportunities for all residents. GV P3.4 Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth. Consistent: Honda Center is located in the mixed use Platinum Triangle area. Development of mixed use projects supports housing in close proximity to jobs and entertainment opportunities. ARTIC would allow regional access. GV P3.5 Encourage civic engagement. Consistent: The City would allow adequate public participation through the CEQA process. Residents are encouraged to voice their opinions in various stages during the CEQA process. Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations GV P4.1 Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational and environmentally sensitive areas. Consistent: The Project Site and the surrounding area are fully developed and do not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. GV P4.2 Focus development in urban centers and existing cities. Consistent: The Project Site is located near the confluence of two major freeways (I-5 and SR-57) within the Platinum Triangle mixed use area. GV P4.3 Develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste. Consistent: Honda Center utilizes several strategies aimed at using resources more sustainably including using recycled materials in concessions, buying food from sustainable sources, recycling waste generated from events, donating excess food to local charities, and partnering with transit agencies to reduce vehicle trips. The Proposed Project would continue these programs and would be strengthened by the Honda Center’s recent membership in the Green Sports Alliance. GV P4.4 Utilize “green” development techniques. Consistent: See response to RCP Policy GV P4.3. The 2008 RTP has the following goals and policies that link the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic, and commercial limitations. Table 5.3-3 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.3-9 Table 5.3-3 Consistency With Regional Transportation Plan RTP G1 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. Consistent: Honda Center is located within the Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle is located at the confluence of I-5 and SR-57. The Platinum Triangle includes the existing Amtrak/Metrolink station and parking lot, and planned ARTIC project, which is intended to provide enhanced access to existing bus, Amtrak and Metrolink services as well as a link to the proposed Anaheim Rapid Connection, California High Speed Rail system, and the California/Nevada maglev rail line. RTP G2 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. Consistent: See response to RTP G1. RTP G3 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. Consistent: See response to RTP G1. RTP G4 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. Consistent: See response to RTP G1. RTP G5 Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency. Consistent: See response to RTP G1. RTP G6 Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments and improves the cost- effectiveness of expenditures. Consistent: See response to RTP G1. RTP G7 Maximize the security of our transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies Consistent: See response to RTP G1. 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts The proposed project involves a Zoning Reclassification on a portion of the Project Site. However, as discussed in this chapter, the Proposed Project is consistent with the overall land use goals and policies of the City and in the region. Furthermore, cumulative land use impacts are addressed throughout this document for land use compatibility issues including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic and circulation, and utilities and service systems. The proposed zoning reclassification would not create adverse environmental impacts. From a land planning and land use perspective, the cumulative population and economic growth resulting from the Proposed Project in combination with buildout of the Platinum Triangle is a desired and intended impact from implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. The project’s land use and relevant planning impacts are considered less than significant, and cumulative impacts from the Proposed Project are also considered less than significant. 5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  The Proposed Project shall be designed in accordance with all relevant development standards and regulations set forth by the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 5.3-1 would be less than significant. 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Page 5.3-10  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant impacts have been identified. 5. Environmental Analysis Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-1 5.4 NOISE This section evaluates potential noise and vibration impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project. This section discusses the fundamentals of sound; examines federal, state, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations; and evaluates potential noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project. This evaluation uses procedures and methodologies as specified by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The analysis in this section is based on the following: Noise Technical Study for: The Honda Center, The Planning Center|DC&E, January 2012. A complete copy of this study is included in Appendix D to this EIR. 5.4.1 Environmental Setting Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter.  Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.  A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.  Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The mean of the noise level averaged over the measurement period, regarded as an average level.  Day-Night Level (Ldn). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.  Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period with 5 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Ldn and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. Characteristics of Sound When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). Human hearing is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate a human response, the 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.4-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 A-weighted filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels. In terms of loudness, the normal range of human hearing extends from approximately 0 dBA to 140 dBA. Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and noise perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 5.4-1, Change in Sound Pressure Level, presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Table 5.4-1 Change in Sound Pressure Level Change in Apparent Loudness ± 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility ± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level ± 10 dB Half or twice as loud ± 20 dB Much quieter or louder Source: Bies and Hansen 2003. Sound is generated from a source and dissipates exponentially with distance from that source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distribution of the overall sound level during that period can be obtained. The energy-equivalent sound level (Leq) is the most common parameter associated with such measurements. The Leq metric is a single-number noise descriptor that represents the average sound level over a given period of time. For example, the L50 noise level represents the level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise exceeds this level and half the time it is less than this level. This level also represents the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L02, L08 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet-time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor, the CNEL or Ldn. Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire biological system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear, called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas. Table 5.4-2 shows typical noise levels from various noise sources. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-3 Table 5.4-2 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area, Daytime 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation Table 9-2136.2 1998. Vibration Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities such as railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment, such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is described as the velocity, and the rate of change of the speed is described as the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During the construction of a building, the operation of construction equipment could cause groundborne vibration. The three main wave types of concern in the propagation of groundborne vibrations are surface or Rayleigh waves, compression or P-waves, and shear or S-waves.  Surface or Rayleigh waves travel along the ground surface. They carry most of their energy along an expanding cylindrical wave front, similar to the ripples produced by throwing a rock into a lake. The particle motion is more or less perpendicular to the direction of propagation (known as retrograde elliptical).  Compression or P-waves are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.4-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal, in a push-pull motion. P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves.  Shear or S-waves are also body waves, carrying their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. Unlike P-waves, however, the particle motion is transverse, or perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration amplitudes. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage, whereas RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response. The units for PPV and RMS velocity are normally inches per second (in/sec). Often, vibration is presented and discussed in dB units to compress the range of numbers required to describe the vibration. All PPV and RMS velocity are in in/sec and all vibration levels in this study are in dB relative to one microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). The threshold of perception is approximately 65 VdB. Typically groundborne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Man-made vibration problems are usually confined to short distances (500 feet or less) from the source. Construction generally includes a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne vibration. In general, demolition of structures generates the highest vibrations. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at distances within 200 feet of the vibration sources. Heavy trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations that vary depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, etc., all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than vibration of normal traffic on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions. Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, and heavy loads. Regulatory Framework To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. The City of Anaheim regulates noise through the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and General Plan. Potential noise impacts were evaluated based on the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and General Plan to determine whether a significant adverse noise impact would result from the operation of the Proposed Project. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-5 Table 5.4-3 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility CNEL (dBA) Land Uses 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential-Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential- Multiple Family Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Amphitheaters, Concert Hall, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playground, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agricultural Explanatory Notes Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Normally Unacceptable: New construction/development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made with needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction/development should generally not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be useable. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction/development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy. Source: City of Anaheim, City of Anaheim General Plan, Chapter 9, Noise Element. Adopted May 2004. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.4-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 California State Regulations State of California Building Code The state of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. Land Use Compatibility Table 5.4-3 presents a land use compatibility chart for community noise adopted by the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Noise Element. This table provides urban planners with a tool to gauge the compatibility of new land uses relative to existing and future noise levels. This table identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. City of Anaheim Noise Standard Stationary Noise Nuisance The City of Anaheim regulates noise through the City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels. Pursuant to the municipal code, the City restricts noise levels generated at a property from exceeding 60 dBA for extended period of time. The City applies these standards to nontransportation stationary noise sources. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. The City’s noise ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, construction activity, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. Construction Noise The City of Anaheim exempts noise generated by construction or building repair from the noise limits of the City’s Municipal Code for the purpose of allowing such activities to occur. Pursuant to Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels, construction is permitted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-7 Existing Noise Environment Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five miles per hour reduces noise by about 1 dBA. In order to assess the potential for mobile-source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012). Noise levels for existing conditions (without and with average attendance event) along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 5.4-4. The results of this modeling indicate that current average noise levels along arterial segments for a typical day without an event range from approximately 63.4 to 77.3 dBA CNEL at 50-feet from the roadway centerline. Average noise levels along the arterial segments range from 65.3 to 77.5 dBA CNEL at 50-feet from the roadway centerline on a day with an event (based on nan average attendance event). 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.4-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.4-4 Existing Ambient Noise Environment Existing No Event Existing with Average Attendance Event Location ADT CNEL1 ADT CNEL1 Increase in CNEL (dBA) from Events Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 50,970 77.2 52,630 77.3 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 31,670 75.1 33,730 75.4 0.3 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 4,270 66.4 5,780 67.7 1.3 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 7,040 67.6 10,120 69.2 1.6 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 33,500 75.4 34,120 75.4 0.0 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 34,130 75.4 35,310 75.6 0.2 Between Howell Ave and SR- 57 SB Ramps 52,030 77.3 55,550 77.5 0.2 Between SR-57 SB Rmps and SR-57 NB Rmps 34,720 75.5 38,170 75.9 0.4 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 34,470 75.5 39,970 76.1 0.6 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 29,480 74.8 32,820 75.3 0.5 Between Struck Ave and Main St 23,170 73.8 24,840 74.1 0.3 Between Main St and Batavia St 25,630 74.2 26,630 74.4 0.2 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 15,000 71.9 15,640 72.4 0.5 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 3,470 63.4 5,220 65.3 1.9 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 21,030 73.3 21,590 73.5 0.2 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 6,790 68.4 7870 69.1 0.7 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Increase from Existing No Event” is the difference in traffic noise between the existing year without event and average attendance event and represents the increase in noise attributable to event-related traffic. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-9 Noise-Sensitive Receptors Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration, including residential, school, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. The project site is primarily surrounded by commercial and light industrial land uses, and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim is located to the southwest, these uses are not considered noise sensitive. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are:  Westwood College. Generally located northwest of the project site across Douglass Road.  Ayres Hotel of Anaheim. Located south of the project site across Katella Avenue.  Sunkist Gardens Mobile Home Park. Located approximately 1,675 feet to the northwest of the project site. 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in: N-1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. N-2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. N-3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. N-4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: N-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. N-6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. City of Anaheim Thresholds There are two criteria for judging noise impacts used in this analysis. First, noise levels projected for the Proposed Project must comply with all relevant state and local standards and regulations. Noise impacts on the surrounding community are enforced through local noise ordinances, supported by nuisance complaints 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.4-10  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 and subsequent investigation. The second measure of impact used in this analysis is whether the increase in noise above the ambient noise level, as a result of a new noise source (either through on-site emissions or through noise generated by project traffic), has the potential to adversely impact noise-sensitive land uses. Substantial Increase in Traffic Noise Levels The traffic noise thresholds are based on human tolerance to noise (see Table 5.4-1, shown previously) and are widely used for assessing traffic noise impacts. In general, people tend to compare intruding noise with the existing background noise. If the new noise is readily identifiable or considerably louder than the background, it has the potential to be objectionable or annoying (2009). Noise impacts can be broken down into three categories. The first is audible impacts. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change of between 1 and 3 dBA. This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable to sensitive people in laboratory environments. The last category, inaudible, includes changes of less than 1 dBA, which are typically inaudible to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving of sound level. Only audible changes of 3 dBA or greater in noise levels at sensitive receptors are considered potentially significant when noise levels exceed the compatibility criteria (see Table 5.4-3, shown previously). Based on the City of Anaheim’s noise compatibility criteria of 60 dBA CNEL for residential uses, the City considers audible (3+ dBA) increases in project-related traffic noise to be substantial when the ambient noise environment along the roadway segments within the project’s study area under with project conditions exceeds 60 dBA CNEL. Stationary-Source Noise The stationary noise thresholds are based on a combination of the human tolerance to noise (see Table 5.4-3) and local criteria for stationary noise sources as established by the City of Anaheim for noise control (Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels). Pursuant to the municipal code, the City restricts noise levels generated at a property from exceeding 60 dBA Leq for extended period of time. Construction The City of Anaheim’s Noise Ordinance regulates the timing of construction activities. No construction shall be permitted outside of the hours specified in the City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code. The City of Anaheim restricts construction activities to the daytime hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The potential for construction noise impacts to be objectionable depends on the magnitude of noise generated by the construction equipment, the frequency of noise sources during the construction day, and total duration of construction activities. 5.4.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-11 IMPACT 5.4-1: BUILD-OUT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR GENERATION OF NOISE LEVELS IN EXCESS OF STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN THE LOCAL GENERAL PLAN OR NOISE ORDINANCE, OR APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF OTHER AGENCIES. [THRESHOLDS N-1 AND N-3] Impact Analysis: Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary noise only impacts sensitive receptors adjacent to a project site. Stationary sources of noise include mechanical equipment (HVAC systems) and parking lots. The Proposed Project would not introduce any new or different stationary sources of noise at the project site compared to the types of noise currently generated during a permitted event at the Honda Center. Installation of additional mechanical systems or expansion of the parking lots would not be required. The City of Anaheim restricts stationary noise generated on a property from creating a nuisance to other offsite noise-sensitive receptors through implementation of the noise limits in the City’s municipal code. The proposed project would add an approximate 5,846 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, a 5,846 square foot team store and a 9,114 square feet open area on the Main Level (Level 200); and above the main level improvements, a 9,518 square feet restaurant to serve event attendees and a 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the Club Level (Level 300). Other interior improvements include locker room, office space, bunker suite and balcony suite renovations; electrical upgrades and an increase in the capacity of the loading dock. There would be no new HVAC units or an expansion of the parking lot as part of the project. While the project may increase parking utilization and cause a marginal increase in the utilization of existing HVAC units, these changes are minimal and therefore the project would not cause discernable noise increases to any noise-sensitive use. No mitigation measures would be required. IMPACT 5.4-2: BUILD-OUT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT INCREASES IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT. [THRESHOLDS N-3 AND N-4] Impact Analysis: The operations phase of the project would generate noise primarily associated with vehicular trips. Traffic noise modeling is based on average daily traffic volumes on roadway segments within the analysis conducted by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012). 2011 Existing Traffic Noise plus Project (Sellout Event) Traffic noise modeling was compiled for year 2011No Event and 2011 Plus Project (sellout event), and shown in Table 5.4-5. The significance criteria for roadway noise impacts are based on whether the proposed project would result in a substantial increase (3 dB or more) in the ambient noise environment along the roadways when the ambient noise environment exceeds 60 dBA CNEL (daily noise levels). The proposed project would result in similar noise levels along the roadways within the study area of the project, and no traffic noise impacts due to the project would occur. 2013 Traffic Noise with Project Event Traffic noise modeling was compiled for year 2013 with an average attendance event and then compared to a sellout event and shown in Table 5.4-6. The Proposed Project would increase the number of events from an average of 153 events to a maximum of 222 events per year. The significance criteria for roadway noise impacts are based on whether the Proposed Project would result in a substantial increase (3 dB or more) in the 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.4-12  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 ambient noise environment along the roadways when the ambient noise environment exceeds 60 dBA CNEL (daily noise levels). While the number of Honda Center events would increase from an average of 3 events per week to an average of 4 events per week, average daily noise levels generated by a sellout event would not cause substantial noise increases . The Proposed Project would result in noise levels increases along the roadways within the study area of the project below significance levels, and no traffic noise impacts would occur under 2013 conditions. Table 5.4-5 Year 2011 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2011 Plus Project (Sellout Event) Location Existing No Event CNEL ADT CNEL1 Increase 2 Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 77.2 53,760 77.4 0.2 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 75.1 35,140 75.6 0.5 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 66.4 6,800 68.4 2.0 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 67.6 12,220 70.0 2.4 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 75.4 34,540 75.5 0.1 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 75.4 36,110 75.7 0.3 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 77.3 57,930 77.7 0.4 Between SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramps 75.5 40,500 76.2 0.7 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 75.5 43,690 76.5 1.0 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 74.8 35,090 75.6 0.8 Between Struck Ave and Main St 73.8 25,970 74.2 0.4 Between Main St and Batavia St 74.2 27,310 74.5 0.3 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 71.9 16,080 72.2 0.3 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 63.4 6,410 66.1 2.7 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 73.3 21,970 73.5 0.2 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 68.4 8,600 69.4 1.0 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. Bold: Audible (+3 dB) changes in the ambient noise environment from traffic noise. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Increase” is the difference in traffic noise between Existing No Event and Year 2011 Plus Project (sellout event) conditions and represents the change in traffic noise levels from the project. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-13 Table 5.4-6 Year 2013 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2013 Average Attendance Event Year 2013 with Project (Sellout Event) Increase in CNEL (dBA) Location 2013 No Event ADT CNEL1 ADT CNEL1 from Existing No Event 2 from Average Event3 Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 77.2 57,730 77.7 58,860 77.8 0.6 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 75.1 36,900 75.8 38,310 75.9 0.8 0.1 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 66.4 6,210 68.0 7,230 68.7 2.3 1.8 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 67.6 10,820 69.5 12,920 70.2 2.6 0.7 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 75.4 37,470 75.8 37,890 75.9 0.5 0.1 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 75.4 38,720 76.0 39,520 76.1 0.7 0.1 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 77.3 60,750 77.9 63,130 78.1 0.8 0.2 Between SR-57 SB Ramps and SR- 57 NB Ramps 75.5 41,640 76.3 43,970 76.5 1.0 0.2 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 75.5 43,420 76.5 47,140 76.8 1.3 0.3 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 74.8 35,770 75.6 38,040 75.9 1.1 0.3 Between Struck Ave and Main St 73.8 27,160 74.4 28,290 74.6 0.8 0.2 Between Main St and Batavia St 74.2 29,190 74.8 29,870 74.9 0.7 0.1 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 71.9 17,140 72.4 17,580 72.6 0.7 0.2 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 63.4 5,570 65.4 6,760 66.3 2.9 0.9 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 73.3 23,690 73.8 24,070 73.9 0.6 0.1 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 68.4 8,550 69.4 9,280 69.8 1.4 0.4 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. Bold: Audible (+3 dB) changes in the ambient noise environment from traffic noise. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Increase from Existing No Event” is the difference in traffic noise between the existing year without event and Year 2013 with project (sellout event) and represents the overall increase in cumulative noise. 3 The “Increase from Average Event” is the difference in traffic noise between Year 2013 with average attendance event and Year 2013 with project (sellout event) conditions and represents the change in noise traffic noise levels from event traffic. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.4-14  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Year 2030 with Project Events Traffic noise increases associated with the Proposed Project were also assessed under future Year 2030 with the buildout of the General Plan and are shown in Table 5.4-7. Similar to the Existing with Project Event analysis, traffic noise impacts from project-generated traffic under Year 2030 conditions would be comparable to traffic noise impacts of events currently permitted at Honda Center. As previously discussed, the generally accepted level at which changes in community noise levels become “barely perceptible” typically occurs at values of greater than 3 dBA, and changes of 5 dBA are readily perceptible. The significance criteria for roadway noise impacts are based on whether the proposed project would result in a substantial increase (3 dB or more) in the ambient noise environment along the roadways when the ambient noise environment exceeds 60 dBA CNEL (daily noise levels). Noise increases on Year 2030 event days compared to existing average attendance events will range from 1.5 to 10.8 dBA. The only noise sensitive land uses where audible noise increases would occur are the residential uses adjacent to the segment of Sunkist Street between Cerritos Boulevard and Ball Road. It shall be noted that the long-range noise increases presented for 2030 conditions will occur over a number of years, unlike the comparisons laboratory environments where human reaction to noise studies are derived from. While overall changes in the noise environment that are considered perceptible (+3 dB), the project itself would cause noise increases of up to 0.2 dBA, well below the 3 dBA threshold for project impacts The Proposed Project would result in noise levels increases along the roadways within the study area of the project below significance levels, and no traffic noise impacts would occur under 2030 conditions. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-15 Table 5.4-7 Year 2030 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2030 Average Attendance Event Year 2030 with Project (Sellout Event) Increase in CNEL (dBA) Location Existing No Event CNEL ADT CNEL1 ADT CNEL1 from Existing No Event 2 Due to Project Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 77.2 70,960 78.6 72,090 78.7 1.5 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 75.1 78,310 79.0 79,720 79.1 4.0 0.1 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 66.4 28,880 74.7 29,900 74.9 8.5 0.2 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 67.6 32,000 74.2 34,100 74.4 6.8 0.2 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 75.4 59,260 77.8 59,680 77.9 2.5 0.1 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 75.4 63,940 78.2 64,740 78.2 2.8 0.0 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 77.3 75,280 78.9 77,660 79.0 1.7 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramps 75.5 70,690 78.6 73,020 78.7 3.2 0.1 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 75.5 68,570 78.5 72,290 78.7 3.2 0.2 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 74.8 75,510 78.9 77,780 79.0 4.2 0.1 Between Struck Ave and Main St 73.8 65,510 78.3 66,640 78.3 4.5 0.0 Between Main St and Batavia St 74.2 53,950 77.4 54,630 77.5 3.3 0.1 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 71.9 35,480 75.6 35,920 75.7 3.8 0.1 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 63.4 40,850 74.1 42,040 74.2 10.8 0.1 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 73.3 48,140 76.9 48,520 77.0 3.7 0.1 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 68.4 15,400 72.0 16,130 72.2 3.8 0.2 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. Bold: Audible (+3 dB) changes in the ambient noise environment from traffic noise. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Increase from Existing” is the difference in traffic noise between the existing year without event and Year 2030 with project (sellout event) and represents the overall increase in cumulative noise. 3 The “Increase Due to Project” is the difference in traffic noise between Year 2030 with average attendance event and Year 2030 with project (sellout event) conditions and represents the change in noise traffic noise levels from event traffic. Summary As analyzed above, while general noise increases for Year 2013 and Year 2030 are anticipated for the Honda Center and its vicinity, increases due particularly to the Proposed Project are not expected. The Proposed 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.4-16  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Project will not cause substantial traffic noise increases to off-site sensitive receptors during sellout events, and is not expected to generate discernable stationary noise levels beyond those already in existence. 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative noise impacts occur when multiple sources of noise, though individually not substantial, combine and lead to excessive cumulative noise exposure at noise-sensitive uses. Traffic Noise modeling was conducted to identify cumulative impacts from concurrent scheduling of events at the Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for year 2013 and year 2030 (General Plan buildout) conditions shown in Table 5.4-8 and Table 5.4-9, respectively. Noise increases on Year 2030 with sellout event plus an Angels Stadium event day compared to existing without events will range from 1.5 to 10.8 dBA. The only noise sensitive land uses where audible noise increases would occur are located along Sunkist Street between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road. MM 5.4-1 would reduce the anticipated cumulative noise increase of 3.8 dBA to the sensitive receptors along this roadway segment. The estimated 6 dBA noise reduction provided by the pavement would offset the cumulative increase, eliminating the cumulative noise impact. With implementation of MM 5.4-1, cumulative noise impacts to noise sensitive receptors would be avoided. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-17 Table 5.4-8 Cumulative Conditions - Year 2013 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2013 with Average Attendance Event plus Angels Stadium Event Year 2013 with Project (Sellout Event) plus Angels Stadium Event Increase in CNEL (dBA) Location Existing No Event CNEL ADT CNEL1 ADT CNEL1 Cumulative 2 Project3 Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 77.2 57,730 77.7 58,860 77.8 0.6 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 75.1 36,900 75.8 38,310 75.9 0.8 0.1 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 66.4 6,210 68.0 7,230 68.7 2.3 0.7 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 67.6 10,820 69.5 12,920 70.2 2.6 0.7 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 75.4 38,810 76.0 39,230 76.0 0.6 0.0 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 75.4 41,130 76.2 41,930 76.3 0.9 0.1 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 77.3 60,750 77.9 63,130 78.1 0.8 0.2 Between SR-57 SB Ramps and SR- 57 NB Ramps 75.5 43,010 76.4 45,340 76.7 1.2 0.3 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 75.5 46,360 76.8 50,080 77.1 1.6 0.3 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 74.8 36,550 75.7 38,820 76.0 1.2 0.3 Between Struck Ave and Main St 73.8 27,160 74.4 28,290 74.6 0.8 0.2 Between Main St and Batavia St 74.2 29,190 74.8 29,870 74.9 0.7 0.1 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 71.9 18,530 72.8 18,970 72.9 1.0 0.1 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 63.4 5,710 65.5 6,900 66.4 3.0 0.9 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 73.3 23,910 73.9 24,290 74.0 0.7 0.1 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 68.4 8,550 69.4 9,280 69.8 1.4 0.4 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. Bold: Audible (+3 dB) changes in the ambient noise environment from traffic noise. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Cumulative” increase is the difference in traffic noise between the existing year without event and Year 2013 with Project (sellout events) at the Honda Center plus the Angels Stadium of Anaheim, and represents the overall increase in cumulative noise. 3 The “Project” increase is the difference in traffic noise between Year 2013 with Honda Center sellout events plus Angeles Stadium of Anaheim event, and Year 2013 with average attendance Honda Center event plus Angels Stadium of Anaheim event conditions, and represents the project contribution to the overall cumulative noise increase. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.4-18  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.4-9 Cumulative Conditions - Year 2030 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2030 with Average Attendance Event plus Angels Stadium Event Year 2030 with Project (Sellout Event) plus Angels Stadium Event Increase in CNEL (dBA) Location Existing No Event CNEL ADT CNEL1 ADT ADT Cumulative 2 Project3 Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 77.2 70,960 78.6 72,090 78.7 1.5 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 75.1 78,310 79.0 79,720 79.1 4.0 0.1 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 66.4 28,880 74.7 29,900 74.9 8.5 0.2 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 67.6 32,000 74.2 34,100 74.4 6.8 0.2 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 75.4 60,600 77.9 61,020 78.0 2.6 0.1 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 75.4 66,350 78.3 67,150 78.4 3.0 0.1 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 77.3 75,280 78.9 77,660 79.0 1.7 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramps and SR- 57 NB Ramps 75.5 72,060 78.7 74,390 78.8 3.3 0.1 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 75.5 71,510 78.6 75,230 78.9 3.4 0.3 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 74.8 76,290 78.9 78,560 79.1 4.3 0.2 Between Struck Ave and Main St 73.8 65,510 78.3 66,640 78.3 4.5 0.0 Between Main St and Batavia St 74.2 53,950 77.4 54,630 77.5 3.3 0.1 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 71.9 36,870 75.8 37,310 75.8 3.9 0.0 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 63.4 40,990 74.1 42,180 74.2 10.8 0.1 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 73.3 48,360 76.9 48,740 77.0 3.7 0.1 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 68.4 15,400 72.0 16,130 72.2 3.8 0.2 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. Bold: Audible (+3 dB) changes in the ambient noise environment from traffic noise. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Cumulative” increase is the difference in traffic noise between the existing year without event and Year 2030 with project (sellout events) at the Honda Center plus the Angels Stadium of Anaheim and represents the overall increase in cumulative noise. 3 The “Project” increase is the difference in traffic noise between Year 2030 with Honda Center sellout events plus Angeles Stadium of Anaheim event, and Year 2030 with average attendance Honda Center event plus Angels Stadium of Anaheim event conditions, and represents the project contribution to the overall cumulative noise increase. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.4-19 5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards are incorporated into the California Building Code (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations) and are the noise standards required for new construction in California.  Community noise standards adopted by the City of Anaheim in the General Plan, Noise Element.  City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.20, Sound Pressure Levels: Stationary Noise Standards.  City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.20, Construction Noise  City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.20.160, Compatibility Standards  FTA groundborne vibration and noise impact criteria. 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the Impact 5.4-1 would be less than significant. However, a potentially significant cumulative noise impact (Impact 5.4-2) to residential areas located east of Sunkist Street between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road could occur with concurrent scheduling of events at the Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for year 2030 when added to future cumulative development. 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.4-2 4-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall contribute fair-share funding to repave Sunkist Street between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road with rubberized asphalt. Studies have shown that asphalt rubber overlays resulted in a reduction in road noise in the order of 6 dB. (Rymer and Donavan, 2005) 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant project-related impacts have been identified. With implementation of MM 5.4-1, cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant. 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Page 5.4-20  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-1 5.5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This section of the EIR evaluates the potential for the Honda Center Enhancement Project (Proposed Project) to impact the transportation and traffic. While the Proposed Project only proposes to increase the number of annual events held at Honda Center, for the purposes of this EIR, traffic impacts are based on an evaluation of the following event scenarios:  Average Attendance Honda Center Event: average event attendance – 11,264 spectators1  Sell Out Honda Center Event: sell-out attendance at Honda Center – 18,900 spectators  Concurrent Events: concurrent events held at Honda Center and Angel Stadium of Anaheim The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report: Honda Center Enhancement Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Draft Traffic Study Report, Parsons Brinkerhoff, January 2012. This traffic study is included in Appendix E to this EIR. 5.5.1 Environmental Setting 5.5.1.1 Honda Center Operations Existing Honda Center Honda Center event traffic has occurred in the area for the past 18 years. Maximum seating capacity during an event is 18,900 seats and average event attendance is 11,264 spectators2. While these events could occur any day of the week, most of the events occur on weekday evening, generally between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM, which is outside of the normal peak period for regular commuters. Sporting events are considered special generators and the normal morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hour is not applicable. For Honda Center, traffic counts indicate that the peak hour for pre-event conditions is from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. To manage traffic on event days, Honda Center implements a traffic management plan to actively manage arrival and departure of event-related traffic through operational and traffic control strategies. The traffic management plan is refined, as necessary, in the field to ensure efficient management of both pre- and post-event traffic operations. Baseline Traffic Scenarios In order to provide a worst-case analysis of impacts from event-related traffic at Honda Center, the analysis considers the following baseline scenarios (without the Proposed Project):  With No Events: This baseline scenario analyzes only background traffic conditions without events at Honda Center or Angel Stadium. For the 2011 Baseline existing conditions, the analysis was based on the traffic counts collected on April 7, 2011 (non-event day). ). For 2013 Opening 1 Based on average of the highest 3-years of attendance over the last 5 years. 2 Based on average of the highest 3-years of attendance over the last 5 years. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Year conditions, traffic volume was derived by applying 0.5% growth per year to the existing without event traffic volumes. For future 2030 Year conditions, traffic volumes were taken from the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Final Traffic Study (October 2010) with the addition of a commercial land use proposal recently submitted by the Orange County Water District, north of Honda Center.  With Average Attendance Honda Center Event: This baseline scenario analyzes background traffic conditions for an average attendance event day at Honda Center (i.e., Average Attendance Event + No Event baseline). Existing Honda Center events are based on average attendance of 11,264 spectators. This attendance figure was provided by Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (AAM) and was calculated from attendance statistics attendees per event over the past five years, as provided by Honda Center.  With Concurrent Average Attendance Honda Center and Angel Stadium Event: This baseline scenario analyzes background cumulative traffic conditions from both events at Honda Center (average events) and Angel Stadium. This scenario uses the 11,264 average attendees per event figure provided by AAM, along with a typical event at Angel Stadium. For Angel Stadium events an average of 29,402 attendees per event was used, which figure is based on Angel Stadium statistics collected over the past year. Study Area The area of analysis for traffic impacts is shown in Figure 5.5-1, Project Study Area. The study area was defined using procedures outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Pursuant to the City’s guidelines, if a Proposed Project adds 51 or more peak hour trips to any monitored Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections, or 100 or more peak hour trips to a non-CMP intersection, that intersection shall be included in the study area. For arterials, the guidelines require inclusion of a segment in the study area if a project adds 1,600 or more Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on CMP roadway segments, 2,400 or more ADT on non-CMP roadway segments. Study Area Roadways and Intersections Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 57 (SR-57) are the primary north-south freeway accesses to the City of Anaheim. State Route 91 (SR-91) and State Route 22 (SR-22) serves traffic flows from the east and the west. The major arterials that serve local east-west traffic in the study area include Lincoln Avenue, Ball Road, Katella Avenue, and Orangewood Avenue. The primary north-south arterials in the study area are Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim Boulevard, State College Boulevard, Sunkist Street, and Main Street. Honda Center is located on the north side of Katella Avenue east of the SR-57 freeway. Direct access from the SR-57 freeway is provided at Katella Avenue and at Ball Road. Rail Service The City of Anaheim and the study area are currently served by rail transit at the Anaheim Stadium station. Located on the north side of the Angel Stadium parking lot, across from Honda Center the station serves both Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner from San Luis Obispo to San Diego and Metrolink’s Orange County Line from Los Angeles to Oceanside. There are 22 Amtrak and 33 Metrolink trains per day serving the Anaheim Station. Metrolink has recently added 4 more trains per day during Special event days at Angel Stadium. Plans are also underway by the City and OCTA to build the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) as a gateway transportation hub, south of Honda Center off of Douglass Road. ARTIC is envisioned to serve expanded shuttle, bus, commuter, and high-speed rail services. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 5. Environmental Analysis Project Study Area Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-1 0 1 Scale (Feet) 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-5 Bus Service In addition to Metrolink and Amtrak services, public transportation services operated by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) are also available to patrons wishing to use public transit to attend events at Honda Center. Honda Center is currently served by OCTA bus route # 50 on Katella Avenue. Route #50 extends from the City of Orange, east of Honda Center, to the City of Long Beach, approximately 12 miles west of Honda Center. There are bus stops conveniently located along Katella Avenue in each of the six cities served by this route as well as stops immediately adjacent to the Honda Center. Bicycle Routes The City of Anaheim currently has three classifications of bikeways, Class I, Class II, and Class III. Class I Bikeways provide for bicycle travel on right-of-way completely separated from the street. Class II Bikeways provide striped and signed lanes within the street right-of-way. Class III Bikeways are commonly signed only bike routes. Adjacent to Honda Center is the Santa Ana River Trail, which is classified as a Class I Bikeway and connects with Orange County’s riding and hiking trails, providing a continuous path between Huntington Beach and Riverside County. Moreover, the Fourth Supervisorial District Bikeways Collaborative was initiated to identify, prioritize and implement regional bikeway improvements within this area of Orange County. The Collaborative includes OCTA, the County of Orange, Caltrans and the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, and Placentia. Over a nine month period, the Collaborative will work together to identify opportunities and constraints associated with bicycle facilities in the Fourth District. Among the bikeway corridors proposed is a Class II bike lane along Douglass Road north of Katella Avenue and Katella Avenue east of Douglass Road. These proposed bike lanes are also shown on the City of Anaheim’s General Plan, Circulation Element, Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Map. Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access to and from Honda Center is generally gained from Katella Avenue. Sidewalks are available on both side of Katella Avenue and extend uninterrupted into the City of Orange to the east and to parts of the City of Anaheim west of SR-57. Sidewalks are also available along Douglass Road. Pedestrian access to the Honda Center may also be gained using the Santa Ana River Trail which runs directly adjacent to Honda Center, however, pedestrians must exit the trail at Katella and transition onto the Katella Avenue sidewalk. Local Segments and Intersection Counts In order to analyze and compare the performance of intersections and arterial roadway segments within the study area under event and non-event conditions, counts were collected on:  April 6, 2011 (Honda Center event day): Traffic count volumes taken on April 6 represent traffic patterns on a day in which the Anaheim Ducks hosted a regular season hockey game at Honda Center. Attendance at this event was 14,021 spectators and average attendance at Honda Center is 11,264 spectators.  April 7, 2011 (Honda Center non-event day): Traffic counts taken on April 7 represent traffic patterns on a day in which no event was hosted at Honda Center. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  August 24, 2011 (Angel Stadium event day): Traffic counts taken on August 24 represent traffic patterns on a day in which Angels Baseball hosted a regular season game at Angel Stadium. Attendance at this game was 25,642 spectators and average attendance at an Angels Baseball game is 29,402 spectators.  August 25, 2011 (Angel Stadium non-event day): Traffic counts taken on August 25 represent traffic patterns on a day in which no event was hosted at Angel Stadium. Intersection turning movements and daily roadway segment traffic counts were collected between 4:00 PM and 8:00 PM. This time period coincides with a 7:00 PM opening faceoff for an Anaheim Ducks hockey game at Honda Center. The difference in traffic count volumes taken under event and non-event conditions represent trips generated by an Anaheim Ducks game at Honda Center and Angels Baseball game at Angel Stadium. The estimated trip generation for these events served as a basis in estimating trips generated by an average attendance at Honda Center (Average Attendance Honda Center Event), events during a sold out event (Sell Out Honda Center Event), and average attendance at Angel Stadium for the Concurrent Event scenario. In order to estimate daily and peak-hour trip activity associated with a maximum capacity event at Honda Center, the actual attendance of the Anaheim Ducks game on April 6th was compared to the maximum seating capacity at Honda Center. The difference in the Anaheim Ducks attendance on the traffic count date and the maximum seating capacity at the venue was used as a growth factor.3 The same procedure described above was used to estimate daily and peak hour trip activity associated with average attendance at Honda Center4 and Angel Stadium5. 5.5.1.2 Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Analysis In order to evaluate traffic impacts within the vicinity of Honda Center resulting from inbound traffic activity associated with events, peak hour signalized intersection capacity utilization (ICU), arterial segment daily analysis and arterial segment peak hour analysis, and freeway mainline and ramp analysis were performed. Intersections City of Anaheim and Orange The City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies requires a volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.00, or LOS E as the lowest acceptable level of service at designated CMP intersections, and 0.90, or LOS D, as the lowest acceptable level of service for all other intersections. The City requires all study area intersections LOS be evaluated using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology. This methodology compares forecast peak hour traffic volumes by direction and critical moves to 3 A 1.35 growth factor was applied to trips generated by the Anaheim Ducks game to calculate estimated event trips that are generated by a maximum capacity event at Honda Center (Sell Out Honda Center Event scenario). 4 A 0.8 growth factor was applied to trips generated by the Anaheim Ducks game to calculate estimate event trips that are generated by an average attendance event at Honda Center (Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario) 5 A 1.15 growth factor was applied to trips generated by the Angel game to calculate estimated event trips that would be generated by an average attendance event at Angel Stadium. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-7 available intersection capacity based on actual configuration. A minimum clearance interval of 0.05, and lane capacities of 1,700 vehicles per hour of green time for through and turn lanes was used for the ICU calculations. For intersection analysis, the City of Orange Traffic Impact Guidelines is consistent with the City of Anaheim guidelines; therefore, the same analyses and standards were applied for intersections in both jurisdictions. Table 5.5-1 presents the ICU level of service thresholds utilized in the traffic analysis. Table 5.5-1 Intersection Level of Service LOS ICU A < 0.60 B 0.61 – 0.70 C 0.71 – 0.80 D 0.81 – 0.90 E 0.91 – 1.00 F > 1.00 Source: City of Anaheim, City of Orange For the City of Anaheim, an intersection impact is considered significant if the Project resulting V/C compared to the No Project V/C should project related increases outlined as follows:  For a resulting Level of Service (LOS) C, project related increases equal or greater than 0.050.  For resulting LOS D, project related increases equal or greater than 0.030.  For resulting LOS E or F, project related increases equal or greater than 0.010. For purposes of this calculation, the “Final V/C Ratio” includes the future v/c ratio at an intersection, considering traffic from existing conditions, ambient growth, approved/related projects, and the proposed project, but without any proposed mitigation. For the City of Orange intersections, a significant impact is deemed to occur if the Project result in deterioration of the level of service to LOS E or LOS F, or results in an increase in ICU value of 0.01 if the intersection already operates at LOS E or F under the No Project condition. Caltrans Freeway ramp termini intersections were analyzed using Synchro (version 7.0) through the application of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology, which is consistent with Caltrans’ requirements. Lane configurations and various other parameters such as signal timing were based on current operating characteristics. Table 5.5-2 presents Caltrans intersection delay and LOS standards. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.5-2 Caltrans Intersection LOS Criteria LOS Intersection Delay (in Seconds) A ≤10.0 B >10.0 and ≤20.0 C >20.0 and ≤35.0 D >35.0 and ≤55.0 E >55.0 and ≤80.0 F ≥80.0 Arterial Segments The arterial roadway analysis criteria for the City of Anaheim involve the use of ADT volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. The City of Anaheim has established a LOS C (i.e. V/C not to exceed 0.80) or better as the adopted performance standard for the study area circulation system. The City of Orange has adopted LOS D (i.e. V/C not to exceed 0.90) or better as the performance standard for arterials within the City of Orange portions of the study area. The City of Orange applies a V/C analysis for daily traffic conditions similar to Anaheim although daily capacities for Orange arterials differ slightly from those recognized by the City of Anaheim. Although the arterial segment V/C analysis provides a general assessment of overall system performance, the performance is measured on the ability to serve peak hour traffic demands. The segments that are identified as deficient under daily conditions are evaluated under peak hour conditions to evaluate the capability of serving forecast peak hour traffic.6 The City of Anaheim applies the Urban Streets analysis to determine level of service under peak hour traffic volumes on deficient daily segments. If the V/C ratio of the arterial segment under peak hour conditions is LOS E or F, improvements should be considered to improve the segment to an acceptable LOS. The segment analysis assumes roadway capacities for each jurisdiction as applied in the current General Plans for each City as noted in Table 5.5-3. The capacities in Table 5.5-3 reflect LOS E capacities and are consistent with those that are applied in daily V/C analysis consistent with methodologies adopted for each jurisdiction.7 Table 5.5-3 Arterial Segment Daily Capacity Assumptions Facility Type Anaheim Orange 8-lane Divided 75,000 75,000 6-lane Divided 56,300 56,300 4-lane Divided 37,500 37,500 4-lane Undivided 25,000 24,000 2-lane Undivided 12,500 12,000 Source: City of Orange Traffic Study Guidelines, City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines 6 Note that the City of Orange does not provide provisions for peak hour segment analysis but rather uses daily V/C analysis as the basis for improvement requirements. 7 Note that the City of Orange takes advantage of a capacity enhancement for Smart Streets as designated by the Orange County Transportation Authority. For Katella Avenue, Orange increases daily capacity by five percent to account for Smart Street related improvements that enhance throughput along these key corridors. The City of Anaheim does not currently account for capacity enhancements to Smart Streets. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-9 Caltrans Freeway and Ramp Analysis In addition to the peak hour intersection and arterial analysis, analysis of project impacts on freeway mainline segments and ramps was performed for this project. Data was collected for the freeway mainline and ramp volumes from the Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS), which is jointly maintained by the University of California at Berkeley and Caltrans. An effort was made to extract data from PeMS consistent with count dates taken for the intersection and arterial segments within the study area. The freeway mainline and ramp volumes adjustment and development for each of the project analysis scenarios are consistent with the procedures used for intersection and arterial segment volumes. The freeway mainline and freeway ramp criteria are based on peak hour Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) density analysis. The capacities are based on information contained in the HCM and Caltrans’ Ramp Meter Design Manual. Existing count data was provided by Caltrans for the freeway mainline volumes. Ramp merge and diverge analysis was carried out by applying Highway Capacity Software (HCS),the electronic version of the HCM for freeway-to-arterial interchanges. According to HCM methodology, the ramp merge and diverge areas focus on an influential area of 1,500 feet, including the acceleration or deceleration lane and adjacent freeway lanes. The methodology incorporates three fundamental steps:  Determination of the traffic entering the freeway lanes upstream of the merge or at the beginning of the deceleration lane at diverge;  Determination of the capacity for the segment; and  Determination of the density of traffic flow within the ramp influence area and its level of service The LOS for freeway ramps is determined by traffic density based on criteria outlined in the HCM. Freeway mainline levels of service are similarly determined from segment density. Table 5.5-4 presents the correlation between LOS and density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) for both freeway ramps and basic freeway segments. LOS D (density not to exceed 35.0 pc/mi/ln for mainline segments and 35.0 pc/mi/ln for freeway ramps), has been established by Caltrans District 12 as the operating standard for freeway mainline segments and freeway ramps. Caltrans has determined that freeway segments and ramps that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS although specific criteria to identify project related impacts is not specified in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Table 5.5-4 Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp Level of Service LOS Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Density (pc/mi/ln) Basic Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 0 – 11.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 11.0 – 18.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 18.0 – 26.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 26.0 – 35.0 E > 35.0 35.0 – 45.0 F Exceeds Capacity <45.0 Source: Caltrans, HCM 2000 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-10  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Analysis Freeway weaving is defined as the crossing of two streams of traffic traveling in the same direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. Weaving analysis was performed using the HCM methodology which provides a density criteria by LOS for the weaving area within the freeway segment. Table 5.5-5 specifies the LOS for associated freeway weaving densities. In the study area, the freeway mainline segments were analyzed as freeway weaving first. For the freeway weaving segment that is longer than 2,500 feet, it was analyzed as the basic freeway segments using the HCM and corresponding LOS. Table 5.5-5 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Level of Service LOS Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Density (pc/mi/ln) Basic Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 ≤11.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 >12.0 and ≤24.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 >24.0 and ≤32.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 >32.0 and ≤36.0 E > 35.0 and ≤ 43.0 >36.0 and ≤40.0 F ≥43.0 ≥40.0 Source: Caltrans, HCM 2000 5.5.1.3 Existing Intersection and Segment LOS Intersection Analysis Table 5.5-6 presents LOS results for the 44 study intersections under existing conditions during the PM peak hour. Existing lane geometries were assumed in the LOS analyses. As shown in the table, all of the study area intersections operate within acceptable LOS. Table 5.5-6 Existing Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS 2011 Existing Conditions With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 1 Harbor Blvd & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.61 B 2 Clementine St & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.53 A 3 Anaheim Blvd & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.55 A 0.56 A 0.56 A 4 Anaheim Blvd & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.54 A 0.55 A 0.57 A 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-11 Table 5.5-6 Existing Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS 2011 Existing Conditions With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 5 Anaheim Blvd & Haster St/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.50 A 6 Manchester Ave (I-5 SB ramps) & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.52 A 0.50 A 0.52 A 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 NB ramps) & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.44 A 0.46 A 0.49 A 8 Lewis St & Ball Road Anaheim 0.33 A 0.33 A 0.34 A 9 Lewis St & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.23 A 0.23 A 0.23 A 10 Lewis St & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.43 A 0.45 A 0.46 A 11 I-5 HOV ramps & Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 A 0.07 A 0.08 A 12 East Street & Ball Road Anaheim 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 13 State College Blvd & Ball Road Anaheim 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.49 A 14 State College Blvd & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.27 A 0.28 A 0.30 A 15 State College Blvd & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.38 A 0.48 A 0.56 A 16 State College Blvd & Gateway Center Dr Anaheim 0.25 A 0.28 A 0.30 A 17 State College Blvd & Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.23 A 0.25 A 0.27 A 18 State College Blvd & Orangewood Ave Anaheim/ Orange 0.32 A 0.34 A 0.35 A 19 State College Blvd & I-5 NB ramps* Orange 0.26 A 0.27 A 0.28 A 20 State College Blvd & I-5 SB ramps* Orange 0.26 A 0.26 A 0.27 A 21 State College Blvd & The City Dr/Chapman Ave Orange 0.48 A 0.49 A 0.49 A 22 Sportstown & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.33 A 0.41 A 0.49 A 23 Sunkist St & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.56 A 0.61 B 0.65 B 24 Sunkist St & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.20 A 0.26 A 0.31 A 25 Howell Ave & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.35 A 0.42 A 0.50 A 26 SR-57 SB ramps & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.46 A 0.61 B 0.72 C 27 SR-57 SB ramps & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.37 A 0.51 A 0.61 B 28 SR-57 NB ramps & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.43 A 0.52 A 0.59 A 29 SR-57 NB ramps & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.28 A 0.46 A 0.64 B 30 Douglass Rd & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.27 A 0.53 A 0.76 C 31 Phoenix Club Dr & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.34 A 0.43 A 0.62 B 32 Struck Ave & Katella Ave Orange 0.24 A 0.32 A 0.39 A 33 Main St & Taft Ave Orange 0.42 A 0.43 A 0.43 A 34 Main St & Katella Ave Orange 0.32 A 0.40 A 0.46 A 35 Main St & Struck Ave Orange 0.27 A 0.33 A 0.38 A 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-12  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.5-6 Existing Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS 2011 Existing Conditions With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 36 Batavia St & Taft Ave Orange 0.39 A 0.41 A 0.42 A 37 Batavia St & Katella Ave Orange 0.35 A 0.39 A 0.42 A 38 Glassell St & Taft Ave Orange 0.45 A 0.47 A 0.49 A 39 Glassell St & Katella Ave Orange 0.45 A 0.49 A 0.52 A 40 Schaffer St & Katella Ave Orange 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.38 A 41 Cambridge St & Katella Ave Orange 0.42 A 0.44 A 0.46 A 42 Tustin St & Katella Ave Orange 0.62 B 0.62 B 0.65 B 43 SR-55 SB ramps & Katella Ave* Orange 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.80 C 44 SR-55 NB ramps & Katella Ave* Orange 0.77 C 0.78 C 0.79 C * CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Arterial Segment Analysis Daily Segment LOS Table 5.5-7 presents the existing average daily traffic (ADT) V/C ratios and LOS for all the study area roadway segments. The analysis is based on the traffic counts collected in April 2011 and August 2011. As shown in Table 5.5-7, 15 out of 16 study arterial segments were found to operate within acceptable LOS. Although the arterial segment Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Southbound Ramps was found to operate at LOS E, it is not considered as deficient. Katella Avenue is identified in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) as a CMP arterial. Per CMP guidelines, arterial segments operating at LOS E identified within the CMP are considered operating at an acceptable level of service. The only roadway segment that was found to operate at deficient conditions is Ball Road - Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps. Peak Hour Segment LOS The City of Anaheim further evaluates deficient daily arterial segments during peak hours to evaluate peak hour traffic operations, which is often a more appropriate indicator of traffic operations and improvement requirements. A PM peak hour analysis was performed for each of the study segments identified as deficient under the daily arterial LOS analysis. Table 5.5-8 presents peak hour activity between 6:00-7:00 PM for each study segment. A review of the table shows that all of the study segments operate within acceptable LOS. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-13  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-7 2011 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS 2011 Existing Conditions With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event ID From To Jurisdiction. Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Ball Road A-1 Sunkist St SR-57 SB ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 50,970 0.91 E 52,630 0.93 E 52,630 0.93 E A-2 SR-57 NB ramps Phoenix Club Dr Anaheim 6D 56,300 31,660 0.56 A 33,730 0.60 A 33,730 0.60 A Cerritos Ave A-3 Sunkist St Douglass Rd Anaheim 4U 25,000 4,270 0.17 A 5,780 0.23 A 5,780 0.23 A Douglass Rd A-4 Katella Ave Cerritos Ave Anaheim 4U 25,000 7,040 0.28 A 10,120 0.40 A 10,120 0.40 A Katella Ave A-5 ** Lewis St State College Blvd Anaheim 6D 56,300 33,500 0.60 A 34,120 0.61 B 35,460 0.63 B A-6 ** State College Blvd Howell Ave Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,130 0.61 B 35,310 0.63 B 37,720 0.67 B A-7 ** Howell Ave SR-57 SB ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 52,030 0.92 E 55,550 0.99 E 55,550 0.99 E A-8 ** SR-57 SB ramps SR-57 NB ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,720 0.62 B 38,170 0.68 B 39,540 0.70 B A-9 ** SR-57 NB ramp Douglass Rd Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,470 0.61 B 39,970 0.71 C 42,910 0.76 C A-10 ** Douglass Rd Struck Ave Anaheim 6D 56,300 29,480 0.52 A 32,820 0.58 A 33,600 0.60 A A-11 * Struck Ave Main St Orange 6D 56,300 23,170 0.41 A 24,840 0.44 A 24,840 0.44 A A-12 * Main St Batavia St Orange 6D 56,300 25,630 0.46 A 26,630 0.47 A 26,630 0.47 A 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-14  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-7 2011 Existing Arterial Segment Daily LOS 2011 Existing Conditions With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event ID From To Jurisdiction. Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Main St A-13 Katella Ave Struck Ave Orange 4U 24,000 15,000 0.40 A 15,640 0.42 A 17,030 0.45 A Phoenix Club Dr A-14 Honda Center Ball Rd Anaheim 2U 12,500 3,470 0.28 A 5,220 0.42 A 5,360 0.43 A State College Blvd A-15 Howell Ave Katella Ave Anaheim 6D 56,300 21,030 0.37 A 21,590 0.38 A 21,810 0.39 A Sunkist St A-16 Cerritos Ave Ball Rd Anaheim 4U 25,000 6,790 0.27 A 7,870 0.31 A 7,870 0.31 A * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement ** CMP arterial. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP arterial. AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-15  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-8 Existing Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS 2011 Existing Conditions With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event ID Arterial To From Jurisdiction ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 2,824 0.52 A 3,169 0.58 A 3,169 0.58 A A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 2,772 0.42 A 3,599 0.54 A 4,495 0.68 B * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-16  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-17 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project could: T-1 Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). T-2 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. T-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. T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access. T-6 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:  Threshold T-3  Threshold T-5  Threshold T-6 Impacts associated with these thresholds will not be addressed in the following analysis. Significance Criteria Intersection Analysis Within the City of Anheim, a transportation impact to intersections in the vicinity of the Proposed Project is considered significant based on the criteria outline in Table 5.5-9. For purposes of this calculation, the “Final V/C Ratio” refers to the future V/C ratio at an intersection with the proposed project but without any proposed mitigation. Table 5.5-9 City of Anaheim Intersection Significant Impact Criteria LOS Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C C >0.700 – 0.800 ≥ 0.050 D >0.800 – 0.900 ≥ 0.030 E or F >0.900 ≥ 0.010 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-18  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 For study intersections within the City of Orange, a significant impact is deemed to occur if the Project results in deterioration of the level of service to LOS E or LOS F, or results in an increase in ICU value of 0.01 or greater at intersections already operating at LOS E or F under the No Project condition. Specific criteria to identify project related impacts for study intersections under Caltrans’ jurisdiction is not specified in the Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Segment Analysis For City of Anaheim segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily level of service to LOS D or worse and coupled with a continued deficiency under peak hour conditions. A significant impact is also determined by an increase in the daily V/C value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions and the segment is found to be deficient under peak hour conditions. For City of Orange segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS or causes an increase in the daily V/C value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions. Caltrans Freeway and Ramp Analysis Caltrans has determined that freeway segments and ramps that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS. However, specific criteria to identify project related impacts is not specified in the Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts Modeling Methodology Traffic impacts to the transportation system are analyzed at Honda Center for Existing, 2013 Opening Year, and 2030 Future Year for the following five scenarios: 1) No Event Traffic 2) With Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) With Concurrent Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event 4) With Sell Out Honda Center Event 5) With Concurrent Sell Out Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event Although Honda Center currently generates both average attendance events and sell out events, for the purpose of this EIR impacts are based on the incremental increase caused by sell out events at Honda Center. Three impact conditions are evaluated.  Condition 1: Sell Out Honda Center Event vs. No Event Traffic  Condition 2: Sell Out Honda Center Event vs. Average Attendance Honda Center Event  Condition 3: Concurrent Sell Out Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Events vs. Concurrent Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-19 Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model The analysis was performed by application of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) to develop future traffic forecast volumes in the project study area. ATAM is the traffic forecasting modeling tool for the City of Anaheim and has been certified as consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) developed by OCTA. ATAM relies on OCTAM for the regional component of traffic activity and OCTAM is based on and consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) regional transportation model, and therefore, incorporates adopted regional growth projections. The ATAM future forecast volumes for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Traffic Study serve as the basis for future baseline non-Honda Center events, consistent with Anaheim City Council Action to approve the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 339 in October 2010. Traffic Forecasting Year 2013 For opening year 2013 analysis, a 0.5% annual growth factor, provided by City of Anaheim staff, was applied to 2011 Baseline non-event traffic counts to project year 2013 traffic volumes With No Events (2013 baseline). Honda Center event trips at average (Average Attendance Honda Center Event) and sold out (Sell Out Honda Center Event) events were added to the 2013 baseline to derive 2013 baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event, and 2013 baseline with Sell Out Event Honda Center traffic volumes, respectively. Similarly, the average Angel Stadium event trips were added to the 2013 baseline traffic counts to derive 2013 baseline Existing Average Attendance Honda Center Event plus Angel Stadium Event, and 2013 baseline with Sell Out Honda Center Event plus Angel Stadium Event traffic volumes. Year 2030 For year 2030 analysis, future baseline (With No Events) traffic volumes were taken from the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study (October 2010), but modified to include the addition of traffic volumes generated by a commercial development project on Orange County Water District (OCWD) property, located on Ball Road and Phoenix Club Drive. Estimated Average Attendance Honda Center Event trips, Sell Out Honda Center Event trips and Angel Stadium Event trips were added to the baseline (Without Event) model volumes to derive other four 2030 analysis scenarios. As a conservative approach, event related traffic activity was assumed to remain consistent with the existing condition scenario. It is noted that build out of the Platinum Triangle and implementation of the ARTIC and its associated transit enhancements and opportunities, are adjacent and within convenient walking distance from Honda Center, and therefore, would contribute to reduced vehicle trip generation for Average Attendance Honda Center Event in the future. To present a conservative estimate of future traffic conditions, no vehicle trip reduction associated with shifts to alternative modes of transportation was assumed as part of the future traffic analysis. Roadway Network The base highway network used in this analysis remains consistent with networks adopted for various other traffic studies previously carried out for the City of Anaheim within the Platinum Triangle. The existing and future year local circulation system was refined to provide further detail within the Platinum Triangle to accurately forecast travel activity. In addition, traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were refined and 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-20  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 added to more accurately reflect traffic patterns and access of future development throughout the study area, as shown previously in Figure 5.5-1. Zonal connectors were reviewed and updated as appropriate to reflect appropriate development access to the surrounding circulation system. The baseline 2030 No Project network is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan circulation network, and assumes in place all the proposed capacity enhancements in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project SEIR No. 339. IMPACT 5.5-1 TRIP GENERATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD IMPACT LEVELS OF SERVICE ON THE EXISTING AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM. [THRESHOLD T-1 AND T-2] Impact Analysis: The analysis below identifies potential traffic impacts to intersections in the study area associated with events at Honda Center for Existing, Opening Year 2013 and Future Year 2030 conditions: 5.5.3.1 Honda Center Operations Existing Honda Center Honda Center event traffic has occurred in the area for the past 18 years. Maximum seating capacity during an event is 18,900 seats and average event attendance is 11,264 spectators8. While these events could occur any day of the week, most of the events occur on weekday evening, generally between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM, which is outside of the normal peak period for regular commuters. Sporting events are considered special generators and the normal morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hour is not applicable. For Honda Center, traffic counts indicate that the peak hour for pre-event conditions is from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. To manage traffic on event days, Honda Center implements a traffic management plan to actively manage arrival and departure of event-related traffic through operational and traffic control strategies. The traffic management plan is refined, as necessary, in the field to ensure efficient management of both pre- and post-event traffic operations. Baseline Traffic Scenarios In order to provide a worst-case analysis of impacts from event-related traffic at Honda Center, the analysis considers the following baseline scenarios (without the Proposed Project):  With No Events: This baseline scenario analyzes only background traffic conditions without events at Honda Center or Angel Stadium. For the 2011 Baseline existing conditions, the analysis was based on the traffic counts collected on April 7, 2011 (non-event day). For 2013 Opening Year conditions, traffic volume was derived by applying 0.5% growth per year to the existing without event traffic volumes. For future 2030 Year conditions, traffic volumes were taken from the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Final Traffic Study (October 2010) with the addition of a commercial land use proposal recently submitted by the Orange County Water District, north of Honda Center. 8 Based on average of the highest 3-years of attendance over the last 5 years. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-21  With Average Attendance Honda Center Event: This baseline scenario analyzes background traffic conditions for an average attendance event day at Honda Center (i.e., Average Attendance Event + No Event baseline). Existing Honda Center events are based on average attendance of 11,264 spectators. This attendance figure was provided by AAM and was calculated from attendance statistics attendees per event over the past five years, as provided by Honda Center.  With Concurrent Average Attendance Honda Center and Angel Stadium Event: This baseline scenario analyzes background cumulative traffic conditions from both events at Honda Center (average events) and Angel Stadium. This scenario uses the 11,264 average attendees per event figure provided by AAM, along with a typical event at Angel Stadium. For Angel Stadium events an average of 29,402 attendees per event was used, which figure is based on Angel Stadium statistics collected over the past year. Honda Center Trip Generation Project trip generation represents the amount of vehicle trips generated by the new events. The primary Project event scenario is the maximum capacity sold out event of 18,900 seats. In addition to event spectators, a combined total of 1,200 additional Honda Center employees and team members are assumed in the trip generation. For conservative estimating, a “no show” factor was not considered; meaning the venue is assumed to be fully filled. The daily vehicle trips (including inbound and outbound trips) made by the venue staff, team members, and spectators were estimated based on the average vehicle occupancy (AVO) rate provided by AAM staff. An AVO rate of 1.2 persons/vehicle is used for staff and team members, and an AVO rate of 3.0 persons/vehicle is used for spectators. The higher AVO rate for spectators recognizes the higher propensity for ridesharing/carpooling by spectators. The AVO rates used are consistent with other comparable relevant traffic studies and are within the AVO range of 2.5- 3.5 for patrons noted in a 1994 informational report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Arenas. For purposes of this study, 95% of employees and patrons are assumed to arrive via auto, and 5% are expected to arrive via alternate modes including, but not limited to, Amtrak/Metrolink transit and OCTA buses. Table 5.5-10 summarizes the trip generation result for a sold out event at Honda Center. Table 5.5-10 Honda Center Trip Generation – Sold Out Event Type Number of Participants Number of Participants Arriving by Auto* Vehicle Occupancy Rate Daily Trip Rate Daily Vehicle Trips Honda Center Employee 1,000 950 1.2 2 1,583 Team Members/ Event Staff 200 200 1.2 2 333 Spectators 18,900 17,755 3.0 2 11,837 Total 13,753 * Persons arriving by Transit and Charter Bus have been deducted 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-22  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Local Segments and Intersection Counts In order to analyze and compare the performance of intersections and arterial roadway segments within the study area under event and non-event conditions, counts were collected on:  April 6, 2011 (Honda Center event day): Traffic count volumes taken on April 6 represent traffic patterns on a day in which the Anaheim Ducks hosted a regular season hockey game at Honda Center. Attendance at this event was 14,021 spectators and average attendance at Honda Center is 11,264 spectators.  April 7, 2011 (Honda Center non-event day): Traffic counts taken on April 7 represent traffic patterns on a day in which no event was hosted at Honda Center.  August 24, 2011 (Angel Stadium event day): Traffic counts taken on August 24 represent traffic patterns on a day in which Angels Baseball hosted a regular season game at Angel Stadium. Attendance at this game was 25,642 spectators and average attendance at an Angels Baseball game is 29,402 spectators.  August 25, 2011 (Angel Stadium non-event day): Traffic counts taken on August 25 represent traffic patterns on a day in which no event was hosted at Angel Stadium. Intersection turning movements and daily roadway segment traffic counts were collected between 4:00 PM and 8:00 PM. This time period coincides with a 7:00 PM opening faceoff for an Anaheim Ducks game at Honda Center. The difference in traffic count volumes taken under event and non-event conditions represent trips generated by an Anaheim Ducks hockey game at Honda Center and Angels Baseball game at Angel Stadium. The estimated trip generation for these events served as a basis in estimating trips generated by an average attendance at Honda Center (Average Attendance Honda Center Event), events during a sold out event (Sell Out Honda Center Event), and average attendance at Angel Stadium for the Concurrent Event scenario. In order to estimate daily and peak-hour trip activity associated with a maximum capacity event at Honda Center, the actual attendance of the Anaheim Ducks game on April 6th was compared to the maximum seating capacity at Honda Center. The difference in the Ducks attendance on the traffic count date and the maximum seating capacity at the venue was used as a growth factor.9 The same procedure described above was used to estimate daily and peak hour trip activity associated with average attendance at Honda Center10 and Angel Stadium11. Trip Distribution Traffic counts collected on April 6, 2011 were used to determine the trip distribution for the Project. The key access routes to/from Honda Center include Katella Avenue east of the Santa Ana River; Katella Avenue west of SR-57; and SR-57 exit ramps at Ball Road. From Ball Road access to and from Honda 9 A 1.35 growth factor was applied to trips generated by the Anaheim Ducks game to calculate estimated event trips that are generated by a maximum capacity event at Honda Center (Sell Out Honda Center Event scenario). 10 A 0.8 growth factor was applied to trips generated by the Anaheim Ducks game to calculate estimate event trips that are generated by an average attendance event at Honda Center (Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario) 11 A 1.15 growth factor was applied to trips generated by the Angel game to calculate estimated event trips that would be generated by an average attendance event at Angel Stadium. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-23 Center is available from Phoenix Club Drive, Sunkist Street, Cerritos Avenue, and Douglass Road. The findings reveal that approximately 49% of trips would arrive at the venue via Katella Avenue, 28% of trips via Phoenix Club Drive, and 23% of trips via Cerritos Avenue. The trip distribution is shown on Figure 5.5-2, Honda Center Trip Distribution. Traffic profiles collected during intersection and segment counts indicate that the patrons start coming to the game three to four hours prior the opening faceoff time at 7:00 PM and peak hour for the pregame arrival traffic is one hour before the game which is from 6:00 to 7:00 PM. 5.5.3.2 2011 Existing plus Project Intersection Analysis Table 5.5-11 presents LOS results for the 44 study intersections for the traffic analysis scenarios outline above during the PM peak hour. Existing lane geometries were assumed in the LOS analyses. As shown in the tables, all of the study area intersections operate within acceptable LOS under the first four scenarios. However, one intersection location was found to operate at deficient conditions under the fifth scenario, 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event:  Douglass Road/Katella Avenue The LOS service results under all analysis scenarios are also graphically presented in Figure 5.5-3 through Figure 5.5-7 for the scenarios 1 through 5 outlined above, respectively. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-24  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-25  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-11 2011 Baseline PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project With No EventsWith AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Intersection JurisdictionICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 1 Harbor Blvd & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.62 B 2 Clementine St & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.53 A 3 Anaheim Blvd & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.55 A 0.56 A 0.56 A 0.56 A 0.56 A 4 Anaheim Blvd & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.54 A 0.55 A 0.57 A 0.55 A 0.57 A 5 Anaheim Blvd & Haster St/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.50 A 6 Manchester Ave (I-5 SB ramps) & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.52 A 0.50 A 0.52 A 0.56 A 0.57 A 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 NB ramps) & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.44 A 0.46 A 0.49 A 0.56 A 0.59 A 8 Lewis St & Ball Road Anaheim 0.33 A 0.33 A 0.34 A 0.33 A 0.34 A 9 Lewis St & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.23 A 0.23 A 0.23 A 0.24 A 0.24 A 10 Lewis St & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.43 A 0.45 A 0.46 A 0.46 A 0.50 A 11 I-5 HOV ramps & Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 A 0.07 A 0.08 A 0.10 A 0.11 A 12 East Street & Ball Road Anaheim 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 13 State College Blvd & Ball Road Anaheim 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.54 A 0.55 A 14 State College Blvd & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.27 A 0.28 A 0.30 A 0.38 A 0.40 A 15 State College Blvd & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.38 A 0.48 A 0.56 A 0.72 C 0.79 C 16 State College Blvd & Gateway Center Dr Anaheim 0.25 A 0.28 A 0.30 A 0.39 A 0.39 A 17 State College Blvd & Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.23 A 0.25 A 0.27 A 0.75 C 0.77 C 18 State College Blvd & Orangewood Ave Anaheim/ Orange 0.32 A 0.34 A 0.35 A 0.50 A 0.52 A 19 State College Blvd & I-5 NB ramps* Orange 0.26 A 0.27 A 0.28 A 0.38 A 0.39 A 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-26  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-11 2011 Baseline PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project With No EventsWith AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Intersection JurisdictionICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 20 State College Blvd & I-5 SB ramps* Orange 0.26 A 0.26 A 0.27 A 0.32 A 0.32 A 21 State College Blvd & The City Dr/Chapman Ave Orange 0.48 A 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.58 A 0.59 A 22 Sportstown & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.33 A 0.41 A 0.49 A 0.55 A 0.63 B 23 Sunkist St & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.56 A 0.61 B 0.65 B 0.63 B 0.69 B 24 Sunkist St & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.20 A 0.26 A 0.31 A 0.28 A 0.33 A 25 Howell Ave & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.35 A 0.42 A 0.50 A 0.47 A 0.54 A 26 SR-57 SB ramps & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.46 A 0.61 B 0.72 C 0.62 B 0.73 C 27 SR-57 SB ramps & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.37 A 0.51 A 0.61 B 0.71 C 0.84 D 28 SR-57 NB ramps & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.43 A 0.52 A 0.59 A 0.52 A 0.59 A 29 SR-57 NB ramps & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.28 A 0.46 A 0.64 B 0.60 A 0.78 C 30 Douglass Rd & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.27 A 0.53 A 0.76 C 0.89 D 1.06 F 31 Phoenix Club Dr & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.34 A 0.43 A 0.62 B 0.49 A 0.67 B 32 Struck Ave & Katella Ave Orange 0.24 A 0.32 A 0.39 A 0.40 A 0.47 A 33 Main St & Taft Ave Orange 0.42 A 0.43 A 0.43 A 0.42 A 0.43 A 34 Main St & Katella Ave Orange 0.32 A 0.40 A 0.46 A 0.46 A 0.52 A 35 Main St & Struck Ave Orange 0.27 A 0.33 A 0.38 A 0.36 A 0.42 A 36 Batavia St & Taft Ave Orange 0.39 A 0.41 A 0.42 A 0.41 A 0.42 A 37 Batavia St & Katella Ave Orange 0.35 A 0.39 A 0.42 A 0.44 A 0.47 A 38 Glassell St & Taft Ave Orange 0.45 A 0.47 A 0.49 A 0.47 A 0.49 A 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-27  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-11 2011 Baseline PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project With No EventsWith AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Intersection JurisdictionICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 39 Glassell St & Katella Ave Orange 0.45 A 0.49 A 0.52 A 0.52 A 0.55 A 40 Schaffer St & Katella Ave Orange 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.39 A 0.41 A 41 Cambridge St & Katella Ave Orange 0.42 A 0.44 A 0.46 A 0.47 A 0.49 A 42 Tustin St & Katella Ave Orange 0.62 B 0.62 B 0.65 B 0.64 B 0.63 B 43 SR-55 SB ramps & Katella Ave* Orange 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.80 C 44 SR-55 NB ramps & Katella Ave* Orange 0.77 C 0.78 C 0.79 C 0.80 C 0.81 D *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-28  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis5. Environmental Analysis Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-2 Honda Center Trip Distribution 0 1 Scale (Miles) Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-30  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 5. Environmental Analysis 2011 Baseline No Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-3 0 1 Scale (Miles) 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 2929 3030 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 SANTA ANA RIVERORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-32  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 5. Environmental Analysis 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-4 0 1 Scale (Miles) 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 2929 3030 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-34  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 5. Environmental Analysis 2011 Baseline with Concurrent Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-5 0 1 Scale (Miles) 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 2929 3030 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-36  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 5. Environmental Analysis 2011 Baseline with Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-6 0 1 Scale (Miles) 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 2929 3030 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-38  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-7 0 1 Scale (Miles) 30302929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-40  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-41 Arterial Segment Analysis Daily Segment LOS Table 5.5-12 presents average daily traffic (ADT) V/C ratios and LOS results for the five 2011 Baseline Condition traffic analysis scenarios for all the study area roadway segments: 1) 2011 Baseline (No Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2011 Baseline with Project 5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The analysis is based on the traffic counts collected in April 2011 and August 2011. As shown in Table 5.5-12, 15 out of 16 study arterial segments were found to operate within acceptable LOS under the first three traffic analysis scenarios. Although the arterial segment on Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Southbound Ramps was found to operate at LOS E, it is not considered deficient. Katella Avenue is identified in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) as a CMP arterial. Per CMP guidelines, arterial segments operating at LOS E identified within the CMP are considered operating at an acceptable level of service. The only roadway segment that was found to operate at deficient conditions is Ball Road - Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps. In addition to the deficient segment above, a second deficient condition was found at Katella Avenue – Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps under the fourth and fifth scenario (2011 Baseline with Project, and 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event). The two deficiencies, all within the City of Anaheim, are shown below:  Ball Road - Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps Peak Hour Segment LOS The City of Anaheim further evaluates deficient daily arterial segments during peak hours to evaluate peak hour traffic operations, which is often a more appropriate indicator of traffic operations and improvement requirements. A PM peak hour analysis was performed for each of the study segments identified as deficient under the daily arterial LOS analysis. Table 5.5-13 presents peak hour activity between 6:00-7:00 PM for each study segment. A review of the table shows that all three of the study segments operate within acceptable LOS. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-42  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-43  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-12 2011 Baseline Arterial Segment Daily LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID From To Jurisdiction Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Ball Road A-1 Sunkist St SR-57 SB ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 50,970 0.91 E 52,630 0.93 E 52,630 0.93 E 53,760 0.95 E 53,760 0.95 E A-2 SR-57 NB ramps Phoenix Club Dr Anaheim 6D 56,300 31,660 0.56 A 33,730 0.60 A 33,730 0.60 A 35,140 0.62 B 35,140 0.62 B Cerritos Ave A-3 Sunkist St Douglass Rd Anaheim 4U 25,000 4,270 0.17 A 5,780 0.23 A 5,780 0.23 A 6,800 0.27 A 6,800 0.27 A Douglass Rd A-4 Katella Ave Cerritos Ave Anaheim 4U 25,000 7,040 0.28 A 10,120 0.40 A 10,120 0.40 A 12,220 0.49 A 12,220 0.49 A Katella Ave A-5** Lewis St State College Blvd Anaheim 6D 56,300 33,500 0.60 A 34,120 0.61 B 35,460 0.63 B 34,540 0.61 B 35,880 0.64 B A-6** State College Blvd Howell Ave Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,130 0.61 B 35,310 0.63 B 37,720 0.67 B 36,110 0.64 B 38,520 0.68 B A-7** Howell Ave SR-57 SB ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 52,030 0.92 E 55,550 0.99 E 55,550 0.99 E 57,930 1.03 F 57,930 1.03 F A-8** SR-57 SB ramps SR-57 NB ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,720 0.62 B 38,170 0.68 B 39,540 0.70 B 40,500 0.72 C 41,870 0.74 C A-9** SR-57 NB ramp Douglass Rd Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,470 0.61 B 39,970 0.71 C 42,910 0.76 C 43,690 0.78 C 46,630 0.83 D A-10** Douglass Rd Struck Ave Anaheim 6D 56,300 29,480 0.52 A 32,820 0.58 A 33,600 0.60 A 35,090 0.62 B 35,870 0.64 B A-11* Struck Ave Main St Orange 6D 56,300 23,170 0.41 A 24,840 0.44 A 24,840 0.44 A 25,970 0.46 A 25,970 0.46 A A-12* Main St Batavia St Orange 6D 56,300 25,630 0.46 A 26,630 0.47 A 26,630 0.47 A 27,310 0.49 A 27,310 0.49 A 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-44  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-12 2011 Baseline Arterial Segment Daily LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID From To Jurisdiction Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Main St A-13 Katella Ave Struck Ave Orange 4U 24,000 15,000 0.40 A 15,640 0.42 A 17,030 0.45 A 16,080 0.43 A 17,470 0.47 A Phoenix Club Dr A-14 Honda Center Ball Rd Anaheim 2U 12,500 3,470 0.28 A 5,220 0.42 A 5,360 0.43 A 6,410 0.51 A 6,550 0.52 A State College Blvd A-15 Howell Ave Katella Ave Anaheim 6D 56,300 21,030 0.37 A 21,590 0.38 A 21,810 0.39 A 21,970 0.39 A 22,190 0.39 A Sunkist St A-16 Cerritos Ave Ball Rd Anaheim 4U 25,000 6,790 0.27 A 7,870 0.31 A 7,870 0.31 A 8,600 0.34 A 8,600 0.34 A * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement ** CMP arterial. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP arterial. AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-45  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-13 Existing Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID From To Jurisdiction. Mid-Block Lanes ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Ball Road A - 1 Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 2,824 0.52 A 3,169 0.58 A 3,169 0.58 A 3,402 0.62 B 3,402 0.62 B Katella Avenue A - 7 Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 2,772 0.42 A 3,599 0.54 A 4,495 0.68 B 4,159 0.63 B 5,055 0.76 C * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-46  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-47 Caltrans Facility Peak Hour Analysis Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis As shown in the Table 3-4 in the traffic study (Appendix E) all study area ramp termini intersections were found to operate at acceptable LOS under the first four scenarios. Under the fifth scenario (2011 Baseline with Project and Angel Stadium Event) the ramp termini intersection of SR 57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue was found to operate at a deficient condition. Freeway Weaving Analysis Table 5.5-14 summarizes the results for the weaving areas during the PM peak hour. All of the study weaving segments operate at LOS D or better under the five 2011 baseline traffic analysis scenarios. Freeway Mainline Analysis Table 5.5-15 summarizes the results for the densities and levels of service for three freeway mainline segments in the PM peak hour. Similar to the freeway weaving analysis results, all the study freeway mainline segments operate at an acceptable LOS under the five 2011 Baseline traffic analysis scenarios. Freeway Ramp Analysis Table 5.5-16 summarizes the results for the study ramps in the PM peak hours under Existing Conditions. The HCM reports a density based on the existing freeway mainline segment and ramp merge/diverge volumes. According to the analysis, all the study ramps operate at an acceptable LOS under Existing with No Events and Existing with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenarios. When Average Attendance Honda Center Event overlaps with an Angel Stadium Event (i.e., Existing with Concurrent Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event scenario), the following ramp becomes deficient due to insufficient capacity on the off-ramp:  SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue This ramp is the major freeway exit for the event trips coming from the North to access either Honda Center or Angel Stadium. Under Existing with Sell Out Honda Center Event scenario, the ramps operate within an acceptable LOS. However, the SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue operates deficiently under Existing Concurrent with Sell Out Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event scenario. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-48  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-49  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-14 2011 Baseline Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS W-1 I-5 SB btwn Lincoln Ave On-Ramp& Disneyland Dr Off-Ramp 3,060 Not Applicable W-2 I-5 SB btwn Disneyland Dr On-Ramp & Harbor Blvd Off Ramp 1,520 24.4 C 27.1 C 29.1 C 27.2 C 29.2 C W-3 I-5 SB btwn Harbor Blvd On-Ramp & Disney Way Off-Ramp 2,650 Not Applicable W-4 SR-57 NB btwn Chapman Ave On-Ramp & Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 1,230 22.0 B 23.0 B 23.0 B 23.9 B 23.9 B W-5 SR-57 NB btwn Orangewood Ave On-Ramp & Katella Ave Off-Ramp 1,360 22.4 B 25.5 C 26.6 C 27.0 C 28.2 C SR-57 NB btwn Katella Ave On-Ramp & Ball Rd Off-Ramp 2,130 31.0 C 31.5 C 31.9 C 31.8 C 32.2 D W-6 SR-57SB btwn Ball Rd On-Ramp & Katella Ave Off-Ramp 2,490 26.0 C 27.1 C 34.3 D 27.7 C 35.1 D W-7 SR-57 SB btwn Lincoln Ave On-Ramp& Ball Rd Off-Ramp 5,160 Not Applicable W-8 SR-57 SB btwn SR-91 WB Connector & Lincoln Ave Off-Ramp 1,620 22.9 B 23.7 B 27.1 C 24.1 C 27.5 D Source: City of Anaheim, PeMS AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-50  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-15 2011 Baseline Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Freeway Segment Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS F-1 I-5 SB btwn Lincoln Ave & Disneyland Dr 20.3 C 20.5 C 21.2 C 20.6 C 21.2 C F-2 I-5 SB btwn Harbor Blvd & Disney Way 21.4 C 21.6 C 22.7 C 21.6 C 22.8 C F-3 SR-57 SB btwn Ball Rd & Lincoln Ave 22.5 C 23.1 C 25.4 C 23.3 C 25.6 C Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans, PeMS AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-51  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-16 2011 Baseline Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Ramp Segment Ramp # Lanes Density (pm/mi/ln)LOS Density (pm/mi/ln)LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS R-1 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/ Katella Ave* 2 26.9 C 26.9 C 26.9 C 26.9 C 26.9 C R-2 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Ave/ Orangewood Ave* 2 27.8 C 28.0 C 28.8 D 28.0 D 28.9 D R-3 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Ave 1 24.5 C 28.9 D 30.8 D 30.9 D 32.7 D R-4 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Ball Rd 1 31.5 D 32.2 D 32.2 D 32.6 D 32.6 D R-5 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Ball Rd 1 26.9 C 29.9 D 32.3 D 31.2 D 33.6 D R-6 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Ave 1 26.9 C 28.6 D >Capacity F 29.4 D >Capacity F * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans, PeMS AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-52  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-53 5.5.3.3 2013 Opening Year Intersection Analysis (2013) Table 5.5-17 presents LOS results for the 44 study intersections for the five analysis scenarios under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. The same existing lane geometries were assumed in the LOS analyses. A review of the table reveals that despite the addition of ambient growth, the 2013 traffic conditions are generally similar to the existing traffic conditions in that all of the study area intersections operate within acceptable LOS under the first four scenarios. The only intersection was found to operate at deficient conditions under 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario shown below:  Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Figure 5.5-8 through 5.5-12 identify the study intersections that operate at a deficient LOS during the PM peak hour under 2013 Opening Year conditions. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-54  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-55  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-17 2013 Opening Year Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 1 Harbor Blvd & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.65 B 0.65 B 0.66 B 0.67 B 0.68 B 2 Clementine St & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.58 A 3 Anaheim Blvd & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.60 A 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.60 A 0.61 B 4 Anaheim Blvd & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.60 A 0.61 B 5 Anaheim Blvd & Haster St/Katella Ave Anaheim 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.54 A 6 Manchester Ave (I-5 SB ramps) & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.57 A 0.54 A 0.57 A 0.60 A 0.61 B 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 NB ramps) & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.48 A 0.50 A 0.53 A 0.60 A 0.63 B 8 Lewis St & Ball Road Anaheim 0.36 A 0.36 A 0.37 A 0.36 A 0.37 A 9 Lewis St & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.25 A 0.25 A 0.25 A 0.25 A 0.26 A 10 Lewis St & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.48 A 0.49 A 0.50 A 0.49 A 0.53 A 11 I-5 HOV ramps & Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 A 0.07 A 0.08 A 0.10 A 0.11 A 12 East St & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.44 A 0.44 A 0.45 A 0.44 A 0.45 A 13 State College Blvd & Ball Road Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.59 A 0.60 A 14 State College Blvd & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.28 A 0.30 A 0.32 A 0.40 A 0.42 A 15 State College Blvd & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.41 A 0.51 A 0.59 A 0.75 C 0.82 D 16 State College Blvd & Gateway Center Dr Anaheim 0.27 A 0.30 A 0.32 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 17 State College Blvd & Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.24 A 0.26 A 0.28 A 0.77 C 0.79 C 18 State College Blvd & Orangewood Ave Anaheim/ Orange 0.35 A 0.37 A 0.38 A 0.53 A 0.54 A 19 State College Blvd & I-5 NB ramps Orange 0.29 A 0.30 A 0.30 A 0.40 A 0.40 A 20 State College Blvd & I-5 SB ramps Orange 0.28 A 0.28 A 0.29 A 0.34 A 0.34 A 21 State College Blvd & The City Dr/Chapman Ave Orange 0.52 A 0.53 A 0.54 A 0.63 B 0.63 B 22 Sportstown & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.36 A 0.44 A 0.51 A 0.58 A 0.66 B 23 Sunkist St & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.61 B 0.66 B 0.69 B 0.67 B 0.73 C 24 Sunkist St & Cerritos Ave Anaheim 0.21 A 0.27 A 0.32 A 0.29 A 0.34 A 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-56  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-17 2013 Opening Year Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 25 Howell Ave & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.38 A 0.45 A 0.52 A 0.49 A 0.56 A 26 SR-57 SB ramps & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.50 A 0.66 B 0.76 C 0.67 B 0.77 C 27 SR-57 SB ramps & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.40 A 0.54 A 0.64 B 0.73 C 0.86 D 28 SR-57 NB ramps & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.47 A 0.56 A 0.62 B 0.56 A 0.62 B 29 SR-57 NB ramps & Katella Ave* Anaheim 0.30 A 0.47 A 0.65 B 0.61 B 0.79 C 30 Douglass Rd & Katella Ave Anaheim 0.29 A 0.55 A 0.76 C 0.90 D 1.06 F 31 Phoenix Club Dr & Ball Rd Anaheim 0.36 A 0.44 A 0.63 B 0.49 A 0.68 B 32 Struck Ave & Katella Ave Orange 0.26 A 0.34 A 0.41 A 0.42 A 0.49 A 33 Main St & Taft Ave Orange 0.46 A 0.47 A 0.47 A 0.46 A 0.47 A 34 Main St & Katella Ave Orange 0.35 A 0.43 A 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.54 A 35 Main St & Struck Ave Orange 0.28 A 0.35 A 0.40 A 0.39 A 0.44 A 36 Batavia St & Taft Ave Orange 0.42 A 0.44 A 0.45 A 0.44 A 0.45 A 37 Batavia St & Katella Ave Orange 0.38 A 0.42 A 0.45 A 0.47 A 0.50 A 38 Glassell St & Taft Ave Orange 0.49 A 0.51 A 0.53 A 0.51 A 0.53 A 39 Glassell St & Katella Ave Orange 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.56 A 0.56 A 0.59 A 40 Schaffer St & Katella Ave Orange 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.42 A 0.44 A 41 Cambridge St & Katella Ave Orange 0.46 A 0.48 A 0.50 A 0.51 A 0.53 A 42 Tustin St & Katella Ave Orange 0.67 B 0.67 B 0.71 C 0.71 C 0.70 B 43 SR-55 SB ramps & Katella Ave* Orange 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.88 D 44 SR-55 NB ramps & Katella Ave* Orange 0.84 D 0.85 D 0.86 D 0.87 D 0.88 D *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2013 Opening Year with No Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-8 0 1 Scale (Miles) 30302929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-58  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-9 0 1 Scale (Miles) 2929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE 3030 SANTA ANA RIVER 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-60  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOSConcurrent Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-10 0 1 Scale (Miles) 2929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE 3030 SANTA ANA RIVER 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-62  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2013 Opening Year with Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-11 0 1 Scale (Miles) 2929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE 3030 SANTA ANA RIVER 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-64  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-12 0 1 Scale (Miles) 30302929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-66  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-67 Arterial Segment Analysis (2013) Daily Segment LOS Table 5.5-18 presents ADT, V/C ratio, and LOS for the 16 study arterial segments for the five scenarios under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. As shown in the table, 14 out of 16 study arterial segments operate within acceptable LOS under the five 2013 Opening Year traffic analysis scenarios. The two roadway segments that operate at deficient conditions are the following:  Ball Road between Sunkist Street and the SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and the SR-57 Southbound Ramps Peak Hour Segment LOS The City of Anaheim further evaluates deficient daily arterial segments during peak hours to evaluate peak hour traffic operations, which is often a more appropriate indicator of traffic operations and improvement requirements. Therefore, for each of the study segments that were deficient under the daily analysis, a PM peak hour analysis was prepared for the five analysis scenarios. Table 5.5-19 presents peak hour activity between 6:00-7:00 PM for each study segment. As shown in the table all of the study segments operate within acceptable LOS. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-68  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-69  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-18 2013 Opening Year Arterial Segment Daily LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project No Event AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID From To Jurisdiction. Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Ball Road A-1 Sunkist St SR-57 SB ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 56,070 1.00 E 57,730 1.03 F 57,730 1.03 F 58,860 1.05 F 58,860 1.05 F A-2 SR-57 NB ramps Phoenix Club Dr Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,830 0.62 B 36,900 0.66 B 36,900 0.66 B 38,310 0.68 B 38,310 0.68 B Cerritos Ave A-3 Sunkist St Douglass Rd Anaheim 4U 25,000 4,700 0.19 A 6,210 0.25 A 6,210 0.25 A 7,230 0.29 A 7,230 0.29 A Douglass Rd A-4 Katella Ave Cerritos Ave Anaheim 4U 25,000 7,740 0.31 A 10,820 0.43 A 10,820 0.43 A 12,920 0.52 A 12,920 0.52 A Katella Ave A-5** Lewis St State College Blvd Anaheim 6D 56,300 36,850 0.65 B 37,470 0.67 B 38,810 0.69 B 37,890 0.67 B 39,230 0.70 B A-6** State College Blvd Howell Ave Anaheim 6D 56,300 37,540 0.67 B 38,720 0.69 B 41,130 0.73 C 39,520 0.70 B 41,930 0.74 C A-7** Howell Ave SR-57 SB ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 57,230 1.02 F 60,750 1.08 F 60,750 1.08 F 63,130 1.12 F 63,130 1.12 F A-8** SR-57 SB ramps SR-57 NB ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 38,190 0.68 B 41,640 0.74 C 43,010 0.76 C 43,970 0.78 C 45,340 0.81 D A-9** SR-57 NB ramp Douglass Rd Anaheim 6D 56,300 37,920 0.67 B 43,420 0.77 C 46,360 0.82 D 47,140 0.84 D 50,080 0.89 D A-10** Douglass Rd Struck Ave Anaheim 6D 56,300 32,430 0.58 A 35,770 0.64 B 36,550 0.65 B 38,040 0.68 B 38,820 0.69 B A-11* Struck Ave Main St Orange 6D 56,300 25,490 0.45 A 27,160 0.48 A 27,160 0.48 A 28,290 0.50 A 28,290 0.50 A A-12* Main St Batavia St Orange 6D 56,30028,190 0.50 A 29,190 0.52 A 29,190 0.52 A 29,870 0.53 A 29,870 0.53 A Main St A-13 Katella Ave Struck Ave Orange 4U 24,000 16,500 0.44 A 17,140 0.46 A 18,530 0.49 A 17,580 0.47 A 18,970 0.51 A 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-70  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-18 2013 Opening Year Arterial Segment Daily LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project No Event AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID From To Jurisdiction. Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Phoenix Club Dr A-14 Honda Center Ball Rd Anaheim 2U 12,500 3,820 0.31 A 5,570 0.45 A 5,710 0.46 A 6,760 0.54 A 6,900 0.55 A State College Blvd A-15 Howell Ave Katella Ave Anaheim 6D 56,30023,130 0.41 A 23,690 0.42 A 23,910 0.42 A 24,070 0.43 A 24,290 0.43 A Sunkist St A-16 Cerritos Ave Ball Rd Anaheim 4U 25,0007,470 0.30 A 8,550 0.34 A 8,550 0.34 A 9,280 0.37 A 9,280 0.37 A * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement ** CMP arterial. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP arterial AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-71  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-19 2013 Opening Year Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project No Event AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID From To Jurisdiction. Mid-Block Lanes ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Ball Road A-1 Sunkist St SR-57 SB ramps Anaheim 6D 3,110 0.57 A 3,450 0.63 B 3,450 0.63 B 3,690 0.67 B 3,690 0.67 B Katella Ave A-7 Howell Ave SR-57 SB ramps Anaheim 6D 3,050 0.45 A 3,880 0.57 A 4,780 0.70 B 4,440 0.65 B 5,340 0.78 C * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement AA HC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-72  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-73 Caltrans Facility Peak Hour Analysis (2013) Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis Table 4-4 in the traffic study (Appendix E) indicates that all of the study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under the first four scenarios. The only location that operates at the failing condition is SR 57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue which occurs under the fifth scenario (2011 Baseline with Project and Angel Stadium Event scenario). Freeway Weaving Analysis Weaving analysis was performed using HCM methodology which provides density criteria by LOS for the weaving area within the freeway segment. A weaving analysis was conducted to determine if there was potential for vehicles travelling in the same direction to cross paths by changing lanes, thereby creating unsafe operating conditions. Table 5.5-20 presents the analysis results for the weaving areas during the PM peak hour under the Opening Year 2013 conditions. As indicated in the table, all the freeway weaving segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS in the five scenarios under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Freeway Mainline Analysis The freeway mainline evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. Freeway weaving segments with a weaving length exceeding 2,500 feet were analyzed as basic freeway segment using HCS. Table 5.5-21 summarizes the analysis results for three freeway mainline segments in the PM peak hour under the Opening Year 2013 conditions. Similar to the freeway weaving analysis results, all the study freeway mainline segments operate at acceptable LOS in the five scenarios under the Opening Year 2013conditions. Freeway Ramp Analysis The freeway ramp evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. The facility capacities are based on criteria outlined in the HCM and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Table 5.5-22 demonstrates the analysis results for the freeway ramps in the PM event peak hour under the Opening Year 2013 conditions. The HCM reports a density based on the forecast Year 2013 freeway mainline segment and ramp merge/diverge volumes. As indicated in table, all the study ramps operate at acceptable LOS under 2013 Opening Year with No Events scenario, 2013 Opening year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario, and 2013 Opening Year with Sell Out Honda Center Event scenario. However, similar to the Existing Conditions, the SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue is forecast to operate at LOS F under 2013 Opening Year with Concurrent Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event scenario. This ramp will remain deficient under 2013 Opening Year with Concurrent Sell Out Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event scenario. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-74  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-75  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-20 2013 Opening Year Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS 2013 Opening Year Without Project 2013 Opening Year With Project No Event AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length Density (pm/mi/ln)LOS Density (pm/mi/ln)LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS W-1 I-5 SB btwn Lincoln Ave On-Ramp& Disneyland Dr Off-Ramp 3,060 Not Applicable W-2 I-5 SB btwn Disneyland Dr On-Ramp & Harbor Blvd Off Ramp 1,520 26.6 C 29.6 C 31.4 C 29.7 C 31.5 C W-3 I-5 SB btwn Harbor Blvd On-Ramp & Disney Way Off-Ramp 2,650 Not Applicable W-4 SR-57 NB btwn Chapman Ave On-Ramp & Orangewood Ave Off-Ramp 1,230 22.2 B 23.4 B 23.4 B 24.0 B 24.0 B W-5 SR-57 NB btwn Orangewood Ave On-Ramp & Katella Ave Off-Ramp 1,360 24.1 C 27.1 C 28.1 C 28.4 C 29.6 C SR-57 NB btwn Katella Ave On-Ramp & Ball Rd Off-Ramp 2,130 24.5 C 24.8 C 25.0 C 24.9 C 25.2 C W-6 SR-57SB btwn Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Ave Off-Ramp 2,490 26.2 C 27.3 C 33.8 D 27.8 C 34.5 D W-7 SR-57 SB btwn Lincoln Ave On-Ramp& Ball Rd Off-Ramp 5,160 Not Applicable W-8 SR-57 SB btwn SR-91 WB Connector & Lincoln Ave Off-Ramp 1,620 23.2 C 24.0 C 27.1 C 24.3 C 27.4 C AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Not Applicable: weaving segment longer than 2,500 feet analyzed as basic freeway mainline 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-76  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-21 2013 Opening Year Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project No Event HC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Freeway Segment Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS F-1 I-5 SB btwn Lincoln Ave & Disneyland Dr 22.2 C 22.4 C 23.1 C 22.5 C 23.2 C F-2 I-5 SB btwn Harbor Blvd & Disney Way 23.5 C 23.7 C 24.8 C 23.8 C 24.9 C F-3 SR-57 SB btwn Ball Rd & Lincoln Ave 24.0 C 24.6 C 26.8 D 24.8 C 27.0 D AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-77  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-22 2013 Opening Year Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project With No Event With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Ramp Segment Ramp # Lanes Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS R-1 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/ Katella Ave* 2 28.1 D 28.1 D 28.1 D 28.1 D 28.1 D R-2 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Ave/ Orangewood Ave* 2 29.0 D 29.2 D 29.9 D 29.2 D 30.0 D R-3 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Ave 1 24.7 C 28.8 D 30.4 D 30.5 D 32.2 D R-4 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Ball Rd 1 31.7 D 32.4 D 32.4 D 32.7 D 32.7 D R-5 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Ball Rd 1 27.1 C 29.8 D 32.0 D 31.0 D 33.2 D R-6 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Ave 1 27.1 C 28.7 D >Capacity F 29.4 D >Capacity F * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-78  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-79 5.5.3.4 2030 Future Year 2030 Future Year baseline traffic activity was defined in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study for the study area intersection analysis, arterial analysis, and freeway analysis. In addition, the future baseline traffic also includes the trips generated by the commercial land use proposal on property owned by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) located on Ball Road and Phoenix Club Drive. The baseline traffic activity represents Honda Center non-event related traffic conditions while event related activity was derived using the methodologies described previously. It should be noted that the 2030 baseline traffic forecast are based on a typical PM peak hour traffic (4:00-6:00 PM) which doesn’t reflect the event peak hour (6:00 -7:00 PM). The intent of this approach is to capture the worst traffic scenario in the future conditions. The 2030 baseline network is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan circulation network and assumes all the proposed improvements in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which was adopted by the City Council in 2010, are built. The following scenarios are used for the 2030 Future Year analysis: 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Intersection Analysis The intersection analysis considers the effect that growth within the study area will have on the future circulation system. Table 5.5-23 presents PM peak hour LOS results for the 44 study intersections for the five scenarios under the 2030 Future conditions. Future General Plan lane geometries as well as the proposed roadway capacity enhancements in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study were assumed in the intersection analysis. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-80  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-81  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-23 2030 Future Year Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project With No EventsWith AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.95 E 0.95 E 0.95 E 0.95 E 0.95 E 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.90 D 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.94 E 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.87 D 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.92 E 0.95 E 0.93 E 0.96 E 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.71 C 0.75 C 0.84 D 0.77 C 0.86 D 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.78 C 0.81 D 0.88 D 0.83 D 0.91 E 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.91 E 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.96 E 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.84 D 0.87 D 0.95 E 0.90 D 0.98 E 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.76 C 0.77 C 0.80 C 0.77 C 0.80 C 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.86 D 0.86 D 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.94 E 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.76 C 0.85 D 0.76 C 0.85 D 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.91 E 1.18 F 0.95 E 1.22 F 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.78 C 0.80 C 0.93 E 0.82 D 0.93 E 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.73 C 0.73 C 1.41 F 0.73 C 1.41 F 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-82  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-23 2030 Future Year Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project With No EventsWith AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.90 D 0.91 E 1.05 F 0.92 E 1.06 F 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.74 C 0.74 C 0.85 D 0.74 C 0.85 D 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.80 C 0.81 D 0.86 D 0.81 D 0.86 D 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.80 C 0.82 D 0.90 D 0.83 D 0.91 E 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.83 D 0.94 E 0.88 D 0.99 E 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.97 E 1.04 F 1.08 F 1.09 F 1.13 F 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.81 D 0.93 E 0.94 E 1.02 F 1.04 F 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.89 D 0.92 E 0.97 E 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 1.00 E 1.22 F 1.22 F 1.36 F 1.36 F 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue*Anaheim 0.69 B 0.86 D 1.21 F 1.02 F 1.37 F 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.85 D 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.94 E 0.94 E 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue *Anaheim 0.79 C 0.96 E 1.06 F 1.08 F 1.18 F 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.88 D 1.23 F 1.50 F 1.48 F 1.74 F 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.46 F 1.60 F 1.62 F 1.69 F 1.71 F 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.81 D 0.92 E 1.00 E 0.99 E 1.08 F 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.97 E 0.97 E 0.97 E 0.98 E 0.98 E 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.85 D 0.91 E 0.96 E 0.97 E 1.02 F 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.71 C 0.78 C 0.81 D 0.83 D 0.86 D 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-83  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-23 2030 Future Year Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project With No EventsWith AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS ICU/ Delay (sec.) LOS 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.91 E 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.78 C 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.80 C 0.85 D 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.69 B 0.69 B 0.70 B 0.70 B 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.93 E 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.83 D 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.71 C 0.74 C 0.77 C 0.76 C 0.79 C 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 1.00 E 1.00 E 1.00 E 1.00 E 1.00 E 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 1.08 F 1.08 F 1.08 F 1.08 F 1.08 F 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 1.01 F 1.01 F 1.01 F 1.01 F 1.01 F * CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-84  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-85 Scenario 1: 2030 Future Year (No Events) Table 5.5-23 shows that the high future traffic growth within study area is projected to deteriorate the circulation system with 12 out of 44 study intersections forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS under the 2030 Future Year (No Events) scenario. Although the intersection Harbor Boulevard/Katella Avenue is forecast to operate at LOS E, it is not considered deficient. This intersection is identified in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) as a CMP intersection. Per CMP guidelines, intersections operating at LOS E identified within CMP are considered operating at an acceptable level of service. All deficient intersections are listed below:  Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road  Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue  State College Boulevard / Ball Road  Sunkist Street / Ball Road  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road  Main Street / Taft Avenue  Batavia Street / Taft Avenue  Glassell Street / Katella Avenue  Tustin Street / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Scenario 2: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event In addition to those deficient intersections above for Scenario 1, the LOS analysis results show 7 additional intersections that operate at unacceptable LOS under the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario. The intersection SR-57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue is also forecast to operate at LOS E but it is not considered deficient as it is a CMP intersection. All deficient intersections are listed below:  Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road  Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue  Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue  State College Boulevard / Ball Road  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue  Sunkist Street / Ball Road  Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road  Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue  Main Street / Taft Avenue  Main Street / Katella Avenue  Batavia Street / Taft Avenue 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-86  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  Glassell Street / Katella Avenue  Tustin Street / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Scenario 3: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event In addition to those deficient intersections under Scenarios 1 and 2, the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario results in 6 additional deficient intersections. All deficient intersections are shown below:  Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road  Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue  Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue  Lewis Street / Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / Ball Road  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive  State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue  Sportstown / Katella Avenue  Sunkist Street / Ball Road  Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue  Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road  Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue  Main Street / Taft Avenue  Main Street / Katella Avenue  Batavia Street / Taft Avenue  Glassell Street / Katella Avenue  Tustin Street / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Scenario 4: 2030 Future Year with Project Table 5.5-23 reveals that the implementation of the project results in LOS deterioration of 5 intersections addition to those already operate at failing conditions under Scenarios 1 and 2. All deficient intersections are show in the following:  Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road  Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-87  Lewis Street / Ball Road  Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue  State College Boulevard / Ball Road  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue  Sunkist Street / Ball Road  Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue  Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road  Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue  Main Street / Taft Avenue  Main Street / Katella Avenue  Batavia Street / Taft Avenue  Glassell Street / Katella Avenue  Tustin Street / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Scenario 5: 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event In addition to those deficient intersections under Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4, the 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario results in one additional intersection that is deficient. The intersection of Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue is also forecast to operate at LOS E but it is not considered deficient as it is a CMP intersection. All deficient intersections are shown below:  Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road  Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue  Lewis Street / Ball Road  Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue  Lewis Street / Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / Ball Road  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive  State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue  State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue  Sportstown / Katella Avenue  Sunkist Street / Ball Road  Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-88  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road  Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue  Main Street / Taft Avenue  Main Street / Katella Avenue  Batavia Street / Taft Avenue  Glassell Street / Katella Avenue  Tustin Street / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Figure5.5-13 through Figure 5.5-17 identify the study intersections LOS that operate at a deficient LOS during the PM peak hour under 2030 Future conditions. Arterial Segment Analysis Daily Arterial Segment LOS Analysis Table 5.5-24 presents the ADT, V/C ratios, and LOS for all 16 study arterial segments for the five scenarios under the 2030 Future conditions. Scenario 1: 2030 Future Year (No Events) With the high growth forecast in the study area, the table indicates the following twelve (12) arterial segments operate at a deficient LOS under the 2030 Future Year (No Events); nine (9) of which are located within the City of Anaheim, while the other three (3) are located within the City of Orange:  Ball Road - Sunkist Street to the SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive  Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue  Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to the SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to the SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road  Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue  Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Avenue  Katella Avenue - Main Avenue to Batavia Street  Main Street - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Road  State College Boulevard- Howell Avenue to Katella Avenue 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-89  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-24 2030 Future Year Arterial Segment Daily LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Arterial From To JurisdictionMid-Block Lanes CapacityADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 69,300 1.23 F 70,960 1.26 F 70,960 1.26 F 72,090 1.28 F 72,090 1.28 F A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive Anaheim 6D 56,300 76,240 1.35 F 78,310 1.39 F 78,310 1.39 F 79,720 1.42 F 79,720 1.42 F A - 3 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 4D 37,500 27,370 0.73 C 28,880 0.77 C 28,880 0.77 C 29,900 0.80 C 29,900 0.80 C A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 4D 37,500 28,920 0.77 C 32,000 0.85 D 32,000 0.85 D 34,100 0.91 E 34,100 0.91 E A - 5 Katella Avenue** Lewis Street State College Blvd Anaheim 8D 75,000 58,640 0.78 C 59,260 0.79 C 60,600 0.81 D 59,680 0.80 C 61,020 0.81 D A - 6 Katella Avenue** State College Blvd Howell Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 62,760 1.11 F 63,940 1.14 F 66,350 1.18 F 64,740 1.15 F 67,150 1.19 F A - 7 Katella Avenue** Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 71,760 1.27 F 75,280 1.34 F 75,280 1.34 F 77,660 1.38 F 77,660 1.38 F A - 8 Katella Avenue** SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 67,240 1.19 F 70,690 1.26 F 72,060 1.28 F 73,020 1.30 F 74,390 1.32 F A - 9 Katella Avenue** SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road Anaheim 6D 56,300 63,070 1.12 F 68,570 1.22 F 71,510 1.27 F 72,290 1.28 F 75,230 1.34 F A - 10 Katella Avenue** Douglass Road Struck Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 72,170 1.28 F 75,510 1.34 F 76,290 1.36 F 77,780 1.38 F 78,560 1.40 F A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street Orange 6D 56,300 63,840 1.13 F 65,510 1.16 F 65,510 1.16 F 66,640 1.18 F 66,640 1.18 F A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street Orange 6D 56,300 52,950 0.94 E 53,950 0.96 E 53,950 0.96 E 54,630 0.97 E 54,630 0.97 E A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue Orange 4U 37,500 34,840 0.93 E 35,480 0.95 E 36,870 0.98 E 35,920 0.96 E 37,310 0.99 E A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 2U 12,500 39,100 3.13 F 40,850 3.27 F 40,990 3.28 F 42,040 3.36 F 42,180 3.37 F A - 15 State College Blvd Howell Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 47,580 0.85 D 48,140 0.86 D 48,360 0.86 D 48,520 0.86 D 48,740 0.87 D A - 16 Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 4U 25,000 14,320 0.57 A 15,400 0.62 B 15,400 0.62 B 16,130 0.65 B 16,130 0.65 B * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement ** CMP arterial. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP arterial AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-90  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2030 Future Year No Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-13 0 1 Scale (Miles) 30302929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-92  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2424 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4242 4343 4444 1717 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-14 0 1 Scale (Miles) 2929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER3030 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-94  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4343 4444 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOSConcurrent Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-15 0 1 Scale (Miles) 2929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER3030 1717 2424 4242 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-96  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4343 4444 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2030 Future Year with Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-16 0 1 Scale (Miles) 2929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER3030 1717 2424 4242 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-98  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff 2012 33 88 99 1111 1515 1616 1818 1919 2020 2121 2222 2323 2525 2626 2727 2828 3131 3232 3333 3434 3535 3636 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 4343 4444 1212 1313 1414 55 44 2211 5. Environmental Analysis 2030 Future Year with Project and Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS Concurrent Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-17 0 1 Scale (Miles) 2929 ORANGE SANTA ANA ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA RIVER3030 1717 2424 4242 66 101077 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-100  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-101 Scenario 2: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event In addition to those deficient segments above for Scenario 1 above, the LOS analysis results show one additional segments that operate at unacceptable LOS under 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario which is Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue. All deficient segments are shown in the following, and 10 of which are located within the City of Anaheim, while the other three are within the City of Orange:  Ball Road- Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive  Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue  Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue  Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road  Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue  Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Avenue  Katella Avenue - Main Avenue to Batavia Street  Main Street - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center and Ball Road  State College Boulevard- Howell Avenue to Katella Avenue Scenario 3: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Under the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario, no more deficiency identified in addition to the deficient segments above for Scenario 1 and 2. All deficient segments are shown in the following, and 10 of which are located within the City of Anaheim, while the other three are within the City of Orange:  Ball Road- Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive  Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue  Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue  Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Northbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road  Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue  Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Avenue  Katella Avenue - Main Avenue to Batavia Street  Main Street - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center and Ball Road  State College Boulevard- Howell Avenue to Katella Avenue 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-102  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Scenario 4: 2030 Future Year with Project Table 5.5-24 indicates that those deficient segments above for Scenario 1 and 2 continue to operate at the failing conditions under the 2030 Future Year with Project scenario. All deficient segments are shown in the following:  Ball Road- Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive  Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue  Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue  Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Northbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road  Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue  Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Avenue  Katella Avenue - Main Avenue to Batavia Street  Main Street - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center and Ball Road  State College Boulevard- Howell Avenue to Katella Avenue Scenario 5: 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Table 5.5-24 reveals that those segments are forecast to operate at deficient LOS under Scenarios 1, 2,3 and 4 continue to operate at the failing conditions under the 2030 Future Year with Project scenario. All deficient segments are shown in the following:  Ball Road- Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive  Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue  Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue  Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Northbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road  Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue  Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Avenue  Katella Avenue - Main Avenue to Batavia Street  Main Street - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center and Ball Road  State College Boulevard- Howell Avenue to Katella Avenue Peak Hour Arterial Segment LOS Analysis The City of Anaheim further evaluates deficient daily arterial segments during peak hours to evaluate peak hour traffic operations, which is often a more appropriate indicator of traffic operations and improvement requirements. Therefore, a PM peak hour analysis for each of the study segments that were deficient under the daily analysis was prepared for the five analysis scenarios and the results are shown in Table 5.5-25. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-103  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-25 2030 Future Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS EventWith Project With Projectand AS EventID Arterial From To JurisdictionMid-Block Lanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 5,520 0.76 C 5,860 0.80 C 5,860 0.80 C 6,100 0.8D 6,100 0.84 D A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive Anaheim 6D 7,200 0.92 E 7,870 1.00 E 7,870 1.00 E 8,330 1.06F 8,330 1.06 F A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 4D N/A 3,450 1.38 F 3,480 1.39 F 4,210 1.68F 4,240 1.69 F A - 5 Katella Avenue Lewis Street State College Blvd Anaheim 8D N/A N/A 5,290 0.85 D N/A 5,480 0.88 D A - 6 Katella Avenue State College Blvd Howell Avenue Anaheim 6D 4,120 0.72 C 4,530 0.79 C 5,080 0.89 D 4,810 0.84 D 5,360 0.94 E A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 4,550 0.60 A 5,380 0.72 C 6,280 0.83 D 5,940 0.79 C 6,840 0.91 E A - 8 Katella Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps Anaheim 6D 4,030 0.63 B 4,680 0.73 C 5,580 0.87 D 5,120 0.80 C 6,020 0.94 E A - 9 Katella Avenue SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road Anaheim 6D 4,970 0.78 C 6,190 0.97 E 7,060 1.11 F 7,010 1.10 F 7,880 1.23 F A - 10 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Struck Avenue Anaheim 6D 4,490 0.70 B 5,200 0.81 D 5,620 0.88 D 5,670 0.89 D 6,090 0.95 E A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 2U 3,290 2.22 F 3,780 2.55 F 3,830 2.58 F 4,120 2.78 F 4,170 2.81 F A - 15 State College Blvd Howell Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 6D 4,510 0.76 C 4,700 0.79 C 5,010 0.85 D 4,820 0.81 D 5,130 0.87 D N/A indicates the segment is not required in the peak hour arterial segment analysis as it is not deficient under daily analysis for the same scenario AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-104  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-105 Scenario 1: 2030 Future Year (No Events) Table 5.5-25 reveals that two arterial segment are forecast to operate at deficient LOS under the 2030 Future (No Events) scenario which are shown below:  Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive  Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Road Scenario 2: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event In addition to those deficient segments above for Scenario 1, the LOS analysis results show one additional segment that is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS under the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario. All deficient arterial segments are shown below: three scenarios below:  Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive  Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Scenario 3: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Those deficient segments identified under Scenario 1 and 2 continue to operate at deficient LOS with additional deficient segment under the 2030 Future with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. All deficiencies are the following:  Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive  Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road  Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Scenario 4: 2030 Future Year with Project Those deficient segments identified under Scenario 1, 2, and 3 continue to operate at failing conditions with the implementation of the project. All deficiencies under this scenario are the following:  Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive  Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road  Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Scenario 5: 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Those deficient segments identified under Scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4 continue to operate at failing conditions with four additional deficient segment under the 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. All deficient segments are shown in the following:  Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive  Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue  Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-106  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Northbound Ramps  Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road  Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue  Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Caltrans Facility Peak Hour Analysis Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis Freeway ramp termini intersections were also analyzed using Synchro (version 7.0) through the application of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology, per Caltrans requirements consistent with the analysis presented in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study. Table 5.5-26 presents the Synchro analysis results of peak hour delays and level of service for the 11 ramp termini intersections under the following 2030 Future Year analysis scenarios. 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The table indicates that while most of the study intersections operate at acceptable LOS there are two locations that are forecast to operate at failing conditions under the 2030 Future Year (No Events) scenario which are shown below:  Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue  SR-55 Southbound Ramps/Katella Avenue Under the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario, the same locations that are deficient under Scenario 1 remain deficient with one additional deficient intersection. All deficiencies are shown in the following:  Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  SR-55 Southbound Ramps/Katella Avenue In addition to those deficient intersections under Scenarios 1 and 2, the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario results in four additional deficient intersections. All deficient intersections are shown below: 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-107  Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue  Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Ave  SR-55 Southbound Ramps/Katella Avenue 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-108  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 In addition to those deficient intersections under Scenarios 1 and 2, the implementation of the project results in two additional deficient intersections. All deficient intersections under the 2030 Future Year with Project scenario are shown below:  Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Table 5.5-26 indicates that those deficient intersections under Scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4 continue to operate at the failing conditions under the 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. All deficient intersections are listed below:  Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue  Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-109 Table 5.5-26 2030 Future Year PM Peak Hour Ramp Termini Intersection LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 49.00 D 50.20 D 75.30 E 54.70 D 100.90 F 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 69.10 E 70.00 E 79.80 E 70.70 E 84.60 F 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 27.20 C 28.80 C 32.00 C 28.90 C 33.00 C 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 37.50 D 37.60 D 61.80 E 37.90 D 62.50 E 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 40.10 D 42.20 D 47.60 D 44.40 D 48.20 D 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 52.80 D 106.00 F 125.10 F 148.6 0 F 149.20 F 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 14.90 B 27.80 C 94.90 F 51.50 D 150.50 F 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 33.20 C 45.10 D 46.00 D 56.50 E 57.00 E 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 16.10 B 51.50 D 76.70 E 76.90 E 79.30 E 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 105.70 F 108.60 F 113.30 F 110.0 0 F 115.60 F 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 38.30 D 42.60 D 44.60 D 50.00 D 50.30 D Freeway Weaving Analysis Weaving analysis was performed using HCM methodology which provides density criteria by LOS for the weaving area within the freeway segment. Table 5.5-27 summarizes HCS analysis results for the weaving areas during the PM peak hour. For the freeway weaving segment that is longer than 2,500 feet, HCM requires the segment analyzed as the basic freeway segment. Under the 2030 Future Year (No Events) scenario, the following four (4) freeway weaving segments are forecast to become deficient:  I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp  SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp  SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp  SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-110  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 In addition to those deficiencies above, Table-5.5-27 reveals that the SR-57 northbound weaving section between the Orangewood Avenue on-ramp and the Katella Avenue off-ramp is also deficient under all of the following four scenarios:  2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event  2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event  2030 Future Year with Project  2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Freeway Mainline Analysis The freeway mainline evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. As noted previously, freeway weaving segments with a weaving length exceeding 2,500 feet were analyzed as basic freeway segment using HCS. Table 5.5-28 presents HCS analysis results for the densities and levels of service for the freeway mainline segments in the PM peak hour under 2030 Future Year conditions. None of the freeway mainline segments are forecast to perform deficiently under any of the 2030 Future Year scenarios. Freeway Ramp Analysis The freeway ramp evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. The facility capacities are based on criteria outlined in the HCM and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Table 5.5-29 summarizes HCM analysis results for the study area ramps in the PM peak hours under 2030 Future Year conditions. The HCM reports a density based on 2030 Future Year forecasted freeway mainline segment and ramp merge/diverge volumes. According to the analysis, the following freeway ramps are deficient in the PM peak conditions under 2030 Future Year (No Events) scenario: 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-111  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-27 2030 Future Year Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS W - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp 3,060 Not Applicable W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,520 38.7 E 39.1 E >Capacity F 39.2 E >Capacity F W - 3 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp 2,650 Not Applicable W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,230 30.6 C 31.9 C 31.9 C 32.5 D 32.5 D W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 1,360 35.2 D 38.8 E >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 2,130 >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F W - 6 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,490 >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F W - 7 SR-57 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 5,160 Not Applicable W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,620 36.8 E 37.7 E >Capacity F 38.0 E >Capacity F AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Not Applicable: weaving segment longer than 2,500 feet analyzed as basic freeway mainline 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-112  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-28 2030 Future Year Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project No Event AAHC Event With AAHC and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Freeway Segment Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS F-1 I-5 SB btwn Lincoln Ave & Disneyland Dr 29.4 D 29.6 D 30.3 D 29.7 D 30.4 D F-2 I-5 SB btwn Harbor Blvd & Disney Way 31.0 D 31.2 D 32.3 D 31.2 D 32.4 D F-3 SR-57 SB btwn Ball Rd & Lincoln Ave 27.8 D 28.4 D 30.6 D 28.6 D 30.9 D AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-113  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-29 2030 Future Year Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project No Event AAHC Event With AAHC and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ID Ramp Segment Ramp # Lanes Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS Density (pm/mi/ln) LOS R-1 I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/ Katella Ave* 2 >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F R-2 I-5 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Ave/ Orangewood Ave* 2 30.1 D 30.2 D 31.0 D 30.2 D 31.0 D R-3 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Katella Ave 1 34.1 D 38.1 E 39.8 E 39.9 E >Capacity F R-4 SR-57 NB Off-Ramp to Ball Rd 1 >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F R-5 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Ball Rd 1 34.1 D 36.8 E 39.0 E >Capacity F >Capacity F R-6 SR-57 SB Off-Ramp to Katella Ave 1 >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-114  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-115  I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road  SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue Table 5.5-29 indicates that those deficiencies above remain deficient throughout all the other four scenarios with two (2) additional ramps that are deficient. All deficient ramps are shown in the following:  I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road  SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue  SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road IMPACT 5.5-2 ADEQUATE PARKING IS PROVIDED ON AND IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE PROJECT SITE AND NO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY HAZARDS ARE ANTICIPATED. [THRESHOLD T-4] Impact Analysis: Events at Honda Center generate substantial pedestrian traffic, which is described in more detail below. Pedestrians traveling to and from events at Honda Center from offsite locations include those who travel from offsite parking to Honda Center or those who access Honda Center as a result of use of alternative modes of transportation (rail, bus, etc.). In both cases, these pedestrians would utilize existing pedestrian facilities, as they do currently. For those Honda Center patrons that take public transit, most would walk from the existing Anaheim Transit Station or the future ARTIC (on Douglass Road south of Katella Avenue) to Honda Center, crossing Katella Avenue en route. Opened in 1993, Honda Center was developed with a significant parking supply both on-site and off-site in the proximity to the venue. An agreement, referred to as the 1993 Consent, Traffic and Parking, and Non-Disturbance and Attornment Agreement, between the City and Anaheim Arena Management, LLC established the parking requirements and parking areas for Honda Center. This agreement specially identifies that Honda Center parking will be provided in two defined geographical areas, defined as Tier 1 and Tier 2. Figure 5.5-18 present the locations of Tier 1 and Tier 2 parking areas. Tier 1 area includes parking areas surrounding Honda Center that are bounded between Cerritos Avenue to the north, the Santa Ana River to the east, and SR-57 to the west. Tier 1 is targeted to provide not less than 3,900 parking spaces. The City of Anaheim has fulfilled its obligation to date, and in fact provide a total of 4,239 parking spaces within the Tier 1 area. The 4,239 parking spaces are made up as follows: 3,775 spaces provided within six on-site parking lots on the north side of Katella Avenue immediately surrounding the Honda Center building; 464 additional spaces provided off-site on a lot presently owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on the south side of Katella Avenue immediately across from the Honda Center. The parking on the OCTA property is secured through current leases and sublease agreements between the City, OCTA, and AAM. In addition to these 4,239 parking spaces, the City has indicated that AAM has secured a lease agreement with the adjacent Corporate Arena business park located just north of the venue for approximately 1,200 additional parking spaces. These additional spaces are assumed for use under peak event conditions. With this additional agreement, the total parking supply within Tier 1 is 5,439. The parking spaces are managed and available to patrons, event staff, and team members. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-116  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Parking for the Tier 2 area consists of three off-site parking areas that are within a reasonable walking distance of the facility. As shown in Figure 5.5-18 the designated parking areas include portions of Angel Stadium parking lots, and two business/commercial centers. One center is located west of SR-57 and generally bound by Katella Avenue on the north and the railroad tracks to the south. The second center is located immediately east of the Santa Ana River within the City of Orange and is generally bound by Katella Avenue on the south, the Santa Ana River on the west, Main Street on the east, and a private drive on the north. Under the Tier 2 requirement, the City shall not provide less than 1,500 spaces within the identified off-site parking lots. Pedestrian access between the Tier 2 off-site parking areas and Honda Center is provided by sidewalk along Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. Combining the Tier 2 area with those within Tier 1, there are approximately 6,939 parking spaces available to Honda Center. Not inventoried, but nonetheless important to the overall supply of parking available for Honda Center events, are the numerous privately-owned commercial/business area parking lots in the vicinity of Honda Center. As these lots have peak usage during typical weekday business hours (i.e. 7:00am – 5:00pm), they are generally underutilized during Honda Center evening events and weekend day events and therefore are being used as “entrepreneurial” parking lots for Honda Center. Pedestrian access between these lots and Honda Center is available along sidewalks on Katella Avenue. Patrons accessing the offsite parking areas and entrepreneurial lots would cross Katella Avenue to access Honda Center. The majority of these pedestrians would cross at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. Based on the parking demand of 6,877 spaces compared to the available parking supply of 6,939 spaces, there is a surplus of 62 parking spaces available for Honda Center. It is further noted that all inventoried parking spaces are assumed to be available for Honda Center for all additional events, therefore, the increase in number of annual events at Honda Center would not require any additional parking supply. Factoring in the regular practice and availability of additional entrepreneurial parking in the vicinity of Honda Center on event days, there is an extensive surplus of parking available for Honda Center. Traffic at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road during travel times to and from Honda Center events is controlled by active traffic management personnel, cones, and signage to effectively manage arriving and departing event-related traffic. In addition, this intersection is also controlled by uniformed police officers before, during, and after events. As stated previously, Honda Center implements a traffic management plan to actively manage arrival and departure of event-related traffic through operational and traffic control strategies. The traffic management plan is refined, as necessary, in the field to ensure efficient management of both pre- and post-event traffic operations. Mitigation Measure 5-4 requires that Honda Center prepare a new traffic management plan for the New Honda Center Events and present such plan to the City of Anaheim Traffic and Transportation Services Division for review and approval. The traffic management plan shall include signal and intersection control by uniformed police officers, signage, lane control, access control, and pedestrian control, to mitigate potential pedestrian safety impacts. 5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative traffic impacts, including regional growth and concurrent events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium, are addressed above in Impact 5.5-1 and 5.5-2. As identified above, events held at Honda Center and concurrent events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium result in cumulative deficiencies to intersections, arterials, and Caltrans’s facilities in the Study area, as described above. 5. Environmental Analysis5. Environmental Analysis Note: These figures indicate location of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Parking Lots, but do not represent lot boundaries. Location of Tier 1 Parking Area Location of Tier 2 Parking Area Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 5.5-18 On-And Off-Site Parking Supply 0 2,500 Scale (Feet) Source: Consent, Traffic and Parking and Non-Disturbance and Attorment Agreement between Ogden Facility Management Corporation of Anaheim, Disney Sports Enterprises Inc., and the City of Anaheim. 57 57 5 5 Tier 1 Katella AveKatella Ave Katella AveKatella Ave Santa Ana RiverSanta Ana RiverSanta Ana RiverSanta Ana RiverOrangewood AveOrangewood Ave Orangewood AveOrangewood Ave State College BlvdState College BlvdState College BlvdState College BlvdMain StMain StMain StMain StTier 2 Tier 2 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-118  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-119 5.5.5 Existing Regulations  Congestion Management Plan. OCTA is responsible for adopting the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for Orange County. The CMP is designed to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and transportation decisions. Proposition 111, passed by California voters in June 1990, provides funds to those urbanized areas that adopt a CMP. In Anaheim, the CMP roadway system includes seven streets (Harbor Boulevard, State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, Tustin Avenue, Orangethorpe Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and Imperial Highway) and 15 intersections. A CMP standard of LOS E must be met at these locations. If it is not met, the City is responsible for developing a deficiency plan for these intersections.  Renewed Measure M. Orange County voters approved the renewal of Measure M with 69.7 percent on Nov. 7, 2006. The half-cent sales tax, administered by OCTA, will provide more than $11.8 billion to improve transportation in Orange County over a 30-year period beginning in 2011. The Renewed Measure M project includes construction of a new northbound lane between Orangewood Avenue and Lambert Road on the SR-57 freeway. In addition to the planned SR-57 improvements, regional plans include new carpool ramps at Cerritos Avenue using federal and state funds. The following improvements are currently in the design and environmental stages with dedicated funding from OCTA through the Measure M Program.  SR-57 Northbound between Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment—addition of one general-purpose freeway lane from north of the SR-91 near Orangethorpe Avenue in Placentia to Lambert Road in Brea (The project is currently in the design phase and construction is scheduled to begin in fall 2010).  SR-57 Northbound from the Katella Avenue off-ramp to the Lincoln Avenue off-ramp— addition of auxiliary lane capacity–(entered the environmental phase in 2008 and construction is scheduled to follow approximately one year after the Orangethorpe Avenue to Lambert Road segment begins construction in late 2010 if project is approved).  Traffic Fee Program. Any development in the City of Anaheim is required to pay transportation impact fees per the Anaheim Municipal Code. These fees go towards the funding of the completion of the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. In addition, within the Platinum Triangle, any development shall participate in the Platinum Triangle Community Facilities District, which will fund infrastructure improvements throughout the Platinum Triangle, including transportation infrastructure requirements. As set forth above, the City shall sufficiently fund required Project related improvements. The City of Anaheim has historically utilized a variety of strategies to provide improvements to the citywide circulation system. The City currently has a traffic fee program in place to fund General Plan improvements assumed under build-out No Project and With Project conditions. The City has a long-standing policy that as development occurs throughout the City, traffic studies are prepared to demonstrate the need for implementation of the improvements identified in the General Plan, and developer fees and other local dedicated taxes will contribute to those improvements as needed. The fee, initially developed in 1993 and updated as needed to include new facilities and updated Capital Improvement Programs, provides a proper nexus between 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-120  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 increased development in the City and associated traffic impacts to the citywide circulation system. Developers contribute fees to the City, which uses the fund to implement circulation improvements in the City or as the City of Anaheim’s local match for leveraging funding from OCTA and Caltrans for circulation system improvements. Hence, the general plan improvements assumed in the build-out of the Platinum Triangle, prior to the approval of this plan, are expected to be paid for and implemented through the City’s existing traffic impact fee program. Community Facilities District. The City of Anaheim currently has a Community Facilities District (CFD) in place associated with development in the Platinum Triangle. All projects, regardless of size, are required to contribute to the CFD. The CFD is expected to contribute funds to all infrastructure needs in the Platinum Triangle, including transportation. The CFD is programmed to provide funding for improvements in the Platinum Triangle identified in EIR No. 339. 5.5.6 Level of Significance before Mitigation Without mitigation, Impacts 5.5-1 and 5.5-2 would be potentially significant. 5.5.7 Mitigation Measures The results of the traffic analysis indicate the proposed project would create some level of significant impact to the surrounding roadway system under each horizon year 2011 Baseline, 2013 Opening Year, and 2030 Future Year conditions. The more pronounced impacts by number of locations are identified in the 2030 Future Year scenarios. The following discussion is a presentation of recommended mitigation. The discussion includes details on mitigation methodology as well as detail on qualitative considerations taken. The principal objective of each recommended measure is to reduce each identified significant project impact to a less than significant level. Or, at a minimum for those locations that would already be or become deficient without the proposed project, improve the level of service at those impacted locations equivalent to the without project condition. Consistent with the impact analysis methodology presented in Chapter 6 of the traffic study (Appendix E), the recommended mitigation are identified for the following three comparisons: 1) No Events vs. Project 2) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project 3) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event It is noted that two distinct mitigation strategies have been considered. One strategy includes implementation of physical capacity improvements (e.g. additional lanes, modified lane configurations). The second strategy includes operational improvements designed to improve traffic flow (e.g. ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs, interconnect infrastructure upgrades). The second strategy generally applies to intersections that, with the project, would operate at LOS C or D (or LOS E at CMP intersections) yet are significantly impacted under the City’s criteria. These types of operational improvements do not increase capacity, but they can decrease the overall delay added at an intersection. Each strategy is consistent with industry practices as well as strategies previously accepted and employed in the project study area. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-121 Capacity improvements have been generally considered for locations where project related impacts are expected to deteriorate the volume to capacity ratio (i.e., V/C or LOS) of the facility to an unacceptable condition. Operational improvements have been considered for project impacts in which the volume to capacity ratio of the facility is reduced beyond City of Anaheim traffic impact analysis guideline tolerances but the facility is not deteriorated below the acceptable level of service standard. As the proposed project involves a “special generator” land use, operational improvements may also be considered most appropriate by the City if the identified traffic system impacts would be short in duration and/or outside of high peak traffic conditions. In addition, mitigation selected for this project should take into consideration the highly conservative project description assumptions (e.g. all new events at sold out conditions) taken in this study, which may result in an overestimation of realized project impacts. Intersection Mitigations Recommended intersection capacity improvements are generally based on a careful assessment of the calculated ICU, the projected volume of each critical movement (i.e. turns or through) by direction, and the available capacity of the facility for each movement and conflicting movements. Stated differently, a “critical movement” assessment is performed, where the critical movements are those conflicting movements with the combined highest V/C compared to the other set of opposing movements through the intersection. Since the sum of the V/C values of each critical movement defines the total ICU of an intersection, there could be more than one, or more than one combination, of improvement options that will mitigate an intersection impact. Selecting the additional through lane(s) and/or turning lanes as the appropriate mitigation is dependent upon whether the most impacted critical movement is a through or turning movement. In considering specific intersection improvement, the decision on where the additional lane capacities and lengths should be confined to, such as the intersection itself or to be extended along the feeding or distributing arterial(s) is an important step. An arterial auxiliary lane, which adds capacity to an intersection and the relatively short approach segment of feeding arterial into the intersection may drop at the intersection as a turn lane or as a combined through/right-turn lane. Each option provides a distinct and measurable ICU benefit. These options may be compared to adding an additional through lane that involves a full widening of the street and which extends from downstream and upstream intersections. Each improvement strategy should include consideration of the performance, proximity, and improvement needs of adjacent intersections. Mitigation Feasibility Consistent with the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies date 1996, mitigation measures recommended have been evaluated for implementation feasibility. Some key preliminary feasibility assessments consider consistency with established City standards, the availability of right-of-way, and potential impact to adjacent structures/utilities/adjacent land uses/other significant features. The feasibility assessment in part can involve a cost-effectiveness criterion; however, that level of assessment was not performed due to the lack to preliminary sketch plans, material quantities or unit cost details. For public works capital improvement projects, the need to acquire right-of-way from adjacent private or public properties to perform the improvement is a significant factor and is typically not preferred as this can cause significant delay in project implementation, can result in significant unexpected relocation and compensation cost for displaced residents and businesses, and may result in negative political and/or community feedback due to the acquisition process performed (e.g. eminent domain, condemnation). To the extent possible consideration should be given to accomplishing capacity improvements within existing right-of-way through reconfiguration and/or re-striping. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-122  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Concurrent Event Considerations Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Traffic Management as Mitigation Honda Center event related traffic has been a common occurrence in the study area for the past eighteen years. As such local businesses, residents and regular area commuters are familiar with the event related traffic activity. To mitigate event related traffic the City has elected to employ active traffic management personnel, cones and signage to effectively manage arriving and departing event related traffic. This alternative traffic mitigation strategy has proved to be an effective tool for current events. Given the Honda Center is a special traffic generator that creates traffic outside of the normal peak hour conditions, given these traffic conditions already commonly occur, and given many of the physical mitigation improvements identified for the Honda Center Enhancement Project may be practically infeasible due to right-of-way and other physical constrains, the continued use of active traffic management is recommended as mitigation for the Project. CEQA and Nexus It is noted that the mitigation measures identified and recommended are assumed to be in compliance with nexus and reasonableness requirements of CEQA. In particular, the mitigation recommended for currently deficient or projected deficient locations might not be sufficient to bring those locations to acceptable LOS but are intended to prevent further deterioration of the impact location. 5.5.7.1 Project Related Impacts and Mitigation Strategies To assess the traffic impacts associated with increasing the number of annual events from 162 to 222 at Honda Center, a total of five (5) scenarios under three horizon years were considered, as outlined below: 2011 Baseline Analytical Project Direct Impacts Scenario: 1) 2011 Baseline (No Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event12 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event13 12 Average Attendance Honda Center Event is assumed to be an average attendance event or 11,264 seats as described in the September 2, 2011 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 344 for Honda Center Enhancement Project. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. 13 Angel Stadium Event is assumed to be an average Angel Stadium baseball game attendance of 29,402 based on year 2010 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-123 4) 2011 Baseline with Project14 5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2013 Opening Year Analytical Impacts Scenario and Near-Term Impacts Scenario: 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2030 Future Year Long-Term Impacts Scenario (General Plan Buildout): 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Upon completion of the traffic conditions assessment for each scenario above, Project impacts and mitigation were identified through an evaluation of the following three comparisons of with and without Project conditions: 1) No Events vs. Project 2) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project 3) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Chapter 7 in the traffic study (Appendix E) provides a detailed analysis of Project-related mitigation and mitigation feasibility. This information is summarized below for the convenience of the reader. Intersections 2011 Baseline Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project The Comparison 1 under 2011 Baseline conditions indicates that two intersections located in the City of Anaheim will be significantly impacted by the project when the No Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario. Table 5.5-30 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility the recommended improvements. Based on the season attendance figures provided by the City of Anaheim. Traffic conditions are adjusted accordingly from traffic counts taken for the August 24, 2011 event. 14 Project is assumed to be an 18,900 seat sold out capacity condition. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-124  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 evaluation, the proposed improvements are feasible. Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project Table 5.5-30 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation under the Comparison 2. As shown in Table 5.5-30, two intersections identified as project related impact under the Comparison 1 are also significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the proposed improvements are feasible. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-125  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-30 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation With No Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.46 A 0.72 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.27 A 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.61 B 0.72 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.72 C 0.79 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.62 B 0.73 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.71 C 0.84 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.60 A 0.78 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 1.06 F 0.78 C Add 1 EBR Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Operational Improvements can include, but are not limited to, ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable i 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-126  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-127 Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, the project would significantly impact five study intersections. Each impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.5-30 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the proposed improvements at Douglass Road and Katella Avenue is deemed not feasible. It is further noted that this improvement is fully funded under the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan; however, construction of this improvement is not expected to occur before 2013. It is considered economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to require the project applicant to implement the mitigation measures in advance of the planned improvements. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. 2013 Opening Year Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project Table 5.5-31 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation under 2013 Opening Year Comparison 1. Two intersections identified as project related impact under 2011 Baseline Comparison 1 conditions will be continually significantly impacted by the project when the 2013 Opening Year Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the 2013 Opening Year Project scenario. Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project As indicated in Table 5.5-31, the same project related impact locations under the 2013 Opening Year Comparison 1 are also significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-128  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-129  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-31 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation With No Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.50 A 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.29 A 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.66 B 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.82 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.67 B 0.73 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.67 B 0.77 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 27 SR-57 SB Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.73 C 0.86 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.61 B 0.79 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 1.06 F 0.79 C Add 1 EBR Infeasible 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-130  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-31 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation With No Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Operational Improvements can include, but are not limited to ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-131 Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, the project would significantly impact six study intersections. Each impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.5-31 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the proposed improvements at the intersection of Douglass Road and Katella Avenue is deemed not feasible. It is further noted that this improvement is fully funded under the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan; however, construction of this improvement is not expected to occur before 2013. It is considered economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to require the project applicant to implement the mitigation measures in advance of the planned improvements. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. 2030 Future Year Conditions – City of Anaheim Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project The traffic analysis results indicate that 20 study intersections in the City of Anaheim would be significantly impacted by the project when the No Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 5.5-32 provides details on the impacted intersection location, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Table 5.5-32 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.86 D Add 1 WBT Infeasible 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.93 E 0.87 D Add 1 NBT Infeasible 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-132  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.5-32 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.71 C 0.77 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.78 C 0.83 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.83 D Add 1 EBR Infeasible 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.94 E 0.87 D Add 1 EBR, 1 EBL Infeasible 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.84 D 0.90 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.95 E 0.87 D Restripe EBL to EBT, Add 1 SBT Infeasible 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.78 C 0.82 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.90 D 0.92 E 0.87 D Restripe NBR to NBT Infeasible 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.88 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.97 E 1.09 F 0.90 D Add 1NBT, 1EBT Infeasible 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.81 D 1.02 F 0.81 D Add 1 NBR, 1WBR Infeasible 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.92 E 0.88 D Add 1 EBT Infeasible `2 6 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 1.00 E 1.36 F 0.86 D Add 1 SBL,1 WBT Infeasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.69 B 1.02 F 0.72 C Add 1 SBL, 1 EBT, 1 WBT Infeasible 28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.85 D 0.94 E 0.82 D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL, 1WBT Infeasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.79 C 1.08 F 0.78 C Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT Infeasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.88 D 1.48 F 0.90 D Add 1 NBL, 2 NBT, 1NBR, 2 SBT, 1 EBL, 1 WBT, 1WBR Infeasible 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.46 F 1.69 F 1.43 F Add 1 EBR Infeasible 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.86 D Add 1 WBT** Infeasible 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.92 E 0.93 E 0.87 D Add 1 NBT** Infeasible 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.84 D Add 1 EBR** Infeasible 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-133 Table 5.5-32 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.94 E 0.92 D Add 1 EBR Infeasible 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.95 E 0.89 D Add 1 SBT Infeasible 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.91 E 0.92 E 0.87 D Restripe NBR to NBT** Infeasible 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.83 D 0.88 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement** Feasible 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 1.04 F 1.09 F 1.00 D Add 1EBT Infeasible 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.93 E 1.02 F 0.89 D Add 1 WBR Infeasible 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.92 E 0.88 D Add 1 EBT** Infeasible 26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 1.22 F 1.36 F 1.01 D Add 1 SBL Infeasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.86 D 1.02 F 0.87 C Add 1 SBL Infeasible 28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.90 D 0.94 E 0.88 D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.96 E 1.08 F 0.86 C Add 1 WBT Infeasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 1.23 F 1.48 F 1.12 D Add I EBL, 1 WBR Infeasible 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.60 F 1.69 F 1.43 F Add 1 EBR** Infeasible 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.86 D Add 1 WBT** Infeasible 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.95 E 0.96 E 0.88 D Add 1 NBT** Infeasible 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.88 D 0.91 E N/A N/A Operational Improvement** Feasible 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.84 D Add 1 EBR** Infeasible 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 0.96 E 0.92 E Add 1 EBR** Infeasible 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.95 E 0.98 E 0.88 D Add 1 EBT Infeasible 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 1.18 F 1.22 F 1.12 F Add 1 SBT** Infeasible 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 1.05 F 1.06 F 0.99 E Restripe NBR to NBT** Infeasible 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 0.99 E 0.89 D Add 1 EBT Infeasible 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 1.08 F 1.13 F 1.03 F Add 1 EBT** Infeasible 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 1.04 F 0.90 D Add 1WBR** Infeasible 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 0.97 E 0.90 D Add 1 EBT** Infeasible 26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 1.22 F 1.36 F 1.01 F Add 1 SBL** Infeasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 1.21 F 1.37 F 1.02 F Add 1 SBL** Infeasible 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-134  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.5-32 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.90 D 0.94 E 0.88 D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL** Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 1.06 F 1.18 F 0.94 E Add 1 WBT** Infeasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 1.50 F 1.74 F 1.42 F Add 1 EBL, WBR** Infeasible 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.62 F 1.71 F 1.37 F Add 1 EBR, WBL** Infeasible *CMP intersection. LOS E is considered acceptable ** Same improvement as provided in either Comparison 1 or 2, or in both AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right- of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Anaheim intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints:  Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road – Add 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Ball Road.  Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue – Add 1 NBT The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Katella Avenue, and would require the demolition of an existing commercial building.  Lewis Street / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints of an adjacent industrial parcel, and would involve significant utility relocation.  Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 EBR, 1 EBL 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-135 The improvement at this intersection appears infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The right-of-way required for capacity improvement could significantly impact the Southern California Edison sub-station on the south side of Cerritos Avenue.  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue - Restripe EBL to EBT, Add 1 SBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the probable impact to a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for adding SBT lane would significantly impact a recently developed residential mixed-use development on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner.  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue - Restripe NBR to NBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the probable impact of entitled land uses on the northeast corner of the intersection. The potential right-of-way required for adding the NBT lane may go through the footprint of entitled high rise residential towers.  Sunkist Street / Ball Road - Add 1 NBT, 1 EBT The improvement at this intersection appears infeasible due to the probable impact to a number of existing businesses and residences.  Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 NBR, 1 WBR The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to proximity presence of the adjacent railroad. Adding WBR lane would likely require difficult right-of-way acquisition from the railroad, and may be infeasible based on presently unknown track clearance restriction. This mitigation measure will be feasible if the existing railroad right-of-way is abandoned by Union Pacific Railroad.  Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue – Add EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the right of way necessary to provide the sufficient lane width and sidewalk width. Significant earthwork is required, which would likely result in impact and removal of parking and the probable impact including demolition of a multistory office tower.  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road - Add 1 SBL,1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible and non-cost effective due to high cost of widening the SR 57/Ball Road crossing bridge span to accommodate the additional WBT lane.  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBL, 1 EBT, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the required right-of-way will significantly impact the existing business located along two sites of Katella Avenue. The improvement also requires the SR-57/Katella bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT and EBT receiving lane. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-136  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road - Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1 NBL, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible and non-cost effective due to high cost of widening the SR 57/Ball Road crossing bridge span to accommodate the additional WBT lane.  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane.  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue - Add 1 NBL, 2 NBT, 1NBR, 2 SBT, 1 EBL, 1 WBT, 1 WBR The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvements would significantly impact the businesses and hotel on the south of Katella Avenue and parking at Honda Center on the north of Katella Avenue.  Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR These improvements are currently infeasible as they would necessitate right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project Based on the traffic analysis results, there are 16 study intersections in the City of Anaheim significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 5.5-32 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right- of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Anaheim intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints:  Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road – Add 1 WBT (Same improvement as provided in the Comparison 1) The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Ball Road.  Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue – Add 1 NBT 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-137 The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Katella Avenue, and would require the demolition of an existing commercial building.  Lewis Street / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints of an adjacent industrial parcel, and would likely involve significant utility relocation.  Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 EBR The improvement at this intersection appears infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The right-of-way required could significantly impact the Southern California Edison sub-station on the south side of Cerritos Avenue.  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for adding SBT lane would significantly impact a recently developed residential mixed-use development on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner.  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue - Restripe NBR to NBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the probable impact of entitled land uses on the northeast corner of the intersection. The potential right-of-way required for adding the NBT lane may go through the footprint of entitled high rise residential towers.  Sunkist Street / Ball Road - Add 1 EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses and apartment complex within close proximity to the public right-of-way.  Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 WBR The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of the railroad within close proximity to the public right-of-way. Adding WBR lane will require right-of-way acquisition from the railroad and potentially violate the railroad track clearance restriction. This mitigation measure will be feasible if the existing railroad right-of-way is abandoned by Union Pacific Railroad.  Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue – Add EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the right of way necessary to provide the sufficient lane width and sidewalk width. Significant earthwork is required, which would likely result impact and removal of parking and probable impact including demolition of a multistory office tower. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-138  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive undesirable grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp.  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive undesirable grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp.  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane.  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue - Add 1 EBL, 1 WBR The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvements would significantly impact the businesses and hotel on the south of Katella Avenue and parking at Honda Center on the north of Katella Avenue.  Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR These improvements are currently infeasible and undesirable given the need for right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Based on the traffic analysis results, there are 18 study intersections in the City of Anaheim significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 5.5-32 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right- of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Anaheim intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints:  Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road – Add 1 WBT (Same improvement as provided in Comparison 1 and 2) 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-139 The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Ball Road.  Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue – Add 1 NBT The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Katella Avenue, and would require the demolition of an existing commercial building.  Lewis Street / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints of an adjacent industrial parcel, and would involve significant utility relocation.  Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 EBR The improvement at this intersection appears infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The right-of-way required for capacity improvement could significantly impact the Southern California Edison sub-station on the south side of Cerritos Avenue.  Lewis Street / Katella Avenue – Add 1 EBT The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the existing and future development on parcels on the south side of Katella Avenue.  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for adding SBT lane would significantly impact a recently developed residential mixed-use development on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner.  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue - Restripe NBR to NBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the probable impact of entitled land uses on the northeast corner of the intersection. The potential right-of-way required for adding the NBT lane may go through the footprint of entitled high rise residential towers.  Sportstown / Katella Avenue – Add EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the probable demolition and replacement of the railroad overcrossing east of the Sportstown intersection, along with regarding that may affect properties on both sides of Katella Avenue.  Sunkist Street / Ball Road – Add 1 EBT 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-140  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses and apartment complex within close proximity to the public right-of-way.  Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 WBR The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of the railroad within close proximity to the public right-of-way. Adding WBR lane will require right-of-way acquisition from the railroad and potentially violate the railroad track clearance restriction.  Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue – Add EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the right of way necessary to provide the sufficient lane width and sidewalk width. Significant earthwork is required, which will result in impact including removal of parking and the probable impact or demolition of a multistory office tower.  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp.  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp.  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane.  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue - Add 1 EBL, 1 WBR (Same improvement as provided in Comparison 1 and 2) The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvements would significantly impact the businesses and hotel on the south of Katella Avenue and parking at Honda Center on the north of Katella Avenue.  Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR, 1 WBL These improvements are infeasible and undesirable given the need for right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-141 Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. 2030 Future Year Conditions – City of Orange Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project Based on the traffic analysis results, there are two study intersections in the City of Orange significantly impacted by the project when the No Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Table 5.5-33 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Table 5.5-33 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Intersection Jurisdiction ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 0.81 D 0.99 E 0.81 D Add 1 WBT Infeasible 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.85 D 0.97 E 0.87 D Restripe WBR to WBT, Add 1SBT Infeasible 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 0.92 E 0.99 E 0.81 D Add 1 WBT** Infeasible 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.91 E 0.97 E 0.91 E Restripe WBR to WBT Infeasible 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.84 D Restripe 1 NBR to NBT Feasible 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 0.81 D 0.99 E 0.81 D Add 1 WBT** Infeasible 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.85 D 0.97 E 0.87 D Restripe WBR to WBT** Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-142  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. The following City of Orange intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints:  Katella Avenue/Struck Avenue – Add 1 WBT The proposed improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, WBT receiving lane will require the bridge crossing Santa Ana River to be widened, which introduces potential significant environmental considerations, cost implications and lengthy implementation process.  Main Street / Katella Avenue – Restripe WBR to WBT, Add 1 SBT Significant right of way is required at the regional shopping center on the northwest corner of this intersection, resulting in a possible loss of parking and demolition of up to two retail buildings. Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project Based on the traffic analysis results, there are two study intersections in the City of Orange significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 5.5-33 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. The following city of Orange intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints:  Katella Avenue/Struck Avenue – Add 1 WBT The proposed improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, WBT receiving lane will require the bridge crossing Santa Ana River to be widened, which introduces potential significant environmental considerations, cost implications and lengthy implementation process.  Main Street / Katella Avenue – Restripe WBR to WBT Significant right of way is required at the regional shopping center on the northwest corner of this intersection, resulting in a possible loss of parking and demolition of up to two retail buildings. Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-143 and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Based on the traffic analysis results, there are three study intersections in the City of Orange significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 5.5-33 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. The following city of Orange intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints:  Katella Avenue/Struck Avenue – Add 1 WBT The proposed improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, WBT receiving lane will require the bridge crossing Santa Ana River to be widened, which introduces potential significant environmental considerations, cost implications and lengthy implementation process.  Main Street / Katella Avenue – Restripe WBR to WBT Significant right of way is required at the regional shopping center on the northwest corner of this intersection, resulting in a possible loss of parking and demolition of up to two retail buildings. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Arterial Segments 2011 Baseline Conditions The implementation of the proposed project does not result in significant impacts at any of the study arterial segments under all three Comparisons 1, 2 and 3 in either the City of Anaheim or City of Orange. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-144  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 2013 Opening Year Conditions Similar to the 2011 Baseline conditions, the implementation of the proposed project does not result in significant impacts at any of the study arterial segments in either the City of Anaheim or City of Orange under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. 2030 Future Year Conditions – City of Anaheim Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project Based on the traffic analysis results, there are four study arterial segments within the City of Anaheim significantly impacted by the project when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Table 5.5-34 provides details on the impacted segment locations, V/C and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Anaheim arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraint:  Ball Road – SR-57 NB Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to probable and undesirable impact to the adjacent Orange County Water District Property to the north, which is currently designated as open space in the City of Anaheim General Plan. Any widening would require significant earthwork leading to the bridge over the SR-57 freeway.  Douglass Road – Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the surrounding office buildings with the removal of parking spaces.  Katella Avenue –SR-57 Northbound Ramps and Douglass Road: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Providing additional lanes on Katella Avenue is infeasible since it will likely result in the removal of a significant number of existing Honda Center parking spaces and the possible demolition of the hotel south of Katella Avenue.  Phoenix Club Drive –Honda Center to Ball Road: Upgrade to 4-lane arterial These improvements are infeasible and undesirable given the need for right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-145  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-34 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation Daily No Events Daily With Project Peak Hour With Project (Mitigation)ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 1) A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive 6 1.35 F 1.42 F 0.79 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 4 0.77 C 0.91 E 0.84 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 9 Katella Avenue SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road 6 1.12 F 1.28 F 0.82 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 2 3.13 F 3.36 F 1.39 F Upgrade to 4-lane arterial Infeasible 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 2) A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive 6 1.39 F 1.42 F 0.79 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 4 0.85 D 0.91 E 1.12 F Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Infeasible A - 9 Katella Avenue SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road 6 1.22 F 1.28 F 0.82 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 2 3.27 F 3.36 F 1.39 F Upgrade to 4-lane arterial Infeasible 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 3) A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive 6 1.39 F 1.42 F 0.79 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 4 0.85 D 0.91 E 1.13 F Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Infeasible A - 6 Katella Avenue State College Blvd Howell Avenue 6 1.18 F 1.19 F 0.71 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 1.34 F 1.38 F 0.68 B Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-146  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-34 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation Daily No Events Daily With Project Peak Hour With Project (Mitigation)ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility A - 8 Katella Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps 6 1.28 F 1.32 F 0.71 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 9 Katella Avenue SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road 6 1.27 F 1.34 F 0.93 E Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 10 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Struck Avenue 6 1.36 F 1.40 F 0.72 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 2 3.28 F 3.37 F 1.41 F Upgrade to 4-lane arterial Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-147 Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project The four study arterial segments within the City of Anaheim identified with project related impacts under Comparison 1 continues to be significantly impacted by the project when the Average Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Hence, the same mitigation measures are proposed and presented in Table 5.5-34. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Anaheim arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraint:  Ball Road – SR-57 NB Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to probable and undesirable impacts to the adjacent Orange County Water District Property to the north, which is currently designated as open space in the City of Anaheim General Plan. Any widening would require significant earthwork leading to the bridge over the SR-57 freeway.  Douglass Road – Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue: Upgrade to 6-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the surrounding office buildings with the removal of parking spaces.  Katella Avenue –SR-57 Northbound Ramps and Douglass Road: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Providing additional lanes on Katella Avenue is infeasible and undesirable since it would result in the removal of a significant number of existing Honda Center parking spaces and the possible demolition of the hotel south of Katella Avenue.  Phoenix Club Drive –Honda Center to Ball Road: Upgrade to 4-lane arterial These improvements are infeasible and undesirable given the need for right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Table 5.5-34 presents proposed improvements for the eight City of Anaheim study arterial segments significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Four of these locations are also significantly impacted by the project as shown in Comparison 1 and 2 under the 2030 Future Year conditions the same improvements are proposed for these locations. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-148  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right- of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Anaheim arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraint:  Ball Road – SR-57 NB Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due undesirable impact to the adjacent Orange County Water District Property to the north, which is currently designated as open space in the City of Anaheim General Plan. Any widening would require significant earthwork leading to the bridge over the SR-57 freeway.  Douglass Road – Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue: Upgrade to 6-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the surrounding office buildings with the removal of parking spaces.  Katella Avenue – State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Widening between Sportstown and Howell Avenue will require the demolition and reconstruction of an active commuter and freight railroad crossing, also affecting several adjacent properties due to grading. Please note that the segment between State College Boulevard and Sportstown will be widened to 8 lanes.  Katella Avenue –Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the surrounding retail and office buildings with the possible demolition of the retail building and a parking structure used for a multi story office building.  Katella Avenue –SR-57 Southbound Ramps and SR-57 Northbound Ramps Widening between SR-57 Southbound Ramps and Northbound Ramps will require the expansion of the bridge span.  Katella Avenue –SR-57 Northbound Ramps and Douglass Road: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Providing additional lanes on Katella Avenue is infeasible and undesirable since it would likely result in the removal of a significant number of existing Honda Center parking spaces and the possible demolition of the hotel south of Katella Avenue.  Katella Avenue –Douglass Road to Struck Avenue: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-149 The proposed improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the Santa Ana River Bridge. The bridge will require widening in both directions, and widening the bridge requires a lengthy process involving multiple agencies.  Phoenix Club Drive –Honda Center to Ball Road: Upgrade to 4-lane arterial These improvements are infeasible and undesirable given the need for right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. 2030 Future Year Conditions – City of Orange Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project Based on the traffic analysis results, there are three study arterial segments within the City of Orange significantly impacted by the project when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Table 5.5-35 provides details on the impacted segment locations, ADT, V/C and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-150  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-151  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-35 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 1) A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street 6 63,840 1.13 F 66,640 1.18 F 0.89 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street 6 52,950 0.94 E 54,630 0.97 E 0.73 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue 4 34,840 0.93 E 35,920 0.96 E 0.64 B Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Feasible 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 2) A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street 6 63,840 1.13 F 66,640 1.18 F 0.89 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street 6 52,950 0.94 E 54,630 0.97 E 0.73 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue 4 34,840 0.93 E 35,920 0.96 E 0.64 B Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Feasible 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 3) A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street 6 65,510 1.16 F 66,640 1.18 F 0.89 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street 6 53,950 0.96 E 54,630 0.97 E 0.73 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterialInfeasible A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue 4 36,870 0.98 E 37,310 0.99 E 0.66 B Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Feasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-152  City of Anaheim January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-153 A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right- of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Orange arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraint:  Katella Avenue – Struck Avenue to Main Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, this is also a very high cost improvement as it requires the bridge crossing Santa Ana River widened in order to accommodate additional WBT receiving lane and EBT approach lane.  Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses and office building on the north and south of Katella Avenue. Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project The three study arterial segments within the City of Orange identified with project related impacts under Comparison 1 continues to be significantly impacted by the project when the Average Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Hence, the same mitigation measures are proposed and presented in Table 5.5-35. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right- of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Orange arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraint:  Katella Avenue – Struck Avenue to Main Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, this is also a very high cost improvement as it requires the bridge crossing Santa Ana River widened in order to accommodate additional WBT receiving lane and EBT approach lane.  Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-154  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses and office building on the north and south of Katella Avenue. Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Table 5.5-35 presents proposed improvements for the three study arterial segments significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. These three locations are consistent with impacts shown in Comparison 1 and 2 under the 2030 Future Year conditions, and thus the same mitigation measures are proposed for these locations. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right- of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Orange arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraint:  Katella Avenue – Struck Avenue to Main Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, this is also a very high cost improvement as it requires the bridge crossing Santa Ana River widened in order to accommodate additional WBT receiving lane and EBT approach lane.  Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses and office building on the north and south of Katella Avenue. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-155 Freeway Facilities 2011 Baseline Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, in the 2011 Baseline conditions, the project would significantly impact one ramp termini intersection (SR-57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue). The impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.5-36 provides details on the impacted location, Delay and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. The mitigation has been identified based on an HCM (Synchro) analysis. Table 5.5-36 2011 Baseline Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 32.90 C 79.30 E 39.0 D Add 1 NBR Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the improvement at the intersection of SR-57 Northbound Ramp and Katella Avenue is infeasible as the right-of-way acquisition likely required for the improvements would significantly impact the hotel on the south of Katella Avenue, and possibly require the reconfiguration of the northbound loop on-ramp immediately adjacent to the off –ramp. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-156  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, in the 2011 Baseline conditions, the project would significantly impact one ramp (SR-57 Southbound to Katella Avenue). The impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.5-37 provides details on the impacted location, Density and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Table 5.5-37 2011 Baseline Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) ID Location Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/l) LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off- Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F 21.1 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the improvement identified for SR-57 southbound off-ramp to Katella Avenue is infeasible. It is further noted that this improvement is fully funded under the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan; however, construction of this improvement is not expected to occur before 2013. It is considered economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to require the project applicant to implement the mitigation measures in advance of the planned improvements. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. 2013 Opening Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Similar to the 2011 Baseline conditions, the traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, in the 2013 Opening Year conditions, the project would significantly impact one ramp termini intersection (SR-57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue). The impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.5-38 provides details on the impacted location, Delay and LOS, the 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-157 identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. The mitigation has been identified based on an HCM (Synchro) analysis. Table 5.5-38 2013 Opening Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 29.00 C 58.7 0 E 26.3 C Add 1 NBR Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the improvement at the intersection of SR-57 Northbound Ramp and Katella Avenue is infeasible as the right-of-way acquisition likely required for the improvements would significantly impact the hotel on the south of Katella Avenue, and possibly require the reconfiguration of the northbound loop on-ramp immediately adjacent to the off –ramp. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp Similar to the 2011 Baseline conditions, the traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, in the 2013 Opening Year conditions, the project would significantly impact one ramp (SR-57 Southbound to Katella Avenue). The impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.5-39 provides details on the impacted location, Density and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-158  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.5-39 2013 Opening Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) ID Location Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off- Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F 20.3 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the improvement at SR-57 Southbound Off Ramp to Katella Avenue is infeasible. It is further noted that this improvement is fully funded under the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan; however, construction of this improvement is not expected to occur before 2013. It is considered economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to require the project applicant to implement the mitigation measures in advance of the planned improvements. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. 2030 Future Year Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project - Ramp Termini Intersection The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 1, No Events scenario compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions, the project would significantly impact five ramp termini intersections. The impacted locations are all within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.5-40 provides details on the impacted locations, Delay and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. The mitigation has been identified based on an HCM (Synchro) analysis. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-159 Table 5.5-40 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 69.10 E 70.70 E 46.10 D Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR Infeasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 52.80 D 148.60 F 42.50 D Add 1 SBL, 1 WBT* Infeasible 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 33.20 C 56.50 E 30.9 C Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1 NBL, 1 WBT* Infeasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 16.10 B 76.90 E 37.10 D Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT* Infeasible 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 105.70 F 110.00 F 48.40 D Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT Infeasible *Same improvement as identified through ICU analysis AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following ramp termini intersections are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints:  Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue - Restripe NBTL to NBL, NRTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR This improvement would require vehicles exiting the freeway to change 3 lanes in less than 400 feet to make a right turn onto Katella Avenue, which does not meet Caltrans requirements. Also, this improvement would require right of way of an adjacent industrial parcel requiring the demolition of an existing building.  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road – Add 1 SBL, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to high cost of widening the SR 57/Ball Road bridge to accommodate the additional WBT lane.  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road - Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL, 1WBT 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-160  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to high cost of widening the SR 57/Ball Road crossing bridge span to accommodate the additional WBT lane.  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane.  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, add 1 EBT The improvement to the off ramp is infeasible due to the need for, and the undesirable impacts of, a retaining wall to be added immediately adjacent to the SR-55 Freeway. Right of way constraints make improvements to Katella Avenue infeasible, given the acquisition would adversely affect the adjacent gas station and may require partial demolition of an existing strip retail building to the west. Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project - Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp Table 5.5-41 presents a list of proposed improvements for freeway mainlines, weaving segments and freeway ramp locations that experience project impact when the No Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-161 Table 5.5-41 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 1) With No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Location Density (pc/mi/ln)LOS Density (pc/mi/ln)LOS Density (pc/mi/ln)LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Freeway Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off- Ramp 38.7 E 39.2 E 32.6 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On- Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 35.2 D >Capacity F 34.0 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F 39.1 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 6 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F 38.6 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR- 91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 36.8 E 38.0 E 33.3 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible Freeway Ramp R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* >Capacity F >Capacity F 41.0 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 34.1 D 39.9 E 20.6 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road >Capacity F >Capacity F 40.6 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 34.1 D >Capacity F 20.9 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. All of the weaving segment and ramp improvements noted in Table 5.5-41 are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for I-5 and SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Beyond jurisdictional limitation, additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and environmental constraints. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-162  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project - Ramp Termini Intersection Similar to Comparison 1, the traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 2, Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions, the project would significantly impact five ramp termini intersections. The impacted locations are all within the City of Anaheim. Table 5.5-42 provides details on the impacted locations, Delay and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. The mitigation has been identified based on an HCM (Synchro) analysis. Table 5.5-42 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) With AAHC Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 70.00 E 70.70 E 46.10 D Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR Infeasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 106.00 F 148.60 F 77.4 E Add SBL* Infeasible 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 45.10 D 56.50 E 42.10 D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add NBL * Infeasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 51.50 D 76.90 E 37.10 D Add NBR, 1 WBT Infeasible 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 108.60 F 110.00 F 48.4 D Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT Infeasible *Same improvement as identified through ICU analysis AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following improvements are likely not feasible:  Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue - Restripe NBTL to NBL, NRTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR This improvement would require vehicles exiting the freeway to change 3 lanes in less than 400 feet to make a right turn onto Katella Avenue, which does not meet Caltrans requirements. Also, 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-163 this improvement would require right of way of an adjacent industrial parcel requiring the demolition of an existing building.  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp.  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane.  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, add 1 EBT The improvement to the off ramp is infeasible due to the need for, and the undesirable impacts of, a retaining wall to be added immediately adjacent to the SR-55 Freeway. Right of way constraints make improvements to Katella Avenue infeasible, given the acquisition would adversely affect the adjacent gas station and possibly require partial demolition of an existing strip retail building to the west. Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project - Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp Table 5.5-43 presents a list of proposed improvements for freeway mainlines, weaving segments, and freeway ramp locations that experience project impacts when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-164  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 5.5-43 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 2) With AAHC Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) ID Location Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Freeway Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor 39.1 E 39.2 E 32.6 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella 38.8 E >Capacity F 34.0 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road >Capacity F >Capacity F 39.1 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 6 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off->Capacity F >Capacity F 38.6 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln 37.7 E 38.0 E 33.3 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible Freeway Ramp R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* >Capacity F >Capacity F 41.0 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 38.1 E 39.9 E 20.6 C Add 1 freeway ramp Infeasible R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road >Capacity F >Capacity F 40.6 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 36.8 E >Capacity F 20.9 C Add 1 freeway ramp Infeasible * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. All of the weaving segment and ramp improvements noted in Table 5.5-43 are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for I-5 and SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Beyond jurisdictional limitation, additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and environmental constraints. Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event - Ramp Termini Intersection The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions, the project would significantly impact eight ramp termini intersections. The impacted locations are all within the City of Anaheim. Five of the eight are consistent with impacts found in Comparisons 1 and 2 under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Table 5.5- 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-165 44 provides details on the impacted locations, Delay and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. The mitigation has been identified based on an HCM (Synchro) analysis. Table 5.5-44 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 75.30 E 100.90 F 73.80 E Add 1 EBT Infeasible 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 79.80 E 84.60 F 54.40 D Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR Infeasible 19 State College Boulevard / I- 5 Northbound Ramps 61.80 E 62.50 E 41.40 D Restripe WBT to WBTR Feasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 125.10 F 149.20 F 78.90 E Add 1 SBL* Infeasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 94.90 F 150.40 F 82.50 F Add 1 SBL* Infeasible 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 46.00 D 57.00 E 45.70 D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1 NBL* Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 76.70 E 110.00 F 54.00 D Add 1NBR, 1 WBT Infeasible 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 113.30 F 114.50 F 49.5 D Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT Infeasible *Same improvement as identified through ICU analysis AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following improvement are likely not feasible:  Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue – Add 1 EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to present of a large number of immediately adjacent Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. To accommodate the proposed improvements, the intersection would have to be expanded impacting the right-of-way several hotels. In addition, the improvement required the I-5/Katella Avenue bridge span expanded to accommodate EBT receiving lane. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-166  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue - Restripe NBTL to NBL, NRTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR This improvement would require vehicles exiting the freeway to change 3 lanes in less than 400 feet to make a right turn onto Katella Avenue, which does not meet Caltrans requirements. Also, this improvement would require right of way of an adjacent industrial parcel requiring the demolition of an existing building.  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp.  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive grading and earthwork required to add the additional lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp.  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane.  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, add 1 EBT The improvement to the off ramp is infeasible due to the need for, and undesirable impacts of, a retaining wall to be added immediately adjacent to the SR-55 Freeway. Right of way constraints make improvements to Katella Avenue infeasible, given the acquisition would adversely affect the adjacent gas station and possibly require partial demolition of an existing strip retail building to the west. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-167 Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event - Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp Table 5.5-45 presents a list of proposed improvements for freeway mainlines, weaving segments and freeway ramp locations that experience project impacts when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 5.5-45 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) ID Weaving Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Freeway Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 39.1 E 39.2 E 32.6 D Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 38.8 E >Capacity F 34.0 D Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F 39.1 E Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible W - 6 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F 38.6 E Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 37.7 E 38.0 E 33.3 D Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible Freeway Ramp R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* >Capacity F >Capacity F 41.0 E Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 38.1 E 39.9 E 20.6 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road >Capacity F >Capacity F 40.6 E Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 36.8 E >Capacity F 20.9 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F Add 1 mixed-flow lane & 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-168  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. All of the weaving segment and ramp improvements noted in Table 5.5-45 are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for I-5 and SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Beyond jurisdictional limitation, additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and environmental constraints. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. 5.5.7.2 Mitigation Impact 5.5-1 5-1 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy and/or prior to the amending of any agreements between the City and AAM that results in a new tenant that would cause the current event cap to exceed 162 events per year (whichever occurs first), AAM shall update their existing Traffic Management Plan to include operational improvements designed to improve traffic flow (e.g. ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs, interconnect infrastructure upgrades) at the following intersections:  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue 5-2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy and/or prior to the amending any agreements between the City and AAM that results in a new tenant that would cause the current event cap to exceed 162 events per year (whichever occurs first), AAM shall provide fair-share funding to the City of Anaheim for the following operational improvements designed to improve traffic flow (e.g. ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs, interconnect infrastructure upgrades) at the following intersections:  Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue – Operational Improvement  Lewis Street / Katella Avenue 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-169  State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive  Sportstown / Katella Avenue 5-3 With respect to the physical improvements that are located in the City of Orange that are deemed feasible in Table 5.5-48, the City of Anaheim shall continue to work collaboratively with the City of Orange through the efforts initially established in 2009 to develop a joint traffic impact fee program that is consistent with the obligations imposed by the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code section 66000 et seq.), and which is designed to assess and mitigate cross border traffic impacts that occur as a result of project being processed in either the City of Anaheim or the City of Orange. However, notwithstanding the fact that a bona-fide cross border fee program in place between the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange does not yet exist, prior to the conditions precedent set forth above in MM 5-2, AAM shall provide payment to the City of Orange for the proposed project’s fair share amount necessary to construct the improvements that are located in the City of Orange that are deemed feasible in Table 5.5-48. Because the City may have to adopt a statement of overriding considerations for these improvements located in the City of Orange notwithstanding the project’s payment of fair share fees to the City of Orange. The improvements that are subject to this mitigation measure are as follows:  Segment of Main Street between Katella Avenue and Struck Avenue – Upgrade to 6- lane arterial. Impact 5.5-2 5-4 At least four months before the first event in excess of 162 events at Honda Center, the management entity for Honda Center shall prepare a new traffic management plan for the New Honda Center Events and present such plan to the City of Anaheim Traffic and Transportation Services Division for review and approval. The traffic management plan shall include signal and intersection control by uniformed police officers, signage, lane control, access control, and pedestrian control. Before opening of ARTIC the applicant shall again update the traffic management plan to address the potential increase in pedestrian volume from ARTIC across the intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-170  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-171  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-46 Summary of the 2011 Baseline Project Impact and Mitigation Measures Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* ID Location JurisdictionImpact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Recommended Mitigations Feasibility/ Significance Intersection 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Operational Improvement ─ Override 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement Operational Improvement Feasible/Less than Significant 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Operational Improvement ─ Override 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Add 1 NBR ─ Override 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement X Add 1 EBR Operational Improvement Feasible/Less than Significant Freeway Ramp R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue Caltrans ─ ─ ─ ─ X Add 1 freeway ramp lane ─ Override x: Indicates impact *: Mitigations under Comparison 3 are not recommended due to the infrequency of concurrent events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium and the conflicts such mitigation would have with other established City goals and policies. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-172  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-47 Summary of the 2013 Opening Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* ID Location JurisdictionImpact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Recommended Mitigations Feasibility/ Significance Intersection 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Operational Improvement ─ Override 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Operational Improvement ─ Override 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement Operational Improvement Feasible/Less than Significant 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Operational Improvement ─ Override 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Add 1 NBR ─ Override 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement X Add 1 EBR Operational Improvement Feasible/Less than Significant Freeway Ramp R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue Caltrans ─ ─ ─ ─ X Add 1 freeway ramp lane ─ Override x: Indicates impact *: Mitigations under Comparison 3 are not recommended due to the infrequency of concurrent events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium and the conflicts such mitigation would have with other established City goals and policies. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-173  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-48 Summary of the 2030 Future Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* ID Location Jurisdiction Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Recommended Mitigations Feasibility/ Significance Intersection3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim X Add 1 WBT X Add 1 WBT X Add 1 WBT Add 1 WBT Infeasible/ Override 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 NBT X Add 1 NBT X Add 1 NBT Add 1 NBT Infeasible/ Override 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Operational Improvement ─ ─ ─ Add 1 EBT Operational Improvement Feasible/Less than Significant 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR ─ Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR X Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR Infeasible/ Override 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim X Add 1 EBR X Add 1 EBR X Add 1 EBR Add 1 EBR Infeasible/ Override 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 EBR, 1 EBL X Add 1 EBR X Add 1 EBR Add 1 EBR, 1 EBL Infeasible/ Override 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Operational Improvement ─ ─ X Add 1 EBT Operational ImprovementFeasible/Less than 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Restripe EBL to EBT, Add 1 SBT X Add 1 SBT X Add 1 SBT Restripe EBL to EBT, Add 1 SBT Infeasible/ Override 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim X Operational Improvement ─ ─ ─ ─ Operational Improvement Feasible/Less than Significant 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange X Restripe NBR to NBT X Restripe NBR to NBT X Restripe NBR to NBT Restripe NBR to NBT Infeasible/ Override 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement X Add 1 EBT Operational Improvement Feasible/Less than Significant 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim X Add 1NBT, 1EBT X Add 1EBT X Add 1 EBT Add 1NBT, 1EBT Infeasible/ Override 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 NBR, 1WBR X Add 1 WBR X Add 1 WBR Add 1 NBR, 1WBR Infeasible/ Override 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 EBT X Add 1 EBT X Add 1 EBT Add 1 EBT Infeasible/ Override 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim X Add 1 SBL,1 WBT X Add 1 SBL X Add 1 SBL Add 1 SBL,1 WBT Infeasible/ Override 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-174  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-48 Summary of the 2030 Future Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* ID Location Jurisdiction Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Recommended Mitigations Feasibility/ Significance 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 SBL, 1 EBT, 1 WBT X Add 1 SBL X Add 1 SBL Add 1 SBL, 1 EBT, 1 WBT Infeasible/ Override 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim X Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL, 1WBT X Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL X Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL, 1WBT Infeasible/ Override 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT X Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT X Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT Infeasible/ Override 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 NBL, 2 NBT, 1NBR, 2 SBT, 1 EBL, 1 WBT, 1WBR X Add I EBL, 1 WBR X Add 1 EBL, 1 WBR Add 1 NBL, 2 NBT, 1NBR, 2 SBT, 1 EBL, 1 WBT, 1WBR Infeasible/ Override 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim X Add 1 EBR X Add 1 EBR X Add 1 EBR, Add 1 WBL Add 1 EBR Infeasible/ Override 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange ─ ─ ─ ─ X Restripe WBT to WBTR ─ Override 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange ─ ─ ─ ─ X Restripe 1 NBR to NBT ─ Override 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange X Add 1 WBT X Add 1 WBT X Add 1 WBT Add 1 WBT Infeasible/ Override 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange X Restripe WBR to WBT, Add 1SBT X Restripe WBR to WBT X Restripe WBR to WBT Restripe WBR to WBT, Add 1SBT Infeasible/ Override 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Orange X Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT X Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT X Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT Infeasible/ Override Arterial Segment A - 2 Ball Road - SR-57 NB Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive Anaheim X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible/ Override A - 4 Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue Anaheim X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Infeasible/ Override A - 6 Katella Avenue – State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial ─ Override A - 7 Katella Avenue –Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial ─ Override A - 8 Katella Avenue – SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial ─ Override 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-175  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-48 Summary of the 2030 Future Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* ID Location Jurisdiction Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Recommended Mitigations Feasibility/ Significance Northbound Ramps A - 9 Katella Avenue - SR-57 NB Ramps to Douglass Road Anaheim X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible/ Override A - 10 Katella Avenue – Douglass Road to Struck Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial ─ Override A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Road Anaheim X Upgrade to 4-lane arterial X Upgrade to 4-lane arterial X Upgrade to 4-lane arterial Upgrade to 4-lane arterial Infeasible/ Override A - 11 Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Street Orange X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible/ Override A - 12 Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street Orange X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible/ Override A - 13 Main Street n - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue Orange X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Feasible/Less than Significant Freeway Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible/ Override W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible/ Override SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible/ Override W - 6 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible/ Override W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible/ Override Freeway Ramp R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible/ Override 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR The Planning Center|DC&E Page 5.5-176  City of Anaheim January 2012 Table 5.5-48 Summary of the 2030 Future Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* ID Location Jurisdiction Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Recommended Mitigations Feasibility/ Significance R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue Caltrans X Add 1 freeway ramp lane X Add 1 freeway ramp lane X Add 1 freeway ramp lane Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible/ Override R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible/ Override R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road Caltrans X Add 1 freeway ramp lane X Add 1 freeway ramp lane X Add 1 freeway ramp lane Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible/ Override R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue Caltrans ─ ─ ─ ─ X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible/ Override x: Indicates impact *: Mitigations under Comparison 3 are not recommended due to the infrequency of concurrent events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium and the conflicts such mitigation would have with other established City goals and policies. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-177 5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.5-1 2011 Baseline Conditions The traffic study determined that five intersections and one freeway ramp are significantly impacted by the proposed project under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5-46. Feasible mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level:  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Impacts were also identified under Comparison 3 at the following intersections:  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian- friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Caltrans Facilities In addition, one additional impact for Comparison 3 was identified the following Freeway Ramp under the jurisdictional control of Caltrans:  SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue A mitigation measure to mitigate this impact was identified in Table 5.5-46. However, as state above, Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-178  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian- friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans approval). Consequently, the impact at this location would remain significant and unavoidable. 2013 Opening Year Conditions The study determined that the same locations with project impacts under the 2011 Baseline conditions continue to experience project impact under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5-47. Feasible mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level:  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Impacts were also identified under Comparison 3 at the following intersections:  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue  Sunkist Street / Ball Road  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian- friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Caltrans Facilities In addition, one additional impact for Comparison 3 was identified the following Freeway Ramp under the jurisdictional control of Caltrans: 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-179  SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue A mitigation measure to mitigate this impact was identified in Table 5.5-47. However, as state above, Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian- friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans approval). Consequently, the impact at this location would remain significant and unavoidable. 2030 Future Year Conditions The traffic study determined that implementation of the proposed project results in significant impact at 25 study intersections, seven study arterial segments, five study freeway weaving segments, and five study freeway ramps under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for all these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5-48. Feasible mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level:  Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue  Lewis Street / Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive  Sportstown / Katella Avenue Chapter 7 of the traffic study contains an extensive review of proposed mitigation and feasibility. For the reasons stated therein, the City of Anaheim has determined that all other proposed mitigation identified in Table 5.5-48 is infeasible due for the reasons stated Chapter 7 of the traffic study and summarized in Section 5.5.7.1 above. Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-180  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian- friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. City of Orange Table 5.5-48 identifies impacts and proposed mitigation at the following City of Orange intersections and segments:  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue  State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps  State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue  Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue  Main Street / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Street  Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street  Main Street n - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue Although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of reasons such as the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although cost estimates have not been completed at this time, it is anticipated that a number of improvements would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans approval). Should that occur, the project’s traffic impact would remain significant. Tables 5.5-48 present mitigation measures identified through analysis of the Proposed Project traffic impacts, including those locations that are expected to remain significant due to infeasibility. Consequently, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Caltrans Facilities As identified in Impact 5.5-1, there are several deficiencies to Caltrans facilities. A summary of impacts and mitigation strategies for impacted Caltrans’s facilities are shown in Tables 5.5-46 through 5.5-48. Deficient freeway segments within the study area fall under two categories of impacts, (1) project related impacts and (2) cumulative deficiency impacts. Improvements beyond the planned system improvements would be required to maintain an acceptable LOS for the State Highway System. Potential improvement measures would include the addition of one, two, or three lanes to freeway mainline segments. However, capacity improvements to the freeway mainline are not feasible improvement options at a project-level. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements through a Corridor Study beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for I-5 and SR-57, and the City has no control over State facilities. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.5-181 Additional capacity improvements are infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and other environmental constraints. For example, the expansion of the identified freeway segments would involve significant right-of-way acquisition, which would involve either the acquisition of residences and/or businesses, or this would involve bringing the freeway facilities close to such residences and businesses. Potential improvements to reduce weaving impacts include the implementation of an auxiliary lane within the weaving area to improve operations although this does not satisfy the capacity needs of the corresponding and adjacent mainline segment. Standard capacity improvements, through the addition of one or more lanes on the freeway ramps, will not necessarily result in acceptable ramp operations for ramps that are forecast to operate deficiently. The density of the ramps is influenced by both the mainline and ramp volume, therefore, the traffic on the mainline must be reduced or the capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance. Although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of reasons such as the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although cost estimates have not been completed at this time, it is anticipated that a number of improvements would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans approval). Should that occur, the project’s traffic impact would remain significant. Tables 5.5-46 through 5.5-48 present mitigation measures identified through analysis of the Proposed Project traffic impacts, including those locations that are expected to remain significant due to infeasibility. Consequently, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.5-2 With incorporation of Mitigation Measure 5.5-9, Impact 5.5-2 would be less than significant. 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page 5.5-182  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 5. Environmental Analysis Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.6-1 5.6 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Existing conditions information presented in this section is based on project-specific facilities reports and coordination with affected public utility agencies. Specific references are identified as relevant. This section addresses the following public utilities; the service provider is noted parenthetically:  Wastewater Treatment and Collection (Orange County Sanitation District and Anaheim Public Works Department)  Water Supply and Distribution Systems (Anaheim Public Utilities Department) The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical reports incorporated by reference from the Supplemental EIR for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project certified by the City of Anaheim on October 26, 2010 (SEIR No. 339) and the City’s Urban Water Management Plan adopted by the City of Anaheim on June 7, 2011. These documents are available for review on the City’s webpage at www.anaheim.net. Sewer  Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS) – Analysis of Models for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR No. 339), CH2M HILL, June 2009. (Appendix H of SEIR No. 339) Water  The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment, Psomas, July 2009. (Appendix G of SEIR No. 339)  Urban Water Management Plan, Malcolm Pirnie, 2011. 5.6.1 Environmental Setting Wastewater Treatment and Collection The City of Anaheim’s local sanitary sewer system serves the project vicinity and is tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The OCSD service area comprises 480 square miles of northern and central Orange County. OCSD operates 579 miles of sewer lines, 15 offsite pumping station, two regional wastewater treatment plants, and an ocean disposal system. Wastewater flows by gravity from the City sewer system to OCSD’s trunk and interceptor sewers, and then to regional treatment and disposal facilities. Wastewater from Honda Center is collected in City sewers, then discharged into the Olive Subtrunk in Katella Avenue; then into the Newhope-Placentia Trunk at State College Boulevard; then into the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line; these three facilities are described further below.  Olive Subtrunk. The Olive Subtrunk is located along Katella Avenue and continues in a westerly direction to connect to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk at State College Boulevard. The size of the 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.6-2 January 2012 line within that reach ranges from 24 to 30 inches in diameter. The Olive Subtrunk also collects sewage from areas east of the Santa Ana River. All flows east of the Santa Ana River can be diverted to the SARI.  Newhope-Placentia Trunk. The Newhope-Placentia Trunk ranges in diameter from 33 to 42 inches and flows south down State College Boulevard to Orangewood Avenue. At Orangewood Avenue, the Newhope-Placentia Trunk branches out to both the east and west, conveying wastewater in two directions. The western branch turns to the west past the western boundary of the stadium to Lewis Street, then south to Lewis Street through the City of Orange to the County SARI.  Santa Ana River Interceptor. The SARI line, a regional brine line, is designed to convey 30 million gallons per day (mgd) of nonreclaimable wastewater from the upper Santa Ana River basin to OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2. The nonreclaimable wastewater consists of desalter concentrate, industrial wastewater, and domestic wastewater. A sewer study was conducted in 2006 analyzing sewer improvements needed to accommodate buildout of the Platinum Triangle. Approximately 1,000 feet of new OCSD backbone sewer have recently been built along Katella Avenue east of State College Boulevard in response to the 2006 study. OCSD operates two wastewater treatment plants: Reclamation Plant No. 1, located in Fountain Valley; and Treatment Plant No. 2, located in Huntington Beach. OCSD plans to upgrade the level of wastewater treatment at both of its treatment plants to meet secondary treatment standards for the projected 2020 effluent flow of 240 to 320 mgd. The effluent discharge to the ocean is a blend of advanced primary and secondary treated wastewater as specified in the OCSD’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Plant No. 1 is located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in the City of Fountain Valley, about four miles northeast of the ocean. The plant receives wastewater from six major sewer pipes and provides advanced primary and secondary treatment. Secondary effluent is either blended with advanced primary effluent and routed to the ocean disposal system, or is sent to the Orange County Water District (OCWD) for further treatment and distribution for reclaimed water uses. Plant No. 1 has a maximum capacity of 204 million gallons per day (mgd), and treats an average of 86 mgd. The balance of effluent from Plant No. 1, roughly 16.7 mgd, is sent to Reclamation Plant No. 2 at 22212 Brookhurst Street in the City of Huntington Beach, about 1,500 feet from the ocean, and is subsequently discharged through the ocean outfall system. Plant No. 2, which receives wastewater from five major sewers in addition to Plant No. 1, has an average treatment flow rate of 124 mgd and a maximum treatment capacity of 168 mgd (McNelly 2010). The treated wastewater is released into the Pacific Ocean through a pipeline 200 feet below the surface on the ocean floor, approximately four miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. Wastewater Generation Existing wastewater generation by Honda Center is estimated to be 95 percent of water use; that is, all indoor water use, estimated to be 95 percent of total water use. Water use is estimated as 55,700 gallons per day (gpd) based on data from the Honda Center; thus, wastewater generation is estimated 52,915 gpd. 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.6-3 Water Supply Anaheim Public Utilities Department The Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD) provides water service to the Honda Center. APUD’s water service area population currently is approximately 365,000 and is expected to increase to approximately 433,000 by the year 2035. Figure 5.10-2, City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Service Area shows the service area boundaries. The basic water services include single-family residential, multifamily residential, and general services (i.e., commercial, industrial, municipal, and institutional) consumers. APUD’s current major water system facilities consist of eight purchased water connections to MWD (one untreated and seven treated water connections), 18 active wells, one 920- million-gallon (mg) reservoir for untreated water, one 15 mgd water treatment plant, 13 treated water reservoirs with 38.75 mg of total treated storage capacity, permanent chlorination facilities at various sites, nine booster pump stations, approximately 752 miles of water mains, and approximately 7,800 fire hydrants. The two nearest City transmission mains (that is, 16 inches or more in diameter) are in State College Boulevard, and in Katella Avenue extending westward from State College Boulevard, respectively. APUD’s water system serves areas ranging in elevation from less than 60 feet to over 1,200 feet above sea level (asl). To provide appropriate operating pressures for such a wide range of elevations, the water system is divided into 18 pressure zones. The lowest pressure zone operates at a static hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevation of 220 feet asl and the highest pressure zone at a static HGL elevation of 1,320 feet asl. APUD’s water distribution system is generally divided into two main geographic areas: the Flatland Area (555 HGL elevation and below) and the Hill and Canyon Area (585 HGL elevation and above). The Flatland Area is approximately 22,500 acres, situated generally north and west of the Santa Ana River, and can be almost entirely served by groundwater (with MWD imported water supplementing as necessary). The project site is located in the Flatland Area. The Hill and Canyon Area is approximately 9,060 acres, situated generally south and east of the Santa Ana River, and served primarily by the imported water from MWD and the Lenain Water Treatment Plant (LWTP). Groundwater The primary source of groundwater for the City is the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin) that underlies the north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The Basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote Hills and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and terminating at the Orange County line to the northwest, where its aquifer systems continue into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County. To ensure that the Basin is not overdrawn, OCWD recharges the Basin with local and imported water. Groundwater conditions in the Basin are influenced by the natural hydrologic conditions and the Basin is recharged primarily by four sources: 1) local rainfall, which varies due to the extent of the annual seasonal precipitation; 2) storm and base flows from the Santa Ana River, which includes recycled wastewater from treatment plants in Riverside and San Bernardino counties; 3) imported water; and 4) highly treated recycled wastewater. The production capability of the Basin has increased as a result of increased wastewater reclamation and the blending of waters of different qualities to produce high-quality potable water for public distribution. 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.6-4 January 2012 The most recent example of a highly successful OCWD wastewater reclamation project is the construction and operation of OCWD’s new $500 million water-purification plant, which is designed to turn wastewater into drinking water. This new Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project currently treats and recharges up to 70 million gallons per day of wastewater back into the Basin for future potable use. This equates to the recycling of over 72,000 acre feet per year of wastewater back into the Basin for future extraction and potable use. Additionally, the approved expansion of the GWRS will increase the recharge capacity to 90,000 afy. Imported Water (Surface Water) MWD is the wholesale water agency that serves supplemental imported water from northern California through the State Water Project (SWP) and from the Colorado River to 26 member agencies located in portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. The City of Anaheim is one of only three retail member agencies of MWD in Orange County. As a member agency, pursuant to the Metropolitan Act, the City has preferential rights to a certain percentage of water delivered to MWD each year primarily from the SWP and/or the Colorado River Aqueduct as well as other MWD storage programs. As a member agency of MWD, the City receives water directly from MWD, as opposed to other agencies in Orange County that obtain their imported MWD water through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The City purchases both treated potable and untreated nonpotable water from MWD. The treated water is delivered through MWD connections A-01 through A-07 via five major feeders. Untreated MWD water is delivered to the City's Walnut Canyon Reservoir (WCR) through MWD Connection A-08 via the Santiago Lateral of the Lower Feeder System, and this water is treated by the LWTP. WCR has a total capacity of 2,823 af (920 mg).Together, the WCR and LWTP form a receiving, storage, and treatment facility. Recycled Water Until recently, the City’s water supply did not include recycled water. The recently completed Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) delivers some highly treated wastewater from Fountain Valley to spreading basins in Anaheim for groundwater recharge. The City is now using GWRS water at its recently completed Canyon Power Plant for cooling and emission control purposes and may be able to use some of the water from the GWRS for other non- potable uses in the future. The City has also entered into an agreement with OCWD for use of the GWRS water at the future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). In addition, the City is currently constructing a water recycling demonstration facility at the City Hall complex. In its initial phase, the facility would provide approximately 20 to 55 AFY of recycled water for landscape irrigation and toilet flushing. APUD requires separate irrigation services for any new landscaped area larger than 2,500 square feet in the City, including properties within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, and the Platinum Triangle, which will enable easy conversion to recycled water if and when it becomes available. Water Supplies available to APUD are summarized below in Table 5.6-1. 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.6-5 Table 5.6-1 APUD Water Supplies, Normal Water Year, Acre Feet per Year (AFY)1 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Groundwater 46,917 47,674 49,169 50,209 50,339 Recycled Water 220 255 255 255 255 Imported Water 25,263 25,671 26,476 27,036 27,106 Total Supplies 72,400 73,600 75,900 77,500 77,700 Source: 2010 UWMP. 1 acre-foot per year (AFY) is about 892.2 gallons per day. Water Demand Anaheim Public Utilities Department In 2010, the City’s water demand was approximately 63,231 acre-feet per year (AFY). Total water use, including 3,698 AFY of unaccounted-for water, was 66,929 AFY. Demands for City water in 2005 and 2010, and forecast demands in 2015 through 2035, are shown below in Table 5.6-2. Table 5.6-2 Water Demands, APUD, 2005-2035 Acre-Feet per Year (AFY) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Residential 41,038 37,428 41,389 42,750 44,608 46,010 47,411 Commercial/Industrial 27,324 24,771 26,693 26,438 26,747 26,843 25,603 Other1 1,147 1,031 1,060 1,100 1,130 1,160 1,190 Total Demand 69,509 63,230 69,142 70,288 72,485 74,013 74,204 Unaccounted-For 1,831 3,698 3,258 3,312 3,416 3,488 3,497 Total 71,340 66,929 72,400 73,600 75,900 77,500 77,700 Source: 2010 UWMP. 1 Other includes firefighting, temporary services, and golf course irrigation Honda Center Existing water use by Honda Center is 1.53 million gallons (mg) per month in winter and 1.86 mg per month in summer.1 Assuming winter and summer use rates each apply to six months per year, average usage over the year is 1.695 mg per month. This equals approximately 56,500 gallons per day (gpd), or 62.4 AFY. 1 Correspondence with Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations, Honda Center, June 29, 2011. 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.6-6 January 2012 Reliability of Long-Term Water Supply The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared for APUD by Malcolm Pirnie assessed reliability of groundwater and imported water in normal year, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions for the 2015 – 2035 period. Water supplies were found to be fully reliable to meet projected demands in normal water year, single dry year, and multiple-dry-year conditions throughout the 2015 – 2035 period. 5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project: U-1 Would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. U-2 Would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. U-3 Would require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. U-4 Would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and new and/or expanded entitlements would be needed. U-5 Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. U-6 Would be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. U-7 Would not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. U-8 Would result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity. U-9 Would result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas. U-10 Would result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alteration related to telephone service. U-11 Would result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception. 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.6-7 The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:  Threshold U-1  Threshold U-3  Thresholds U-5 through U-11 These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.6.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.6-1: PROJECT-GENERATED SEWAGE WOULD BE ADEQUATELY TREATED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT. [THRESHOLDS U-1, U-2 (PART), AND U-5] Impact Analysis: Project Wastewater Generation The proposed project includes increasing the number of annual events from 162 events to 222 events per year. This will increase the amount of wastewater treated on an annual basis, however, this is not relevant in analyzing wastewater impacts because trunk line and treatment plant capacity is based on peak daily flows. The proposed project includes other minor enhancements including an enlarged team store and the addition of 15,364 square feet of restaurant space. It should be noted that the proposed restaurants would only be open on event days, before, during, and after the events and would only be open to event attendees. The peak daily flow generated by the Honda Center will not change substantially because there is no expansion of the capacity of the arena proposed. However, the project includes two elements that would generate additional wastewater: a. Development of 15,364-square feet of restaurant space b. Development of a 5,846-square foot team store. Forecast wastewater generation by those two proposed uses is shown below in Table 5.6-3. Therefore, total wastewater generation by the facility at project completion would be 52,915 gpd by the existing facility plus 3,181.5 gpd by the proposed additions, for a total of 56,096.5 gpd. 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.6-8 January 2012 Table 5.6-3 Forecast Wastewater Generation, Proposed Added Land Uses Wastewater Generation, Gallons per Day Land Use Quantity Per 1,000 square feet1 Total Restaurant 15,364 square feet 150 2,304.6 Store 5,846 square feet 150 876.9 Total Not applicable Not applicable 3,181.5 1 Wastewater generation factors from Irvine Ranch Water District 2011. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) generation factors were not used because factors are in gallons per day per acre and not by square footage. However, converting the OCSD generation factors to square feet would result in 0.48 acres of new development. Using OCSD’s sewerage generation factor of 2,262 gallons per day per acre for retail/commercial uses would result in an increase of 1,085.8 gallons per day of wastewater due to the Proposed Project. Reclamation Plant No. 1 facility located in Fountain Valley, California is currently undergoing and preparing for construction upgrades. (OCSD 2011) Plant No. 1 currently treats an average influent wastewater flow of approximately 97 million gallons per day. After the upgrades and secondary expansion projects, the total design capacity of Plant No. 1 will be approximately 180 mgd. OCSD’s Treatment Plant No. 2, located in Huntington Beach, California, is in the midst of overhauling major components of its operation. Projects listed below include upgrades to the facility that will help OCSD meet secondary treatment standards. Plant No. 2 currently treats an average influent wastewater flow of approximately 110 million gallons per day. After the upgrades and secondary expansion projects, the total design capacity of Plant No. 2 will be approximately 150 mgd. Therefore, there is adequate wastewater treatment capacity at the two OCSD wastewater treatment plants to accommodate forecast project wastewater generation and therefore the proposed project will not result in significant impacts with respect to wastewater treatment capacity. Wastewater Conveyance In June 2009, CH2M HILL prepared a technical memorandum entitled the Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS) for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project – Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 (June 2009 CCAAMPSS), included in Appendix G of the DSEIR for the Platinum Triangle project. This technical memorandum incorporated the development intensities analyzed by the June 2006 sewer study and subsequent revisions to the project. For modeling purposes of the June 2009 CCAAMPSS, the permitted development intensities were distributed into subareas to accurately reflect the total increased development intensity. Because this modeling approach removed the need to generalize numbers, some subareas showed less development intensities when compared to the June 2006 sewer study even though the overall intensity amount was greater. The distribution of the development intensities is shown in Attachment 1 of the June 2009 CCAAMPSS. The June 2009 CCAAMPSS ran 12 models (Models 15, 28B, 47, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, and 123) following the sanitary flow modeling methodology of the CCAAMPSS, which is based on using diurnal curves, rather than using the traditional peaking factor method. The diurnal curve method better represents the pattern of sanitary wastewater flows generated by a type of land use over a 24-hour period. The models refer to sections of the Platinum Triangle site. The new model run incorporated the three stretches of new backbone sewers in Models 117, 28b, and 47. The proposed amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (DSEIR No. 340) was incorporated into Model 15 for the cumulative impact. The June 2009 CCAAMPSS determined that the Platinum Triangle project would require upsizing of 7,373 linear feet of sewer pipe in Models 15, 28B, 47, 119, 120, 121, and 122. The locations and lengths of each segment of pipe requiring upsizing are listed and shown in the CCAMPASS Study (CH2M Hill 2009). 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.6-9 Honda Center is in Model 115. No sewer improvements for the Platinum Triangle project were determined to be required for Model 115. Model 119 is on the opposite (south) side of Katella Avenue from Honda Center. Replacement of about 370 feet of a sewer main in Model 119 just south of Katella Avenue with 15-inch-diameter pipe was found to be needed. The sewer that would require upgrading is continuous with a sewer passing through Model 115. Most of the project-related increase in wastewater generation would be due to increasing the number of days Honda Center was used. Two events on the same day have only occurred on two occasions (Starkey 2011). The increase in wastewater generation due to the proposed building additions would be approximately 6 percent over the existing rate (3,181.5 gpd/52,915 gpd). The balance of project-generated increase in wastewater generation would result from increased number of event days at the facility. As stated previously, this will increase the amount of wastewater treated on an annual basis, however, this is not relevant in analyzing wastewater impacts because trunk line and treatment plant capacity is based on peak daily flows. Thus, the project is not anticipated to require upsizing of sewer mains serving Honda Center to accommodate the project-related increase in wastewater generation. IMPACT 5.6-2: WATER SUPPLY AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS ARE ADEQUATE TO MEET PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. [THRESHOLDS U-2 (PART) AND U-4] Impact Analysis: Estimated Project Water Demands The method for estimating project-related water demand is as follows: 1. Estimating project-related increase in daily water demand due to proposed expansions of the facility. Based on the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Platinum Triangle, water use is estimated to be 195 gpd/ksf for commercial uses. Therefore, water demand resulting from proposed enhancements to Honda Center would be approximately 4,136 gpd. As existing water demand is approximately 55,700 gpd, total daily water demand after completion of the enhancements would be about 59,836 gpd (67.0 AFY). 2. Forecasting annual water demand by added events, using the post-project water demand rate. The proposed project would increase the number of events at the facility from 162 to 222 per year, a 37.0 percent increase. A 37 percent increase above the current water demand of 20.34 million gallons per year is 27.87 million gallons per year (85.4 AFY). Forecast Water Supplies and Water Reliability Forecast APUD water supplies are described above in Table 5.6-1. Water supplies are forecast to increase from 72,400 to 77,700 AFY between 2015 and 2035, an increase of 5,300 AFY. Demands for APUD water are also forecast to increase, corresponding to the increase in water supplies. Estimated water demand increases between 2010 and 2035 (see Table 5.6-2 above) include increases for commercial/industrial, residential, and other land uses. The estimated project-related increase in water demand, 4,136 gpd or 23.1 AFY, is within the estimated increase in APUD water supplies. There are adequate water supplies available to APUD for the proposed project’s water demands, and the project would not require new or expanded water supplies. 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.6-10 January 2012 The water supply assessment for the Platinum Triangle found that forecast APUD water supplies would be adequate to supply Platinum Triangle water demands through the 2010 – 2030 period in normal water year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions (Psomas 2009). Water Delivery System Rule 15-D of Anaheim’s Water Rules, Rates and Regulations specifies approved water facility improvements in the project vicinity that have either been completed or are in planning stages. One improvement near Honda Center has been approved but has not yet been constructed: a 16-inch water main in Katella Avenue at State College to Well #45; the water main segment would be 1,300 feet long. Furthermore, the APUD indicated that the proposed increase in development intensities resulting from the Platinum Triangle project would require an improvement to the current water facilities near Honda Center, a new transmission main in Douglass Road from Katella to the Anaheim Stadium loop. As with wastewater generation, most of the project-related increase in water demand would result from an increase in the number of days the Honda Center would be used. The increase in water demand due to the proposed added facilities would be about 7.4 percent of existing water demand; the remaining increase would be due to added days of usage. Therefore, the project is not expected to require substantial upsizing of water mains serving Honda Center. Compliance with Rule 15-D would ensure that adequate water facilities are provided to serve the proposed project. 5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project along with other cumulative development would result in substantial increases in wastewater generation and water demand. Impacts to utilities and service systems would occur incrementally to cause cumulative impacts and require upgrades to existing systems. Implementation timing of other related projects such as the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and the Anaheim Resort Area Specific Plan Amendment would also impact the service provider’s ability to provide adequate services. However, increased demands within the Platinum Triangle and the Anaheim Resort have been planned and the infrastructure necessary to serve future development has been identified. Mitigation measures for the necessary improvements within the Platinum Triangle have been identified in SEIR No. 339. Similar mitigation measures are being considered in DSEIR No. 340 for Amendment No. 14 to the Anaheim Resort Area Specific Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts to utility systems can be mitigated to a less than significant level without exceeding or jeopardizing service levels. 5.6.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions  City of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.18 - Water Conservation Ordinance No. 6138 (adopted April 14, 2009). APUD shall monitor and evaluate the projected supply and demand for water by its customers. APUD shall recommend to the City Council such Water Reduction Plan(s) as provided in the Municipal Code Chapter 10.18, which permit APUD to prudently plan for and supply water to its customers. The City Council may, by resolution, order implementation of such Water Reduction Plan(s) as appropriate. At any time, the City Council may discontinue any Plan, modify any Plan, or may implement another Plan as provided in this chapter.  City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department - Water Rates, Rules and Regulations. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever comes first, the property 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim  Page 5.6-11 owner/developer shall comply with Rule 15-D of the APUD’s Water Rates, Rules, and Regulations.  City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department – Water Engineering Fees. Prior to issuance of each building permit, unless records indicate previous payment, the appropriate fees for Rule 15- D, Primary Mains, Secondary Mains, and Fire Protection services shall be paid to the APUD Water Engineering Division.  City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department – Water Engineering Conditions of Approval. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall relocate, at his own expense and per APUD Water Engineering standards and specifications, existing public water facilities, as required by APUD Water Engineering Division, to accommodate the proposed Honda Center building expansion. 5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts 5.6-1 and 5.6-2 would be less than significant. 5.6.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 5. Environmental Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Page 5.6-12 January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 6-1 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 1, Executive Summary, contains Table 1-4, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance before and after mitigation. While mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact, the following impacts would remain significant, unavoidable, and adverse after mitigation measures are applied. 6.3.1 Air Quality Impact 5.1-3 Measure 2-1 through 2-3 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, the effectiveness of these mitigation measures is uncertain and cannot be quantified. Therefore, regional criteria air pollutant emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 6.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.2-1 As described previously, Honda Center would need to reduce GHG emissions by 1,819 MTons in order to achieve an efficiency metric of 4.8 MTons per service population. Mitigation Measure 2-1 through 2-3 would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. However, the effectiveness of these mitigation measures is uncertain and cannot be quantified. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 6.3.3 Transportation and Traffic Impact 5.5-1 To assess the traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project a total of five (5) scenarios under three horizon years were considered, as outlined below: 2011 Baseline Analytical Project Direct Impacts Scenario: 1) 2011 Baseline (No Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event1 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event2 4) 2011 Baseline with Project3 1 Average Attendance Honda Center Event is assumed to be an average attendance event or 11,264 seats as described in the September 2, 2011 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 344 for Honda Center Enhancement Project. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. 2 Angel Stadium Event is assumed to be an average Angel Stadium baseball game attendance of 29,402 based on year 2010 season attendance figures provided by the City of Anaheim. Traffic conditions are adjusted accordingly from traffic counts taken for the August 24, 2011 event. 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2013 Opening Year Analytical Impacts Scenario and Near-Term Impacts Scenario: 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2030 Future Year Long-Term Impacts Scenario (General Plan Buildout): 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Upon completion of the traffic conditions assessment for each scenario above, Project impacts and mitigation were identified through an evaluation of the following three comparisons of with and without Project conditions: 1) No Events vs. Project 2) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project 3) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2011 Baseline Conditions The traffic study determined that five intersections and one freeway ramp are significantly impacted by the proposed project under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5-46. Feasible mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level:  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Impacts were also identified under Comparison 3 at the following intersections:  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue 3 Project is assumed to be an 18,900 seat sold out capacity condition. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 6-3 Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Caltrans Facilities In addition, one additional impact for Comparison 3 was identified the following Freeway Ramp under the jurisdictional control of Caltrans:  SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue A mitigation measure to mitigate this impact was identified in Table 5.5-46. However, as stated above, Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements to Caltrans Facilities lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans approval). Consequently, the impact at this location would remain significant and unavoidable. 2013 Opening Year Conditions The study determined that the same locations with project impacts under the 2011 Baseline conditions continue to experience project impact under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5-47. Feasible mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level:  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Impacts were also identified under Comparison 3 at the following intersections:  State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue  Sunkist Street / Ball Road  SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Caltrans Facilities In addition, one additional impact for Comparison 3 was identified the following Freeway Ramp under the jurisdictional control of Caltrans:  SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue A mitigation measure to mitigate this impact was identified in Table 5.5-47. However, as state above, Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements to Caltrans Facilities lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans approval). Consequently, the impact at this location would remain significant and unavoidable. 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 6-5 2030 Future Year Conditions The traffic study determined that implementation of the proposed project results in significant impact at 25 study intersections, seven study arterial segments, five study freeway weaving segments, and five study freeway ramps under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for all these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5-48. Feasible mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level:  Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue  Lewis Street / Katella Avenue  State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive  Sportstown / Katella Avenue Chapter 7 of the traffic study contains an extensive review of proposed mitigation and feasibility. For the reasons stated therein, the City of Anaheim has determined that all other proposed mitigation identified in Table 5.5-48 is infeasible due for the reasons stated Chapter 7 of the traffic study and summarized in Section 5.5.7.1 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report. In addition, Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. City of Orange Table 5.5-48 identifies impacts and proposed mitigation at the following City of Orange intersections and segments:  State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue  State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps  State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue  Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue  Main Street / Katella Avenue  SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue  Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Street  Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street  Main Street n - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of reasons such as the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although cost estimates have not been completed at this time, it is anticipated that a number of improvements would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction). Should that occur, the project’s traffic impact would remain significant. Tables 5.5-48 present mitigation measures identified through analysis of the Proposed Project traffic impacts, including those locations that are expected to remain significant due to infeasibility. Consequently, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Caltrans Facilities As identified in Impact 5.5-1, there are several deficiencies to Caltrans facilities. A summary of impacts and mitigation strategies for impacted Caltrans’s facilities are shown in Tables 5.5-46 through 5.5-48. Deficient freeway segments within the study area fall under two categories of impacts, (1) project related impacts and (2) cumulative deficiency impacts. Improvements beyond the planned system improvements would be required to maintain an acceptable LOS for the State Highway System. Potential improvement measures would include the addition of one, two, or three lanes to freeway mainline segments. However, capacity improvements to the freeway mainline are not feasible improvement options at a project-level. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements through a Corridor Study beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for I-5 and SR-57, and the City has no control over State facilities. Additional capacity improvements are infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and other environmental constraints. For example, the expansion of the identified freeway segments would involve significant right-of-way acquisition, which would involve either the acquisition of residences and/or businesses, or this would involve bringing the freeway facilities close to such residences and businesses. Potential improvements to reduce weaving impacts include the implementation of an auxiliary lane within the weaving area to improve operations although this does not satisfy the capacity needs of the corresponding and adjacent mainline segment. Standard capacity improvements, through the addition of one or more lanes on the freeway ramps, will not necessarily result in acceptable ramp operations for ramps that are forecast to operate deficiently. The density of the ramps is influenced by both the mainline and ramp volume, therefore, the traffic on the mainline must be reduced or the capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance. Although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of reasons such as the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although cost estimates have not been completed at this time, it is anticipated that a number of improvements would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans approval). Should that occur, the project’s traffic 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 6-7 impact would remain significant. Tables 5.5-46 through 5.5-48 present mitigation measures identified through analysis of the Proposed Project traffic impacts, including those locations that are expected to remain significant due to infeasibility. Consequently, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page 6-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 7-1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.1.1 Purpose and Scope The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR ) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). This chapter identifies potential alternatives to the Proposed Project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[a] through [f]) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR.  “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (15126.6[b]).  “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact” (15126.6[e][1]).  “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (15126.6[e][2]).  “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” (15126.6[f]).  “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (15126.6[f][1]).  For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (15126.6[f][2][A]). 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012  “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative” (15126.6[f][3]). For each development alternative, this analysis:  Describes the alterative,  Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the Proposed Project,  Identifies the impacts of the project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative,  Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic project objectives, and  Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the project. Per the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), additional significant effects of the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. 7.1.2 Project Objectives As described in Section 3.2, the following objectives have been established for the Proposed Project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project, the project alternatives, and associated environmental impacts: 1. Implement the City’s applicable General Plan Goals and Policies including, but not limited to, establishment of the Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center that provides residents, visitors and employees with a variety of housing, employment, shopping and entertainment opportunities that are accessed by arterial highways, transit systems and pedestrian promenades. 2. Implement the Planning Principles of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP). 3. Provide additional entertainment opportunities within a mixed-use environment in close proximity to arterial highways, transit systems and pedestrian promenades consistent with regional planning goals and policies. 4. Approve a zone reclassification for a portion of the project site from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone, so that the zoning is consistent throughout the Project Site. 5. Increase the number of events at Honda Center including, but not limited to, a possible NBA team. 6. Implement various improvements to Honda Center to accommodate and enhance current and future additional event activity. 7. Expand the entertainment sporting options at the Honda Center to continue to position the City as a world class entertainment destination 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 7-3 7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this EIR. 7.2.1 Alternative Sites CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (Guidelines Sec. 15126.6[f][2][A]). In general, any development of the size and type proposed by the project would have substantially the same impacts on air quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Without a site specific analysis, impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and mineral resources cannot be evaluated. Where a previous document has sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental impacts for projects with the same basic purpose, the lead agency should review the previous document. The EIR may rely on the previous document to help it assess the feasibility of potential project alternatives to the extent the circumstances remain substantially the same as they relate to the alternative (Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][C]). As the California Supreme Court indicated in its decisions in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553 (1990): The general plan has been aptly described as the “constitution for all future developments” within the city or county... “The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements..”.. To be sure, the general plan is not immutable, far from it. But it may not be trifled with lightly, as the limitation on the number of amendments to the general plan in any calendar year attests.” (Goleta, 52 cal.3d at 570-571) [In] some circumstances, an EIR may consider alternatives requiring a site-specific amendment of the general plan. However, an EIR is not ordinarily an occasion for the reconsideration or overhaul of fundamental land use policy. (Goleta, at 573) The Proposed Project would involve additional events at Honda Center and construct minor enhancements to the facility. This alternative site analysis considers both existing facilities and undeveloped sites large enough to construct an arena with a minimum capacity of 18,900 spectators and associated parking. The minimum site size for construction of a new facility is approximately 40 acres. It should be noted that Honda Center already has adequate capacity for an additional permanent tenant, including but not limited to, an NBA team or Arena Football. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Use of an Alternate Existing Facility There are no other indoor sports facilities in the City of Anaheim, or in all of Orange County, that provide a minimum capacity of 18,900 spectators. There is an arena at the Anaheim Convention Center with a capacity of 7,500 spectators; however, this capacity is too small to host an additional professional sports franchise. The nearest other facilities with sufficient capacity are in Los Angeles County: Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena in Exposition Park south of downtown Los Angeles, and the Forum in the City of Inglewood. Staples Center already hosts two NBA teams, the Los Angeles Lakers and the Los Angeles Clippers and an NHL team, the Los Angeles Kings. Each NBA team and the NHL team play 41 home games per season. The NBA and NHL season lasts six months, November through April. Considering the schedule demands of the existing NBA and NHL teams, it is very unlikely that Staples Center would be able to host a fourth permanent tenant. The Forum and the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena each formerly hosted one NBA team: the Lakers at the Forum, and the Clippers at the Sports Arena. Due to the age of these facilities, they are not considered suitable for an additional professional sports franchise. Development of a New Facility at an Alternate Site The Honda Center site is located on approximately 41 acres. Developing a facility with comparable capacity and amenities elsewhere in Orange County would require assembling a site of similar area. Northern and central urban Orange County is nearly completely built out; thus, assembling a site of that size would require demolition of substantial numbers of homes and/or businesses. Two potential alternative sites include the former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station now known as Tustin Legacy and the Orange County Great Park (formerly Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro). However, both sites have adopted land use plans which do not currently include sites for a 41 acre sports and entertainment facility. Development of a new facility on an alternate site would also result in numerous impacts that would not occur with the Proposed Project. Since the Honda Center is already constructed, development on an alternative site would commit non-renewable resources such as petroleum, wood, concrete and steel, which would not be required for the Proposed Project. In addition, development of an alternative site would result in construction impacts including noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic. Operational impacts including air quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation and traffic, would likely be similar but would occur in a different location and would lack the existing transportation infrastructure located near Honda Center including freeway access and access to transit. Therefore, development of an alternative site would result in greater impacts than those associated with the proposed project and have been rejected from further analysis. 7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Based on the criteria listed above, the following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail below:  No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative  No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative  Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 7-5 Table 7-1 provides a summary of the relative impacts and feasibility of each alternative. A complete discussion of each alternative is provided below. An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative’s environmental impacts are compared to the Proposed Project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the Proposed Project. Impacts involving air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic, were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 7.7 identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Preferred Land Use Alternative (Proposed Project) is analyzed in detail in Chapter 5 of this SEIR. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 7-1 Summary of Development Alternatives Alternative Description Basis for Selection and Summary of Analysis PROPOSED PROJECT  Add an additional permanent tenant and associated events at Honda Center  Construct the following additions/expansions to Honda Center: o 15,364 square feet of restaurant space o 5,846 square foot team store o 12,436 square foot exterior grand terrace o Expand loading dock  Renovate: o Interior locker room o Interior office space o Interior balcony suite  Interior electrical upgrades PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 1) No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative  Existing general plan and zoning designations would remain  650,000 square foot Honda Center on 41- acre site  No changes to current use of Honda Center  Hosts Anaheim Ducks and a variety of entertainment events  Required by CEQA  Avoids need for zoning reclassification  Avoids construction impacts  Avoids significant transportation and traffic impacts  Does not meet the project objectives. 2) No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative  Add new permanent tenant to Honda Center and/or an additional 69 events for a total of 222 events per year above the current average of 153 events per year.  Would not include any of the proposed expansions, renovations, and upgrades described as part of the Proposed Project  Eliminates potential construction impacts  Does not avoid significant transportation and traffic impacts  Meets most of the project objectives (inconsistent with Objective 6) but not to the degree of the Proposed Project 3) Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative  Add new permanent tenant to Honda Center and/or additional 69 events for a total of 222 events per year above the current average of 153 events per year.  Develop all expansions, renovations, and upgrades included in the Proposed Project  Add roadway improvements to improve operation of intersections and roadway segments that would operate at unacceptable LOS in the Proposed Project plus Angel Stadium Event condition to acceptable LOS.  Reduces traffic impacts to less than significant  Does not avoid significant environmental impacts other than traffic impacts  Meets most of the project objectives (inconsistent with Objectives 1 and 2)  Traffic mitigations would require exercise of condemnation and removal of buildings and would be inconsistent with PTMLUP planning efforts. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 7-7 7.4 NO PROJECT/EXISTING LAND USE ALTERNATIVE This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the structure and operation of the Honda Center would remain unchanged. No additional tenants or events would occur at the facility, and none of the proposed facility improvements would be undertaken. Use of the Honda Center would continue to average about 153 events per year, including Anaheim Ducks NHL events. 7.4.1 Air Quality No construction or additional operational emissions would occur. Use of Honda Center would continue to operate similar to existing operations with a variety of sports and entertainment events, including 41 home games for the Anaheim Ducks. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. 7.4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions No construction or operational GHG emissions would occur. No construction or additional operational emissions would occur. Use of Honda Center would continue to operate similar to existing operations with a variety of sports and entertainment events, including 41 home games for the Anaheim Ducks. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project; 7.4.3 Land Use and Planning This alternative would not involve any changes to land use regulations pertaining to the Honda Center site. Impacts to land use and planning would be reduced compared to those of the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.4.4 Noise No construction noise or additional operational noise impacts would occur in this alternative; thus, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7.4.5 Transportation and Traffic This alternative would not generate construction trips or additional event trips and thus would have no additional impacts to intersection or arterial segment levels of service. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. 7.4.6 Utilities and Service Systems This alternative would not change water demand and wastewater generation at the Honda Center. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, although this is not a significant, unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 7.4.7 Conclusion Avoid or Substantially Lessen Project Impacts This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project in all six resource areas, including air quality, GHG, land use and planning, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities. All impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant, with the exception transportation and traffic. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the Proposed Project identified in Section 3.2 of this DEIR. Comparative Merits This alternative would reduce impacts compared to the Proposed Project in all six categories analyzed in the EIR: air quality, GHG, land use and planning, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities. However, the Proposed Project would not have any significant and unavoidable impacts, with the exception of transportation and traffic. This alternative would avoid the significant traffic impacts of the Project, however, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. 7.5 NO ENHANCEMENTS WITH NEW HONDA CENTER EVENTS ALTERNATIVE This alternative would allow up to 222 events per year at Honda Center but would not construct any of the renovations and upgrades included in the Proposed Project. As a result, this Alternative would not include the proposed team store, restaurant space, or outdoor grand terrace. The seating capacity of Honda Center in this alternative would be the same as for the Proposed Project, 18,900. The slight increase in employees working at the restaurant and expanded store in the Proposed Project would not occur in this alternative. Employment density in square feet per employee is estimated as one employee per 617 square feet for both retail (except regional retail) and service (including restaurant) uses (Natelson Company 2001). Thus, the reduction in operational employment in this alternative would be (15,364/617), or 25 employees, for the restaurant and (4,046/617), or seven employees, for the expanded store, for a total of 32 employees. Thirty-two employees would be about 0.16 percent of the total New Honda Center Event population. The numbers of spectators and team members would be the same in this alternative as in the Proposed Project. 7.5.1 Air Quality No construction would occur, and no construction emissions would result, from implementation of this alternative. Operational emissions would be slightly reduced in this alternative due to a slight reduction in the number of employees; however, the vast majority of operational emissions of the proposed project would be from existing facilities at Honda Center and from vehicle trips to and from Honda Center. Emissions of air pollutants would be reduced in this alternative; however, air quality impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 7-9 7.5.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions In this alternative operational GHG emissions from the number of event attendees at Honda Center and traveling to and from Honda Center would be the same as in the Proposed Project. Operational emissions would be reduced slightly in this alternative because fewer employees would be generated by the restaurant and team store, which would not be developed in this alternative. Construction GHG emissions also would not occur in this alternative. Therefore, impacts would be reduced slightly comparable to the Proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. 7.5.3 Land Use and Planning This alternative would also involve the zoning reclassification included in the Proposed Project; therefore, this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project with regards to land use. 7.5.4 Noise This alternative would avoid construction noise impacts, as no construction would occur. Operational traffic noise impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Project. Most of the proposed additions and expansions at Honda Center in the proposed project would be indoors, and thus would not generate noise affecting people outside of the Honda Center site. The only substantial outdoor addition to Honda Center in the Proposed Project would be the grand terrace; use of the grand terrace is not expected to generate substantial noise levels that would affect people beyond the Honda Center site. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project regarding construction noise impacts; however, noise impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. 7.5.5 Transportation and Traffic This alternative would avoid construction traffic impacts, as no construction would occur. During operation of this alternative the number of employees would be reduced slightly compared to the Proposed Project; however, numbers of spectators and team members are expected to be similar in the two scenarios. The difference in the event populations between the two scenarios would be trivial; thus, operational traffic impacts would be similar for this alternative as for the Proposed Project. As a result, the significant traffic impacts of the Project would not be avoided under this alternative. 7.5.6 Utilities and Service Systems As discussed in Section 5.6, Utilities and Service Systems, operational water use and wastewater generation increase if the Proposed Project were implemented due to the new restaurant space and team store. Therefore, this alternative would reduce wastewater generation by approximately 3,181.5 gallons per day (gpd) or 3.6 acre feet per year (AFY) and water consumption by 4,136 gpd or 4.6 AFY. However, utilities and service systems impacts were not identified as significant. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-10  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 7.5.7 Conclusion Avoid or Substantially Lessen Project Impacts This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project in four of the six resource areas analyzed in Chapter 5: air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and utilities and service systems. However, note that for each of these resources this alternative would reduce construction impacts but not operational impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, or traffic. In addition, the significant air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic impacts of the Project would not be avoided under this alternative. This alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Proposed Project in land use and planning. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would meet most but not all of the project objectives as described in Section 3.2. Comparative Merits This alternative would reduce impacts compared to the Proposed Project in the categories of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation and traffic as it relates to construction; and would have similar impacts in the category of land use and planning. This alternative would satisfy most but not all of the project objectives. However, this alternative would not eliminate the significant air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation/traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project. 7.6 ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE To assess the traffic impacts associated the Proposed Project, a total of five (5) scenarios under three horizon years are analyzed by this Draft Environmental Impact Report, as outlined below: 2011 Baseline Analytical Project Direct Impacts Scenario: 1) 2011 Baseline (No Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event1 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event2 4) 2011 Baseline with Project3 5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2013 Opening Year Analytical Impacts Scenario and Near-Term Impacts Scenario: 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 1 Average Attendance Honda Center Event is assumed to be an average attendance event or 11,264 seats as described in the September 2, 2011 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 344 for Honda Center Enhancement Project. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. 2 Angel Stadium Event is assumed to be an average Angel Stadium baseball game attendance of 29,402 based on year 2010 season attendance figures provided by the City of Anaheim. Traffic conditions are adjusted accordingly from traffic counts taken for the August 24, 2011 event. 3 Project is assumed to be an 18,900 seat sold out capacity condition. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 7-11 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2030 Future Year Long-Term Impacts Scenario (General Plan Buildout): 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Upon completion of the traffic conditions assessment for each scenario above, Project impacts and mitigation were identified through an evaluation of the following three comparisons of with and without Project conditions: 1) No Events vs. Project 2) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project 3) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative would allow the same number events as the Proposed Project (up to 222 events), develop all of the enhancements to the facility planned in the Proposed Project and include the proposed zone reclassification. This alternative would also involve roadway improvements to reduce significant traffic impacts in the 2011 Baseline, 2013 Opening Year, and 2030 Future Year Conditions for Comparisons 1, 2, and 3, to less than significant levels. Intersections, arterial segments, and freeways that would be significantly impacted by the proposed project, for Comparisons 1, 2, and 3 are shown in Tables 5.5- 44 through 5.5-46. The purpose of this alternative is to eliminate the significant transportation and traffic impacts of the Proposed Project. All proposed improvements to public roadways would be constructed by the City of Anaheim or its contractor. Honda Center would be responsible for the full cost of construction of improvements needed for mitigating significant impacts in the 2011 Baseline and 2013 Opening Year with Project scenarios. Honda Center would be responsible for fair-share payments toward the cost of construction of improvements needed for mitigating significant impacts in the 2030 Proposed Project plus Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. The necessary improvements would result in additional right-of-way and impact existing structures, parking, and landscaping. Under this Alternative, improvements would be required at 47 locations, including 11 intersections, 26 arterial roadway segments, 5 freeway ramps, and 5 freeway weaving segments. For a list of improvement locations, see Tables 5.5-44 through 5.5-46. This alternative would be environmentally inferior in four resource areas; air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and noise, mainly due to construction of the additional roadway improvements. The necessary improvements would result in additional right-of-way and impact pedestrian connections, existing and proposed bike lanes, existing structures, parking, and landscaping. However, the significant transportation and traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be avoided. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-12  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This Alternative would also be in conflict with many of the City’s goals and policies included in the General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Compass Blueprint which promote the use of alternative forms of transportation including walking, biking, busses, and trains. As stated above, the improvements necessary to fully mitigate the traffic impacts of the Proposed Project plus Angel Stadium Event scenario would result in additional right-of-way and impact pedestrian connections, existing and proposed bike lanes, existing structures, parking, and landscaping. This alternative would meet most of the project objectives established for the Proposed Project. However, the proposed roadway improvements would impact adjacent land uses and result in greater impacts than those associated with the Proposed Project. This alternative would reduce impacts that occur when an event at Honda Center and an event at Angels Stadium happen concurrently. However, this condition only occurs a few times per year. Freeway Ramps, Freeway Weaving Segment 7.6.2 Air Quality Additional short-term construction impacts would occur in this alternative due to the road construction associated with this alternative. Road construction associated with this alternative would occur at the locations listed above resulting in additional construction emissions adjacent to those locations. Many of the locations are surrounded by sensitive receptors to criteria air pollutants such as PM10, PM2.5, and CO. Construction of roadway improvements would comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations for reducing air emissions pursuant to a SCAQMD Permit to Construct (Rule 201) and Fugitive Dust rule, Rule 403. Operational emissions from vehicles would be slightly reduced in this alternative due to reduced congestion resulting from roadway improvements that would be built in this alternative. Idling vehicles produce more emissions of air pollutants than do moving vehicles. However, regional emissions would remain the same because the trip generation would be the same as with the Proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative would result in greater construction air quality impacts while operational impacts would remain the same. 7.6.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction emissions would be slightly increased due to construction of road improvements. However, regional GHG emissions would remain the same because the trip generation would be the same as with the Proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative would result in greater construction GHG impacts while operational impacts would remain the same. 7.6.4 Land Use and Planning This alternative would involve the same zone change as the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, the zoning reclassification would be required. However, this alternative would require additional traffic improvements and right-of-way requirements, resulting in impacts to existing structures, parking, and landscaping. Therefore, land use impacts would be greater than the Proposed Project. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 7-13 7.6.5 Noise Operational noise impacts would be similar for this alternative as for the Proposed Project, as operational characteristics of the Honda Center would be the same in both scenarios. Short-term construction noise would be greater for this alternative due to construction of roadway improvements. Of the forty-seven locations where roadway improvements would be built (26 intersections, 11 roadway segments, 5 freeway ramps, and 5 freeway weaving segments), sensitive receptors, including residential uses, are located adjacent to many of them. Therefore, this alternative would involve greater short-term noise impacts. 7.6.6 Transportation and Traffic The proposed roadway improvements in this alternative would reduce all of the significant impacts in the 2013 Proposed Project plus Angel Stadium Event and 2030 Proposed Project plus Angel Stadium Event scenarios to less than significant. This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project because it would eliminate the significant transportation and traffic impacts of the Proposed Project. 7.6.7 Utilities and Service Systems Utility demands by operation of Honda Center in this alternative would be the same as for the Proposed Project, since the number of events would be the same. 7.6.8 Conclusion Avoid or Substantially Lessen Project Impacts This alternative would be environmentally inferior in four resource areas; air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and noise, mainly due to construction of the additional roadway improvements. The necessary improvements would result in additional right-of-way and impact existing structures, parking, and landscaping. However, the significant transportation and traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be avoided. Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would meet most of the project objectives as described in Section 3.2, except for the first and second objectives. Comparative Merits This alternative would be environmentally inferior in four resource areas; air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and noise, mainly due to construction of the additional roadway improvements. The necessary improvements would result in additional right-of-way and impact pedestrian connections, existing and proposed bike lanes, existing structures, parking, and landscaping. However, the significant transportation and traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be avoided. This Alternative would also be in conflict with many of the City’s goals and policies included in the General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Compass Blueprint which promote the use of alternative forms of transportation including walking, biking, 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page 7-14  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 busses, and trains. As stated above, the improvements necessary to fully mitigate the traffic impacts of the Proposed Project plus Angel Stadium Event scenario would result in additional right-of-way and impact pedestrian connections, existing and proposed bike lanes, existing structures, parking, and landscaping. This alternative would meet most of the project objectives established for the Proposed Project. However, the proposed roadway improvements would impact adjacent land uses and result in greater impacts than those associated with the Proposed Project. This alternative would reduce impacts that occur when an event at Honda Center and an event at Angels Stadium happen concurrently. However, this condition only occurs a few times per year. 7.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases where the “No-Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. Two alternatives have been identified as “environmentally superior” to the Proposed Project: 1. No-Project/Existing Land Use Alternative 2. No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative The No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative has the least impact to the environment because it is environmentally superior alternative with regard to air quality, GHG emissions, land use and planning, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. However, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][2]) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior development alternative. Table 7-2 shows impact comparison matrix for each impact category. Table 7-2 Alternative Impact Comparison Matrix Superior Same Inferior Air Quality* Greenhouse Gas Emissions* Land Use & Planning Noise Transportation and Traffic* No Project/Existing Land Use Utilities & Service Systems Construction Air Quality Operational Air Quality* Construction Noise Land Use and Planning Greenhouse Gas Emissions* Operational Noise Utilities and Service Systems Transportation and Traffic* No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Transportation and Traffic* Operational Air Quality* Construction Air Quality Operational Noise Greenhouse Gas Emissions* Utilities and Service Systems Land Use and Planning Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative Construction Noise Note: *Significant unavoidable project impact. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 7-15 The No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative would reduce environmental impacts compared to the Proposed Project in two of the six resource areas: construction air quality and construction noise. However, the No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative would not avoid the significant impacts related to operational air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation and traffic. While meeting some of the project objectives, it would not implement various improvements to Honda Center to accommodate and enhance current and future additional event activity. The proposed project includes addition of amenities to Honda Center such as additional restaurant space, a new team store, and renovation of several areas in the facility. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” [Guidelines Sec. 15126.6(c)]. These are factors which will be considered by the City of Anaheim decision-makers in determining whether to approve the Proposed Project or one of the alternatives identified above. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 8-1 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant California Public Resources Code Section 21003 (f) states: “…it is the policy of the state that…all persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15126.2(a), which states that “a[n] EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project” and Section 15143 which states that “the EIR shall focus on the significant effects of the environment.” The Guidelines allow use of an Initial Study to document project effects that are less than significant (Guidelines Section 15063[c]). Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. 8.3 ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project in September 2011 determined that the impacts listed below would be less than significant. Consequently, these impacts have not been further analyzed in this EIR. Please refer to Appendix A for explanation of the basis of these conclusions. Impact categories and questions below are summarized directly from the CEQA Environmental Checklist, as contained in the Initial Study. Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? No Impact c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by the Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 8-3 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? No Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact iv) Landslides? No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as described by Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact i) Include a new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands, etc.), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and noxious odors)? No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site No Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site? No Impact e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? No Impact k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? No Impact l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters? No Impact m) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Less Than Significant Impact n) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post construction activities? Less Than Significant Impact o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? No Impact 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 8-5 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less Than Significant Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Although this was identified as “Less than Significant Impact” in the Initial Study, this topic is addressed in Section 5.3, Land Use and Planning, of this DEIR. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact c) Schools? No Impact d) Parks? No Impact e) Other public facilities? No Impact XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Page 8-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. Would the project: c) 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? No Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities? No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? Less Than Significant Impact i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? Less Than Significant Impact j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? Less Than Significant Impact k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? Less Than Significant Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 9-1 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the Proposed Project should it be implemented. The project consists of only minor physical modifications to an existing facility, in addition to an increase in the number of events held at the facility. However, these modifications would involve minor construction activities that would entail the commitment of some nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy sources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metal, and water. The project would also require an increased commitment of public maintenance services (e.g., sewer, water, solid waste, and natural gas services). Such commitments are currently required for the operation of the existing facility but would be increased due to the additional yearly attendance at Honda Center events. While not irreversible, and not requiring new infrastructure beyond planned improvements, the increased commitment of public maintenance services would be a long-term obligation. Implementation of the Proposed Project would maintain the long-term commitment of the land as a world class sports and entertainment facility. Considering the previous investment in the Project Site, the probability that it will revert to a less intense land use requiring less services, energy, or physical resources in the future is unlikely. 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project Page 9-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 10-1 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the Proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also required is an assessment of other projects that would foster other activities which could affect the environment, individually or cumulatively. To address this issue, potential growth inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions:  Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development?  Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?  Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?  Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Please note that growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this EIR. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project Area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? Honda Center is an existing multi-purpose arena facility currently in use as a venue for major-league sporting events, concerts, and other entertainment. None of the proposed improvements to the facility would change this use or increase the maximum seating capacity of the arena. Peak stormwater generation, natural gas consumption, water consumption, and wastewater generation would not exceed existing conditions. Therefore, an increased number of yearly events held at the arena will not require the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities. The Proposed Project also does not include changes to land use regulations that would induce growth. The proposal to reclassify parcels from the Transition (T) Zone to the Public Recreation (PR) Zone is designed to ensure that the zoning of those parcels is consistent with the balance of the Project Site, not to make those parcels available for future development. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? As discussed in Section 5.5, Transportation and Traffic, the Proposed Project would contribute to deficiencies in levels of service at intersections near Honda Center. However, deficient traffic operations conditions are a 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Page 10-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 pre-existing condition based on the current average of 153 events per year occurring at the Honda Center. Mitigation Measures identified in Section 5.5.7 of this EIR, which reduces project-related traffic impacts using project-related improvements, traffic management plans, mitigation measures adopted as part of the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project EIR and the future ARTIC facility will improve levels of service for traffic and transportation infrastructure serving Honda Center to the extent feasible. As discussed in Section 5.6, Utilities and Service Systems, the Proposed Project will increase water demand and wastewater generation on an annual basis due to the additional events. However, the project is not expected to require substantial upsizing of sewer mains or water mains serving Honda Center, since peak demands will not be increased. Existing regulations and planned improvements to infrastructure would also ensure that service capability will not exceed desired levels of service. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. This would last until project construction is completed in 2012 and would be a direct, but temporary, growth- inducing impact of the project. Additionally, the increased number of guests visiting Honda Center on an annual basis would potentially spur new economic investment in restaurants and other commercial uses serving visitors to the arena. This would represent an increased demand for economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses, and/or the expansion of existing businesses which address these economic needs. However, this effect would be less than significant due to the arena’s existing use as an entertainment and sports venue and the Project Site’s proximity to Angel Stadium, the City National Grove of Anaheim, and the Disneyland Resort, facilities that also attract visitor-oriented commercial uses. Honda Center’s location within the burgeoning Platinum Triangle will mitigate any additional need to accommodate local business growth since the PTMU Overlay Zone plans for dramatic increases in commercial uses in the area. Therefore, while the Proposed Project will have an indirect growth-inducing effect, this will be accommodated by the existing growth planned for the Platinum Triangle. If the additional events at the Honda Center include a permanent tenant that is an existing franchise, the Proposed Project could result in economic effects in the market area where the franchise is currently located. The most commonly cited example of how an economic effect might create a physical change is where economic growth in one area could lead to a causal change in prolonged vacancies which in turn lead to systemic physical changes in the environment resulting from sustained vacancies. Most often this “urban blighting” has been speculated to occur in older downtown areas of cities which may suffer from long term vacancies due to the alleged inability of smaller downtown retailer formats to compete with large national retail chains. If an NBA team, such as the Sacramento Kings, were to relocate to the Honda Center, it is not foreseeable that the transfer would cause long term vacancies which in turn would cause physical changes amounting to urban blight. The Power Balance Arena would still be able to continue to host a variety of events, including but not limited to events it has held in the past such as World Wrestling Events; Professional Rodeo Events; various religious events such as Billy Graham’s Christian Crusade; high school basketball tournaments; Ultimate Fighting Championships; NCAA basketball and volleyball tournaments; rock concerts; ice skating shows such as Disney on ice; Monster Jam; motor cycle super cross; and college and high school special events. Nor would the surrounding area of Natomas, Sacramento be foreseeably affected by tenant changes at Power Balance area such that it could be deemed that tenant changes directly cause long term shopping center and residential vacancies that lead to physical changes in the environment. The Natomas area of Sacramento has been home to tremendous growth in the past several decades, primarily due to the growth government employment in Sacramento. Such employment is not forecast to decline. The Natomas area of the 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 10-3 City is home to Sacramento International Airport, and vibrant retail shopping centers such as the Natomas Marketplace. It is not foreseeable that the loss of a major tenant at Power Balance Arena will lead to sustained retail and residential vacancies that will lead to physical changes in the environment. Moreover, at this time it is unclear precisely what new tenant may occupy the Honda Center, if any. Since the additional tenant has not been identified, any assessment of indirect physical effects due to blight would be speculative. Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? The proposed project includes a zone reclassification for a portion of the Project Site. This is not a precedent setting action since it would only serve to ensure that the whole of the site is zoned consistent with its use as an arena. Such a zoning reclassification would remain consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, which identifies the project site as planned for Mixed-Use, and the Platinum Triangle MLUP which identifies the project site as part of the Arena District, a district meant to accommodate a “balance between everyday uses/services and more intermittent special event activity” (City of Anaheim, 2004). No changes to any of the City’s building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement this project. Increases in the number of annual events at Honda Center and minor improvements to the existing facility are consistent with the arena’s existing use and will not facilitate new activities that would significantly affect the environment. 10. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Page 10-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 11-1 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted CITY OF ANAHEIM (Lead Agency) Planning Department Sheri Vander Dussen Planning Director CJ Amstrup Planning Services Manager Susan Kim Senior Planner Tracy Sato Senior Planner Public Works Department Natalie Meeks Director of Public Works David Kennedy Associate Transportation Planner Jamie Lai Transit Manager City Attorney Mark Gordon Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez Special Counsel (Rutan & Tucker LLP) Police Department John Welter Police Chief Minh Nguyen Police Officer Fire Department Jeff Lutz Fire Marshal Robert Logue Deputy Chief Community Services Terry Lowe Director of Community Services Pamela Galera Principal Project Planner 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted Page 11-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Library System Carol Stone City Librarian Audrey Lujan Library Operations/Branch Services Manager Public Utilities Sara Mathis Principal Water Engineer Aladdin Shaikh Principal Water Engineer Michael LeBlanc Senior Power Systems Planning Engineer Convention, Sports & Entertainment Tanya S. La Soya Convention, Sports & Entertainment Manager HONDA CENTER Kevin Starkey Vice President of Operations Dion Beckton Senior Building Engineer Merit Tully Director of Media & Communications BANYAN GROUP CONSTRUCTION George McGuire Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 12-1 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR THE PLANNING CENTER William Halligan, Esq. Vice President, Environmental Services  BA, University of California, Irvine, Social Ecology, 1988  JD, Chapman University School of Law, 1999 Nicole Vermilion Senior Planner  BA, Environmental Studies and BS Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2002  Master of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California, Irvine, 2005 Michael Milroy Associate Planner  BS, Biology, California State University, Long Beach, 1999  MS, Interdisciplinary Studies/Neuroscience, California State University, Long Beach, 2004 Ryan Potter Assistant Planner  BS, City and Regional Planning, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, 2006  Master of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California, Irvine, 2011 Cary Nakama Graphic Designer  BA, Business Administration: Data Processing and Marketing, California State University, Long Beach  AA, Computer Graphic Design, Platt College of Computer Graphic Design 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR Page 12-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 13-1 13. Bibliography 13.1 REFERENCES Anaheim, City of. 2011, May (amended). City of Anaheim Municipal Code. ———. 2004a, May 25 (amended). City of Anaheim General Plan Update. ———. 2004b, August 17 (amended). The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. ———. 2005, May. Platinum Triangle Draft Environmental Impact Report, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Auffhammer, Maximilian and Carson, Richard T. 2008, May. Forecasting the path of China’s CO2 emissions using province-level information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 229-247. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011, Updated May. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines. Berger, Elliott, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. 2006, February. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with over 1,700 Measurement Values. Version 1.0. E-A-R 88-34/HP. Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2003. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. New York: Spon Press. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA). 2010, August. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. ———. 2008, June. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. ———. 2000, October. California’s Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. ———. 1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009, June. Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Volume I, Initial Statement of Reasons. ———. 2008a, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. 13. Bibliography Page 13-2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 ———. 2008b January. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions under CAFE Standards and ARB Regulations Adopted Pursuant to AB1493. ———. 2008c February. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the United States and Canada Under US CAFÉ Standards and California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Regulations. ———. 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. ———. 1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List. California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2007, April 20. CAT Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California. ———. 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Important Farmland. Map. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration: Caltrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV-02-01-R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998, October. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. ———. 1997, December. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. UCD-ITS-RR- 97-21. Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2005, June. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis, Gerry and Jennifer Allen, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2002 Update. California Energy Commission Staff Paper CEC-600-2005-025. Sacramento, California. ———. 2006, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report CEC-600-2006-013-SF. ———. 2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals. Report CEC-600-2007-008-SD. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals. Report CEC-600-2007-008-SD. ———. 2006a, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report CEC-600-2006-013-SF. ———. 2006b. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report. California Climate Change Center, California Energy Commission Staff Paper, Sacramento, California, Report CEC-500-2006-077. 13. Bibliography Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 13-3 ———. 2005a, June. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis, Gerry and Jennifer Allen, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2002 Update. California Energy Commission Staff Paper CEC-600-2005-025. Sacramento, California. ———. 2005b, November. California's Water-Energy Relationship. CEC-700.2005-011-SF. CH2MHill. 2009, June. Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS) – Analysis of Models for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR NO. 339). DRC Engineering, Inc. 2011, December. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Honda Center Enhancement Project. Energy Information Administration, United States (EIA). 2008. International Energy Outlook 2008. Enstrom, James. 2005, December 15. Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Total Mortality Among Elderly Californians, 1973 2002. Inhalation Toxicology. 17(14):803 16. Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN). 1997, June. Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. ———. 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. ———. 2007, Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet. http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/environment/planning_environment_2233.html Holland, David. 2007, December. Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair and its Implications. Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7+8, Pg. 954. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. Technical Advisory, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through CEQA Review. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press. International Energy Agency. 2006. World Energy Outlook 2006. Monckton, Christopher. 2008, September. Hockey Stick? What Hockey Stick? Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Commentary and Essay Series. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2010, October. OCSD Capital Improvement Plan – Fiscal Year 2009-10 Update. 13. Bibliography Page 13-4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas. 2010, May. Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Traffic Study Report. May 2010. Parsons Brinkerhoff. 2012, January. The Honda Center Traffic Study Report. Psomas. 2009, June. The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment. Public Economics, Inc. 2006, June 5. Addendum to March 17, 2004 Fee Justification Study. Rymer, Bruce and Donavan, Paul. 2005, November. California Tests Show Pavement Selection Influences Noise Levels. Hot Mix Asphalt Technology (HMAT) Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 6, Pg. 25-33. November/December 2005. Singer, S. Fred. 2008, March. Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, The Heartland Institute. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise – Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise. AIR 1081. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 1995. Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008, October. Regional Comprehensive Plan. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008, May. 2008 Regional Transportation Plan: Making the Connections. Southern California Regional Rail Authority. 2007, January 26. SCCRA Strategic Assessment. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide. ———. 2008, September. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III). ———. 2007, June. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. ———. 2006, October. Final Methodology to Calculate PM2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds. ———. 2003, June. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. ———. 1993, April. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (GOPR). California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Adopted December 30, 2007, effective March 18, 2010. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2010, February. Final 20X2020 Water Conservation Plan. 13. Bibliography Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 13-5 The Economist. 2008, June 5. Melting Asia. The Economist. The Planning Center. 2004, May. Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330. ———. 2005, October. The Platinum Triangle Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No. 332. The Planning Center|DC&E. 2011, November. The Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study. ———. 2012, January. The Honda Center Noise Technical Study. Tol, Richard S. 2007, December. Biased Policy Advice From The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7-8, Pg. 933. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. U.S. Senate Minority Report. 2008, December. More than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man- Made Global Warming Claims; Scientists Continue to Debunk Consensus. 13.2 WEBSITES Affordable Housing Strategic Plan Update & Affordable Housing Commission. City of Anaheim, Live and Archived Media Resource, Workshop Meeting Videos, August 21, 2007. http://anaheim.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2. Accessed on September 7, 2007. Airnav, LLC. 2007. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports. Amtrak. 2011, July 15. Timetables. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1237405732505/1237405732505. Anaheim Regional Transit (ART). 2011. Route 15 Schedule. http://www.rideart.org/schedules/route-15/ BBK News. 2007, December. US sets terms for climate talks. BBK News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7145608.stm. California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2006. Jurisdictional Profile for City of Anaheim. Jurisdiction Diversion and Disposal Profile: California Waste Stream Profiles. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile2.asp?RG=C&JURID=15&JUR=Anaheim Accessed on January 26, 2006. California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2007. Solid Waste Landfilling Data: 2005 Landfill Summary Tonnage Report. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Landfills/Tonnage. Accessed on January 26, 2007. California Department of Education. Education al Demographics Unit. DataQuest Graph. Time Series – Public School Enrollment. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SearchName.asp?rbTimeFrame= 13. Bibliography Page 13-6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 oneyear&rYear=2006-07&cName=anaheim&Topic=Enrollment&Level=School. Accessed on March 14, 2007. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008). http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/start. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010). http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html ———. 2010, August. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. ———. 2010, March. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, January. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007, July. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, March. 2010 State Area Designations. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/2010statedesig.htm. California Integrated Waste Management Board (now CalRecycle). Revised 2008. Contractor's Report to the Board, California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1346 California Public Utilities Commission. 2011. Clean Power Estimator. http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/tools/clean_power_estimator.php Delingpole, James. 2009, November 20. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of “Anthropogenic Global Warming? Telegraph.co.uk. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the- coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/. Environment Canada. 2010, May. A Summery of Trends: 1990-2008. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges- ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=0590640B-1. Gotickets.com. 2011, September 22. Arco Arena Tickets. http://www.gotickets.com/venues/ca/arco_arena.php. Gray, Louise. 2010, April 14. Hockey stick” graph was exaggerated. Telegraph.co.uk. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was- exaggerated.html. 13. Bibliography Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 13-7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2010, January 20. IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement- 20january2010.pdf. Kestenbaum. 2007, October 1. Japan Wrestles with Kyoto Accord Promises. National Public Radio (NPR). http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14087783. Leake, Jonathan. 2010, February 7. Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility. The Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece. Malcolm Pirnie. 2011, June. City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/waterservices/10_UWMP.pdf. Metrolink. 2011, July 5. Schedules: Orange County Line. http://www.metrolinktrains.com/schedules/html.php?id=1111. Natelson Company, The. 2001, October 31. Employment Density Study Summary Report. Prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments. http://www.scag.ca.gov/pdfs/Employment_Density_Study.pdf. Office of the California Attorney General (AG). 2008, May. The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2011, June 12. Route 50 Schedule. http://www.octa.net/pdf/pdf/feb2011/route050.pdf. ———. 2011b, June 12. Route 153 Schedule. http://www.octa.net/pdf/pdf/june2011/route153.pdf. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2008, December. Economy-Wide Cap & Trade Proposals in the 110th Congress. http://www.pewclimate.org/federal/analysis/congress/110/cap-trade-bills. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). South Coast AQMD List of Current Rules. California Air Resources Board. http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sc/cur.htm. ———. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III) Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk. http://www2.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/. Accessed 2011. ———. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf ———. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Updates to CEQA Air Quality Handbook. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2007. 2% Strategy Opportunity Area Maps. Compass Blueprint, Strategic Opportunity Areas Maps. http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/orange-county.pdf. 13. Bibliography Page 13-8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 ———. 2011. 2012 RTP Development Timeline. http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtp2012/index.htm. Southern California Edison (SCE). 2011. Renewable Energy. http://www.sce.com/powerandenvironment/renewables/default.htm The Times of India. 2009, December 10. China emissions could double by 2020. The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-emissions-could-double-by-2020- Experts/articleshow/5321352.cms. US Census Bureau. Fact Sheet. 2000. Anaheim city, California. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id= 16000US0602000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US06%7C16000US0602000&_street=&_ county=anaheim&_cityTown=anaheim&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&Active GeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2005_S AFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=&_keyword=&_industry=. ———. Data Profile: Anaheim city, California. Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005 American Community Survey http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_s treet=&_county=anaheim&_cityTown=anaheim&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=o n&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html. ———. 2010, June. US Climate Policy and Actions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes. Non CO2 Gases Economic Analysis and Inventory. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#GWP ———. 2008, April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html ———. 2008. Criteria Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/o3co.htmll Watts, Jonathan. 2007, June 4. China unveils climate change plan. Guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/04/china.jonathanwatts. Webster, Ben. 2010, February 4. IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri under pressure to go over glacial error, The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Santa Ana Monitoring Station (ID No. ID 049087). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html. Accessed June 2011. 13. Bibliography Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Page 13-9 Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Anaheim Monitoring Station (ID No. 040192). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html. Accessed 2009. 13.3 MODELS California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006, November 1. EMFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Report No. FHWA-RD77-108. Rimpo and Associates, Inc. 2007. URBEMIS2007 Computer Model, Version 9.2.4. Sonoma Technology, Inc. CALINE4 Computer Model, Version 1.31. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, August. Waste Reduction Model (WARM). 13.4 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations, Honda Center. 2011, June. Personal Communications and Honda Center Operational Survey. 13. Bibliography Page 13-10  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Appendices Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. City of Anaheim Planning Department Notice of Preparation DATE: September 2, 2011 TO: Responsible Agencies and State Clearinghouse FROM: City of Anaheim SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 344 for the Honda Center Enhancement Project The City of Anaheim is the Lead Agency responsible for preparing Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 344 (DEIR No. 344) to analyze the impacts of the Honda Center Enhancement Project. The proposed project includes an increase in the number of annual events at the Honda Center through the addition of another permanent tenant, as well as other permanent improvements described below. The 1990 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Honda Center (formerly the Arrowhead Pond) analyzed up to 162 events per year. The Honda Center currently averages up to 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of up to 11,264 people. The maximum number of events over the last five years was 162 events in 2008. The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events by 60 from the previous high of 162 events for a total of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average three events per week at the Honda Center, and the proposed project would result in four events per week on average. The purpose of the project would be to accommodate a National Basketball Association (NBA) franchise at the Honda Center. There are 3 pre- season games, 41 regular home games during the NBA season and up to 16 postseason games. Seating capacity of a basketball game is 18,336, and the proposed project would not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity of current events. In addition to an increase in the number of annual events at the Honda Center, the proposed project would involve other minor improvements to the existing facility including: • Addition of a 12,000 square foot exterior grand terrace • Construction of a 250 seat, 4,000 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees • Enlarged team store (from 1,800 square feet to 4,000 square feet) • Relocated 2,000 square foot box office (swings to the south to accommodate the enlarged team store) • Interior locker room renovation • Interior office space renovation • Interior bunker suite renovation • Interior electrical upgrades • Increase capacity of loading dock • Interior balcony suite renovation None of the proposed improvements would increase the permanent seating capacity of the existing arena; however, the improvements would result in the loss of approximately 15-20 parking spaces. The proposed project includes a zone reclassification for a portion of the project site from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone, consistent with the zoning for the remainder of the project site. A detailed project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is attached. The document may also be reviewed on the City of Anaheim Planning Department’s website at www.anaheim.net/planning (click on the link to “Planning and Zoning” followed by the link to Current Environmental Documents). The document will be identified as “The Honda Center Enhancement Project.” Responses: We would like to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, please send your written response to the City of Anaheim at the address below at the earliest possible date but not later than October 4, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. Please include the name for the contact person in your agency. Responses may also be submitted by fax to (714) 765-5280 or by email to skim@anaheim.net. Susan Kim, Senior Planner City of Anaheim, MS 162 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA, 92805 Scoping Meeting: The City will hold a public scoping meeting at 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 in the Council Chamber, City Hall East, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California. Questions: Please contact Susan Kim, Senior Planner, at (714) 765-4958 or Skim@anaheim.net. Project Title: DEIR No. 344 Honda Center Enhancement Project Project Applicant: City of Anaheim Initial Study for the HONDA CENTER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT AND ASSOCIATED ACTIONS City of Anaheim, California Lead Agency: City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Prepared by: The Planning Center 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 (714) 966-9220 September 2011 City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project i Initial Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Project Location ................................................................................................................ 1 Operational Characteristics ............................................................................................... 9 Project Background ........................................................................................................... 9 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 10 Anticipated Additional Project Approvals ........................................................................ 11 CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM .............................................. 15 CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ................................................... 19 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 19 Determination .................................................................................................................. 19 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 23 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................. 23 II. Agricultural Resources .......................................................................................... 23 III. Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 24 IV. Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 25 V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 25 VI. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 26 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................. 27 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................ 28 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................ 30 X. Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 32 XI. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 33 XII. Noise ..................................................................................................................... 33 XIII. Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 34 XIV. Public Services ..................................................................................................... 34 XV. Recreation ............................................................................................................. 35 XVI. Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................ 35 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................ 36 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................... 37 FISH AND GAME DETERMINATION ........................................................................................ 39 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................ 40 City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project ii Initial Study LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... 5 3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................. 7 4 Existing Zoning and Property Ownership ........................................................................ 13 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Honda Center Events And Event Population .................................................................. 10 2 Honda Center Event Attendance .................................................................................... 10 City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 1 Initial Study PROJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction The Honda Center is located within the City of Anaheim on property owned by the City of Anaheim. Adjacent parking lots to the south and west are also owned by the City of Anaheim. Parking areas to the east and northeast, along the Santa Ana River, are owned by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). The Honda Center is owned by the City of Anaheim and managed by Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (AAM). AAM is proposing to increase in the number of annual events at the Honda Center through the addition of another permanent tenant. In addition, AAM is proposing other permanent improvements to the Honda Center, including the addition of a grand terrace, a 250-seat restaurant, the expansion of the existing team store, as well as some minor interior modifications. The improvements are proposed to expand onto a portion of the properties owned by the OCFCD. The City is proposing to reclassify the zoning for the OCFCD properties from the Transition (T) Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone to be consistent with the zoning for the adjacent City properties and consistent with the development and operation of an arena. The entirety of the project area is within the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, Arena District, which allows development of up to 100,000 square feet of commercial development; 100,000 square feet of office development and 425 residential units; in addition to the existing Honda Center arena. The overlay zone is consistent with the properties’ Mixed Use General Plan land use designation; and therefore, no General Plan Amendment is proposed in conjunction with the reclassification. The City of Anaheim, as lead agency for the project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended, to determine if approval of the discretionary actions requested and subsequent development could have a significant impact on the environment. As defined by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an initial study is prepared primarily to provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an environmental impact report (EIR), negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for the proposed project. Together with the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the Environmental Checklist Form, this Initial Study has been distributed to all responsible agencies as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A notice has also been sent to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Honda Center and interested parties indicating that these documents are available for a 30-day public review at the Planning Department within Anaheim City Hall at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard in the City of Anaheim or on the Planning Department’s website (www.anaheim.net/planning, click on the link to “Planning and Zoning” followed by the link to “Current Environmental Documents”). Project Location The Honda Center is located at 2695 East Katella Avenue, in the south-central portion City of Anaheim (see Figure 1, Regional Location). The Honda Center and its adjacent surface parking lots are bound on the north by Stanley Cup Way and the Union Pacific Railroad, to the east by the Santa Ana River, to the south by Katella Avenue and to the west by State Route 57 (SR-57) freeway (see Figure 2, Local Vicinity). The Honda Center is within a half mile northeast of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the existing Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station and the future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). An aerial photograph of the project site and its surroundings is shown on Figure 3. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 2 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. 1. Introduction Honda Center Enhancement Project The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 1 Regional Location 0 5 Scale (Miles) SITESITE 15 1010 605 405 405 405 5 5 15 91 90 91 91 39 22 55 74 241 241 261 133 133 241 73 1 1 57 60 60 71 19 105 City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 4 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 2 Local Vicinity Map Orange Anaheim Garden Grove Santa Ana Orangewood Av Katella Av Gene Autry Way Ball Rd Chapman Av Lampson Av Garden Grove Bl Cerritos Av Harbor BlLewis StState College BlSunkist StAnahei m Bl East StBatavia StGlassell StMain StAngel Stadium of Anaheim Existing Amtrack/Metrolink Station Future ARTICSanta Ana RiverSCE E ase ment 0 3,100 Scale (Feet) SiteSite 22 22 57 5 5 City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 6 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 3 Aerial Photograph OrangeOrange AnaheimAnaheim Katella AveKatella Ave Orangewood AveOrangewood Ave Cerritos AveCerritos Ave Site Boundary Platinum Triangle Boundary City BoundaryState College BlvdState College BlvdEckhoff StEckhoff StDouglass RdDouglass RdExisting Amtrack/Metrolink Station Existing Amtrack/Metrolink Station Honda Center Honda Center 0 1,000 Scale (Feet) 57 Source: Google Earth Pro 2011 Angel Stadium of Anaheim Angel Stadium of Anaheim Santa Ana RiverSanta Ana RiverFuture ARTIC Future ARTIC City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 8 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. City of Anaheim Improvements to the Honda Center 9 Initial Study The Honda Center is located within the City of Anaheim’s Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle encompasses the Angel Stadium of Anaheim, the Honda Center, the City National Grove of Anaheim, the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station and the future ARTIC, and surrounding residential and mixed use development, light industrial buildings, industrial parks, distribution facilities, offices, hotels, restaurants, and retail development Project Background In June of 1990, the Anaheim City Council approved documents that led to the construction of a new world-class arena and in 1993, the Anaheim Arena opened its doors to a sold-out performance by Barry Manilow. Later that same year, the NHL announced its fourth expansion team, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, who would make Anaheim its home. At the same time Arrowhead Water became the naming rights sponsor, thus the arena became the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim. In 2003, the City approved and entered into the current Facility Management Agreement with Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (AAM) and, in 2006, Honda Motor Company became the title sponsor and the arena name was changed to the Honda Center. The success of the Honda Center is evident, as it is one of the premiere entertainment and sports venues in the country and has been the recipient of numerous industry awards over the years. It has been nominated for “Venue of the Year” in the United States by Pollstar Magazine on seven separate occasions and most recently was ranked fourth in the country by Billboard Magazine for 2010 concert and ticket sales. The Honda Center is proud to be home to the NHL’s Anaheim Ducks and to the prestigious John R. Wooden College Basketball Classic. Since 1993, the venue has hosted a significant number of world-class events and shows, including: NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Western Regionals (1998, 2001, 2003, 2011), NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament First and Second Round (2008), 1999 NCAA Frozen Four, 2003 World Gymnastics Championships, 2004 U.S. Team Trials - Gymnastics, 2005 World Badminton Championships, four-time host to UFC Championship bouts, U2, Bette Midler, Paul McCartney, Eagles, Barbra Streisand, AC/DC, Gwen Stefani, Luis Miguel, Rod Stewart, David Bowie, Andrea Bocelli, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill, Phil Collins, Toby Keith, Alan Jackson, Madonna, Prince, Van Halen, Gloria Estefan, Jimmy Buffett, Bon Jovi, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen, and Elton John. Additionally, the current manager, Anaheim Arena Management, LLC, has continued to improve the facility, investing more than $22 million in capital improvements since 2003. As the venue was designed and constructed to be home to two professional sports franchises, the City and its facility management partners have worked throughout the years to bring a second professional sports franchise to the Honda Center. Operational Characteristics The 650,000-square-foot Honda Center opened on June 19, 1993, after two years of construction. It can accommodate a maximum of 18,900 spectators depending on seating configuration, and the parking lots surrounding the Honda Center have 3,775 parking spaces to accommodate visitors. Additional parking is provided off-site by agreement and/or by private operators. The Honda Center facilities are in operation on event days, although some functions (e.g., ticket sales) are open on nonevent days. Maximum capacities for hockey, basketball, and other events (e.g., concerts, circus, etc.) are shown in Table 1. City of Anaheim Improvements to the Honda Center 10 Initial Study TABLE 1 HONDA CENTER EVENTS AND EVENT POPULATION Event Type Seating Capacity Staff/ Employees Team Members/ Production1 Basketball Games2 18,336 950 200+3 Hockey Games4 17,174 950 200 Concerts and Other Events 18,325 – End Stage 1,000 (max) 200 18,900 – Center Stage Maximum Number of Events (last 5 years) 162 Nonevent Days 203 Source: Starkey 2011. 1 Team members and production staff include players, coaches, trainers, media, road crew, and others not included as spectators. 2 Basketball games include Lakers Preseason, the John Wooden Classic, the Big West Tournament, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Tournament, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), games. 3 For the purpose of this air quality and GHG technical report, up to 250 team members are assumed for a basketball game for a conservative modeling scenario. 4 The National Hockey League (NHL) has 41 home games during the regular season. During the Stanley Cup Playoffs and Stanley Cup, up to 20 additional games could occur. In 2010, the Honda Center welcomed more than 1.3 million guests, of which over 600,000 attended the Ducks’ hockey games (Starkey 2011). Table 2 identifies a five-year snapshot of attendance, number of events, and the average number of visitors during an event based on the annual attendance. Average attendance per event was calculated based on the highest 3-year average of attendance in order to provide a conservative estimate of future annual attendance. Based on the attendance history of the Honda Center over the last five years, there are, on average, 11,264 visitors per event and currently up to 153 events per year (e.g., approximately three events per week). TABLE 2 HONDA CENTER EVENT ATTENDANCE Year Visitors Events Average Visitors per Event 2006 1,600,000 154 10,390 2007 1,760,000 144 12,222 2008 1,590,000 162 9,815 2009 1,460,000 136 10,735 2010 1,300,000 120 10,833 Highest 3-year Average 153 11,264 Source: Starkey 2011. Project Description The proposed project includes an increase in the number of annual events at the Honda Center through the addition of another permanent tenant, as well as other permanent improvements described below. The 1990 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Honda Center (formerly the Arrowhead Pond) analyzed up to 162 events per year. The Honda Center currently averages up to 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of up to 11,264 people. The maximum number of events over the last five years was 162 events in 2008. The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events by 60 from the previous high of 162 events for a total of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average three City of Anaheim Improvements to the Honda Center 11 Initial Study events per week at the Honda Center, and the proposed project would result in four events per week on average. The purpose of the project would be to accommodate a National Basketball Association (NBA) franchise at the Honda Center. There are 3 pre-season games, 41 regular home games during the NBA season and up to 16 postseason games. Seating capacity of a basketball game is 18,336, and the proposed project would not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity of current events (see Table 1). In addition to an increase in the number of annual events at the Honda Center, the proposed project would involve other minor improvements to the existing facility including: • Addition of a 12,000 square foot exterior grand terrace • Construction of a 250 seat, 4,000 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees • Enlarged team store (from 1,800 square feet to 4,000 square feet) • Relocated 2,000 square foot box office (swings to the south to accommodate the enlarged team store) • Interior locker room renovation • Interior office space renovation • Interior bunker suite renovation • Interior electrical upgrades • Increase capacity of loading dock • Interior balcony suite renovation None of the proposed improvements would increase the permanent seating capacity of the existing arena; however, the improvements would result in the loss of approximately 15-20 parking spaces. The proposed project includes a zone reclassification for a portion of the project site from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone, consistent with the zoning for the remainder of the project site (see Figure 4). Additional implementation measures include, but are not limited to, building permits to allow the improvements listed above and agreements between the City of Anaheim and OCFCD, the City of Anaheim and AAM, and AAM and the NBA. Anticipated Additional Project Approvals Other agencies whose approval may be required include, but are not limited to: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region; South Coast Air Quality Management District; and, Orange County Flood Control District. City of Anaheim Improvements to the Honda Center 12 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project The Planning Center|DC&E • Figure 4 Existing Zoning and Property Ownership 0 500 Scale (Feet) Source: City of Anaheim 2008 City of Anaheim Improvements to the Honda Center 14 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 15 Initial Study CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL/PROJECT INFORMATION FORM Instructions for completing the Environmental/Project Information Form: This form is to be completed by the applicant/authorized agent and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. The Environmental Information Form is intended to provide initial, basic environmental information in order to determine whether the project may have any significant impacts upon the environment. Additional technical studies or information may be requested from you in order for staff to complete its review and make an environmental determination on your project. 1. Project Name: Honda Center Enhancement Project 2. Project Address or Location: 2695 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 3. Assessor’s Parcel Number 25352104, 25352116, 25352117, 25360102 and 37531111 4. Project Description (describe the entire project, including all phases of the project, and any off-site supporting improvements or features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary): See previous Project Description section of this document 5. Property Owner: City of Anaheim Address: 200 S Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Property Owner: Orange County Flood Control District Address:300 N Flower St., 6th Floor Santa Ana, CA 92703-5000 6. Authorized Agent: City of Anaheim, Executive Director, Convention, Sports and Entertainment Address: 800 West Katella Avenue Anaheim, CA 92802 7. Provide a description of the existing site’s use and structures (including square footage): The entire project site is developed with the Honda Center and associated parking facilities. The Honda Center is a 650,000 square foot arena for sports and entertainment events and can accommodate a maximum of 18,900 spectators (depending on seating configuration). The parking lots surrounding the Honda Center have 3,775 parking spaces to accommodate visitors. The topography of the site is flat. 8. Is there any demolition proposed? No ⌧ Yes 4,200 square feet 9. Site size: 42.61 acres 10. What is the approximate square footage of impervious surfaces? (parking areas, driveways, etc.) No new impervious areas are proposed. 11. Number of floors of proposed construction: The exterior modifications to the Honda Center include the addition of a 12,000 square foot terrace above a 4,000 square foot restaurant, a 4,000 square foot team store and a 2,000 square foot box office. 12. Number of trees to be removed: 0 City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 16 Initial Study 13. Type of trees to be removed: N/a 14. Number of on-site parking spaces provided: 3,775 15. Is the site located on filled land or a slope of 10% grade or more? No 16. Is this an Affordable Housing Project? No 17. Square feet of new construction: The exterior modifications to the Honda Center include the addition of a 12,000 square foot terrace above a 4,000 square foot restaurant, a 4,000 square foot team store and a 2,000 square foot box office. 18. Proposed Maximum Building Height: The proposed project is a two story expansion of an existing building; the maximum building height will not change. 19. Zoning: The majority of the portion of the project site owned by the City of Anaheim is within the Public Recreational (PR) Zone; a small segment of the northern parking lot is within the Transition (T) Zone. The portion of the project site owned by the Orange County Flood Control District is within the Transition (T) Zone. The entire site is within the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. See Figure 4 for existing zoning and property ownership. 20. Are any federal, state or regional permits needed? (List type): Other agencies whose approval may be required include, but are not limited to: Regional Water Quality Board, Santa Ana Region; South Coast Air Quality management District; and Orange County Flood Control District. 21. Proposed start date of construction:2012 22. Proposed date of construction completion: 2012 23. Is the project located on or adjacent to, any habitat conservation area? No 24. Is the project located within the Scenic Corridor? No (defined as that area lying easterly of the intersection of the State Route 55/Costa Mesa and State Route 91/Riverside Freeways, westerly of the Orange County line, southerly of the BNSF/Metrolink right-of-way, and northerly of the present or any future south city limits of the City of Anaheim). 25. Is the project located in a Federal, State, or Local (the Colony) Historic District? No 26. Water Assessment Yes No Residential development of more than 500 dwelling units? ⌧ Proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space? ⌧ Office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space? ⌧ Hotel or motel having more than 500 rooms? ⌧ Industrial manufacturing or processing plant occupying more than 40 acres or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area? ⌧ Mixed use project that includes one or more of the above-listed projects? ⌧ If any of the above boxes were checked “yes”, you may need to submit a water supply assessment study. Please contact the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division at (714) 765-4238 for further information. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 17 Initial Study 27. Water Quality Management Plan Yes No New development project creating 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface? ⌧ Commercial or industrial development (building square footage and paved parking areas) greater than 100,000 square feet? ⌧ Construction of any automotive repair shop? ⌧ Restaurant where the land area of the project site is 5,000 square feet or more? ⌧ Hillside development that requires grading of 5,000 square feet or more of surface area or where existing slopes exceed 25%? ⌧ Uncovered impervious parking lot that is 5,000 square feet or more in area? ⌧ Redevelopment projects consisting of an addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of impervious area? Replacement of impervious surfaces, buildings and/or structures when 5,000 or more square feet of soil is exposed during replacement construction? ⌧ Gasoline outlets that are 5,000 square feet or more, or a projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day? If “yes” was checked in any of the above boxes, please contact the City of Anaheim Building Division at 714-765-5153 regarding the need to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan. I hereby certify that the statements and information furnished above and in the attached exhibits, photos, etc., are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Name of Preparer: The Planning Center|DC&E Relationship: Consultant Address: 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Phone No.: (714) 966-9220 Preparer’s signature: Date: 9-1-11 City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 18 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 20 Initial Study The County of Orange requires that the City notify the County of certain zoning actions. The following checklist will determine the need for notification. The County will be notified of any “yes” responses to questions 1 through 4: 1. Does this zoning action involve adoption or amendment to either (a) the Anaheim General Plan, (b) a Specific Plan, or (c) a Reclassification? Yes 9 No __ IF YES, COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 2. Does this zoning action involve land located east of the alignment of Weir Canyon Road? Yes No 9 3. Does this zoning action involve a residential project over 99 acres or 99 units in size? Yes __ No 9 4. Does this zoning action involve a non-residential project over 29 acres or a non-residential project with more than 99 employees? Yes 9 No __ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section. 3) Response Column Heading Definitions: a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less Than Significant impacts. d) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 21 Initial Study 4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 6) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 22 Initial Study This page has been left intentionally blank. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 23 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? R R R Q b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? R R R Q c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? R R R Q d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? R R Q R Narrative Summary: Questions a and b – No Impact. The Honda Center is located west of the Santa Ana River channel and east SR 57. The project site is fully developed with a 650,000 square foot arena and associated parking areas and does not contain any natural or undisturbed areas. The SR-57 freeway in the vicinity of the project site is not designated as a scenic highway. The proposed project would not significantly alter the visual appearance of the existing Honda Center. As a result, no further analysis of these issues in the EIR is warranted. Question c – No Impact. Only minor changes will be made to the exterior of the existing Honda Center. These changes will be consistent with the existing architecture of the building. The proposed project will not result in changes to the visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. As a result, no further analysis of this impact in the EIR is warranted. Question d – Less Than Significant Impact. The Honda Center holds events that require a certain level of after- hour nighttime lighting. Nighttime illumination of buildings, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, park facilities, and roadways internal to the project area are currently used to highlight building design features, emphasize prominent entrances, and create a feeling of security. The proposed project would allow for additional weekly events to be held at the Honda Center; this change will not modify the current level of illumination that typically occurs for individual events. Other features of the proposed project, including the expansion of the team store, a restaurant, a relocated box office and the addition of the 12,000 sq ft outdoor terrace above these uses are not expected to result in additional illumination/glare. Since the Honda Center already generates considerable nighttime illumination, the additional events and the minor exterior modifications generated by the project do not represent a significant increase in nighttime illumination or glare. No further analysis of this impact in the EIR is warranted. II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? R R R Q b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? R R R Q City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 24 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? R R R Q d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? R R R Q e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location of nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? R R R Q Narrative Summary: Questions a through e – No Impact. Based on the 2002 California Important Farmland Map, there are no areas designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance within or in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is fully developed with a 650,000 square foot arena and associated parking areas and does not contain any agricultural uses, forest land or timberland. As a result, no impacts to agricultural resources, forest land or timberland are anticipated and no further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Q R R R b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Q R R R c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Q R R R d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Q R R R e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? R R Q R Narrative Summary: Questions a through d – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the number of events held at the Honda Center and generate additional vehicle trips. The project would also require minor construction activities for the expansion of the store and addition of the outdoor terrace. These activities have the potential to generate short-term construction-related and long-term air emissions that could affect local and regional air quality. An air quality analysis will be prepared as part of the EIR to determine the project’s potential air quality impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed. Question e – Less Than Significant Impact. No heavy equipment will be required to construct the proposed improvements. However, an occasional "whiff" of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact. Odors from food preparation in the restaurant would be controlled by adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402. In addition, the project site is surrounded by commercial/retail uses, which are not considered sensitive to odors Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 25 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? R R R Q b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? R R R Q c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? R R R Q d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? R R R Q e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? R R R Q f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? R R R Q Narrative Summary: Questions a through d – No Impact. The project site is fully developed with a 650,000 square foot arena and associated parking areas and does not contain any natural resources on-site. Based on the City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element, no locally designated species or natural communities, wetland habitats, or wildlife corridors are known to exist within The Platinum Triangle, where the Honda Center is located. The project site is not part of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) and would not impact any resources within the NCCP area. The proposed changes to Honda Center would not result in any impacts to biological resources and no further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Question e – No Impact. The project site is not located in an area where trees are subject to a preservation ordinance. The proposed project would not increase the total area to be developed by the Honda Center. No further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Question f – No Impact. The project site is not part of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (July 20, 1999)? R R R Q b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? R R R Q City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 26 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? R R R Q d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? R R R Q Narrative Summary: Question a through d – No Impact. The project site is fully developed with a 650,000 square foot arena and associated parking areas and does not contain any cultural resources on-site. The Honda Center was built in 1991 and is not considered historic. Also, there are no known prehistoric/historic archaeological sites located within the project area. No grading to an increased depth will be required as part of project implementation and the potential for impacting any subsurface cultural resources is considered remote. No further assessment of this issue in the EIR is warranted. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. R R R Q ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? R R Q R iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? R R Q R iv) Landslides? R R R Q b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? R R Q R c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? R R Q R d) Be located on expansive soil, as described by Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? R R Q R e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? R R R Q City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 27 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Question a (i) – No Impact. The project site does not lie on any active or potentially active earthquake faults (City of Anaheim 2004). Although no Alquist-Priolo fault zones run though the City of Anaheim, two major fault zones are in close proximity to the City boundaries. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone runs past the City on the southwest, and the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone runs past the City on the northeast. Potentially active fault zones, including the Norwalk, El Moderno, and Peralta Hills fault zones, also run in close proximity to the City. The closest fault to the project site is the El Moderno Fault. Although the exact location of this fault is not known, it is approximately three to five miles northeast of the proposed project site (City of Anaheim 2004). No active or potentially active faults run through the proposed project site and no impacts would occur. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question a (ii, iii) – Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in a seismically active area and the proposed project may be subject to seismic ground shaking. Although there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones running through the City of Anaheim, there are a number of faults surrounding the City that could cause seismic ground shaking on the project site (City of Anaheim 2004). The City of Anaheim requires that all new construction and existing buildings meet building standards for earthquake safety through the provisions of Section 15.03, Building Standard Codes, and Section 15.07, Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings, of the Anaheim municipal code. Section 15.07 of the municipal code specifically requires that buildings not meeting earthquake safety requirements must either be demolished or altered in order to meet the standards (City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 15.07.050.010). To ensure the proposed project meets building requirements, plans shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of State of California Special Publication 117A or latest version (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards). Specifically, the design of the proposed project will be based on a soils investigation and will include a foundation system to account for the potential effects of soil liquefaction to reduce the impacts of strong seismic groundshaking. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question a (iv) – No Impact. The project area is already developed and does not contain any major slopes on or in the immediate vicinity. No impacts from landslides are anticipated. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question b – Less Than Significant Impact. The Honda Center property is developed and covered with paved surfaces. Additionally, only minimal exterior additions to the Honda Center will be made. Based on these factors, no further grading or excavation activities are anticipated. The potential for loss of topsoil and/or erosion is therefore less than significant. No further evaluation in the EIR is warranted. Question c – Less Than Significant Impact. The Honda Center property is developed and covered with paved surfaces. The project site is not on an unstable geologic unit or soil base. The site is underlain with Holocene alluvium, deposited between 1,000 and 10,000 years ago (City of Anaheim 2004). The flat terrain, previous development, and compacting of the project site reduces the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, or collapse to occur. Due to these factors, the site is not susceptible to liquefaction. Subsidence would occur when large amounts of groundwater pumping or mineral extraction would cause a lowering of elevation. There are no oil or gas wells or water wells within the vicinity of the project site, and risk of subsidence is low (City of Anaheim 2004). Therefore, no significant geologic impacts are anticipated. No further evaluation in the EIR is warranted. . Question d – Less Than Significant Impact. According to the original Anaheim Arena EIR, the near-surface soils within The Honda Center consist of alluvium deposits of moderately compact, fine and fine-to-medium sand with occasional traces of gravel and infrequent seams of silt. As a result, the expansion potential for these soils is considered low. In addition, the design of the project would be in conformance with the California Building Code (CBC) and the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17 Land Development Resources. Application of the existing regulations identified in the Municipal Code and CBC and grading regulations would minimize the risk associated with any development proposed within areas containing expansive soils. This issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. Question e – No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative sewer disposal systems. The project would incorporate the use of City sewer lines and sewer disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would result from project implementation and no further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Q R R R City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 28 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Q R R R Questions a and b – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the number of events held at the Honda Center and generate additional vehicle trips. The project would also require minor construction activities for the expansion of the store and addition of the outdoor terrace. These activities have the potential to generate short-term construction-related and long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could affect local and regional air quality. An air quality analysis will be prepared as part of the EIR to determine the project’s potential GHG impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be developed. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? R R Q R b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? R R Q R c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school? R R Q R d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? R R Q R e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? R R R Q f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? R R Q R g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? R R Q R h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? R R R Q i) Include a new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands, etc.), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and noxious odors)? R R R Q City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 29 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary: Question a – Less Than Significant Impact. Various hazardous materials are currently used and stored by the Honda Center. Such materials include cleaning chemicals, fuels, and other hydrocarbon products, solvents, etc, used during operations of the facilities and for maintenance purposes. Additional events would be expected to result in an small increase in use of these products. However, businesses are required to obtain permits and maintain records regarding the storage, use and disposal of hazardous material. Adhering to the existing permitting process would ensure that less than significant hazard to the public or the environment occur as result of project implementation. No further assessment of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Question b and d – Less Than Significant Impact. Database records searches were conducted as part of the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan FEIR No. 321 in 1999 and the FSEIR No. 332 in 2005 to identify properties that could potentially pose a variety of environmental hazards within the boundaries of The Platinum Triangle. The Honda Center property was not listed as a hazardous materials site. Action status on many of the identified properties were “closed” and required no further remediation and some were undergoing environmental remediation In addition, existing Federal and State regulations that govern hazardous material and waste management help to minimize the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As a result, implementation of the Honda Center improvements is not expected to result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment and no further discussion in the EIR is warranted. Question c – Less Than Significant Impact. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the Honda Center. Additionally, use or handling of hazardous materials or substances within the project site would comply with appropriate state and federal rules and regulations through permitting process. No unauthorized use of hazardous materials would be allowed. The project site is occupied by a 650,000 square foot arena and the proposed improvements would not result in substantial adverse impact to school population due to increased amount of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. No additional analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question e – No Impact. The project area is not within the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed further in the EIR. Question f – Less Than Significant Impact. The heliport safety hazards include hazards posed to aircraft from structures located within navigable airspace and crash hazards posed by aircraft to people and property on the ground. There are two heliports in the project vicinity: the North Net Training Facility and UC Irvine Medical Center. The Anaheim Police Department (APD) also uses the parking lot at the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for helicopter training exercises. The primary risks associated with heliports and training areas are take-offs and landings. The North Net Training Center is approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site. The flight path for this facility is along the Santa Ana River channel; flights landing and taking-off head directly for the channel and continue north or south. The UC Irvine Medical Center heliport is approximately three miles south of the project site, across I-5. The flight pattern from this facility runs along the Santa Ana River channel and the project area is not within the overflight contours for the facility. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose future residents to hazards associated with operation of this heliport. The parking lot of Angel Stadium of Anaheim is used by the APD for helicopter training exercises. The general flight path is over the Santa Ana riverbed from the south side of the parking lot. The APD has used the western portion of the parking lot in the past but has discontinued this practice. The use of the stadium parking lot for training exercises does not pose a safety concern given the flight patterns currently used by the APD. The Honda Center is an existing structure; the minor improvements to the Honda Center proposed by the applicant would not present a risk greater than any already present. Additionally, as no heliports are located immediately adjacent to the Honda Center, risks associated with take-off and landing are less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose individuals working or attending events at the Honda Center to heliport safety hazards. No further discussion of this subject in the EIR is warranted. Question g – Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim has an emergency preparedness plan that complies with State law and interfaces with other cities and counties within Southern California. The plan outlines the operations that shall be taken in the event of a disaster. It also allows for coordination with other agencies in the event that Anaheim is affected by a disaster elsewhere. The plan addresses a warning system, emergency broadcast system (EBS), Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and shelter system. The plan provides a foundation to conduct operations and coordinate the management of critical resources during emergencies. It also provides the framework for which nongovernmental agencies and organizations that have resources needed to meet emergency requirements are integrated into the program. The City of Anaheim also participates in the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers SEMS and coordinates multi-agency responses to disasters. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 30 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact SEMS is required by the California Government Code and was developed to provide a “common language” for emergency response personnel to request resources and equipment from other agencies. In addition to resource allocation, SEMS was established to minimize the duplication of efforts during emergency response by defining common tactics and identifying a clear chain of command. The SEMS program is developed to respond to incidents as they occur, and does not provide long-term recovery guidelines. The proposed project would not alter the development patterns of the project area. Only minimal additions to the existing Honda Center structure will be made, and no additional parking spaces will be added. Therefore, while the additional events held will generate trips on additional days, these trips will be similar in character to those currently generated by the Honda Center. Consequently, no changes must be made to adopted emergency plans in order to accommodate the project; The project will not interfere with adopted emergency plans or escape routes and no further analysis in the EIR is necessary. Question h – No Impact. The project area is developed with commercial uses and no undeveloped wildland areas are adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No further analysis in the EIR is necessary. Question i – No Impact. The project site is already developed with a 650,000 square foot arena and associated parking areas. Thus, the project would not increase the amount of impervious surface and the runoff rates are expected to remain approximately the same compared to the existing conditions. The proposed project would not increase the runoff volume from the project site and no upgrades to existing drainage facilities would be required. As such, the impacts related to increased vectors and noxious odors are not considered significant and no further analysis would be provided in the EIR. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? R R Q R b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? R R Q R c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site? R R R Q d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-site or off-site? R R R Q e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? R R R Q f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? R R R Q g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? R R R Q h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? R R R Q i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? R R R Q j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? R R R Q City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 31 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? R R R Q l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving waters? R R R Q m) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? R R Q R n) Potentially impact stormwater from post construction activities? R R Q R o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? R R R Q p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? R R Q R Narrative Summary: Question a, m, and n – Less Than Significant Impact. Since the project area is already developed and entirely covered with paved surfaces, the proposed project would not increase the area of impervious surfaces. Although during construction activities there may be a potential for surface water runoff to carry sediment and small quantities of pollutants into the stormwater system, the State General Construction Permit would ensure that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is prepared and implemented at sites greater than one acre and the City’s Grading Ordinance requires an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as part of that permit. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is prepared in accordance with the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The SWPPP, in conjunction with the WQMP, will describe the structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during construction (short-term) within the project area as well as BMPs for long-term operation of the Honda Center. The proposed project would be required to comply with current water quality regulations associated with the City of Anaheim’s Local Implementation Plan, the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the County area-wide MS4 Storm Water Runoff Permit. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to violate and water quality standards or waste discharge regulations is less than significant and no further analysis of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Question b – Less Than Significant Impact. The Honda Center is developed and completely paved. Project implementation would not require grading or paving beyond what is already in existence. Therefore, the proposed project will not cause any additional interference with ground water recharge. Additionally, the project would not install any groundwater wells, and would not otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater. The City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department currently meets the water needs of the Honda Center and it is unlikely that the additional events and minor facility improvements associated with this project would require the Honda Center to seek additional sources of water. Only one additional event per week is proposed and peak water demand would not exceed current conditions. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to substantially deplete the groundwater table is less than significant. No further analysis of this issue is needed. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 32 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Questions c, d and o – No Impact. The project site is already developed with a 650,000 square foot arena and associated parking areas. Thus, the project would not increase the amount of impervious surface and the runoff rates are expected to remain approximately the same compared to the existing conditions. The proposed project would not increase the runoff volume from the project site and no upgrades to existing drainage facilities would be required. As such, the impacts are not considered significant and no further analysis would be provided in the EIR. Questions e and f- No Impact. The Honda Center consists of a 650,000 square foot arena and associated parking areas. As discussed above, the project would not increase the amount of impervious surface and the runoff rates are expected to remain approximately the same compared to the existing conditions. Therefore, the additional events that would be held at the Honda Center and the minor improvements would not substantially add to the runoff already generated by the Honda Center, nor would they substantially degrade water quality. Impact to runoff volume and water quality would not be significant. No further discussion of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Questions g though i – No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), the project site is located in the X Zone that is protected by levees (FIRM Map No. 06059C0142J). The levees located to the east of the project site along the Santa Ana River are designed to contain the 1% chance flood (100-year flood). While overtopping of the levee or failure of the levee is possible, the proposed project would not result in substantial modifications to the existing Honda Center or its parking lots and, thus, would not result in greater flooding impacts than existing conditions. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question j – No Impact. The project site is developed with an arena and parking lots and exhibits flat topography. Therefore, the project site would not be subject to mudflow. No water bodies are located within the project area that could produce a seiche during a seismic event. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further assessment of this issue is warranted in the EIR. Questions k and l – No Impact. The project involves one additional weekly event at the Honda Center, as well as some minor improvements to the existing structure, including: the addition of a terrace, the expansion of the team store, and the addition of a restaurant to serve patrons of the Honda Center. These uses typically do not include activities such as material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, or hazardous materials handling; and limited storage, delivery area, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas. Construction-related runoff may affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. However, the project would be required to comply with current water quality regulations associated with the City of Anaheim’s Local Implementation Plan, the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan, and the County-wide MS4 Storm Water Runoff Permit. The project site is currently developed and implementation of the proposed project would not be greater than the current water quality conditions. No further analysis is necessary in the EIR. Question p – Less Than Significant Impact. The Honda Center property is developed and covered with paved surfaces. Additionally, only minimal exterior additions to the Honda Center will be made. Based on these factors, no further grading or excavation activities are anticipated. The potential for loss of topsoil and/or erosion is therefore less than significant. No further evaluation in the EIR is warranted. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? R R R Q b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? R R Q R c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? R R R Q City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 33 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary: Question a – No Impact. The proposed project would result in one additional weekly event at the Honda Center, as well as minor modifications to the existing building. No physical division of an established community would result from the proposed project. No further assessment of this issue is warranted in the EIR. Question b – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not result in changes to any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction of the project, with the exception of the proposed zone reclassification from the Transition (T) Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone for a portion of the project site. This reclassification would not remove the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone from the properties. The PTMU Overlay Zone is consistent with the properties’ Mixed Use General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed Public Recreation (PR) Zone is consistent with the balance of the Honda Center properties. No further assessment of this issue is warranted in the EIR. Question c – No Impact. The project area is not part of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the project will not conflict with any conservation plans and no further analysis in the EIR is needed. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? R R R Q b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use? R R R Q Narrative Summary: Questions a and b – No Impact. The project area does not contain any mineral resources. The project area is not identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan (Figure G-4, Mineral Resource Map) as Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Area. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of the availability of mineral resources that would be of regional value. Therefore, no additional discussion of this issue in the EIR is necessary. XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Q R R R b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Q R R R c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Q R R R d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Q R R R e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? R R R Q f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? R R Q R City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 34 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary: Questions a through d – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the number of events held at the Honda Center and generate additional vehicle trips. The project would also require minor construction activities for the expansion of the store and addition of the outdoor terrace. These activities have the potential generate additional noise impacts. Potential noise impacts of the proposed project will be discussed in the EIR. Question e – No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No further discussion warranted in the EIR. Question f – Less Than Significant Impact. The Honda Center site is within the vicinity of two heliports: the UCI Medical Center and the North Net Fire Training Center. The Anaheim Police Department also uses the parking lot at Angel Stadium of Anaheim for helicopter training exercises. However, the Honda Center is already in operation and the minor changes associated with the project would not expose a significant amount of additional persons to excessive noise levels due to these helicopter operations. No further discussion warranted in the EIR. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? R R Q R b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? R R R Q c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? R R R Q Narrative Summary: Question a – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include development of new housing. The proposed restaurant, expanded team store and relocated box office are not anticipated to induce substantial population growth in the area. No further discussion of this issue in the EIR is warranted. Questions b and c – No Impact. The proposed project will involve minor modifications to the existing Honda Center and additional events. Therefore, no people or housing units will be displaced. No further analysis of this issue is needed. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? R R Q R b) Police protection? R R Q R c) Schools? R R R Q d) Parks? R R R Q e) Other public facilities? R R R Q City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 35 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary: Questions a and b – Less Than Significant Impact. The additional events to be held at the center are similar to those already occurring at the facility. As a result, police and fire protection services are already being provided to the Honda Center. The addition of one additional event per week (on average) would not require additional police and fire facilities for staffing these events. Further analysis of this issue in the EIR is not necessary. Questions c through e – No Impact. The modifications to the Honda Center do not include housing units and thus will not generate permanent residents requiring the use of school or park services. Further analysis of this issue in the EIR is not necessary. XV. RECREATION: Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? R R R Q b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? R R R Q Narrative Summary: Questions a and b – No Impact. The proposed project will not increase the seating capacity of the Honda Center and average event attendance per event is not expected to increase substantially. Additionally, the proposed project will not generate permanent residents to the City of Anaheim. Therefore, the proposed project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks, nor will it include or require the construction/expansion of recreational facilities. No further discussion of this issue is necessary. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) 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? Q R R R b) 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? Q R R R c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks? R R R Q d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? Q R R R e) Result in inadequate emergency access? R R Q R f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities? R R R Q City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 36 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary: Questions a, b and d – Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would cause an increase in the number of vehicle trips during events on roads and at intersections. Pedestrian activity would increase during events due to the location of several smaller remote parking lots on adjacent parcels and the proximity of the Amtrak/Metrolink station. A traffic and circulation study will be prepared for the EIR to determine the project’s potential traffic and circulation impacts, including compliance with level of service standards established for designated roads and highways in the vicinity of the project. Mitigation measures will be identified, as necessary. Question c – No Impact. There are two heliports in the project vicinity: the North Net Training Facility and UC Irvine Medical Center. The Anaheim Police Department also uses the parking lot at Angel Stadium of Anaheim for helicopter training exercises. There are no private airstrips within the City. Heliport safety hazards include hazards posed to aircraft from structures located within navigable airspace and crash hazards posed by aircraft to people and property on the ground. The primary risks associated with heliports are take- offs and landings. The City typically seeks to minimize public exposure to heliport-related risks primarily through minimizing the siting of incompatible land uses surrounding the City’s existing heliports. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County assists local agencies to ensure that there are no direct conflicts with land uses, noise, or other issues that would impact the functionality and safety of heliport operations. The ALUC requires that local jurisdictions’ general plans and zoning ordinances are consistent with Airport Environs Land Use Plans (AELUPs), which contain noise contours, restrictions for types of construction and building heights in navigable air space, as well as requirements impacting the establishment or construction of sensitive uses within close proximity to airports and heliports. It is anticipated that following AELUP guidelines will help reduce hazards related to heliports within the project area and the impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis in the EIR is warranted. Question e – Less Than Significant Impact. Although the proposed project would increase the number of events at the Honda Center, all vehicle access will be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer to reduce any emergency access impacts at the Honda Center. The City currently implements a number of traffic management procedures for all events at the Honda Center. Therefore, less than significant impact would result from the project implementation and no further evaluation in the EIR is necessary. Question f – No Impact. The Honda Center is located within the Platinum Triangle. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan promotes alternative forms of transportation by integrating design standards for bus stops, enhanced pedestrian walkways, and the regional bike system. In addition, the proposed Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) is located less than a half mile from the Honda Center, providing bus and train service to the project area when completed. The proposed project will continue to promote alternative mode of transportation and comply with the design standards of The Platinum Triangle. No additional analysis in the EIR is necessary XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? R R Q R b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (wastewater) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Q R R R c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? R R Q R d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 26 of the Environmental/ Project Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Q R R R City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 37 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Q R R R f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? R R Q R g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? R R Q R h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity? R R Q R i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas? R R Q R j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service? R R Q R k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception? R R Q R Narrative Summary: Questions a, c, h and i – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the addition of one event per week (on average) at the Honda Center. Peak stormwater generation and electrical and natural gas consumption would not be greater than existing conditions. The project would not require the implementation of new electrical, natural gas and/or stormwater drainage facilities that would connect to existing utility systems provided by the City of Anaheim and other agencies. The project will only include the relocation of such utilities. No additional analysis in the EIR is necessary. Questions b, d and e – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will slightly increase annual water consumption and wastewater generation as compared to existing conditions, although peak conditions would not change. Based on coordination with utility/service providers, the EIR will evaluate impacts to utility/service systems, the EIR will determine the existing conditions and impacts of the project on utility/service systems, and assess environmental impacts. The EIR will also evaluate consistency of the project with applicable statutes and regulations related to public services and utilities and potential physical impacts associated with implementation of utility systems. Questions f and g – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will increase solid waste generation. Solid waste collected within the City of Anaheim is processed through a material recovery facility. Any residue from processing is taken to the Olinda Alpha Landfill located in North Orange county. The landfill is scheduled to close in December, 2021; however, the County of Orange has short and long term plans to assure the availability of waste disposal locations. The project will comply with all Federal, State and/or local statues or regulations. No additional analysis in the EIR is necessary. Question j – Less Than Significant Impact. The Honda Center is already being served by telephone service, and the proposed project will not increase the demand on the telephone service system. Further discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. Question k – Less Than Significant Impact. Time-Warner provides cable television service to the City of Anaheim and the existing Honda Center. No additional impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Further discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? R R R Q City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 38 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Q R R R c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Q R R R Narrative Summary: Question A – No Impact. Because the project site is already developed, the additional events and building modifications to the Honda Center associated with the project would not impact biological and cultural resources as compared to current uses. No further discussion on this issue is warranted. Questions B – Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, development of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, and utilities. The project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts and affect the human environment. Because of this potential for significant adverse effects, an EIR will be prepared for the project. Question C – Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, development of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, and utilities. The project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts and affect the human environment. Because of this potential for significant adverse effects, an EIR will be prepared for the project. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 39 Initial Study Fish and Game Determination (Per Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, all project applicants and public agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act shall pay a Fish and Game filing fee for each project that would adversely affect wildlife resources.)* Based on the responses contained in this Environmental Checklist, there is no evidence that the proposed project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Has the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.5 (d) been rebutted by substantial evidence? X Yes (Certificate of Fee Exemption) No (Pay fee) *Note: Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(2)(A) states that projects that are Categorically Exempt from CEQA are also exempt from filing fee. City of Anaheim Honda Center Enhancement Project 40 Initial Study REFERENCES CITED Anaheim, City of. 2004, May (amended). City of Anaheim General Plan. Anaheim, City of. 2004, May (amended). Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Anaheim, City of. 2004, August (amended). The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. California Department of Conservation. 2002 California Important Farmland Map. The Planning Center. 2004, May. Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330. The Planning Center. 2005, May. The Platinum Triangle Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, No. 332. Appendices Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Appendix B NOP Responses Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Appendices Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Appendix C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Technical Study Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. AAIIRR QQUUAALLIITTYY AANNDD GGRREEEENNHHOOUUSSEE GGAASS EEMMIISSSSIIOONNSS TTEECCHHNNIICCAALL SSTTUUDDYY FFOORR:: HONDA CENTER prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER|DC&E Contact: Nicole Vermilion Senior Planner NOVEMBER 2011 AAIIRR QQUUAALLIITTYY AANNDD GGRREEEENNHHOOUUSSEE GGAASS EEMMIISSSSIIOONNSS TTEECCHHNNIICCAALL SSTTUUDDYY FFOORR:: HONDA CENTER prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 714.765-4958 Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER|DC&E 1580 Metro Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 E-mail: information@planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com Contact: Nicole Vermilion Senior Planner COA-56.0E NOVEMBER 2011 Table of Contents Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page i Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 2 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................................... 3 2.1 South Coast Air Basin ......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Air Pollutants of Concern .................................................................................................... 4 3. REGULATORY SETTING ......................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Sensitive Receptors .......................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Baseline Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 21 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................. 23 4.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 23 4.2 Thresholds of Significance................................................................................................ 24 4.3 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory ......................................................................... 27 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ............................................................................. 30 5. MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................................................ 34 5.1 Existing Regulations ......................................................................................................... 34 5.2 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 34 5.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................................ 35 6. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 36 APPENDICES A. Summary of GHG and Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions B. Transportation Emissions C. Natural Gas and Purchased Energy Emissions D. Water and Wastewater Emissions E. Waste Disposal Emissions F. SCAQMD Local Rules and Regulations Table of Contents Page ii • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 List of Tables Table Page Table 1 Honda Center Events and Event Population ................................................................................. 1 Table 2 Honda Center Event Attendance ................................................................................................... 2 Table 3 Greenhouse Gases and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants .................................................................. 13 Table 5 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ......................................... 16 Table 6 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target ....................................................................................................................... 19 Table 7 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ................................................................................... 22 Table 8 Honda Center Operational Characteristics .................................................................................. 23 Table 9 Service Population of Honda Center ........................................................................................... 24 Table 10 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds ............................................................................................ 25 Table 11 Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions on an Event Day ............................................ 27 Table 12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ...................................................................................... 30 Table 13 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory with Scoping Plan Reductions ...................................... 31 1. Introduction and Summary Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING Honda Center is located at 2695 East Katella Avenue in the City of Anaheim, east of State Route 57 (SR-57) freeway and west of the Santa Ana River. It is bound on the north by Cerritos Avenue and to the south by Katella Avenue. Honda Center is within a half mile northeast of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Anaheim Metrolink Station. Operational Characteristics The 650,000-square-foot Honda Center opened on June 19, 1993, after two years of construction. It can accommodate a maximum of 18,900 spectators depending on seating configuration, and the parking lots surrounding Honda Center have 4,500 parking spaces to accommodate visitors. Honda Center facilities are in operation on event days, although some functions (e.g., ticket sales) are open on nonevent days. Maximum capacities for hockey, basketball, and other events (e.g., concerts, circus, etc.) are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Honda Center Events and Event Population Event Type Seating Capacity Staff/ Employees Team Members/ Production1 Basketball Games2 18,336 950 200+3 Hockey Games4 17,174 950 200 Concerts and Other Events 18,325 – End Stage 1,000 (max) 200 18,900 – Center Stage Maximum Events Permitted 162 Nonevent Days 200 Source: Starkey 2011. 1 Team members and production staff include players, coaches, trainers, media, road crew, and others not included as spectators. 2 Basketball games include Lakers Preseason, the John Wooden Classic, the Big West Tournament, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Tournament, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), games. 3 For the purpose of this air quality and GHG technical report, up to 250 team members are assumed for a basketball game for a conservative modeling scenario. 4 The National Hockey League (NHL) has 41 home games during the regular season. During the Stanley Cup Playoffs and Stanley Cup, up to 20 additional games could occur. In 2010, Honda Center welcomed more than 1.3 million guests, of which over 600,000 attended the Ducks’ hockey games (Starkey 2011). Table 2 identifies a five-year snapshot of attendance, number of events, and the average number of visitors during an event based on the annual attendance. Average attendance per event was calculated based on the highest 3-year average of attendance in order to provide a conservative estimate of future annual attendance. Based on the attendance history of Honda Center over the last five years, there are, on average, 11,264 visitors per event and currently up to 153 events per year (e.g., approximately three events per week). 1. Introduction and Summary Page 2 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 Table 2 Honda Center Event Attendance Year Visitors Events Average Visitors per Event 2006 1,600,000 154 10,390 2007 1,760,000 144 12,222 2008 1,590,000 162 9,815 2009 1,460,000 136 10,735 2010 1,300,000 120 10,833 Highest 3-year Average 153 11,264 Source: Starkey 2011. 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Technical Study has been prepared to analyze potential impacts from an increase in the number of permitted annual events at Honda Center. The 1990 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Honda Center (formerly the Arrowhead Pond) capped the number of annual events at 162 per year. Honda Center averages up to 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of up to 11,264 people. The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events by 60 from the permitted 162 events for a total of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average three events per week at Honda Center, and the proposed project would result in four events per week on average. The purpose of the project would be to accommodate a second sports franchise at Honda Center. If a second professional sports franchise is a National Basketball Association (NBA) franchise, there are 44 regular games during the NBA season and up to 16 postseason games. Seating capacity of a basketball game is 18,336, and the proposed project would not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity of current events (see Table 1). Furthermore, no construction activities would be necessary in order to accommodate an increase of events at Honda Center. Criteria air pollutant emissions generated by events at Honda Center include emissions from vehicle trips and natural gas used for heating the building interior. Because the proposed project would not increase the capacity of the stadium, the project would not generate an increase in the maximum daily emissions generated by the facility. Consequently, no impacts would occur. Annual GHG emissions generated by Honda Center include vehicle trips and natural gas used for heating and cooling as well as indirect emissions from offsite energy use, waste disposal, and water use. Unlike criteria air pollutants, GHG emissions are evaluated on an annual basis. Therefore, an increase in the number of events per year would result in an increase in annual GHG emissions. As analyzed in this technical study, increasing the number of events at Honda Center would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions. 2. Environmental Setting Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 3 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SoCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semipermanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. (SCAQMD 2005). 2.1.1 Temperature and Precipitation The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest to the project site is the Santa Ana Station Monitoring Station (ID 049087). The average low is reported at 43.0°F in January while the average high is 84.7°F in August (WRCC 2011). In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages 13.79 inches per year in the project area (WRCC 2011). 2.1.2 Humidity Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coast, are frequent. Low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB (SCAQMD 2005). 2.1.3 Wind Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting their eastward transport. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (SCAQMD 2005). 2. Environmental Setting Page 4 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 2.1.4 Inversions In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollu- tant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area (SCAQMD 2005). 2.2 AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN 2.2.1 Criteria Air Pollutants The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below. Other pollutants, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), a natural by-product of animal respiration that is also produced in the combustion process, have been linked to phenomena such as global climate change. These emissions are unregulated and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has not yet adopted thresholds for them applicable to residential and commercial develop ment projects. GHG emissions that affect global climate change, including CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases, are discussed in Section 2.2.3 of this technical study. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion, engines and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SoCAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated under the California and National AAQS as being in attainment of CO criteria levels. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds composed primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of VOCs include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by VOCs, but rather by reactions of VOCs to forms of secondary pollutants such as ozone (SCAQMD 2005). There are no ambient air quality standards established for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, the SCAQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant (SCAQMD 2005). 2. Environmental Setting Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 5 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a byproduct of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The principal form of NO2 produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 part per million (ppm). NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated as an attainment area for NO2 under the National AAQS and nonattainment under the California AAQS. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2 (SCAQMD 2005). When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. The SoCAB is designated as attainment under the California and National AAQS. Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5 ) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on arid landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading (i.e., fugitive dust). Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems (SCAQMD 2005). The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) scientific review concluded that PM2.5, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM10 to contribute to health effects and at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a carcinogen. The SoCAB is a nonattainment area for PM2.5 and PM10 under California and National AAQS.1 Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when VOCs and NOx, both by- products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for the formation of this pollutant. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Additionally, O3 has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted 1 CARB approved the SCAQMD’s request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010 because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24- hour PM10 standards during the period from 2004 to 2007. However, the USEPA has not yet approved this request. 2. Environmental Setting Page 6 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 growth and premature death. O3 can also act as a corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products (SCAQMD 2005). The SoCAB is designated as extreme nonattainment under the California AAQS (1-hour and 8-hour) and National AAQS (8-hour). Lead (Pb) concentrations decades ago exceeded the state and federal AAQS by a wide margin, but have not exceeded state or federal air quality standards at any regular monitoring station since 1982 (SCAQMD 2005). However, in 2008 the USEPA and CARB adopted more strict lead standards and special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources 2 recorded very localized violations of the new state and federal standards. As a result of these localized violations, the Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB was designated in 2010 as nonattainment under the California and National AAQS for lead (SCAQMD 2010). The project is not characteristic of industrial-type projects that have the potential to emit lead. Therefore, lead is not a pollutant of concern for the project. 2.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants The public’s exposure to air pollutants classified as toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code §7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under state law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold. Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. Since the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB has designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB 1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can 2 Source-oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead-related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 identified that the Trojan Battery Company and Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (SCAQMD 2010). 2. Environmental Setting Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 7 be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel -fueled engines. In 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 2000, SCAQMD conducted a study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime expos ure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,400 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 71 percent of the air toxics risk. In 2008, the SCAQMD conducted its third update to its study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,200 in one million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for approximately 84 percent of the air toxics risk (SCAQMD 2008). In the vicinity of the project site, excess cancer risk is 1,034 in a million (SCAQMD 2011). 2.2.3 Greenhouse Gases Climate change is a term that refers to the variation of Earth’s climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activities. The climate system is interactive, consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere (ocean, rivers, and lakes), the cryosphere (sea ice, ice sheets, and glaciers), the land surface, and the biosphere (flora and fauna). The atmosphere is the most unstable and rapidly changing part of the system. It is made up of 78.1 percent nitrogen (N2), 20.9 percent oxygen (O2), and 0.93 percent argon (Ar). These gases have only limited interaction with the incoming solar radiation and do not interact with infrared (long-wave) radiation emitted by the Earth. However, there are a number of trace gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3), that absorb and emit infrared radiation and therefore have an effect on climate. These are GHGs, and while they comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total volume mixing ratio in dry air, they play an essential role in influencing climate (IPCC 2001). Non-CO2 GHGs are those listed in the Kyoto Protocol 3 (CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons [HFC], perfluorocarbons [PFC], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6])and those listed under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments 4 (chlorofluorocarbons [CFC], hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFC], and halons). Table 3 lists a selection of some of the GHGs and their relative global warming potentials (GWP) as compared to CO2. Although not included in this table, water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG, also the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant in the atmosphere (IPCC 2001). The major GHGs are briefly described below the table. 3 Kyoto Protocol: Established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and signed by more than 160 countries (excluding the United States) stating that they commit to reduce their GHG emissions by 55 percent or engage in emissions trading. 4 Montreal Protocol and Amendments: International Treaty signed in 1987 and subsequently amended in 1990 and 1992. Stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere (CFC, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) are to be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform). 2. Environmental Setting Page 8 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 Table 3 Greenhouse Gases and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 GHG Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Global Warming Potential Relative to CO21 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 1 Methane (CH4)2 12 (±3) 21 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 120 310 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-23 264 11,700 HFC-32 5.6 650 HFC-125 32.6 2,800 HFC-134a 14.6 1,300 HFC-143a 48.3 3,800 HFC-152a 1.5 140 HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900 HFC-236fa 209 6,300 HFC-4310mee 17.1 1,300 Perfluoromethane: CF4 50,000 6,500 Perfluoroethane: C2F6 10,000 9,200 Perfluorobutane: C4F10 2,600 7,000 Perfluoro-2-methylpentane: C6F14 3,200 7,400 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 Source: USEPA. 1 Based on 100-Year Time Horizon of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the air pollutant relative to CO2. 2 The methane GWP includes the direct effects and those indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included. • Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. • Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste, including waste in solid waste landfills. • Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. • Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High GWP gases.  Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are greenhouse gases covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. These gases are also ozone-depleting gases and are therefore being replaced by other compounds that are also GHGs covered under the Kyoto Protocol. 2. Environmental Setting Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 9  Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were introduced as alternatives, along with HFCs, to the ozone-depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global warming potential.  Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas that is soluble in alcohol and ether, and is slightly soluble in water. SF6 is a strong greenhouse gas used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator.  Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms. Although ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also greenhouse gases.  Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in serving many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. While they do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, they are strong greenhouse gases (USEPA 2008a, IPCC 2001, IPCC 2007). California’s GHG Sources and Relative Contribution California is the second largest emitter of GHG in the United States, only surpassed by Texas, and the tenth largest GHG emitter in the world (CEC 2005). This is due to both its physical land area and its population and employment base. However, because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2001 California ranked fourth lowest in carbon emissions per capita and fifth lowest among states in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption per unit of Gross State Product (total economic output of goods and services) (CEC 2006). In 2004, California produced 492 million metric tons (MMTons) of CO2-equivalent (CO2e)5 GHG emissions. Of these emissions, 81 percent were CO2 emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, 2.8 percent were from other sources of CO2, 5.7 percent were from methane, and 6.8 percent were from N2O (CEC 2006). The remaining 2.9 percent of GHG emissions were from high global warming potential gases, which include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (CEC 2006). CO2 emissions from human activities make up 84 percent of the total GHG emissions (CEC 2006). California’s transportation sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 40.7 percent of the state’s total emissions (CEC 2006). Electricity consumption is the second largest source, comprising 22.2 percent. While out-of-state electricity generation comprises 22 to 32 percent of California’s total electricity supply, it contributes 39 to 57 percent of the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption in the state (CEC 2006). Industrial activities are California’s third largest source of GHG emissions, comprising 20.5 percent of state’s total emissions (CEC 2006). Other major sources of GHG emissions include mineral production, waste combustion and land use, and forestry changes. Agriculture, forestry, commercial, and residential activities compose the balance of California’s greenhouse gas emissions (CEC 2006). 5 CO2-equivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHG have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. 2. Environmental Setting Page 10 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 Human Influence on Climate Change For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere remained relatively constant (IPCC 2007). During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and climate change pollutants that are attributable to human activities. The amount of CO2 has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million (ppm) per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (IPCC 2007). These recent changes in climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants (CAT 2006). Climate-change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty (IPCC 2007). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report projects that the global mean temperature increase from 1990 to 2100, under different climate-change scenarios, will range from 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.4°F). In the past, gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic timeframe but within a human lifetime (IPCC 2007). Potential Climate Change Impacts for California Climate change is not a local environmental impact; it is a global impact. Unlike criteria pollutants, CO2 emissions cannot be attributed to a direct health effect. However, human-caused increases in GHG have been shown to be highly correlated with increases in the surface and ocean temperatures on Earth (IPCC 2007). What is not clear is the extent of the impact on environmental systems. Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are also hard to predict. Likewise, there are varying degrees of uncertainty in environmental impact scenarios. Because of this uncertainty, the IPCC uses five different confidence levels to quantify climate change impacts on the environment: Very High Confidence (95 percent or greater), High Confidence (67 to 95 percent), Medium Confidence (33 to 67 percent), Low Confidence (5 to 33 percent), and Very Low Confidence (5 percent or less). In California and western North America, 1) observations in the climate have showed a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures, 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation is falling as snow, 3) there is a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, 4) there is an advance snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the spring, and 5) there is a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms (CAT 2006). According to the California Climate Action Team (CAT), even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 3), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C (1.1°F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable. CAT and Cal/EPA use the results from the recent analysis of global climate change impacts for California under three IPCC scenarios: lower emissions (B1), medium-high emissions (A2), and high emissions (A1F1); each is associated with an increasing rise in average global surface temperatures. According to the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) 2006 report, “Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California,” global climate change risks to California include public health impacts (poor air quality made 2. Environmental Setting Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 11 worse and more severe heat), water resources impacts (decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack, challenges in securing adequate water supply, potential reduction in hydropower, and loss of winter recreation), agricultural impacts (increasing temperatures, increasing threats from pests and pathogens, expanded ranges of agricultural weeds, and declining productivity), coast sea level impacts (rising coastal sea levels, increasing coastal floods, and shrinking beaches), forest and biological resource impacts (increasing wildfires, increasing threats from pest and pathogens, declining forest productivity, and shifting vegetation and species distribution), and electricity impacts (increased energy demand). Specific climate change impacts that could affect the project include health impacts from a reduction in air quality, water resources impacts from a reduction in water supply, and increased energy demand. 2.2.4 Other Effects of Air Pollution Air pollution creates numerous impacts to our economy, including lost workdays due to illness, a desire on the part of businesses to locate in areas with a healthy environment, and increased expenses from medical costs. Pollutants may also lower visibility and cause damage to property. Certain air pollutants are responsible for discoloring painted surfaces, eating away at stones used in buildings, dissolving the mortar that holds bricks together, and cracking tires and other items made from rubber. In conformance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments, the federal EPA has prepared a monetary cost/benefit analysis related to implementation requirements. By the year 2010, the EPA estimates that its emissions- reduction programs would cost approximately 27 billion dollars. The programs are estimated to result in a savings benefit of 110 billion dollars, for a net benefit of 83 billion dollars. While these values are for the nation as a whole, a net benefit ratio of about 4:1 is noted, and a similar ratio could be expected for the California and its residents. Another direct cost/benefit issue relates to federal funding. Areas that do not meet the federal air quality standards may lose eligibility for federal funding for road improvements and other projects that require federal or California Department of Transportation approval. Cleaner air also yields benefits to ecological systems. Just as humans are affected by air pollution, so are plants and animals. Animals must breathe the same air and are subject to the same types of negative health effects. Certain plants and trees may absorb air pollutants that can stunt their development or cause premature death. The benefits of Clean Air Act Amendments programs that can be quantified within the overall monetary benefits include increased agricultural and timber yields, reduced effects of acid rain on aquatic ecosystems, and reduced effects of nitrogen deposited to coastal estuaries. Many ecological benefits, however, remain difficult or impossible to quantify, or can only be quantified for a limited geographic area. The magnitude of quantified benefits and the wide range of unquantified benefits nonetheless suggest that as we learn more about ecological systems and can conduct more comprehensive ecological benefits assessments, estimates of these benefits could be substantially greater. 2. Environmental Setting Page 12 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Regulatory Setting Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 13 3. REGULATORY SETTING 3.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AAQS have been promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels for criteria pollutants. The project site is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the SCAQMD, as well as the California CAAQS adopted by CARB and federal NAAQS. 3.1.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns. These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 4, these pollutants include O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Table 4 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Primary Standard Major Pollutant Sources Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Average * *1 Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm1 24 hours 0.04 ppm *1 3. Regulatory Setting Page 14 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 Table 4 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Primary Standard Major Pollutant Sources Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind- raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5 ) Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind- raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3 Lead (Pb) Monthly 1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Quarterly * 1.5 µg/m3 3-Month Average * 0.15 µg/m3 Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes. Visibility Reducing Particles 8 hours ExCo =0.23/km visibility of 10≥ miles1 No Federal Standard Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt. Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal Standard Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of sulfur- containing organic substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No Federal Standard Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Source: CARB 2010 ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter 1 When relative humidity is less than 70 percent. * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. 3. Regulatory Setting Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 15 3.1.2 Air Quality Management Planning The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The most recent comprehensive plan was adopted on June 1, 2007, and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2007 AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of SOx, directly emitted PM2.5, and focused control of NOx and VOC by 2015. The eight-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOx and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024, assuming an extended attainment date is obtained. 3.1.3 Area Designations The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards through the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Areas are classified as attainment or nonattainment areas for particular pollutants, depending on whether they meet ambient air quality standards. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment range in magnitude from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme. Attainment classifications apply to individual pollutants: • Unclassified: the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment for a pollutant • Attainment: the California AAQS were not violated at any site in the area during a three-year period for that pollutant • Nonattainment: there was at least one violation of a state AAQS for that pollutant in the area • Nonattainment/Transitional: a subcategory of the nonattainment designation; signifies that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant The attainment status for the SoCAB is shown in Table 5. The SoCAB is also designated as attainment of the California AAQS for sulfates. According to the 2007 AQMP, the SoCAB will have to meet the new federal 8- hour O3 standard by 2024, PM2.5 standards by 2015, and the recently revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2020. The SCAQMD has recently designated the SoCAB as nonattainment for NO2 (entire basin) and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California AAQS. 3. Regulatory Setting Page 16 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 Table 5 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone – 1-hour Extreme Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment1 Ozone – 8-hour Extreme Nonattainment Severe-17 Nonattainment2 PM10 Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment3 PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment4 NO2 Nonattainment5 Attainment/Maintenance SO2 Attainment Attainment Lead Nonattainment6 Nonattainment6 All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: CARB 2010. 1 Under prior standard. 2 SCAQMD may petition for Extreme Nonattainment designation. 3 Annual standard revoked September 2006. CARB approved the SCAQMD’s request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24-hour PM10 standards from 2004 to 2007. However, the EPA has not yet approved this request. 4 The EPA granted the request to redesignate the SoCAB from nonattainment to attainment for the CO National AAQS on May 11, 2007 (Federal Register Volume 71, No. 91), which became effective June 11, 2007. 5 The state NO2 standard was made more stringent in 2007 from 0.25 ppm to 0.18 ppm. Under the revised standards, the entire SoCAB was designated nonattainment on March 25, 2010. In addition, the EPA adopted a new 1-hour NOx standard of 0.100 ppm on January 22, 2010. 6 The Los Angeles portion of the SoCAB was designated nonattainment for lead under the new federal and existing state AAQS as a result of large industrial emitters. Remaining areas within the SoCAB are unclassified. 3.1.4 Regulatory Framework for Global Climate Change Regulation of GHG Emissions on a National Level Currently there are no adopted regulations to combat global climate change on a national level. However, recent statutory authority has been granted to the EPA that may change the voluntary approach taken under our current administration to address this issue. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act. After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the EPA announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. The EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allows the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light- duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation. The EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (e.g., large sta-tionary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit more the 25,000 metric tons (MTons) or more per year are required to submit annual report. 3. Regulatory Setting Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 17 Regulation of GHG Emissions on a State Level Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, and Executive Order S-03-05. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-3-05, signed June 1, 2005. The Executive Order S-03-05 set the following GHG reduction targets for the State: • 2000 levels by 2010 • 1990 levels by 2020 • 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 AB 32 directed CARB to adopt discrete early action measures to reduce GHG emissions and outline additional reduction measures to meet the 2020 target. Based on the GHG emissions inventory conducted for the Scoping Plan by CARB, it is projected that GHG emissions in California by 2020 will be approximately 596 million metric tons (MMTons) of CO2e by 2020 (CARB 2008). In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTons (471 million tons) of CO2e for the state (CARB 2008). The 2020 target requires emissions reductions of 169 MMTons, 28.5 percent of the projected emissions compared to business-as- usual (BAU) in year 2020 (i.e., 28.5 percent of 596 MMTons) (CARB 2008). CARB defines BAU in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical in 2002 through 2004. In order to effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 metric tons (MTons) per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012. The Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool was established through the Climate Action Registry to track GHG emissions. In June 2008, CARB released a draft of the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which was revised in October 2008. The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. Key elements of CARB’s GHG reduction plan are: • Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards; • Increases the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. Retail sellers of electricity are required to increase the portion of electricity they provide each year by renewable energy to achieve the 33 percent goal; • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system for large stationary sources (however, as of the date of this DSEIR, implementation of this cap-and-trade portion of the Scoping Plan has been enjoined); • Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; 3. Regulatory Setting Page 18 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; • Creating target fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation. Table 6, Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Targets, shows the proposed reductions from regulations and programs outlined in the Scoping Plan. While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, CARB estimates that land use changes implemented by local governments that integrate jobs, housing, and services are estimated to result in a reduction of 5 MMTons of CO2e, which is approximately 3 percent of the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local government plays in successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of today’s levels by 2020 to ensure that municipal and community-wide emissions match the state’s reduction target. Measures that local governments take to support shifts in land use patterns are anticipated to emphasize infill and re-fill, compact, low-impact development over growth on undeveloped, greenfields areas, resulting in fewer vehicle miles traveled. According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles travelled by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 MMTons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). SB 97 In addition to the requirements under AB 32 to address GHG emissions and global climate change in general plans and CEQA documents, Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines for addressing global warming emissions and mitigating project-generated GHG emissions. OPR transmitted the proposed guidelines to the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) and the guidelines were adopted on December 30, 2009. The amended CEQA Guidelines became effective on March 18, 2010. The new CEQA Guidelines concerning GHG emissions do not include or recommend any particular threshold of significance; instead, they leave that decision to the discretion of the lead agency. However, with respect to adopting thresholds of significance, newly added CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c) provides:[A] lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence. The new CEQA Guidelines also do not suggest or recommend the use of any specific GHG emission mitigation measures. Instead, newly added CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(c) provides that lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Among other things, CNRA noted in its public notice for these changes to the CEQA Guidelines that the impacts of GHG emissions should be considered in the context of a cumulative impact, rather than a project impact. The public notice states: While the Proposed Amendments do not foreclose the possibility that a single project may result in greenhouse gas emissions with a direct impact on the environment, the evidence before [CNRA] indicates that in most cases, the impact will be cumulative. Therefore, the Proposed Amendments emphasize that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions should 3. Regulatory Setting Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 19 center on whether a project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is cumulatively considerable. Table 6 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target of 169 MMT CO2e Percentage of Statewide 2020 Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19% Energy Efficiency 26.3 16% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9% Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets1 5 3% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3% Goods Movement 3.7 2% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1% Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 1% High Speed Rail 1.0 1% Industrial Measures 0.3 0% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20% Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87% Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12% Sustainable Forests 5 3% Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade program) 1.1 1% Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 1% Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions 27.3 16% Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target 174 100% Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1% Local Government Operations To Be Determined NA Green Buildings 26 15% Recycling and Waste 9 5% Water Sector Measures 4.8 3% Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1% Total Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target 42.8 NA Source: CARB 2008. Note: the percentages in the right-hand column add up to more than 100 percent because the emissions reduction goal is 169 MMTons and the Scoping Plan identifies 174 MMTons of emissions reductions strategies. MMTCO2e: million metric tons of CO2e 1 Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. 2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 target. Energy Conservation Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and most recently 3. Regulatory Setting Page 20 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 revised in 2008 (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]).6 Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and nonfederally regulated appliances. On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The green building standards that became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code established voluntary standards on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011. Renewable Power Requirements A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) established under Senate Bills (SBs) 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity are required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. CARB has now approved an even higher goal of 33 percent by 2020. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. In addition to the States RPS, Senate Bill 1368 limits long-term investments in baseload generation by utility power plants to meet emissions performance standard established by CEC and the California Public Utilities Commission. New, or capital investment in, electricity generating facilities owned by or under contract to publically owned utilities are required to achieve an emissions standard of 1,100 lbs per megawatt-hour (MWh). Vehicle Emission Standards/Improved Fuel Economy Vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I) and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light duty auto to medium duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020.7 Regulation of GHG Emissions on a Regional Level In 2008, SB 375 was adopted and was intended to represent the implementation mechanism necessary to achieve the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the Scoping Plan for the transportation sector as it relates to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Implementation is intended to reduce GHG 6 Although new building energy efficiency standards were adopted in April 2008, these standards did not go into effect until 2009. 7 CARB’s user guide for the Pavley I + Low Carbon Fuel Standard Postprocessor provides more detail. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/tools/pavleylcfs-userguide.pdf (accessed August 2010). 3. Regulatory Setting Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 21 emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations with local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per-capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target. SCAG is the MPO for the southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino County, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. SCAG's targets are an 8 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and a 13 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2035. The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built environment in 2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that more time is needed for large land use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in the interim are anticipated to come from improving the efficiency of the region's existing transportation network. The proposed targets would result in 3 MMTons of GHG reductions by 2020 and 15 MMTons of GHG reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the passenger vehicle target in CARB's Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met (CARB 2010). SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plan. For the SCAG region, the first SCS is anticipated by May 2012. The SCS will set forth a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. However, the SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. If the SCS is unable to achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets, the MPO is required to prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy that shows how the GHG emissions reduction target could be achieved through other development patterns, infrastructure, and/or transportation measures. 3.2 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. 3.3 BASELINE AIR QUALITY Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site and project area are best documented by measurements made by SCAQMD. The project site is located within 3. Regulatory Setting Page 22 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 Source Receptor Area (SRA) 17 – Central Orange County (Inland Orange County). The air quality monitoring station closest to the project is the Anaheim Monitoring Station. However, this station does not monitor SOx. Consequently, data was obtained from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station for this criteria pollutant. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 7. The data show that the area occasionally exceeds the state and federal one-hour and eight-hour O3 standards and regularly exceeds the state PM10 and federal PM2.5 standards. The CO, SO2, and NO2 standards have not been exceeded in the last five years in the project vicinity. Table 7 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary Pollutant/Standard Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels during Such Violations 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ozone (O3)1 State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm State 8-hour ≥ 0.07 ppm Federal 8-Hour > 0.075 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 6 5 3 0.113 0.089 2 7 1 0.127 0.100 2 10 5 0.105 0.086 0 2 1 0.093 0.077 0 0 0 0.063 0.056 Carbon Monoxide (CO)1 State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm Federal 8-Hour ≥ 9.0 ppm Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0 2.90 0 0 2.91 0 0 3.44 0 0 2.73 0 0 0.191 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)1 State 1-Hour ≥ 0.18 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.114 0 0.086 0 0.093 0 0.068 0.066 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)2 State 1-Hour ≥ 0.04 ppm Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0 0.005 0 0.004 0 0.003 0 0.004 0 0.002 Coarse Particulates (PM10)1 State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3 Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 7 0 104.0 6 13 489.03 3 0 61.0 1 0 63.0 NA 0 37.2 Fine Particulates (PM2.5)1 Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 7 56.2 14 79.4 5 67.8 4 64.5 0 NA Source: CARB 2010. ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: or micrograms per cubic meter. 1 Data obtained from the Anaheim Monitoring Station. 2 Data obtained from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. 3 Statistic includes an exceptional event, such as a wildfire. The second-highest concentration reported is 75.0 ppm. 4. Environmental Impacts Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 23 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1 METHODOLOGY This air quality and GHG technical study has been prepared to analyze potential operational phase impacts related to an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center to accommodate a second professional sports franchise. Honda Center is permitted to host up to 162 events per year. Over the last five years, Honda Center has averaged 11,264 visitors during an event and 153 events per year (see Table 2). To estimate air quality and GHG emissions from increasing the number of events in a year, information on operation of the event center was obtained from Honda Center during surveys and follow-up conversations in June through July 2011, and is shown in Table 8. Table 8 Honda Center Operational Characteristics Source Information Energy Use • Winter: 1,217,583.90 kWH • Summer: 1,974,389.70 kWH Natural Gas Use • Winter: 16,666 Therms • Summer: 5,100 Therms Water Use1 • Winter: 1,530,000 gallons • Summer: 1,860,000 gallons Waste • 1.5 Tons of garbage per event • 0.5 Tons of recycling per event Transportation • Average one-way travel distance for event patrons is 31.1 miles based on Ticketmaster sales (main customer base is Orange, Riverside, and north San Diego counties)2 • Average 4,000 cars, 5 buses, and between 4 and 20 trucks per event.2 Source: Starkey 2011. 1 Modeling assumes 95 percent of water use is indoor water use because of the amount of surface parking and limited landscaping. 2 While cash sales and season ticket holders distance is unknown, it is probable that these purchases occur in a similar service area, close to Honda Center. Therefore, tickets purchased at will-call, via cash, or season tickets sales, which represent approximately 30 percent of ticket sales, are assumed to occur at a similar distance as Ticketmaster the 90th percentile distance. Based on Ticketmaster sales, over 90 percent of the ticket sales occur within 28.7 miles of Honda Center. Assumes ticket sales in locations farther than 4 hours away are “visitors” to the southern California region (e.g., vacation trips which may coincide with other destinations in southern California) and trips were calculated from the Los Angeles International Airport. Therefore, a 31.1 mile trip length is considered a conservative estimate of average trip length for patrons of Honda Center. 3 Modeling assumes a conservative fleet mix of 98.4% passenger vehicles (62.7% LDA, 8.5% LDT1, 27.2% LDT2 based on EMFAC2007), 1% medium duty trucks, 0.5% heavy duty trucks, and 0.1% urban buses based on estimates provided by Honda Center of parked vehicles during an event. Assumes a similar fleet mix for both event and nonevent days. SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) as well as updates included on SCAQMD’s website, which are intended to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-specific air quality impacts. This Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in environmental impact reports and was used extensively in the preparation of this analysis. Modeling was conducted using emission factors and methodologies in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2011.1.1 and CalEEMod user’s guide (SCAQMD 2011). Criteria air pollutant and GHG modeling files are included as an appendix to this technical study. The following assumptions were utilized in the analysis: • Average attendance per event is assumed to be similar to historic levels (see Table 2) for future events held in Honda Center (11,264 visitors), based on the highest 3 years of attendance from 2006 to 2011. 4. Environmental Impacts Page 24 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 • Transportation emissions were modeled using CARB’s EMFAC2007 for year 2011. Both existing and project emissions are modeled for year 2011 because no construction is necessary for Honda Center to accommodate a second professional sports franchise and would result in a worst-case emissions inventory. Assumes a 5 percent reduction in trips as a result of proximity to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC), transit service provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and location within the Platinum Triangle mixed-use area. Additional assumptions on transportation emissions, including trip generation during an event, are included as Appendix A to this technical study. • While operation of Honda Center on nonevent days generates water and energy demand, the demand for these services is assumed to be proportional to the average annual population of the facility. Consequently, the increase in water demand and energy use (natural gas and purchased energy) is assumed to be proportional to the increase in the number of events. • The increase in waste disposal is based on existing estimates of waste disposal after an event and increased proportionately. • Service population is based on an average annual population at Honda Center. The traditional metric for service population is typically characterized as people who live or work at the project site (i.e., residents and employees). However, defining the service population metric in this manner excludes other users of the facility who drive to the event, use water, generate waste, and contribute to the energy demand. Consequently, for an entertainment land use, the service population has been defined as staff/employees, team members/production members, and visitors to Honda Center (see Table 9). Table 9 Service Population of Honda Center Existing Project Average Annual Visitors 1,723,333 2,500,523 Average Annual Employees/Staff and Team/Production Members 343,619 465,663 Average Number of People Onsite Per Day per year (Service Population) 5,663 8,127 Increase in the average number of people onsite per day per year 2,464 Source: Starkey 2011. Based on average annual attendance during an event and employees on nonevent days. 4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Criteria Air Pollutants According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would: AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AQ-2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 4. Environmental Impacts Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 25 AQ-3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). AQ-4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AQ-5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Greenhouse Gas Emissions According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would: GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 4.2.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Significance Criteria The analysis of the proposed project’s air quality impacts follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the significance thresholds on SCAQMD’s website.8 CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and project operation. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts and localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Regional Significance Thresholds SCAQMD has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine a project’s cumulative impact on air quality in the SoCAB. Table 10 lists SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Table 10 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Coarse Inhalable Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Fine Inhalable Particulates (PM2.5) 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day 8 SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds are current as of March 2011 and can be found here: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html. 4. Environmental Impacts Page 26 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 Localized Significance Thresholds SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at the project site (offsite mobile-source emissions are not included the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analyses are applicable for all projects of five acres and less; however, they can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required. Projects larger than five acres can determine the localized significance for construction by performing dispersion modeling based on the AAQS. Because the project is not an industrial project that has the potential to emit substantial sources of stationary emissions and because construction activities would not occur, LSTs are not an air quality impact of concern associated with the project. CO Hotspots Localized CO impacts are determined based on the presence of congested intersections. The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether the project would cause substantial concentrations of CO. A project is considered to have significant impacts if project-related mobile-source emissions result in an exceedance the California one-hour and eight-hour CO standards. Draft GHG Thresholds To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency: Tier 1 If a project is exempt from CEQA, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. Tier 2 If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project’s geographic area (i.e., city or county), project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD is proposing a screening-level threshold of 3,000 MTons annually for all land use types or the following land-use-specific thresholds: 1,400 MTons for commercial projects, 3,500 MTons for residential projects, or 3,000 MTons for mixed-use projects. This bright-line threshold is based on a review of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed the bright-line thresholds identified above. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the bright-line threshold would have a nominal, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions: Tier 3 If GHG emissions are less than the screening-level threshold, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. Tier 4 If emissions exceed the screening threshold, a more detailed review of the project’s GHG emissions is warranted. 4. Environmental Impacts Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 27 SCAQMD is proposing to adopt an efficiency target for projects that exceed the screening threshold. The current recommended approach is per capita efficiency targets. SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percent emissions reduction target. Instead, SCAQMD proposes a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MTons per year per service population (MTons/year/SP) for project-level analyses and 6.6 MTons/year/SP for plan level projects (e.g., program-level projects such as specific plans and general plans).9 If projects exceed these per capita efficiency targets, GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures. 4.3 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS INVENTORY An inventory of Honda Center’s maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions are shown in Table 11. Project-related air pollutants come from area-, energy-, and mobile-source emissions. It should be noted that the maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions are based on a single event in a day at Honda Center. In the past 18 years of Honda Center a “double” (i.e., two events on one day) has only occurred twice (Starkey 2011). Therefore, a scenario where there would be two events on one day may occur, but would be an extremely rare because a minimum of five to eight hours is needed to change over from an event (Starkey 2011). On these rare occasions where there would be two events in a day maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions would be approximately double what is shown in Table 11. Table 11 Maximum Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions on an Event Day (in pounds per day) Operations Phase VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Full Capacity Honda Center Event Natural Gas <1 4 3 <1 <1 <1 Transportation 301 359 3,021 4 39 39 Maximum Daily Emissions on an Event Day 301 363 3,024 4 39 39 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds1 55 55 550 150 150 55 Average Attendance Honda Center Event Natural Gas <1 4 3 <1 <1 <1 Transportation 222 264 2,226 3 29 28 Maximum Daily Emissions on an Event Day 222 268 2,229 3 29 28 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds1 55 55 550 150 150 55 Comparison of Sell Out and Average Attendance Events at Honda Center Difference Between a Sell Out Event & Average Attendance Event at Honda Center 79 95 795 1 10 11 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds1 55 55 550 150 150 55 Difference Exceeds SCAQMD’s Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No Source: EMFAC2007 and SCAQMD 2011. 1 The project would not result in a net increase in the maximum daily emissions at Honda Center. However, for the purposes of this environmental assessment, impacts are based on the incremental increase between sold out events and average attendance events. 9 It should be noted that the Working Group also considered efficiency targets for 2035 for the first time in this Working Group meeting. 4. Environmental Impacts Page 28 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 Regional Operational Impacts The project would not require construction activities to accommodate an increase in the number of events held at Honda Center. Consequently, construction-related regional significance thresholds are not applicable. Likewise, the proposed project would not increase seating capacity at Honda Center. Therefore, maximum daily emissions generated by events at Honda Center would not increase from baseline conditions as a result of the project. Although Honda Center currently generates both average attendance events and sell out events, for the purpose of the environmental assessment impacts are based on the incremental increase caused by sell out events at Honda Center. Significance is based on the comparison of Sell Out Honda Center Events vs. Average Attendance Honda Center Events. As shown in Table 11, sell out events generate substantially more traffic than average attendance events at Honda Center. As a result, these emissions exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, and CO and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Localized Operational Impacts The project would not require construction activities to accommodate an increase in the number of events held at Honda Center. Consequently, construction-related LSTs are not applicable. For operational phase LSTs, SCAQMD only considers onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment. While regional daily emissions generated by operation of Honda Center are substantial, onsite emissions generation by stationary sources represent a fraction of total operational emissions. Operation of Honda Center does not generate substantial quantities of onsite, stationary-sources emissions. Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing. While not considered a “stationary” source of emissions, cars idling at Honda Center parking generate exhaust emissions after an event. The proposed project would not increase seating capacity at Honda Center nor cars generated by events. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in emissions generated onsite. On site emissions generated at full event days and average event days would be similar. Consequently, no localized impacts would occur. Localized CO Hotspots Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hot spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (LOS) E or worse without improvements (Caltrans 1997). The 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook includes methodology to conduct localized CO modeling for traffic generated by a project. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SoCAB was designated as nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated as in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. As identified within SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB were a result of unusual 4. Environmental Impacts Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 29 meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. A CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles 10 at the peak morning and afternoon time periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). Event traffic at Honda Center does not accommodate this volume of traffic in a one-hour period; therefore, the project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project would not increase stadium capacity and would not increase air pollutant emissions at intersections in the vicinity of the project site. No localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would occur as a result of the project. AQMP Consistency A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality management plan. Review of project compliance with the AQMP provides the lead agency information for determining how individual projects fit into the local planning effort; informs decision makers about project-related environmental efforts under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed; and project compliance with clean air goals contained in the AQMP. The regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB is compiled by the SCAQMD and the SCAG. Regional population, housing, and employment projections used by SCAG are based on the City’s General Plan land use designations and planned developments. The emissions inventory in the AQMP is based on these projections. These demographic trends are incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan compiled by SCAG, to determine priority transportation projects determine the future efficiency of the transportation system within the SCAG region. If a project results in changes that affect the existing population, housing, or employment growth patterns and therefore SCAG’s demographic projections, it could affect the assumptions in SCAQMD’s AQMP. The proposed project is considered a regionally significant project because of the size of the facility and the extent of the proposed increase use of the facility. However, the Proposed Project would not increase capacity of Honda Center. Consequently, the project would not affect the southern California region’s demographic projections. Increasing the number of events held at Honda Center and the increase in emissions on sold out vs. average attendance event days would not conflict with the AQMP. Odors Current operations at Honda Center do not result in objectionable odors. The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. 10 The four intersections were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day and LOS E in the morning peak hour and LOS F in the evening peak hour. 4. Environmental Impacts Page 30 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities (SCAQMD 1993). Existing operational odor sources associated with Honda Center would be kitchen or waste management activities. Proper maintenance and compliance with established waste management practices reduces the potential for objectionable odors during project operations. Any odors produced by Honda Center are not significant or highly objectionable and would be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Increasing the number of events per year would likewise not result in odor impacts. No significant impacts would occur. 4.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. The analysis bel ow provides the conclusions on the project-specific impact toward the cumulative impact of global climate change. The State of California, through its governor and its legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 10+ years. This will occur primarily through the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375, which address GHG emissions on a statewide cumulative basis. The proposed project would result in an increase in GHG emissions from transportation sources, offsite energy production required for onsite activities, natural gas used on site for heating and cooking, water use, and waste disposal. Life cycle emissions are not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the proposed project, and therefore life cycle GHG emissions would be speculative.11 Project- related GHG emissions are shown in Table 12. Table 12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Source GHG Emissions MTons/Year Existing Project Net Increase Transportation 23,755 32,926 9,171 Purchased Energy 12,342 17,712 5,370 Natural Gas 693 994 301 Total Energy 13,035 18,706 5,671 Water and Wastewater 151 220 68 Waste Disposal 126 183 57 Total All Sectors 37,068 52,035 14,967 GHG Emissions per Service Population1 6.5 6.4 -0.1 Notes: MTons: metric tons Sources: 1 Because of the type of regional event services provided by Honda Center, the traditional definition of Service Population is not directly applicable to Honda Center operations. Consequently, for the purpose of the GHG assessment. Service population is based on historical average daily spectators, 11 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008). 4. Environmental Impacts Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 31 Table 12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Source GHG Emissions MTons/Year Existing Project Net Increase staff/employee, and team/production member provided by Honda Center. GHG Emissions Impacts The proposed project would generate a net increase of 14,967 MTons of GHG per year compared to existing conditions. The total increase in GHG emissions onsite from the project would exceed SCAQMD’s proposed screening threshold of 3,000 MTons for all land use types.12 When the proposed screening threshold is exceeded, SCAQMD provides another tier of evaluation with the per capita threshold of 4.8 MTons per service population. The increase in GHG emissions cited above does not include gradual reductions in GHG emissions from an increase in fuel efficiency and higher utilization of renewable power in the local energy grid by year 2020 in accordance with AB 32, which is the efficiency target year. Table 13 presents GHG emissions of the project with Scoping Plan emission reductions and a comparison of total project emissions in comparison to SCAQMD’s proposed efficiency target of 4.8 MTons in 2020. For the purpose of this assessment, service population includes average daily employees and average daily visitors based on historic annual attendance at Honda Center (see Table 9). The proposed project would result in annual emissions of 5.0 MTons per service population with the project. The project would result in a decrease in per capita emissions at Honda Center compared to existing conditions because the project would increase the use of the existing facility rather than construct a new sports arena to host basketball events. However, GHG emissions associated with the project would exceed SCAQMD’s proposed per capita significance threshold; and therefore, the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be potentially significant. A total of 1,819 MTons would need to be reduced in order to achieve a per capita efficiency goal of 4.8 MTons per service population in accordance with SCAQMD’s proposed efficiency metric. Table 13 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory with Scoping Plan Reductions Source Year 2020 GHG Emissions MTons/Year Project Percent of Inventory Transportation1 24,126 59% Purchased Energy2 15,303 37% Natural Gas 994 2% Total Energy 16,297 40% Water and Wastewater 220 <1% Waste Disposal 183 <1% Total All Sectors 40,826 100% GHG Emissions Per Service Population3 5.0 NA Notes: MTons: metric tons; Emissions may not add to 100% due to rounding. 1 Based on the EMFAC2007 Pavley I + LCFS Postprocessor Version 1.0. 2 SCE derives approximately 19.4 percent of its energy from renewable energy sources (SCE 2011). Assumes a similar percentage increase in renewable power for Anaheim Public Utilities between 2011 and 2020, in accordance with the state’s 33 percent RPS goal. 3 Because of the type of regional event services provided by Honda Center, the traditional definition of service population is not directly applicable to 12 This threshold is based on SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTons combined threshold proposed by SCAQMD’s Working Group, which is based on a survey of the GHG emissions inventory of CEQA projects. Approximately 90 percent of CEQA projects GHG emissions inventories exceed 3,000 MTons, which is based on a potential threshold approach cited in CAPCOA’s white paper, “CEQA and Climate Change.” 4. Environmental Impacts Page 32 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 Table 13 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory with Scoping Plan Reductions Source Year 2020 GHG Emissions MTons/Year Project Percent of Inventory Honda Center operations. Consequently, for the purpose of the GHG assessment, service population is based on historical average daily spectators, staff/employee, and team/production member provided by Honda Center. Consistency with GHG Reduction Goals and Policies A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. While actions taken in California alone cannot stabilize the climate, the state’s actions set an example and help to drive the global progress toward reduction of GHG. If the industrialized world were to follow the emission reduction targets established by California, and industrializing nations reduced emissions according to the lower emissions path (lower emissions IPPC scenario B1), medium or higher warming ranges of global temperature increases might be avoided, along with the most severe consequences of global warming (IPCC 2007). In 2007, the CEC published “The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals” (CEC 2007). In this publication, the CEC acknowledged that California’s land use patterns shape energy use and the production of GHG. Transportation contributes a large percentage of the state’s GHG emissions, and research shows that increasing a community or development’s density and accessibility to job centers are the two most significant factors for reducing vehicle miles traveled through design (CEC 2007). In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline the state’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide year 2020 BAU GHG emissions (i.e., GHG emissions in the absence of statewide emission reduction measures). CARB identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU. Compliance with the federal and statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented over the next 10 years, as outlined above, would reduce Honda Center’s GHG emissions. In addition, increasing the number of annual events results in a decrease in per capita GHG emissions since the building generates emissions regardless of whether it is in use or not (see Table 12). Thus, increase the number of events per year increases the intensity and efficiency and the existing land use. In addition, several modes of public transportation provide access to Honda Center, including passenger rail and bus service. The Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station is at the north end of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim parking lot 0.4 mile southwest of Honda Center. Two passenger rail services serve the station. The Amtrak Pacific Surfliner operates between San Diego and San Luis Obispo seven days per week. Eleven trains in each direction, northbound and southbound, stop at Anaheim on weekdays (Amtrak 2011). Metrolink is a commuter rail service. One Metrolink line, the Orange County line, serves the Anaheim station seven days per week; on weekdays 13 northbound and 12 southbound trains stop at Anaheim (Metrolink 2011). Honda Center is a 0.5 mile walk from the Amtrak/Metrolink Station and a 0.5 walk from the proposed ARTIC Station. Public bus service is provided in Orange County by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). OCTA Route 50 operates on Katella Avenue past Honda Center. Route 50 provides east-west service between the City of Orange and Long Beach seven days per week; peak hour weekday frequency is about 30 minutes (OCTA 2011a). OCTA Route 153 operates on Katella Avenue between Struck Avenue and Main Street, providing north-south service between Anaheim and Brea seven days per week with hourly frequency (OCTA 2011b). The southern terminus of this route, on Katella Avenue, is approximately 0.3 mile east of Honda Center and is walkable using sidewalks. Routes 50 and 135 include regular bus service and station- link bus service. 4. Environmental Impacts Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 33 The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and for this reason the project would have a less than significant impact under this second threshold. 5. Mitigation Measures Page 34 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 5. MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 EXISTING REGULATIONS • CARB Rule 2485 – Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) • SCAQMD Rule 201 – Permit to Construct • SCAQMD Rule 402 – Nuisance Odors • SCAQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust • City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, Section 9-3.513. • SCAQMD Rule 1108 – Cutback Asphalt • SCAQMD Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings • SCAQMD Rule 1301 – New Source Review • SCAQMD Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities • 40 CFR Part 85 – Control of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources • 40 CFR Part 89 – Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines • Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) • Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20) • Motor Vehicle Standards (AB 1493) 5.2 MITIGATION MEASURES Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Mitigation measures described below for GHG emissions would also reduce criteria air pollutant emissions generated on a day with a sold out Honda Center event. Greenhouse Gases GHG-1 Honda Center shall request a Comprehensive Energy Audit by the Anaheim Public Utilities, which is a free service offered by the utility. According to the Anaheim Public Utilities, customers can reduce energy by as much as 10 to 25 percent of month through efficiency reductions. Energy reductions can be accomplished through retrofits and/or offsets provided by renewable energy generation onsite. Potential combination of measures that could be taken to achieve a reduction in energy demand includes: a. Replacement of indoor and outdoor lighting fixtures with LED or compact fluorescent fixtures. b. Retrofitting air conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems and/or calibrating systems for efficiency (e.g., increasing average indoor temperature settings in summer and during hockey events). c. Replacing restaurant refrigerators, freezers, and other appliances with Energy Star rated appliances to reduce plug-load. d. Installation of photovoltaic system (e.g., carports with solar panels or rooftop-mounted solar panels) or wind-energy-system at Honda Center to offset energy use generated during an event. For example, a 750 kW-ac photovoltaic system is estimated to produce 1,242,163 kWh per year based on the California Public Utilities Commission’s Clean Power Estimator. 5. Mitigation Measures Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 35 GHG-2 The City of Anaheim shall continue coordinating with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), which operates Metrolink service on Orange County Line in conjunction with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The City of Anaheim shall coordinate with SCRRA to discuss the potential for providing special event service to Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim on weekends and during the week. A list of events, including the day or the event, time of the event, and duration of the event at Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim shall be provided to SCRRA to initiate these discussions. Barriers to implement Special Event Service on the Orange County Line shall be discussed. Potential funding options to overcoming barriers to implement special event Service on the Orange County line should be indentified and considered, including funding for additional train operators and trains that coincide with commuter service. GHG-3 To encourage use of transit by visitors to Honda Center, ticket holders shall be provided information on the Metrolink and Amtrak services available on the day of the event, including Metrolink and Amtrak scheduling. 5.3 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Measure GHG-1 through GHG-3 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, the effectiveness of these mitigation measures is uncertain and cannot be quantified. Therefore, regional criteria air pollutant emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse Gas Emissions As described previously, Honda Center would need to reduce GHG emissions by 1,819 MTons in order to achieve an efficiency metric of 4.8 MTons per service population. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 through GHG-3 would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. However, these mitigation measures do not yield quantifiable reductions as the degree of effectiveness is uncertain. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 6. References Page 36 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 6. REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011, Updated May. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009, June. Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Volume I, Initial Statement of Reasons. ———. 2008a, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. ———. 2008b January. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions under CAFE Standards and ARB Regulations Adopted Pursuant to AB1493. ———. 2008c February. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the United States and Canada Under US CAFÉ Standards and California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Regulations. ———. 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. ———. 1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List. California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA). 2010, August. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2007, April 20. CAT Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California. ———. 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1997, December. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. UCD-ITS-RR-97-21. Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals. Report CEC-600-2007-008-SD. ———. 2006a, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report CEC-600-2006-013-SF. ———. 2006b. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report. California Climate Change Center, California Energy Commission Staff Paper, Sacramento, California, Report CEC-500-2006-077. ———. 2005a, June. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis, Gerry and Jennifer Allen, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2002 Update. California Energy Commission Staff Paper CEC-600-2005-025. Sacramento, California. ———. 2005b, November. California's Water-Energy Relationship. CEC-700.2005-011-SF. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. Technical Advisory, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through CEQA Review Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 6. References Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 37 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide. ———. 2008, September. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III). ———. 2007, June. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. ———. 2006, October. Final Methodology to Calculate PM2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds. ———. 2003, June. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. ———. 1993, April. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2010, February. Final 20X2020 Water Conservation Plan. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Personal Communications Dion Beckton, Senior Building Engineer, Honda Center. 2011, September. Personal Communications. Tanya S. La Soya, Convention, Sports & Entertainment Manager, Anaheim. 2011, June. Personal Communications. Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations, Honda Center. 2011, June. Personal Communications and Honda Center Operational Survey. Merit Tully, Director of Media & Communications, Honda Center. 2011, September. Personal Communications. Websites Amtrak. 2011, July 15. Timetables. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1237405732505/1237405732505. Anaheim Regional Transit (ART). 2011. Route 15 Schedule. http://www.rideart.org/schedules/route-15/ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010). http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html ———. 2010, August. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. ———. 2010, March. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 6. References Page 38 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 California Integrated Waste Management Board (now CalRecycle). Revised 2008. Contractor's Report to the Board, California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1346 California Public Utilities Commission. 2011. Clean Power Estimator. http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/tools/clean_power_estimator.php Metrolink. 2011, July 5. Schedules: Orange County Line. http://www.metrolinktrains.com/schedules/html.php?id=1111. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2011, June 12. Route 50 Schedule. http://www.octa.net/pdf/pdf/feb2011/route050.pdf. ———. 2011b, June 12. Route 153 Schedule. http://www.octa.net/pdf/pdf/june2011/route153.pdf. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). South Coast AQMD List of Current Rules. California Air Resources Board. http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sc/cur.htm. ———. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III) Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk. http://www2.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/. Accessed 2011. ———. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf ———. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Updates to CEQA Air Quality Handbook. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html. Southern California Edison (SCE). 2011. Renewable Energy. http://www.sce.com/powerandenvironment/renewables/default.htm Office of the California Attorney General (AG). 2008, May. The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes. Non CO2 Gases Economic Analysis and Inventory. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#GWP ———. 2008, April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html ———. 2008. Criteria Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/o3co.htmll Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Santa Ana Monitoring Station (ID No. ID 049087). http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html. Accessed June 2011. 6. References Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim • Page 39 Models California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006, November 1. EMFAC2007 Computer Model. Version 2.3. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. 6. References Page 40 • The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 This page intentionally left blank. Appendices Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim Appendix A. Summary of GHG and Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 This page intentionally left blank. SUMMARY - GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY Tier 3 Analysis - Screening Threshold Without Project With Project Net Increase Category MTons/Year MTons/Year MTons/Year Transportation 23,755 64%32,926 63%9,171 61% Purchased Energy 12,342 33%17,712 34%5,370 36% Natural Gas 693 2%994 2%301 2% Total Energy 13,035 35%18,706 36%5,671 38% Water/Wastewater 151 0.4%220 0.4%68 0% Waste Disposal 126 0.3%183 0.4%57 0.4% Total 37,068 100%52,035 100%14,967 100% Percent increase in events:45%153 222 2020 With Project GHG Reductions Tier 4 (Total Inventory w/Reductions)MTons/Year NEEDED for 4.8 Transportation 24,126 59% Purchased Energy 15,303 37% Natural Gas 994 2% Total Energy 16,297 40% Water/Wastewater 220 0.5% Waste Disposal 183 0.4% Total 40,826 100%-1,819 Tier 4 Analysis - Efficiency Target Without Project With Project 2020 With Project 2020 w/ Mitigation 2011 Increase Average Daily Service Population 5,663 8,127 8,127 2,464 MTons/Service Population 6.5 6.4 5.0 4.8 6.1 Average Annual Service Population Existing Project Average Annual visitors 1,723,333 2,500,523 Average Annual Employees & Team 343,619 465,663 Average People Onsite Per Year 2,066,952 2,966,185 Increase Average Population Per Day 5,663 8,127 2,464 Percent of Inventory Percent of Inventory Percent of Inventory Percent of Inventory Assumes the project would increase the number of events by 45% and annual emissions for non-transportation sectors (natural gas, purchased electricity, water/wastewater, and waste disposal) are increased proportionately. See transportation assumptions for the trip generation with and without the proposed project. See per-capita generation for natural gas and purchased energy forecasts. Transportation - Based on Pavley I + LCFS Post-Processor. SCE has derives approximately 19.4 percent of its energy from renewable energy sources (SCE 2011). The Scoping Plan calls for a 33 percent RPS by 2020. In the absence of data from Anaheim Public Utilities, assumes a similar percent increase in renewable energy generation for Anaheim Public Utilities (e.g., 13.6 percent reduction in fossil fuel use) for 33 RPS. SUMMARY - CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS INVENTORY Full Capacity Events ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.39 3.51 2.95 0.02 0.27 0.27 Transportation 301 359 3,021 4 39 39 Summary 301 363 3,024 4 39 39 Average Attendance Events ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.39 3.51 2.95 0.02 0.27 0.27 Transportation 222 264 2,226 3 29 28 Summary 222 268 2,229 3 29 28 Diff Btwn Sell Out & Avg Attendance Event 79 95 795 1 10 11 SCAQMD's Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 lbs/day lbs/day Appendices Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim Appendix B. Transportation Emissions Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 This page intentionally left blank. Traffic Emission Factors See EMFAC2007 Model run for year 2011 Average Daily Vistors Year Vistors Events Average Daily Visitors/Event 2006 1,600,000 154 10,390 2007 1,760,000 144 12,222 2008 1,590,000 162 9,815 2009 1,460,000 136 10,735 2010 1,300,000 120 10,833 Highest 3-years averaged 153 11,264 Source: Email Correspondence (June 2011): The Honda Center Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations Events by Type 2010 Percent Basketball 15 13% Hockey 45 38% Other (Concerts)60 50% 120 100% Source: Email Correspondence (June 2011): The Honda Center Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations Traffic Data Provided by The Honda Center Event Days 153 Staff Occupants per Vehicle Trip Rate Trips basketball:950 1.2 2 1,583 Hockey:950 1.2 2 1,583 Concerts:1,000 1.2 2 1,667 Team Occupants per Vehicle Trip Rate Trips basketball:250 1.2 2 417 Hockey:200 1.2 2 333 Concerts:200 1.2 2 333 Spectator Seats Occupants per Vehicle Trip Rate Trips basketball:18,336 3.0 2 12,224 Hockey:17,174 3.0 2 11,449 Concerts:18,900 3.0 2 12,600 Trips by type Trips basketball:14,224 Hockey:13,366 Concerts:14,600 Maximum Trips 14,600 With Trip Reductions 13,743 Maximum Event Trips Average Visitors Occupants per Vehicle Trip Rate Trips Average Visitors 11,264 3.0 2 7,509 Average Staff 1,625 1.2 2 2,708 Average Team 344 1.2 2 573 Average Daily Event Trips 10,790 With Trip Reductions (see assumptions below)10,124 Non-Event Days 212 Staff Occupants per Vehicle Trip Rate Trips Employees (when dark)200 1.2 4 667 Trip rate for non-event days 1.026 Fleet Mix Fleet Mix Percent *Passenger Vehicles 4,000 98.4% *Charter Buses 5 0.1% Medium Duty Trucks (assume 1% for food service)1.0% *Heavy Duty Trucks 20 0.5% 4,025 * Source: Starkey 2011 Trip Reductions CHARTER BUSES. Assumes 40 occupants per bus and 5 buses: 200 133 trip reduction 723 trip reduction peak day 533 trip reduction average day Average Distance Average Distance One-Way:31.1 miles Email Correspondence (June 2011): The Honda Center Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations The Honda Center Dion Beckton, Senior Building Engineer Average Daily Event Trips Based on TicketMaster Ticket Sales by Zip Code provided by the Honda Center. Assumed will-call, season ticketholder and cash sales occur within a similar distance of the 90th percentile of sales. Assumes 1.2 occupants per vehicle for staff and team and 3.0 occupants per vehicle for spectators (Honda Center). Assumes 2 trips per vehicle for events (home-to-other [event] and other-to-home). Note: because of retail/restaurant onsite and duration of events, no "dinner/lunch" trips are assumed for employees. Assumes 1.2 occupants per vehicle for staff. Assumes 4 trips per vehicle (home-to-work, work-to-other [lunch], other-to-work, work-to-home) TRANSIT RIDERSHIP: Assumes a 5% trip reduction in trips for proximity to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) or other transit options provided by the Orange County Transporation Authority (OCTA) and location within the Platinum Triangle mixed-use area. Opening Year Without LCFS and Pavley Based on EMFAC2007 assumes PM2.5 is 99 percent of PM10 for mobile sources. SCAQMD 2006. Daily VMT Average Attendan ce Trip Length 314,856 10,124 31.1 Total Emissions LDA-TOT LDT1- TOT LDT2- TOT MDV-TOT HHDT- TOT UB-TOT lbs/day CO 1,254 211 689 31 33 7 2,226 PM10 14 2 9 0 2 0 29 PM2.5 14 2 9 0 2 0 28 NOx 101 18 81 4 50 10 264 ROG 131 20 63 3 5 1 222 CO2 174,801 29,181 94,486 4,734 6,349 1,507 311,058 SO2 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 Appendices Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim Appendix F. SCAQMD Local Rules and Regulations Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 This page intentionally left blank. HondaCenterburden2.xls Pavley Page 2 Vehicle Category Vehicle Population Weekday VMT from EMFAC (VMT/day) Weekday CO2 Emissions from EMFAC (tons/day) Weekday CO2 Emission Reduction from Pavley I (tons/day) Weekday CO2 Emissions after adopting Pavley I (tons/day) % CO2 Emission Reduction from LCFS Weekday CO2 Emission Reduction from LCFS (tons/day) Weekday CO2 Emissions after adopting Pavley I & LCFS (tons/day) Annual CO2 Emissions after adopting Pavley I & LCFS (MMTCO2/year) LDA 1,349,516 43,002,112 18,634.82 3,846.20 14,788.62 10.00%1,478.86 13,309.76 4.19 LDT1 182,793 6,258,834 3,395.40 633.21 2,762.19 10.00%276.22 2,485.97 0.78 LDT2 604,613 20,590,234 11,340.18 1,515.23 9,824.95 10.00%982.49 8,842.45 2.78 MDV 273,795 9,668,478 7,244.62 909.08 6,335.54 10.00%633.55 5,701.98 1.79 Total 2,410,717 79,519,658 40,615.02 6,903.72 33,711.30 10.00%3,371.13 30,340.17 9.55 CO2 Emission Reductions from the Pavley I Regulation & the Low Carbon Fuel Standard for Orange - 2020 (OC2020Burden) Opening Year Without LCFS and Pavley Based on EMFAC2007 assumes PM2.5 is 99 percent of PM10 for mobile sources. SCAQMD 2006. Daily VMT Max Event Trips Trip Length 427,407 13,743 31.1 Total Emissions LDA-TOT LDT1- TOT LDT2- TOT MDV-TOT HHDT- TOT UB-TOT lbs/day CO 1,703 286 936 42 44 10 3,021 PM10 20 3 13 0 3 0 39 PM2.5 19 3 13 0 3 0 39 NOx 138 24 110 5 67 14 359 ROG 177 27 85 4 7 1 301 CO2 237,286 39,612 128,262 6,427 8,619 2,046 422,252 SO2 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 Annual VMT Average Event Trips Event Days NonEvent Trips Non Event Days Trip Length 52,570,694 10,124 153 667 212 31.1 Based on EMFAC2007, using 2030 emission rates Total Emissions LDA-TOT LDT1- TOT LDT2- TOT MDV-TOT HHDT- TOT UB-TOT MTons/year CO 95 16 52 2 2 1 169 PM10 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 PM2.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 NOx 8 1 6 0 4 1 20 ROG 10 2 5 0 0 0 17 CO2 13,239 2,210 7,156 359 481 114 23,558 N2O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO2e 23,755 SO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB in AB 32 Technical Appendices. The off- model adjustment uses a linear regression correlating N2O with NOx. (N2O = 0.0167 + 0.0318 x NOx) Annual VMT w/Project Average Event Trips Event Days NonEvent Trips Non Event Days Trip Length 72,864,470 10,124 222 667 143 31.1 MTons/Year MTons/year CO 132 22 72 3 3 1 234 PM10 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 PM2.5 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 NOx 11 2 9 0 5 1 28 ROG 14 2 7 0 1 0 23 CO2 18,349 3,063 9,918 497 666 158 32,652 N2O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO2e 32,926 SO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB in AB 32 Technical Appendices. The off- model adjustment uses a linear regression correlating N2O with NOx. (N2O = 0.0167 + 0.0318 x NOx) 2020 With LCFS and Pavley Based on EMFAC2007 + LCFS/Pavley PostProcessor assumes PM2.5 is 99 percent of PM10 for mobile sources. SCAQMD 2006. Daily VMT Max Event Trips Trip Length 427,407 13,743 31.1 Total Emissions LDA-TOT lbs/day CO 774 134 563 26 18 7 1,522 PM10 20 3 14 1 1 0 39 PM2.5 20 3 14 1 1 0 38 NOx 57 11 56 3 26 11 163 ROG 99 17 71 3 3 1 194 CO2 165,979 28,734 99,864 5,042 8,847 1,928 310,394 N2O 2 0 2 0 1 0 5 CO2e 312,000 SO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual VMT w/Project Average Event Trips Event Days NonEvent Trips Non Event Days Trip Length 72,864,470 10,124 222 667 143 31.1 MTons/Year MTons/year CO 60 10 44 2 1 1 118 PM10 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 PM2.5 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 NOx 4 1 4 0 2 1 13 ROG 8 1 6 0 0 0 15 CO2 12,835 2,222 7,722 390 684 149 24,002 N2O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO2e 24,126 SO2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB in AB 32 Technical Appendices. The off- model adjustment uses a linear regression correlating N2O with NOx. (N2O = 0.0167 + 0.0318 x NOx) N2O emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB in AB 32 Technical Appendices. The off- model adjustment uses a linear regression correlating N2O with NOx. (N2O = 0.0167 + 0.0318 x NOx) Title : OrangeCounty2011 Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2011/06/30 09:40:24 Scen Year: 2011 -- All model years in the range 1967 to 2011 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange County I/M Stat : Enhanced Interim (2005) Emissions: Tons Per Day ********************************************************************************************************************************************************* LDA-TOT LDT1-TOT LDT2-TOT MDV-TOT HHDT-TOT UB-TOT ALL-TOT Vehicles 1230350 165981 533516 238743 5219 1073 2328030 Honda Center 1230350 165981 533516 1929847 62.7%8.5%27.2%1.00%0.50%0.10%100.0% VMT/1000 40408 5899 19272 8978 848 117 79536 VMT 40,408,000 5,899,000 19,272,000 8,978,000 848,000 117,000 79,536,000 Trips 7731650 1040560 3366570 1508660 53503 4290 15858600 Percent VMT 51%7%24%11%1%0%100% Reactive Organic Gas Emissions Run Exh 2.67 0.6 1.49 1.11 1.07 0.15 9.58 Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.17 Start Ex 3.33 0.43 1.67 1.05 0.15 0.01 8.04 --------------------- Total Ex 6.01 1.04 3.16 2.15 1.32 0.15 17.79 Diurnal 0.99 0.12 0.39 0.16 0 0 1.81 Hot Soak 1.51 0.2 0.59 0.24 0 0 2.68 Running 4.2 0.8 2.65 1.06 0.03 0.01 10.1 Resting 0.64 0.08 0.26 0.11 0 0 1.18 --------------------- Total 13.35 2.24 7.05 3.72 1.35 0.16 33.56 lbs/day 26700 4480 14100 7440 2700 320 lbs/VMT 6.61E-04 7.59E-04 7.32E-04 8.29E-04 3.18E-03 2.74E-03 corrected for %Fleet 4.15E-04 6.43E-05 1.99E-04 8.29E-06 1.59E-05 2.74E-06 Carbon Monoxide Emissions Run Exh 89.7 17.63 56.23 32.35 6.28 1.25 235.02 Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.87 Start Ex 38.6 5.73 21.32 11.56 2.12 0.1 94.53 ------------------------------------------------- Total Ex 128.3 23.36 77.56 43.91 8.81 1.35 330.41 lbs/day 256600 46720 155120 87820 17620 2700 lbs/VMT 6.35E-03 7.92E-03 8.05E-03 9.78E-03 2.08E-02 2.31E-02 corrected for %Fleet 3.98E-03 6.70E-04 2.19E-03 9.78E-05 1.04E-04 2.31E-05 Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions Run Exh 7.66 1.6 7 4.39 12.18 1.89 49.28 Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0.95 0 1.18 Start Ex 2.71 0.38 2.14 1.16 0.24 0.01 9.48 ------------------------------------------------- Total Ex 10.37 1.98 9.14 5.56 13.37 1.9 59.95 lbs/day 20740 3960 18280 11120 26740 3800 lbs/VMT 5.13E-04 6.71E-04 9.49E-04 1.24E-03 3.15E-02 3.25E-02 corrected for %Fleet 3.22E-04 5.68E-05 2.58E-04 1.24E-05 1.58E-04 3.25E-05 Title : OrangeCounty2011 Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2011/06/30 09:40:24 Scen Year: 2011 -- All model years in the range 1967 to 2011 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange County I/M Stat : Enhanced Interim (2005) Emissions: Tons Per Day ********************************************************************************************************************************************************* LDA-TOT LDT1-TOT LDT2-TOT MDV-TOT HHDT-TOT UB-TOT ALL-TOT Vehicles 1230350 165981 533516 238743 5219 1073 2328030 Honda Center 1230350 165981 533516 1929847 62.7%8.5%27.2%1.00%0.50%0.10%100.0% VMT/1000 40408 5899 19272 8978 848 117 79536 VMT 40,408,000 5,899,000 19,272,000 8,978,000 848,000 117,000 79,536,000 Trips 7731650 1040560 3366570 1508660 53503 4290 15858600 Percent VMT 51%7%24%11%1%0%100% Carbon Dioxide Emissions (000) Run Exh 17.26 3.13 10.3 6.55 1.66 0.28 42.71 Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0.08 Start Ex 0.62 0.1 0.33 0.21 0 0 1.33 ------------------------------------------------- Total Ex 17.88 3.23 10.63 6.75 1.71 0.28 44.13 lbs day 35760000 6460000 21260000 13500000 3420000 560000 lbs/VMT 8.85E-01 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.50E+00 4.03E+00 4.79E+00 corrected for %Fleet 5.55E-01 9.27E-02 3.00E-01 1.50E-02 2.02E-02 4.79E-03 PM10 Emissions Run Exh 0.51 0.09 0.58 0.27 0.53 0.03 2.31 Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.02 Start Ex 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.02 0 0 0.14 ------------------------------------------------- Total Ex 0.56 0.1 0.63 0.29 0.55 0.03 2.47 TireWear 0.36 0.05 0.17 0.08 0.03 0 0.74 BrakeWr 0.56 0.08 0.27 0.12 0.03 0 1.11 ------------------------------------------------- Total 1.48 0.23 1.06 0.5 0.61 0.03 4.32 lbds/day 2960 460 2120 1000 1220 60 lbs/VMT 7.33E-05 7.80E-05 1.10E-04 1.11E-04 1.44E-03 5.13E-04 corrected for %Fleet 4.60E-05 6.60E-06 2.99E-05 1.11E-06 7.19E-06 5.13E-07 Lead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOx 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.07 0.02 0 0.43 lbds/day 340 60 200 140 40 0 lbs/VMT 8.41E-06 1.02E-05 1.04E-05 1.56E-05 4.72E-05 0.00E+00 corrected for %Fleet 5.28E-06 8.61E-07 2.82E-06 1.56E-07 2.36E-07 0.00E+00 Fuel Consumption (000 gallons) Gasoline 1850.81 329.59 1101.64 698.45 4.8 2.14 4157.14 Diesel 2.02 4.52 0.57 0.78 150.91 23.94 367.75 Title : OC2020Burden Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2011/09/19 10:10:10 Scen Year: 2020 -- All model years in the range 1976 to 2020 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange County I/M Stat : Enhanced Interim (2005) Emissions: Tons Per Day ********************************************************************************************************************************************************************** LDA-TOT LDT1-TOT LDT2-TOT MDV-TOT HHDT-TOT UB-TOT ALL-TOT Vehicles 1,349,520 182,793 604,613 273,795 5,834 1,218 2,596,980 Honda Center from 2011 62.7%8.5%27.2%1.0%0.5%0.1%100.0% VMT/1000 43,002 6,259 20,590 9,668 1,087 133 85,272 VMT 43,002,000 6,259,000 20,590,000 9,668,000 1,087,000 133,000 85,272,000 Trips 8,398,070 1,131,140 3,738,980 1,693,450 45,309 4,873 17,591,600 Percent VMT 50%7%24%11%1%0%100% Reactive Organic Gas Emissions Run Exh 1.43 0.26 1.2 0.86 0.58 0.15 6.82 Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.19 Start Ex 1.46 0.22 1.03 0.69 0.07 0.01 4.58 ------------------------------------------------- Total Ex 2.89 0.48 2.24 1.55 0.75 0.16 11.59 Diurnal 0.64 0.09 0.39 0.18 0 0 1.45 Hot Soak 1.26 0.19 0.71 0.32 0 0 2.6 Running 2.62 0.67 2.62 1.16 0.01 0.01 8.32 Resting 0.53 0.08 0.35 0.16 0 0 1.2 ------------------------------------------------- Total 7.93 1.49 6.3 3.36 0.76 0.16 25.17 lbs/day 15860 2980 12600 6720 1520 320 50340 lbs/VMT 3.69E-04 4.76E-04 6.12E-04 6.95E-04 1.40E-03 2.41E-03 5.90E-04 corrected for %Fleet 2.31E-04 4.03E-05 1.66E-04 6.95E-06 6.99E-06 2.41E-06 5.90E-04 Carbon Monoxide Emissions Run Exh 43.25 8.41 36.07 21.83 3.09 0.94 134.74 Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0.43 0 0.96 Start Ex 18.79 3.2 13.81 8.03 0.94 0.1 55.55 ------------------------------------------------- Total Ex 62.05 11.61 49.88 29.87 4.47 1.04 191.25 lbs/day 124100 23220 99760 59740 8940 2080 382500 lbs/VMT 2.89E-03 3.71E-03 4.85E-03 6.18E-03 8.22E-03 1.56E-02 4.49E-03 corrected for %Fleet 1.81E-03 3.14E-04 1.32E-03 6.18E-05 4.11E-05 1.56E-05 4.49E-03 Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions Run Exh 3.38 0.73 3.74 2.4 5.25 1.66 25.2 Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 1.23 0 1.5 Start Ex 1.17 0.2 1.23 0.72 0.13 0.01 6.3 ------------------------------------------------- Total Ex 4.54 0.93 4.97 3.12 6.6 1.67 33 lbs/day 9080 1860 9940 6240 13200 3340 66000 lbs/VMT 2.11E-04 2.97E-04 4.83E-04 6.45E-04 1.21E-02 2.51E-02 7.74E-04 corrected for %Fleet 1.32E-04 2.52E-05 1.31E-04 6.45E-06 6.07E-05 2.51E-05 7.74E-04 Title : OC2020Burden Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Run Date : 2011/09/19 10:10:10 Scen Year: 2020 -- All model years in the range 1976 to 2020 selected Season : Annual Area : Orange County I/M Stat : Enhanced Interim (2005) Emissions: Tons Per Day ********************************************************************************************************************************************************************** LDA-TOT LDT1-TOT LDT2-TOT MDV-TOT HHDT-TOT UB-TOT ALL-TOT Vehicles 1,349,520 182,793 604,613 273,795 5,834 1,218 2,596,980 Honda Center from 2011 62.7%8.5%27.2%1.0%0.5%0.1%100.0% VMT/1000 43,002 6,259 20,590 9,668 1,087 133 85,272 VMT 43,002,000 6,259,000 20,590,000 9,668,000 1,087,000 133,000 85,272,000 Trips 8,398,070 1,131,140 3,738,980 1,693,450 45,309 4,873 17,591,600 Percent VMT 50%7%24%11%1%0%100% Carbon Dioxide Emissions (000) Run Exh 17.98 3.29 10.97 7.02 2.18 0.3 45.72 Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0.1 Start Ex 0.65 0.11 0.37 0.23 0 0 1.45 ------------------------------------------------- Total Ex 18.63 3.4 11.34 7.24 2.25 0.3 47.27 lbs day 37260000 6800000 22680000 14480000 4500000 600000 94540000 lbs/VMT 8.66E-01 1.09E+00 1.10E+00 1.50E+00 4.14E+00 4.51E+00 1.11E+00 corrected for %Fleet 5.44E-01 9.19E-02 3.00E-01 1.50E-02 2.07E-02 4.51E-03 1.11E+00 PAVLEY POST PROCESSOR Total Ex 1.33E+04 2.49E+03 8.84E+03 5.70E+03 lbs day 26619522.98 4971943.107 17684904.87 11403967.64 4.50E+06 6.00E+05 9.45E+07 lbs/VMT 6.19E-01 7.94E-01 8.59E-01 1.18E+00 4.14E+00 4.51E+00 1.11E+00 corrected for %Fleet 3.88E-01 6.72E-02 2.34E-01 1.18E-02 2.07E-02 4.51E-03 1.11E+00 PM10 Emissions Run Exh 0.56 0.1 0.7 0.35 0.24 0.03 2.22 Idle Exh 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 Start Ex 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.03 0 0 0.18 ------------------------------------------------- Total Ex 0.62 0.11 0.77 0.38 0.24 0.03 2.41 TireWear 0.38 0.06 0.18 0.09 0.04 0 0.8 BrakeWr 0.59 0.09 0.28 0.13 0.03 0 1.19 ------- Total 1.59 0.25 1.24 0.6 0.32 0.03 4.4 lbds/day 3180 500 2480 1200 640 60 8800 lbs/VMT 7.40E-05 7.99E-05 1.20E-04 1.24E-04 5.89E-04 4.51E-04 1.03E-04 corrected for %Fleet 4.64E-05 6.76E-06 3.28E-05 1.24E-06 2.94E-06 4.51E-07 1.03E-04 Lead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOx 0.18 0.03 0.11 0.07 0.02 0 0.46 lbds/day 360 60 220 140 40 0 920 lbs/VMT 8.37E-06 9.59E-06 1.07E-05 1.45E-05 3.68E-05 0.00E+00 1.08E-05 corrected for %Fleet 5.25E-06 8.11E-07 2.91E-06 1.45E-07 1.84E-07 0.00E+00 1.08E-05 Fuel Consumption (000 gallons) Gasoline 1918.02 347.53 1169.42 746.49 2 3.17 4377.25 Diesel 0.5 1.83 0.2 0.39 200.9 24.01 435.19 Appendices Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim Appendix C. Natural Gas and Purchased Energy Emissions Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 This page intentionally left blank. ANAHEIM PUBLIC UTILITIES - Emission Factors lbs/MWH lbs/KWH CO2 1416.74 1.41674 CH4 0.029 0.000029 N2O 0.011 0.000011 Global Warming Potentials (GWP) Anaheim Public Utilities (lbs/KWH) CO2 1 1.41674 CH4 21 0.00061 N2O 310 0.00341 Total CO2e 1.420759 lbs to Tons 2000 Tons to Mton 0.9071847 Energy Use Provided by The Honda Center Size of the Honda Center:650,000 sqft Winter 1,217,583.90 KwH/Month Winter Summer 1,974,389.70 KwH/Month Summer Average Annual 19,151,841.60 KwH - Average Annual 29.46 kwh/sqft Email Correspondence (June 2011): The Honda Center Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations The Honda Center Dion Beckton, Senior Building Engineer 2011 GHG Emissions from Purchased Energy Use lbs CO2e MTons Summer Month 1,729,893 785 Winter Month 2,805,132 1,272 Average Annual 27,210,151 12,342 CPUC - Clean Power Estimator 1,764,814 801 Existing W/Project MTons/Average Population 2.2 17,712 *Increse in emissions based on increase in annual average per capita emissions Intensity factor Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. Based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Local Government Operations Protocol (LGO) for CO2 and E-Grid values for CH4 and N2O. Appendix D, Default Data Tables. Table 1.2, Electrical Utility Emission Factors of GHGs. Souce: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2011. Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol. Appendix F, Standard Conversion Factors GHG Emissions Reductions from Energy Retrofits or Offsets GHG Reductions Needed Annual -1,819 Coorelates to KwH Reductions:Annual -2,822,138 Percent Energy Reduction from Existing -14.7% Percent Energy Reduction from Future Increase (estimate)-10.3% Residential Per-Capita 2,379 kwh/year* Single Family 3.3 Persons/Dwelling** Energy per Dwelling in Anaheim 7,851 kwh/year/house GHG Reductions Equivalent to Energy from: 359 houses *California Energy Commission. 2009. Energy Aware Planning Guide. CEC-600-2009-013. ** City of Anaheim. 2004. General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report. Natural Gas Emission Factors Heat Content Carbon Content Per Unit Energy Fraction Oxidized kg of CO2/MMBtU MTons of CO2/MMBtU Weighted US Average 1,029 14.47 1 53.06 0.053 Therm to BTU 100000 British Thermal Unit Therm to MMBTU 0.1 million Btu kg to MTons 0.001 metric Tons Natural Gas Use Provided by The Honda Center Therms MMBtu KBtu Winter 16,666 1,667 1,666,600 Summer 5,100 510 510,000 CalEEmod check Average Annual 130,596 13,060 13,059,600 10.05 35,780 average daily Email Correspondence (June 2011): The Honda Center Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations The Honda Center Dion Beckton, Senior Building Engineer 2011 GHG Emissions from Onsite Natural Gas Use Per-Capita MTons Existing W/Project Summer Month 88 Winter Month 27 Average Annual 693 0.12 994 *Increse in emissions based on increase in annual average per capita emissions 2011 Criteria Air Pollutants - Natural Gas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Non-Residential 0.01078431 0.09803922 0.08235294 0.00058824 0.00745098 0.00745098 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Honda Center 0.39 3.51 2.95 0.02 0.27 0.27 Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol. Appendix G, Default Emission Factors Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol. Appendix F, Standard Conversion Factors Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. Table 8.2 Natural Gas Emission Factors lbs/MBTu Appendices Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim Appendix D. Water and Wastewater Emissions Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 This page intentionally left blank. Orange County Water and Wastewater Energy Intensity Water Supply Treatment Distribution Wastewater Treatment Total Orange County 9,727 111 1,272 1,911 13,021 Excluding wastewater treatment 11,110 Orange County Wastewater Direct Emissions Septic Aerobic Anaerobic (Lagoons) Anaerobic (Gas) Anaerobic (Cogeneration) Orange County 10.00%84.69%2.14%3.17%0.00% ajdusted 0.00%84.69%2.14%3.17%0.00% Modified 0.00%94.10%2.38%3.52%0.00% Southern California Edison - Emission Factors lbs/MWH lbs/KWH CO2 641.26 0.64126 CH4 0.29 0.00029 N2O 0.011 0.000011 Note: CalEEMod uses Anaheim Public Utilities Intensity Factors. SCE Intensity factors are for water used since OCSD is within their jurisdiction Global Warming Potentials (GWP) Anaheim Public Utilities (lbs/KWH) CO2 1 0.64126 CH4 21 0.00609 N2O 310 0.00341 Total CO2e 0.65076 lbs to Tons 2000 Tons to Mton 0.9071847 Intensity factor Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. Based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Local Government Operations Protocol (LGO) for CO2 and E-Grid values for CH4 and N2O. Appendix D, Default Data Tables. Table 1.2, Electrical Utility Emission Factors of GHGs. Souce: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2011. Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol. Appendix F, Standard Conversion Factors Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User's Guide. Appendix D, Default Data Tables. Table 9.3 Percent of Wastewater Distribution Types (assumes no septic). Aesrobic digestion, no methane or nitrous ocide emissions would occur (CARB's 2008 LGOP). Assumes no N2O emissions as treated wastewater is outfalled to ocean and not a river or estuary by the Orange County Sanitation District. Assumes no cogeneration. kWhr/million gallons Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User's Guide. Appendix D, Default Data Tables. Table 9.2 Water and Wastewater Electricity Intensity Water Use Provided by The Honda Center Total Gallons Millon Gallons Indoor (Mgallons) Outdoor (Mgallons)Indoor (Liters) Winter Month 1,530,000 1.53 1.45 0.08 5,501,514 Summer Month 1,860,000 1.86 1.77 0.09 6,688,115 Average Annual 31,500,000 31.50 29.93 1.58 113,266,465 Email Correspondence (June 2011): The Honda Center Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations The Honda Center Dion Beckton, Senior Building Engineer Based on 650,000 sqft stadium (average annual)48,462 1000 sqft gallons to Liters 3.785 2011 GHG Emissions from Water Use Energy from Water Use Indoor Outdoor Total Winter Month 18,926 850 19,776 Summer Month 23,008 1033 24,041 Average Annual 389,653 17,498 407,152 Indirect GHG Emissions lbs CO2e MTons Summer Month 12,869 5.84 Winter Month 15,645 7.10 Average Annual 264,958 120 Direct Emissions: Anaerobic Digestion (Lagoons) CH4 = wastewater =2,693,225 Liters BOD5load =200.00 mg/L of Wastewater 10^-6 =0.00 conversion factor; kg/mg Fp = 0.00 assumes no primary treatment Bo = 0.60 kg//CH4/kg BOD5 removed MCFanaerobic = 0.80 correction factor from LGOP Fremoved =1.00 from LGOP 10^-3 =0.00 conversion factor: MTons/kg CH4 =0 MTons of CH4 CO2e =5 MTons of CO2e Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. User's Manual Wastewater x BOD5load x 10^-6 x(1-Fp) x Bo X MCFanaerobic x Fremoved x 10-3 Assumption: 95% of water is for indoor use as there is very little outdoor landscaping kWH Direct Emissions: Anaerobic Digesters (Gas) CH4 =Wastewater x Digester Gas x FCH4 x pCH4 x (1-DE) x 0.0283 x 10^-3 wastewater =1,054,025 Gallons digester gas = 0.01 ft3 biogas/gallon wastewater F CH4 =0.65 fraction of CH4 in biogas p CH4 = 622.00 g/m3 (density) DE = 0.99 CH4 desctruction from LGOP 0.0283 = 0.0283 conversion factor: m3/ft3 10^-3 =0.00 conversion factor: MTons/kg CH4 =1 MTons of CH4 CO2e =25 MTons of CO2e CO2 = digerster Gas x FCH4 x EF / 2204.623 digester gas = 10540.25 0.1 ft3 per gallon of wastewater F CH4 =0.65 fraction of CH4 in biogas EF = 0.12 lbs CO2/ft CH4 2204.623 2204.623 conversion factor: lbs/MTons CO2 0.373 MTons of CO2 Annual:31 MTons of CO2e Indirect (energy intensity) Direct (wastewater)Total GHG Emissions Summer Month 6 2 8 Winter Month 7 3 10 Average Annual 120 31 151 MTons Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. User's Manual Appendices Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study City of Anaheim Appendix E. Waste Disposal Emissions Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E November 2011 This page intentionally left blank. Biogenic Waste Disposal Emission Factos CO2e Mass CO2 0.13006 Emission Factors Collection Efficiency Destruction Efficiency Oxidation CO2 CH4 Total LFG Collect & Combust 0.75 0.98 0.1 0.229 0.011 0.467 Waste Generation Provided by The Honda Center 1.5 tons of garbage per event 0.5 tons of recycling per event Email Correspondence (June 2011): The Honda Center Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations The Honda Center Dion Beckton, Senior Building Engineer Waste Recycling Events Future Events per year 240 360 120 Existing Events per year 180 270 90 additional events 60 2011 GHG Emissions from Waste Generation (Biogenic) MTons Average Annual 126 Tons/Year Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User's Guide. Appendix D, Default Data Tables. Table 10.2 Support for Solid Waste Emission Factors SCAQMD LOCAL RULES AND REGULATIONS In addition to federal and state requirements, new construction and operation in the SoCAB are governed by the rules and regulations of SCAQMD. SCAQMD Rule 201: Permit to Construct SCAQMD requires developers who build, erect, install, alter, or replace any equipment or agricultural permit unit, the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants or the use of which may eliminate, reduce, or control the issuance of air contaminants, to obtain a permit to construct from the Executive Officer. A permit to construct shall remain in effect until the permit to operate the equipment or agricultural permit unit for which the application was filed is granted or denied, or the application is canceled. SCAQMD Rule 402: Nuisance Odors SCAQMD prohibits quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property to be emitted within the SoCAB. SCAQMD Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, removal procedures, and time schedules; handling and cleanup procedures; and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials. All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings. SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust According to SCAQMD, no person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area such that: a) the dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source; or b) the dust emission exceeds 20 percent opacity (as determined by the appropriate test method included in the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook), if the dust emission is the result of movement of a motorized vehicle. No person shall conduct active operations without utilizing the applicable best available control measures shown in Table 1 to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type within the active operation. Table 1 Fugitive Dust Best Available Control Measures (Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources) Source Category Control Measure Guidance Backfilling 01-1 Stabilize backfill material when not actively handling; and 01-2 Stabilize backfill material during handling; and 01-3 Stabilize soil at completion of activity. Mix backfill soil with water prior to moving. Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to backfilling equipment. Empty loader bucket slowly so that no dust plumes are generated. Minimize drop height from loader bucket. Clearing and grubbing 02-1 Maintain stability of soil through pre-watering of site prior to clearing and grubbing; and 02-2 Stabilize soil during clearing and grubbing activities; and 02-3 Stabilize soil immediately after clearing and grubbing activities. Maintain live perennial vegetation where possible. Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes. Clearing forms 03-1 Use water spray to clear forms; or 03-2 Use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; or 03-3 Use vacuum system to clear forms. Use of high-pressure air to clear forms may cause exceedance of Rule requirements. Crushing 04-1 Stabilize surface soils prior to operation of support equipment; and 04-2 Stabilize material after crushing. Follow permit conditions for crushing equipment. Prewater material prior to loading into crusher. Monitor crusher emissions opacity. Apply water to crushed material to prevent dust plumes. Cut and fill 05-1 Prewater soils prior to cut and fill activities; and 05-2 Stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. For large site, prewater with sprinklers or water trucks and allow time for penetration. Use water trucks/pull to water soils to depth of cut prior to subsequent cuts. Demolition – mechanical/ manual 06-1 Stabilize wind erodible surfaces to reduce dust; and 06-2 Stabilize surface soil where support equipment and vehicles will operate; and 06-3 Stabilize loose soil and demolition debris; and 06-4 Comply with AQMD Rule 1403. Apply water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Disturbed Soil 07-1 Stabilize disturbed soil throughout the construction site; and 07-2 Stabilize disturbed soil between structures. Limit vehicular traffic and disturbances on soils where possible. If interior block walls are planned, install as early as possible. Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Earth-moving activities 08-1 Preapply water to depth of proposed cuts; and 08-2 Reapply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and 08-3 Stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are complete Grade each project phase separately, times to coincide with construction phase. Upwind fencing can prevent material movement on site. Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Table 1 Fugitive Dust Best Available Control Measures (Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources) Source Category Control Measure Guidance Importing/ exporting of bulk materials 09-1 Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and 09-2 Maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and 09-3 Stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and 09-4 Stabilize material while unloading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and 09-5 Comply with Vehicle Code Section 23114. Use tarps or other suitable enclosures on haul trucks. Check belly-dump truck seals regularly and remove and trapped rocks to prevent spillage. Comply with track-out prevention/ mitigation requirements. Provide water while loading and unloading to reduce visible dust plumes. Landscaping 10-1 Stabilize soils, materials, slopes. Apply water to materials to stabilize. Maintain materials in a crusted condition. Maintain effective cover over materials. Stabilize sloping surfaces using soil binders until vegetation or ground cover can effectively stabilize the slopes. Hydroseed prior to rain season. Road shoulder maintenance 11-1 Apply water to unpaved shoulders prior to clearing; and 11-2 Apply chemical dust suppressants and/or washed gravel to maintain a stabilized surface after completing road shoulder maintenance. Installation of curbing and/or paving road shoulders can reduce recurring maintenance costs. Use of chemical dust suppressants can inhibit vegetation growth and reduce future road shoulder maintenance costs. Screening 12-1 Prewater material prior to screening; and 12-2 Limit fugitive dust emissions to opacity and plum length standards; and 12-3 Stabilize material immediately after screening. Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to screening operation. Drop material through the screen slowly and minimize drop height. Install wind barrier with a porosity of no more than 50% upwind of screen to the height of the drop point. Staging areas 13-1 Stabilize staging areas during use; and 13-2 Stabilize staging area soils at project completion. Limit size of staging area. Limit vehicle speeds of 15 miles per hour Limit number and size of staging area entrances/exits. Stockpiles/ bulk material handling 14-1 Stabilize stockpiled materials. 14-2 Stockpiles within 100 yards of off-site occupied buildings must not be greater than eight feet in height; or must have a road bladed to the top to allow water truck access or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. Add or remove material from the downwind portion of the storage pile. Maintain storage piles to avoid steep sides or faces. Traffic areas for construction sites 15-1 Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas; and 15-2 Stabilize all haul routes; and 15-3 Direct construction traffic over established haul routes. Apply gravel/paving to all haul routes as soon as possible to all future roadway areas. Barriers can be used to ensure vehicles are only used on established parking areas/haul routes. Table 1 Fugitive Dust Best Available Control Measures (Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources) Source Category Control Measure Guidance Trenching 16-1 Stabilize surface soils where trencher or excavator and support equipment will operate; and 16-2 Stabilize soils at the completion of trenching activities. Pre-watering of soils prior to trenching is an effective preventive measure. For deep trenching activities, pre-trench to 18-inches soak soils via the pre- trench and resuming trenching. Washing mud and soils from equipment at the conclusion of trenching activities can prevent crusting and drying of soil on equipment. Truck loading 17-1 Prewater material prior to loading; and 17-2 Ensure that freeboard exceeds six inches (CVC 23114). Empty loader bucket such that no visible dust plumes are created. Ensure that the loader bucket is closer to the truck to minimize drop height while loading. Turf overseeding 18-1 Apply sufficient water immediately prior to conducting turf vacuuming activities to meet opacity and plum length standards; and 18-2 Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. Haul waste material immediately off-site. Unpaved roads/ parking lots 19-1 Stabilize soils to meet the applicable performance standards; and 19-2 Limit vehicular travel to established unpaved roads (haul routes) and unpaved parking lots. Restricting vehicular access to established unpaved travel path and parking lots can reduce stabilization requirements. Vacant land 20-1 In instances where vacant lots are 0.10 acre or larger and have a cumulative area of 500 square feet or more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles, prevent motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking and/or access by installing barriers curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, trees, or other effective control measures. Source: SCAQMD 2007. Additional Requirements for Large Operations Large operations are defined as project sites that are 50 acres or more or have earth-moving operations of 5,000 cubic yards or more per day three times in the most recent 365-day period. Any person who conducts or authorizes the conducting of a large operation subject to Rule 403 shall implement the applicable actions specified in Table 2 at all times and shall implement the applicable control measures specified in Table 3 when the applicable performance standards cannot be met through use of Table 2 actions. Due to the scale of grading activities associated with the proposed project, it is anticipated that grading activities would be subject to those measures listed in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 Fugitive Dust Control Measures for Large Operations Fugitive Dust Source Category Control Actions Earth-moving (except construction cutting and filling area, and mining operations) 1a Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D-2216, or equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, CARB, and the USEPA. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours or active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations each subsequent four-hour period of active operations; or 1a-1 For any earth-moving which is more than 100 feet from all property lines, conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction. Earth-moving: Construction fill areas 1b Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D-2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. For areas which have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12 percent, as determined by ASTM Method 1557 or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer and the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. EPA, complete the compaction process as expeditiously as possible after achieving at least 70 percent of the optimum soil moisture content. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations during each subsequent four hour period of active operations. Earth-moving: Construction cut areas and mining operations 1c Conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible emissions from extending more than 100 feet beyond the active cut or mining area unless the area is inaccessible to watering vehicles due to slope conditions or other safety factors. Disturbed surface areas (except completed grading areas) 2a/b Apply dust suppression in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Any areas which cannot be stabilized, as evidenced by wind-driven fugitive dust, must have an application of water at least twice per day to at least 80 percent of the unstabilized area. Disturbed surface areas: Completed grading areas 2c Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion; or 2d Take actions (3a) or (3c) specified for inactive disturbed surface areas. Inactive disturbed surface areas 3a Apply water to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface areas on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, excluding any areas which are inaccessible to watering vehicles due to excessive slope or other safety conditions; or 3b Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface; or 3c Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. Ground cover must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30 percent of unstabilized ground within 90 days of planting, and at all times thereafter; or 3d Utilize any combination of control actions (3a), (3b), and (3c) such that, in total, these actions apply to all inactive disturbed surface areas. Unpaved Roads 4a Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic at least once per every two hours of active operations [3 times per normal 8 hour work day]; or 4b Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour; or 4c Apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Open storage piles 5a Apply chemical stabilizers; or 5b Apply water to at least 80 percent of the surface area of all open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust; or 5c Install temporary coverings; or 5d Install a three-sided enclosure with walls with no more than 50 percent porosity which extend, at a minimum, to the top of the pile. This option may only be used at aggregate-related plants or at cement manufacturing facilities. All Categories 6a Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the USEPA as equivalent to the methods specified in this Table may be used. Table 3 Fugitive Dust Contingency Control Measures for Large Operations Fugitive Dust Source Category Control Measures Earth-moving 1A Cease all active operations; or 2A Apply water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil. Disturbed surface areas 0B On the last day of active operations prior to a weekend, holiday, or any other period when active operations will not occur for not more than four consecutive days: apply water with a mixture of chemical stabilizer diluted to not less than 1/20 of the concentration required to maintain a stabilized surface for a period of six months; or 1B Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; or 2B Apply water to all unstabilized disturbed areas 3 times per day. If there is any evidence of wind-driven fugitive dust, watering frequency is increased to a minimum of four times per day; or 3B Take the actions specified in this Table, Item (3c); or 4B Utilize any combination of control actions (1B), (2B), and (3B) such that, in total, these actions apply to all disturbed surface areas. Unpaved roads 1C Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; or 2C Apply water twice per hour during active operation; or 3C Stop all vehicular traffic. Open storage piles 1D Apply water twice per hour; or 2D Install temporary coverings. Paved road track-out 1E Cover all haul vehicles; or 2E Comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. All Categories 1F Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the USEPA as equivalent to the methods specified in this Table may be used. Source: SCAQMD 2007. SANTA ANA FIRE STN, CALIFORNIA Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature Table updated on Mar 24, 2011 For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums: Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons Station:(047888) SANTA ANA FIRE STN From Year=1906 To Year=2010 Monthly Averages Daily Extremes Monthly Extremes Max. Temp. Max.Min.Mean High Date Low Date Highest Mean Year Lowest Mean Year >= 90 F <= 32 F F F F F dd/yyyy or yyyymmdd F dd/yyyy or yyyymmdd F - F - # Days # Days January 68.0 43.0 55.7 96 31/2003 22 01/1919 64.2 2003 45.0 1949 0.1 0.0 February 68.9 44.9 56.9 95 20/1995 25 14/1949 63.5 1995 48.8 1949 0.2 0.0 March 70.6 46.6 58.6 98 25/1988 29 02/1939 65.8 2004 51.8 1952 0.4 0.0 April 73.0 49.9 61.5 104 05/1989 31 11/1953 67.9 1992 55.1 1967 1.0 0.0 May 75.2 53.9 64.6 105 03/2004 35 04/1950 71.4 1997 58.9 1917 1.3 0.0 June 78.6 57.4 68.0 112 14/1917 39 08/1950 74.1 1981 63.7 1952 1.3 0.0 July 83.5 60.8 72.2 110 01/1985 39 05/1923 80.0 2006 67.0 1918 4.1 0.0 August 84.7 61.6 73.1 105 10/1935 45 17/1918 77.6 1983 67.4 1918 5.5 0.0 September 83.9 59.2 71.5 111 21/1939 40 09/1917 80.0 1984 65.7 1933 6.2 0.0 October 79.4 54.5 66.9 106 16/1958 34 12/1924 72.4 2008 58.9 1920 3.5 0.0 November 74.2 47.4 60.8 101 01/1966 24 28/1919 67.8 2008 55.0 1919 1.0 0.0 December 68.8 43.6 56.2 95 03/1958 22 31/1918 61.0 1977 50.5 1918 0.1 0.0 Annual 75.7 51.9 63.8 112 19170614 22 19181231 67.2 1997 60.7 1949 24.7 0.0 Winter 68.6 43.8 56.3 96 20030131 22 19181231 60.7 1986 50.9 1917 0.4 0.0 Spring 72.9 50.2 61.6 105 20040503 29 19390302 67.1 2004 57.2 1922 2.7 0.0 Summer 82.3 59.9 71.1 112 19170614 39 19230705 76.2 2006 67.1 1918 10.9 0.0 Fall 79.2 53.7 66.4 111 19390921 24 19191128 71.5 2008 60.2 1920 10.7 0.0 Winter = Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring = Mar., Apr., and May Summer = Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall = Sep., Oct., and Nov. Page 1 of 2SANTA ANA FIRE STN, CALIFORNIA Period of Record General Climate Summary - ... 6/30/2011http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?ca7888 SANTA ANA FIRE STN, CALIFORNIA (047888) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Period of Record : 4/ 1/1906 to 12/31/2010 Percent of possible observations for period of record. Max. Temp.: 97.9% Min. Temp.: 97.6% Precipitation: 99.6% Snowfall: 99.6% Snow Depth: 99.6% Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness. Western Regional Climate Center, wrcc@dri.edu Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature (F) 68.0 68.9 70.6 73.0 75.2 78.6 83.5 84.7 83.9 79.4 74.2 68.8 75.7 Average Min. Temperature (F) 43.0 44.9 46.6 49.9 53.9 57.4 60.8 61.6 59.2 54.5 47.4 43.6 51.9 Average Total Precipitation (in.) 2.76 3.09 2.23 1.04 0.25 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.23 0.48 1.27 2.30 13.79 Average Total SnowFall (in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Snow Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 1 of 1SANTA ANA FIRE STN, CALIFORNIA Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary 7/6/2011http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliRECtM.pl?ca7888 DATE September 2011 `` TO CONTACT FROM Nicole Vermilion, Senior Planner SUBJECT The Honda Center PROJECT NO. COA-56.0E Construction Emissions Construction activities generate criteria air pollutant emissions from use of off-road construction equipment, on- road vehicles associated with construction employees and material deliveries, fugitive dust generated during grading, and off-gas emissions during application of architectural coatings and paving. Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would occur during construction of the 12,000 square foot exterior grand terrace. Interior renovations would not require use of large off-road construction equipment and therefore are not included in the modeling below. Construction phasing and equipment was provided by The Honda Center and modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. As shown in the following tables, construction activities would not result in emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regional (Table 1) or localized (Table 2) significance thresholds. No significant impacts would occur. Table 1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions SOURCE POLLUTANTS (LB/DAY) VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 20 12 9 <1 2 1 SCAQMD Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1. Equipment list and phasing provided by the Honda Center. September 2011 Page 2 Table 2 Localized Offsite Construction Emissions SOURCE POLLUTANTS (LB/DAY) NO21 CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 8 8 1 1 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 103 1,313 161 87 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2011.1.1. SCAQMD 2003, and SCAQMD 2006: Equipment list and phasing provided by the Honda Center. Based on LSTs for a project site in SRA 17 for a 1-acre site with sensitive receptors located at a distance of 1,675 feet for PM10 and PM2.5 and non-receptors at 390 feet for NOx and CO. Only onsite air pollutant emissions as per SCAQMD guidance. 1 The two principle NOx species are NO and NO2 with the vast majority (95 percent) of NOx emissions being NO. Adverse health effects are associated with NO2 and not NO. Attachment – Construction Modeling Files CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 12 1000sqft 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Utility Company Anaheim Public UtilitiesUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s) Climate Zone 8 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 1.3 User Entered Comments 30 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction model run includes exterior construction only = 12,000 sqft exterior grand terrace Construction Phase - Construction Schedule provided by the Honda Center Off-road Equipment - Construction equipment provided by the Honda Center. CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007Grading - Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Vehicle Trips - Construction only Water And Wastewater - Construction only Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Solid Waste - construction only Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - SCAQMD Rule 403 2.0 Emissions Summary PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Year lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 2012 19.56 12.06 8.58 0.01 0.65 0.95 1.52 0.01 0.95 0.95 0.00 1,339.26 0.00 0.16 0.00 1,342.67 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total NA NA PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Year lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 2012 19.56 12.06 8.58 0.01 0.35 0.95 1.22 0.01 0.95 0.95 0.00 1,339.26 0.00 0.16 0.00 1,342.67 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA 1 of 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads 3.2 1Grading - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Road 1.73 11.45 7.62 0.01 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 1,158.93 0.15 1,162.19 Total 1.73 11.45 7.62 0.01 0.53 0.87 1.40 0.00 1,162.190.87 0.87 1,158.93 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.15 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.05 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 99.50 0.01 99.62 Total 0.05 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.00 99.620.00 0.01 99.50 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.01 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive Dust 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Road 1.73 11.45 7.62 0.01 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.00 1,158.93 0.15 1,162.19 Total 1.73 11.45 7.62 0.150.00 0.87 0.87 0.00 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 1,158.930.01 0.23 0.87 1.10 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 1,162.19 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4PM10 Total Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.05 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 99.50 0.01 99.62 Total 0.05 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.00 99.620.00 0.01 99.50 0.01 2 of 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Summer Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.3 2Trenching - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 1.01 7.58 5.31 0.01 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 895.84 0.09 897.74 Total 1.01 7.58 5.31 0.01 0.45 0.45 897.740.45 0.45 895.84 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.09 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.87 Total 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.870.00 0.00 0.87 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 1.01 7.58 5.31 0.01 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 895.84 0.09 897.74 Total 1.01 7.58 5.31 0.01 0.45 0.45 897.740.45 0.45 0.00 895.84 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.09 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.87 Total 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.870.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 3 of 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Summer Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.4 3Paving - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.95 6.37 4.33 0.01 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 680.84 0.09 682.63 Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.95 6.37 4.33 0.090.46 0.46 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 680.840.01 0.46 0.46 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 682.63 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4PM10 Total Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.09 0.10 1.09 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.02 186.56 0.01 186.79 Total 0.09 0.10 1.09 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.01 186.790.01 0.02 186.56 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.01 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.95 6.37 4.33 0.01 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.00 680.84 0.09 682.63 Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.95 6.37 4.33 0.090.46 0.46 0.00 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 680.840.01 0.46 0.46 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 682.63 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4PM10 Total Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.09 0.10 1.09 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.02 186.56 0.01 186.79 Total 0.09 0.10 1.09 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.01 186.790.01 0.02 186.56 0.01 4 of 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Summer Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.5 4Concrete - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 1.75 11.69 7.99 0.01 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 1,223.40 0.16 1,226.69 Total 1.75 11.69 7.99 0.01 0.94 0.94 1,226.690.94 0.94 1,223.40 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.16 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.03 0.34 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 53.68 0.00 53.71 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.19 0.00 62.26 Total 0.06 0.37 0.58 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 115.970.01 0.02 115.87 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 1.75 11.69 7.99 0.01 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.00 1,223.40 0.16 1,226.69 Total 1.75 11.69 7.99 0.01 0.94 0.94 1,226.690.94 0.94 0.00 1,223.40 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.16 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.03 0.34 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 53.68 0.00 53.71 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.19 0.00 62.26 Total 0.06 0.37 0.58 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 115.970.01 0.02 115.87 0.00 5 of 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Summer Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.6 5Structural - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.54 4.73 2.15 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 525.83 0.05 526.85 Total 0.54 4.73 2.15 0.01 0.21 0.21 526.850.21 0.21 525.83 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.05 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.03 0.34 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 53.68 0.00 53.71 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.19 0.00 62.26 Total 0.06 0.37 0.58 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 115.970.01 0.02 115.87 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.54 4.73 2.15 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 525.83 0.05 526.85 Total 0.54 4.73 2.15 0.01 0.21 0.21 526.850.21 0.21 0.00 525.83 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.05 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.03 0.34 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 53.68 0.00 53.71 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.19 0.00 62.26 Total 0.06 0.37 0.58 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 115.970.01 0.02 115.87 0.00 6 of 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Summer Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.7 6Framing - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 1.36 4.64 4.33 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 500.19 0.12 502.77 Total 1.36 4.64 4.33 0.01 0.38 0.38 502.770.38 0.38 500.19 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.12 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.03 0.34 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 53.68 0.00 53.71 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.19 0.00 62.26 Total 0.06 0.37 0.58 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 115.970.01 0.02 115.87 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 1.36 4.64 4.33 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.00 500.19 0.12 502.77 Total 1.36 4.64 4.33 0.01 0.38 0.38 502.770.38 0.38 0.00 500.19 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.12 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.03 0.34 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 53.68 0.00 53.71 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.19 0.00 62.26 Total 0.06 0.37 0.58 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 115.970.01 0.02 115.87 0.00 7 of 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Summer Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.8 7Architectural Coating & Plaster - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Archit. Coating 18.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Road 1.03 6.68 4.37 0.01 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 673.33 0.09 675.27 Total 19.55 6.68 4.37 0.090.53 0.53 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 673.330.01 0.53 0.53 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 675.27 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4PM10 Total Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.44 0.00 12.45 Total 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 12.450.00 0.00 12.44 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Archit. Coating 18.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Road 1.03 6.68 4.37 0.01 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.00 673.33 0.09 675.27 Total 19.55 6.68 4.37 0.090.53 0.53 0.00 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 673.330.01 0.53 0.53 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 675.27 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4PM10 Total Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.44 0.00 12.45 Total 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 12.450.00 0.00 12.44 0.00 8 of 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Summer Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.9 8Roofing - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 1.17 8.47 4.32 0.01 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 821.44 0.10 823.64 Total 1.17 8.47 4.32 0.01 0.54 0.54 823.640.54 0.54 821.44 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.10 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.03 0.34 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 53.68 0.00 53.71 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.19 0.00 62.26 Total 0.06 0.37 0.58 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 115.970.01 0.02 115.87 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 1.17 8.47 4.32 0.01 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00 821.44 0.10 823.64 Total 1.17 8.47 4.32 0.01 0.54 0.54 823.640.54 0.54 0.00 821.44 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.10 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.03 0.34 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 53.68 0.00 53.71 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.19 0.00 62.26 Total 0.06 0.37 0.58 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.02 115.87 0.00 115.97 9 of 9 1August/September 2010 Workshop SeriesSeptember 3, 2010Workshops on Information Regarding theOff-Road, Truck and Bus and Drayage Truck RegulationsCalifornia Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources BoardAir Resources Board 50Load FactorLoad varies by equipment type and usageCollected engine load data from ARB testing programs and manufacturer provided dataAnalysis indicates that OFFROAD load factors are 25-50% too high Staff concluded load factors should be reduced 33%for the updated inventoryConsistent with findings for other off-road equipment.Off-Road Rule Inventory CalEEMod Modifications to Construction Defaults - Load Factors CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Default Equipment Mix PhaseName OffRoadEquipmentType OffRoadEquip mentUnitAmo unt UsageHours HorsePower LoadFactor Modified Load Factor 1Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8 81 0.73 0.49 1Grading Crawler Tractors 1 8 82 0.64 0.43 1Grading Excavators 1 8 157 0.57 0.38 1Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1 358 0.59 0.40 1Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 75 0.55 0.37 2Trenching Excavators 1 8 157 0.57 0.38 2Trenching Forklifts 1 8 149 0.3 0.20 3Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6 9 0.56 0.38 3Paving Forklifts 1 8 149 0.3 0.20 3Paving Pavers 0 7 89 0.62 0.42 3Paving Rollers 1 7 84 0.56 0.38 3Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 7 75 0.55 0.37 4Concrete Cranes 0 4 208 0.43 0.29 4Concrete Forklifts 1 6 149 0.3 0.20 4Concrete Plate Compactors 1 8 8 0.43 0.29 4Concrete Pumps 1 8 84 0.74 0.50 4Concrete Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 75 0.55 0.37 5Structural Cranes 1 4 208 0.43 0.29 5Structural Forklifts 1 6 149 0.3 0.20 5Structural Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8 75 0.55 0.37 6Framing Cranes 0 4 208 0.43 0.29 6Framing Forklifts 1 6 149 0.3 0.20 6Framing Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8 75 0.55 0.37 6Framing Welders 2 8 46 0.45 0.30 7Architectural Coating & PlastAir Compressors 2 6 78 0.48 0.32 7Architectural Coating & PlastForklifts 1 8 149 0.3 0.20 8Roofing Cranes 1 4 208 0.43 0.29 8Roofing Forklifts 1 6 149 0.3 0.20 8Roofing Paving Equipment 1 8 82 0.53 0.36 8Roofing Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8 75 0.55 0.37 Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, September. Workshops on Information Regarding the Off-Road, Truck and Bus, Drayage Truck Regulations. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 12 1000sqft 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Utility Company Anaheim Public UtilitiesUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s) Climate Zone 8 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 1.3 User Entered Comments 30 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction model run includes exterior construction only = 12,000 sqft exterior grand terrace Construction Phase - Construction Schedule provided by the Honda Center Off-road Equipment - Construction equipment provided by the Honda Center. CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007Grading - Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Off-road Equipment - CARB Staff concluded that load factors in OFFROAD are 33% too high. CalEEMod based on OFFROAD2007. Vehicle Trips - Construction only Water And Wastewater - Construction only Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Solid Waste - construction only Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - SCAQMD Rule 403 2.0 Emissions Summary PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 2012 0.23 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 60.19 60.19 0.01 0.00 60.35 Total 0.23 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 60.350.04 0.04 0.00 60.19 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 60.19 0.01 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 2012 0.23 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 60.19 60.19 0.01 0.00 60.35 Total 0.23 0.58 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 60.350.04 0.04 0.00 60.19 60.19 0.01 1 of 18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Annual 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads 3.2 1Grading - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Road 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 7.88 7.88 0.00 0.00 7.91 Total 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 7.910.01 0.01 0.00 7.88 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 7.88 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.650.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.65 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Road 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 7.88 7.88 0.00 0.00 7.91 Total 0.01 0.09 0.06 7.88 0.00 0.000.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 7.880.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 7.91 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4PM10 Total Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.650.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 2 of 18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Annual Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.3 2Trenching - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.12 8.12 0.00 0.00 8.14 Total 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.140.00 0.00 0.00 8.12 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 8.12 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.01 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.12 8.12 0.00 0.00 8.14 Total 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.140.00 0.00 0.00 8.12 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 8.12 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 3 of 18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Annual Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.4 3Paving - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.09 0.00 0.00 3.10 Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.03 0.02 3.09 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 3.090.00 0.00 0.00 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 3.10 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4PM10 Total Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.81 Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.810.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.81 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.09 0.00 0.00 3.10 Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.03 0.02 3.09 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 3.090.00 0.00 0.00 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 3.10 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4PM10 Total Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.81 Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.810.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 4 of 18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Annual Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.5 4Concrete - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.02 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 13.87 13.87 0.00 0.00 13.91 Total 0.02 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 13.910.01 0.01 0.00 13.87 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 13.87 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.67 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.280.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 1.28 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.02 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 13.87 13.87 0.00 0.00 13.91 Total 0.02 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 13.910.01 0.01 0.00 13.87 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 13.87 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.67 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.280.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.00 5 of 18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Annual Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.6 5Structural - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.96 5.96 0.00 0.00 5.97 Total 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.970.00 0.00 0.00 5.96 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 5.96 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.67 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.280.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 1.28 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.96 5.96 0.00 0.00 5.97 Total 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.970.00 0.00 0.00 5.96 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 5.96 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.67 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.280.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.00 6 of 18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Annual Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.7 6Framing - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 6.80 6.80 0.00 0.00 6.84 Total 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 6.840.01 0.01 0.00 6.80 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 6.80 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.73 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.81 Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.540.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 1.54 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 6.80 6.80 0.00 0.00 6.84 Total 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 6.840.01 0.01 0.00 6.80 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 6.80 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.73 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.81 Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.540.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 7 of 18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Annual Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.8 7Architectural Coating & Plaster - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Archit. Coating 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Road 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.58 4.58 0.00 0.00 4.59 Total 0.15 0.05 0.03 4.58 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 4.580.00 0.00 0.00 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 4.59 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4PM10 Total Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.080.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.08 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Archit. Coating 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Road 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.58 4.58 0.00 0.00 4.59 Total 0.15 0.05 0.03 4.58 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 4.580.00 0.00 0.00 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 4.59 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4PM10 Total Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.080.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 8 of 18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2011 HondaCenterConstruction Orange County, Annual Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 3.9 8Roofing - 2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.72 3.72 0.00 0.00 3.73 Total 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.730.00 0.00 0.00 3.72 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 3.72 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.24 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.27 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.510.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 0.51 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Off-Road 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.72 3.72 0.00 0.00 3.73 Total 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.730.00 0.00 0.00 3.72 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total 3.72 0.00 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.24 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.27 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.51 9 of 18 GHG Summary MTons/Year Total Construction 60 Amortized Construction Emissions 2 Total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years pursuant to draft SCAQMD methodology. LST Worksheet Grading NOx CO PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Category Fugitive Dust 0.23 0 Off-Road 11.45 7.62 0.87 0.87 Total 11.45 7.62 1.1 0.87 Trenching NOx CO PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Category Off-Road 7.58 5.31 0.45 0.45 Total 7.58 5.31 0.45 0.45 Paving NOx CO PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Category Off-Road 6.37 4.33 0.46 0.46 Paving 0 0 Total 6.37 4.33 0.46 0.46 Concrete NOx CO PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Category Off-Road 11.69 7.99 0.94 0.94 Total 11.69 7.99 0.94 0.94 Structural NOx CO PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Category Off-Road 4.73 2.15 0.21 0.21 Total 4.73 2.15 0.21 0.21 Framing NOx CO PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Category Off-Road 4.64 4.33 0.38 0.38 Total 4.64 4.33 0.38 0.38 Coating & Plaster NOx CO PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Category Archit. Coating 0 0 Off-Road 6.68 4.37 0.53 0.53 Total 6.7 4.37 0.53 0.53 Roofing NOx CO PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Category Off-Road 8.47 4.32 0.54 0.54 Total 8.47 4.32 0.54 0.54 Maximum 11.69 7.99 1.1 0.94 NOx to NO2 conversion 2.4 LST Threshold 103 1,313 161.4 87.2 Construction Localized Significance Thresholds - Non-Sensitive Land Uses SRA No.Acres Source Receptor Distance (meters)Source Receptor Distance (Feet) 17 1.00 119 390 Source Receptor Central Orange County Equipment Acres/8-hr Day Equipment Used Acres Distance (meters) 119 Tractors 0.5 2 1 NOx 103 Graders 0.5 0 0 CO 1313 Dozers 0.5 0 0 PM10 34.0 Scrapers 1 0 PM2.5 11.5 Acres 1 Acres 25 50 100 200 500 NOx 1 81 83 98 123 192 1 81 83 98 123 192 81 83 98 123 192 CO 1 485 753 1128 2109 6841 1 485 753 1128 2109 6841 485 753 1128 2109 6841 PM10 1 4 12 28 60 158 1 4 12 28 60 158 4 12 28 60 158 PM2.5 1 3 4 9 22 85 134 9 2285 34 9 2285 Central Orange County 1.00 Acres 25 50 100 200 500 NOx 81 83 98 123 192 CO 485 753 1128 2109 6841 PM10 4 12 28 60 158 PM2.5 3 4 9 22 85 Acre Below Acre Above SRA No. Acres SRA No. Acres 17 1 17 1 Distance Increment Below 100 Distance Increment Above 200 Updated: 10/21/2009 - Table C-1. 2006 – 2008 NOx to NO2 Conversion Table 2-4: NO2-to-NOx Ratios as a Function of Downwind Distance Downwind Distance (Meters) NO2/NOx Ratio 20 0.053 50 0.059 70 0.064 100 0.074 200 0.114 500 0.258 1000 0.467 2000 0.75 3000 0.9 4000 0.978 5000 1 Interpolated for within 25 Meters: 390 0.2052 Source: SCAQMD 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003, June (Revised July 2008). Final Localized Significance Methodology. The two principle NOx species are NO and NO2 with the vast majority (95 percent) of NOx emissions being NO. Adverse health effects are associated with NO2 and not NO. Construction Localized Significance Thresholds - Sensitive Land Uses SRA No.Acres Source Receptor Distance (meters)Source Receptor Distance (Feet) 17 1.00 511 1675 Source Receptor Central Orange County Equipment Acres/8-hr Day Equipment Used Acres Distance (meters) 511 Tractors 0.5 2 1 NOx 194 Graders 0.5 0 0 CO 7007 Dozers 0.5 0 0 PM10 161.4 Scrapers 1 0 PM2.5 87.2 Acres 1 Acres 25 50 100 200 500 NOx 1 81 83 98 123 192 1 81 83 98 123 192 81 83 98 123 192 CO 1 485 753 1128 2109 6841 1 485 753 1128 2109 6841 485 753 1128 2109 6841 PM10 1 4 12 28 60 158 1 4 12 28 60 158 4 12 28 60 158 PM2.5 1 3 4 9 22 85 134 9 2285 34 9 2285 Central Orange County 1.00 Acres 25 50 100 200 500 NOx 81 83 98 123 192 CO 485 753 1128 2109 6841 PM10 4 12 28 60 158 PM2.5 3 4 9 22 85 Acre Below Acre Above SRA No. Acres SRA No. Acres 17 1 17 1 Distance Increment Below 500 Distance Increment Above 500 Updated: 10/21/2009 - Table C-1. 2006 – 2008 Appendices Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Appendix D Noise Technical Study Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. NNOOIISSEE TTEECCHHNNIICCAALL SSTTUUDDYY FFOORR:: THE HONDA CENTER prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER|DC&E Contact: Fernando Sotelo Senior Planner JANUARY 2012 NNOOIISSEE TTEECCHHNNIICCAALL SSTTUUDDYY FFOORR:: THE HONDA CENTER prepared for: CITY OF ANAHEIM 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 714.765-4958 Contact: Susan Kim, AICP Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER|DC&E 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel: 714.966.9220  Fax: 714.966.9221 E-mail: information@planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com Contact: Fernando Sotelo Senior Planner COA-56.0E JANUARY 2012 Table of Contents The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page i Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY...............................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location and Setting...............................................................................................1 1.2 Executive Summary............................................................................................................2 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.......................................................................................................3 2.1 Noise Setting.......................................................................................................................3 2.2 Physical Setting and Existing Land Uses ...........................................................................5 3. REGULATORY SETTING..............................................................................................................9 3.1 State of California Building Code........................................................................................9 3.2 City of Anaheim Noise Standards.......................................................................................9 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....................................................................................................13 4.1 Methodology.....................................................................................................................13 4.2 Thresholds of Significance ...............................................................................................13 4.3 The Honda Center.............................................................................................................14 4.4 Existing Regulations .........................................................................................................23 4.5 Level of Significance Before Mitigation.............................................................................23 4.6 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................23 4.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation................................................................................23 5. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................25 APPENDIX A. FHWA Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Files Table of Contents Page ii  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 List of Tables Table Page Table 1 Honda Center Events and Event Population......................................................................1 Table 2 Honda Center Event Attendance........................................................................................2 Table 3 Change in Sound Pressure Level.......................................................................................4 Table 4 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources..........................................................................5 Table 5 Existing Ambient Noise Environment .................................................................................7 Table 6 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility................................................................10 Table 7 Year 2030 Ambient Noise Environment..............................Error! Bookmark not defined. The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 1 1. Introduction and Summary 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The Honda Center is located at 2695 East Katella Avenue in the City of Anaheim, east of the State Route 57 (SR-57) and west of the Santa Ana River. It is bound on the north by Cerritos Avenue and to the south by Katella Avenue. The Honda Center is within a half mile northeast of the Stadium of Anaheim and the Anaheim Metrolink Station. Operational Characteristics The 650,000-square-foot Honda Center opened on June 19, 1993, after two years of construction. It can accommodate a maximum of 18,900 spectators depending on seating configuration, and the parking lots surrounding the Honda Center have 4,500 parking spaces to accommodate visitors. The Honda Center facilities are in operation on event days, although some functions (e.g., ticket sales) are open on non-event days. Maximum capacities for hockey, basketball, and other events (e.g., concerts, circus, etc.) are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Honda Center Events and Event Population Event Type Seating Capacity Staff/ Employees Team Members/ Production1 Basketball Games2 18,336 950 200+3 Hockey Games4 17,174 950 200 18,325 – End Stage Concerts and Other Events 18,900 – Center Stage 1,000 (max) 200 Maximum Events Permitted 162 Nonevent Days 200 Source: Starkey 2011 1 Team members and production staff include players, coaches, trainers, media, road crew, and others not included as spectators. 2 Basketball games include Lakers Preseason, the John Wooden Classic, the Big West Tournament, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Tournament, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), games. 3 For the purpose of this air quality and GHG technical report, up to 250 team members are assumed for a basketball game for a conservative modeling scenario. 4 The National Hockey League (NHL) has 41 home games during the regular season. During the Stanley Cup Playoffs and Stanley Cup, up to 20 additional games could occur. 1. Introduction and Summary Page 2  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 In 2010, the Honda Center welcomed more than 1.3 million guests, of which over 600,000 attended the Ducks’ hockey games (Starkey 2011). Table 2 identifies a five-year snapshot of attendance, number of events, and the average number of visitors during an event based on the annual attendance. Average attendance per event was calculated based on the highest 3-year average of attendance in order to provide a conservative estimate of future annual attendance. Based on the attendance history of the Honda Center over the last five years, there are, on average, 11,264 visitors per event and currently up to 153 events per year (e.g., approximately three events per week). Table 2 Honda Center Event Attendance Year Visitors Events Average Visitors Per Event 2006 1,600,000 154 10,390 2007 1,760,000 144 12,222 2008 1,590,000 162 9,815 2009 1,460,000 136 10,735 2010 1,300,000 120 10,833 Highest 3-year Average 153 11,264 Source: Starkey 2011. 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Honda Center Noise Technical Study has been prepared to analyze potential operation-related mobile- and stationary-source noise impacts from an increase in the number of permitted annual events at the Honda Center. The 1990 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Honda Center (formerly the Arrowhead Pond) capped the number of annual events at 162 per year. The Honda Center averages up to 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of 11,264 people. The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events by 60 from the permitted 162 events for a total of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average, three events per week at the Honda Center and the proposed project would result in four events per week on average. The purpose of the project would be to accommodate a new permanent tenent at the Honda Center. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the capacity of the arena. Seating capacity of a sellout event is 18,336 and the proposed project would not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity of current events (see Table 1). Because project-generated vehicle trips would be similar to the current events held at the Honda Center area, noise increases in the ambient environment attributable to project-related trips would be comparable to the existing events currently permitted. Similarly, the proposed project would not generate stationary sources (e.g., mechanical systems, parking lots, etc.) of noise that would different from the events currently permitted at the arena. Therefore, no noise impacts would occur from implementation of the project. 2. Environmental Setting 2.1 NOISE SETTING Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” 2.1.1 Terminology and Noise Descriptors The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter:  Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.  A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.  Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The mean of the noise level averaged over the measurement period, regarded as an average level.  Day-Night Level (Ldn). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.  Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period with 5 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Ldn and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. 2.1.2 Characteristics of Sound When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). Human hearing is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate a human response, the A-weighted filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels. In terms of loudness, the normal range of human hearing extends from approximately 0 dBA to 140 dBA. Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and noise perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 3, Change in Sound Pressure Level , presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 3 2. Environmental Setting Page 4  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 3 Change in Sound Pressure Level Change in Apparent Loudness ± 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility ± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level ± 10 dB Half or twice as loud ± 20 dB Much quieter or louder Source: Bies and Hansen 2003. Sound is generated from a source and dissipates exponentially with distance from that source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distribution of the overall sound level during that period can be obtained. The energy-equivalent sound level (Leq) is the most common parameter associated with such measurements. The Leq metric is a single-number noise descriptor that represents the average sound level over a given period of time. For example, the L50 noise level represents the level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise exceeds this level and half the time it is less than this level. This level also represents the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L02, L08 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet-time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor, the CNEL or Ldn. 2.1.3 Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire biological system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear, called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas. Table 4 shows Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources. 2. Environmental Setting The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 5 Table 4 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at three feet 80 Garbage Disposal at three feet Noisy Urban Area, Daytime 70 Vacuum Cleaner at ten feet Commercial Area Normal Speech at three feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans 1998, Table 9-2136.2. 2.2 PHYSICAL SETTING AND EXISTING LAND USES The project site currently is developed with the Honda Center arena in addition to the associated surface lots serving the arena. It is bordered by Katella Avenue to the south and Cerritos Avenue to the north. To the west 2. Environmental Setting Page 6  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 is SR-57 and the Santa Ana River to the east. Douglass Road traverses through the site in a north/south orientation and separates the western surface lot from the arena and eastern surface parking lot. 2.2.1 Noise-Sensitive Receptors Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration, including residential, school, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. The project site is primarily surrounded by commercial and light industrial land uses. Commercial and industrial uses are not considered noise sensitive. The Angel Stadium of Anaheim is located to the southwest. Information regarding sensitive receptors near the project site is provided below.  Westwood College. Generally located northwest of the project site across Douglass Road.  Ayres Hotel of Anaheim. Located south of the project site across Katella Avenue.  Sunkist Gardens Mobile Home Park. Located approximately 1,675 feet to the northwest of the project site. 2.2.2 Existing Noise Environment Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five miles per hour reduces noise by about 1 dBA. In order to assess the potential for mobile-source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012). Noise levels for existing conditions (without and with event) along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 5. The results of this modeling indicate that current average noise levels along arterial segments for a typical day without an event range from approximately 63 to 77 dBA CNEL at 50-feet from the roadway centerline. Average noise levels along the arterial segments range from 66 to 78 dBA CNEL at 50- feet from the roadway centerline on a day with an event (based on an average attendance event). 2. Environmental Setting The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 7 Table 5 Existing Ambient Noise Environment Existing No Event Existing with Average Attendance Event Location ADT CNEL1 ADT CNEL1 Increase in CNEL (dBA) from Events Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 50,970 77.2 52,630 77.3 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 31,670 75.1 33,730 75.4 0.3 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 4,270 66.4 5,780 67.7 1.3 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 7,040 67.6 10,120 69.2 1.6 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 33,500 75.4 34,120 75.4 0.0 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 34,130 75.4 35,310 75.6 0.2 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 52,030 77.3 55,550 77.5 0.2 Between SR-57 SB Rmps and SR-57 NB Rmps 34,720 75.5 38,170 75.9 0.4 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 34,470 75.5 39,970 76.1 0.6 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 29,480 74.8 32,820 75.3 0.5 Between Struck Ave and Main St 23,170 73.8 24,840 74.1 0.3 Between Main St and Batavia St 25,630 74.2 26,630 74.4 0.2 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 15,000 71.9 15,640 72.4 0.5 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 3,470 63.4 5,220 65.3 1.9 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 21,030 73.3 21,590 73.5 0.2 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 6,790 68.4 7870 69.1 0.7 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Increase from Existing No Event” is the difference in traffic noise between the existing year without event and average attendance event and represents the increase in noise attributable to event-related traffic. 2. Environmental Setting Page 8  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. 3. Regulatory Setting To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. The City of Anaheim regulates noise through the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and General Plan. Potential noise impacts were evaluated based on the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and General Plan to determine whether a significant adverse noise impact would result from the operation of the proposed project. 3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE The state of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. 3.2 CITY OF ANAHEIM NOISE STANDARDS 3.2.1 Land Use Compatibility Table 6 presents a land use compatibility chart for community noise adopted by the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Noise Element. This table provides urban planners with a tool to gauge the compatibility of new land uses relative to existing and future noise levels. This table identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 9 3. Regulatory Setting Page 10  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 6 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility CNEL (dBA) Land Uses 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential-Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential- Multiple Family Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Amphitheaters, Concert Hall, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playground, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agricultural Explanatory Notes Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Normally Unacceptable: New construction/development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made with needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction/development should generally not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be useable. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction/development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy. Source: City of Anaheim, City of Anaheim General Plan, Chapter 9, Noise Element. Adopted May 2004. 3. Regulatory Setting The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 11 3.2.2 Municipal Code The City of Anaheim regulates noise through the City of Anaheim’s Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels. Pursuant to the municipal code, the City restricts noise levels generated at a property from exceeding 60 dBA for extended period of time. The City applies these standards to nontransportation stationary noise sources. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. The City’s noise ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, construction activity, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. 3. Regulatory Setting Page 12  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page left blank intentionally. 4. Environmental Impacts 4.1 METHODOLOGY This noise technical study has been prepared to analyze potential operational phase noise impacts related to an increase in the number of annual events at the Honda Center to accommodate a NBA franchise. The Honda Center is permitted to host up to 162 events per year. The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events by 60 for a total of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average three events per week at the Honda Center (153 games per year) and the proposed project would result in four events per week on average. Seating capacity of a basketball game is 18,336 and the proposed project would not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity of current events (see Table 1). No construction activities would be necessary in order to accommodate an increase of events at the Honda Center. 4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in: N-1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. N-2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. N-3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. N-4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. N-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. N-6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 4.2.1 City of Anaheim Thresholds Noise There are two criteria for judging noise impacts used in this analysis. First, noise levels projected for the proposed project must comply with all relevant state and local standards and regulations. Noise impacts on the surrounding community are enforced through local noise ordinances, supported by nuisance complaints and subsequent investigation. The second measure of impact used in this analysis is whether the increase in noise above the ambient noise level, as a result of a new noise source (either through on-site emissions or through noise generated by project traffic), has the potential to adversely impact noise-sensitive land uses. The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 13 4. Environmental Impacts Page 14  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Substantial Increase in Traffic Noise Levels The traffic noise thresholds are based on human tolerance to noise (see Table 3, shown previously) and are widely used for assessing traffic noise impacts. In general, people tend to compare intruding noise with the existing background noise. If the new noise is readily identifiable or considerably louder than the background, it has the potential to be objectionable or annoying (Caltrans 2009). Noise impacts can be broken down into three categories. The first is audible impacts. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change of between 1 and 3 dBA. This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable to sensitive people in laboratory environments. The last category, inaudible, includes changes of less than 1 dBA, which are typically inaudible to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving of sound level. Only audible changes of 3 dBA or greater in noise levels at sensitive receptors are considered potentially significant when noise levels exceed the compatibility criteria (see Table 6, shown previously). Based on the City of Anaheim’s noise compatibility criteria of 60 dBA CNEL for residential uses, the City considers audible (3+ dBA) increases in project-related traffic noise to be substantial when the ambient noise environment along the roadway segments within the project’s study area under with project conditions exceeds 60 dBA CNEL. Stationary-Source Noise The stationary noise thresholds are based on a combination of the human tolerance to noise (see Table 3) and local criteria for stationary noise sources as established by the City of Anaheim for noise control (Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels). Pursuant to the municipal code, the City restricts noise levels generated at a property from exceeding 60 dBA Leq for extended period of time. 4.3 THE HONDA CENTER Mobile-source noise generated by the proposed project includes noise from vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The proposed project would also result in generation of stationary-source noise which includes noise from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, landscaping activities, truck deliveries, and surface parking lots. 4.3.1 Non-Transportation (Stationary) Sources of Noise Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary noise only impacts sensitive receptors adjacent to a project site. Stationary sources of noise include mechanical equipment (HVAC systems) and parking lots. The proposed project would not introduce any new or different stationary sources of noise at the project site compared to the types of noise currently generated during a permitted event at the Honda Center. Installation of additional mechanical systems or expansion of the parking lots would not be required. The City of Anaheim restricts stationary noise generated on a property from creating a nuisance to other offsite noise-sensitive receptors through implementation of the noise limits in the City’s municipal code. The proposed project would add approximately 15,000 square feet of restaurant and an approximately 5,000 square-foot team store. There would be no new HVAC units or an expansion of the parking lot as part of the project. While the project may increase parking utilization and cause a marginal increase in the utilization of existing HVAC units, these changes are minimal and therefore the project would not cause discernable noise increases to any noise-sensitive use. No mitigation measures would be required. 4. Environmental Impacts The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 15 4.3.2 Transportation Sources of Noise The operations phase of the project would generate noise primarily associated with vehicular trips. Traffic noise modeling is based on average daily traffic volumes on roadway segments within the analysis conducted by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012). 2011 Traffic Noise with Project (Sellout Event) Traffic noise modeling was compiled for year 2011No Event and 2011 Plus Project (sellout event), and shown in Table 7. The significance criteria for roadway noise impacts are based on whether the proposed project would result in a substantial increase (3 dB or more) in the ambient noise environment along the roadways when the ambient noise environment exceeds 60 dBA CNEL (daily noise levels). The proposed project would result in similar noise levels along the roadways within the study area of the project, and no traffic noise impacts due to the project would occur. Table 7 Year 2011 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2011 Plus Project (Sellout Event) Location Existing No Event CNEL ADT CNEL1 Increase 2 Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 77.2 53,760 77.4 0.2 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 75.1 35,140 75.6 0.5 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 66.4 6,800 68.4 2.0 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 67.6 12,220 70.0 2.4 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 75.4 34,540 75.5 0.1 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 75.4 36,110 75.7 0.3 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 77.3 57,930 77.7 0.4 Between SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramps 75.5 40,500 76.2 0.7 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 75.5 43,690 76.5 1.0 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 74.8 35,090 75.6 0.8 Between Struck Ave and Main St 73.8 25,970 74.2 0.4 Between Main St and Batavia St 74.2 27,310 74.5 0.3 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 71.9 16,080 72.2 0.3 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 63.4 6,410 66.1 2.7 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 73.3 21,970 73.5 0.2 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 68.4 8,600 69.4 1.0 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. Bold: Audible (+3 dB) changes in the ambient noise environment from traffic noise. 4. Environmental Impacts Page 16  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 7 Year 2011 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2011 Plus Project (Sellout Event) Location Existing No Event CNEL ADT CNEL1 Increase 2 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Increase” is the difference in traffic noise between Existing No Event and Year 2011 Plus Project (sellout event) conditions and represents the change in traffic noise levels from the project. 2013 Traffic Noise with Project Event Traffic noise modeling was compiled for year 2013 without and with a Sellout Event, and shown in Table 8. The proposed project would increase the number of events from an average of 153 events to a maximum of 222 events per year. The significance criteria for roadway noise impacts are based on whether the proposed project would result in a substantial increase (3 dB or more) in the ambient noise environment along the roadways when the ambient noise environment exceeds 60 dBA CNEL (daily noise levels). As shown in Table 1, a full-capacity event at the Honda Center has the potential to generate between 17,174 spectators and 18,900 spectators, and the capacity of the arena would not increase as a result of the proposed project. The events under the proposed project would have similar operational characteristics and seating capacity (18,336) and would generate comparable vehicle trips as current events (e.g., Anaheim Ducks hockey games, concerts, NCAA basketball games, and NBA exhibition games) at the Honda Center arena. While the number of Honda Center events would increase from an average of 3 events per week to an average of 4 events per week, average daily noise levels generated by an event would not change with the project. The proposed project would result in similar noise levels along the roadways within the study area of the project, and no traffic noise impacts would occur. 4. Environmental Impacts The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 17 Table 8 Year 2013 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2013 Average Attendance Event Year 2013 with Project (Sellout Event) Increase in CNEL (dBA) Location 2013 No Event ADT CNEL1 ADT CNEL1 from Existing No Event 2 from AverageE vent3 Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 77.2 57,730 77.7 58,860 77.8 0.6 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 75.1 36,900 75.8 38,310 75.9 0.8 0.1 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 66.4 6,210 68.0 7,230 68.7 2.3 1.8 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 67.6 10,820 69.5 12,920 70.2 2.6 0.7 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 75.4 37,470 75.8 37,890 75.9 0.5 0.1 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 75.4 38,720 76.0 39,520 76.1 0.7 0.1 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 77.3 60,750 77.9 63,130 78.1 0.8 0.2 Between SR-57 SB Ramps and SR- 57 NB Ramps 75.5 41,640 76.3 43,970 76.5 1.0 0.2 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 75.5 43,420 76.5 47,140 76.8 1.3 0.3 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 74.8 35,770 75.6 38,040 75.9 1.1 0.3 Between Struck Ave and Main St 73.8 27,160 74.4 28,290 74.6 0.8 0.2 Between Main St and Batavia St 74.2 29,190 74.8 29,870 74.9 0.7 0.1 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 71.9 17,140 72.4 17,580 72.6 0.7 0.2 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 63.4 5,570 65.4 6,760 66.3 2.9 0.9 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 73.3 23,690 73.8 24,070 73.9 0.6 0.1 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 68.4 8,550 69.4 9,280 69.8 1.4 0.4 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. Bold: Audible (+3 dB) changes in the ambient noise environment from traffic noise. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Increase from Existing No Event” is the difference in traffic noise between the existing year without event and Year 2013 with project (sellout event) and represents the overall increase in cumulative noise. 3 The “Increase from Average Event” is the difference in traffic noise between Year 2013 with average attendance event and Year 2013 with project (sellout event) conditions and represents the change in noise traffic noise levels from event traffic. 4. Environmental Impacts Page 18  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Year 2030 with Project Events Traffic noise increases associated with the proposed project was also assessed under future Year 2030 with the buildout of the General Plan and are shown in Table 9. Similar to the Existing with Project Event analysis, traffic noise impacts from project-generated traffic under Year 2030 conditions would be comparable to traffic noise impacts of events currently permitted at Honda Center. While audible (+3 dB) changes in the noise environment would occur on event days compared to existing non-event days, the project itself would not increase attendance during a Honda Center event and associated traffic levels. Therefore, no project-related traffic noise impacts would occur under Year 2030 conditions. 4. Environmental Impacts The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 19 Table 9 Year 2030 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2030 Average Attendance Event Year 2030 with Project (Sellout Event) Increase in CNEL (dBA) Location Existing No Event CNEL ADT CNEL1 ADT CNEL1 from Existing No Event 2 Due to Project Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 77.2 70,960 78.6 72,090 78.7 1.5 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 75.1 78,310 79.0 79,720 79.1 4.0 0.1 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 66.4 28,880 74.7 29,900 74.9 8.5 0.2 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 67.6 32,000 74.2 34,100 74.4 6.8 0.2 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 75.4 59,260 77.8 59,680 77.9 2.5 0.1 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 75.4 63,940 78.2 64,740 78.2 2.8 0.0 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 77.3 75,280 78.9 77,660 79.0 1.7 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramps 75.5 70,690 78.6 73,020 78.7 3.2 0.1 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 75.5 68,570 78.5 72,290 78.7 3.2 0.2 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 74.8 75,510 78.9 77,780 79.0 4.2 0.1 Between Struck Ave and Main St 73.8 65,510 78.3 66,640 78.3 4.5 0.0 Between Main St and Batavia St 74.2 53,950 77.4 54,630 77.5 3.3 0.1 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 71.9 35,480 75.6 35,920 75.7 3.8 0.1 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 63.4 40,850 74.1 42,040 74.2 10.8 0.1 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 73.3 48,140 76.9 48,520 77.0 3.7 0.1 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 68.4 15,400 72.0 16,130 72.2 3.8 0.2 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. Bold: Audible (+3 dB) changes in the ambient noise environment from traffic noise. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Increase from Existing” is the difference in traffic noise between the existing year without event and Year 2030 with project (sellout event) and represents the overall increase in cumulative noise. 3 The “Increase Due to Project” is the difference in traffic noise between Year 2030 with average attendance event and Year 2030 with project (sellout event) conditions and represents the change in noise traffic noise levels from event traffic. 4. Environmental Impacts Page 20  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts Traffic Noise modeling was conducted to identify cumulative impacts from concurrent scheduling of events at the Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for year 2013 and year 2030 (General Plan buildout) conditions shown in Table 10 and Table 11, respectively. While concurrent events at the Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim generate audible (+3 dB) increase in noise levels in year 2030 conditions compared to existing conditions without events, the project would not result in a change in overall attendance at events held at the Honda Center and therefore would not contribute to increases in the ambient noise environment. No cumulative impact would occur due an increase in number of annual events held at the Honda Center. 4. Environmental Impacts The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 21 Table 10 Cumulative Conditions - Year 2013 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2013 with Average Attendance Event plus Angels Stadium Event Year 2013 with Project (Sellout Event) plus Angels Stadium Event Increase in CNEL (dBA) Location Existing No Event CNEL ADT CNEL1 ADT CNEL1 Cumulative 2 Project3 Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 77.2 57,730 77.7 58,860 77.8 0.6 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 75.1 36,900 75.8 38,310 75.9 0.8 0.1 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 66.4 6,210 68.0 7,230 68.7 2.3 0.7 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 67.6 10,820 69.5 12,920 70.2 2.6 0.7 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 75.4 38,810 76.0 39,230 76.0 0.6 0.0 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 75.4 41,130 76.2 41,930 76.3 0.9 0.1 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 77.3 60,750 77.9 63,130 78.1 0.8 0.2 Between SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramps 75.5 43,010 76.4 45,340 76.7 1.2 0.3 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 75.5 46,360 76.8 50,080 77.1 1.6 0.3 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 74.8 36,550 75.7 38,820 76.0 1.2 0.3 Between Struck Ave and Main St 73.8 27,160 74.4 28,290 74.6 0.8 0.2 Between Main St and Batavia St 74.2 29,190 74.8 29,870 74.9 0.7 0.1 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 71.9 18,530 72.8 18,970 72.9 1.0 0.1 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 63.4 5,710 65.5 6,900 66.4 3.0 0.9 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 73.3 23,910 73.9 24,290 74.0 0.7 0.1 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 68.4 8,550 69.4 9,280 69.8 1.4 0.4 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. Bold: Audible (+3 dB) changes in the ambient noise environment from traffic noise. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Cumulative” increase is the difference in traffic noise between the existing year without event and Year 2013 with Project (sellout events) at the Honda Center plus the Angels Stadium of Anaheim, and represents the overall increase in cumulative noise. 3 The “Project” increase is the difference in traffic noise between Year 2013 with Honda Center sellout events plus Angeles Stadium of Anaheim event, and Year 2013 with average attendance Honda Center event plus Angels Stadium of Anaheim event conditions, and represents the project contribution to the overall cumulative noise increase. 4. Environmental Impacts Page 22  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 Table 11 Cumulative Conditions - Year 2030 Traffic Noise Levels Year 2030 with Average Attendance Event plus Angels Stadium Event Year 2030 with Project (Sellout Event) plus Angels Stadium Event Increase in CNEL (dBA) Location Existing No Event CNEL ADT CNEL1 ADT ADT Cumulative 2 Project3 Ball Road Between Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramp 77.2 70,960 78.6 72,090 78.7 1.5 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramp and Phoenix Club Dr 75.1 78,310 79.0 79,720 79.1 4.0 0.1 Cerritos Avenue Between Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 66.4 28,880 74.7 29,900 74.9 8.5 0.2 Douglass Road Between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 67.6 32,000 74.2 34,100 74.4 6.8 0.2 Katella Avenue Between Lewis Street and State College Blvd 75.4 60,600 77.9 61,020 78.0 2.6 0.1 Between State College Blvd and Howell Ave 75.4 66,350 78.3 67,150 78.4 3.0 0.1 Between Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 77.3 75,280 78.9 77,660 79.0 1.7 0.1 Between SR-57 SB Ramps and SR- 57 NB Ramps 75.5 72,060 78.7 74,390 78.8 3.3 0.1 Between SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 75.5 71,510 78.6 75,230 78.9 3.4 0.3 Between Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 74.8 76,290 78.9 78,560 79.1 4.3 0.2 Between Struck Ave and Main St 73.8 65,510 78.3 66,640 78.3 4.5 0.0 Between Main St and Batavia St 74.2 53,950 77.4 54,630 77.5 3.3 0.1 Main Street Between Katella Ave and Struck Ave 71.9 36,870 75.8 37,310 75.8 3.9 0.0 Phoenix Club Drive Between Honda Center and Ball Rd 63.4 40,990 74.1 42,180 74.2 10.8 0.1 State College Boulevard Between Howell Ave and Katella Ave 73.3 48,360 76.9 48,740 77.0 3.7 0.1 Sunkist Street Between Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 68.4 15,400 72.0 16,130 72.2 3.8 0.2 Source: FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes obtained from the traffic analysis prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (2012) and speed limits obtained from Google Earth Street View. Bold: Audible (+3 dB) changes in the ambient noise environment from traffic noise. 1 Noise levels are calculated at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. 2 The “Cumulative” increase is the difference in traffic noise between the existing year without event and Year 2030 with project (sellout events) at the Honda Center plus the Angels Stadium of Anaheim and represents the overall increase in cumulative noise. 3 The “Project” increase is the difference in traffic noise between Year 2030 with Honda Center sellout events plus Angeles Stadium of Anaheim event, and Year 2030 with average attendance Honda Center event plus Angels Stadium of Anaheim event conditions, and represents the project contribution to the overall cumulative noise increase. 4. Environmental Impacts The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 23 4.4 EXISTING REGULATIONS  Community noise standards adopted by the City of Anaheim in the General Plan, Noise Element.  City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6.20, Sound Pressure Levels: Stationary Noise Standards. 4.5 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION Stationary Noise Stationary-source noise impacts from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Traffic Noise A potentially significant cumulative noise impact to residential areas located east of Sunkist Street between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road could occur with concurrent scheduling of events at the Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for year 2030 when added to future cumulative development. 4.6 MITIGATION MEASURES Stationary Noise No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. Traffic Noise MM-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall contribute fair-share funding to repave Sunkist Street between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road with rubberized asphalt. Studies have shown that asphalt rubber overlays resulted in a reduction in road noise in the order of 6 dB. (Rymer and Donavan, 2005) 4.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No significant project-related impacts have been identified. With implementation of MM-1, cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant. 4. Environmental Impacts Page 24  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page left blank intentionally 5. References Anaheim, City of. 2011. City of Anaheim Municipal Code. ———. 2004, May 25 (amended). City of Anaheim General Plan Update. Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2003. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. New York: Spon Press. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998, October. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2012, January. The Honda Center Draft Traffic Study Report. Personal Communications Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations, Honda Center. 2011, June. Personal Communications and Honda Center Operational Survey. Model Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Report No. FHWA-RD77-108. The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim  Page 25 5. References Page 26  The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix The Honda Center Noise Technical Study City of Anaheim Appendix A FHWA Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Files Appendix The Planning Center | DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model Existing Conditions dDistance to CNEL from Roadway Centerline eeExisting Existing Existing Ex W/ Average Change Change pWithout With 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 From due to Roadway Segment SEvent Average Event Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Existing Project Ball Road btwn Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 50,970 52,630 77.2 698 324 150 77.3 713 331 154 0.1 0.1 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and Phoenix Club Dr 40 31,670 33,730 75.1 508 236 110 75.4 530 246 114 0.3 0.3 Cerritos Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 btwn Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 40 4,270 5,780 66.4 134 62 29 67.7 164 76 35 1.3 1.3 Douglass Road 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 btwn Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 35 7,040 10,120 67.6 160 74 35 69.2 204 95 44 1.6 1.6 Katella Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 btwn Lewis Street and State College Blvd 40 33,500 34,120 75.4 528 245 114 75.4 534 248 115 0.0 0.0 btwn State Colege Blvd and Howell Ave 40 34,130 35,310 75.4 534 248 115 75.6 547 254 118 0.2 0.2 btwn Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 52,030 55,550 77.3 708 328 152 77.5 739 343 159 0.2 0.2 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramps 40 34,720 38,170 75.5 540 251 116 75.9 576 267 124 0.4 0.4 btwn SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 40 34,470 39,970 75.5 538 250 116 76.1 594 276 128 0.6 0.6 btwn Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 40 29,480 32,820 74.8 485 225 104 75.3 521 242 112 0.5 0.5 btwn Struck Ave and Main St 40 23,170 24,840 73.8 413 192 89 74.1 432 201 93 0.3 0.3 btwn Main St and Batavia St 40 25,630 26,630 74.2 441 205 95 74.4 453 210 98 0.2 0.2 Main Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 btwn Katella Ave and Struck Ave 40 15,000 15,640 71.9 309 143 67 72.0 318 147 68 0.1 0.1 Phoenix Club Drive 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 btwn Honda Center and Ball Rd 25 3,470 5,220 63.4 84 39 18 65.2 110 51 24 1.8 1.8 State College Boulevard 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 btwn Howell Ave and Katella Ave 40 21,030 21,590 73.3 387 180 83 73.4 394 183 85 0.1 0.1 Sunkist Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 btwn Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 40 6,790 7,870 68.4 182 85 39 69.1 201 93 43 0.7 0.7 Assumptions:Roadway volumes provided by Parson Brinkerhoff (2011) and posted speed limits. Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December, 1978. Baseline California vehicle noise levels from Caltrans, TAN 95-03, 1995 Simplified to 2 lanes meters=20.0 future meters=20.0 Noise path decay parameter for hard site 24-hour distribution of traffic volumes based o Day 73% Evening 13% Night 14% California base noise levels: Autos 5.2+38.8 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = -2.8 + 38.8 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Light trucks: 35.3 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 30 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Heavy trucks: 25-31 mi/hr: 35-65 mi/hr: 31-35 mi/hr: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model Existing Conditions: With Sellout Event, With Average Event and Angel Stadium, With Sellout Event and Angel Stadium.d24-hour Traffic Volume Distance to CNEL from Roadway Centerline eeExisting Existing Existing Existing Ex w/ Av + Angels Ex w/ Sell + Angels pWith With Average+With Sellout+50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 Roadway Segment SSellout Angel Stadium Angel Stadium Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Ball Road btwn Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 53,760 52,630 53,760 77.4 723 336 156 77.3 713 331 154 77.4 723 336 156 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and Phoenix Club Dr 40 35,140 33,730 35,140 75.6 545 253 117 75.4 530 246 114 75.6 545 253 117 Cerritos Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 40 6,800 5,780 6,800 68.4 182 85 39 67.7 164 76 35 68.4 182 85 39 Douglass Road 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 35 12,220 10,120 12,220 70.0 232 107 50 69.2 204 95 44 70.0 232 107 50 Katella Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Lewis Street and State College Blvd 40 34,540 35,460 35,880 75.5 539 250 116 75.6 548 254 118 75.6 552 256 119 btwn State Colege Blvd and Howell Ave 40 36,110 37,720 38,520 75.7 555 258 120 75.9 571 265 123 76.0 579 269 125 btwn Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 57,930 55,550 57,930 77.7 760 353 164 77.5 739 343 159 77.7 760 353 164 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramps 40 40,500 39,540 41,870 76.2 599 278 129 76.1 589 274 127 76.3 612 284 132 btwn SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 40 43,690 42,910 46,630 76.5 630 292 136 76.4 622 289 134 76.8 658 305 142 btwn Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 40 35,090 33,600 35,870 75.6 544 253 117 75.4 529 245 114 75.6 552 256 119 btwn Struck Ave and Main St 40 25,970 24,840 25,970 74.2 445 207 96 74.1 432 201 93 74.2 445 207 96 btwn Main St and Batavia St 40 27,310 26,630 27,310 74.5 461 214 99 74.4 453 210 98 74.5 461 214 99 Main Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Katella Ave and Struck Ave 40 16,080 17,030 17,470 72.2 324 150 70 72.4 336 156 72 72.5 342 159 74 Phoenix Club Drive 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Honda Center and Ball Rd 25 6,410 5,360 6,550 66.1 127 59 27 65.3 112 52 24 66.1 128 60 28 State College Boulevard 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Howell Ave and Katella Ave 40 21,970 21,810 22,190 73.5 398 185 86 73.5 396 184 85 73.6 401 186 86 Sunkist Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 40 8,600 7,870 8,600 69.4 213 99 46 69.1 201 93 43 69.4 213 99 46 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 Assumptions:Roadway volumes provided by Parson Brinkerhoff (2011) and posted speed limits. Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December, 1978. Baseline California vehicle noise levels from Caltrans, TAN 95-03, 1995 Simplified to 2 lanes 6.1 meters=20.0 future 6.1 meters=20.0 Noise path decay parameter for hard site 24-hour distribution of traffic volumes based on:Day 73%LDA 92% Evening 13%MDT 3% Night 14%HDT 5% California base noise levels: Autos 5.2+38.8 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = -2.8 + 38.8 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Light trucks: 35.3 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 30 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Heavy trucks: 25-31 mi/hr: 51.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 47.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 35-65 mi/hr: 50.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 46.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 31-35 mi/hr: straight line interpolation between above two curves Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model Year 2013 d24-hour Traffic Volume Distance to CNEL from Roadway Centerline ee2013 2013 2013 2013 Without Event 2013 w/ Average Event 2013 w/Sellout Event pWithout W/Average W/Sellout 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 Roadway Segment SEvent Event Sellout Even Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Ball Road btwn Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 56,070 57,730 58,860 77.6 744 345 160 77.7 759 352 163 77.8 768 357 166 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and Phoenix Club Dr 40 34,830 36,900 38,310 75.5 542 251 117 75.8 563 261 121 75.9 577 268 124 Cerritos Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 40 4,700 6,210 7,230 66.8 142 66 31 68.0 172 80 37 68.7 190 88 41 Douglass Road 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 35 7,740 10,820 12,920 68.0 171 79 37 69.5 214 99 46 70.2 240 112 52 Katella Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Lewis Street and State College Blvd 40 36,850 37,470 37,890 75.8 562 261 121 75.8 569 264 123 75.9 573 266 123 btwn State Colege Blvd and Howell Ave 40 37,540 38,720 39,520 75.8 569 264 123 76.0 581 270 125 76.1 589 273 127 btwn Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 57,230 60,750 63,130 77.7 754 350 162 77.9 785 364 169 78.1 805 374 173 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramps 40 38,190 41,640 43,970 75.9 576 267 124 76.3 610 283 131 76.5 633 294 136 btwn SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 40 37,920 43,420 47,140 75.9 573 266 123 76.5 627 291 135 76.8 663 308 143 btwn Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 40 32,430 35,770 38,040 75.2 516 240 111 75.6 551 256 119 75.9 574 267 124 btwn Struck Ave and Main St 40 25,490 27,160 28,290 74.2 440 204 95 74.4 459 213 99 74.6 471 219 102 btwn Main St and Batavia St 40 28,190 29,190 29,870 74.6 470 218 101 74.8 481 223 104 74.9 489 227 105 Main Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Katella Ave and Struck Ave 40 16,500 17,140 17,580 72.3 329 153 71 72.4 338 157 73 72.6 343 159 74 Phoenix Club Drive 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Honda Center and Ball Rd 25 3,820 5,570 6,760 63.8 90 42 19 65.4 115 54 25 66.3 131 61 28 State College Boulevard 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Howell Ave and Katella Ave 40 23,130 23,690 24,070 73.7 412 191 89 73.8 419 194 90 73.9 423 196 91 Sunkist Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 40 7,470 8,550 9,280 68.8 194 90 42 69.4 212 99 46 69.8 224 104 48 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 Assumptions:Roadway volumes provided by Parson Brinkerhoff (2011) and posted speed limits. Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December, 1978. Baseline California vehicle noise levels from Caltrans, TAN 95-03, 1995 Simplified to 2 lanes 6.1 meters=20.0 future 6.1 meters=20.0 Noise path decay parameter for hard site 24-hour distribution of traffic volumes based on:Day 73%LDA 92% Evening 13%MDT 3% Night 14%HDT 5% California base noise levels: Autos 5.2+38.8 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = -2.8 + 38.8 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Light trucks: 35.3 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 30 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Heavy trucks: 25-31 mi/hr: 51.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 47.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 35-65 mi/hr: 50.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 46.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 31-35 mi/hr: straight line interpolation between above two curves Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model Year 2013 dee2013 2013 2013 With Average+Angels 2013 With Sellout+Angels pWith Average Event+ With Sellout Event+50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 Roadway Segment SAngel Stadium Angel Stadium Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Ball Road btwn Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 57,730 58,860 77.7 759 352 163 77.8 768 357 166 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and Phoenix Club Dr 40 36,900 38,310 75.8 563 261 121 75.9 577 268 124 Cerritos Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 40 6,210 7,230 68.0 172 80 37 68.7 190 88 41 Douglass Road 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 35 10,820 12,920 69.5 214 99 46 70.2 240 112 52 Katella Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Lewis Street and State College Blvd 40 38,810 39,230 76.0 582 270 125 76.0 586 272 126 btwn State Colege Blvd and Howell Ave 40 41,130 41,930 76.2 605 281 130 76.3 613 284 132 btwn Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 60,750 63,130 77.9 785 364 169 78.1 805 374 173 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramps 40 43,010 45,340 76.4 623 289 134 76.7 646 300 139 btwn SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 40 46,360 50,080 76.8 655 304 141 77.1 690 320 149 btwn Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 40 36,550 38,820 75.7 559 260 120 76.0 582 270 125 btwn Struck Ave and Main St 40 27,160 28,290 74.4 459 213 99 74.6 471 219 102 btwn Main St and Batavia St 40 29,190 29,870 74.8 481 223 104 74.9 489 227 105 Main Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Katella Ave and Struck Ave 40 18,530 18,970 72.8 356 165 77 72.9 361 168 78 Phoenix Club Drive 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Honda Center and Ball Rd 25 5,710 6,900 65.5 117 54 25 66.4 133 62 29 State College Boulevard 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Howell Ave and Katella Ave 40 23,910 24,290 73.9 421 196 91 74.0 426 198 92 Sunkist Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 40 8,550 9,280 69.4 212 99 46 69.8 224 104 48 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 Assumptions:Roadway volumes provided by Parson Brinkerhoff (2011) and posted speed limits. Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December, 1978. Baseline California vehicle noise levels from Caltrans, TAN 95-0 Simplified to 2 lanes 6.1 20.0 future 6.1 20.0 Noise path decay parameter for hard site 24-hour distribution of traffic volumes based on:Day 73%LDA 92% Evening 13%MDT 3% Night 14%HDT 5% Distance to CNEL from Roadway Centerline24-hour Traffic Volume Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model Year 2030 d24-hour Traffic Volume Distance to CNEL from Roadway Centerline ee2030 2030 2030 2030 No Event 2030 w/ Average Event 2030 w/ Sellout Avent pNo Event With Average With 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 Roadway Segment SEvent Sellout Even Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Ball Road btwn Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 69,300 70,960 72,090 78.5 857 398 185 78.6 870 404 188 78.7 880 408 190 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and Phoenix Club Dr 40 76,240 78,310 79,720 78.9 913 424 197 79.0 929 431 200 79.1 941 437 203 Cerritos Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 40 27,370 28,880 29,900 74.5 461 214 99 74.7 478 222 103 74.9 489 227 105 Douglass Road 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 35 28,920 32,000 34,100 73.7 411 191 89 74.2 440 204 95 74.4 459 213 99 Katella Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Lewis Street and State College Blvd 40 58,640 59,260 59,680 77.8 766 356 165 77.8 772 358 166 77.9 775 360 167 btwn State Colege Blvd and Howell Ave 40 62,760 63,940 64,740 78.1 802 372 173 78.2 812 377 175 78.2 819 380 176 btwn Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 71,760 75,280 77,660 78.7 877 407 189 78.9 905 420 195 79.0 924 429 199 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramp 40 67,240 70,690 73,020 78.4 840 390 181 78.6 868 403 187 78.7 887 412 191 btwn SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 40 63,070 68,570 72,290 78.1 805 373 173 78.5 851 395 183 78.7 881 409 190 btwn Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 40 72,170 75,510 77,780 78.7 880 409 190 78.9 907 421 195 79.0 925 429 199 btwn Struck Ave and Main St 40 63,840 65,510 66,640 78.2 811 376 175 78.3 825 383 178 78.3 835 387 180 btwn Main St and Batavia St 40 52,950 53,950 54,630 77.3 716 332 154 77.4 725 337 156 77.5 731 339 158 Main Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Katella Ave and Struck Ave 40 34,840 35,480 35,920 75.5 542 251 117 75.6 548 254 118 75.7 553 257 119 Phoenix Club Drive 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Honda Center and Ball Rd 25 39,100 40,850 42,040 73.9 423 196 91 74.1 435 202 94 74.2 444 206 96 State College Boulevard 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Howell Ave and Katella Ave 40 47,580 48,140 48,520 76.9 667 309 144 76.9 672 312 145 77.0 676 314 146 Sunkist Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 40 14,320 15,400 16,130 71.7 299 139 65 72.0 314 146 68 72.2 324 150 70 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 Assumptions:Roadway volumes provided by Parson Brinkerhoff (2011) and posted speed limits. Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December, 1978. Baseline California vehicle noise levels from Caltrans, TAN 95-03, 1995 Simplified to 2 lanes 6.1 meters=20.0 future 6.1 meters=20.0 Noise path decay parameter for hard site 24-hour distribution of traffic volumes based on:Day 73%LDA 92% Evening 13%MDT 3% Night 14%HDT 5% California base noise levels: Autos 5.2+38.8 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = -2.8 + 38.8 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Light trucks: 35.3 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 30 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Heavy trucks: 25-31 mi/hr: 51.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 47.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 35-65 mi/hr: 50.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 46.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 31-35 mi/hr: straight line interpolation between above two curves Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model Year 2030 dee2030 2030 Existing Future No Project pWith Average Event With Sellout Event 50.0 60 65 70 50.0 60 65 70 Roadway Segment S+ Angel Stadium + Angel Stadium Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Feet CNEL CNEL CNEL Ball Road btwn Sunkist St and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 70,960 72,090 78.6 870 404 188 78.7 880 408 190 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and Phoenix Club Dr 40 78,310 79,720 79.0 929 431 200 79.1 941 437 203 Cerritos Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Sunkist St and Douglass Rd 40 28,880 29,900 74.7 478 222 103 74.9 489 227 105 Douglass Road 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave 35 32,000 34,100 74.2 440 204 95 74.4 459 213 99 Katella Avenue 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Lewis Street and State College Blvd 40 60,600 61,020 77.9 783 364 169 78.0 787 365 170 btwn State Colege Blvd and Howell Ave 40 66,350 67,150 78.3 832 386 179 78.4 839 389 181 btwn Howell Ave and SR-57 SB Ramps 40 75,280 77,660 78.9 905 420 195 79.0 924 429 199 btwn SR-57 SB Ramps and SR-57 NB Ramps 40 72,060 74,390 78.7 879 408 189 78.8 898 417 194 btwn SR-57 NB Ramps and Douglass Rd 40 71,510 75,230 78.6 875 406 188 78.9 905 420 195 btwn Douglass Rd and Struck Ave 40 76,290 78,560 78.9 913 424 197 79.1 931 432 201 btwn Struck Ave and Main St 40 65,510 66,640 78.3 825 383 178 78.3 835 387 180 btwn Main St and Batavia St 40 53,950 54,630 77.4 725 337 156 77.5 731 339 158 Main Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Katella Ave and Struck Ave 40 36,870 37,310 75.8 563 261 121 75.8 567 263 122 Phoenix Club Drive 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Honda Center and Ball Rd 25 40,990 42,180 74.1 436 202 94 74.2 445 206 96 State College Boulevard 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Howell Ave and Katella Ave 40 48,360 48,740 76.9 674 313 145 77.0 678 314 146 Sunkist Street 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 btwn Cerritos Ave and Ball Rd 40 15,400 16,130 72.0 314 146 68 72.2 324 150 70 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 Assumptions:Roadway volumes provided by Parson Brinkerhoff (2011) and posted speed limits Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December, 1978. Baseline California vehicle noise levels from Caltrans, TAN 95-03, 1995 Simplified to 2 lanes 6.1 20.0 future 6.1 20.0 Noise path decay parameter for hard site 24-hour distribution of traffic volumes based on:Day 73%LDA 92% Evening 13%MDT 3% Night 14%HDT 5% California base noise levels: Autos 5.2+38.8 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = -2.8 + 38.8 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Light trucks: 35.3 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 30 + 25.6 Log10 (speed, km/hr) Heavy trucks: 25-31 mi/hr: 51.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 47.9 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 35-65 mi/hr: 50.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, mi/hr) = 46.4 + 19.2 Log10 (speed, km/hr) 31-35 mi/hr: straight line interpolation between above two curves Distance to CNEL from Roadway Centerline24-hour Traffic Volume Appendices Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR City of Anaheim Appendix E Traffic Study Appendices The Planning Center|DC&E January 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 8 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 TRAFFIC STUDY OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................... 9 1.3 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................. 11 1.4 TRANSPORTATION SETTING ...................................................................................... 14 Freeways and Arterials ............................................................................................................. 14 Rail .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Local Bus ................................................................................................................................. 14 Bicycle Trails ........................................................................................................................... 14 Pedestrian Access ..................................................................................................................... 15 1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................. 15 2.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 16 2.1 FORECAST VOLUME DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 16 2.2 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................ 18 2.3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ...................................................................................... 19 2.4 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................... 19 2.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 25 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 30 3.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 30 3.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENT ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 38 3.3 CALTRANS FACILITY PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS ........................................................ 41 4.0 2013 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 45 4.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 45 4.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENT ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 53 4.3 CALTRANS FACILITY PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS ........................................................ 56 5.0 2030 FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ................................................................... 60 5.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 60 5.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENT ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 72 5.3 CALTRANS FACILITY PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS ........................................................ 78 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report ii 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS ........................................................................................................ 84 6.1 INTERSECTIONS ............................................................................................................ 85 6.1.1 2011 Baseline Conditions ........................................................................................... 85 6.1.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions ................................................................................... 89 6.1.3 2030 Future Year Conditions ...................................................................................... 93 6.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENTS ................................................................................................. 99 6.2.1 2011 Baseline Conditions ........................................................................................... 99 6.2.2 2013 Opening Conditions ......................................................................................... 102 6.2.3 2030 Future Conditions ............................................................................................ 103 6.3 FREEWAY FACILITY................................................................................................... 108 6.3.1 2011 Baseline Conditions ......................................................................................... 108 6.3.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions ................................................................................. 112 6.3.3 2030 Future Year Conditions .................................................................................... 116 7.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES ........................... 124 7.1 INTERSECTIONS .......................................................................................................... 126 7.1.1 2011 Baseline Conditions ......................................................................................... 126 7.1.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions ................................................................................. 128 7.1.3 2030 Future Year Conditions .................................................................................... 129 7.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENT.................................................................................................. 142 7.2.1 2011 Baseline Conditions ......................................................................................... 142 7.2.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions ................................................................................. 142 7.2.3 2030 Future Year Conditions .................................................................................... 142 7.3 FREEWAY FACILITY................................................................................................... 150 7.3.1 2011 Baseline Conditions ......................................................................................... 150 7.3.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions ................................................................................. 151 7.3.3 2030 Future Year Conditions .................................................................................... 153 7.4 Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations .................................. 161 8.0 PARKING ANALYSIS..................................................................................................... 162 8.1 PARKING DEMAND ..................................................................................................... 162 8.2 PARKING SUPPLY ....................................................................................................... 163 9.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 166 10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 175 11.0 GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS ............................................................ 176 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 181 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report iii List of Figures Figure 1-1: Regional Context .................................................................................................... 12 Figure 1-2: Study Area .............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2-1: Project Trip Distribution ......................................................................................... 21 Figure 2-2: Daily Traffic Flow Profile – Douglas Road (North of Katella) ................................. 22 Figure 2-3: Daily Traffic Flow Profile – Phoenix Club Drive .................................................... 22 Figure 2-4: Daily Traffic Flow Profile – Katella Avenue (SR-57 Northbound Ramps – Douglass Road) ...................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-5: Daily Traffic Flow Profile – Katella Avenue (Douglass Road – Struck Avenue) ...... 23 Figure 2-6: Daily Traffic Flow Profile – Cerritos Avenue (East of Sunkist Avenue) .................. 24 Figure 3-1: 2011 Baseline (No Events) Peak Hour Intersection LOS ......................................... 33 Figure 3-2: 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ........................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 3-3: 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ............................................................ 35 Figure 3-4: 2011 Baseline with Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS ......................................... 36 Figure 3-5: 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ..................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4-1: 2013 Opening Year with No Events Peak Hour Intersection LOS ............................ 48 Figure 4-2: 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ..................................................................................................... 49 Figure 4-3: 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS .................................................. 50 Figure 4-4: 2013 Opening Year with Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS ................................. 51 Figure 4-5: 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ..................................................................................................... 52 Figure 5-1: 2030 Future Year (No Events) Peak Hour Intersection LOS .................................... 67 Figure 5-2: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ..................................................................................................... 68 Figure 5-3: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS .................................................. 69 Figure 5-4: 2030 Future Year with Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS .................................... 70 Figure 5-5: 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ..................................................................................................... 71 Figure 8-1: Location of Tier 1 Parking Area ............................................................................ 164 Figure 8-2: Location of Tier 2 Parking Area ............................................................................ 164 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report iv List of Tables Table 2-1: Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................. 19 Table 2-2: Intersection Level of Service Thresholds .................................................................... 25 Table 2-3: Significant Impact Criteria.......................................................................................... 26 Table 2-4: Arterial Segment Daily Capacity Assumptions ........................................................... 27 Table 2-5: Caltrans Intersection LOS Criteria .............................................................................. 27 Table 2-6: Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp LOS Criteria.................................................... 28 Table 2-7: Caltrans Freeway Weaving LOS Criteria .................................................................... 29 Table 3-1: 2011 Baseline PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS .......................................................... 31 Table 3-2: 2011 Baseline Arterial Segment Daily LOS ................................................................ 39 Table 3-3: 2011 Baseline Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS ........................................................ 40 Table 3-4: 2011 Baseline PM Peak Hour Ramp Termini Intersection LOS................................... 41 Table 3-5: 2011 Baseline Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS ................................................ 43 Table 3-6: 2011 Baseline Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS ................................................ 43 Table 3-7: 2011 Baseline Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS ..................................................... 44 Table 4-1: 2013 Opening Year PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS.................................................. 46 Table 4-2: 2013 Opening Year Arterial Segment Daily LOS ........................................................ 54 Table 4-3: 2013 Opening Year Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS ................................................ 55 Table 4-4: 2013 Opening Year PM Peak Hour Ramp Termini Intersection LOS .......................... 56 Table 4-5: 2013 Opening Year Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS ........................................ 58 Table 4-6: 2013 Opening Year Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS ........................................ 58 Table 4-7: 2013 Opening Year Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS ............................................ 59 Table 5-1: 2030 Future Year PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS ..................................................... 65 Table 5-2: 2030 Future Year Arterial Segment Daily LOS ........................................................... 76 Table 5-3: 2030 Future Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS ........................................................... 77 Table 5-4: 2030 Future Year PM Peak Hour Ramp Termini Intersection LOS ............................. 79 Table 5-5: 2030 Future Year Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS ........................................... 82 Table 5-6: Year 2030 Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS ...................................................... 82 Table 5-7: 2030 Future Year Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS................................................ 83 Table 6-1: 2011 Baseline Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 1) ........................... 85 Table 6-2: 2011 Baseline Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 2) ........................... 86 Table 6-4: 2013 Opening Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 1) ................... 89 Table 6-6: 2013 Opening Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 3) ................... 92 Table 6-7: 2030 Future Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 1) ...................... 93 Table 6-8: 2030 Future Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 2) ..................... 95 Table 6-9: 2030 Future Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 3) ...................... 97 Table 6-10: 2011 Baseline City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 1) ............................................................................................................................... 99 Table 6-11: 2011 Baseline City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 2) ............................................................................................................................. 100 Table 6-12: 2011 Baseline City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 3) ............................................................................................................................. 101 Table 6-13: 2013 Opening Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 1) ............................................................................................................................. 102 Table 6-14: 2013 Opening Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 2) ............................................................................................................................. 102 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report v Table 6-15: 2013 Opening Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 3) ............................................................................................................................. 103 Table 6-16: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 1) ............................................................................................................................. 104 Table 6-17: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 1) ............................................................................................................................. 104 Table 6-18: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 2) ............................................................................................................................. 105 Table 6-19: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 2) ............................................................................................................................. 106 Table 6-20: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 3) ............................................................................................................................. 106 Table 6-21: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 3) ............................................................................................................................. 107 Table 6-22: 2011 Baseline Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 1) ............................................................................................................................. 108 Table 6-23: 2011 Baseline Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 1) ..................... 108 Table 6-24: 2011 Baseline Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 2) ............................................................................................................................. 109 Table 6-25: 2011 Baseline Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 2) ..................... 110 Table 6-26: 2011 Baseline Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 3) ............................................................................................................................. 111 Table 6-27: 2011 Baseline Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 3) ..................... 111 Table 6-28: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 1) ............................................................................................................................. 112 Table 6-29: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 1) ............ 112 Table 6-30: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 2) ............................................................................................................................. 113 Table 6-31: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 2) ............ 114 Table 6-32: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 3) ............................................................................................................................. 115 Table 6-33: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 3) ............ 115 Table 6-34: 2030 Future Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 1) ............................................................................................................................. 117 Table 6-35: 2030 Future Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 1)................ 118 Table 6-37: 2030 Future Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 2)................ 120 Table 6-38: 2030 Future Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 3) ............................................................................................................................. 121 Table 6-39: 2030 Future Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 3)……..……122 Table 7-1: 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) .............................. 126 Table 7-2: 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) .............................. 126 Table 7-3: 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) .............................. 127 Table 7-4: 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) ...................... 128 Table 7-5: 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) ...................... 128 Table 7-6: 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) ...................... 129 Table 7-7: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) ..... ................................................................................................................................ 130 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report vi Table 7-8: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) .... ............................................................................................................................. 133 Table 7-9: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) .. ................................................................................................................................ 134 Table 7-10: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) .... ............................................................................................................................. 137 Table 7-11: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) . ............................................................................................................................. 138 Table 7-12: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) .... ............................................................................................................................. 141 Table 7-13: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 1) .......................................................................................................................... 143 Table 7-14: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 1) ............................................................................................................................. 144 Table 7-15: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 2) .......................................................................................................................... 146 Table 7-16: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 2) ............................................................................................................................. 147 Table 7-17: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 3) .......................................................................................................................... 149 Table 7-18: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 3) ............................................................................................................................. 150 Table 7-19: 2011 Baseline Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) .... 150 Table 7-20: 2011 Baseline Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) ................... 151 Table 7-21: 2013 Opening Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) . ............................................................................................................................. 152 Table 7-22: 2013 Opening Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) ................... 152 Table 7-23: 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) .... ……………………………………………………………………………………...153 Table 7-24: 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 1) .............. 154 Table 7-25: 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) .... ............................................................................................................................. 156 Table 7-26: 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 2) .............. 157 Table 7-27: 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) .... ............................................................................................................................. 158 Table 7-28: 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) .............. 160 Table 8-1: Honda Center Parking Demand ................................................................................ 162 Table 9-1: Summary of the 2011 Baseline Project Impact and Mitigation Measures ................... 170 Table 9-2: Summary of the 2013 Opening Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures .......... 170 Table 9-3: Summary of the 2030 Future Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures ............. 171 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report vii Appendices Appendix A: Existing Traffic Counts for Honda Center Appendix B: Existing Traffic Counts for Angel Stadium Appendix C: Existing Peak Hour Volume and Speed on State Highway System Appendix D: Honda Center Event Trips Appendix E: Angel Stadium Event Trips Appendix F: Intersection Lane Configurations Appendix G-1: ICU Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions Appendix G-2: ICU Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions Appendix G-3: ICU Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions Appendix G-4: ICU Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix G-5: ICU Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix G-6: ICU Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix H-1: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions Appendix H-2: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions Appendix H-3: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions Appendix H-4: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix H-5: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2011 Opening Year Conditions Appendix H-6: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix I-1: Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions Appendix I-2: Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions Appendix I-3: Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions Appendix J-1: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions Appendix J-2: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions Appendix J-3: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions Appendix J-4: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix K-1: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions Appendix K-2: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions Appendix K-3: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions Appendix K-4: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix K-5: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix K-6: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions (Mitigated) Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Honda Center is located on a 42.6-acre site located within the City of Anaheim. Honda Center is a 650,000 square foot arena for sports and entertainment events and can accommodate a maximum of 18,900 spectators (depending on seating configuration). The parking lots surrounding the Honda Center have 3,775 parking spaces to accommodate visitors. Additional parking is provided off-site by agreement and/or by private operators. Land uses surrounding the Honda Center are primarily commercial and light industrial, including restaurants, offices, of some distribution facilities. The Honda Center and its adjacent surface parking lots are bound on the north by Stanley Cup Way and the Union Pacific Railroad, to the east by the Santa Ana River, to the south by Katella Avenue and to the west by State Route 57 (SR-57) freeway. The Honda Center is less than a half mile northeast of the Angel Stadium of Anaheim and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station. In June of 1990, the Anaheim City Council approved documents that led to the construction of a new world-class arena and in 1993 the Anaheim Arena opened its doors to a sold-out performance by Barry Manilow. Later that same year, the NHL announced its fourth expansion team, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, who would make Anaheim its home. At the same time Arrowhead Water became the naming rights sponsor, thus the arena became the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim. In 2003, the City approved and entered into the current Facility Management Agreement with Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (AAM) and, in 2006, Honda Motor Company became the title sponsor and the arena name was changed to Honda Center. The success of Honda Center is evident, as it is one of the premiere entertainment and sports venues in the country and has been the recipient of numerous industry awards over the years. It has been nominated for “Venue of the Year” in the United States by Pollstar Magazine on seven separate occasions and most recently was ranked fourth in the country by Billboard Magazine for 2010 concert and ticket sales. Honda Center is proud to be home to the NHL’s Anaheim Ducks and to the prestigious John R. Wooden College Basketball Classic. Since 1993, the venue has hosted a significant number of world-class events and shows, including: NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Western Regionals (1998, 2001, 2003, 2011), NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament First and Second Round (2008), 1999 NCAA Frozen Four, 2003 World Gymnastics Championships, 2004 U.S. Team Trials - Gymnastics, 2005 World Badminton Championships, four-time host to UFC Championship bouts, U2, Bette Midler, Paul McCartney, Eagles, Barbra Streisand, AC/DC, Gwen Stefani, Luis Miguel, Rod Stewart, David Bowie, Andrea Bocelli, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill, Phil Collins, Toby Keith, Alan Jackson, Madonna, Prince, Van Halen, Gloria Estefan, Jimmy Buffett, Bon Jovi, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen, and Elton John. Additionally, the current manager, Anaheim Arena Management, LLC, has continued to improve the facility, investing more than $22 million in capital improvements since 2003. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 2 As the venue was designed and constructed to be home to two professional sports franchises, the City and its facility management partners have worked throughout the years to bring a second professional sports franchise to Honda Center. The proposed project includes an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center through the addition of another permanent tenant, as well as other permanent improvements described below. The 1990 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Honda Center (formerly Arrowhead Pond) analyzed up to 162 events per year. Honda Center currently averages up to 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of up to 11,264 people. The maximum number of events, in any one year, over the last five years was 162 events in 2008. The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events by 60 from the previous high of 162 events for a total of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average three events per week at Honda Center, and the proposed project would result in four events per week on average. The purpose of the additional events would be to accommodate a second professional sports franchise at Honda Center without reducing the number of events currently held at the Honda Center. The Honda Center has a maximum seating capacity of 18,900, and the proposed project would not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity of events. In addition to an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center, the proposed project would involve other minor improvements on the south side1 of the existing facility including an approximate 5,846 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, 5,846 square foot team store, and 9,114 square feet open area on the main floor and a 9,518 square feet restaurant to serve event attendees and 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the club level. Other improvements include interior locker room, office space, bunker suite and balcony suite renovations; interior electrical upgrades and an increase in the capacity of the loading dock. None of the proposed improvements would increase the permanent seating capacity of the existing arena; however, the improvements would result in the loss of approximately 15-20 parking spaces. The proposed project includes a zone reclassification for a portion of the project site from the Transition (T) Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay Zone, consistent with the zoning for the remainder of the project site. Additional implementation measures include, but are not limited to, building permits to allow the improvements listed above and agreements between the City of Anaheim and Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) and between the City of Anaheim and AAM. 1 Please note a previous proposal located the proposed improvements on the east side of the existing Honda Center. They have since been relocated to the south side facing Katella Avenue. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 3 ES.2 ANALYSIS SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY This traffic study has been prepared to address the potential impacts resulting from an increase in the maximum number of annual events at Honda Center (i.e., the “Project”). These additional events are analyzed as a sold-out 18,900 seat event condition. The analysis is performed in accordance with City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated 1996, City of Orange Traffic Impact Study Guidelines dated August 15, 2007, and Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated December 2002 discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.5. The key traffic study components are summarized as follows: · The project study area for the traffic study was defined using procedures outlined in the traffic study guidelines identified above; · Peak hour Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis for study area intersections; · Daily and peak hour arterial segment analysis for study area roadway segments; · Highway Capacity Software (HCS) analysis for study area freeway mainline segments and ramp locations; and · Peak hour intersection Synchro analysis for study area ramp termini intersections. A total of five (5) traffic analysis scenarios were evaluated under each of the three analysis years, as outlined below: 2011 Baseline Analytical Project Direct Impacts Scenario: 1) 2011 Baseline (No Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event2 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 3 4) 2011 Baseline with Project4 5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2013 Opening Year Analytical Impacts Scenario and Near-Term Impacts Scenario: 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2 Average Attendance Honda Center Event is assumed to be an average attendance event or 11,264 seats as described in the September 2, 2011 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 344 for Honda Center Enhancement Project. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. 3 Angel Stadium Event is assumed to be an average Angel Stadium baseball game attendance of 29,402, based on year 2010 season attendance figures provided by the City of Anaheim. Traffic conditions are adjusted accordingly from traffic counts taken for the August 24, 2011 event. 4 Project is assumed to be an 18,900 seat sold out capacity condition. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 4 2030 Long-Term Impacts Scenario (General Plan Buildout): 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Parking Demand Analysis In addition to traffic impact analyses, an assessment of parking was conducted. The purpose of the parking assessment was to inventory the available on and off-site parking spaces that are within the control of the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Arena Management, LLC and to evaluate how that capacity compares to trip generation of Honda Center events. For this analysis, the trip generation factor for the event is assumed be a fair measure of parking demand for spectators, Honda Center staff, and staff of the event performers under sold-out conditions at a seating capacity of 18,900. While it is known that a significant capacity of additional entrepreneurial parking is regularly made available on private properties in the vicinity of the Honda Center on event days, an inventory of that type of parking was not performed as part of this study. ES.3 PROJECT RELATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of the potential project impacts for each study year through a direct comparison of with and without Project conditions using the five traffic analysis scenarios. Using this approach, the project impacts and mitigation measures are identified for the following three comparisons: Comparisons 1) No Events vs. Project 2) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project 3) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Summary of Findings Please note that at findings have been made with consideration of the appropriate LOS standards and other traffic analysis guidelines set forth by each respective agency and discussed in detail within the body of this report (i.e. City of Anaheim, City of Orange, Caltrans). 2011 Baseline Conditions: Intersections: Two (2) intersections were found to be impacted as a result of Comparisons 1 and 2 under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Comparison 3 indicates five (5) intersections are significantly impacted, all of which are located in the City of Anaheim. Improvements have been identified for all five locations and implementation of the mitigation strategies would bring traffic conditions to less than significant conditions. See Chapter 9; Table 9-1 for impacted intersection locations and other details. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 5 Arterial Segments: No project related impacts on any study area arterial segments were identified under any of the Comparisons for the 2011 Baseline conditions. Freeway Facility: No project related freeway impacts were identified within the project study area under Comparisons 1 or 2 in the 2011 Baseline conditions. Under Comparison 3 one freeway ramp at southbound SR-57 and Katella is deficient in both with and without project scenarios. An improvement has been identified for this location. With implementation of the improvement, the ramp would operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). See Chapter 9; Table 9-1 for impacted ramp location and other details. 2013 Opening Year Conditions: Intersections: Findings are very similar to the 2011 Baseline condition. Two (2) intersections were found to be impacted as a result of Comparisons 1 and 2 under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Comparison 3 indicates six (6) intersections are significantly impacted, all of which are located in the City of Anaheim. Improvements have been identified for all six locations and implementation of the mitigation strategies would bring traffic conditions to less than significant conditions. See Chapter 9; Table 9-2 for impacted intersection locations and other details. Arterial Segments: No project related impacts on any study area arterial segments were identified under any of the Comparisons under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Freeway Facility: Findings are very similar to the 2011 Baseline condition. No project related freeway impacts were identified within the project study area under Comparisons 1 or 2 under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Under Comparison 3 one freeway ramp at southbound SR-57 and Katella is projected to be deficient in both with and without project scenarios. Improvement mitigation has been identified for this location; although, it already would be deficient under No Event scenario. With the implementation of the mitigation improvement, the ramp would operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). See Chapter 9; Table 9-3 for impacted ramp location and other details. 2030 Future Year Conditions: Intersections: The results of Comparison 1 show twenty three (23) study area intersections are projected to be impacted under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Three of the intersections are located in the City of Orange; the other twenty (20) are located in the City of Anaheim. The results of Comparison 2 show twenty (20) study area intersections are projected to be impacted. Three of the intersections are located in the City of Orange; the other sixteen (17) are located in the City of Anaheim. The results of Comparison 3 show twenty four (24) study area intersections are projected to be impacted. Five of the intersections are located in the City of Orange; the other nineteen (19) are located in the City of Anaheim. Improvement mitigations have been identified for each project impact and implementation of the improvements would bring traffic conditions to less than significant conditions. See Chapter 9; Table 9-3 for impacted intersection locations and other details. Arterial Segments: The results of Comparison 1 show seven (7) study area arterial segments will experience significant impact as a result of the project under 2030 Future Year conditions. Three of the arterial segments are located in the City of Orange; the other four (4) are located in Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 6 the City of Anaheim. The same seven (7) locations that are forecast to be significantly impact by the project under the Comparison 1 will continue occur under Comparison 2. The result of Comparison 3 show eleven (11) arterial segments will be significantly impacted by the project under 2030 Future Year conditions. Three of the arterial segments are located in the City of Orange; the other eight (8) are located in the City of Anaheim. Improvement strategies have been identified for each impacted arterial. With implementation of the identified improvements the traffic impacts would be mitigated to less than significant conditions. See Chapter 9; Table 9-3 for impacted arterial segments and other details. Freeway Facility: The results of Comparison 1 show there are five (5) freeway weaving segments with project related impacts, one of which experiences LOS deterioration from an acceptable to unacceptable LOS, the other four (4) are already deficient under the No Event conditions. In addition, the project creates impacts at four (4) ramps; two of which shows deterioration in LOS from acceptable to unacceptable LOS; the other two (2) are already deficient under the No Event conditions. The results of Comparison 2 show there are nine (9) locations (five freeway weaving segments and four ramps) with project related impacts. All of these freeway segments and ramps are already deficient under the No Events conditions. The results of Comparison 3 show that 10 locations (five freeway segments and five ramps) will experience significant impact as a result of the project. These locations already operate deficiently under the No Events conditions. Improvement mitigations have been identified for each impacted location. With implementation of the improvements the traffic impacts would be mitigated to without project conditions or less than significant conditions. See Chapter 9; Table 9-3 for impacted freeway facilities and other details. Concurrent Event Considerations Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Traffic Management as Mitigation Honda Center event related traffic has been a common occurrence in the study area for the past eighteen years. As such local businesses, residents and regular area commuters are familiar with the event related traffic activity. To mitigate event related traffic the City has elected to employ active traffic management personnel, cones and signage to effectively manage arriving and departing event related traffic. This alternative traffic mitigation strategy has proved to be an effective tool for current events. Given the Honda Center is a special traffic generator that creates traffic outside of the normal peak hour conditions, given these traffic conditions already commonly occur, and given many of the physical mitigation improvements identified for the Honda Center Enhancement Project may be Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 7 practically infeasible due to right-of-way and other physical constrains, the continued use of active traffic management is recommended as mitigation for the Project. ES.4 PARKING ANALYSIS The primary scenario analyzed for parking demand is a sold-out Honda Center event with 18,900 attendees. Utilizing the trip generation estimates for a sold-out Honda Center Event, 6,877 parking spaces are estimated to be required. An inventory of parking spaces available shows 6,939 spaces are available. Comparing the demand of 6,877 spaces to the parking supply of 6,939 spaces, there is a surplus of 62 spaces. It is noted that as all of the inventoried parking spaces are assumed to be available for Honda Center for all events, the increased number of annual events at Honda Center will not required any additional parking. In addition, it is noted that many other entrepreneurial parking opportunities are available in the vicinity of Honda Center by private businesses during events. These entrepreneurial parking spaces were not formally inventoried as part of this study given the spaces inventoried that are under control by the City and/or AAM alone exceed the estimated demand. It can be concluded, factoring in entrepreneurial parking, there is an extensive surplus of parking available for Honda Center. The full parking analysis discussion is presented in Chapter 8. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Located at the northeast corner of Douglass Road and Katella Avenue and adjacent to the State Route (SR)-57 Freeway, Honda Center is recognized as one of the premier entertainment and sporting venues in the country. Opened in 1993, it is owned by the City of Anaheim and managed by Anaheim Arena Management, LLC. The venue has a maximum seating capacity of 18,900 seats and serves as home to the National Hockey League (NHL) Anaheim Ducks, regular concerts, and a variety of other special events. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 299 was prepared for the Anaheim Arena in November 1989 and certified by the City of Anaheim in December 1989. The EIR assumed a total of 162 annual events and mitigated traffic impacts to the extent feasible. Transportation systems management elements were identified and incorporated as part of the traffic mitigation program for that project. Specifically, the following were strategies were recommended to reduce potential traffic congestion and air pollution impacts: · A discount carpool program for on-site parking facilities; · Transit service program to provide event service to the facility from different routes and areas and from park-and-ride lots; · An enforcement/traffic control program with the participation of the police department to direct, enforce, and re-route traffic before and after events; · Installation of overhead changeable message signage for directing entry traffic to available parking areas; · A program of group sales to encourage the use of charter buses to arena events to reduce the number of private auto trips; and · A marketing program to promote the above programs. Since Honda Center’s opening in 1993, use of traffic management plans to actively manage arrival and departure of event related traffic through operational and traffic control strategies has proved to be an effective tool. The traffic management plans are refined as necessary in the field to ensure efficient management of both pre- and post-event traffic operations. The proposed project includes an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center. The additional events would accommodate the addition of a second professional sports franchise as a long-term tenant without a reduction in the number of various events that presently occur. Through an evaluation of multiple year event/attendance records, Honda Center currently averages 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of 11,264 people. The maximum number of events in any one year, during the past five years, was 162 events in 2008. The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events approved under the 1989 EIR #299 by 60 for a new Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 9 maximum of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average three events per week at Honda Center, and the proposed project would result in four events per week on average. The Honda Center has a maximum seating capacity of 18,900. The proposed project does not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity. 1.2 TRAFFIC STUDY OBJECTIVE Honda Center related event traffic has occurred in the area for the past 18 years and local businesses and area commuters are familiar with such traffic activity; however an increase in the number of annual events hosted at the venue might result in additional traffic impacts to the adjacent transportation circulation system. Therefore, the objectives of this traffic study are to 1) document the traffic conditions within the study area; and 2) to evaluate the potential project impacts associated with increasing the number of annual events from 162 to 222. This traffic impact study has been conducted in accordance with the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated 1996, City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines dated August 15, 2007, Caltrans Guide For The Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated December 2002, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While Honda Center events could occur any day of the week, most events occur on weekday evenings, generally from 7:00-10:00 PM, which is outside the normal peak PM period of the adjacent arterials and daily commuting. Research studies indicate traffic associated with events on the weekends tend to spread over a longer periods of the day than weekday events, which results in less intense peaking conditions. This coupled with generally non-existent daily commuters in the area provides sound basis that weekend traffic analysis is not warranted for the project. To capture the worst case scenario and highest volume scenario, the focus of this traffic analysis was on the weekday PM peak hour pre-event traffic conditions. Furthermore, it is noted that sporting venues are considered “special generators”. For this type of land use the normal am and pm peak hour traffic analysis is not necessarily applicable. To properly evaluate traffic for this special generator it was important to establish the typical event peak hour. To accomplish this, traffic counts were collected between 4:00-8:00 PM on an event day. This window coincides with the typical 7:00 PM opening faceoff for an Anaheim Ducks’ game. The traffic counts were collected on April 6, 2011. The counts reveal a peak hour for the pre-event condition was 6:00- 7:00 PM. This weekday PM peak hour of 6:00-7:00 PM was assumed to be typical for events and was therefore relied upon to evaluate project traffic impacts on the local and state highway system. Angel Stadium and Honda Center are the two major sporting venues in the City of Anaheim. While Honda Center is home to the NHL Anaheim Ducks, Angel Stadium is home to the Major League Baseball (MLB) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The regular baseball season typically extends from early April to late September. Should the team qualify for the post season, play-off games may extend through October. Typical NHL and National Basketball Association (NBA) seasons extend between late October and mid April, with playoffs extending into June. There is very limited overlap between baseball and basketball/hockey events. The primary concern for overlap events would be for a major concert to occur at Honda Center concurrently with an Angel game. Given the geographical location of the two venues, it is possible that dual event traffic conditions might result in additional significant impacts on the circulation system beyond the possible impacts one event could create. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 10 In order to accomplish the project objectives, five (5) traffic condition scenarios were evaluated for three separate analysis timeframes (i.e. existing year 2011, opening year 2013, and 2030 Future conditions). Each traffic condition scenario, described in detail below, was developed in a collaborative effort with City staff and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. To measure project impacts and identify mitigation, if warranted, the five traffic condition scenarios were compared to each other in each timeframe. This comparative impact analysis is discussed fully in Chapter 6. Base Year or Baseline Scenarios (Without Project): 1) With No Events: This baseline scenario analyzes only background traffic conditions. For the 2011 Baseline conditions, the analysis was based on traffic counts collected during non-event day (April 7th, 2011). For 2013 Opening Year conditions, traffic volume was derived by applying 0.5% growth per year to the existing without event traffic volumes. For 2030 Future Year conditions, traffic volumes were taken from the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Final Traffic Study (October 2010) with the addition of a commercial land use proposal recently submitted by the Orange County Water District, north of Honda Center. 2) With Average Attendance Honda Center (HC) Event: This baseline scenario analyzes background traffic conditions for an average attendance event at Honda Center (i.e. with the addition of Honda Center event project-related trips on top of background traffic volumes based upon an average attendance event). This scenario represents the typical average usage of the facility using an average attendance figure of 11,264. This attendance figure was provided by AAM and was calculated from attendance statistics over the past five years. 3) With Average Attendance Honda Center (HC) Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium (AS) Event: This baseline scenario analyzes background cumulative traffic conditions on the circulation system when simultaneous events occur at both Honda Center and Angel Stadium. This scenario uses the 11,264 average attendees per event figure provided by AAM, along with a typical event at Angel Stadium. For Angel Stadium events an average of 29,402 attendees per event was used, which figure is based on Angel Stadium statistics collected over the past year. With Project Scenarios: 1) With Project: This scenario analyzes traffic conditions for the additional 60 annual events for Honda Center. It assumes each new event is attended at sold out conditions (i.e., maximum utilization of 18,900 seats). This scenario represents highest usage at the venue which is a highly conservative approach. 2) With Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium (AS) Event: This second With Project scenario analyzes cumulative traffic conditions on the circulation system when simultaneous events occur at both Honda Center and Angel Stadium. This scenario uses the maximum utilization 18,900 attendees per event figure, along with a typical event at Angel Stadium. For Angel Stadium events an average of 29,402 attendees per event was used, which figure is based on Angel Stadium statistics collected over the past year. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 11 1.3 STUDY AREA The project study area for the traffic study was defined using procedures outlined in the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated 1996, the City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines dated August 15, 2007, and Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated December 2002. The City guidelines state if a proposed Project adds 51 or more peak hour trips to any monitored Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections or 100 or more peak hour trips to non-CMP intersection then that intersection needs to be studied. For arterials, if a proposed project adds 1,600 trips or more to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on a CMP roadway, or 2,400 trips or more on a non-CMP roadway, the arterial segment needs to be studied. Using these criteria, a study area boundary was drawn around a total of 44 study intersections and 16 study arterial segments. Figures 1-1 and Figures 1-2 depict the vicinity around Honda Center within the regional transportation context, and the defined study area, respectively. ?l !"^$ ?ê ?k A»A» VILLA PARK SANTA ANA ORANGE ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE PLACENTIA TUSTIN µFigure 1-1: Regional Context V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Figure 1-1-RegionalMap-051811.mxd HONDA CENTER FULLERTON ^ Katella AveState College BlvdBall Rd Main StOrangewood Ave Sunkist StLegend Roadway 0 10.5 Miles Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!!!!! ! ?l !"^$ ?ê ?k A»A» VILLA PARK SANTA ANA ORANGE ANAHEIM GARDEN GROVE PLACENTIA TUSTIN µFigure 1-2: Study Area Boundary V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Figure 1-1-RegionalMap-051811.mxd HONDA CENTER FULLERTON ^ Katella AveState College BlvdBall Rd Main StOrangewood Ave Sunkist StLegend Roadway 0 0.5 1 Miles Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area Study Area Boundary !Study Intersection Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 14 1.4 TRANSPORTATION SETTING Freeways and Arterials Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 57 (SR-57) are the primary north-south freeway accesses to the City of Anaheim. State Route 91 (SR-91) and State Route 22 (SR-22) serves traffic flows from the east and the west. The major arterials that serve local east-west traffic in the study area include Lincoln Avenue, Ball Road, Katella Avenue, and Orangewood Avenue. The primary north-south arterials in the study area are Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim Boulevard, State College Boulevard, Sunkist Street, and Main Street. Honda Center is located on the north side of Katella Avenue east of the SR-57 freeway. Direct access from the SR-57 freeway is provided at Katella Avenue and at Ball Road. Rail The City of Anaheim and the study area are currently served by rail transit at the Anaheim Stadium station. Located on the north side of the Angel Stadium parking lot, across from Honda Center the station serves both Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner from San Luis Obispo to San Diego and Metrolink’s Orange County Line from Los Angeles to Oceanside. There are 22 Amtrak and 33 Metrolink trains per day serving the Anaheim Station. Metrolink has recently added 4 more trains per day during Special event days at Angel Stadium. Plans are also underway by the City and OCTA to build the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) as a gateway transportation hub, south of Honda Center off of Douglass Road. ARTIC is envisioned to serve expanded shuttle, bus, commuter, and high-speed rail services. Local Bus In addition to Metrolink and Amtrak services, public transportation services operated by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) are also available to patrons wishing to use public transit to attend events at Honda Center. Honda Center is currently served by OCTA bus route # 50 on Katella Avenue. Route #50 extends from the City of Orange, east of Honda Center, to the City of Long Beach, approximately 12 miles west of Honda Center. There are bus stops conveniently located along Katella Avenue in each of the six cities served by this route as well as stops immediately adjacent to the Honda Center. Bicycle Trails The City of Anaheim currently has three classifications of bikeways, Class I, Class II, and Class III. Class I Bikeways provide for bicycle travel on right-of-way completely separated from the street. Class II Bikeways provide striped and signed lanes within the street right-of-way. Class III Bikeways are commonly signed only bike routes. Adjacent to Honda Center is the Santa Ana River Trail, which is classified as a Class I Bikeway and connects with Orange County’s riding and hiking trails, providing a continuous path between Huntington Beach and Riverside County. Moreover, the Fourth Supervisorial District Bikeways Collaborative was initiated to identify, prioritize and implement regional bikeway improvements within this area of Orange County. The Collaborative includes OCTA, the County of Orange, Caltrans and the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, and Placentia. Over a nine month period, the Collaborative will Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 15 work together to identify opportunities and constraints associated with bicycle facilities in the Fourth District. Among the bikeway corridors proposed is a Class II bike lane along Douglass Road north of Katella Avenue and Katella Avenue east of Douglass Road. These proposed bike lanes are also shown on the City of Anaheim’s General Plan, Circulation Element, Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Map. Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access to and from Honda Center is generally gained from Katella Avenue. Sidewalks are available on both side of Katella Avenue and extend uninterrupted into the City of Orange to the east and to parts of the City of Anaheim west of SR-57. Sidewalks are also available along Douglass Road. Pedestrian access to the Honda Center may also be gained using the Santa Ana River Trail which runs directly adjacent to Honda Center, however, pedestrians must exit the trail at Katella and transition onto the Katella Avenue sidewalk. 1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION · Chapter 1: Introduction · Chapter 2: Analysis Methodology · Chapter 3: Existing Conditions · Chapter 4: Year 2013 Opening Conditions · Chapter 5: Year 2030 Future Conditions · Chapter 6: Project Impacts · Chapter 7: Proposed Mitigation And Mitigation Strategies · Chapter 8: Parking Analysis · Chapter 9: Conclusion · Chapter 10: References · Chapter 11: Glossary of Transportation Terms Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 16 2.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 2.1 FORECAST VOLUME DEVELOPMENT In order to analyze and compare the performance of intersections and arterial roadway segments within the study area under event and non-event conditions, intersection turning movements and daily roadway traffic counts were collected on two separate days: April 6 and 7, 2011. Traffic count volumes taken on April 6, 2011 represent traffic conditions on a day in which the Anaheim Ducks hosted a regular season hockey game at Honda Center. Traffic counts taken on April 7, 2011 represent traffic conditions on a day in which no event was hosted at Honda Center. Intersection turning movement counts were collected between 4:00 PM and 8:00 PM to cover the broad arrival time for Honda Center employees, teams/performers and their staff, and event spectators. The 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM window coincides with the typical 7:00 PM opening faceoff for an Anaheim Ducks’ game at Honda Center. As most events at Honda Center occur in the evening, the focus of this traffic analysis is the PM peak period. The difference in traffic count volumes taken under event and non- event conditions is deemed to represent trips generated by an event at Honda Center. The estimated trip generation for this event serves as a basis in estimating trips generated by an Average Attendance Honda Center Event and the Project (a sellout Honda Center event). The existing traffic counts are included in Appendix A. It is noted that the actual attendance figure of the Anaheim Ducks game on April 6, 2011 was confirmed as 14,021 attendees. The combined number of Honda Center employees and team participants was assumed to be 1,200. Given the actual game attendance figure was higher than the assumed 11,264 Average Attendance Honda Center Event, and lower than the 18,900 attendee potential sell out condition assumed for each new Project event, a trip generation adjustment (or “growth”) factor was determined. The factor is the quotient resulting from division of the assumed attendance figure by the actual attendance figure (i.e. 14,021) on the event day traffic counts of April 6th. The maximum seating capacity of 18,900 was used as the numerator to determine the Project trip growth factor of 1.35 (see details below). The 1.35 growth factor was applied to the trips generated by the Anaheim Ducks hockey game on April 6, 2011 to calculate estimated event trips that would be generated by each of the proposed 60 new maximum capacity events at Honda Center (i.e. the Project): Attendance at Honda Center on April 6, 2011: 14,021 Maximum seating capacity at Honda Center: 18,900 Growth Factor = 18,900/14,021 = 1.35 The average attendance figure of 11,264 was used as the numerator to determine the Average Attendance Honda Center Event trip growth factor of 0.8 (see details below). The 0.8 growth factor was applied to the trips generated by the Anaheim Ducks hockey game on the traffic count date (April 6, 2011) to calculate estimated event trips that would be generated by an Average Attendance Honda Center Event. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 17 Attendance at Honda Center on April 6, 2011: 14,021 Average attendance at Honda Center: 11,264 Growth Factor = 11,264/14,021 = 0.8 The Honda Center event trips at each of the study intersections, for each traffic scenario, are present in Appendix D. In addition to the analysis of traffic impacts associated with an Average Attendance Honda Center Event and the Project, the traffic study also analyzed and evaluated cumulative traffic conditions for days when events occur at both Honda Center and Angel Stadium. In order to capture traffic conditions associated with these scenarios, study area intersection turning movement counts and daily roadway volumes were collected by the City of Anaheim for both event and non-event conditions at Angel Stadium. The traffic counts were collected on August 24 and 25, 2011, in similar fashion as was done on April 6 and 7, 2011 for an Anaheim Ducks hockey game. Traffic count volumes taken August 24, 2011 represent traffic patterns on a day in which Angels Baseball hosted a regular season game at Angel Stadium. Traffic counts taken on August 25, 2011 represent traffic patterns on a day in which no event was hosted at Angel Stadium. These traffic counts are included in Appendix B. The difference in traffic count volumes taken under event and non-event conditions is deemed to represent trips generated by the Angels Baseball game. In order to present a conservative evaluation of traffic conditions related to an Angel Stadium Event, it was determined that the representative Angel Stadium Event would be a baseball game with average attendance of 29,402. The 29,402 figure was provided by the City of Anaheim and is based on Angel Stadium attendance statistics collected over the past year. The actual attendance at the Angels Baseball game on August 24, 2011, when the traffic counts were collected was 25,642. To calibrate for the lower attendance than the average figure, an adjustment/growth factor of 1.15 was calculated using the same methodology as describe above for Honda Center events. The 1.15 growth factor was applied to the trips generated by the Angels Baseball game to calculate estimated event trips that would be generated by an average attendance event at Angel Stadium (i.e., the “Angel Stadium Event”). Attendance at Angel Stadium on August 24th, 2011: 25,642 Average attendance at an Angels Baseball game: 29,402 Growth Factor = 29,402/25,642 = 1.15 The Angel Stadium event trips at each of the study intersections are presented in Appendix E. In addition to the peak hour intersection and arterial analysis, freeway mainline segments and ramp analysis was performed for this project. Peak hour traffic data (6:00–7:00 PM) on April 7th, 2011 including volumes and congested speeds were collected for the freeway mainline and ramp from the Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) to represent the 2011 Baseline (No Events) conditions. The event trips on the freeway facility were derived from the August 24, 2011 event trips at corresponding ramp termini intersections and the Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) select link analysis. The freeway mainline and ramp volume adjustments and development for each scenario under 2013 Opening Year and 2030 Future Year are consistent with the procedures used for intersection and arterial segment volumes. The existing traffic volumes and congested speeds for the freeway mainline and ramps are included in Appendix C for Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 18 For 2011 Baseline peak hour and daily analysis, Honda Center event trips at average and maximum seating capacity were added to the non-Honda Center Event traffic count volumes from April 7, 2011 to derive 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event , and 2011 Baseline with Project traffic volumes, respectively. Similarly, the average Angel Stadium event trips were added to the previous two scenarios to derive 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Angel Stadium Event, and 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Events traffic volumes, respectively. For 2013 opening year analysis, a 0.5% annual growth factor, provided by City of Anaheim staff, was applied to 2011 With No Events traffic volumes to project 2013 with No Events traffic volumes (2013 baseline). Honda Center event trips at average and maximum seating capacity were added to the 2013 baseline to derive 2013 baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event, and 2013 baseline with Project traffic volumes, respectively. Similarly, the average Angel Stadium Event trips were added to the previous two scenarios to derive 2013 baseline Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event; and, 2013 baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event traffic volumes, respectively. For 2030 future analysis, future baseline (With No Events) traffic volumes were taken from the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study (October 2010), and modified to include the addition of traffic volumes generated by a commercial development project on Orange County Water District (OCWD) property, located on Ball Road and Phoenix Club Drive. Estimated average attendance Honda Center Event trips, Project trips, and average Angel Stadium Event trips were added to the 2030 baseline (With No Events) model volumes to derive other four 2030 analysis scenarios. As a conservative approach, event related traffic activity was assumed to remain consistent with the existing condition scenario. It is noted that build out of The Platinum Triangle and implementation of the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and its associated transit enhancements and opportunities, are adjacent and within convenient walking distance from Honda Center. This proximity could contribute to reduced vehicle trip generation for Honda Center Event in the future as the services at ARTIC develop. To present a conservative estimate of future traffic conditions, no vehicle trip reduction associated with shifts to alternative modes of transportation was assumed as part of the future traffic analysis. 2.2 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS The Anaheim Transportation Analysis Model (ATAM) was used to generate future forecast volumes for the Enhanced Honda Center Project Traffic Study. The model has been applied for various traffic studies throughout the Platinum Triangle and the ATAM future forecast volumes for the Platinum Triangle Expansion Traffic Study serve as the basis for future baseline non-Honda Center events, consistent with Anaheim City Council Action to approve the Expansion Environmental Impact Report. In addition, the commercial land use proposal on Orange County Water District (OCWD) property located southeast of Ball Road and Phoenix Club Drive was incorporated into the future baseline condition, as requested by OCWD. The base highway network used in this analysis remains consistent with networks assumed in other recent traffic studies previously carried out for the City of Anaheim within the Platinum Triangle. The existing and future year local circulation system was refined to provide further detail within the Platinum Triangle to accurately forecast travel activity. In addition, traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were refined and added to more accurately reflect traffic patterns and access of future development throughout the study area. Zonal connectors were reviewed Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 19 and updated as appropriate to reflect appropriate development access to the surrounding circulation system. The baseline 2030 network is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan circulation network, and assumes all of the proposed capacity enhancements in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project EIR, which was certified by the Anaheim City Council in October 2010, are in place. To account for planned projects throughout the study area the following circulation system assumptions were incorporated into the network to account for build out of the study area: · Provision of a connection between Dupont Drive and Rampart Street parallel to Orangewood Avenue to provide additional access throughout the study area; · Access provision from the Stadium District to State College Boulevard/Gene Autry Way, Orangewood Avenue, and Douglass Road; · SR-57 direct connection with ARTIC; and · SR-57 HOV drop ramps at Cerritos Avenue. 2.3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Project trip generation represents the amount of vehicle trips generated by the new events. The primary Project event scenario is the maximum capacity sold out event of 18,900 seats. In addition to event spectators, a combined total of 1,200 additional Honda Center employees and team members are assumed in the trip generation. For conservative estimating, a “no show” factor was not considered; meaning the venue is assumed to be fully filled. The daily vehicle trips (including inbound and outbound trips) made by the venue staff, team members, and spectators were estimated based on the average vehicle occupancy (AVO) rate provided by AAM staff. An AVO rate of 1.2 persons/vehicle is used for staff and team members, and an AVO rate of 3.0 persons/vehicle is used for spectators. The higher AVO rate for spectators recognizes the higher propensity for ridesharing/carpooling by spectators. The AVO rates used are consistent with other comparable relevant traffic studies and are within the AVO range of 2.5- 3.5 for patrons noted in a 1994 informational report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Arenas. For purposes of this study, 95% of employees and patrons are assumed to arrive via auto, and 5% are expected to arrive via alternate modes including, but not limited to, Amtrak/Metrolink transit and OCTA buses. Table 2-1 summarizes the trip generation result for a sold out event at Honda Center. Table 2-1: Project Trip Generation Type No. of Participants No. of Participants arrive by auto * Vehicle Occupancy Rate Daily Trip Rate Daily Vehicle Trips Employees 1,000 950 1.2 2 1,583 Team Members 200 200 1.2 2 333 Spectators 18,900 17,755 3.0 2 11,837 Total 13,753 * Persons arriving by Transit and Charter Bus have been deducted 2.4 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Traffic counts collected on April 6, 2011 were used to determine the trip distribution for the Project. The key access routes to/from Honda Center include Katella Avenue east of the Santa Ana River; Katella Avenue west of SR-57; and SR-57 exit ramps at Ball Road. From Ball Road access to and Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 20 from Honda Center is available from Phoenix Club Drive, Sunkist Street, Cerritos Avenue, and Douglass Road. The findings reveal that approximately 49% of trips would arrive at the venue via Katella Avenue, 28% of trips via Phoenix Club Drive, and 23% of trips via Cerritos Avenue. The trip distribution is shown on Figure 2-1. Since sporting venues are a “special generator”, the normal am/pm peak hour analysis is not necessarily applicable. In order to determine the event peak hour for Honda Center, daily traffic profiles showing 24 hour traffic activities associated with an Anaheim Ducks hockey game on April 6, 2011 were prepared for five study arterial segments immediately adjacent to Honda Center. These are shown on Figure 2-2 through Figure 2-6. These profiles indicate that the patrons started coming to the game as early as three to four hours prior the opening faceoff time at 7:00 PM. The profiles also indicate that the highest peak hour for pre-game arriving traffic is from 6:00 PM -7:00 PM. If the standard weekday commute peak periods (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM) were analyzed for Honda Center, the venue would not generate enough traffic to show the full impact of an event. For purposes of this traffic study, this event peak hour is assumed to represent the typical event peak hour at Honda Center. HONDA CENTER µ0 0.5 1 Miles Figure 2-1: Project Trip Distribution KATELLA AVE ?l BALL RD DOUGLASS RDCERRITOS AVE SUNKIST STPHOENIX CLUD DR Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 22 Figure 2-2: Daily Traffic Flow Profile – Douglas Road (North of Katella) Figure 2-3: Daily Traffic Flow Profile – Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 23 Figure 2-4: Daily Traffic Flow Profile – Katella Avenue (SR-57 Northbound Ramps – Douglass Road) Figure 2-5: Daily Traffic Flow Profile – Katella Avenue (Douglass Road – Struck Avenue) Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 24 Figure 2-6: Daily Traffic Flow Profile – Cerritos Avenue (East of Sunkist Avenue) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Volume (Veh/Hr)Hour Daily Traffic Flow - Cerritos Avenue (East of Sunkist Avenue ) No Event With Anaheim Ducks Hockey Game Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 25 2.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS To evaluate traffic conditions and potential circulation system impacts within the vicinity of Honda Center associated with the proposed project various elements were evaluated. This evaluation included peak hour signalized intersection capacity utilization (ICU), arterial segment daily analysis, arterial segment peak hour analysis, and freeway mainline and ramp analysis. As noted in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, this traffic study is an evaluation of project related impacts with a principal focus on pre- event traffic conditions. This is a prudent conservative approach to capture the presumed worst case conditions. Intersection Analysis The City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies requires a volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.00, or LOS E as the lowest acceptable level of service at designated CMP intersections, and 0.90, or LOS D, as the lowest acceptable level of service for all other intersections. The City requires all study area intersections LOS be evaluated using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology. This methodology compares forecast peak hour traffic volumes by direction and critical moves to available intersection capacity based on actual configuration. A minimum clearance interval of 0.05, and lane capacities of 1,700 vehicles per hour of green time for through and turn lanes was used for the ICU calculations. For intersection analysis, the City of Orange Traffic Impact Guidelines is consistent with the City of Anaheim guidelines; therefore, the same analyses and standards were applied for intersections in both jurisdictions. Table 2-2 presents the ICU level of service thresholds utilized in this traffic study. Table 2-2: Intersection Level of Service Thresholds LOS ICU A < 0.60 B 0.61 – 0.70 C 0.71 – 0.80 D 0.81 – 0.90 E 0.91 – 1.00 F > 1.00 Source: City of Anaheim, City of Orange Furthermore, within the City of Anaheim, an intersection impact is considered significant if the Project resulting V/C compared to the No Project V/C shows the project related increases meet criteria outlined in Table 2-3. For purposes of this calculation, the “Final V/C Ratio” includes the future v/c ratio at an intersection, considering traffic from existing conditions, ambient growth, approved/related projects, and the proposed project, but without any proposed mitigation. Mitigation measures sufficient to bring the level of service to a less than significant level are identified later in the report. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 26 Table 2-3: Significant Impact Criteria LOS Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C C >0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.050 D >0.800 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.030 E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.010 Source: City of Anaheim For the City of Orange intersections, a significant impact is deemed to occur if the Project results in deterioration of the level of service to LOS E or LOS F, or results in an increase in ICU value of 0.01 or greater at intersections already operating at LOS E or F under the No Project condition. Mitigation that would reduce Project impacts to less than significant levels are identified later in Chapter 7 of the report. Arterial Segment V/C Analysis The arterial roadway analysis criteria for the City of Anaheim involve the use of an average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) evaluation. The City of Anaheim has established a LOS C (i.e. V/C not to exceed 0.80) or better as the adopted performance standard for the study area circulation system. The City of Orange has adopted LOS D (i.e. V/C not to exceed 0.90) or better as the performance standard for arterials within the City of Orange portions of the study area. The City of Orange applies a V/C analysis for daily traffic conditions similar to Anaheim although assumed capacities for Orange arterials differ slightly from those used by the City of Anaheim. See Table 2-4. To identify deficient arterial segments the City of Anaheim employs a two step analysis approach. The arterial segment daily V/C analysis provides an initial general assessment of overall system performance. Where this assessment shows potential impacts the system performance is further measured on its ability to serve peak hour traffic demands. Arterial segments that are identified as deficient under daily V/C conditions are evaluated under peak hour conditions to evaluate the capability of serving forecast peak hour throughput. Arterial segments that operate deficiently under both daily and peak hour conditions become candidates for mitigation. It is noted that the City of Orange traffic analysis guidelines do not include provisions for peak hour segment analysis, and rely on daily V/C analysis as the basis for improvement requirements. The City of Anaheim applies the Urban Streets analysis identified in Chapter 15 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to determine level of service under peak hour traffic conditions. The peak hour capacity is determined by using Equation 15-7 of the HCM, which calls for multiplying the mid- block number of lanes for each direction by a lane capacity of 1,900 vehicles per hour, and then multiplied by the percentage of green time at the controlling signalized intersection for that arterial segment. For this Honda Center traffic analysis the percentage of green time along the arterial was applied consistent with typical peak hour green time ratios applied in the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study. If the V/C ratio of the arterial segment under peak hour conditions is LOS E or F, improvements were considered to improve the segment to an acceptable LOS. LOS analysis of forecast daily traffic volumes was applied for the arterial segments throughout the Platinum Triangle and adjacent facilities. The segment analysis assumes roadway capacities adopted in each jurisdiction’s current General Plans, which are noted in Table 2-4. The capacities in Table 2- 4 reflect LOS E capacities and are consistent with those that are applied in daily V/C analysis Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 27 consistent with methodologies adopted for each jurisdiction. It is noted here that the City of Orange takes advantage of a capacity enhancement allowed for Smart Streets designated by the Orange County Transportation Authority. Specifically, for Katella Avenue, the City of Orange increases the assumed daily capacity by five percent to account for Smart Street related improvements that can enhance throughput along this corridor. The City of Anaheim does not currently account for capacity enhancements to Smart Streets. For City of Anaheim segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily level of service to LOS D or worse and coupled with a continued deficiency under peak hour conditions. A significant impact is also determined by an increase in the daily V/C value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions and the segment is found to be deficient under peak hour conditions. For City of Orange segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS or causes an increase in the daily V/C value of 0.01 if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions. Table 2-4: Arterial Segment Daily Capacity Assumptions Facility Type Anaheim Orange 8-lane Divided 75,000 75,000 6-lane Divided 56,300 56,300 4-lane Divided 37,500 37,500 4-lane Undivided 25,000 24,000 2-lane Undivided 12,500 12,000 Source: City of Orange, City of Anaheim Caltrans Intersection Analysis Freeway ramp termini intersections were also analyzed using Synchro (version 7.0) through the application of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology, per Caltrans requirements consistent with the analysis presented in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study. Lane configurations and various other parameters such as signal timing were based on current operating characteristics. Table 2-5 presents Caltrans intersection delay and LOS standards. Table 2-5: Caltrans Intersection LOS Criteria LOS Intersection Delay (in Seconds) A ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 35.0 D > 35.0 and ≤ 55.0 E > 55.0 and ≤ 80.0 F ≥ 80.0 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 28 Caltrans Freeway and Ramp Analysis The freeway mainline and freeway ramp evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. The facility capacities are based on criteria outlined in the HCM and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Existing mainline count data was provided by Caltrans. Ramp merge and diverge analysis was carried out using Highway Capacity Software (HCS), which is an electronic version of the HCM for freeway-to-arterial interchanges. With the HCM methodology, the ramp merge and diverge areas focus on an influence area of 1,500 feet including the acceleration and deceleration lanes and adjacent freeway lanes. The methodology employs three fundamental steps: 1. Determination of the traffic volumes entering the freeway lanes upstream of the merge or at the beginning of the deceleration lane at diverge; 2. Determination of the capacity for the segment; and 3. Determination of the density of traffic flow within the ramp influence area and its level of service The level of service (LOS) for freeway ramps is determined by calculating traffic density using criteria outlined in the HCM. Freeway mainline levels of service are similarly determined from segment density. Table 2.6 presents the correlation between LOS and density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) for both freeway ramps and basic freeway segments. LOS D (density factor that does not exceed 35.0 pc/mi/ln for mainline segments and 35.0 pc/mi/ln for freeway ramps) has been established by Caltrans District 12 as the operating standard for freeway mainline segments and freeway ramps. Caltrans has determined that freeway segments and ramps that operate below LOS D should be identified and improved to an acceptable LOS. Table 2-6: Caltrans Freeway Mainline and Ramp LOS Criteria LOS Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Density (pc/mi/ln) Basic Freeway Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 0-11.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 11.0 – 18.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 18.0 – 26.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 26.0 – 35.0 E > 35.0 35.0 – 45.0 F Exceeds Capacity >45.0 Source: HCM 2000, Exhibit 25-4, Exhibit 23-2 Caltrans Freeway Weaving Analysis Freeway weaving is defined as the crossing of two streams of traffic traveling in the same direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. Weaving analysis was performed using HCM methodology which provides density criteria by LOS for the weaving area within the freeway segment. In the study area, freeway mainline segments were analyzed as freeway weaving segments first. Freeway weaving segments longer than 2,500 feet were analyzed as the basic freeway segments using the HCM. Table 2-7 specifies the LOS for associated freeway weaving densities. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 29 Table 2-7: Caltrans Freeway Weaving LOS Criteria LOS Freeway Weaving Segment Density (pc/mi/ln) Multilane and Collector-Distributor Weaving Segments Density (pc/mi/ln) A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 12.0 B > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 > 12.0 and ≤ 24.0 C > 20.0 and ≤ 28.0 > 24.0 and ≤ 32.0 D > 28.0 and ≤ 35.0 > 32.0 and ≤ 36.0 E >35.0 and ≤ 43.0 >36.0 and ≤ 40.0 F >43.0 >40.0 Source: HCM 2000 Exhibit 24-2 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 30 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 2011 Baseline conditions analysis establishes the framework for future forecast scenarios. The analysis is based on traffic counts collected for intersection, arterial segments, and freeway segments within the study area. Counts were collected under both non-event and event conditions at both Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Non-event day counts for Honda Center were collected April 7, 2011. Event day counts for Honda Center were collected April 6, 2011 for the Anaheim Ducks hockey game. Non-event day counts for Angel Stadium were collected August 24, 2011. Event day counts for Angel Stadium were collected August 25, 2011 for the Angels’ baseball game. The count data are included in Appendix A and Appendix B. The existing conditions analysis reflects the count volumes as well as existing lane configurations for all circulation system elements in the study area. The intersection lane configurations are illustrated in Appendix F. 3.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Table 3-1 presents LOS results for the 44 study intersections for the five 2011 Baseline traffic analysis scenarios during the PM peak hour. Existing lane geometries were assumed in the LOS analyses. The detailed existing ICU worksheets are presented in Appendix G-1. A review of Table 3-1 reveals that all of the study area intersections operate within acceptable LOS under the following four scenarios. 1) 2011 Baseline (No-Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2011 Baseline with Project One intersection location was found to operate at deficient conditions under the fifth scenario, 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event: · Douglass Road/Katella Avenue The LOS service results under all analysis scenarios are also graphically presented in Figure 3-1 through Figure 3- 5. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 31 Table 3-1: 2011 Baseline PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.62 B 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.53 A 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.55 A 0.56 A 0.56 A 0.56 A 0.56 A 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.54 A 0.55 A 0.57 A 0.55 A 0.57 A 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.50 A 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.52 A 0.50 A 0.52 A 0.56 A 0.57 A 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.44 A 0.46 A 0.49 A 0.56 A 0.59 A 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.33 A 0.33 A 0.34 A 0.33 A 0.34 A 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.23 A 0.23 A 0.23 A 0.24 A 0.24 A 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.43 A 0.45 A 0.46 A 0.46 A 0.50 A 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 A 0.07 A 0.08 A 0.10 A 0.11 A 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.54 A 0.55 A 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.27 A 0.28 A 0.30 A 0.38 A 0.40 A 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.38 A 0.48 A 0.56 A 0.72 C 0.79 C 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.25 A 0.28 A 0.30 A 0.39 A 0.39 A 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.23 A 0.25 A 0.27 A 0.75 C 0.77 C 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.32 A 0.34 A 0.35 A 0.50 A 0.52 A 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps * Orange 0.26 A 0.27 A 0.28 A 0.38 A 0.39 A 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps * Orange 0.26 A 0.26 A 0.27 A 0.32 A 0.32 A 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.48 A 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.58 A 0.59 A 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.33 A 0.41 A 0.49 A 0.55 A 0.63 B 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.56 A 0.61 B 0.65 B 0.63 B 0.69 B 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.20 A 0.26 A 0.31 A 0.28 A 0.33 A 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.35 A 0.42 A 0.50 A 0.47 A 0.54 A 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.46 A 0.61 B 0.72 C 0.62 B 0.73 C 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.37 A 0.51 A 0.61 B 0.71 C 0.84 D *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 32 Table 3-1: 2011 Baseline PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS (Continued) 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.43 A 0.52 A 0.59 A 0.52 A 0.59 A 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.28 A 0.46 A 0.64 B 0.60 A 0.78 C 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.27 A 0.53 A 0.76 C 0.89 D 1.06 F 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.34 A 0.43 A 0.62 B 0.49 A 0.67 B 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.24 A 0.32 A 0.39 A 0.40 A 0.47 A 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.43 A 0.43 A 0.42 A 0.43 A 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.32 A 0.40 A 0.46 A 0.46 A 0.52 A 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.27 A 0.33 A 0.38 A 0.36 A 0.42 A 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.39 A 0.41 A 0.42 A 0.41 A 0.42 A 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.35 A 0.39 A 0.42 A 0.44 A 0.47 A 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.45 A 0.47 A 0.49 A 0.47 A 0.49 A 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.45 A 0.49 A 0.52 A 0.52 A 0.55 A 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.39 A 0.41 A 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.44 A 0.46 A 0.47 A 0.49 A 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.62 B 0.62 B 0.65 B 0.64 B 0.63 B 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.80 C 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.77 C 0.78 C 0.79 C 0.80 C 0.81 D * CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY DOUGLASS RDKATELLA AVEEAST STCLEMENTINE STORANGEWOOD AVE SR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE N SANTIAGO BLVDCOLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVESUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 90 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 3-1: 2011 Baseline with No Events Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig3-1-Ext-NP-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY DOUGLASS RDKATELLA AVEEAST STCLEMENTINE STORANGEWOOD AVE SR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE N SANTIAGO BLVDCOLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVESUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 90 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 3-2: 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig3-1-Ext-HC-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY DOUGLASS RDKATELLA AVEEAST STCLEMENTINE STORANGEWOOD AVE SR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE N SANTIAGO BLVDCOLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVESUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 90 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 3-3: 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig3-3-Ext-HC+AS-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY DOUGLASS RDKATELLA AVEEAST STCLEMENTINE STORANGEWOOD AVE SR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE N SANTIAGO BLVDCOLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVESUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 90 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 3-4: 2011 Baseline with Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig3-4-Ext-NewHC-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY DOUGLASS RDKATELLA AVEEAST STCLEMENTINE STORANGEWOOD AVE SR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE N SANTIAGO BLVDCOLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVESUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 90 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 3-5: 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Fig3-5-Ext-NewHC+AS-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 38 3.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENT ANALYSIS Daily Arterial Segment LOS Analysis Table 3-2 presents average daily traffic (ADT) V/C ratios and LOS results for the five 2011 Baseline Condition traffic analysis scenarios for all the study area roadway segments: 1) 2011 Baseline (No Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2011 Baseline with Project 5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The analysis is based on the traffic counts collected in April 2011 and August 2011. As shown in Table 3-2, 15 out of 16 study arterial segments were found to operate within acceptable LOS under the first three traffic analysis scenarios. Although the arterial segment on Katella Avenue between Howell Avenue and SR-57 Southbound Ramps was found to operate at LOS E, it is not considered deficient. Katella Avenue is identified in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) as a CMP arterial. Per CMP guidelines, arterial segments operating at LOS E identified within the CMP are considered operating at an acceptable level of service. One roadway segment was found to operate at deficient conditions under the first three scenarios: · Ball Road - Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps. In addition to the deficient segment above, a second deficient condition was found at Katella Avenue – Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps under the fourth and fifth scenario (2011 Baseline with Project, and 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event). The two deficiencies, all within the City of Anaheim, are shown below: · Ball Road - Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps Peak Hour Arterial Segment LOS Analysis In accordance with City of Anaheim procedures arterial segments found to be deficient under daily arterial LOS analysis are further evaluated under peak hour conditions to evaluate peak hour traffic operations. The peak hour analysis is often a more appropriate indicator of traffic operations as it considers the ability of the adjacent intersection configuration to accommodate throughput. This is a prudent step employed by the City that also helps identify specific improvement requirements, if warranted. A PM peak hour analysis was performed for each of the study segments identified as deficient under the daily arterial LOS analysis. The peak hour analysis was performed for each of the five 2011 Baseline traffic analysis scenarios. As shown in Table 3-3, all study segments were found to operate within acceptable LOS under the peak hour analysis. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 39 Table 3-2: 2011 Baseline Arterial Segment Daily LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Mid-Block Lanes Capacity With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 50,970 0.91 E 52,630 0.93 E 52,630 0.93 E 53,760 0.95 E 53,760 0.95 E A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive Anaheim 6D 56,300 31,660 0.56 A 33,730 0.60 A 33,730 0.60 A 35,140 0.62 B 35,140 0.62 B A - 3 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 4U 25,000 4,270 0.17 A 5,780 0.23 A 5,780 0.23 A 6,800 0.27 A 6,800 0.27 A A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 4U 25,000 7,040 0.28 A 10,120 0.40 A 10,120 0.40 A 12,220 0.49 A 12,220 0.49 A A - 5 Katella Avenue** Lewis Street State College Blvd Anaheim 6D 56,300 33,500 0.60 A 34,120 0.61 B 35,460 0.63 B 34,540 0.61 B 35,880 0.64 B A - 6 Katella Avenue** State College Blvd Howell Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,130 0.61 B 35,310 0.63 B 37,720 0.67 B 36,110 0.64 B 38,520 0.68 B A - 7 Katella Avenue** Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 52,030 0.92 E 55,550 0.99 E 55,550 0.99 E 57,930 1.03 F 57,930 1.03 F A - 8 Katella Avenue** SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,720 0.62 B 38,170 0.68 B 39,540 0.70 B 40,500 0.72 C 41,870 0.74 C A - 9 Katella Avenue** SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,470 0.61 B 39,970 0.71 C 42,910 0.76 C 43,690 0.78 C 46,630 0.83 D A - 10 Katella Avenue** Douglass Road Struck Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 29,480 0.52 A 32,820 0.58 A 33,600 0.60 A 35,090 0.62 B 35,870 0.64 B A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street Orange 6D 56,300 23,170 0.41 A 24,840 0.44 A 24,840 0.44 A 25,970 0.46 A 25,970 0.46 A A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street Orange 6D 56,300 25,630 0.46 A 26,630 0.47 A 26,630 0.47 A 27,310 0.49 A 27,310 0.49 A A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue Orange 4U 24,000 15,000 0.40 A 15,640 0.42 A 17,030 0.45 A 16,080 0.43 A 17,470 0.47 A A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 2U 12,500 3,470 0.28 A 5,220 0.42 A 5,360 0.43 A 6,410 0.51 A 6,550 0.52 A A - 15 State College Blvd Howell Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 21,030 0.37 A 21,590 0.38 A 21,810 0.39 A 21,970 0.39 A 22,190 0.39 A A - 16 Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 4U 25,000 6,790 0.27 A 7,870 0.31 A 7,870 0.31 A 8,600 0.34 A 8,600 0.34 A * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement ** CMP arterial. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP arterial. AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 40 Table 3-3: 2011 Baseline Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Mid-Block Lanes With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 2,824 0.52 A 3,169 0.58 A 3,169 0.58 A 3,402 0.62 B 3,402 0.62 B A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 2,772 0.42 A 3,599 0.54 A 4,495 0.68 B 4,159 0.63 B 5,055 0.76 C * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 41 3.3 CALTRANS FACILITY PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis Freeway ramp termini intersections were also analyzed using Synchro (version 7.0) through the application of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology, per Caltrans requirements consistent with the analysis presented in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study. Table 3-4 presents the Synchro analysis results of peak hour delays and level of service for the 11 ramp termini study area intersections. Detailed Synchro analysis worksheets are included in Appendix H-1. The analysis was conducted under the following five 2011 Baseline scenarios. 1) 2011 Baseline (No Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2011 Baseline with Project 5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event As shown in the Table 3-4 all study area ramp termini intersections were found to operate at acceptable LOS under the first four scenarios. Under the fifth scenario (2011 Baseline with Project and Angel Stadium Event) the ramp termini intersection of SR 57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue was found to operate at a deficient condition. Table 3-4: 2011 Baseline PM Peak Hour Ramp Termini Intersection LOS ID Intersection 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 16.80 B 16.90 B 22.60 C 18.70 B 23.80 C 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 21.80 C 22.80 C 25.20 C 23.20 C 27.80 C 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 6.20 A 5.40 A 4.40 A 5.00 A 4.30 A 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 20.90 C 21.30 C 22.60 C 21.70 C 22.70 C 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 14.90 B 15.30 B 16.50 B 15.30 B 17.10 B 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 16.20 B 26.30 C 26.90 C 35.30 D 35.80 D 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 13.80 B 16.90 B 30.00 C 19.50 B 45.40 D 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 17.60 B 19.00 B 20.40 C 21.90 C 21.90 C 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 11.00 B 20.80 C 32.90 C 53.90 D 79.30 E 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 37.70 D 38.70 D 39.90 D 40.10 D 42.00 D 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 28.90 C 31.00 C 32.60 C 32.20 C 34.00 C Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 42 Freeway Weaving Analysis Weaving analysis was performed using HCM methodology which provides density criteria by LOS for the weaving area within the freeway segment. Table 3-5 summarizes analysis results for the weaving areas during the PM peak hour. Detailed HCM weaving analysis worksheets are included in Appendix J-1. For any freeway weaving segment longer than 2,500 feet, HCM requires the segment to be analyzed as a basic freeway segment. As shown in Table 3-5 all of the study weaving segments were found to operate at LOS D or better under the five 2011 Baseline traffic analysis scenarios. Freeway Mainline Analysis The freeway mainline evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. As noted in Chapter 2, freeway weaving segments with a weaving length exceeding 2,500 feet were analyzed as basic freeway segment using HCS. Table 3-6 summarizes the PM peak hour HCS analysis results for the densities and levels of service for the freeway mainline segments in the study area including those with weaving lengths in excess of 2,500 feet. Detailed HCM mainline analysis worksheets are included in Appendix I-1. Similar to the freeway weaving analysis results, all the study freeway mainline segments were found to operate at an acceptable LOS under the five 2011 Baseline traffic analysis scenarios: Freeway Ramp Analysis The freeway ramp evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. The facility capacities are based on criteria outlined in the HCM and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Table 3-7 summarizes HCM analysis results for the study ramps in the PM peak hours under 2011 Baseline conditions. The HCM reports a density based on the existing freeway mainline segment and ramp merge/diverge volumes. Detailed HCM analysis worksheets are included in Appendix K-1. According to the analysis, all the study ramps were found to operate at an acceptable LOS under the following scenarios: · 2011 Baseline (No Events) · 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event · 2011 Baseline with Project An existing deficiency occurs on the SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue during events at Angels Stadium under the following scenarios: · 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event · 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 43 Table 3-5: 2011 Baseline Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS W - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp 3,060 Not Applicable W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,520 24.4 C 27.1 C 29.1 C 27.2 C 29.2 C W - 3 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp 2,650 Not Applicable W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,230 22.0 B 23.0 B 23.0 B 23.9 B 23.9 B W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 1,360 22.4 B 25.5 C 26.6 C 27.0 C 28.2 C W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 2,130 31.0 C 31.5 C 31.9 C 31.8 C 32.2 D SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,490 26.0 C 27.1 C 34.3 D 27.7 C 35.1 D W - 7 SR-57 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 5,160 Not Applicable W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,620 22.9 B 23.7 B 27.1 C 24.1 C 27.5 D Source: City of Anaheim, PeMS AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Not Applicable: weaving segment longer than 2,500 feet analyzed as basic freeway mainline Table 3-6: 2011 Baseline Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project ID Freeway Segment With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 20.3 C 20.5 C 21.2 C 20.6 C 21.2 C F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 21.4 C 21.6 C 22.7 C 21.6 C 22.8 C F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 22.5 C 23.1 C 25.4 C 23.3 C 25.6 C Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans, PeMS AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 44 Table 3-7: 2011 Baseline Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS 2011 Baseline (Without Project) 2011 Baseline With Project ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* 2 26.9 C 26.9 C 26.9 C 26.9 C 26.9 C R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 2 27.8 C 28.0 C 28.8 D 28.0 D 28.9 D R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 24.5 C 28.9 D 30.8 D 30.9 D 32.7 D R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 31.5 D 32.2 D 32.2 D 32.6 D 32.6 D R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 26.9 C 29.9 D 32.3 D 31.2 D 33.6 D R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 26.9 C 28.6 D >Capacity F 29.4 D >Capacity F * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density Source: City of Anaheim, Caltrans, PeMS AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 45 4.0 2013 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS The 2013 Opening Year non-event day traffic volumes were derived by applying an annual growth of 0.5% to the 2011 Baseline non-event traffic counts. The volumes developed for the remaining scenarios were described in Section 2.1 – Forecast Volume Development. The analysis assumed the 2013 transportation network consistent with the 2011 Baseline conditions. 4.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Table 4-1 presents LOS results for the 44 study intersections for the following five analysis scenarios under the 2013 Opening Year conditions: 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The same existing lane geometries as the 2011 Baseline conditions were assumed in the LOS analyses. A review of the table reveals that despite the addition of ambient growth, the 2013 traffic conditions are generally similar to the existing traffic conditions in that all of the study area intersections operate within acceptable LOS under the first four scenarios. The only intersection was found to operate at deficient conditions under 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario shown below: · Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-5 demonstrates the study intersections LOS during the PM peak hour under 2013 Opening Year conditions. The detailed 2013 Opening Year ICU worksheets are presented in Appendix G-2. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 46 Table 4-1: 2013 Opening Year PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.65 B 0.65 B 0.66 B 0.67 B 0.68 B 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.58 A 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.60 A 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.60 A 0.61 B 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.60 A 0.61 B 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.54 A 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.57 A 0.54 A 0.57 A 0.60 A 0.61 B 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.48 A 0.50 A 0.53 A 0.60 A 0.63 B 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.36 A 0.36 A 0.37 A 0.36 A 0.37 A 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.25 A 0.25 A 0.25 A 0.25 A 0.26 A 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.48 A 0.49 A 0.50 A 0.49 A 0.53 A 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 A 0.07 A 0.08 A 0.10 A 0.11 A 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.44 A 0.44 A 0.45 A 0.44 A 0.45 A 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.59 A 0.60 A 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.28 A 0.30 A 0.32 A 0.40 A 0.42 A 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.41 A 0.51 A 0.59 A 0.75 C 0.82 D 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.27 A 0.30 A 0.32 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.24 A 0.26 A 0.28 A 0.77 C 0.79 C 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.35 A 0.37 A 0.38 A 0.53 A 0.54 A 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.29 A 0.30 A 0.30 A 0.40 A 0.40 A 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.28 A 0.28 A 0.29 A 0.34 A 0.34 A 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.52 A 0.53 A 0.54 A 0.63 B 0.63 B 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.36 A 0.44 A 0.51 A 0.58 A 0.66 B 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.61 B 0.66 B 0.69 B 0.67 B 0.73 C 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.21 A 0.27 A 0.32 A 0.29 A 0.34 A 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.38 A 0.45 A 0.52 A 0.49 A 0.56 A 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.50 A 0.66 B 0.76 C 0.67 B 0.77 C 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.40 A 0.54 A 0.64 B 0.73 C 0.86 D *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 47 Table 4-1: 2013 Opening Year PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS, Continued 2013 Opening Year Without Project 2013 Opening Year With Project ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.47 A 0.56 A 0.62 B 0.56 A 0.62 B 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.30 A 0.47 A 0.65 B 0.61 B 0.79 C 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.29 A 0.55 A 0.76 C 0.90 D 1.06 F 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.36 A 0.44 A 0.63 B 0.49 A 0.68 B 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.26 A 0.34 A 0.41 A 0.42 A 0.49 A 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.46 A 0.47 A 0.47 A 0.46 A 0.47 A 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.35 A 0.43 A 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.54 A 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.28 A 0.35 A 0.40 A 0.39 A 0.44 A 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.44 A 0.45 A 0.44 A 0.45 A 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.38 A 0.42 A 0.45 A 0.47 A 0.50 A 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.49 A 0.51 A 0.53 A 0.51 A 0.53 A 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.56 A 0.56 A 0.59 A 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.42 A 0.44 A 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.46 A 0.48 A 0.50 A 0.51 A 0.53 A 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.67 B 0.71 C 0.71 C 0.70 B 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.88 D 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.84 D 0.85 D 0.86 D 0.87 D 0.88 D *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY DOUGLASS RDKATELLA AVEEAST STCLEMENTINE STORANGEWOOD AVE SR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE N SANTIAGO BLVDCOLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVESUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 90 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 4-1: 2013 Opening Year with No Events Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig4-1-Y13-NP-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY DOUGLASS RDKATELLA AVEEAST STCLEMENTINE STORANGEWOOD AVE SR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE N SANTIAGO BLVDCOLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVESUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 90 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 4-2: 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig4-2-Y13-HC-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY DOUGLASS RDKATELLA AVEEAST STCLEMENTINE STORANGEWOOD AVE SR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE N SANTIAGO BLVDCOLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVESUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 90 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 4-3: 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig4-3-Y13-HC+AS-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY DOUGLASS RDKATELLA AVEEAST STCLEMENTINE STORANGEWOOD AVE SR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE N SANTIAGO BLVDCOLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVESUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 90 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 4-4: 2013 Opening Year with Projec Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig4-4-Y13-NewHC-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY DOUGLASS RDKATELLA AVEEAST STCLEMENTINE STORANGEWOOD AVE SR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE N SANTIAGO BLVDCOLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVESUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 90 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 4-5: 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig4-5-Y13-NewHC+AS-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 53 4.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENT ANALYSIS Daily Arterial Segment LOS Analysis Table 4-2 presents average daily traffic (ADT), V/C ratio, and LOS for the 16 study arterial segments for the following five scenarios under the 2013 Opening Year conditions: 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The table indicates that the following arterial segments operate at a deficient LOS under all above scenarios under the 2013 Opening Year. · Ball Road - Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps Peak Hour Arterial Segment LOS Analysis The City of Anaheim further evaluates deficient daily arterial segments during peak hours to evaluate peak hour traffic operations, which is often a more appropriate indicator of traffic operations and improvement requirements. Therefore, for each of the study segments that were deficient under the daily analysis, a PM peak hour analysis was prepared for the five analysis scenarios. Table 4-3 shows that all of the study segments operate within acceptable LOS. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 54 Table 4-2: 2013 Opening Year Arterial Segment Daily LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Mid-Block Lanes Capacity With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With AAHC Event and AS Event ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 56,070 1.00 E 57,730 1.03 F 57,730 1.03 F 58,860 1.05 F 58,860 1.05 F A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive Anaheim 6D 56,300 34,830 0.62 B 36,900 0.66 B 36,900 0.66 B 38,310 0.68 B 38,310 0.68 B A - 3 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 4U 25,000 4,700 0.19 A 6,210 0.25 A 6,210 0.25 A 7,230 0.29 A 7,230 0.29 A A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 4U 25,000 7,740 0.31 A 10,820 0.43 A 10,820 0.43 A 12,920 0.52 A 12,920 0.52 A A - 5 Katella Avenue** Lewis Street State College Blvd Anaheim 6D 56,300 36,850 0.65 B 37,470 0.67 B 38,810 0.69 B 37,890 0.67 B 39,230 0.70 B A - 6 Katella Avenue** State College Blvd Howell Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 37,540 0.67 B 38,720 0.69 B 41,130 0.73 C 39,520 0.70 B 41,930 0.74 C A - 7 Katella Avenue** Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 57,230 1.02 F 60,750 1.08 F 60,750 1.08 F 63,130 1.12 F 63,130 1.12 F A - 8 Katella Avenue** SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 38,190 0.68 B 41,640 0.74 C 43,010 0.76 C 43,970 0.78 C 45,340 0.81 D A - 9 Katella Avenue** SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road Anaheim 6D 56,300 37,920 0.67 B 43,420 0.77 C 46,360 0.82 D 47,140 0.84 D 50,080 0.89 D A - 10 Katella Avenue** Douglass Road Struck Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 32,430 0.58 A 35,770 0.64 B 36,550 0.65 B 38,040 0.68 B 38,820 0.69 B A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street Orange 6D 56,300 25,490 0.45 A 27,160 0.48 A 27,160 0.48 A 28,290 0.50 A 28,290 0.50 A A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street Orange 6D 56,300 28,190 0.50 A 29,190 0.52 A 29,190 0.52 A 29,870 0.53 A 29,870 0.53 A A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue Orange 4U 37,500 16,500 0.44 A 17,140 0.46 A 18,530 0.49 A 17,580 0.47 A 18,970 0.51 A A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 2U 12,500 3,820 0.31 A 5,570 0.45 A 5,710 0.46 A 6,760 0.54 A 6,900 0.55 A A - 15 State College Blvd Howell Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 23,130 0.41 A 23,690 0.42 A 23,910 0.42 A 24,070 0.43 A 24,290 0.43 A A - 16 Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 4U 25,000 7,470 0.30 A 8,550 0.34 A 8,550 0.34 A 9,280 0.37 A 9,280 0.37 A * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement ** CMP arterial. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP arterial AA HC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 55 Table 4-3: 2013 Opening Year Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Mid-Block Lanes With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volum e V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 3,110 0.57 A 3,450 0.63 B 3,450 0.63 B 3,690 0.67 B 3,690 0.67 B A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 3,050 0.45 A 3,880 0.57 A 4,780 0.70 B 4,440 0.65 B 5,340 0.78 C * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement AA HC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 56 4.3 CALTRANS FACILITY PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis Freeway ramp termini intersections were also analyzed using Synchro (version 7.0) through the application of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology, per Caltrans requirements consistent with the analysis presented in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study. Table 4-4 presents the Synchro analysis results of peak hour delays and level of service for the 11 ramp termini intersections under the following five 2013 Opening Year analysis scenarios. Detailed Synchro analysis worksheets are included in Appendix H-2. 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The table indicates that all of the study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under the first four scenarios. The only location that operates at failing deficient condition is SR 57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue which occurs under the fifth scenario (2013 Opening Year with Project and Angel Stadium Event scenario). Table 4-4: 2013 Opening Year PM Peak Hour Ramp Termini Intersection LOS ID Intersection 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 21.40 C 21.50 C 25.50 C 22.10 C 26.10 C 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 23.00 C 23.30 C 25.40 C 23.60 C 27.60 C 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 6.10 A 6.00 A 5.70 A 6.00 A 6.00 A 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 21.70 C 21.80 C 22.00 C 21.90 C 22.40 C 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 15.40 B 15.40 B 15.40 B 15.40 B 15.40 B 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 17.30 B 29.00 C 29.00 C 33.20 C 33.40 C 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 13.80 B 16.60 B 27.40 C 19.30 B 40.60 D 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 17.20 B 18.30 B 18.30 B 19.30 B 19.30 B 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 11.50 B 19.70 C 29.00 C 37.60 D 58.70 E 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 47.50 D 48.20 D 49.20 D 51.70 D 54.50 D 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 41.80 D 45.20 D 48.20 D 47.40 D 52.60 D Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 57 Freeway Weaving Analysis Weaving analysis was performed using HCM methodology which provides density criteria by LOS for the weaving area within the freeway segment. Table 4-5 presents analysis results for the weaving areas during the PM peak hour under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. For the freeway weaving segments that are longer than 2,500 feet, HCM requires the segments be analyzed as basic freeway segments. Detailed HCM weaving analysis worksheets are included in Appendix J-2. As indicated in Table 4-5, all the freeway weaving segments are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS in the following five scenarios under the 2013 Opening Year conditions: 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Freeway Mainline Analysis The freeway mainline evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. As noted in the Chapter 2, freeway weaving segments with a weaving length exceeding 2,500 feet were analyzed as basic freeway segment using HCS. Table 4-6 summarizes HCS analysis results for three freeway mainline segments in the PM peak hour under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Detailed HCM mainline analysis worksheets are included in Appendix I-2. Similar to the freeway weaving analysis results, all the study freeway mainline segments operate at acceptable LOS in the five scenarios under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Freeway Ramp Analysis The freeway ramp evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. The facility capacities are based on criteria outlined in the HCM and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Table 4-7 demonstrates HCM analysis results for the freeway ramps in the PM event peak hour under the Opening Year 2013 conditions. The HCM reports a density based on the forecast Year 2013 freeway mainline segment and ramp merge/diverge volumes. Detailed HCM analysis worksheets are included in Appendix K-2. As indicated in Table 4-7, all the study ramps operate at acceptable LOS under the following scenarios: · 2013 Opening Year (No Events) · 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event · 2013 Opening Year with Project However, similar to the 2011 Baseline conditions, the SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue is forecast to operate at LOS F under the following scenarios: · 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event · 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 58 Table 4-5: 2013 Opening Year Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS W - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp 3,060 Not Applicable W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,520 26.6 C 29.6 C 31.4 C 29.7 C 31.5 C W - 3 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disney Way Off-Ramp 2,650 Not Applicable W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,230 22.2 B 23.4 B 23.4 B 24.0 B 24.0 B W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 1,360 24.1 C 27.1 C 28.1 C 28.4 C 29.6 C W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 2,130 24.5 C 24.8 C 25.0 C 24.9 C 25.2 C SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,490 26.2 C 27.3 C 33.8 D 27.8 C 34.5 D W - 7 SR-57 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 5,160 Not Applicable W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,620 23.2 C 24.0 C 27.1 C 24.3 C 27.4 C AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Not Applicable: weaving segment longer than 2,500 feet analyzed as basic freeway mainline Table 4-6: 2013 Opening Year Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project ID Freeway Segment With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 22.2 C 22.4 C 23.1 C 22.5 C 23.2 C F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 23.5 C 23.7 C 24.8 C 23.8 C 24.9 C F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 24.0 C 24.6 C 26.8 D 24.8 C 27.0 D AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 59 Table 4-7: 2013 Opening Year Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS 2013 Opening Year (Without Project) 2013 Opening Year With Project ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* 2 28.1 D 28.1 D 28.1 D 28.1 D 28.1 D R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 2 29.0 D 29.2 D 29.9 D 29.2 D 30.0 D R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 24.7 C 28.8 D 30.4 D 30.5 D 32.2 D R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 31.7 D 32.4 D 32.4 D 32.7 D 32.7 D R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 27.1 C 29.8 D 32.0 D 31.0 D 33.2 D R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 27.1 C 28.7 D >Capacity F 29.4 D >Capacity F * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 60 5.0 2030 FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 2030 Future Year baseline traffic activity was defined in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study for the study area intersection analysis, arterial analysis, and freeway analysis. In addition, the future baseline traffic also includes the trips generated by the commercial land use proposal on property owned by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) located on Ball Road and Phoenix Club Drive. The baseline traffic activity represents Honda Center non-event related traffic conditions while event related activity was derived using the methodologies described in Section 2.1 – Forecast Volume Development. It should be noted that the 2030 baseline traffic forecast are based on a typical PM peak hour traffic (4:00-6:00 PM) which doesn’t reflect the event peak hour (6:00 - 7:00 PM). The intent of this approach is to capture the worst traffic scenario in the future conditions. The 2030 baseline network is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan circulation network and assumes all the proposed improvements in the Platinum Triangle Expansion Project, which was adopted by the City Council in 2010, are built. The following scenarios are used for the 2030 Future Year analysis: 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 5.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS The intersection analysis considers the effect that growth within the study area will have on the future circulation system. Table 5-1 presents PM peak hour LOS results for the 44 study intersections for the five scenarios under the 2030 Future Year conditions. The detailed 2013 Opening Year ICU worksheets are presented in Appendix G-3. Future General Plan lane geometries as well as the proposed roadway capacity enhancements in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study were assumed in the intersection analysis. Scenario 1: 2030 Future Year (No Events) Table 5-1 shows that the high future traffic growth within study area is projected to deteriorate the circulation system with 12 out of 44 study intersections forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS under the 2030 Future Year (No Events) scenario. Although the intersection Harbor Boulevard/Katella Avenue is forecast to operate at LOS E, it is not considered deficient. This intersection is identified in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) as a CMP intersection. Per CMP guidelines, intersections operating at LOS E identified within the CMP are considered operating at an acceptable level of service. All deficient intersections are listed below: Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 61 · Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue · State College Boulevard / Ball Road · Sunkist Street / Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road · Main Street / Taft Avenue · Batavia Street / Taft Avenue · Glassell Street / Katella Avenue · Tustin Street / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Scenario 2: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event In addition to those deficient intersections above for Scenario 1, the LOS analysis results show 7 additional intersections that operate at unacceptable LOS under the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario. The intersection SR-57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue is also forecast to operate at LOS E; but it is not considered deficient as it is a CMP intersection. All deficient intersections are listed below: · Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road · Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue · State College Boulevard / Ball Road · State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue · Sunkist Street / Ball Road · Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · Douglass Road / Katella Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road · Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue · Main Street / Taft Avenue · Main Street / Katella Avenue · Batavia Street / Taft Avenue · Glassell Street / Katella Avenue · Tustin Street / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 62 Scenario 3: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event In addition to those deficient intersections under Scenarios 1 and 2, the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario results in 6 additional deficient intersections. All deficient intersections are shown below: · Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road · Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue · Lewis Street / Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / Ball Road · State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive · State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way · State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue · Sportstown / Katella Avenue · Sunkist Street / Ball Road · Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · Douglass Road / Katella Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road · Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue · Main Street / Taft Avenue · Main Street / Katella Avenue · Batavia Street / Taft Avenue · Glassell Street / Katella Avenue · Tustin Street / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Scenario 4: 2030 Future Year with Project The Table 5-1 reveals that the implementation of the project results in LOS deterioration of 5 intersections addition to those already operate at failing conditions under Scenarios 1 and 2. All deficient intersections are show in the following: · Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road · Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue · Lewis Street / Ball Road · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue · State College Boulevard / Ball Road · State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 63 · Sunkist Street / Ball Road · Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue · Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · Douglass Road / Katella Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road · Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue · Main Street / Taft Avenue · Main Street / Katella Avenue · Batavia Street / Taft Avenue · Glassell Street / Katella Avenue · Tustin Street / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Scenario 5: 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event In addition to those deficient intersections under Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4, the 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario results in one additional intersection that is deficient. The intersection of Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue is also forecast to operate at LOS E, but it is not considered deficient as it is a CMP intersection. All deficient intersections are shown below: · Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road · Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue · Lewis Street / Ball Road · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue · Lewis Street / Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / Ball Road · State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive · State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way · State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue · State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue · Sportstown / Katella Avenue · Sunkist Street / Ball Road · Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue · Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 64 · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road · Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue · Main Street / Taft Avenue · Main Street / Katella Avenue · Batavia Street / Taft Avenue · Glassell Street / Katella Avenue · Tustin Street / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Figure 5-1 through Figure 5-3 demonstrates the study intersections LOS during the PM peak hour under 2030 Future Year conditions. The detailed 2030 Future Year ICU worksheets are presented in Appendix J, which also presents the assumed lane geometrics and PM peak hour turning movement volumes. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 65 Table 5-1: 2030 Future Year PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.95 E 0.95 E 0.95 E 0.95 E 0.95 E 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.90 D 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.94 E 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.87 D 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.92 E 0.95 E 0.93 E 0.96 E 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.71 C 0.75 C 0.84 D 0.77 C 0.86 D 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.78 C 0.81 D 0.88 D 0.83 D 0.91 E 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.91 E 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.96 E 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.84 D 0.87 D 0.95 E 0.90 D 0.98 E 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.76 C 0.77 C 0.80 C 0.77 C 0.80 C 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.86 D 0.86 D 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.94 E 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.76 C 0.85 D 0.76 C 0.85 D 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.91 E 1.18 F 0.95 E 1.22 F 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.78 C 0.80 C 0.93 E 0.82 D 0.93 E 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.73 C 0.73 C 1.41 F 0.73 C 1.41 F 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.90 D 0.91 E 1.05 F 0.92 E 1.06 F 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.74 C 0.74 C 0.85 D 0.74 C 0.85 D 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.80 C 0.81 D 0.86 D 0.81 D 0.86 D 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.80 C 0.82 D 0.90 D 0.83 D 0.91 E 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.83 D 0.94 E 0.88 D 0.99 E 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.97 E 1.04 F 1.08 F 1.09 F 1.13 F 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.81 D 0.93 E 0.94 E 1.02 F 1.04 F 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.89 D 0.92 E 0.97 E 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 1.00 E 1.22 F 1.22 F 1.36 F 1.36 F 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.69 B 0.86 D 1.21 F 1.02 F 1.37 F *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 66 Table 5-1: 2030 Future PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS, Continued 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.85 D 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.94 E 0.94 E 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.79 C 0.96 E 1.06 F 1.08 F 1.18 F 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.88 D 1.23 F 1.50 F 1.48 F 1.74 F 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.46 F 1.60 F 1.62 F 1.69 F 1.71 F 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.81 D 0.92 E 1.00 E 0.99 E 1.08 F 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.97 E 0.97 E 0.97 E 0.98 E 0.98 E 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.85 D 0.91 E 0.96 E 0.97 E 1.02 F 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.71 C 0.78 C 0.81 D 0.83 D 0.86 D 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.91 E 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.78 C 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.80 C 0.85 D 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.69 B 0.69 B 0.70 B 0.70 B 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.93 E 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.83 D 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.71 C 0.74 C 0.77 C 0.76 C 0.79 C 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 1.00 E 1.00 E 1.00 E 1.00 E 1.00 E 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 1.08 F 1.08 F 1.08 F 1.08 F 1.08 F 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 1.01 F 1.01 F 1.01 F 1.01 F 1.01 F * CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY GARDEN GROVE BLV D WINSTON RD DOUGLASS RDRAMPART STEAST ST KATELLA AVECLEMENTINE STSR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE COLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVE MEMORY LN ECKHOFF STSUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 5-1: 2030 Future Year with No Events Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig5-1-Y30-NP-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY GARDEN GROVE BLV D WINSTON RD DOUGLASS RDRAMPART STEAST ST KATELLA AVECLEMENTINE STSR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE COLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVE MEMORY LN ECKHOFF STSUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 5-2: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig5-2-Y30-HC-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY GARDEN GROVE BLV D WINSTON RD DOUGLASS RDRAMPART STEAST ST KATELLA AVECLEMENTINE STSR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE COLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVE MEMORY LN ECKHOFF STSUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 5-3: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig5-3-Y30-HC+AS-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY GARDEN GROVE BLV D WINSTON RD DOUGLASS RDRAMPART STEAST ST KATELLA AVECLEMENTINE STSR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE COLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVE MEMORY LN ECKHOFF STSUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 5-4: 2030 Future Year with Project Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig5-4-Y30-NewHC-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!! !!! !!!! !! ! !PHOENIX CLUB DRGENE AUTRY WY GARDEN GROVE BLV D WINSTON RD DOUGLASS RDRAMPART STEAST ST KATELLA AVECLEMENTINE STSR 55 HOVCOSTA MESA FWYN TUSTIN STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDBALL RD HARBOR BLVDE KATELLA AVE LA VETA AVE N CAMBRIDGE STANAHEIM BLVD TAFT AVE KATELLA AVE LEWIS STLEWIS STCERRITOS AVE COLLINS AVE HASTER STWAGNER AVE S YORBA STTHE CITY DRMAIN STSTRUCK AVE MEMORY LN ECKHOFF STSUNKIST STGLASSELL STWALNUT AVE BATAVIA STAN A H E I M W Y HOWELL AVE SPORTSTOWNCHAPMAN AVE M A N C H E S T E R A V E 83 6 7125 4 9 11 40 4443 42413937 383633 1312 21 20 19 18 16 17 10 14 3532 31 22 2826 2927 25 30 24 34 15 23 Figure 5-5: 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Intersection LOS ?ê ?l !"^$SANTA ANA RIVERGARDEN GROVE ANAHEIM SANTA ANA ORANGE V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\Documentation\Fig5-5-Y30-NewHC+AS-LOS-111411.mxd HONDA CENTER ^ µ Legend Roadway Adjacent Area City of Anaheim Water Area PM LOS Acceptable LOS Deficient LOS ! ! 0 0.15 0.3 Miles ?k Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 72 5.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENT ANALYSIS Daily Arterial Segment LOS Analysis Table 5-2 presents the average daily traffic (ADT), V/C ratios and LOS for all 16 study arterial segments for the following five scenarios under the 2030 Future Year conditions: 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Scenario 1: 2030 Future Year (No Events) With the high growth forecast in the study area, the table indicates the following twelve (12) arterial segments operate at a deficient LOS under the 2030 Future Year (No Events); nine (9) of which are located within the City of Anaheim, while the other three (3) are located within the City of Orange: · Ball Road - Sunkist Street to the SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue · Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to the SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to the SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue · Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Avenue · Katella Avenue - Main Avenue to Batavia Street · Main Street - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Road · State College Boulevard- Howell Avenue to Katella Avenue Scenario 2: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event In addition to those deficient segments above for Scenario 1 above, the LOS analysis results show one additional segments that operate at unacceptable LOS under 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario which is Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue. All deficient segments are shown in the following, and 10 of which are located within the City of Anaheim, while the other three are within the City of Orange: · Ball Road- Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue · Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to SR-57 Southbound Ramps Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 73 · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue · Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Avenue · Katella Avenue - Main Avenue to Batavia Street · Main Street - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center and Ball Road · State College Boulevard- Howell Avenue to Katella Avenue Scenario 3: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Under the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario, no more deficiency identified in addition to the deficient segments above for Scenario 1 and 2. All deficient segments are shown in the following, and 10 of which are located within the City of Anaheim, while the other three are within the City of Orange: · Ball Road- Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue · Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Northbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue · Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Avenue · Katella Avenue - Main Avenue to Batavia Street · Main Street - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center and Ball Road · State College Boulevard- Howell Avenue to Katella Avenue Scenario 4: 2030 Future Year with Project The Table 5-2 indicates that those deficient segments above for Scenario 1 and 2 continue to operate at the failing conditions under the 2030 Future Year with Project scenario. All deficient segments are shown in the following: · Ball Road- Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue · Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Northbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue · Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Avenue · Katella Avenue - Main Avenue to Batavia Street · Main Street - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 74 · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center and Ball Road · State College Boulevard- Howell Avenue to Katella Avenue Scenario 5: 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The Table 5-2 reveals that those segments are forecast to operate at deficient LOS under Scenarios 1, 2,3 and 4 continue to operate at the failing conditions under the 2030 Future Year with Project scenario. All deficient segments are shown in the following: · Ball Road- Sunkist Street to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue · Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Northbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue · Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Avenue · Katella Avenue - Main Avenue to Batavia Street · Main Street - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center and Ball Road · State College Boulevard- Howell Avenue to Katella Avenue Peak Hour Arterial Segment LOS Analysis The City of Anaheim further evaluates deficient daily arterial segments during peak hours to evaluate peak hour traffic operations, which is often a more appropriate indicator of traffic operations and improvement requirements. Therefore, a PM peak hour analysis for each of the study segments that were deficient under the daily analysis was prepared for the five analysis scenarios and the results are shown in the Table-5-3. Scenario 1: 2030 Future Year (No Events) Table 5-3 reveals that two arterial segment are forecast to operate at deficient LOS under the 2030 Future (No Events) scenario which are shown below: · Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Road Scenario 2: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event In addition to those deficient segments above for Scenario 1, the LOS analysis results show one additional segment that is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS under the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario. All deficient arterial segments are shown below: three scenarios below: · Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 75 · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Scenario 3: 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Those deficient segments identified under Scenario 1 and 2 continue to operate at deficient LOS with additional deficient segment under the 2030 Future with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. All deficiencies are the following: · Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Scenario 4: 2030 Future Year with Project Those deficient segments identified under Scenario 1, 2, and 3 continue to operate at failing conditions with the implementation of the project. All deficiencies under this scenario are the following: · Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Scenario 5: 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Those deficient segments identified under Scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4 continue to operate at failing conditions with four additional deficient segment under the 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. All deficient segments are shown in the following: · Ball Road - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue - State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue · Katella Avenue - Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Northbound Ramps · Katella Avenue - SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Katella Avenue - Douglass Road to Struck Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 76 Table 5-2: 2030 Future Year Arterial Segment Daily LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Mid-Block Lanes Capacity With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 69,300 1.23 F 70,960 1.26 F 70,960 1.26 F 72,090 1.28 F 72,090 1.28 F A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive Anaheim 6D 56,300 76,240 1.35 F 78,310 1.39 F 78,310 1.39 F 79,720 1.42 F 79,720 1.42 F A - 3 Cerritos Avenue Sunkist Street Douglass Road Anaheim 4D 37,500 27,370 0.73 C 28,880 0.77 C 28,880 0.77 C 29,900 0.80 C 29,900 0.80 C A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 4D 37,500 28,920 0.77 C 32,000 0.85 D 32,000 0.85 D 34,100 0.91 E 34,100 0.91 E A - 5 Katella Avenue** Lewis Street State College Blvd Anaheim 8D 75,000 58,640 0.78 C 59,260 0.79 C 60,600 0.81 D 59,680 0.80 C 61,020 0.81 D A - 6 Katella Avenue** State College Blvd Howell Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 62,760 1.11 F 63,940 1.14 F 66,350 1.18 F 64,740 1.15 F 67,150 1.19 F A - 7 Katella Avenue** Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 71,760 1.27 F 75,280 1.34 F 75,280 1.34 F 77,660 1.38 F 77,660 1.38 F A - 8 Katella Avenue** SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps Anaheim 6D 56,300 67,240 1.19 F 70,690 1.26 F 72,060 1.28 F 73,020 1.30 F 74,390 1.32 F A - 9 Katella Avenue** SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road Anaheim 6D 56,300 63,070 1.12 F 68,570 1.22 F 71,510 1.27 F 72,290 1.28 F 75,230 1.34 F A - 10 Katella Avenue** Douglass Road Struck Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 72,170 1.28 F 75,510 1.34 F 76,290 1.36 F 77,780 1.38 F 78,560 1.40 F A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street Orange 6D 56,300 63,840 1.13 F 65,510 1.16 F 65,510 1.16 F 66,640 1.18 F 66,640 1.18 F A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street Orange 6D 56,300 52,950 0.94 E 53,950 0.96 E 53,950 0.96 E 54,630 0.97 E 54,630 0.97 E A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue Orange 4U 37,500 34,840 0.93 E 35,480 0.95 E 36,870 0.98 E 35,920 0.96 E 37,310 0.99 E A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 2U 12,500 39,100 3.13 F 40,850 3.27 F 40,990 3.28 F 42,040 3.36 F 42,180 3.37 F A - 15 State College Blvd Howell Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 6D 56,300 47,580 0.85 D 48,140 0.86 D 48,360 0.86 D 48,520 0.86 D 48,740 0.87 D A - 16 Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Anaheim 4U 25,000 14,320 0.57 A 15,400 0.62 B 15,400 0.62 B 16,130 0.65 B 16,130 0.65 B * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement ** CMP arterial. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP arterial AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 77 Table 5-3: 2030 Future Arterial Segment Peak Hour LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project ID Arterial From To Jurisdiction Mid-Block Lanes With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/ C LOS Volume V/C LOS A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 5,520 0.76 C 5,860 0.80 C 5,860 0.80 C 6,100 0.8 4 D 6,100 0.84 D A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive Anaheim 6D 7,200 0.92 E 7,870 1.00 E 7,870 1.00 E 8,330 1.0 6 F 8,330 1.06 F A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 4D N/A 3,450 1.38 F 3,480 1.39 F 4,210 1.6 8 F 4,240 1.69 F A - 5 Katella Avenue Lewis Street State College Blvd Anaheim 8D N/A N/A 5,290 0.85 D N/A 5,480 0.88 D A - 6 Katella Avenue State College Blvd Howell Avenue Anaheim 6D 4,120 0.72 C 4,530 0.79 C 5,080 0.89 D 4,810 0.84 D 5,360 0.94 E A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim 6D 4,550 0.60 A 5,380 0.72 C 6,280 0.83 D 5,940 0.79 C 6,840 0.91 E A - 8 Katella Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps Anaheim 6D 4,030 0.63 B 4,680 0.73 C 5,580 0.87 D 5,120 0.80 C 6,020 0.94 E A - 9 Katella Avenue SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road Anaheim 6D 4,970 0.78 C 6,190 0.97 E 7,060 1.11 F 7,010 1.10 F 7,880 1.23 F A - 10 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Struck Avenue Anaheim 6D 4,490 0.70 B 5,200 0.81 D 5,620 0.88 D 5,670 0.89 D 6,090 0.95 E A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road Anaheim 2U 3,290 2.22 F 3,780 2.55 F 3,830 2.58 F 4,120 2.78 F 4,170 2.81 F A - 15 State College Blvd Howell Avenue Katella Avenue Anaheim 6D 4,510 0.76 C 4,700 0.79 C 5,010 0.85 D 4,820 0.81 D 5,130 0.87 D N/A indicates the segment is not required in the peak hour arterial segment analysis as it is not deficient under daily analysis for the same scenario AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 78 5.3 CALTRANS FACILITY PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS Caltrans Ramp Termini Intersection Analysis Freeway ramp termini intersections were also analyzed using Synchro (version 7.0) through the application of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology, per Caltrans requirements consistent with the analysis presented in the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Traffic Study. Table 5-4 presents the Synchro analysis results of peak hour delays and level of service for the 11 ramp termini intersections under the following 2030 Future Year analysis scenarios. Detailed Synchro analysis worksheets are included in Appendix H-3. 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The table indicates that while most of the study intersections operate at acceptable LOS there are two locations that are forecast to operate at failing conditions under the 2030 Future Year (No Events) scenario which are shown below: · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps/Katella Avenue Under the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario, the same locations that are deficient under Scenario 1 remain deficient with one additional deficient intersection. All deficiencies are shown in the following: · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-55 Southbound Ramps/Katella Avenue In addition to those deficient intersections under Scenarios 1 and 2, the 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario results in four additional deficient intersections. All deficient intersections are shown below · Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps/Katella Avenue Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 79 In addition to those deficient intersections under Scenarios 1 and 2, the implementation of the project results in two additional deficient intersections. All deficient intersections under the 2030 Future Year with Project scenario are shown below: · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Table 5-4 indicates that those deficient intersections under Scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4 continue to operate at the failing conditions under the 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. All deficient intersections are listed below: · Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps)/Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Table 5-4: 2030 Future Year PM Peak Hour Ramp Termini Intersection LOS ID Intersection 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 49.00 D 50.20 D 75.30 E 54.70 D 100.90 F 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 69.10 E 70.00 E 79.80 E 70.70 E 84.60 F 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 27.20 C 28.80 C 32.00 C 28.90 C 33.00 C 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 37.50 D 37.60 D 61.80 E 37.90 D 62.50 E 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 40.10 D 42.20 D 47.60 D 44.40 D 48.20 D 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 52.80 D 106.00 F 125.10 F 148.60 F 149.20 F 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 14.90 B 27.80 C 94.90 F 51.50 D 150.50 F 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 33.20 C 45.10 D 46.00 D 56.50 E 57.00 E 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 16.10 B 51.50 D 76.70 E 76.90 E 79.30 E 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 105.70 F 108.60 F 113.30 F 110.00 F 115.60 F 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 38.30 D 42.60 D 44.60 D 50.00 D 50.30 D Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 80 Freeway Weaving Analysis Weaving analysis was performed using HCM methodology which provides density criteria by LOS for the weaving area within the freeway segment. Table 5-5 summarizes HCS analysis results for the weaving areas during the PM peak hour. For the freeway weaving segment that is longer than 2,500 feet, HCM requires the segment analyzed as the basic freeway segment. Detailed HCM weaving analysis worksheets are included in Appendix J-3. Under the 2030 Future Year (No Events) scenario, the following four (4) freeway weaving segments are forecast to become deficient: · I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp · SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp · SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp · SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp In addition to those deficiencies above, Table-5-5 reveals that the SR-57 northbound weaving section between the Orangewood Avenue on-ramp and the Katella Avenue off-ramp is also deficient under all of the following four scenarios: · 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event · 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event · 2030 Future Year with Project · 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Freeway Mainline Analysis The freeway mainline evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. As noted in the Chapter 2, freeway weaving segments with a weaving length exceeding 2,500 feet were analyzed as basic freeway segment using HCS. Table 5-6 presents HCS analysis results for the densities and levels of service for the freeway mainline segments in the PM peak hour under 2030 Future Year conditions. Detailed HCM mainline analysis worksheets are included in Appendix I-3. None of the freeway mainline segments are forecast to perform deficiently under any of the 2030 Future Year scenarios. Freeway Ramp Analysis The freeway ramp evaluation is based on peak hour HCM density analysis. This methodology has been applied to the freeway analyses in the study area per Caltrans’s recommendation. The facility capacities are based on criteria outlined in the HCM and the Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Table 5-7 summarizes HCM analysis results for the study area ramps in the PM peak hours under 2030 Future Year conditions. The HCM reports a density based on 2030 Future Year forecasted freeway mainline segment and ramp merge/diverge volumes. Detailed HCM analysis worksheets are included in Appendix K-3. According to the analysis, the following freeway ramps are deficient in the PM peak conditions under 2030 Future Year (No Events) scenario: Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 81 · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue Table 5-7 indicates that those deficiencies above remain deficient throughout all the other four scenarios with two (2) additional ramps that are deficient. All deficient ramps are shown in the following: · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road . Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 82 Table 5-5: 2030 Future Year Freeway Weaving PM Peak Hour LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project ID Weaving Segment Weaving Length (Ft) With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS W - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp 3,060 Not Applicable W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 1,520 38.7 E 39.1 E >Capacity F 39.2 E >Capacity F W - 3 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Disneyland Drive Off-Ramp 2,650 Not Applicable W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 1,230 30.6 C 31.9 C 31.9 C 32.5 D 32.5 D W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 1,360 35.2 D 38.8 E >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 2,130 >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 2,490 >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F W - 7 SR-57 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 5,160 Not Applicable W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 1,620 36.8 E 37.7 E >Capacity F 38.0 E >Capacity F AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Not Applicable: weaving segment longer than 2,500 feet analyzed as basic freeway mainline Table 5-6: Year 2030 Freeway Mainline PM Peak Hour LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project ID Freeway Segment With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 29.4 D 29.6 D 30.3 D 29.7 D 30.4 D F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 31.0 D 31.2 D 32.3 D 31.2 D 32.4 D F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 27.8 D 28.4 D 30.6 D 28.6 D 30.9 D AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 83 Table 5-7: 2030 Future Year Freeway Ramp PM Peak Hour LOS 2030 Future Year (Without Project) 2030 Future Year With Project ID Ramp Segment Ramp # of Lane With No Events With AAHC Event With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project With Project and AS Event Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* 2 >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 2 30.1 D 30.2 D 31.0 D 30.2 D 31.0 D R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 34.1 D 38.1 E 39.8 E 39.9 E >Capacity F R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 1 34.1 D 36.8 E 39.0 E >Capacity F >Capacity F R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 1 >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 84 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS The purpose of this traffic study is to assess the traffic conditions associated with increasing the number of annual events at Honda Center and to identify potential traffic improvements to bring identified project related impacts to less than significant conditions. To present a comprehensive evaluation of the transportation conditions and potential project impacts, five traffic analysis scenarios were considered. The scenarios, described in greater detail in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, include the following: 2011 Baseline Analytical Project Direct Impacts Scenario: 1) 2011 Baseline (No Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2011 Baseline with Project 5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2013 Opening Year Analytical Impacts Scenario and Near-Term Impacts Scenario: 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2030 Future Year Long-Term Impacts Scenario (General Plan Buildout): 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of potential project impacts for each study year, through direct comparisons of with and without Project conditions under the five analysis scenarios. Using this approach, Project impacts and mitigation measures are identified using the following three comparisons: Comparisons 1) No Events vs. Project 2) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project 3) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 85 Project impacts have been determined using the significant impact thresholds prescribed in the following guiding documents: City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated 1996; City of Orange Traffic Impact Study Guidelines dated August 15, 2007; and Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated December 2002 as discussed in Chapter 2. Mitigation measures have developed and recommends presented in Chapter 7. The recommended mitigation considers the specific traffic impact measurements reported in this chapter and are intended to mitigate project impacts to less than significant conditions when deficiencies are directly created by the project, or to the without project condition if a deficiency at that location is expected even without the project, whichever is appropriate. 6.1 INTERSECTIONS 6.1.1 2011 Baseline Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-1, project related impacts were identified at two study intersections when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2011 Baseline conditions: · SR-57 Southbound Ramps/Ball Road · Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Table 6-1: 2011 Baseline Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.59 A 0.61 B 0.01 No 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 No 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.55 A 0.56 A 0.02 No 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.54 A 0.57 A 0.03 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.00 No 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.52 A 0.52 A 0.00 No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.44 A 0.49 A 0.05 No 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.33 A 0.34 A 0.01 No 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.23 A 0.23 A 0.00 No 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.43 A 0.46 A 0.03 No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 A 0.08 A 0.01 No 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.01 No 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.00 No 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.27 A 0.30 A 0.03 No 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.38 A 0.56 A 0.18 No 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.25 A 0.30 A 0.05 No 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.23 A 0.27 A 0.04 No 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.32 A 0.35 A 0.03 No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.26 A 0.28 A 0.02 No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.26 A 0.27 A 0.01 No 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.48 A 0.49 A 0.02 No Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 86 Table 6-1: 2011 Baseline Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 1), Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.33 A 0.49 A 0.15 No 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.56 A 0.65 B 0.08 No 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.20 A 0.31 A 0.11 No 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.35 A 0.50 A 0.15 No 26 SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.46 A 0.72 C 0.26 Yes 27 SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.37 A 0.61 B 0.24 No 28 SR -57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.43 A 0.59 A 0.16 No 29 SR -57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.28 A 0.64 B 0.36 No 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.27 A 0.76 C 0.49 Yes 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.34 A 0.62 B 0.28 No 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.24 A 0.39 A 0.15 No 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.43 A 0.00 No 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.32 A 0.46 A 0.14 No 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.27 A 0.38 A 0.12 No 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.39 A 0.42 A 0.03 No 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.35 A 0.42 A 0.07 No 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.45 A 0.49 A 0.04 No 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.45 A 0.52 A 0.07 No 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.00 No 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.46 A 0.04 No 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.62 B 0.65 B 0.03 No 43 SR -55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.00 No 44 SR -55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.77 C 0.79 C 0.02 No *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-2, project related impacts were identified at two study intersections when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2011 Baseline conditions: · SR-57 Southbound Ramps/Ball Road · Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Table 6-2: 2011 Baseline Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.01 No 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 No 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.56 A 0.56 A 0.01 No 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.57 A 0.01 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.00 No 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.50 A 0.52 A 0.03 No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.46 A 0.49 A 0.03 No 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.33 A 0.34 A 0.01 No 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.23 A 0.23 A 0.00 No 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.45 A 0.46 A 0.01 No Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 87 Table 6-2: 2011 Baseline Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 2), Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 0.08 0.01 No 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.00 No 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.00 No 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.28 A 0.30 A 0.02 No 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.48 A 0.56 A 0.07 No 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.28 A 0.30 A 0.02 No 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.25 A 0.27 A 0.02 No 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.34 A 0.35 A 0.01 No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.27 A 0.28 A 0.01 No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.26 A 0.27 A 0.00 No 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.49 A 0.49 A 0.01 No 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.41 A 0.49 A 0.07 No 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.61 B 0.65 B 0.03 No 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.26 A 0.31 A 0.05 No 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.42 A 0.50 A 0.08 No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.61 B 0.72 C 0.11 Yes 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.51 A 0.61 B 0.10 No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.52 A 0.59 A 0.07 No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.46 A 0.64 B 0.18 No 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.76 C 0.23 Yes 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.43 A 0.62 B 0.19 No 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.32 A 0.39 A 0.07 No 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.43 A 0.43 A 0.00 No 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.40 A 0.46 A 0.06 No 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.33 A 0.38 A 0.05 No 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.41 A 0.42 A 0.01 No 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.39 A 0.42 A 0.03 No 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.47 A 0.49 A 0.01 No 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.49 A 0.52 A 0.03 No 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.00 No 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.44 A 0.46 A 0.02 No 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.62 B 0.65 B 0.03 No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.00 No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.78 C 0.79 C 0.01 No *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-3, the traffic analysis found the project results in significant impacts at five study intersections when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. The five locations impacted by the proposed project are: · State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 88 · SR-57 Southbound Ramps/Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps/Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue · Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Table 6-3: 2011 Baseline Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.61 B 0.62 B 0.01 No 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 No 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.56 A 0.56 A 0.02 No 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.57 A 0.01 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.50 A 0.50 A 0.00 No 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.56 A 0.57 A 0.01 No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.56 A 0.59 A 0.03 No 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.33 A 0.34 A 0.01 No 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.24 A 0.24 A 0.01 No 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.46 A 0.50 A 0.04 No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.10 A 0.11 A 0.01 No 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.00 No 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.54 A 0.55 A 0.01 No 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.38 A 0.40 A 0.02 No 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.72 C 0.79 C 0.07 Yes 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.39 A 0.39 A 0.00 No 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.75 C 0.77 C 0.02 No 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.50 A 0.52 A 0.01 No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.38 A 0.39 A 0.01 No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.32 A 0.32 A 0.00 No 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.58 A 0.59 A 0.01 No 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.63 B 0.07 No 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.63 B 0.69 B 0.05 No 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.28 A 0.33 A 0.05 No 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.47 A 0.54 A 0.07 No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.62 B 0.73 C 0.10 Yes 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.71 C 0.84 D 0.13 Yes 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.52 A 0.59 A 0.07 No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.60 A 0.78 C 0.18 Yes 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 1.06 F 0.16 Yes 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.49 A 0.67 B 0.19 No 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.40 A 0.47 A 0.07 No 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.43 A 0.00 No 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.46 A 0.52 A 0.06 No 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.36 A 0.42 A 0.05 No 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.41 A 0.42 A 0.01 No 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.44 A 0.47 A 0.03 No 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.47 A 0.49 A 0.01 No 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.52 A 0.55 A 0.03 No 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.39 A 0.41 A 0.02 No 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.47 A 0.49 A 0.02 No 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.64 B 0.63 B -0.01 No Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 89 Table 6-3: 2011 Baseline Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 3), Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.00 No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.80 C 0.81 D 0.01 No *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 6.1.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-4, project related impacts were identified at two study intersections when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2013 Opening Year conditions: · SR-57 Southbound Ramps/Ball Road · Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Table 6-4: 2013 Opening Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.65 B 0.66 B 0.01 No 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.00 No 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.02 No 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.59 A 0.61 B 0.02 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.00 No 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.57 A 0.57 A 0.00 No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.48 A 0.53 A 0.05 No 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.36 A 0.37 A 0.01 No 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.25 A 0.25 A 0.00 No 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.48 A 0.50 A 0.02 No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 A 0.08 A 0.01 No 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.44 A 0.45 A 0.01 No 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 No 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.28 A 0.32 A 0.04 No 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.41 A 0.59 A 0.18 No 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.27 A 0.32 A 0.05 No 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.24 A 0.28 A 0.04 No 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.35 A 0.38 A 0.03 No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.29 A 0.30 A 0.02 No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.28 A 0.29 A 0.01 No 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.52 A 0.54 A 0.02 No 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.36 A 0.51 A 0.15 No 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.61 B 0.69 B 0.09 No 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.21 A 0.32 A 0.11 No 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.38 A 0.52 A 0.15 No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.50 A 0.76 C 0.26 Yes Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 90 Table 6-4: 2013 Opening Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 1), Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.40 A 0.64 B 0.24 No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.47 A 0.62 B 0.16 No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.30 A 0.65 B 0.35 No 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.29 A 0.76 C 0.47 Yes 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.36 A 0.63 B 0.26 No 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.26 A 0.41 A 0.15 No 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.46 A 0.47 A 0.01 No 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.35 A 0.49 A 0.14 No 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.28 A 0.40 A 0.11 No 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.45 A 0.03 No 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.38 A 0.45 A 0.07 No 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.04 No 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.49 A 0.56 A 0.07 No 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.00 No 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.46 A 0.50 A 0.04 No 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.71 C 0.04 No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.00 No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.84 D 0.86 D 0.02 No *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-5, project related impacts were identified at two study intersections when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps/Ball Road · Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Table 6-5: 2013 Opening Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.65 B 0.66 B 0.01 No 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.00 No 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.01 No 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.01 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.00 No 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.54 A 0.57 A 0.03 No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.50 A 0.53 A 0.03 No 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.36 A 0.37 A 0.01 No 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.25 A 0.25 A 0.00 No 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.49 A 0.50 A 0.01 No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.07 A 0.08 A 0.01 No 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.44 A 0.45 A 0.00 No Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 91 Table 6-5: 2013 Opening Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 2), Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.00 No 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.30 A 0.32 A 0.02 No 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.51 A 0.59 A 0.08 No 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.30 A 0.32 A 0.02 No 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.26 A 0.28 A 0.02 No 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.37 A 0.38 A 0.01 No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.30 A 0.30 A 0.01 No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.28 A 0.29 A 0.01 No 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.53 A 0.54 A 0.01 No 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.44 A 0.51 A 0.08 No 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.66 B 0.69 B 0.03 No 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.27 A 0.32 A 0.05 No 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.45 A 0.52 A 0.08 No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.66 B 0.76 C 0.10 Yes 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.54 A 0.64 B 0.10 No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.56 A 0.62 B 0.07 No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.47 A 0.65 B 0.18 No 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.76 C 0.22 Yes 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.44 A 0.63 B 0.19 No 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.34 A 0.41 A 0.07 No 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.47 A 0.47 A 0.00 No 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.43 A 0.49 A 0.06 No 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.35 A 0.40 A 0.05 No 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.44 A 0.45 A 0.01 No 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.45 A 0.03 No 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.51 A 0.53 A 0.01 No 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.53 A 0.56 A 0.03 No 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.00 No 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.48 A 0.50 A 0.02 No 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.71 C 0.04 No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.00 No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.85 D 0.86 D 0.01 No *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-6, the traffic analysis found the project results in significant impacts at six study intersections when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. The six locations impacted by the proposed project are: · State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue · Sunkist Street/Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps/Ball Road Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 92 · SR-57 Southbound Ramps/Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue · Douglass Road/Katella Avenue Table 6-6: 2013 Opening Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.67 B 0.68 B 0.01 No 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.00 No 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.02 No 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.01 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.00 No 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.01 No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.60 A 0.63 B 0.03 No 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.36 A 0.37 A 0.01 No 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.25 A 0.26 A 0.01 No 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.04 No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.10 A 0.11 A 0.01 No 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.44 A 0.45 A 0.00 No 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.01 No 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.40 A 0.42 A 0.02 No 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.82 D 0.08 Yes 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.00 No 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.77 C 0.79 C 0.02 No 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.53 A 0.54 A 0.01 No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.40 A 0.40 A 0.01 No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.34 A 0.34 A 0.01 No 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.63 B 0.63 B 0.01 No 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.58 A 0.66 B 0.08 No 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.06 Yes 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.29 A 0.34 A 0.05 No 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.49 A 0.56 A 0.07 No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.67 B 0.77 C 0.10 Yes 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.73 C 0.86 D 0.13 Yes 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.56 A 0.62 B 0.07 No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.61 B 0.79 C 0.18 Yes 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 1.06 F 0.16 Yes 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 0.49 A 0.68 B 0.19 No 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.49 A 0.07 No 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.46 A 0.47 A 0.01 No 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.49 A 0.54 A 0.06 No 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.39 A 0.44 A 0.05 No 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.44 A 0.45 A 0.01 No 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.47 A 0.50 A 0.03 No 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.51 A 0.53 A 0.01 No 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.56 A 0.59 A 0.03 No 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.42 A 0.44 A 0.02 No 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.51 A 0.53 A 0.02 No 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.71 C 0.70 B -0.01 No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.00 No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 0.87 D 0.88 D 0.01 No *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 93 6.1.3 2030 Future Year Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-7, the traffic analysis has found the project results in 22 study intersections being significantly impacted when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Two impacted intersections are within the City of Orange, one intersection is shared between the City of Orange and City of Anaheim, and the other 19 intersections are located in the City of Anaheim. The intersections with significant impact identified are: · Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road · Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue · Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue · Lewis Street / Ball Road · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue · Lewis Street / Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive · State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue (City of Orange/City of Anaheim location) · Sportstown / Katella Avenue · Sunkist Street / Ball Road · Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue · Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · Douglass Road / Katella Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road · Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue (City of Orange location) · Main Street / Katella Avenue (City of Orange location) Table 6-7: 2030 Future Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.95 E 0.95 E 0.00 No 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.00 No 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.01 Yes 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.87 D 0.01 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.93 E 0.02 Yes 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.71 C 0.77 C 0.06 Yes 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.05 Yes 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.01 Yes 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.94 E 0.03 Yes Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 94 Table 6-7: 2030 Future Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 1), Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.84 D 0.90 D 0.06 Yes 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.76 C 0.77 C 0.01 No 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.85 D 0.86 D 0.01 No 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.00 No 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.76 C 0.01 No 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.95 E 0.10 Yes 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.78 C 0.82 D 0.05 Yes 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 No 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.90 D 0.92 E 0.02 Yes 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.74 C 0.74 C 0.00 No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.80 C 0.81 D 0.01 No 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.80 C 0.83 D 0.02 No 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.88 D 0.14 Yes 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.97 E 1.09 F 0.12 Yes 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.81 D 1.02 F 0.21 Yes 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.92 E 0.06 Yes 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 1.00 E 1.36 F 0.36 Yes 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.69 B 1.02 F 0.33 Yes 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.85 D 0.94 E 0.08 Yes 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.79 C 1.08 F 0.29 Yes 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.88 D 1.48 F 0.61 Yes 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.46 F 1.69 F 0.23 Yes 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.81 D 0.99 E 0.18 Yes 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.97 E 0.98 E 0.00 No 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.85 D 0.97 E 0.12 Yes 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.71 C 0.83 D 0.12 No 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.00 No 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.78 C 0.80 C 0.03 No 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.67 B 0.70 B 0.02 No 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.00 No 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.00 No 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.71 C 0.76 C 0.05 No 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 1.00 E 1.00 E 0.00 No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 1.08 F 1.08 F 0.00 No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 1.01 F 1.01 F 0.00 No *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-8, the traffic analysis has found the project results in 18 study intersections being significantly impacted when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Two impacted intersections are within the City of Orange, one intersection is shared between the City of Orange and City of Anaheim, and the other 15 intersections are located in the City of Anaheim. The intersections with significant impact identified are: Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 95 · Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road · Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue · Lewis Street / Ball Road · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue · State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue (City of Orange/City of Anaheim location) · Sportstown / Katella Avenue · Sunkist Street / Ball Road · Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue · Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · Douglass Road / Katella Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road · Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue (City of Orange location) · Main Street / Katella Avenue (City of Orange location) Table 6-8: 2030 Future Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.95 E 0.95 E 0.00 No 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.00 No 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.01 Yes 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.01 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.92 E 0.93 E 0.01 Yes 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.75 C 0.77 C 0.03 No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.81 D 0.83 D 0.02 No 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.01 Yes 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.94 E 0.02 Yes 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.87 D 0.90 D 0.02 No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.01 No 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.85 D 0.86 D 0.00 No 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.00 No 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.76 C 0.76 C 0.00 No 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.95 E 0.04 Yes 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.80 C 0.82 D 0.02 No 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 No 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.91 E 0.92 E 0.01 Yes 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.74 C 0.74 C 0.00 No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.81 D 0.81 D 0.01 No 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.82 D 0.83 D 0.01 No Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 96 Table 6-8: 2030 Future Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 2), Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.83 D 0.88 D 0.06 Yes 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 1.04 F 1.09 F 0.05 Yes 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.93 E 1.02 F 0.09 Yes 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.92 E 0.05 Yes 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 1.22 F 1.36 F 0.15 Yes 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.86 D 1.02 F 0.16 Yes 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.94 E 0.03 Yes 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.96 E 1.08 F 0.12 Yes 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 1.23 F 1.48 F 0.25 Yes 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.60 F 1.69 F 0.09 Yes 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 0.92 E 0.99 E 0.07 Yes 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.97 E 0.98 E 0.00 No 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.91 E 0.97 E 0.06 Yes 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.05 No 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.00 No 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.78 C 0.80 C 0.03 No 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.69 B 0.70 B 0.01 No 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.00 No 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.00 No 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.74 C 0.76 C 0.02 No 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 1.00 E 1.00 E 0.00 No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 1.08 F 1.08 F 0.00 No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 1.01 F 1.01 F 0.00 No *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-9, the traffic analysis has found the project results in 21 study intersections being significantly impacted when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared with the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Three impacted intersections are within the City of Orange, one intersection is shared between the City of Orange and City of Anaheim, and the other 17 intersections are located in the City of Anaheim. The intersections with significant impact identified are: · Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road · Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue · Lewis Street / Ball Road · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue · Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 97 · State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue · State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue (City of Orange/City of Anaheim location) · State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue (City of Orange location) · Sportstown / Katella Avenue · Sunkist Street / Ball Road · Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue · Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · Douglass Road / Katella Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road · Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue (City of Orange location) · Main Street / Katella Avenue (City of Orange location) Table 6-9: 2030 Future Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.95 E 0.95 E 0.00 No 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.00 No 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.01 Yes 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.01 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.95 E 0.96 E 0.01 Yes 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.84 D 0.86 D 0.02 No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.88 D 0.91 E 0.02 Yes 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.01 Yes 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 0.96 E 0.02 Yes 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.95 E 0.98 E 0.02 Yes 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 0.80 C 0.80 C 0.01 No 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.85 D 0.86 D 0.00 No 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.00 No 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 No 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 1.18 F 1.22 F 0.04 Yes 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.00 No 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 1.41 F 1.41 F 0.00 No 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 1.05 F 1.06 F 0.01 Yes 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 0.85 D 0.85 D 0.00 No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 0.86 D 0.86 D 0.01 No 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.01 Yes 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 0.99 E 0.06 Yes 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 1.08 F 1.13 F 0.05 Yes 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 1.04 F 0.09 Yes 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 0.97 E 0.07 Yes 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 1.22 F 1.36 F 0.15 Yes Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 98 Table 6-9: 2030 Future Year Project Related Intersection Impacts (Comparison 3), Continued ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase Yes/No 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 1.21 F 1.37 F 0.16 Yes 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.94 E 0.03 Yes 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 1.06 F 1.18 F 0.12 Yes 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 1.50 F 1.74 F 0.25 Yes 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.62 F 1.71 F 0.09 Yes 32 Struck Avenue / Katella Avenue Orange 1.00 E 1.08 F 0.07 Yes 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.97 E 0.98 E 0.00 No 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.96 E 1.02 F 0.06 Yes 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 0.81 D 0.86 D 0.05 No 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.91 E 0.91 E 0.00 No 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.83 D 0.85 D 0.03 No 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 0.69 B 0.70 B 0.01 No 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.00 No 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.83 D 0.83 D 0.00 No 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.77 C 0.79 C 0.02 No 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 1.00 E 1.00 E 0.00 No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 1.08 F 1.08 F 0.00 No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Orange 1.01 F 1.01 F 0.00 No *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 99 6.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENTS As discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.5, the City of Anaheim uses a two step process to evaluate arterial segment performance. An initial arterial daily ADT V/C analysis provides a general assessment of overall system performance. Where potential for deficiencies are identified through this screening, the system performance is further evaluated and measured on the ability to serve peak hour traffic demands and throughput at the adjacent intersection(s). Arterial segments that are found to operate deficiently under both daily and peak hour conditions are identified as candidates for mitigation improvements. It is noted, for purpose of this study, the City of Orange does not call for the peak hour segment analysis but rather uses daily V/C analysis as the basis for identifying mitigation improvement requirements. For City of Anaheim segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily level of service to LOS D or worse, and continues to show deficiency under peak hour analysis conditions. A significant impact is also deemed to occur if a project causes an increase in the daily V/C value of 0.01 or greater if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions; and the segment continues to show deficiency under peak hour analysis conditions. For City of Orange segments, a project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily LOS to an unacceptable LOS or causes an increase in the daily V/C value of 0.01 or greater if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without project conditions. 6.2.1 2011 Baseline Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-10, no study arterial segments are significantly impacted by the project when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Table 6-10: 2011 Baseline City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily With No Events Daily With Project Peak Hour With Project Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Daily V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps 6 50,970 0.91 E 53,706 0.95 E 0.62 B 0.04 No A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 52,030 0.92 E 57,930 1.03 F 0.63 B 0.11 No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 100 Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-11, no study arterial segments are significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Table 6-11: 2011 Baseline City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily With AAHC Events Daily With Project Peak Hour With Project Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Daily V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps 6 52,630 0.93 E 53,706 0.95 E 0.62 B 0.02 No A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 55,550 0.99 E 57,930 1.03 F 0.63 B 0.04 No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 101 Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-12, no study arterial segments are significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Events and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Table 6-12: 2011 Baseline City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Peak Hour With Project and AS Event Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Daily V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps 6 52,630 0.93 E 53,760 0.95 E 0.62 B 0.02 No A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 55,550 0.99 E 57,930 1.03 F 0.76 C 0.04 No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 102 6.2.2 2013 Opening Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-13, no study arterial segments are significantly impacted by the project when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Table 6-13: 2013 Opening Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily With No Events Daily With Project Peak Hour With Project Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Daily V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps 6 56,070 1.00 E 58,860 1.05 F 0.67 B 0.05 No A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 57,230 1.02 F 63,130 1.12 F 0.65 B 0.10 No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-14, no study arterial segments are significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Table 6-14: 2013 Opening Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily With AAHC Events Daily With Project Peak Hour With Project Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Daily V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps 6 57,730 1.03 F 58,860 1.05 F 0.67 B 0.02 No A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 60,750 1.08 F 63,130 1.12 F 0.65 B 0.14 No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 103 Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-15, no study arterial segments are significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Events and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Table 6-15: 2013 Opening Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Peak Hour With Project and AS Event Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Daily V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps 6 57,730 1.03 F 58,860 1.05 F 0.67 B 0.02 No A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 60,750 1.08 F 63,130 1.12 F 0.78 C 0.04 No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 6.2.3 2030 Future Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-16, the traffic analysis has found the project results in significant impact to four study arterial segments in the City of Anaheim when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. The impacted arterial segments are: · Ball Road – SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue – SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Road Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 104 Table 6-16: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily With No Events Daily With Project Peak Hour With Project Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Daily V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps 6 69,300 1.23 F 72,090 1.28 F 0.84 D 0.05 No A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive 6 76,240 1.35 F 79,720 1.42 F 1.06 F 0.07 Yes A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 4 28,920 0.77 C 34,100 0.91 E 1.68 F 0.14 Yes A - 6 Katella Avenue** State College Blvd Howell Avenue 6 62,760 1.11 F 64,740 1.15 F 0.84 D 0.04 No A - 7 Katella Avenue** Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 71,760 1.27 F 77,660 1.38 F 0.79 C 0.11 No A - 8 Katella Avenue** SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps 6 67,240 1.19 F 73,020 1.30 F 0.80 C 0.11 No A - 9 Katella Avenue** SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road 6 63,070 1.12 F 72,290 1.28 F 1.10 F 0.06 Yes A - 10 Katella Avenue** Douglass Road Struck Avenue 6 72,170 1.28 F 77,780 1.38 F 0.89 D 0.10 No A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 2 39,100 3.13 F 42,040 3.36 F 2.78 F 0.23 Yes A - 15 State College Blvd Howell Avenue Katella Avenue 6 47,580 0.85 D 48,520 0.86 D 0.81 D 0.01 No ** CMP arterial. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP arterial AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-17, the traffic analysis has found the project results in significant impact to all study arterial segments in the City of Orange when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. The impacted arterial segments are: · Katella Avenue – Struck Avenue to Main Street · Katella Avenue – Main Street to Batavia Street · Main Street – Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue Table 6-17: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes With No Events With Project Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C Increase Yes/No A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street 6 63,840 1.13 F 66,640 1.18 F 0.05 Yes A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street 6 52,950 0.94 E 54,630 0.97 E 0.03 Yes A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue 4 34,840 0.93 E 35,920 0.96 E 0.03 Yes * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 105 Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-18, the traffic analysis has found the project results in significant impact to the same four study arterial segments in the City of Anaheim, as shown in Comparison 1 above, when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. The impacted arterial segments are: · Ball Road – SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue – SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Road Table 6-18: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily With AAHC Event Daily With Project Peak Hour With Project Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Daily V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps 6 70,960 1.26 F 72,090 1.28 F 0.84 D 0.02 No A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive 6 78,310 1.39 F 79,720 1.42 F 1.06 F 0.04 Yes A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 4 32,000 0.85 D 34,100 0.91 E 1.68 F 0.06 Yes A - 6 Katella Avenue** State College Blvd Howell Avenue 6 63,940 1.14 F 64,740 1.15 F 0.84 D 0.01 No A - 7 Katella Avenue** Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 75,280 1.34 F 77,660 1.38 F 0.79 C 0.04 No A - 8 Katella Avenue** SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps 6 70,690 1.26 F 73,020 1.30 F 0.80 C 0.04 No A - 9 Katella Avenue** SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road 6 68,570 1.22 F 72,290 1.28 F 1.10 F 0.06 Yes A - 10 Katella Avenue** Douglass Road Struck Avenue 6 75,510 1.34 F 77,780 1.38 F 0.89 D 0.04 No A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 2 40,850 3.27 F 42,040 3.36 F 2.78 F 0.09 Yes A - 15 State College Blvd Howell Avenue Katella Avenue 6 48,140 0.86 D 48,520 0.86 D 0.81 D 0.00 No ** CMP arterial. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP arterial AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-19, the traffic analysis has found the project results in significant impact to all of the same study arterial segments in the City of Orange as shown in Comparison 1 above, when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. The impacted arterial segments are: · Katella Avenue – Struck Avenue to Main Street · Katella Avenue – Main Street to Batavia Street · Main Street – Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 106 Table 6-19: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street 6 63,840 1.13 F 66,640 1.18 F 0.02 Yes A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street 6 52,950 0.94 E 54,630 0.97 E 0.01 Yes A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue 4 34,840 0.93 E 35,920 0.96 E 0.01 Yes * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-20, eight study segments, including the four segments shown in Comparisons 1 and 2 above, are significantly impacted when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. The study arterial segments with significant impacts are: · Ball Road – SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive · Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue · Katella Avenue – State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue · Katella Avenue – Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps · Katella Avenue – SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Northbound Ramps · Katella Avenue – SR-57 Northbound Ramps to Douglass Road · Katella Avenue – Douglass Road to Struck Avenue · Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Road Table 6-20: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily With AAHC Event and AS Event Daily With Project and AS Event Peak Hour With Project and AS Event Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Daily V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 1 Ball Road Sunkist Street SR-57 SB Ramps 6 70,960 1.26 F 72,090 1.28 F 0.84 D 0.02 No A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive 6 78,310 1.39 F 79,720 1.42 F 1.06 F 0.03 Yes A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 4 32,000 0.85 D 34,100 0.91 E 1.69 F 0.06 Yes A - 6 Katella Avenue** State College Blvd Howell Avenue 6 66,350 1.18 F 67,150 1.19 F 0.94 E 0.01 Yes A - 7 Katella Avenue** Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 75,280 1.34 F 77,660 1.38 F 0.91 E 0.04 Yes Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 107 Table6-20: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 3), Continued ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily With AAHC Event and AS Event Daily With Project and AS Event Peak Hour With Project and AS Event Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Daily V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 8 Katella Avenue** SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps 6 72,060 1.28 F 74,390 1.32 F 0.94 E 0.04 Yes A - 9 Katella Avenue** SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road 6 71,510 1.27 F 75,230 1.34 F 1.23 F 0.07 Yes A - 10 Katella Avenue** Douglass Road Struck Avenue 6 76,290 1.36 F 78,560 1.40 F 0.95 E 0.04 Yes A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 2 40,990 3.28 F 42,180 3.37 F 2.81 F 0.09 Yes A - 15 State College Blvd Howell Avenue Katella Avenue 6 48,360 0.86 D 48,740 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.01 No ** CMP arterial. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP arterial AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-21, the traffic analysis has found the project results in significant impact to all of the same study arterial segments in the City of Orange as shown in Comparisons 1 and 2 above, when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. The impacted arterial segments are: · Katella Avenue – Struck Avenue to Main Street · Katella Avenue – Main Street to Batavia Street · Main Street – Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue Table 6-21: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Project Related Arterial Segment Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C Increase Yes/ No A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street 6 65,510 1.16 F 66,640 1.18 F 0.02 Yes A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street 6 53,950 0.96 E 54,630 0.97 E 0.01 Yes A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue 4 36,870 0.98 E 37,310 0.99 E 0.01 Yes * Smart Street segment in Orange assumes a 5% capacity enhancement AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 108 6.3 FREEWAY FACILITY 6.3.1 2011 Baseline Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-22 and Table 6-23, no project related impacts were identified on the freeway facilities when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Ramp Termini Intersection Table 6-22: 2011 Baseline Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Intersection With No Event With Project Significant Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 16.80 B 18.70 B No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 21.80 C 23.20 C No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 6.20 A 5.00 A No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 20.90 C 21.70 C No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 14.90 B 15.30 B No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 16.20 B 35.30 D No 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 13.80 B 19.50 B No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 17.60 B 21.90 C No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 11.00 B 53.90 D No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 37.70 D 40.10 D No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 28.90 C 32.20 C No Freeway Mainline, Weaving Segment and Ramp Table 6-23: 2011 Baseline Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Locations With No Events With Project Significant Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 24.4 C 27.2 C No W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 22.0 B 23.9 B No W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 22.4 B 27.0 C No W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 31.0 C 31.8 C No SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 26.0 C 27.7 C No W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 22.9 B 24.1 C No Mainline Segment F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 20.3 C 20.6 C No F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 21.4 C 21.6 C No F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 22.5 C 23.3 C No Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 109 Table 6-23: 2011 Baseline Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 1), Continued ID Locations With No Events With Project Significant Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Ramp Location R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* 26.9 C 26.9 C No R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 27.8 C 28.0 D No R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 24.5 C 30.9 D No R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 31.5 D 32.6 D No R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 26.9 C 31.2 D No R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 26.9 C 29.4 D No * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project Similar to the Comparison 1, Table 6-24 and Table 6-25 summarize the freeway facility analyses results for Comparison 2. No project related impacts were identified at any freeway facilities in the study area when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Ramp Termini Intersection Table 6-24: 2011 Baseline Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Intersection With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 16.90 B 18.70 C No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 22.80 C 23.20 C No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 5.40 A 5.00 A No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 21.30 C 21.70 C No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 15.30 B 15.30 B No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 26.30 C 35.30 C No 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 16.90 B 19.50 C No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 19.00 B 21.90 C No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 20.80 C 53.90 C No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 38.70 D 40.10 D No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 31.00 C 32.20 C No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 110 Freeway Mainline, Weaving Segment and Ramp Table 6-25: 2011 Baseline Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Locations With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 27.1 C 27.2 C No W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 23.0 B 23.9 B No W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 25.5 C 27.0 C No W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 31.5 C 31.8 C No SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 27.1 C 27.7 C No W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 23.7 B 24.1 C No Mainline Segment F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 20.5 C 20.6 C No F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 21.6 C 21.6 C No F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 23.1 C 23.3 C No Ramp Location R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* 26.9 C 26.9 C No R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 28.0 C 28.0 D No R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 28.9 D 30.9 D No R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 32.2 D 32.6 D No R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 29.9 D 31.2 D No R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 28.6 D 29.4 D No * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-26, the traffic analysis found the project causes one freeway ramp termini intersection deficiency at SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue when the Average Attendance Honda Center Events and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2011 Baseline conditions. The deterioration in LOS is from LOS C to LOS E. As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-27, no project related impacts were identified on any freeway weaving section or mainline segment. One freeway ramp location, SR-57 Southbound Off- Ramp to Katella Avenue, is shown to operate in a deficient condition under both the 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario and the 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. The ramp deficiency is considered a cumulative impact as it is a pre-existing condition. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 111 Ramp Termini Intersection Table 6-26: 2011 Baseline Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Intersection With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 22.60 C 23.80 C No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 25.20 C 27.80 C No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 4.40 A 4.30 A No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 22.60 C 22.70 C No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 16.50 B 17.10 B No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 26.90 C 35.80 D No 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 30.00 C 45.40 D No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 20.40 C 21.90 C No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 32.90 C 79.30 E Yes 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 39.90 D 42.00 D No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 32.60 C 34.00 C No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Freeway Mainline, Weaving Segment and Ramp Table 6-27: 2011 Baseline Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Locations With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 29.1 C 29.2 C No W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 23.0 B 23.9 B No W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 26.6 C 28.2 C No W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 31.9 C 32.2 D No SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 34.3 D 35.1 D No W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 27.1 C 27.5 D No Mainline Segment F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 21.2 C 21.2 C No F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 22.7 C 22.8 C No F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 25.4 C 25.6 C No Ramp Location R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* 26.9 C 26.9 C No R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 28.8 D 28.9 D No R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 30.8 D 32.7 D No R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 32.2 D 32.6 D No R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 32.3 D 33.6 D No R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 112 6.3.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-28 and Table 6-29, no project related impacts were identified on the freeway facilities when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Ramp Termini Intersection Table 6-28: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Intersection With No Event With Project Significant Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 21.40 C 22.10 C No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 23.00 C 23.60 C No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 6.10 A 6.00 A No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 21.70 C 21.90 C No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 15.40 B 15.40 B No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 17.30 B 33.20 C No 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 13.80 B 19.30 B No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 17.20 B 19.30 B No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 11.50 B 37.60 D No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 47.50 D 51.70 D No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 41.80 D 47.40 D No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp Table 6-29: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Locations With No Events With Project Significan t Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 26.6 C 29.7 C No W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 22.2 B 24.0 B No W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 24.1 C 28.4 C No W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 24.5 C 24.9 C No SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 26.2 C 27.8 C No W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 23.2 C 24.3 C No Mainline Segment F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 22.2 C 22.5 C No F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 23.5 C 23.8 C No F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 24.0 C 24.8 C No Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 113 Table 6-29: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 1), Continued ID Locations With No Events With Project Significan t Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Ramp Location R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* 28.1 D 28.1 D No R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 29.0 D 29.2 D No R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 24.7 C 30.5 D No R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 31.7 D 32.7 D No R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 27.1 C 31.0 D No R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 27.1 C 29.4 D No * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project Similar to the Comparison 1 above, Table 6-30 and Table 6-31 summarize the freeway facility analyses results for Comparison 2. No project related impacts were identified at any freeway facilities in the study area when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Ramp Termini Intersection Table 6-30: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Intersection With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 21.50 C 22.10 C No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 23.30 C 23.60 C No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 6.00 A 6.00 A No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 21.80 C 21.90 C No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 15.40 B 15.40 B No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 29.00 C 33.20 C No 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 16.60 B 19.30 B No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 18.30 B 19.30 B No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 19.70 C 37.60 D No 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 48.20 D 51.70 D No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 45.20 D 47.40 D No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 114 Freeway Mainline, Weaving Segment and Ramp Table 6-31: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Locations With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 29.6 C 29.7 C No W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 23.4 B 24.0 B No W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 27.1 C 28.4 C No W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 24.8 C 24.9 C No SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 27.3 C 27.8 C No W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 24.0 C 24.3 C No Mainline Segment F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 22.4 C 22.5 C No F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 23.7 C 23.8 C No F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 24.6 C 24.8 C No Ramp Location R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* 28.1 D 28.1 D No R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 29.2 D 29.2 D No R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 28.8 D 30.5 D No R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 32.4 D 32.7 D No R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 29.8 D 31.0 D No R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 28.7 D 29.4 D No * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Ramp Termini Intersection As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-32, and similar to Comparison 3 in the 2011 Baseline condition, the traffic analysis found the project causes one freeway ramp termini intersection deficiency at SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue when the Average Attendance Honda Center Events and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2013 Opening Year condition. The deterioration in LOS is from LOS C to LOS E. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 115 Table 6-32: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Intersection With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 25.50 C 26.10 C No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 25.40 C 27.60 C No 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 5.70 A 6.00 A No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 22.00 C 22.40 C No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 15.40 B 15.40 B No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 29.00 C 33.40 C No 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 27.50 C 40.60 D No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 18.30 B 19.30 B No 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 29.00 C 58.70 E Yes 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 49.20 D 54.50 D No 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 48.20 D 52.60 D No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Freeway Mainline, Weaving Segment and Ramp As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-33 and similar to the Comparison 3 under 2011 Baseline conditions, no project related impacts were identified on any freeway weaving section or mainline segment. One freeway ramp location, SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue, is shown to operate in a deficient condition under both the 2013 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario, and the 2013 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. The ramp deficiency is considered a cumulative impact as it is a pre-existing condition. Table 6-33: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Locations With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 31.4 C 31.5 C No W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 23.4 B 24.0 B No W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 28.1 C 29.6 C No W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp 25.0 C 25.2 C No SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 33.8 D 34.5 D No W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 27.1 C 27.4 C No Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 116 Table 6-33: 2013 Opening Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 3), Continued ID Locations With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Mainline Segment F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 23.1 C 23.2 C No F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 24.8 C 24.9 C No F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 26.8 D 27.0 D No Ramp Location R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* 28.1 D 28.1 D No R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 29.9 D 30.0 D No R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 30.4 D 32.2 D No R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 32.4 D 32.7 D No R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 32.0 D 33.2 D No R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density 6.3.3 2030 Future Year Conditions Due to the regional growth under 2030 Future Year conditions, there are two ramp terminus, four freeway weaving sections, and three freeway ramps forecast to operate at deficient conditions under the 2030 Future Year (No Events) scenario. Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project Ramp Termini Intersection As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-34, the traffic impact analysis shows the project results in five deficient study ramp termini intersections when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. The impacted locations are: · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) Among the above deficiencies, the deficiencies at Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue and SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue are identified as cumulative impacts as they are already deficient under the 2030 Future Year No Event scenario. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 117 Table 6-34: 2030 Future Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Intersection With No Event With Project Significant Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 49.00 D 54.70 D No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 69.10 E 70.70 E Cumulative 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 27.20 C 28.90 C No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 37.50 D 37.90 D No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 40.10 D 44.40 D No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 52.80 D 148.60 F Yes 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 14.90 B 51.50 D No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 33.20 C 56.50 E Yes 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 16.10 B 76.90 E Yes 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 105.70 F 110.00 F Cumulative 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 38.30 D 50.00 D No Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-35, the traffic impact analysis shows the project results in five deficient freeway weaving sections and five ramp locations when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year condition. The impacted weaving sections are: · I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp · SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) The SR-57 Northbound segment between the Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp carries the majority of the event trips coming from the South, and is forecast to become deficient as a direct project impact. The remaining four deficiencies above are identified as cumulative impacts. The impacted ramp locations are: · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 118 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue, the SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road, and the SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue are shown to be deficient already under the 2030 Future Year No Event scenario and would continue to operate deficiently under the with Project scenario, therefore, are identified as cumulative impacts. Table 6-35: 2030 Future Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 1) ID Locations With No Events With Project Significant Impact Densit y (pc/mi LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 38.7 E 39.2 E Cumulative W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 30.6 C 32.5 D No W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 35.2 D >Capacity F Yes W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 36.8 E 38.0 E Cumulative Mainline Segment F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 29.4 D 29.7 D No F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 31.0 D 31.2 D No F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 27.8 D 28.6 D No Ramp Location R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 30.1 D 30.2 D No R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 34.1 D 39.9 E Yes R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 34.1 D >Capacity F Yes R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 119 Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project Ramp Termini Intersection As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-36, and similar to Comparison 1 in the 2030 Future Year condition, the traffic impact analysis shows the project results in five deficient study ramp termini intersections when the when the Average Attendance Honda Center Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. The impacted locations are: · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) Among the above deficiencies, the deficiencies at Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue, SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road, and SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue are identified as cumulative impacts as they are already deficient under the 2030 Future Year Average Attendance Honda Center Events scenario. Table 6-36: 2030 Future Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Intersection With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 50.20 D 54.70 D No 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 70.00 E 70.70 E Cumulative 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 28.80 C 28.90 C No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 37.60 D 37.90 D No 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 42.20 D 44.40 D No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 106.00 F 148.60 F Cumulative 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 27.80 C 51.50 D No 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 45.10 D 56.50 E Yes 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 51.50 D 76.90 E Yes 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 108.60 F 110.00 F Cumulative 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 42.60 D 50.00 D No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-37, the traffic impact analysis shows the project results in five deficient freeway weaving sections and five ramp locations when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year condition. The impacted weaving sections are: · I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp (Cumulative Impact) Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 120 · SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) The impacted ramp locations are: · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) It is noted that all identified deficient weaving sections and ramp locations in this comparison are consistent with those shown for Comparison 1 in the 2030 Future Year condition. It is further noted that each weaving section and ramp location identified are shown to be deficient already under the 2030 Future Year Attendance Honda Center Event scenario and would continue to operate deficiently under the with Project scenario, therefore, all are identified as cumulative impact locations. Table 6-37: 2030 Future Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 2) ID Locations With AAHC Event With Project Significant Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 39.1 E 39.2 E Cumulative W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 31.9 C 32.5 D No W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 38.8 E >Capacity F Cumulative W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 37.7 E 38.0 E Cumulative Mainline Segment F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 29.6 D 29.7 D No F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 31.2 D 31.2 D No F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 28.4 D 28.6 D No Ramp Location R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 30.2 D 30.2 D No R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 38.1 E 39.9 E Cumulative R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 36.8 E >Capacity F Cumulative R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 121 Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Ramp Termini Intersection As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-38, the traffic impact analysis shows the project results in seven deficient study ramp termini intersections when the Average Attendance Honda Center Events and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Five of the seven locations are consistent with both Comparisons 1 and 2 under 2030 Future Year Conditions. The impacted locations are: · Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) Among the above deficiencies, all except SR-57 Northbound Ramps /Ball Road are identified as cumulative impacts as they are each already deficient under the 2030 Future Year Average Attendance Honda Center Events and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario and would continue to be deficient under the 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. Table 6-38: 2030 Future Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Project Related Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Intersection With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 75.30 E 100.90 F Cumulative 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 79.80 E 84.60 F Cumulative 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way 32.00 C 33.00 C No 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 61.80 E 62.50 E Cumulative 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps 47.60 D 48.20 D No 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 125.10 F 149.20 F Cumulative 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 94.90 F 150.50 F Cumulative 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 46.00 D 57.00 E Yes 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 76.70 E 110.00 E Cumulative 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 113.30 F 114.50 F Cumulative 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 44.60 D 50.30 D No AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 122 Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp As indicated by the results shown in Table 6-39, the traffic impact analysis shows the project results in five deficient freeway weaving sections and five ramp locations when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year condition. The impacted weaving sections are: · I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off- Ramp (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp (Cumulative Impact) The impacted ramp locations are: · I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road (Cumulative Impact) · SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue (Cumulative Impact) It is noted that all identified deficient weaving sections and ramp locations in this comparison are consistent with those shown for Comparisons 1 and 2 in the 2030 Future Year condition. It is further noted that each weaving section and ramp location identified is shown to be deficient already under the 2030 Future Year Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario and would continue to operate deficiently under 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario, therefore, all are identified as cumulative impact locations. Table 6-39: 2030 Future Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 3) ID Locations With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative W - 4 SR-57 Northbound between Chapman Avenue On-Ramp and Orangewood Avenue Off-Ramp 31.9 C 32.5 D No W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 123 Table 6-39: 2030 Future Year Conditions Freeway Facility Impacts (Comparison 3), Continued ID Locations With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event Significant Impact Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative Mainline Segment F - 1 I-5 Southbound between Lincoln Avenue and Disneyland Drive 30.3 D 30.4 D No F - 2 I-5 Southbound between Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way 32.3 D 32.4 D No F - 3 SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue 30.6 D 30.9 D No Ramp Location R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative R-2 I-5 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue/Orangewood Avenue* 31.0 D 31.0 D No R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 39.8 E >Capacity F Cumulative R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 39.0 E >Capacity F Cumulative R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F Cumulative * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 124 7.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES The results of the traffic analysis indicate the proposed project would create some level of significant impact to the surrounding roadway system under each horizon year 2011 Baseline, 2013 Opening Year, and 2030 Future Year conditions. The more pronounced impacts by number of locations are identified in the 2030 Future Year scenarios. The following discussion is a presentation of recommended mitigation. The discussion includes details on mitigation methodology as well as detail on qualitative considerations taken. The principal objective of each recommended measure is to reduce each identified significant project impact to a less than significant level. Or, at a minimum for those locations that would already be or become deficient without the proposed project, improve the level of service at those impacted locations equivalent to the without project condition. Consistent with the impact analysis methodology presented in Chapter 6, the recommended mitigation are identified for the following three comparisons: 1) No Events vs. Project 2) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project 3) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event It is noted that two distinct mitigation strategies have been considered. One strategy includes implementation of physical capacity improvements (e.g. additional lanes, modified lane configurations). The second strategy includes operational improvements designed to improve traffic flow (e.g. ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs, interconnect infrastructure upgrades). The second strategy generally applies to the intersections that, with the project, would operate at LOS C or D (or LOS E at CMP intersections) which typically would not be a capacity deficiency except under City criteria the project contribution is viewed a significant impact. These types of operational improvements do not increase capacity, but they can decrease the overall delay added at an intersection. Each strategy is consistent with industry practices as well as strategies previously accepted and employed in the project study area. Capacity improvements have been generally considered for locations where project related impacts are expected to deteriorate the volume to capacity ratio (i.e.V/C or LOS) of the facility to an unacceptable condition. Operational improvements have been considered for project impacts in which the volume to capacity ratio of the facility is reduced beyond City of Anaheim traffic impact analysis guideline tolerances but the facility is not deteriorated below the acceptable level of service standard. As the proposed project involves a “special generator” land use, operational improvements may also be considered most appropriate by the City if the identified traffic system impacts would be short in duration and/or outside of high peak traffic conditions. In addition, mitigation selected for this project should take into consideration the highly conservative project description assumptions (e.g. all new events at sold out conditions) taken in this study, which may result in an overestimation of realized project impacts. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 125 Intersection Mitigations Recommended intersection capacity improvements are generally based on a careful assessment of the calculated ICU, the projected volume of each critical movement (i.e. turns or through) by direction, and the available capacity of the facility for each movement and conflicting movements. Stated differently, a “critical movement” assessment is performed, where the critical movements are those conflicting movements with the combined highest V/C compared to the other set of opposing movements through the intersection. Since the sum of the V/C values of each critical movement defines the total ICU of an intersection, there could be more than one, or more than one combination, of improvement options that will mitigate an intersection impact. Selecting the additional through lane(s) and/or turning lanes as the appropriate mitigation is dependent upon whether the most impacted critical movement is a through or turning movement. In considering specific intersection improvement, the decision on where the additional lane capacities and lengths should be confined to, such as the intersection itself or to be extended along the feeding or distributing arterial(s) is an important step. An arterial auxiliary lane, which adds capacity to an intersection and the relatively short approach segment of feeding arterial into the intersection may drop at the intersection as a turn lane or as a combined through/right-turn lane. Each option provides a distinct and measurable ICU benefit. These options may be compared to adding an additional through lane that involves a full widening of the street and which extends from downstream and upstream intersections. Each improvement strategy should include consideration of the performance, proximity, and improvement needs of adjacent intersections. Mitigation Feasibility Consistent with the City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies date 1996, mitigation measures recommended have been evaluated for implementation feasibility. Some key preliminary feasibility assessments consider consistency with established City standards, the availability of right-of-way, and potential impact to adjacent structures/utilities/adjacent land uses/other significant features. The feasibility assessment in part can involve a cost-effectiveness criterion; however, that level of assessment was not performed due to the lack to preliminary sketch plans, material quantities or unit cost details. For public works capital improvement projects, the need to acquire right-of-way from adjacent private or public properties to perform the improvement is a significant factor and is typically not preferred as this can cause significant delay in project implementation, can result in significant unexpected relocation and compensation cost for displaced residents and businesses, and may result in negative political and/or community feedback due to the acquisition process performed (e.g. eminent domain, condemnation). To the extent possible consideration should be given to accomplishing capacity improvements within existing right-of-way through reconfiguration and/or re-striping. CEQA and Nexus It is noted that the mitigation measures identified and recommended are assumed to be in compliance with nexus and reasonableness requirements of CEQA. In particular, the mitigation recommended for currently deficient or projected deficient locations might not be sufficient to bring those locations to acceptable LOS but are intended to prevent further deterioration of the impact location. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 126 7.1 INTERSECTIONS 7.1.1 2011 Baseline Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project The Comparison 1 under 2011 Baseline conditions indicates that two intersections located in the City of Anaheim will be significantly impacted by the project when the No Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario. Table 7-1 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Appendix G- 4 includes detailed mitigation ICU worksheets. Table 7-1: 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.46 A 0.72 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.27 A 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Operational Improvements consist of ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs. Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project Table 7-2 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation under the Comparison 2. As shown in Table 7-2, two intersections identified as project related impact under the Comparison 1 are also significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario. Appendix G-4 includes detailed mitigation ICU worksheets. Table 7-2: 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.61 B 0.72 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.53 A 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Operational Improvements consist of ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 127 Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, the project would significantly impact five study intersections. Each impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 7-3 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Appendix G-4 includes detailed mitigation ICU worksheets. Table 7-3: 2011 Baseline Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.72 C 0.79 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.62 B 0.73 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.71 C 0.84 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.60 A 0.78 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 1.06 F 0.78 C Add 1 EBR Infeasible *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Operational Improvements consist of ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the proposed improvements at Douglass Road and Katella Avenue is deemed not feasible. It is further noted that this improvement is fully funded under the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan; however, construction of this improvement is not expected to occur before 2013. It is considered economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to require the project applicant to implement the mitigation measures in advance of the planned improvements. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 128 7.1.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project Table 7-4 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation under 2013 Opening Year Comparison 1. Two intersections identified as project related impact under 2011 Baseline Comparison 1 conditions will be continually significantly impacted by the project when the 2013 Opening Year Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the 2013 Opening Year Project scenario. Appendix G-4 includes detailed mitigation ICU worksheets. Table 7-4: 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With No Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.50 A 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.29 A 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Operational Improvements consist of ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs. Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project As indicated in Table 7-5, the same project related impact locations under the 2013 Opening Year Comparison 1 are also significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario. Appendix G-4 includes detailed mitigation ICU worksheets. Table 7-5: 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.66 B 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.55 A 0.76 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Operational Improvements consist of ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 129 Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, the project would significantly impact six study intersections. Each impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 7-6 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Appendix G-5 includes detailed mitigation ICU worksheets. Table 7-6: 2013 Opening Year Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.82 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.67 B 0.73 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 0.67 B 0.77 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 27 SR-57 SB Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.73 C 0.86 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue * Anaheim 0.61 B 0.79 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 1.06 F 0.79 C Add 1 EBR Infeasible *CMP intersections. LOS E is considered acceptable for CMP intersections AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Operational Improvements consist of ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the proposed improvements at the intersection of Douglass Road and Katella Avenue is deemed not feasible. It is further noted that this improvement is fully funded under the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan; however, construction of this improvement is not expected to occur before 2013. It is considered economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to require the project applicant to implement the mitigation measures in advance of the planned improvements. 7.1.3 2030 Future Year Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project City of Anaheim The traffic analysis results indicate that 20 study intersections in the City of Anaheim would be significantly impacted by the project when the No Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 7-7 provides details on the impacted intersection location, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Detailed mitigation ICU worksheets are included in Appendix G-6. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 130 Table 7-7: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) ID Intersection Jurisdiction No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.86 D Add 1 WBT Infeasible 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.90 D 0.93 E 0.87 D Add 1 NBT Infeasible 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.71 C 0.77 C N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.78 C 0.83 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.83 D Add 1 EBR Infeasible 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.94 E 0.87 D Add 1 EBR, 1 EBL Infeasible 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.84 D 0.90 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.85 D 0.95 E 0.87 D Restripe EBL to EBT, Add 1 SBT Infeasible 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 0.78 C 0.82 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.90 D 0.92 E 0.87 D Restripe NBR to NBT Infeasible 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.75 C 0.88 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement Feasible 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.97 E 1.09 F 0.90 D Add 1NBT, 1EBT Infeasible 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.81 D 1.02 F 0.81 D Add 1 NBR, 1WBR Infeasible 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.92 E 0.88 D Add 1 EBT Infeasible `26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road / Anaheim 1.00 E 1.36 F 0.86 D Add 1 SBL,1 WBT Infeasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.69 B 1.02 F 0.72 C Add 1 SBL, 1 EBT, 1 WBT Infeasible 28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.85 D 0.94 E 0.82 D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL, 1WBT Infeasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.79 C 1.08 F 0.78 C Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT Infeasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.88 D 1.48 F 0.90 D Add 1 NBL, 2 NBT, 1NBR, 2 SBT, 1 EBL, 1 WBT, 1WBR Infeasible 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.46 F 1.69 F 1.43 F Add 1 EBR Infeasible *CMP intersection. LOS E is considered acceptable AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Operational Improvements consist of ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 131 A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Anaheim intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints: · Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road – Add 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Ball Road. · Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue – Add 1 NBT The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Katella Avenue, and would require the demolition of an existing commercial building. · Lewis Street / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints of an adjacent industrial parcel, and would involve significant utility relocation. · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 EBR, 1 EBL The improvement at this intersection appears infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The right-of-way required for capacity improvement could significantly impact the Southern California Edison sub-station on the south side of Cerritos Avenue. · State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue - Restripe EBL to EBT, Add 1 SBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the probable impact to a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for adding SBT lane would significantly impact a recently developed residential mixed-use development on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner. · State College Boulevard / Orangethorpe Avenue - Restripe NBR to NBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the probable impact of entitled land uses on the northeast corner of the intersection. The potential right-of-way required for adding the NBT lane may go through the footprint of entitled high rise residential towers. · Sunkist Street / Ball Road - Add 1 NBT, 1 EBT The improvement at this intersection appears infeasible due to the probable impact to a number of existing businesses and residences. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 132 · Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 NBR, 1 WBR The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to proximity presence of the adjacent railroad. Adding WBR lane would likely require difficult right-of-way acquisition from the railroad, and may be infeasible based on presently unknown track clearance restriction. This mitigation measure will be feasible if the existing railroad right-of-way is abandoned by Union Pacific Railroad. · Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue – Add EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the right of way necessary to provide the sufficient lane width and sidewalk width. Significant earthwork is required, which would likely result in impact and removal of parking and the probable impact including demolition of a multistory office tower. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road - Add 1 SBL,1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible and non-cost effective due to high cost of widening the SR 57/Ball Road crossing bridge span to accommodate the additional WBT lane. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBL, 1 EBT, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the required right-of-way will significantly impact the existing business located along two sites of Katella Avenue. The improvement also requires the SR-57/Katella bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT and EBT receiving lane. · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road - Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1 NBL, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible and non-cost effective due to high cost of widening the SR 57/Ball Road crossing bridge span to accommodate the additional WBT lane. · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane. · Douglass Road / Katella Avenue - Add 1 NBL, 2 NBT, 1NBR, 2 SBT, 1 EBL, 1 WBT, 1 WBR The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvements would significantly impact the businesses and hotel on the south of Katella Avenue and parking at Honda Center on the north of Katella Avenue. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 133 · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR These improvements are currently infeasible as as they would necessitate right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. City of Orange Based on the traffic analysis results, there are two study intersections in the City of Orange significantly impacted by the project when the No Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Table 7-8 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Detailed mitigation ICU worksheets are included in Appendix G-6. Table 7-8: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) ID Intersection Jurisdiction No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 0.81 D 0.99 E 0.81 D Add 1 WBT Infeasible 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.85 D 0.97 E 0.87 D Restripe WBR to WBT, Add 1SBT Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. The following city of Orange intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints: · Katella Avenue/Struck Avenue – Add 1 WBT The proposed improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, WBT receiving lane will require the bridge crossing Santa Ana River to be widened, which introduces potential significant environmental considerations, cost implications and lengthy implementation process. · Main Street / Katella Avenue – Restripe WBR to WBT, Add 1 SBT Significant right of way is required at the regional shopping center on the northwest corner of this intersection, resulting in a possible loss of parking and demolition of up to two retail buildings. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 134 Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project City of Anaheim Based on the traffic analysis results, there are 16 study intersections in the City of Anaheim significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 7-9 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Detailed mitigation ICU worksheets are included in Appendix G-6. Table 7-9: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.86 D Add 1 WBT** Infeasible 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.92 E 0.93 E 0.87 D Add 1 NBT** Infeasible 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.84 D Add 1 EBR** Infeasible 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.94 E 0.92 D Add 1 EBR Infeasible 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.91 E 0.95 E 0.89 D Add 1 SBT Infeasible 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 0.91 E 0.92 E 0.87 D Restripe NBR to NBT** Infeasible 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.83 D 0.88 D N/A N/A Operational Improvement** Feasible 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 1.04 F 1.09 F 1.00 D Add 1EBT Infeasible 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.93 E 1.02 F 0.89 D Add 1 WBR Infeasible 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.86 D 0.92 E 0.88 D Add 1 EBT** Infeasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 1.22 F 1.36 F 1.01 D Add 1 SBL Infeasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.86 D 1.02 F 0.87 C Add 1 SBL Infeasible 28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.90 D 0.94 E 0.88 D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.96 E 1.08 F 0.86 C Add 1 WBT Infeasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 1.23 F 1.48 F 1.12 D Add I EBL, 1 WBR Infeasible 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.60 F 1.69 F 1.43 F Add 1 EBR** Infeasible *CMP intersection. LOS E is considered acceptable ** Same improvement as provided in Comparison 1 AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 135 The following city of Anaheim intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints: · Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road – Add 1 WBT (Same improvement as provided in the Comparison 1) The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Ball Road. · Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue – Add 1 NBT The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Katella Avenue, and would require the demolition of an existing commercial building. · Lewis Street / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints of an adjacent industrial parcel, and would likely involve significant utility relocation. · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 EBR The improvement at this intersection appears infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The right-of-way required could significantly impact the Southern California Edison sub-station on the south side of Cerritos Avenue. · State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for adding SBT lane would significantly impact a recently developed residential mixed-use development on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner. · State College Boulevard / Orangethorpe Avenue - Restripe NBR to NBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the probable impact of entitled land uses on the northeast corner of the intersection. The potential right-of-way required for adding the NBT lane may go through the footprint of entitled high rise residential towers. · Sunkist Street / Ball Road - Add 1 EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses and apartment complex within close proximity to the public right-of-way. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 136 · Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 WBR The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of the railroad within close proximity to the public right-of-way. Adding WBR lane will require right-of-way acquisition from the railroad and potentially violate the railroad track clearance restriction. This mitigation measure will be feasible if the existing railroad right-of-way is abandoned by Union Pacific Railroad. · Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue – Add EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the right of way necessary to provide the sufficient lane width and sidewalk width. Significant earthwork is required, which would likely result impact and removal of parking and probable impact including demolition of a multistory office tower. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive undesirable grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive undesirable grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp. · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane. · Douglass Road / Katella Avenue - Add 1 EBL, 1 WBR The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvements would significantly impact the businesses and hotel on the south of Katella Avenue and parking at Honda Center on the north of Katella Avenue. · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR These improvements are currently infeasible and undesirable given the need for right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 137 City of Orange Based on the traffic analysis results, there are two study intersections in the City of Orange significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 7-10 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Detailed mitigation ICU worksheets are included in Appendix G-6. Table 7-10: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 0.92 E 0.99 E 0.81 D Add 1 WBT** Infeasible 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.91 E 0.97 E 0.91 E Restripe WBR to WBT Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. The following city of Orange intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints: · Katella Avenue/Struck Avenue – Add 1 WBT The proposed improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, WBT receiving lane will require the bridge crossing Santa Ana River to be widened, which introduces potential significant environmental considerations, cost implications and lengthy implementation process. · Main Street / Katella Avenue – Restripe WBR to WBT Significant right of way is required at the regional shopping center on the northwest corner of this intersection, resulting in a possible loss of parking and demolition of up to two retail buildings. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 138 Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event City of Anaheim Based on the traffic analysis results, there are 18 study intersections in the City of Anaheim significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 7-11 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Detailed mitigation ICU worksheets are included in Appendix G-6. Table 7-11: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.86 D Add 1 WBT** Infeasible 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.95 E 0.96 E 0.88 D Add 1 NBT** Infeasible 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 0.88 D 0.91 E N/A N/A Operational Improvement** Feasible 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.84 D Add 1 EBR** Infeasible 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 0.96 E 0.92 E Add 1 EBR** Infeasible 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.95 E 0.98 E 0.88 D Add 1 EBT Infeasible 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 1.18 F 1.22 F 1.12 F Add 1 SBT** Infeasible 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 1.05 F 1.06 F 0.99 E Restripe NBR to NBT** Infeasible 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 0.99 E 0.89 D Add 1 EBT Infeasible 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 1.08 F 1.13 F 1.03 F Add 1 EBT** Infeasible 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 0.94 E 1.04 F 0.90 D Add 1WBR** Infeasible 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 0.89 D 0.97 E 0.90 D Add 1 EBT** Infeasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim 1.22 F 1.36 F 1.01 F Add 1 SBL** Infeasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 1.21 F 1.37 F 1.02 F Add 1 SBL** Infeasible 28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Anaheim 0.90 D 0.94 E 0.88 D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL** Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue* Anaheim 1.06 F 1.18 F 0.94 E Add 1 WBT** Infeasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 1.50 F 1.74 F 1.42 F Add 1 EBL, WBR** Infeasible 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 1.62 F 1.71 F 1.37 F Add 1 EBR, WBL** Infeasible *CMP intersection. LOS E is considered acceptable ** Same improvement as provided in either Comparison 1 or 2, or in both AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 139 A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Anaheim intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints: · Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road – Add 1 WBT (Same improvement as provided in Comparison 1 and 2) The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Ball Road. · Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue – Add 1 NBT The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the business on the north of Katella Avenue, and would require the demolition of an existing commercial building. · Lewis Street / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints of an adjacent industrial parcel, and would involve significant utility relocation. · Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 EBR The improvement at this intersection appears infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The right-of-way required for capacity improvement could significantly impact the Southern California Edison sub-station on the south side of Cerritos Avenue. · Lewis Street / Katella Avenue – Add 1 EBT The improvement at this intersection appears to be infeasible due to right-of-way constraints. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the existing and future development on parcels on the south side of Katella Avenue. · State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for adding SBT lane would significantly impact a recently developed residential mixed-use development on the northwest corner and a gas station on the southwest corner. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 140 · State College Boulevard / Orangethorpe Avenue - Restripe NBR to NBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the probable impact of entitled land uses on the northeast corner of the intersection. The potential right-of-way required for adding the NBT lane may go through the footprint of entitled high rise residential towers. · Sportstown / Katella Avenue – Add EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the probable demolition and replacement of the railroad overcrossing east of the Sportstown intersection, along with regarding that may affect properties on both sides of Katella Avenue. · Sunkist Street / Ball Road – Add 1 EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses and apartment complex within close proximity to the public right-of-way. · Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue - Add 1 WBR The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of the railroad within close proximity to the public right-of-way. Adding WBR lane will require right-of-way acquisition from the railroad and potentially violate the railroad track clearance restriction. · Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue – Add EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the right of way necessary to provide the sufficient lane width and sidewalk width. Significant earthwork is required, which will result in impact including removal of parking and the probable impact or demolition of a multistory office tower. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp. · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 141 · Douglass Road / Katella Avenue - Add 1 EBL, 1 WBR (Same improvement as provided in Comparison 1 and 2) The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvements would significantly impact the businesses and hotel on the south of Katella Avenue and parking at Honda Center on the north of Katella Avenue. · Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road – Add 1 EBR, 1 WBL These improvements are infeasible and undesirable given the need for right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. City of Orange Based on the traffic analysis results, there are three study intersections in the City of Orange significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Table 7-12 provides details on the impacted intersection locations, ICU and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Detailed mitigation ICU worksheets are included in Appendix G-6. Table 7-12: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Intersection Jurisdiction With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 0.90 D 0.91 E 0.84 D Restripe 1 NBR to NBT Feasible 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 0.81 D 0.99 E 0.81 D Add 1 WBT** Infeasible 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 0.85 D 0.97 E 0.87 D Restripe WBR to WBT** Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. The following city of Orange intersection improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints: Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 142 · Katella Avenue/Struck Avenue – Add 1 WBT The proposed improvement is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, WBT receiving lane will require the bridge crossing Santa Ana River to be widened, which introduces potential significant environmental considerations, cost implications and lengthy implementation process. · Main Street / Katella Avenue – Restripe WBR to WBT Significant right of way is required at the regional shopping center on the northwest corner of this intersection, resulting in a possible loss of parking and demolition of up to two retail buildings. 7.2 ARTERIAL SEGMENT 7.2.1 2011 Baseline Conditions The implementation of the proposed project does not result in significant impacts at any of the study arterial segments under all three Comparisons 1, 2 and 3 in either the City of Anaheim or City of Orange. 7.2.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions Similar to the 2011 Baseline conditions, the implementation of the proposed project does not result in significant impacts at any of the study arterial segments in either the City of Anaheim or City of Orange under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. 7.2.3 2030 Future Year Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project City of Anaheim Based on the traffic analysis results, there are four study arterial segments within the City of Anaheim significantly impacted by the project when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Table 7-13 provides details on the impacted segment locations, V/C and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of- way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 143 The following city of Anaheim arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of- way or other constraint: · Ball Road – SR-57 NB Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to probable and undesirable impact to the adjacent Orange County Water District Property to the north, which is currently designated as open space in the City of Anaheim General Plan. Any widening would require significant earthwork leading to the bridge over the SR-57 freeway. · Douglass Road – Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the surrounding office buildings with the removal of parking spaces. · Katella Avenue –SR-57 Northbound Ramps and Douglass Road: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Providing additional lanes on Katella Avenue is infeasible since it will likely result in the removal of a significant number of existing Honda Center parking spaces and the possible demolition of the hotel south of Katella Avenue. · Phoenix Club Drive –Honda Center to Ball Road: Upgrade to 4-lane arterial These improvements are infeasible and undesirable given the need for right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. Table 7-13: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 1) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily No Events Daily With Project Peak Hour With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive 6 1.35 F 1.42 F 0.79 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 4 0.77 C 0.91 E 0.84 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 9 Katella Avenue SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road 6 1.12 F 1.28 F 0.82 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 2 3.13 F 3.36 F 1.39 F Upgrade to 4-lane arterial Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 144 City of Orange Based on the traffic analysis results, there are three study arterial segments within the City of Orange significantly impacted by the project when the No Events scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Table 7-14 provides details on the impacted segment locations, ADT, V/C and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Orange arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of- way or other constraint: · Katella Avenue – Struck Avenue to Main Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, this is also a very high cost improvement as it requires the bridge crossing Santa Ana River widened in order to accommodate additional WBT receiving lane and EBT approach lane. · Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses and office building on the north and south of Katella Avenue. Table 7-14: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 1) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street 6 63,840 1.13 F 66,640 1.18 F 0.89 D Upgrade to 8- lane arterial Infeasible A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street 6 52,950 0.94 E 54,630 0.97 E 0.73 C Upgrade to 8- lane arterial Infeasible A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue 4 34,840 0.93 E 35,920 0.96 E 0.64 B Upgrade to 6- lane arterial Feasible *CMP intersection. LOS E is considered acceptable AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 145 Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project City of Anaheim The four study arterial segments within the City of Anaheim identified with project related impacts under Comparison 1 continues to be significantly impacted by the project when the Average Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Hence, the same mitigation measures are proposed and presented in Table 7-15. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of- way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Anaheim arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of- way or other constraint: · Ball Road – SR-57 NB Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to probable and undesirable impacts to the adjacent Orange County Water District Property to the north, which is currently designated as open space in the City of Anaheim General Plan. Any widening would require significant earthwork leading to the bridge over the SR-57 freeway. · Douglass Road – Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue: Upgrade to 6-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the surrounding office buildings with the removal of parking spaces. · Katella Avenue –SR-57 Northbound Ramps and Douglass Road: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Providing additional lanes on Katella Avenue is infeasible and undesirable since it would result in the removal of a significant number of existing Honda Center parking spaces and the possible demolition of the hotel south of Katella Avenue. · Phoenix Club Drive –Honda Center to Ball Road: Upgrade to 4-lane arterial These improvements are infeasible and undesirable given the need for right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 146 Table 7-15: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 2) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily With AAHC Event Daily With Project Peak Hour With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive 6 1.39 F 1.42 F 0.79 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 4 0.85 D 0.91 E 1.12 F Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Infeasible A - 9 Katella Avenue SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road 6 1.22 F 1.28 F 0.82 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 2 3.27 F 3.36 F 1.39 F Upgrade to 4-lane arterial Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium City of Orange The three study arterial segments within the City of Orange identified with project related impacts under Comparison 1 continues to be significantly impacted by the project when the Average Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Hence, the same mitigation measures are proposed and presented in Table 7-16. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Orange arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of- way or other constraint: · Katella Avenue – Struck Avenue to Main Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, this is also a very high cost improvement as it requires the bridge crossing Santa Ana River widened in order to accommodate additional WBT receiving lane and EBT approach lane. · Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses and office building on the north and south of Katella Avenue. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 147 Table 7-16: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 2) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes With AAHC Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street 6 63,840 1.13 F 66,640 1.18 F 0.89 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street 6 52,950 0.94 E 54,630 0.97 E 0.73 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue 4 34,840 0.93 E 35,920 0.96 E 0.64 B Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Feasible *CMP intersection. LOS E is considered acceptable AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event City of Anaheim Table 7-17 presents proposed improvements for the eight City of Anaheim study arterial segments significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Four of these locations are also significantly impacted by the project as shown in Comparison 1 and 2 under the 2030 Future Year conditions the same improvements are proposed for these locations. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Anaheim arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of- way or other constraint: · Ball Road – SR-57 NB Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due undesirable impact to the adjacent Orange County Water District Property to the north, which is currently designated as open space in the City of Anaheim General Plan. Any widening would require significant earthwork leading to the bridge over the SR-57 freeway. · Douglass Road – Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue: Upgrade to 6-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the surrounding office buildings with the removal of parking spaces. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 148 · Katella Avenue – State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Widening between Sportstown and Howell Avenue will require the demolition and reconstruction of an active commuter and freight railroad crossing, also affecting several adjacent properties due to grading. Please note that the segment between State College Boulevard and Sportstown will be widened to 8 lanes. · Katella Avenue –Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the surrounding retail and office buildings with the possible demolition of the retail building and a parking structure used for a multi story office building. · Katella Avenue –SR-57 Southbound Ramps and SR-57 Northbound Ramps Widening between SR-57 Southbound Ramps and Northbound Ramps will require the expansion of the bridge span. · Katella Avenue –SR-57 Northbound Ramps and Douglass Road: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Providing additional lanes on Katella Avenue is infeasible and undesirable since it would likely result in the removal of a significant number of existing Honda Center parking spaces and the possible demolition of the hotel south of Katella Avenue. · Katella Avenue –Douglass Road to Struck Avenue: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to the Santa Ana River Bridge. The bridge will require widening in both directions, and widening the bridge requires a lengthy process involving multiple agencies. · Phoenix Club Drive –Honda Center to Ball Road: Upgrade to 4-lane arterial These improvements are infeasible and undesirable given the need for right of way acquisition of property currently designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 149 Table 7-17: 2030 Future Year City of Anaheim Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes Daily With AAHC Event and AS Event Daily With Project and AS Event Peak Hour With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS A - 2 Ball Road SR-57 NB Ramps Phoenix Club Drive 6 1.39 F 1.42 F 0.79 C Upgrade to 8- lane arterial Infeasible A - 4 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 4 0.85 D 0.91 E 1.13 F Upgrade to 6- lane arterial Infeasible A - 6 Katella Avenue State College Blvd Howell Avenue 6 1.18 F 1.19 F 0.71 C Upgrade to 8- lane arterial Infeasible A - 7 Katella Avenue Howell Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps 6 1.34 F 1.38 F 0.68 B Upgrade to 8- lane arterial Infeasible A - 8 Katella Avenue SR-57 SB Ramps SR-57 NB Ramps 6 1.28 F 1.32 F 0.71 C Upgrade to 8- lane arterial Infeasible A - 9 Katella Avenue SR-57 NB Ramps Douglass Road 6 1.27 F 1.34 F 0.93 E Upgrade to 8- lane arterial Infeasible A - 10 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Struck Avenue 6 1.36 F 1.40 F 0.72 C Upgrade to 8- lane arterial Infeasible A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive Honda Center Ball Road 2 3.28 F 3.37 F 1.41 F Upgrade to 4- lane arterial Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium City of Orange Table 7-18 presents proposed improvements for the three study arterial segments significantly impacted by the project when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. These three locations are consistent with impacts shown in Comparison 1 and 2 under the 2030 Future Year conditions, and thus the same mitigation measures are proposed for these locations. A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation many improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following city of Orange arterial segment improvements are likely not feasible due to right-of- way or other constraint: · Katella Avenue – Struck Avenue to Main Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses on the north of Katella Avenue. In addition, this is Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 150 also a very high cost improvement as it requires the bridge crossing Santa Ana River widened in order to accommodate additional WBT receiving lane and EBT approach lane. · Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street: Upgrade to 8-lane arterial The proposed improvement at this arterial segment is infeasible due to the presence of a large number of existing businesses. The potential right-of-way required for capacity improvement would significantly impact the businesses and office building on the north and south of Katella Avenue. Table 7-18: 2030 Future Year City of Orange Proposed Arterial Segments Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Lanes With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS A - 11 Katella Avenue* Struck Avenue Main Street 6 65,510 1.16 F 66,640 1.18 F 0.89 D Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 12 Katella Avenue* Main Street Batavia Street 6 53,950 0.96 E 54,630 0.97 E 0.73 C Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 13 Main Street Katella Avenue Struck Avenue 4 36,870 0.98 E 37,310 0.99 E 0.66 B Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Feasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium 7.3 FREEWAY FACILITY 7.3.1 2011 Baseline Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, in the 2011 Baseline conditions, the project would significantly impact one ramp termini intersection (SR-57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue). The impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 7- 19 provides details on the impacted location, Delay and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. The mitigation has been identified based on an HCM (Synchro) analysis. Detailed mitigation Synchro worksheets are included in Appendix H-4. Table 7-19: 2011 Baseline Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Intersection With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 32.90 C 79.30 E 39.0 D Add 1 NBR Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 151 A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the improvement at the intersection of SR-57 Northbound Ramp and Katella Avenue is infeasible as the right-of-way acquisition likely required for the improvements would significantly impact the hotel on the south of Katella Avenue, and possibly require the reconfiguration of the northbound loop on-ramp immediately adjacent to the off –ramp. Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, in the 2011 Baseline conditions, the project would significantly impact one ramp (SR-57 Southbound to Katella Avenue). The impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 7-20 provides details on the impacted location, Density and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Detailed mitigation HCS worksheets are included in Appendix K-4. Table 7-20: 2011 Baseline Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Location With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/l n) LOS R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F 21.1 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the improvement identified for SR-57 southbound off-ramp to Katella Avenue is infeasible. It is further noted that this improvement is fully funded under the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan; however, construction of this improvement is not expected to occur before 2013. It is considered economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to require the project applicant to implement the mitigation measures in advance of the planned improvements. 7.3.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions Ramp Termini Intersection Similar to the 2011 Baseline conditions, the traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, in the 2013 Opening Year conditions, the project would significantly impact one ramp termini intersection (SR-57 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue). The impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 7-21 provides details on the impacted location, Delay and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. The mitigation has been identified based on an HCM (Synchro) analysis. Detailed mitigation Synchro worksheets are included in Appendix H-5. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 152 Table 7-21: 2013 Opening Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Intersection With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 29.00 C 58.70 E 26.3 C Add 1 NBR Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the improvement at the intersection of SR-57 Northbound Ramp and Katella Avenue is infeasible as the right-of-way acquisition likely required for the improvements would significantly impact the hotel on the south of Katella Avenue, and possibly require the reconfiguration of the northbound loop on-ramp immediately adjacent to the off –ramp. Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp Similar to the 2011 Baseline conditions, the traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event, in the 2013 Opening Year conditions, the project would significantly impact one ramp (SR-57 Southbound to Katella Avenue). The impacted location is within the City of Anaheim. Table 7-22 provides details on the impacted location, Density and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. Detailed mitigation HCS worksheets are included in Appendix K-5. Table 7-22: 2013 Opening Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Location With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/l n) LOS R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F 20.3 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation, the improvement at SR-57 Southbound Off Ramp to Katella Avenue is infeasible. It is further noted that this improvement is fully funded under the Platinum Triangle Implementation Plan; however, construction of this improvement is not expected to occur before 2013. It is considered economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to require the project applicant to implement the mitigation measures in advance of the planned improvements. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 153 7.3.3 2030 Future Year Conditions Comparison 1: No Events vs. Project Ramp Termini Intersection The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 1, No Events scenario compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions, the project would significantly impact five ramp termini intersections. The impacted locations are all within the City of Anaheim. Table 7-23 provides details on the impacted locations, Delay and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. The mitigation has been identified based on an HCM (Synchro) analysis. Detailed mitigation Synchro worksheets are included in Appendix H-6. Table 7-23: 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 1) ID Intersection No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 69.10 E 70.70 E 46.10 D Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR Infeasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 52.80 D 148.6 0 F 42.50 D Add 1 SBL, 1 WBT* Infeasible 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 33.20 C 56.50 E 30.9 C Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1 NBL, 1 WBT* Infeasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 16.10 B 76.90 E 37.10 D Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT* Infeasible 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 105.70 F 110.0 0 F 48.40 D Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT Infeasible *Same improvement as identified through ICU analysis AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of- way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following ramp termini intersections are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints: · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue - Restripe NBTL to NBL, NRTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR This improvement would require vehicles exiting the freeway to change 3 lanes in less than 400 feet to make a right turn onto Katella Avenue, which does not meet Caltrans requirements. Also, this improvement would require right of way of an adjacent industrial parcel requiring the demolition of an existing building. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road – Add 1 SBL, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to high cost of widening the SR 57/Ball Road bridge to accommodate the additional WBT lane. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 154 · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road - Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL, 1WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to high cost of widening the SR 57/Ball Road crossing bridge span to accommodate the additional WBT lane. · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane. · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, add 1 EBT The improvement to the off ramp is infeasible due to the need for, and the undesirable impacts of, a retaining wall to be added immediately adjacent to the SR-55 Freeway. Right of way constraints make improvements to Katella Avenue infeasible, given the acquisition would adversely affect the adjacent gas station and may require partial demolition of an existing strip retail building to the west. Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp Table 7-24 presents a list of proposed improvements for freeway mainlines, weaving segments and freeway ramp locations that experience project impact when the No Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Detailed mitigation HCS worksheets for weaving segments and ramp locations are included in Appendix J-3 and Appendix K-6, respectively. Table 7-24: 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 1) ID Location With No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On- Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 38.7 E 39.2 E 32.6 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 35.2 D >Capacity F 34.0 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On- Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F 39.1 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F 38.6 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 36.8 E 38.0 E 33.3 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 155 Table 7-24: 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 1), Continued ID Location With No Events With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Ramp R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* >Capacity F >Capacity F 41.0 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 34.1 D 39.9 E 20.6 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road >Capacity F >Capacity F 40.6 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 34.1 D >Capacity F 20.9 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of- way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. All of the weaving segment and ramp improvements noted in Table 7-24 are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for I-5 and SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Beyond jurisdictional limitation, additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and environmental constraints. Comparison 2: Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project Ramp Termini Intersection Similar to Comparison 1, the traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 2, Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions, the project would significantly impact five ramp termini intersections. The impacted locations are all within the City of Anaheim. Table 7-25 provides details on the impacted locations, Delay and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. The mitigation has been identified based on an HCM (Synchro) analysis. Detailed mitigation Synchro worksheets are included in Appendix H-6. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 156 Table 7-25: 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 2) ID Intersection With AAHC Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 70.00 E 70.70 E 46.10 D Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR Infeasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 106.00 F 148.60 F 77.4 E Add SBL* Infeasible 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 45.10 D 56.50 E 42.10 D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add NBL * Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 51.50 D 76.90 E 37.10 D Add NBR, 1 WBT Infeasible 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 108.60 F 110.00 F 48.4 D Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT Infeasible *Same improvement as identified through ICU analysis AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of- way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. The following improvements are likely not feasible: · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue - Restripe NBTL to NBL, NRTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR This improvement would require vehicles exiting the freeway to change 3 lanes in less than 400 feet to make a right turn onto Katella Avenue, which does not meet Caltrans requirements. Also, this improvement would require right of way of an adjacent industrial parcel requiring the demolition of an existing building. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp. · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 157 · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, add 1 EBT The improvement to the off ramp is infeasible due to the need for, and the undesirable impacts of, a retaining wall to be added immediately adjacent to the SR-55 Freeway. Right of way constraints make improvements to Katella Avenue infeasible, given the acquisition would adversely affect the adjacent gas station and possibly require partial demolition of an existing strip retail building to the west. Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp Table 7-26 presents a list of proposed improvements for freeway mainlines, weaving segments, and freeway ramp locations that experience project impacts when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event scenario is compared to the Project scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Detailed mitigation HCS worksheets are included in Appendix J-3 and Appendix K-6, respectively. Table 7-26: 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 2) ID Location With AAHC Event With Project With Project (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/l n) LOS Freeway Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On- Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 39.1 E 39.2 E 32.6 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 38.8 E >Capacity F 34.0 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On- Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F 39.1 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F 38.6 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 37.7 E 38.0 E 33.3 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible Freeway Ramp R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* >Capacity F >Capacity F 41.0 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 38.1 E 39.9 E 20.6 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road >Capacity F >Capacity F 40.6 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 36.8 E >Capacity F 20.9 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of- way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. All of the weaving segment and ramp improvements noted in Table 7-26 are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 158 those already assumed in the buildout analysis for I-5 and SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Beyond jurisdictional limitation, additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and environmental constraints. Comparison 3: Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Ramp Termini Intersection The traffic analysis results show that under Comparison 3, Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future Year conditions, the project would significantly impact eight ramp termini intersections. The impacted locations are all within the City of Anaheim. Five of the eight are consistent with impacts found in Comparisons 1 and 2 under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Table 7-27 provides details on the impacted locations, Delay and LOS, the identified mitigation strategies and an assessment of feasibility for each mitigation. The mitigation has been identified based on an HCM (Synchro) analysis. Detailed mitigation Synchro worksheets are included in Appendix H-6. Table 7-27: 2030 Future Year Proposed Ramp Termini Intersection Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Intersection With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 75.30 E 100.90 F 73.80 E Add 1 EBT Infeasible 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue 79.80 E 84.60 F 54.40 D Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR Infeasible 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps 61.80 E 62.50 E 41.40 D Restripe WBT to WBTR Feasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road 125.10 F 149.20 F 78.90 E Add 1 SBL* Infeasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 94.90 F 150.40 F 82.50 F Add 1 SBL* Infeasible 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road 46.00 D 57.00 E 45.70 D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1 NBL* Feasible 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 76.70 E 110.00 F 54.00 D Add 1NBR, 1 WBT Infeasible 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue 113.30 F 114.50 F 49.5 D Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT Infeasible *Same improvement as identified through ICU analysis AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of- way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 159 The following improvement are likely not feasible: · Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue – Add 1 EBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible due to present of a large number of immediately adjacent Anaheim Resort supportive land uses that contribute to the economic development of the City. To accommodate the proposed improvements, the intersection would have to be expanded impacting the right-of-way several hotels. In addition, the improvement required the I-5/Katella Avenue bridge span expanded to accommodate EBT receiving lane. · Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue - Restripe NBTL to NBL, NRTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR This improvement would require vehicles exiting the freeway to change 3 lanes in less than 400 feet to make a right turn onto Katella Avenue, which does not meet Caltrans requirements. Also, this improvement would require right of way of an adjacent industrial parcel requiring the demolition of an existing building. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive grading and earthwork required to add the lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp. · SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 SBL The improvement at this intersection is likely infeasible due to the extensive grading and earthwork required to add the additional lane, including the reconstruction of the adjacent southbound loop on-ramp. · SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT The improvement at this intersection is infeasible as the potential right-of-way required for adding additional WBT lane would significantly impact parking at Honda Center. The improvement also required the SR-57/Katella Avenue bridge span widened to accommodate the additional WBT receiving lane. · SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue - Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, add 1 EBT The improvement to the off ramp is infeasible due to the need for, and undesirable impacts of, a retaining wall to be added immediately adjacent to the SR-55 Freeway. Right of way constraints make improvements to Katella Avenue infeasible, given the acquisition would adversely affect the adjacent gas station and possibly require partial demolition of an existing strip retail building to the west. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 160 Freeway Weaving, Mainline and Ramp Table 7-28 presents a list of proposed improvements for freeway mainlines, weaving segments and freeway ramp locations that experience project impacts when the Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario is compared to the Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario under the 2030 Future conditions. Detailed mitigation HCS worksheets are included in Appendix J-3 and Appendix K-6, respectively. Table 7-28: 2030 Future Year Proposed Freeway Facility Mitigation (Comparison 3) ID Weaving Segment With AAHC Event and AS Event With Project and AS Event With Project and AS Event (Mitigation) Mitigation Strategies Feasibility Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Freeway Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On- Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp 39.1 E 39.2 E 32.6 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp 38.8 E >Capacity F 34.0 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On- Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F 39.1 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp >Capacity F >Capacity F 38.6 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp 37.7 E 38.0 E 33.3 D Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible Freeway Ramp R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue* >Capacity F >Capacity F 41.0 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue 38.1 E 39.9 E 20.6 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road >Capacity F >Capacity F 40.6 E Add 1 mixed- flow lane Infeasible R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road 36.8 E >Capacity F 20.9 C Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue >Capacity F >Capacity F >Capacity F Add 1 mixed- flow lane & 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible * Major Diverge Analysis utilized to calculate density AAHC: Average Attendance Honda Center AS: Angel Stadium A site visit and/or evaluation of aerial images of the impacted locations, as well as consideration of already anticipated future improvements, were used to evaluate feasibility of the recommended improvements. Based on the evaluation improvements identified may not be feasible due to right-of- way acquisition needs, impacts to established land uses, and environmental constraints. All of the weaving segment and ramp improvements noted in Table 7-28 are likely not feasible due to right-of-way or other constraints. Caltrans has not identified any further improvements beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for I-5 and SR-57. The City has limited control over State facilities. Beyond jurisdictional limitation, additional capacity improvements are assumed infeasible due to physical, right-of-way, and environmental constraints. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 161 7.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Every effort was made to identify feasible mitigation. However, as noted above through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. These improvements include locations within the City of Anaheim, the City of Orange, and Caltrans facilities, including freeway ramps, mainline segments, and weaving segments. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the Environmental Impact Report documenting why a particular improvement is infeasible as mitigation. Furthermore, it is noted with implementation of the improvements described in the mitigation discussion above, the significant project related impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. Concurrent Event Considerations Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Traffic Management as Mitigation Honda Center event related traffic has been a common occurrence in the study area for the past eighteen years. As such local businesses, residents and regular area commuters are familiar with the event related traffic activity. To mitigate event related traffic the City has elected to employ active traffic management personnel, cones and signage to effectively manage arriving and departing event related traffic. This alternative traffic mitigation strategy has proved to be an effective tool for current events. Given the Honda Center is a special traffic generator that creates traffic outside of the normal peak hour conditions, given these traffic conditions already commonly occur, and given many of the physical mitigation improvements identified for the Honda Center Enhancement Project may be practically infeasible due to right-of-way and other physical constrains, the continued use of active traffic management is recommended as mitigation for the Project. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 162 8.0 PARKING ANALYSIS The parking analysis conducted for this study was a high-level assessment and comparison of the estimated trip generation of the proposed project to the available parking supply provided on-site at Honda Center and additional off-site parking available for Honda Center use through agreement. Agreements considered are those in which the City of Anaheim and/or Anaheim Arena Management LLC are principal parties and therefore have some level of influence or control over the parking supply. For purpose of this assessment, the estimated trip generation of the proposed project is assumed to also represent the parking demand. As a conservative measure, the project traffic generating scenario is for a sold-out 18,900 attendee event with an additional 1,200 persons assumed to represent Honda Center and team/perfomer staffing. This level of event represents the highest potential usage of the facility and thereby the presumed highest parking demand. 8.1 PARKING DEMAND The primary scenario analyzed for parking demand is a sold out event with 18,900 attendees. The key assumptions for the analysis are summarized as the following: · 95% of employees and patrons will arrive at Honda Center during the event by auto · 5% of employees and patrons will utilize public transit · Average vehicle occupancy (AVO) rate for patrons is 3.0 persons/vehicle · AVO rate for Honda Center staff and team member is 1.2 persons/vehicle · 5 private charter buses with AVO rate of 40 persons/vehicle will used by patrons Based on these assumptions, an estimate of the number of vehicles by patrons, staff, and team members was calculated. Table 8-1 presents the results of the calculation. The table shows a parking demand of 6,877. Table 8-1: Honda Center Parking Demand Type No. of Participants No. of Participants arrive by auto * Vehicle Occupancy Rate No. of Vehicle Employees 1,000 950 1.2 792 Team Members 200 200 1.2 167 Spectators 18,900 17,755 3.0 5,918 Total 6,877 * Persons arriving by Transit and Charter Bus have been deducted Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 163 8.2 PARKING SUPPLY Opened in 1993, Honda Center was developed with a significant parking supply both on-site and off- site in the proximity to the venue. An agreement, referred to as the 1993 Consent, Traffic and Parking, and Non-Disturbance and Attornment Agreement, between the City and Anaheim Arena Management, LLC established the parking requirements and parking areas for Honda Center. This agreement specially identifies that Honda Center parking will be provided in two defined geographical areas, defined as Tier 1 and Tier 2. Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2 present the locations of Tier 1 and Tier 2 parking areas respectively. Tier 1 area includes parking areas surrounding Honda Center that are bounded between Cerritos Avenue to the north, the Santa Ana River to the east, and SR-57 to the west. Tier 1 is targeted to provide not less than 3,900 parking spaces. The City of Anaheim has fulfilled its obligation to date, and in fact provide a total of 4,239 parking spaces within the Tier 1 area. The 4,239 parking spaces are made up as follows: 3,775 spaces provided within six on-site parking lots on the north side of Katella Avenue immediately surrounding the Honda Center building; 464 additional spaces provided off-site on a lot presently owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on the south side of Katella Avenue immediately across from the Honda Center. The parking on the OCTA property is secured through current leases and sublease agreements between the City, OCTA, and AAM. In addition to these 4,239 parking spaces, the City has indicated that AAM has secured a lease agreement with the adjacent Corporate Arena business park located just north of the venue for approximately 1,200 additional parking spaces. These additional spaces are assumed for use under peak event conditions. With this additional agreement, the total parking supply within Tier 1 is 5,439. The parking spaces are managed and available to patrons, event staff, and team members. Parking for the Tier 2 area consists of three off-site parking areas that are within a reasonable walking distance of the facility. As shown in Figure 8-2 the designated parking areas include portions of Angel Stadium parking lots, and two business/commercial centers. One center is located west of SR- 57 and generally bound by Katella Avenue on the north and the railroad tracks to the south. The second center is located immediately east of the Santa Ana River within the City of Orange and is generally bound by Katella Avenue on the south, the Santa Ana River on the west, Main Street on the east, and a private drive on the north. Under the Tier 2 requirement, the City shall not provide less than 1,500 spaces within the identified off-site parking lots. Pedestrian access between the Tier 2 off- site parking areas and Honda Center is provided by sidewalk along Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. Combining the Tier 2 area with those within Tier 1, there are approximately 6,939 parking spaces available to Honda Center. Not inventoried, but nonetheless important to the overall supply of parking available for Honda Center events, are the numerous privately-owned commercial/business area parking lots in the vicinity of Honda Center. As these lots have peak usage during typical weekday business hours (i.e. 7:00am – 5:00pm), they are generally underutilized during Honda Center evening events and weekend day events and therefore are being used as “entrepreneurial” parking lots for Honda Center. Pedestrian access between these lots and Honda Center is available along sidewalks on Katella Avenue. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 164 Figure 8-1: Location of Tier 1 Parking Area Figure 8-2: Location of Tier 2 Parking Area Note: These figures indicate location of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Parking Lots, but do not represent lot boundaries Source: Consent, Traffic and Parking and Non-Disturbance and Attorment Agreement between Ogden Facility Management Corporation of Anaheim, Disney Sports Enterprises Inc., and the City of Anaheim Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 2 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 165 Parking Conclusion Based on the parking demand of 6,877 spaces compared to the available parking supply of 6,939 spaces, there is a surplus of 62 parking spaces available for Honda Center. It is further noted that all inventoried parking spaces are assumed to be available for Honda Center for all additional events, therefore, the increase in number of annual events at Honda Center would not required any additional parking supply. Factoring in the regular practice and availability of additional entrepreneurial parking in the vicinity of Honda Center on event days, there is an extensive surplus of parking available for Honda Center. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 166 9.0 CONCLUSION Honda Center related event traffic has occurred in the area for the past 18 years and local businesses and area commuters are familiar with such traffic activity. The traffic analysis for the proposed increase in the number of annual events hosted at the venue indicates the potential for additional traffic impacts to the adjacent transportation circulation system. The objectives of the traffic study were to 1) document the traffic conditions within the study area; and 2) to evaluate the potential project impacts associated with increasing the number of annual events from 162 to 222; and 3) identify mitigation necessary to mitigate the impacts. This traffic impact study has been conducted in accordance with the following policy or procedural documents: · City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies date 1996 · City of Orange Traffic Impact Study Guidelines dated August 15, 2007 · Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated December 2002. To assess the traffic impacts associated with increasing the number of annual events from 162 to 222 at Honda Center, a total of five (5) scenarios under three horizon years were considered, as outlined below: 2011 Baseline Analytical Project Direct Impacts Scenario: 1) 2011 Baseline (No Events) 2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event5 3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 6 4) 2011 Baseline with Project7 5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 2013 Opening Year Analytical Impacts Scenario and Near-Term Impacts Scenario: 1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events) 2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2013 Opening Year with Project 5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 5 Average Attendance Honda Center Event is assumed to be an average attendance event or 11,264 seats as described in the September 2, 2011 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 344 for Honda Center Enhancement Project. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. 6 Angel Stadium Event is assumed to be an average Angel Stadium baseball game attendance of 29,402 based on year 2010 season attendance figures provided by the City of Anaheim. Traffic conditions are adjusted accordingly from traffic counts taken for the August 24, 2011 event. 7 Project is assumed to be an 18,900 seat sold out capacity condition. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic counts. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 167 2030 Future Year Long-Term Impacts Scenario (General Plan Buildout): 1) 2030 Future Year (No Events) 2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event 3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event 4) 2030 Future Year with Project 5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Upon completion of the traffic conditions assessment for each scenario above, Project impacts and mitigation were identified through an evaluation of the following three comparisons of with and without Project conditions: 1) No Events vs. Project 2) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project 3) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event Parking In addition to traffic impact analyses, a high level assessment of parking demand and supply was conducted. The purpose of the parking assessment was to inventory the available on and off-site parking spaces that are within the control of the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Arena Management, LLC and to determine if that capacity is sufficient to meet Honda Center parking demand. The calculated trip generation of maximum capacity Honda Center events was used to represent the maximum parking demand. For this analysis, the trip generation factor for the event is assumed be a fair measure of parking demand for spectators, Honda Center staff, and staff of the event performers under sold-out conditions at a seating capacity of 18,900. Based on the quantified parking demand for 6,877 spaces compared to the available parking supply of 6,939 spaces, there is a surplus of 62 parking spaces available for Honda Center. Factoring in the regular practice and availability of additional entrepreneurial parking in the vicinity of Honda Center on event days, there is an extensive surplus of parking available for Honda Center. PROJECT RELATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 2011 Baseline Conditions: The study determined that five intersections and one freeway ramp are significantly impacted by the proposed project under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 9-1. 2013 Opening Year Conditions: The study determined that the same five intersection locations and one freeway ramp location under the 2011 Baseline conditions continue to experience project impact under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. In addition, one additional intersection is identified. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for all these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 9-2. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 168 2030 Future Year Conditions The study determined that implementation of the proposed project results in significant impact at 25 study intersections, eleven study arterial segments, five study freeway weaving segments, and five study freeway ramps under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for all these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 9-3. Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Unavoidable Impacts and Statement of Overriding Considerations Every effort was made to identify feasible mitigation. However, as noted above through site analyses and aerial imagery evaluation there are improvements identified in this study that may not be feasible due to high project cost, the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. These improvements include locations within the City of Anaheim, the City of Orange, and Caltrans facilities, including freeway ramps, mainline segments, and weaving segments. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the Environmental Impact Report documenting why a particular improvement is infeasible as mitigation. Furthermore, it is noted with implementation of the improvements described in the mitigation discussion above, the significant project related impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be mitigated. However, inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange and Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim’s control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim’s jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way without Caltrans Approval). Should that occur, the Project’s traffic impact would remain significant. Concurrent Event Considerations Simultaneous events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as “concurrent events” are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic improvements/mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right-of-way acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 169 would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3. Traffic Management as Mitigation Honda Center event related traffic has been a common occurrence in the study area for the past eighteen years. As such local businesses, residents and regular area commuters are familiar with the event related traffic activity. To mitigate event related traffic the City has elected to employ active traffic management personnel, cones and signage to effectively manage arriving and departing event related traffic. This alternative traffic mitigation strategy has proved to be an effective tool for current events. Given the Honda Center is a special traffic generator that creates traffic outside of the normal peak hour conditions, given these traffic conditions already commonly occur, and given many of the physical mitigation improvements identified for the Honda Center Enhancement Project may be practically infeasible due to right-of-way and other physical constrains, the continued use of active traffic management is recommended as mitigation for the Project. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 170 Table 9-1: Summary of the 2011 Baseline Project Impact and Mitigation Measures ID Location Jurisdiction Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* Recommended Mitigations Feasibility Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Intersection 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Operational Improvement ─ ─ 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement Operational Improvement Feasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Operational Improvement ─ ─ 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Add 1 NBR ─ ─ 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement X Add 1 EBR Operational Improvement Feasible Freeway Ramp R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue Caltrans ─ ─ ─ ─ X Add 1 freeway ramp lane ─ ─ x: Indicates impact *: Mitigations under Comparison 3 are not recommended due to the infrequency of concurrent events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium and the conflicts such mitigation would have with other established City goals and policies. Table 9-2: Summary of the 2013 Opening Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures ID Location Jurisdiction Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* Recommended Mitigations Feasibility Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Intersection 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Operational Improvement ─ ─ 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Operational Improvement ─ ─ 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement Operational Improvement Feasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Operational Improvement ─ ─ 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Add 1 NBR ─ ─ 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement X Add 1 EBR Operational Improvement Feasible Freeway Ramp R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue Caltrans ─ ─ ─ ─ X Add 1 freeway ramp lane ─ ─ x: Indicates impact *: Mitigations under Comparison 3 are not recommended due to the infrequency of concurrent events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium and the conflicts such mitigation would have with other established City goals and policies. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 171 Table 9-3: Summary of the 2030 Future Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures ID Location Jurisdiction Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* Recommended Mitigations Feasibility Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Intersection 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim X Add 1 WBT X Add 1 WBT X Add 1 WBT Add 1 WBT Infeasible 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 NBT X Add 1 NBT X Add 1 NBT Add 1 NBT Infeasible 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Operational Improvement ─ ─ ─ Add 1 EBT Operational Improvement Feasible 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR ─ Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR X Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR Restripe NBLT to NBL, NBTR to NBT, Add 1 NBR Infeasible 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim X Add 1 EBR X Add 1 EBR X Add 1 EBR Add 1 EBR Infeasible 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 EBR, 1 EBL X Add 1 EBR X Add 1 EBR Add 1 EBR, 1 EBL Infeasible 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Operational Improvement ─ ─ X Add 1 EBT Operational Improvement Feasible 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Restripe EBL to EBT, Add 1 SBT X Add 1 SBT X Add 1 SBT Restripe EBL to EBT, Add 1 SBT Infeasible 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim X Operational Improvement ─ ─ ─ ─ Operational Improvement Feasible 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange X Restripe NBR to NBT X Restripe NBR to NBT X Restripe NBR to NBT Restripe NBR to NBT Infeasible 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Operational Improvement X Operational Improvement X Add 1 EBT Operational Improvement Feasible 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim X Add 1NBT, 1EBT X Add 1EBT X Add 1 EBT Add 1NBT, 1EBT Infeasible 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 NBR, 1WBR X Add 1 WBR X Add 1 WBR Add 1 NBR, 1WBR Infeasible 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 EBT X Add 1 EBT X Add 1 EBT Add 1 EBT Infeasible 26 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim X Add 1 SBL,1 WBT X Add 1 SBL X Add 1 SBL Add 1 SBL,1 WBT Infeasible 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 SBL, 1 EBT, 1 WBT X Add 1 SBL X Add 1 SBL Add 1 SBL, 1 EBT, 1 WBT Infeasible 28 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Ball Road Anaheim X Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL, 1WBT X Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL X Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add 1NBL, 1WBT Infeasible x: Indicates impact *: Mitigations under Comparison 3 are not recommended due to the infrequency of concurrent events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium and the conflicts such mitigation would have with other established City goals and policies. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 172 Table 9-3: Summary of the 2030 Future Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures, Continued ID Location Jurisdiction Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* Recommended Mitigations Feasibility Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT X Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT X Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT Add 1 NBR, 1 WBT Infeasible 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim X Add 1 NBL, 2 NBT, 1NBR, 2 SBT, 1 EBL, 1 WBT, 1WBR X Add I EBL, 1 WBR X Add 1 EBL, 1 WBR Add 1 NBL, 2 NBT, 1NBR, 2 SBT, 1 EBL, 1 WBT, 1WBR Infeasible 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim X Add 1 EBR X Add 1 EBR X Add 1 EBR, Add 1 WBL Add 1 EBR Infeasible 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange ─ ─ ─ ─ X Restripe WBT to WBTR ─ ─ 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange ─ ─ ─ ─ X Restripe 1 NBR to NBT ─ ─ 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange X Add 1 WBT X Add 1 WBT X Add 1 WBT Add 1 WBT Infeasible 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange X Restripe WBR to WBT, Add 1SBT X Restripe WBR to WBT X Restripe WBR to WBT Restripe WBR to WBT, Add 1SBT Infeasible 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Orange X Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT X Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT X Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT Add 1 WBL, Restripe EBTR to EBR, Add 1 EBT Infeasible Arterial Segment A - 2 Ball Road - SR-57 NB Ramps to Phoenix Club Drive Anaheim X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 4 Douglass Road - Katella Avenue to Cerritos Avenue Anaheim X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Infeasible A - 6 Katella Avenue – State College Boulevard to Howell Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial ─ ─ A - 7 Katella Avenue –Howell Avenue to SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial ─ ─ A - 8 Katella Avenue – SR-57 Southbound Ramps to SR-57 Northbound Ramps Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial ─ ─ A - 9 Katella Avenue - SR-57 NB Ramps to Douglass Road Anaheim X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 10 Katella Avenue – Douglass Road to Struck Avenue Anaheim ─ ─ ─ ─ X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial ─ ─ x: Indicates impact *: Mitigations under Comparison 3 are not recommended due to the infrequency of concurrent events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium and the conflicts such mitigation would have with other established City goals and policies. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 173 Table 9-3: Summary of the 2030 Future Year Project Impact and Mitigation Measures, Continued ID Location Jurisdiction Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3* Recommended Mitigations Feasibility Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation Impact Mitigation A - 14 Phoenix Club Drive - Honda Center to Ball Road Anaheim X Upgrade to 4-lane arterial X Upgrade to 4-lane arterial X Upgrade to 4-lane arterial Upgrade to 4-lane arterial Infeasible A - 11 Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Street Orange X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 12 Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street Orange X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial X Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Upgrade to 8-lane arterial Infeasible A - 13 Main Street n - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue Orange X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial X Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Upgrade to 6-lane arterial Feasible Freeway Weaving Segment W - 2 I-5 Southbound between Disneyland Drive On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible W - 5 SR-57 Northbound between Orangewood Avenue On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible W - 6 SR-57 Northbound between Katella Avenue On-Ramp and Ball Road Off-Ramp Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible SR-57 Southbound between Ball Road On-Ramp and Katella Avenue Off-Ramp Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible W - 8 SR-57 Southbound between SR-91 Westbound Connector and Lincoln Avenue Off-Ramp Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible Freeway Ramp R-1 I-5 Northbound Off-Ramp to Anaheim Way/Katella Avenue Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible R-3 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue Caltrans X Add 1 freeway ramp lane X Add 1 freeway ramp lane X Add 1 freeway ramp lane Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible R-4 SR-57 Northbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road Caltrans X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane X Add 1 mixed-flow lane Add 1 mixed-flow lane Infeasible R-5 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Ball Road Caltrans X Add 1 freeway ramp lane X Add 1 freeway ramp lane X Add 1 freeway ramp lane Add 1 freeway ramp lane Infeasible R-6 SR-57 Southbound Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue Caltrans ─ ─ ─ ─ X Add 1 mixed-flow lane & 1 freeway ramp lane ─ ─ x: Indicates impact *: Mitigations under Comparison 3 are not recommended due to the infrequency of concurrent events at Honda Center and Angel Stadium and the conflicts such mitigation would have with other established City goals and policies. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 174 PARKING ANALYSIS In addition to traffic impact analyses, a high level assessment of parking demand and supply was conducted. The purpose of the parking assessment was to inventory the available on and off-site parking spaces that are within the control of the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Arena Management, LLC and to determine if that capacity is sufficient to meet Honda Center parking demand. The calculated trip generation of maximum capacity Honda Center events was used to represent the maximum parking demand. For this analysis, the trip generation factor for the event was assumed be a fair measure of parking demand for spectators, Honda Center staff, and staff of the event performers under sold-out conditions at a seating capacity of 18,900. The primary scenario analyzed for parking demand is a sold-out Honda Center event with 18,900 attendees. Utilizing the trip generation estimates for the Enhanced Honda Center Event, 6,877 parking spaces are estimated to be required to accommodate a sold-out Honda Center event. An inventory of parking spaces available shows 6,939 spaces are available. Comparing the demand of 6,877 spaces to the parking supply of 6,939 spaces, there is a surplus of 62 spaces. It is noted that as all of the inventoried parking spaces are assumed to be available for Honda Center for all events, the increased number of annual events at Honda Center will not required any additional parking. Further factoring in of the regular practice and availability of additional entrepreneurial parking in the vicinity of Honda Center on event days, there is an extensive surplus of parking available for Honda Center. Pedestrian access from all available Honda Center parking is along paved sidewalks that are convenient and well defined paths. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AS MITIGATION Honda Center event related traffic has been a common occurrence in the study area for the past eighteen years. As such local businesses, residents and regular area commuters are familiar with the event related traffic activity. To mitigate event related traffic the City has elected to employ active traffic management personnel, cones and signage to effectively manage arriving and departing event related traffic. This alternative traffic mitigation strategy has proved to be an effective tool for current events. Given Honda Center is a special traffic generator that creates traffic outside of the normal peak hour conditions, given these traffic conditions commonly already occur, and given that many of the physical mitigation improvements identified for the Honda Center Enhancement Project may be infeasible due to right-of-way and other physical constrains, continued use of active traffic management should be considered as an alternate mitigation strategy. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 175 10.0 REFERENCES City of Anaheim Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. (City of Anaheim, 1996) City of Anaheim General Plan. (City of Anaheim, 2004, and as amended thereafter) City of Anaheim Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106A for the Platinum Triangle, City Council Adopted 10/25/05 City of Anaheim Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Traffic Study (October 2010) City of Orange General Plan Update Traffic Analysis (June 2009) City of Orange Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (City of Orange, August 15, 2007) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Transportation Research Board, (TRB, 2000) Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 176 11.0 GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS COMMON ABBREVIATIONS ADT Average Daily Traffic ATAM Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Caltrans The California Department of Transportation HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCS Highway Capacity Software (Software package utilizing the formulae in the Highway Capacity Manual) HOV High Occupancy Vehicle lane ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS Level of Service OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model V/C Volume/Capacity TERMS ANAHEIM TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL (ATAM): The subarea modeling tool developed for the City of Anaheim that has been determined to be consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) for the purposes of forecasting future traffic activity throughout the City for land use and circulation system scenarios. AUXILIARY LANE: A non-capacity enhancing lane that provides operational benefits to the freeway mainline. Typically an auxiliary lane extends between an on-ramp and off-ramp to facilitate the weave movement between the interchange without detrimental effects to the mainline through lanes. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included. BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression. BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a travel-way that limits the amount of traffic that can proceed downstream from its location. CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period. CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrians. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 177 CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Nearly same as yellow time. lf there is an all red interval after the end of a yellow, then that is also added into the clearance interval. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD): For Platinum Triangle the District is authorized to incur bonded indebtedness and levy a special tax in accordance with a rate and method of apportionment in order to finance certain public facilities within the Platinum Triangle. The District is expected to contribute funds towards many of the intersection improvements identified in this study. CRITICAL MOVEMENT: Conflicting intersection turning movements that are found to have the highest ICU for opposing movements; i.e. each of the approaches at a four-legged intersection will contain a critical movement that conflicts with an opposing movement. DAILY CAPACITY: The daily volume of traffic that will result in a volume during the peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway. DELAY: The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by some element over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds per vehicle. DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic-actuated signal. DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile. DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any point in time. DIVERGE AREA (HCM): the two right shoulder lanes plus the auxiliary lane for 1500 feet downstream from the ramp gore point (location where the ramp intersects with the freeway mainline. DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion. FORCED FLOW: Opposite of free flow. FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver freely and travel is unimpeded by other traffic. GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, rear bumper to front bumper. HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, front bumper to front bumper. HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANE: A lane restricted for use by vehicles with 2 or more persons. INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections that are connected to achieve signal progression. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 178 LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire embedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle. MERGE AREA (HCM): the two right shoulder lanes plus the auxiliary lane for 1500 feet downstream from the ramp gore point (location where the ramp intersects with the freeway mainline. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between successive vehicles in a traffic stream into which another vehicle is willing and able to cross or merge. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT: The practice of allowing more than one type of lane use in a building or set of buildings. In planning terms, this can mean some combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses. MULTI-MODAL: More than one mode; such as automobile, bus transit, rail rapid transit, and bicycle transportation modes. OFFSET: the time interval in seconds between the beginning of green at one intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent intersection. PLATOON; A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of several vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with clear spaces ahead and behind. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS MODEL (OCTAM): The regional model developed and maintained by OCTA that is the parent model to the City of Anaheim subarea model, ATAM. ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of origin and the point of destination for a given vehicle trip. PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PGE): One car is one Passenger car Equivalent. A truck is equal to two or three Passenger car Equivalents in that a truck requires longer to start, goes slower, and accelerates slower. Loaded trucks have a higher Passenger Car Equivalent than empty trucks. PEAK HOUR: The 60 consecutive minutes with the highest number of vehicles. PEAK HOUR FACTOR: the period during which peak hour traffic volume is at its highest. Peak Hour factor is determined by calculating the hourly volume divided by the peak rate of flow within the hour, which is the highest 15 minute interval multiplied by four. PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go on a predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic conditions. Also, fixed time signal. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 179 PROGRESSION: A term used to describe the progressive movement of traffic through several signalized intersections. SCREEN-LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across which all trips are counted, normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic models. SIGNAL CYCLE: The time in seconds required for one complete sequence of signal indications. SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more traffic movements. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (CEQA): Projects can cause significant impacts by direct physical changes to the environment or by triggering reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes. Physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. You must determine whether the cumulative impact is significant, as well as whether an individual effect is “cumulatively considerable.” This means “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(1)). STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement of queued traffic from a stop to an average running speed through a signalized intersection. SYNCHRO: A complete software package for modeling, optimizing, managing and simulating traffic systems. Synchro implements the HCM methodologies for intersection analysis and is applied for State Highway System ramp termini intersections. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT: A mixed-use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transport, and often incorporates features to encourage transit ridership. TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origin) to another (destination). For example, from home to store to home are two trips, not one. TRIP-END: one end of a trip at either the origin or destination; i.e. each trip has two trip-ends. A trip- end occurs when a person, object, or message is transferred to or from a vehicle. TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quality of trips produced and/or attracted by a specific land use stated in terms of units such as per dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square feet of floor space. TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having more than two axles. UNBALANCED Flow: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the other. On a daily basis, most facilities have balanced flow. During the peak hours, flow is seldom balanced in an urban area. VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL: A measure of the amount of usage of a section of highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by length of facility in miles. WEAVING AREA: The area of a freeway where there is cross traffic from either an on or off-ramp or transition to another freeway. Typically weaving segments are formed when merge areas are Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 180 followed closely by diverge areas (within 2,500 feet) and the two are joined by an auxiliary lane requiring the crossing of two or more traffic streams traveling in the same general direction along a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report 181 APPENDICES Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices List of Appendices Appendix A: Existing Traffic Counts for Honda Center Appendix B: Existing Traffic Counts for Angel Stadium Appendix C: Existing Peak Hour Volume and Speed on State Highway System Appendix D: Honda Center Event Trips Appendix E: Angel Stadium Event Trips Appendix F: Intersection Lane Configurations Appendix G-1: ICU Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions Appendix G-2: ICU Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions Appendix G-3: ICU Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions Appendix G-4: ICU Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix G-5: ICU Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix G-6: ICU Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix H-1: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions Appendix H-2: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions Appendix H-3: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions Appendix H-4: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix H-5: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix H-6: Caltrans Ramp Termini Synchro Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix I-1: Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions Appendix I-2: Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions Appendix I-3: Freeway Mainline Analysis Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions Appendix J-1: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions Appendix J-2: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions Appendix J-3: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions Appendix J-4: HCS Freeway Weaving Analysis Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix K-1: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions Appendix K-2: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions Appendix K-3: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices Appendix K-4: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2011 Baseline Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix K-5: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2013 Opening Year Conditions (Mitigated) Appendix K-6: HCS Freeway Ramp Analysis Worksheets under 2030 Future Year Conditions (Mitigated) Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX A: EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR HONDA CENTER Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR HONDA CENTER (NO EVENTS DAY) INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:STATE COLLEGE LOCATION #:1 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS STATE COLLEGE STATE COLLEGE KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2.5 1.5 2 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 54 145 41 35 142 35 34 162 20 75 267 15 1,025 4 0 2 8 14 4:15 PM 30 154 46 21 93 34 44 190 18 44 269 27 970 4 0 3 5 12 4:30 PM 39 141 52 28 155 53 51 211 23 69 258 18 1,098 3 0 1 15 19 4:45 PM 29 178 49 26 124 36 69 201 35 49 265 13 1,074 2 0 0 13 15 5:00 PM 51 211 52 28 208 76 48 170 33 80 270 13 1,240 5 1 0 15 21 5:15 PM 48 198 48 31 142 38 53 244 36 60 284 16 1,198 2 0 7 11 20 5:30 PM 53 170 51 33 154 50 45 165 33 80 261 24 1,119 3 0 2 13 18 5:45 PM 34 171 46 27 129 44 51 237 28 52 267 16 1,102 3 0 3 13 19 6:00 PM 35 136 42 21 118 28 35 171 27 58 240 16 927 5 1 3 16 25 6:15 PM 28 137 26 14 94 23 33 180 23 48 202 17 825 5 0 3 16 24 6:30 PM 24 109 28 14 101 29 25 165 16 59 169 18 757 4 0 2 19 25 6:45 PM 23 85 23 22 62 19 31 148 22 46 161 9 651 1 1 1 10 13 7:00 PM 15 66 30 22 72 20 22 166 16 61 138 14 642 1 1 3 12 17 7:15 PM 19 64 36 9 45 16 26 139 24 45 120 18 561 1 0 1 15 17 7:30 PM 14 52 20 18 58 23 18 154 16 27 120 8 528 2 0 2 9 13 7:45 PM 15 42 25 22 59 24 19 149 10 33 104 9 511 2 0 1 8 11 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 511 2,059 615 371 1,756 548 604 2,852 380 886 3,395 251 14,228 47 4 34 198 283 APPROACH %16%65%19%14%66%20%16%74%10%20%75%6% APPROACH %16%65%19%14%66%20%16%74%10%20%75%6% APP/DEPART 3,185 /2,914 2,675 /3,022 3,836 /3,838 4,532 /4,454 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 110 467 119 71 375 99 124 664 88 211 772 60 3,160 APPROACH %16%67%17%13%69%18%14%76%10%20%74%6% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.554 0.437 0.658 0.714 0.637 APP/DEPART 696 /651 545 /674 876 /854 1,043 /981 0 STATE COLLEGE NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE STATE COLLEGE PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SPORTSTOWN LOCATION #:2 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SPORTSTOWN SPORTSTOWN KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 9 1 23 32 0 18 12 248 11 10 337 22 723 7 1 8 4:15 PM 7 1 18 32 2 28 11 215 6 9 285 31 645 5 0 5 4:30 PM 6 1 17 19 1 23 12 285 11 12 302 23 712 5 0 5 4:45 PM 11 1 23 19 1 19 12 228 12 14 301 22 663 8 0 8 5:00 PM 13 0 18 26 1 21 23 251 17 9 336 21 736 11 0 11 5:15 PM 13 1 30 44 1 25 12 260 10 8 323 38 765 5 1 6 5:30 PM 19 1 29 28 1 25 19 246 10 12 291 35 716 14 0 14 5:45 PM 11 1 29 28 2 20 19 239 8 18 309 19 703 8 0 8 6:00 PM 14 1 28 20 1 20 13 238 16 7 265 25 648 4 0 4 6:15 PM 13 1 41 28 1 13 7 176 7 7 233 33 560 2 1 3 6:30 PM 8 1 17 26 0 14 21 176 6 3 218 20 510 9 1 10 6:45 PM 5 0 5 19 1 33 11 187 3 1 151 22 438 5 0 5 7:00 PM 4 0 10 30 1 22 19 174 9 3 174 11 457 8 0 8 7:15 PM 13 3 28 26 0 20 12 185 2 3 166 26 484 6 0 6 7:30 PM 6 1 1 24 0 14 12 180 5 3 118 20 384 7 0 7 7:45 PM 2 1 10 23 0 22 9 172 7 4 131 14 395 3 1 4 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 154 15 327 424 13 337 224 3,460 140 123 3,940 382 9,539 0 0 107 5 112 APPROACH %31%3%66%55%2%44%6%90%4%3%89%9% APPROACH %31%3%66%55%2%44%6%90%4%3%89%9% APP/DEPART 496 /621 774 /276 3,824 /4,211 4,445 /4,431 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 40 3 91 93 3 80 52 777 32 18 867 100 2,156 APPROACH %30%2%68%53%2%45%6%90%4%2%88%10% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.684 0.629 0.740 0.667 0.705 APP/DEPART 134 /155 176 /53 861 /961 985 /987 0 SPORTSTOWN NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE SPORTSTOWN PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:HOWELL LOCATION #:3 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS HOWELL HOWELL KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 1 1 2 0.5 0.5 1 3 0 2 3 0 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 19 4 26 75 3 25 17 259 7 11 312 54 812 0 4 0 4 4:15 PM 7 3 32 67 6 18 20 257 5 16 311 20 762 0 7 1 8 4:30 PM 17 4 36 72 2 28 17 278 15 24 262 36 791 0 2 2 4 4:45 PM 11 5 32 48 2 12 16 256 10 19 311 50 772 0 1 1 2 5:00 PM 25 7 48 102 5 77 19 257 11 12 329 42 934 0 2 1 3 5:15 PM 18 11 19 67 2 20 16 311 10 15 331 38 858 0 4 0 4 5:30 PM 18 5 25 66 3 16 15 278 7 10 306 36 785 0 3 1 4 5:45 PM 10 6 23 44 5 15 18 280 15 15 307 46 784 0 2 2 4 6:00 PM 14 0 21 44 3 19 21 242 7 22 264 38 695 1 7 2 10 6:15 PM 10 3 23 38 2 12 20 230 8 13 247 40 646 0 3 1 4 6:30 PM 8 2 18 42 4 8 15 182 5 9 231 29 553 0 2 0 2 6:45 PM 6 4 14 35 4 5 17 196 10 7 170 25 493 0 2 1 3 7:00 PM 6 1 9 29 1 7 11 181 12 18 164 37 476 0 1 2 3 7:15 PM 5 3 13 31 3 6 21 214 15 10 156 42 519 1 1 0 2 7:30 PM 9 2 14 26 1 7 9 180 7 5 113 28 401 0 0 1 1 7:45 PM 7 2 11 24 2 7 13 196 4 14 136 21 437 0 2 2 4 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 190 62 364 810 48 282 265 3,797 148 220 3,950 582 10,718 2 0 43 17 62 APPROACH %31%10%59%71%4%25%6%90%4%5%83%12% APPROACH %31%10%59%71%4%25%6%90%4%5%83%12% APP/DEPART 616 /909 1,140 /416 4,210 /4,971 4,752 /4,422 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 38 9 76 159 13 44 73 850 30 51 912 132 2,387 APPROACH %31%7%62%74%6%20%8%89%3%5%83%12% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.384 0.293 0.707 0.713 0.639 APP/DEPART 123 /214 216 /94 953 /1,085 1,095 /994 0 HOWELL NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE HOWELL PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SR-57 NB RAMPS LOCATION #:4 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SR-57 NB RAMPS SR-57 NB RAMPS KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1.5 X 1.5 X X X X 5 1 X 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 58 47 194 124 280 67 770 0 4:15 PM 59 50 210 106 277 60 762 0 4:30 PM 56 78 196 127 270 76 803 0 4:45 PM 51 63 206 105 254 48 727 0 5:00 PM 45 69 188 128 332 90 852 0 5:15 PM 52 84 217 119 280 68 820 0 5:30 PM 63 53 218 126 238 54 752 0 5:45 PM 61 76 200 101 215 52 705 0 6:00 PM 63 67 188 119 225 69 731 0 6:15 PM 60 64 146 96 186 50 602 0 6:30 PM 63 50 149 103 164 39 568 0 6:45 PM 41 52 122 96 140 39 490 0 7:00 PM 30 41 117 97 163 61 509 0 7:15 PM 37 54 135 99 139 45 509 0 7:30 PM 19 33 102 95 90 37 376 0 7:45 PM 32 28 112 108 114 46 440 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 790 0 909 0 0 0 0 2,700 1,749 0 3,367 901 10,416 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %46%0%54%0%0%0%0%61%39%0%79%21% APPROACH %46%0%54%0%0%0%0%61%39%0%79%21% APP/DEPART 1,699 /901 0 /1,749 4,449 /3,609 4,268 /4,157 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 227 0 233 0 0 0 0 605 414 0 715 197 2,391 APPROACH %49%0%51%0%0%0%0%59%41%0%78%22% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.846 0.000 0.758 0.540 0.702 APP/DEPART 460 /197 0 /414 1,019 /838 912 /942 0 SR-57 NB RAMPS NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE SR-57 NB RAMPS PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SR-57 SB RAMPS LOCATION #:5 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SR-57 SB RAMPS SR-57 SB RAMPS KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:X X X 1.5 X 1.5 X 3 1 X 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 45 153 275 87 238 104 902 0 4:15 PM 46 126 278 88 237 92 867 0 4:30 PM 33 141 268 99 201 118 860 0 4:45 PM 54 155 279 79 210 98 875 0 5:00 PM 46 124 267 129 260 121 947 0 5:15 PM 53 134 289 95 236 91 898 0 5:30 PM 49 127 298 101 225 88 888 0 5:45 PM 44 154 291 70 212 65 836 0 6:00 PM 46 120 229 78 199 78 750 0 6:15 PM 51 106 234 71 193 60 715 0 6:30 PM 37 106 198 46 161 69 617 0 6:45 PM 38 76 150 55 124 49 492 0 7:00 PM 24 82 190 54 135 48 533 0 7:15 PM 27 76 198 56 130 51 538 0 7:30 PM 33 68 158 42 76 42 419 0 7:45 PM 28 74 199 36 95 42 474 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 0 0 0 654 0 1,822 0 3,801 1,186 0 2,932 1,216 11,611 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %0%0%0%26%0%74%0%76%24%0%71%29% APPROACH %0%0%0%26%0%74%0%76%24%0%71%29% APP/DEPART 0 /1,216 2,476 /1,186 4,987 /4,455 4,148 /4,754 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 0 0 0 172 0 408 0 811 250 0 677 256 2,574 APPROACH %0%0%0%30%0%70%0%76%24%0%73%27% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.694 0.665 0.612 0.680 APP/DEPART 0 /256 580 /250 1,061 /983 933 /1,085 0 SR-57 SB RAMPS NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE SR-57 SB RAMPS PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:DOUGLASS LOCATION #:6 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS DOUGLASS DOUGLASS KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:0 2 0 1 0.5 1.5 2 3 1 2 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 15 3 3 35 1 80 28 212 13 5 281 21 697 4 0 4 4:15 PM 13 1 2 16 0 55 17 223 2 2 246 22 599 3 0 3 4:30 PM 16 1 6 33 0 55 21 250 9 7 272 22 692 2 1 3 4:45 PM 14 2 5 20 2 43 24 235 5 10 233 23 616 3 0 3 5:00 PM 14 3 2 38 5 107 29 228 11 7 306 34 784 5 1 6 5:15 PM 20 2 4 18 1 58 32 243 5 2 277 36 698 7 0 7 5:30 PM 10 0 8 22 1 53 31 228 6 1 213 25 598 2 1 3 5:45 PM 13 1 2 15 1 45 43 239 6 2 216 17 600 6 1 7 6:00 PM 9 1 3 14 0 59 28 227 4 4 219 21 589 8 2 10 6:15 PM 14 1 2 7 0 37 20 197 6 3 170 21 478 2 1 3 6:30 PM 7 0 4 13 1 29 7 177 6 1 162 9 416 6 0 6 6:45 PM 10 2 2 10 0 21 9 148 6 1 140 7 356 4 0 4 7:00 PM 14 2 2 8 1 25 13 140 13 4 174 16 412 6 0 6 7:15 PM 10 2 2 10 0 22 9 137 5 1 140 5 343 2 0 2 7:30 PM 11 1 3 13 1 18 5 130 3 2 102 10 299 1 0 1 7:45 PM 13 2 2 9 1 22 8 127 5 1 128 7 325 2 0 2 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 203 24 52 281 15 729 324 3,141 105 53 3,279 296 8,502 0 0 63 7 70 APPROACH %73%9%19%27%1%71%9%88%3%1%90%8% APPROACH %73%9%19%27%1%71%9%88%3%1%90%8% APP/DEPART 279 /644 1,025 /173 3,570 /3,474 3,628 /4,211 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 40 4 11 44 1 146 64 749 22 9 691 58 1,839 APPROACH %73%7%20%23%1%76%8%90%3%1%91%8% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.529 0.318 0.746 0.546 0.586 APP/DEPART 55 /126 191 /32 835 /804 758 /877 0 DOUGLASS NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE DOUGLASS PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:STRUCK LOCATION #:7 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS STRUCK STRUCK KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1.5 X 0.5 X X X X 3 1 1 3 X X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 72 9 205 60 0 228 574 1 1 4:15 PM 56 1 192 46 7 205 507 1 1 4:30 PM 77 4 235 53 2 184 555 0 0 4:45 PM 46 6 218 48 3 215 536 1 1 5:00 PM 82 2 238 47 1 236 606 1 1 5:15 PM 71 4 203 43 3 229 553 0 0 5:30 PM 58 4 231 43 2 193 531 2 2 5:45 PM 51 3 213 42 3 171 483 0 0 6:00 PM 46 6 184 46 0 178 460 0 0 6:15 PM 46 3 185 29 6 149 418 1 1 6:30 PM 34 2 179 29 4 147 395 0 0 6:45 PM 25 1 136 30 2 116 310 1 1 7:00 PM 30 4 110 23 2 159 328 1 1 7:15 PM 20 1 138 20 2 145 326 2 2 7:30 PM 12 3 97 23 0 113 248 0 0 7:45 PM 15 0 108 18 1 124 266 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 741 0 53 0 0 0 0 2,872 600 38 2,792 0 7,096 0 0 0 11 11 APPROACH %93%0%7%0%0%0%0%83%17%1%99%0% APPROACH %93%0%7%0%0%0%0%83%17%1%99%0% APP/DEPART 794 /0 0 /638 3,472 /2,925 2,830 /3,533 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 151 0 12 0 0 0 0 684 134 12 590 0 1,583 APPROACH %93%0%7%0%0%0%0%84%16%2%98%0% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.485 0.000 0.710 0.635 0.653 APP/DEPART 163 /0 0 /146 818 /696 602 /741 0 STRUCK NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE STRUCK PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:MAIN LOCATION #:8 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS MAIN MAIN KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 0 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 26 101 77 24 62 21 25 174 6 51 153 20 740 0 4:15 PM 36 79 59 21 51 29 18 155 11 58 173 38 728 0 4:30 PM 28 92 68 19 55 22 11 144 14 54 174 17 698 0 4:45 PM 42 94 73 23 46 21 15 165 18 37 184 24 742 0 5:00 PM 43 98 77 33 68 35 11 197 14 45 194 26 841 0 5:15 PM 48 83 68 19 64 21 15 149 11 53 192 26 749 0 5:30 PM 42 70 79 17 45 35 18 169 10 49 150 28 712 0 5:45 PM 34 72 79 31 30 32 12 134 10 32 168 15 649 0 6:00 PM 38 61 54 24 36 22 15 120 11 35 179 32 627 0 6:15 PM 20 50 42 15 31 15 24 119 7 42 152 13 530 0 6:30 PM 33 44 38 21 29 17 10 94 7 27 126 13 459 0 6:45 PM 23 40 38 20 30 15 14 89 7 26 103 23 428 0 7:00 PM 34 46 31 21 24 21 18 78 15 36 116 22 462 0 7:15 PM 18 37 37 12 22 9 11 110 16 22 100 20 414 0 7:30 PM 21 33 22 15 18 13 12 74 10 17 94 14 343 0 7:45 PM 12 24 29 18 18 17 12 76 3 25 89 5 328 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 498 1,024 871 333 629 345 241 2,047 170 609 2,347 336 9,450 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %21%43%36%25%48%26%10%83%7%18%71%10% APPROACH %21%43%36%25%48%26%10%83%7%18%71%10% APP/DEPART 2,393 /1,601 1,307 /1,408 2,458 /3,251 3,292 /3,190 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 114 195 172 80 126 69 63 422 32 130 560 81 2,044 APPROACH %24%41%36%29%46%25%12%82%6%17%73%11% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.552 0.506 0.582 0.711 0.608 APP/DEPART 481 /339 275 /288 517 /674 771 /743 0 MAIN NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE MAIN PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:MAIN LOCATION #:9 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:STRUCK CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS MAIN MAIN STRUCK STRUCK NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 26 186 3 11 105 9 5 16 45 6 31 9 452 0 4:15 PM 26 157 3 5 112 6 6 15 40 9 18 12 409 0 4:30 PM 36 160 6 1 131 3 4 17 42 9 33 5 447 0 4:45 PM 21 201 4 3 102 1 9 16 31 6 10 9 413 0 5:00 PM 43 187 6 2 115 6 8 17 48 3 17 10 462 0 5:15 PM 33 172 1 2 115 7 8 9 31 5 19 4 406 0 5:30 PM 27 172 2 1 111 7 9 4 45 7 20 8 413 0 5:45 PM 27 167 1 3 83 2 6 13 30 3 13 3 351 0 6:00 PM 20 149 1 2 87 4 5 12 26 3 10 7 326 0 6:15 PM 24 98 0 1 72 4 3 11 21 3 8 5 250 0 6:30 PM 13 106 0 5 55 7 5 11 14 3 3 3 225 0 6:45 PM 13 91 2 2 54 4 4 6 24 1 7 3 211 0 7:00 PM 13 88 1 0 62 7 9 5 15 5 13 1 219 0 7:15 PM 10 92 0 3 57 4 1 4 16 0 10 2 199 0 7:30 PM 9 71 3 1 34 6 1 6 10 1 4 3 149 0 7:45 PM 7 61 0 3 45 3 1 3 12 3 8 3 149 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 348 2,158 33 45 1,340 80 84 165 450 67 224 87 5,081 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %14%85%1%3%91%5%12%24%64%18%59%23% APPROACH %14%85%1%3%91%5%12%24%64%18%59%23% APP/DEPART 2,539 /2,329 1,465 /1,857 699 /243 378 /652 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 70 444 3 10 268 19 17 40 85 10 28 18 1,012 APPROACH %14%86%1%3%90%6%12%28%60%18%50%32% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.548 0.550 0.486 0.298 0.548 APP/DEPART 517 /479 297 /363 142 /53 56 /117 0 MAIN NORTH SIDE STRUCK WEST SIDE EAST SIDE STRUCK SOUTH SIDE MAIN PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SR-57 NB RAMPS LOCATION #:10 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:BALL CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SR-57 NB RAMPS SR-57 NB RAMPS BALL BALL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 X 1 X X X X 3 1 X 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 137 66 185 124 295 117 924 0 4:15 PM 144 63 205 152 250 87 901 0 4:30 PM 139 48 212 150 279 92 920 0 4:45 PM 140 47 204 165 196 95 847 0 5:00 PM 130 51 213 160 371 144 1,069 0 5:15 PM 206 63 217 126 219 83 914 0 5:30 PM 191 60 221 138 231 84 925 0 5:45 PM 146 58 227 142 178 68 819 0 6:00 PM 105 34 176 127 210 87 739 0 6:15 PM 120 28 177 178 161 62 726 0 6:30 PM 110 31 141 146 155 57 640 0 6:45 PM 94 42 137 128 123 63 587 0 7:00 PM 82 31 155 200 150 69 687 0 7:15 PM 97 39 119 148 117 47 567 0 7:30 PM 84 27 117 127 139 48 542 0 7:45 PM 73 25 113 121 98 42 472 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 1,998 0 713 0 0 0 0 2,819 2,332 0 3,172 1,245 12,279 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %74%0%26%0%0%0%0%55%45%0%72%28% APPROACH %74%0%26%0%0%0%0%55%45%0%72%28% APP/DEPART 2,711 /1,245 0 /2,332 5,151 /3,532 4,417 /5,170 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 429 0 135 0 0 0 0 631 579 0 649 269 2,692 APPROACH %76%0%24%0%0%0%0%52%48%0%71%29% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.524 0.000 0.811 0.446 0.630 APP/DEPART 564 /269 0 /579 1,210 /766 918 /1,078 0 SR-57 NB RAMPS NORTH SIDE BALL WEST SIDE EAST SIDE BALL SOUTH SIDE SR-57 NB RAMPS PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SR-57 SB RAMPS LOCATION #:11 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:BALL CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SR-57 SB RAMPS SR-57 SB RAMPS BALL BALL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:X X X 0.5 X 1.5 X 3 1 X 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 66 158 250 96 301 125 996 0 4:15 PM 66 154 297 92 346 66 1,021 0 4:30 PM 49 148 305 115 309 99 1,025 0 4:45 PM 65 167 275 88 270 70 935 0 5:00 PM 60 141 322 103 353 124 1,103 0 5:15 PM 58 134 324 113 375 73 1,077 0 5:30 PM 63 160 298 87 373 58 1,039 0 5:45 PM 74 165 292 79 297 46 953 0 6:00 PM 60 139 263 99 255 64 880 0 6:15 PM 50 124 294 82 243 49 842 0 6:30 PM 39 127 250 91 221 41 769 0 6:45 PM 33 121 247 70 193 23 687 0 7:00 PM 53 108 266 84 179 43 733 0 7:15 PM 41 101 239 67 183 27 658 0 7:30 PM 32 88 204 54 194 23 595 0 7:45 PM 34 70 194 38 134 29 499 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 0 0 0 843 0 2,105 0 4,320 1,358 0 4,226 960 13,812 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %0%0%0%29%0%71%0%76%24%0%81%19% APPROACH %0%0%0%29%0%71%0%76%24%0%81%19% APP/DEPART 0 /960 2,948 /1,358 5,678 /5,163 5,186 /6,331 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 0 0 0 182 0 511 0 1,054 342 0 912 177 3,178 APPROACH %0%0%0%26%0%74%0%76%24%0%84%16% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.725 0.799 0.571 0.720 APP/DEPART 0 /177 693 /342 1,396 /1,236 1,089 /1,423 0 SR-57 SB RAMPS NORTH SIDE BALL WEST SIDE EAST SIDE BALL SOUTH SIDE SR-57 SB RAMPS PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SUNKIST LOCATION #:12 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:BALL CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SUNKIST SUNKIST BALL BALL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 2 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 9 58 67 39 24 14 23 247 8 27 304 120 940 0 4:15 PM 11 46 46 44 32 19 35 291 8 43 328 120 1,023 0 4:30 PM 7 64 80 47 29 18 34 291 6 38 291 117 1,022 0 4:45 PM 8 52 50 44 27 34 36 283 6 40 280 111 971 0 5:00 PM 22 73 70 47 43 24 46 313 11 33 337 109 1,128 0 5:15 PM 11 75 62 57 33 25 49 305 2 40 310 148 1,117 0 5:30 PM 4 61 40 56 29 25 42 294 3 45 355 157 1,111 0 5:45 PM 9 42 48 73 42 28 32 243 10 40 272 127 966 0 6:00 PM 5 39 51 56 28 21 28 243 7 35 259 87 859 0 6:15 PM 9 19 41 50 24 17 32 290 5 36 221 97 841 0 6:30 PM 6 33 43 61 15 25 15 240 7 35 214 80 774 0 6:45 PM 5 29 30 55 18 14 28 232 2 42 209 69 733 0 7:00 PM 3 35 48 56 10 17 21 256 6 22 191 72 737 0 7:15 PM 4 13 35 36 8 13 14 222 5 20 189 74 633 0 7:30 PM 4 9 29 37 20 11 17 197 4 21 180 74 603 0 7:45 PM 5 14 22 23 17 15 10 191 4 18 143 41 503 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 122 662 762 781 399 320 462 4,138 94 535 4,083 1,603 13,961 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %8%43%49%52%27%21%10%88%2%9%66%26% APPROACH %8%43%49%52%27%21%10%88%2%9%66%26% APP/DEPART 1,546 /2,727 1,500 /1,028 4,694 /5,681 6,221 /4,525 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 25 120 165 222 85 77 103 1,005 21 148 903 333 3,207 APPROACH %8%39%53%58%22%20%9%89%2%11%65%24% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.470 0.835 0.763 0.621 0.711 APP/DEPART 310 /556 384 /254 1,129 /1,392 1,384 /1,005 0 SUNKIST NORTH SIDE BALL WEST SIDE EAST SIDE BALL SOUTH SIDE SUNKIST PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SUNKIST LOCATION #:13 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:CERRITOS CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SUNKIST SUNKIST CERRITOS CERRITOS NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 6 26 5 12 15 22 37 17 10 2 52 27 231 0 4:15 PM 3 23 1 8 21 25 26 12 7 0 24 24 174 0 4:30 PM 3 33 0 9 20 28 46 18 9 5 39 20 230 0 4:45 PM 4 32 1 13 12 22 38 12 4 0 22 21 181 0 5:00 PM 9 42 5 9 28 25 46 23 8 5 72 44 316 0 5:15 PM 3 46 4 7 18 19 31 14 8 1 43 31 225 0 5:30 PM 3 36 1 10 22 15 35 19 2 0 37 22 202 0 5:45 PM 2 35 4 7 25 15 21 22 6 1 23 13 174 0 6:00 PM 6 31 1 8 22 16 33 16 1 0 37 12 183 0 6:15 PM 2 13 0 6 13 21 14 14 4 1 24 14 126 0 6:30 PM 3 13 0 6 5 17 31 14 10 0 14 10 123 0 6:45 PM 2 10 0 11 12 11 21 13 1 0 8 9 98 0 7:00 PM 1 10 3 4 4 8 41 7 2 0 11 9 100 0 7:15 PM 1 12 1 4 7 10 12 3 0 0 9 10 69 0 7:30 PM 1 3 2 5 6 8 9 17 2 1 10 11 75 0 7:45 PM 2 4 4 4 5 11 15 6 0 0 11 11 73 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 51 369 32 123 235 273 456 227 74 16 436 288 2,580 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %11%82%7%19%37%43%60%30%10%2%59%39% APPROACH %11%82%7%19%37%43%60%30%10%2%59%39% APP/DEPART 452 /1,113 631 /325 757 /382 740 /760 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 13 67 1 31 52 65 99 57 16 1 83 45 530 APPROACH %16%83%1%21%35%44%58%33%9%1%64%35% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.362 0.597 0.558 0.267 0.419 APP/DEPART 81 /211 148 /69 172 /89 129 /161 0 SUNKIST NORTH SIDE CERRITOS WEST SIDE EAST SIDE CERRITOS SOUTH SIDE SUNKIST PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/7/11 NORTH & SOUTH:PHOENIX CLUB LOCATION #:14 THURSDAY EAST & WEST:BALL CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS PHOENIX CLUB PHOENIX CLUB BALL BALL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1.33 0.33 0.33 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 35 0 14 2 0 4 5 224 23 6 376 1 690 0 4:15 PM 19 0 11 1 0 2 5 235 19 10 329 0 631 0 4:30 PM 18 0 4 2 0 1 5 236 19 6 352 0 643 0 4:45 PM 24 0 8 1 0 4 2 237 21 6 265 0 568 0 5:00 PM 57 0 13 1 0 5 4 244 16 5 458 1 804 0 5:15 PM 30 0 12 1 0 6 6 266 24 5 265 1 616 0 5:30 PM 22 0 10 0 0 3 6 245 30 13 296 0 625 0 5:45 PM 28 0 9 2 0 7 6 248 23 8 227 0 558 0 6:00 PM 46 0 12 1 0 3 4 210 18 8 263 1 566 0 6:15 PM 30 0 9 1 1 2 2 166 19 3 184 1 418 0 6:30 PM 13 0 2 1 0 3 3 160 25 5 186 0 398 0 6:45 PM 18 0 6 0 0 5 2 154 32 4 165 0 386 0 7:00 PM 24 1 6 2 0 8 3 155 20 3 176 0 398 0 7:15 PM 13 0 6 1 0 4 3 130 20 5 147 0 329 0 7:30 PM 13 0 3 0 0 5 0 104 9 2 146 1 283 0 7:45 PM 12 0 3 0 0 4 5 129 4 3 115 0 275 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 402 1 128 16 1 66 61 3,143 322 92 3,950 6 8,188 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %76%0%24%19%1%80%2%89%9%2%98%0% APPROACH %76%0%24%19%1%80%2%89%9%2%98%0% APP/DEPART 531 /68 83 /415 3,526 /3,287 4,048 /4,418 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 107 0 29 3 1 13 11 690 94 20 798 2 1,768 APPROACH %79%0%21%18%6%76%1%87%12%2%97%0% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.486 0.708 0.753 0.442 0.550 APP/DEPART 136 /13 17 /115 795 /722 820 /918 0 PHOENIX CLUB NORTH SIDE BALL WEST SIDE EAST SIDE BALL SOUTH SIDE PHOENIX CLUB PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 5:30 PM 52 203 67 25 248 48 59 199 60 104 331 43 1439 5:45 PM 53 181 75 18 198 56 56 221 65 97 321 24 1365 6:00 PM 55 183 81 25 227 57 44 180 66 125 333 22 1398 6:15 PM 59 226 92 24 225 58 50 198 48 116 334 32 1462 6:30 PM 63 205 94 26 232 64 56 205 72 106 256 37 1416 6:45 PM 59 172 101 23 189 48 80 187 70 122 277 43 1371 7:00 PM 85 162 93 26 224 57 80 179 53 93 203 36 1291 7:15 PM 60 162 59 23 178 51 80 200 55 83 228 57 1236 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :486 1494 662 190 1721 439 505 1569 489 846 2283 294 10978 APPROACH %'s :18.40%56.55%25.06%8.09%73.23%18.68%19.70%61.22%19.08%24.72%66.70%8.59% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :236 786 368 98 873 227 230 770 256 469 1200 134 5647 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.969 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.942 Project ID:CA11_1160_001 City:City of Anaheim 0.9110.880 PM Harbor Blvd Harbor Blvd 0.976 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 5:30 PM 19 35 62 13 17 33 19 263 5 14 417 17 914 5:45 PM 17 29 68 10 15 33 15 275 8 16 415 18 919 6:00 PM 27 30 45 9 14 34 25 253 13 9 436 15 910 6:15 PM 32 36 58 5 17 40 12 261 17 7 424 23 932 6:30 PM 15 36 43 7 19 42 28 292 12 12 376 24 906 6:45 PM 15 30 40 15 22 34 17 273 10 8 387 24 875 7:00 PM 5 43 41 10 17 25 37 240 10 9 325 26 788 7:15 PM 20 32 33 11 20 45 41 212 12 13 281 25 745 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :150 271 390 80 141 286 194 2069 87 88 3061 172 6989 APPROACH %'s :18.50%33.42%48.09%15.78%27.81%56.41%8.26%88.04%3.70%2.65%92.17%5.18% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :89 132 186 36 72 150 82 1079 52 36 1623 86 3623 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.986 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.952 Project ID:CA11_1160_002 City:City of Anaheim 0.9780.909 PM Clementine St Clementine St 0.984 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:2 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 0 1 3 1 5:30 PM 52 227 33 15 178 32 14 181 22 43 282 37 1116 5:45 PM 64 190 26 13 132 32 33 203 40 40 271 35 1079 6:00 PM 57 233 32 19 161 34 32 171 41 43 229 34 1086 6:15 PM 53 181 35 22 137 24 19 147 36 35 230 26 945 6:30 PM 57 188 30 12 109 29 31 189 28 33 184 19 909 6:45 PM 46 174 26 13 119 23 22 190 27 36 179 27 882 7:00 PM 49 151 35 18 125 25 30 144 29 25 164 13 808 7:15 PM 31 111 26 11 109 25 38 155 19 40 156 11 732 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :409 1455 243 123 1070 224 219 1380 242 295 1695 202 7557 APPROACH %'s :19.41%69.06%11.53%8.68%75.51%15.81%11.90%74.96%13.15%13.46%77.33%9.22% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :213 776 123 66 526 110 104 697 132 147 822 106 3822 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.947 CONTROL :Signalized Ball RdNS/EW Streets:Ball Rd WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.888 Project ID:CA11_1160_003 City:City of Anaheim 0.8510.918 PM Anaheim Blvd Anaheim Blvd 0.901 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 3 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 5:30 PM 7 231 55 24 185 6 3 1 8 111 3 37 671 5:45 PM 8 223 60 30 183 5 4 2 7 102 5 27 656 6:00 PM 3 245 51 16 189 2 3 4 3 101 2 32 651 6:15 PM 6 193 65 21 166 2 1 1 2 99 3 31 590 6:30 PM 3 206 56 13 157 5 6 1 4 107 4 21 583 6:45 PM 4 198 61 31 162 6 6 5 14 123 2 13 625 7:00 PM 14 141 41 9 170 2 2 7 8 144 1 22 561 7:15 PM 3 128 49 10 138 2 2 1 1 84 1 15 434 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :48 1565 438 154 1350 30 27 22 47 871 21 198 4771 APPROACH %'s :2.34%76.30%21.36%10.04%88.01%1.96%28.13%22.92%48.96%79.91%1.93%18.17% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :16 842 233 81 674 15 16 11 23 430 11 97 2449 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.957 CONTROL :Signalized Cerritos AveNS/EW Streets:Cerritos Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.951 Project ID:CA11_1160_004 City:City of Anaheim 0.7500.959 PM Anaheim Blvd Anaheim Blvd 0.916 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3.5 .5 2 3 1 5:30 PM 26 136 17 13 96 41 34 292 23 28 385 14 1105 5:45 PM 30 177 24 12 118 41 31 273 26 35 364 6 1137 6:00 PM 29 125 24 14 92 51 26 265 34 29 401 6 1096 6:15 PM 35 150 24 19 108 39 19 274 16 36 343 8 1071 6:30 PM 24 119 25 20 101 34 33 294 25 26 377 13 1091 6:45 PM 24 169 25 11 121 36 24 272 38 21 361 15 1117 7:00 PM 22 127 12 18 121 41 28 248 25 26 305 16 989 7:15 PM 29 114 14 19 88 30 15 219 21 14 227 6 796 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :219 1117 165 126 845 313 210 2137 208 215 2763 84 8402 APPROACH %'s :14.59%74.42%10.99%9.81%65.81%24.38%8.22%83.64%8.14%7.02%90.24%2.74% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :112 563 98 64 422 160 102 1105 113 112 1482 42 4375 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.969 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.942 Project ID:CA11_1160_005 City:City of Anaheim 0.9410.863 PM Anaheim Blvd/Haster St Anaheim Blvd/Haster St 0.949 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1.5 0 1.5 2 2 1 0 3 1 2 3 0 5:30 PM 12 63 8 9 5 191 121 73 406 888 5:45 PM 8 48 6 9 3 196 123 56 432 881 6:00 PM 16 40 6 10 2 160 113 62 418 827 6:15 PM 25 39 4 13 2 177 124 52 401 837 6:30 PM 10 33 6 10 1 180 133 74 393 840 6:45 PM 7 54 6 9 2 157 114 40 353 742 7:00 PM 17 49 6 11 4 151 102 26 328 694 7:15 PM 13 39 10 14 3 162 100 34 252 627 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :108 0 365 52 85 22 0 1374 930 417 2983 0 6336 APPROACH %'s :22.83%0.00%77.17%32.70%53.46%13.84%0.00%59.64%40.36%12.26%87.74%0.00% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :58 0 166 22 42 7 0 674 484 228 1565 0 3246 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.966 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.875 Project ID:CA11_1160_006 City:City of Anaheim 0.9440.837 PM Manchester Ave (I-5 SB Ramps) Manchester Ave (I-5 SB Ramps) 0.973 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1.5 3 .5 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 3.5 1.5 5:30 PM 166 250 27 10 239 316 20 1028 5:45 PM 167 199 24 11 223 323 29 976 6:00 PM 169 188 24 8 176 314 18 897 6:15 PM 170 180 34 14 199 275 19 891 6:30 PM 194 162 31 16 193 273 21 890 6:45 PM 182 132 38 10 195 213 15 785 7:00 PM 172 116 35 16 187 186 22 734 7:15 PM 116 111 23 7 189 170 17 633 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :1336 1338 236 0 0 0 92 1601 0 0 2070 161 6834 APPROACH %'s :45.91%45.98%8.11%#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!5.43%94.57%0.00%0.00%92.78%7.22% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :715 662 127 0 0 0 48 763 0 0 1075 73 3463 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.922 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.000 Project ID:CA11_1160_007 City:City of Anaheim 0.8840.902 PM Anaheim Way (I-5 NB Ramps) Anaheim Way (I-5 NB Ramps) 0.933 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 5:30 PM 12 1 52 19 25 12 4 242 11 26 305 1 710 5:45 PM 11 3 41 25 18 17 7 234 10 23 291 4 684 6:00 PM 14 1 43 16 24 18 6 228 8 26 249 2 635 6:15 PM 12 0 35 15 8 15 2 189 8 14 234 5 537 6:30 PM 12 3 30 9 5 4 14 220 6 20 191 7 521 6:45 PM 4 6 25 15 6 17 12 207 3 12 203 14 524 7:00 PM 4 2 28 8 2 6 8 212 3 16 163 2 454 7:15 PM 6 2 20 5 2 7 3 194 1 6 157 6 409 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :75 18 274 112 90 96 56 1726 50 143 1793 41 4474 APPROACH %'s :20.44%4.90%74.66%37.58%30.20%32.21%3.06%94.21%2.73%7.23%90.69%2.07% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :42 10 133 55 43 54 34 844 25 72 877 28 2217 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.904 CONTROL :Signalized Ball RdNS/EW Streets:Ball Rd WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.883 Project ID:CA11_1160_008 City:City of Anaheim 0.9230.865 PM Lewis St Lewis St 0.889 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 5:30 PM 2 45 18 9 42 12 13 79 3 11 106 4 344 5:45 PM 4 39 13 8 39 7 9 65 4 8 93 3 292 6:00 PM 6 30 23 5 38 15 11 53 6 11 85 2 285 6:15 PM 4 21 14 0 24 11 16 42 4 5 63 2 206 6:30 PM 4 14 18 3 31 12 14 51 4 11 74 2 238 6:45 PM 4 15 24 3 13 11 6 68 6 1 67 0 218 7:00 PM 4 17 11 2 20 6 12 56 8 4 37 0 177 7:15 PM 2 18 6 0 7 5 10 39 7 7 38 1 140 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :30 199 127 30 214 79 91 453 42 58 563 14 1900 APPROACH %'s :8.43%55.90%35.67%9.29%66.25%24.46%15.53%77.30%7.17%9.13%88.66%2.20% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :18 80 79 11 106 49 47 214 20 28 289 6 947 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.819 CONTROL :Signalized Cerritos AveNS/EW Streets:Cerritos Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.833 Project ID:CA11_1160_009 City:City of Anaheim 0.8030.842 PM Lewis St Lewis St 0.812 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 .5 .5 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 5:30 PM 5 16 7 16 1 55 20 229 0 4 344 9 706 5:45 PM 3 23 13 3 0 58 31 197 1 1 347 10 687 6:00 PM 3 20 9 9 1 61 20 184 0 6 323 10 646 6:15 PM 3 14 6 5 2 43 24 188 2 2 306 7 602 6:30 PM 6 17 6 9 1 41 30 198 2 2 253 8 573 6:45 PM 5 10 3 2 0 24 34 180 4 6 272 5 545 7:00 PM 2 9 3 3 1 24 20 201 1 4 223 3 494 7:15 PM 3 4 5 1 1 12 24 183 1 3 195 3 435 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :30 113 52 48 7 318 203 1560 11 28 2263 55 4688 APPROACH %'s :15.38%57.95%26.67%12.87%1.88%85.25%11.44%87.94%0.62%1.19%96.46%2.34% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :17 61 24 25 4 169 108 750 8 16 1154 30 2366 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.935 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.882 Project ID:CA11_1160_010 City:City of Anaheim 0.9000.782 PM Lewis St Lewis St 0.956 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 5:30 PM 7 9 2 11 29 5:45 PM 9 6 5 6 26 6:00 PM 7 4 2 6 19 6:15 PM 12 6 4 6 28 6:30 PM 6 3 3 7 19 6:45 PM 4 6 0 4 14 7:00 PM 3 7 1 3 14 7:15 PM 5 3 0 4 12 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 53 44 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 47 161 APPROACH %'s :0.00%0.00%100.00%100.00%0.00%0.00%#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!26.56%0.00%73.44% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0 0 29 19 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 23 80 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.879 CONTROL :Signalized Gene Autry WayNS/EW Streets:Gene Autry Way WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.694 Project ID:CA11_1160_011 City:City of Anaheim 0.0000.729 PM I-5 HOV Ramps I-5 HOV Ramps 0.808 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:0 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 0 5:30 PM 60 51 77 239 287 69 783 5:45 PM 32 46 82 238 269 76 743 6:00 PM 38 50 67 244 224 60 683 6:15 PM 26 36 56 226 215 43 602 6:30 PM 41 36 48 190 180 39 534 6:45 PM 26 34 37 203 197 34 531 7:00 PM 28 34 51 201 155 39 508 7:15 PM 30 17 43 200 144 26 460 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 281 0 304 461 1741 0 0 1671 386 4844 APPROACH %'s :#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!48.03%0.00%51.97%20.94%79.06%0.00%0.00%81.23%18.77% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0 0 0 131 0 156 208 863 0 0 816 176 2350 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.898 CONTROL :Signalized Ball RdNS/EW Streets:Ball Rd WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.764 Project ID:CA11_1160_012 City:City of Anaheim 0.9600.000 PM East St East St 0.873 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:2 3 1 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 5:30 PM 58 225 39 54 158 62 38 250 42 34 214 55 1229 5:45 PM 44 183 35 45 110 40 51 219 21 30 264 68 1110 6:00 PM 43 166 39 46 99 36 61 218 19 27 183 66 1003 6:15 PM 32 129 24 51 72 34 39 210 27 28 195 46 887 6:30 PM 22 131 36 55 85 40 33 176 26 31 150 49 834 6:45 PM 26 104 28 55 73 22 26 210 16 28 190 47 825 7:00 PM 26 101 23 38 81 26 27 179 16 16 114 43 690 7:15 PM 13 72 19 34 61 24 36 188 19 10 126 43 645 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :264 1111 243 378 739 284 311 1650 186 204 1436 417 7223 APPROACH %'s :16.32%68.67%15.02%26.98%52.75%20.27%14.49%76.85%8.66%9.92%69.81%20.27% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :123 530 127 207 329 132 159 814 88 114 718 208 3549 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.860 CONTROL :Signalized Ball RdNS/EW Streets:Ball Rd WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.736 Project ID:CA11_1160_013 City:City of Anaheim 0.9050.790 PM State College Blvd State College Blvd 0.836 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 5:30 PM 22 230 12 6 209 31 24 48 21 8 44 9 664 5:45 PM 19 242 10 10 153 30 12 39 28 5 46 15 609 6:00 PM 26 186 5 7 129 14 12 35 25 6 40 16 501 6:15 PM 19 147 4 2 110 12 14 24 21 5 26 2 386 6:30 PM 15 152 5 1 95 23 14 25 14 4 23 6 377 6:45 PM 12 113 1 1 91 9 18 29 20 5 33 3 335 7:00 PM 7 99 3 5 85 14 14 20 15 4 16 3 285 7:15 PM 11 91 4 1 66 9 21 18 18 2 12 1 254 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :131 1260 44 33 938 142 129 238 162 39 240 55 3411 APPROACH %'s :9.13%87.80%3.07%2.96%84.28%12.76%24.39%44.99%30.62%11.68%71.86%16.47% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :72 598 15 11 425 58 58 113 80 20 122 27 1599 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.813 CONTROL :Signalized Cerritos AveNS/EW Streets:Cerritos Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.725 Project ID:CA11_1160_014 City:City of Orange 0.8150.851 PM State College Blvd State College Blvd 0.841 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:0 3 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 5:30 PM 237 3 5 196 8 10 459 5:45 PM 251 4 7 195 7 9 473 6:00 PM 247 6 4 171 8 19 455 6:15 PM 226 1 1 178 6 12 424 6:30 PM 187 3 1 171 5 7 374 6:45 PM 153 2 1 103 5 5 269 7:00 PM 125 0 3 126 6 7 267 7:15 PM 126 1 5 99 3 12 246 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 1552 20 27 1239 0 0 0 0 48 0 81 2967 APPROACH %'s :0.00%98.73%1.27%2.13%97.87%0.00%#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!37.21%0.00%62.79% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0 813 12 7 623 0 0 0 0 24 0 43 1522 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.957 CONTROL :Signalized Gateway Center DrNS/EW Streets:Gateway Center Dr WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.937 Project ID:CA11_1160_015 City:City of Orange 0.0000.956 PM State College Blvd State College Blvd 0.731 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:2 3 0 2 3 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 1 0 5:30 PM 9 228 1 0 206 3 13 11 6 0 2 479 5:45 PM 6 236 0 0 187 9 15 12 2 0 1 468 6:00 PM 2 250 0 1 178 6 6 14 0 0 0 457 6:15 PM 3 204 0 0 172 6 18 6 4 2 2 417 6:30 PM 2 173 0 0 163 6 8 9 0 0 1 362 6:45 PM 1 149 0 0 110 6 13 5 0 0 1 285 7:00 PM 2 108 0 0 121 5 10 5 0 0 0 251 7:15 PM 3 128 0 0 104 4 6 4 5 0 0 254 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :28 1476 1 1 1241 45 89 0 66 17 2 7 2973 APPROACH %'s :1.86%98.07%0.07%0.08%96.43%3.50%57.42%0.00%42.58%65.38%7.69%26.92% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :8 776 0 1 623 24 45 0 34 4 2 4 1521 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.950 CONTROL :Signalized Gene Autry WayNS/EW Streets:Gene Autry Way WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.919 Project ID:CA11_1160_016 City:City of Orange 0.8800.932 PM State College Blvd State College Blvd 0.594 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:2 4 0 2 3.5 .5 2 3 0 2 3 0 5:30 PM 16 222 33 22 195 48 70 94 14 60 207 29 1010 5:45 PM 23 157 26 29 149 38 38 102 14 41 208 26 851 6:00 PM 12 201 22 18 151 35 51 92 8 18 171 23 802 6:15 PM 13 140 14 21 122 46 39 92 12 30 127 17 673 6:30 PM 12 141 9 14 133 29 23 99 17 15 115 8 615 6:45 PM 13 115 15 15 81 27 27 92 8 33 116 16 558 7:00 PM 16 95 12 10 98 21 20 77 6 19 105 9 488 7:15 PM 10 100 12 14 72 25 21 85 6 14 84 7 450 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :115 1171 143 143 1001 269 289 733 85 230 1133 135 5447 APPROACH %'s :8.05%81.95%10.01%10.12%70.84%19.04%26.11%66.21%7.68%15.35%75.63%9.01% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :50 597 60 68 487 137 140 375 45 96 529 64 2648 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.826 CONTROL :Signalized Orangewood AveNS/EW Streets:Orangewood Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.825 Project ID:CA11_1160_017 City:City of Orange 0.8790.811 PM State College Blvd State College Blvd 0.808 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:2 4 1 1 4 1 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 2 5:30 PM 21 222 92 1 230 3 17 167 63 816 5:45 PM 9 228 91 1 196 3 20 151 80 779 6:00 PM 12 193 76 11 175 3 18 102 68 658 6:15 PM 13 158 70 6 189 6 21 125 57 645 6:30 PM 8 141 77 4 168 4 19 71 46 538 6:45 PM 6 139 81 11 138 3 23 45 35 481 7:00 PM 9 120 66 10 134 3 18 48 30 438 7:15 PM 6 114 60 3 117 1 18 44 47 410 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :84 1315 613 47 1347 26 0 0 0 154 753 426 4765 APPROACH %'s :4.17%65.36%30.47%3.31%94.86%1.83%#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!11.55%56.49%31.96% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :39 631 304 32 670 16 0 0 0 81 343 206 2322 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.888 CONTROL :Signalized I-5 NB RampsNS/EW Streets:I-5 NB Ramps WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.880 Project ID:CA11_1160_018 City:City of Anaheim 0.0000.884 PM State College Blvd State College Blvd 0.885 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:0 4.5 .5 0 4 1 1.5 .5 2 0 0 0 5:30 PM 315 0 194 50 12 43 82 696 5:45 PM 316 4 169 54 15 33 87 678 6:00 PM 267 2 142 43 11 40 78 583 6:15 PM 227 1 175 41 17 35 65 561 6:30 PM 217 5 147 44 14 26 99 552 6:45 PM 207 6 118 40 14 35 87 507 7:00 PM 180 1 122 32 16 31 62 444 7:15 PM 170 1 103 30 9 27 72 412 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 1899 20 0 1170 334 108 270 632 0 0 0 4433 APPROACH %'s :0.00%98.96%1.04%0.00%77.79%22.21%10.69%26.73%62.57%#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0! nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0 918 14 0 582 168 56 136 329 0 0 0 2203 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.904 CONTROL :Signalized I-5 SB RampsNS/EW Streets:I-5 SB Ramps WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.889 Project ID:CA11_1160_019 City:City of Anaheim 0.9450.884 PM State College Blvd State College Blvd 0.000 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:THURSDAY Date:10/20/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 5:30 PM 78 257 23 80 261 29 18 154 86 44 215 134 1379 5:45 PM 67 220 31 78 293 26 35 129 79 40 197 101 1296 6:00 PM 74 234 15 71 256 20 31 120 80 33 184 90 1208 6:15 PM 49 198 26 75 257 16 20 99 83 32 143 103 1101 6:30 PM 50 204 24 79 194 14 36 138 64 34 158 91 1086 6:45 PM 57 226 24 70 190 20 35 112 55 31 133 82 1035 7:00 PM 49 146 17 44 151 16 20 105 47 37 119 76 827 7:15 PM 52 186 21 41 186 8 24 90 55 43 101 74 881 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :476 1671 181 538 1788 149 219 947 549 294 1250 751 8813 APPROACH %'s :20.45%71.78%7.77%21.74%72.24%6.02%12.77%55.22%32.01%12.81%54.47%32.72% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :230 862 89 295 897 70 122 469 282 130 618 366 4430 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.904 CONTROL :Signalized Chapman AveNS/EW Streets:Chapman Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.921 Project ID:CA11_1160_020 City:City of Anaheim 0.9050.888 PM State College Blvd/The City Dr State College Blvd/The City Dr 0.837 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:WEDNESDAY Date:10/19/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1.5 .5 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 5:30 PM 104 3 44 3 2 9 8 212 22 32 170 2 611 5:45 PM 74 2 30 3 4 10 17 197 21 29 129 0 516 6:00 PM 80 4 48 0 2 24 7 176 26 21 170 0 558 6:15 PM 54 4 28 0 3 9 7 155 21 26 108 1 416 6:30 PM 73 0 31 0 2 12 8 137 22 24 155 0 464 6:45 PM 53 0 19 1 1 9 5 137 22 18 105 0 370 7:00 PM 42 0 13 0 2 5 4 94 23 13 111 1 308 7:15 PM 41 1 10 0 0 4 6 87 30 9 93 0 281 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :521 14 223 7 16 82 62 1195 187 172 1041 4 3524 APPROACH %'s :68.73%1.85%29.42%6.67%15.24%78.10%4.29%82.76%12.95%14.13%85.54%0.33% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :260 8 126 1 8 54 27 605 91 89 538 1 1808 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.860 CONTROL :Signalized Taft AveNS/EW Streets:Taft Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.663 Project ID:CA11_1160_021 City:City of Orange 0.8980.786 PM Main St Main St 0.843 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:WEDNESDAY Date:10/19/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 5:30 PM 26 59 9 6 40 48 51 168 24 11 123 7 572 5:45 PM 23 68 11 5 51 37 39 162 15 3 136 6 556 6:00 PM 22 46 4 1 44 44 46 163 30 14 117 2 533 6:15 PM 29 41 15 9 44 27 21 110 29 21 101 3 450 6:30 PM 31 35 8 4 21 33 40 130 30 5 106 8 451 6:45 PM 18 15 8 3 16 26 31 146 12 6 103 2 386 7:00 PM 22 29 5 4 22 17 19 108 8 5 89 2 330 7:15 PM 10 21 4 7 13 17 19 93 8 1 64 1 258 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :181 314 64 39 251 249 266 1080 156 66 839 31 3536 APPROACH %'s :32.38%56.17%11.45%7.24%46.57%46.20%17.71%71.90%10.39%7.05%89.64%3.31% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :100 137 35 17 125 130 138 549 101 46 427 15 1820 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.923 CONTROL :Signalized Taft AveNS/EW Streets:Taft Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.947 Project ID:CA11_1160_022 City:City of Orange 0.8830.865 PM Batavia St Batavia St 0.938 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:WEDNESDAY Date:10/19/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 5:30 PM 19 61 43 52 35 21 213 10 31 181 26 692 5:45 PM 17 59 37 26 20 22 264 10 23 160 23 661 6:00 PM 9 38 23 34 25 19 178 7 18 162 50 563 6:15 PM 14 53 29 25 22 29 162 9 20 126 62 551 6:30 PM 11 53 28 27 12 13 168 2 20 136 32 502 6:45 PM 4 25 30 28 12 9 139 4 20 130 26 427 7:00 PM 8 20 11 18 15 6 139 3 18 149 18 405 7:15 PM 6 22 11 13 9 7 127 4 12 119 9 339 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :88 331 0 212 223 150 126 1390 49 162 1163 246 4140 APPROACH %'s :21.00%79.00%0.00%36.24%38.12%25.64%8.05%88.82%3.13%10.31%74.03%15.66% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :38 169 0 110 114 71 70 647 22 78 554 170 2043 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.891 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.713 Project ID:CA11_1160_023 City:City of Orange 0.7970.844 PM Batavia St Batavia St 0.926 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:WEDNESDAY Date:10/19/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 5:30 PM 13 212 24 8 105 37 75 135 21 10 74 16 730 5:45 PM 7 185 25 4 119 28 55 103 14 13 73 21 647 6:00 PM 18 171 17 16 120 46 46 93 13 8 59 13 620 6:15 PM 17 134 24 13 93 29 47 101 23 17 56 17 571 6:30 PM 23 155 27 16 105 35 42 88 10 11 62 15 589 6:45 PM 16 101 37 18 96 21 38 87 19 11 54 20 518 7:00 PM 15 104 17 10 82 17 23 60 7 12 46 10 403 7:15 PM 7 103 24 12 67 19 23 52 9 14 36 3 369 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :116 1165 195 97 787 232 349 719 116 96 460 115 4447 APPROACH %'s :7.86%78.93%13.21%8.69%70.52%20.79%29.48%60.73%9.80%14.31%68.55%17.14% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :74 561 105 63 414 131 173 369 65 47 231 65 2298 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.879 CONTROL :Signalized Taft AveNS/EW Streets:Taft Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.849 Project ID:CA11_1160_024 City:City of Orange 0.7860.850 PM Glassell St Glassell St 0.881 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:WEDNESDAY Date:10/19/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 5:30 PM 30 127 36 48 92 45 87 267 24 40 170 32 998 5:45 PM 25 90 32 33 85 27 58 225 23 37 184 41 860 6:00 PM 36 96 37 31 108 40 72 209 17 37 190 32 905 6:15 PM 38 77 27 29 74 28 48 187 24 33 170 32 767 6:30 PM 24 91 28 26 77 24 50 163 16 49 147 35 730 6:45 PM 20 102 29 39 74 26 36 140 25 27 152 27 697 7:00 PM 17 77 33 20 68 22 34 116 20 29 118 30 584 7:15 PM 17 68 28 20 38 18 35 101 13 26 101 18 483 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :207 728 250 246 616 230 420 1408 162 278 1232 247 6024 APPROACH %'s :17.47%61.43%21.10%22.53%56.41%21.06%21.11%70.75%8.14%15.82%70.12%14.06% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :118 366 121 125 333 118 206 699 82 146 659 126 3099 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.884 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.865 Project ID:CA11_1160_025 City:City of Orange 0.8210.843 PM Glassell St Glassell St 0.952 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:WEDNESDAY Date:10/19/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 5:30 PM 21 4 23 5 3 5 2 340 14 14 242 11 684 5:45 PM 17 9 16 4 9 7 4 288 12 18 245 7 636 6:00 PM 16 8 20 5 3 2 3 277 6 8 218 2 568 6:15 PM 19 5 20 1 6 8 3 220 14 12 210 7 525 6:30 PM 16 4 14 1 3 1 6 233 8 6 161 5 458 6:45 PM 8 7 21 3 3 3 1 205 6 12 174 5 448 7:00 PM 13 4 11 1 2 7 2 213 7 11 134 5 410 7:15 PM 7 5 9 3 2 5 2 165 8 4 145 2 357 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :117 46 134 23 31 38 23 1941 75 85 1529 44 4086 APPROACH %'s :39.39%15.49%45.12%25.00%33.70%41.30%1.13%95.19%3.68%5.13%92.22%2.65% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :59 24 75 10 15 14 13 935 34 38 763 19 1999 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.882 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.725 Project ID:CA11_1160_026 City:City of Orange 0.8310.927 PM Schaffer St Schaffer St 0.920 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:WEDNESDAY Date:10/19/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 5:30 PM 16 39 16 29 42 20 23 335 9 20 253 53 855 5:45 PM 12 42 33 31 54 9 31 284 15 24 221 46 802 6:00 PM 11 38 19 25 47 18 13 280 11 22 212 44 740 6:15 PM 10 32 23 31 29 10 9 199 14 20 207 57 641 6:30 PM 11 33 16 28 46 10 12 217 9 21 147 56 606 6:45 PM 16 35 16 16 49 6 17 202 14 19 179 54 623 7:00 PM 8 32 10 23 16 11 12 201 6 14 136 50 519 7:15 PM 9 27 8 21 17 8 4 163 7 15 135 40 454 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :93 278 141 204 300 92 121 1881 85 155 1490 400 5240 APPROACH %'s :18.16%54.30%27.54%34.23%50.34%15.44%5.80%90.13%4.07%7.58%72.86%19.56% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :48 138 74 100 171 44 51 898 48 82 745 211 2610 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.888 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.918 Project ID:CA11_1160_027 City:City of Orange 0.8330.836 PM Cambridge St Cambridge St 0.904 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:WEDNESDAY Date:10/19/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:2 3 1 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 3 1 5:30 PM 52 228 104 110 196 34 75 286 48 105 222 147 1607 5:45 PM 71 184 108 142 198 31 64 271 40 101 236 158 1604 6:00 PM 54 226 105 105 167 34 65 262 37 105 179 146 1485 6:15 PM 70 168 88 134 123 39 62 223 29 101 214 162 1413 6:30 PM 46 165 97 127 166 27 43 215 25 98 199 148 1356 6:45 PM 49 190 90 83 165 38 59 202 36 80 193 135 1320 7:00 PM 51 166 82 99 140 38 48 207 25 68 148 130 1202 7:15 PM 34 124 63 82 140 39 39 163 31 63 132 113 1023 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :427 1451 737 882 1295 280 455 1829 271 721 1523 1139 11010 APPROACH %'s :16.33%55.49%28.18%35.90%52.71%11.40%17.81%71.59%10.61%21.31%45.02%33.67% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :219 749 380 449 621 138 229 902 127 384 785 591 5574 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.950 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.885 Project ID:CA11_1160_028 City:City of Orange 0.8940.947 PM Tustin St Tustin St 0.947 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:WEDNESDAY Date:10/19/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2.5 1.5 1 3 0 5:30 PM 100 117 292 228 126 373 1236 5:45 PM 94 105 298 219 116 415 1247 6:00 PM 98 95 247 234 97 355 1126 6:15 PM 72 102 223 232 145 395 1169 6:30 PM 87 76 245 189 122 379 1098 6:45 PM 57 83 222 173 120 356 1011 7:00 PM 67 70 221 179 80 296 913 7:15 PM 67 58 201 129 71 259 785 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0 0 0 642 0 706 0 1949 1583 877 2828 0 8585 APPROACH %'s :#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!47.63%0.00%52.37%0.00%55.18%44.82%23.67%76.33%0.00% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0 0 0 314 0 356 0 937 828 484 1485 0 4404 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.958 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.902 Project ID:CA11_1160_029 City:City of Orange 0.9490.000 PM SR-55 SB Ramps SR-55 SB Ramps 0.936 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:WEDNESDAY Date:10/19/2011 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 0 5:30 PM 229 5 209 6 271 123 354 81 1278 5:45 PM 251 1 203 6 280 115 339 71 1266 6:00 PM 245 0 197 6 233 112 285 79 1157 6:15 PM 257 1 203 5 204 90 336 63 1159 6:30 PM 253 2 178 7 223 110 320 71 1164 6:45 PM 243 2 196 8 184 103 277 55 1068 7:00 PM 223 4 171 1 184 113 215 52 963 7:15 PM 194 1 177 8 175 92 172 42 861 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :1895 16 1534 0 0 47 0 1754 858 0 2298 514 8916 APPROACH %'s :55.01%0.46%44.53%0.00%0.00%100.00%0.00%67.15%32.85%0.00%81.72%18.28% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :6:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :998 5 774 0 0 26 0 844 415 0 1218 268 4548 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.951 CONTROL :Signalized Katella AveNS/EW Streets:Katella Ave WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.958 Project ID:CA11_1160_030 City:City of Orange 0.9040.977 PM SR-55 NB Ramps SR-55 NB Ramps 0.924 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR HONDA CENTER (ANAHEIM DUCKS HOCKEY GAME DAY) INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:STATE COLLEGE LOCATION #:1 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS STATE COLLEGE STATE COLLEGE KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2.5 1.5 2 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 27 138 63 37 141 40 51 165 22 54 250 20 1,008 1 1 5 8 15 4:15 PM 33 175 60 21 129 38 40 270 22 41 282 20 1,131 1 1 0 4 6 4:30 PM 34 155 56 29 141 59 39 208 27 68 239 19 1,074 1 0 1 12 14 4:45 PM 40 215 55 26 127 33 60 232 34 50 249 10 1,131 0 2 3 6 11 5:00 PM 33 215 69 44 192 62 56 218 25 78 259 26 1,277 1 0 1 7 9 5:15 PM 48 222 75 33 127 55 53 251 23 76 299 31 1,293 0 1 3 11 15 5:30 PM 38 222 65 35 178 40 48 264 31 78 288 34 1,321 0 1 0 9 10 5:45 PM 41 191 63 29 123 28 65 291 27 56 245 17 1,176 1 0 0 17 18 6:00 PM 28 166 69 29 106 39 34 237 21 55 217 19 1,020 0 0 0 12 12 6:15 PM 34 176 68 26 98 26 45 266 19 53 189 24 1,024 0 0 0 16 16 6:30 PM 20 133 93 25 100 19 22 249 26 44 168 20 919 0 1 0 10 11 6:45 PM 25 95 64 33 87 22 43 241 11 64 200 14 899 1 1 0 7 9 7:00 PM 24 81 45 27 71 29 19 177 18 43 149 15 698 0 0 0 9 9 7:15 PM 20 79 23 12 70 17 27 142 24 34 159 14 621 1 0 0 9 10 7:30 PM 25 61 26 20 57 21 24 148 14 39 103 14 552 2 1 1 9 13 7:45 PM 27 57 28 14 68 13 15 144 13 30 117 10 536 2 2 0 9 13 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 497 2,381 922 440 1,815 541 641 3,503 357 863 3,413 307 15,680 11 11 14 155 191 APPROACH %13%63%24%16%65%19%14%78%8%19%74%7% APPROACH %13%63%24%16%65%19%14%78%8%19%74%7% APP/DEPART 3,800 /3,329 2,796 /3,035 4,501 /4,865 4,583 /4,451 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 107 570 294 113 391 106 144 993 77 216 774 77 3,862 APPROACH %11%59%30%19%64%17%12%82%6%20%73%7% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.704 0.512 0.792 0.657 0.731 APP/DEPART 971 /791 610 /684 1,214 /1,400 1,067 /987 0 STATE COLLEGE NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE STATE COLLEGE PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SPORTSTOWN LOCATION #:2 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SPORTSTOWN SPORTSTOWN KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 12 1 24 21 3 13 15 288 8 6 331 29 751 0 4:15 PM 9 3 12 21 0 12 10 255 6 17 306 23 674 0 4:30 PM 11 0 18 24 0 16 15 288 7 10 294 28 711 0 4:45 PM 10 1 18 29 2 22 12 271 10 10 293 30 708 0 5:00 PM 17 4 9 36 3 27 14 318 9 12 321 25 795 0 5:15 PM 12 2 28 37 2 27 17 289 12 15 386 26 853 0 5:30 PM 19 4 30 26 3 32 23 356 17 19 334 28 891 0 5:45 PM 17 1 23 41 3 14 20 311 14 17 282 17 760 0 6:00 PM 7 1 16 40 2 24 12 332 13 8 253 23 731 0 6:15 PM 19 0 51 43 0 13 12 298 10 16 246 28 736 0 6:30 PM 10 1 14 28 0 22 12 324 10 5 210 19 655 0 6:45 PM 8 1 7 33 2 31 14 297 11 8 196 12 620 0 7:00 PM 17 3 33 39 2 28 15 249 6 4 174 23 593 0 7:15 PM 9 1 23 21 1 20 7 178 7 5 179 17 468 0 7:30 PM 6 1 7 23 0 12 10 173 8 4 113 11 368 0 7:45 PM 7 0 11 17 0 10 15 166 4 4 147 12 393 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 190 24 324 479 23 323 223 4,393 152 160 4,065 351 10,707 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %35%4%60%58%3%39%5%92%3%3%89%8% APPROACH %35%4%60%58%3%39%5%92%3%3%89%8% APP/DEPART 538 /598 825 /335 4,768 /5,196 4,576 /4,578 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 44 3 88 144 4 90 50 1,251 44 37 905 82 2,742 APPROACH %33%2%65%61%2%38%4%93%3%4%88%8% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.637 0.902 0.849 0.600 0.769 APP/DEPART 135 /135 238 /85 1,345 /1,483 1,024 /1,039 0 SPORTSTOWN NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE SPORTSTOWN PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:HOWELL LOCATION #:3 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS HOWELL HOWELL KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 1 1 2 0.5 0.5 1 3 0 2 3 0 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 22 1 37 73 2 25 18 300 10 21 322 37 868 0 4:15 PM 9 6 40 66 2 28 15 277 10 20 310 38 821 0 4:30 PM 12 2 17 58 3 13 18 300 8 29 302 35 797 0 4:45 PM 12 6 31 60 9 13 21 287 14 24 310 42 829 0 5:00 PM 21 10 45 100 3 24 21 309 8 23 302 83 949 0 5:15 PM 19 3 34 71 6 29 22 321 22 33 391 116 1,067 0 5:30 PM 17 8 36 64 1 23 30 355 18 32 331 90 1,005 0 5:45 PM 15 3 28 44 4 24 23 335 23 47 257 63 866 0 6:00 PM 8 3 37 49 4 14 19 352 12 41 272 62 873 0 6:15 PM 9 3 27 43 1 11 18 351 16 50 276 73 878 0 6:30 PM 8 4 23 51 5 14 30 349 21 27 212 65 809 0 6:45 PM 5 1 17 42 3 4 25 306 16 28 205 53 705 0 7:00 PM 10 4 12 39 4 11 17 290 9 23 191 51 661 0 7:15 PM 6 1 20 32 1 16 12 198 8 19 181 31 525 0 7:30 PM 4 0 5 27 0 9 13 178 8 13 116 22 395 0 7:45 PM 3 1 14 20 1 5 4 185 5 13 160 15 426 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 180 56 423 839 49 263 306 4,693 208 443 4,138 876 12,474 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %27%8%64%73%4%23%6%90%4%8%76%16% APPROACH %27%8%64%73%4%23%6%90%4%8%76%16% APP/DEPART 659 /1,238 1,151 /700 5,207 /5,955 5,457 /4,581 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 30 11 104 185 13 43 92 1,358 65 146 965 253 3,265 APPROACH %21%8%72%77%5%18%6%90%4%11%71%19% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.477 0.474 0.940 0.631 0.765 APP/DEPART 145 /356 241 /224 1,515 /1,647 1,364 /1,038 0 HOWELL NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE HOWELL PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SR-57 NB RAMPS LOCATION #:4 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SR-57 NB RAMPS SR-57 NB RAMPS KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1.5 X 1.5 X X X X 5 1 X 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 50 112 235 115 324 73 909 0 4:15 PM 50 122 273 109 267 60 881 0 4:30 PM 64 136 263 115 312 55 945 0 4:45 PM 65 101 300 110 258 45 879 0 5:00 PM 111 162 286 119 345 82 1,105 0 5:15 PM 176 200 313 107 299 34 1,129 0 5:30 PM 95 152 313 122 244 40 966 0 5:45 PM 84 158 319 123 241 45 970 0 6:00 PM 91 199 363 101 185 40 979 0 6:15 PM 84 261 396 91 173 30 1,035 0 6:30 PM 62 257 386 117 197 29 1,048 0 6:45 PM 59 287 361 70 117 21 915 0 7:00 PM 45 237 238 113 207 43 883 0 7:15 PM 39 72 174 107 145 29 566 0 7:30 PM 27 51 140 83 116 44 461 0 7:45 PM 22 53 113 95 130 49 462 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 1,124 0 2,560 0 0 0 0 4,473 1,697 0 3,560 719 14,133 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %31%0%69%0%0%0%0%72%28%0%83%17% APPROACH %31%0%69%0%0%0%0%72%28%0%83%17% APP/DEPART 3,684 /719 0 /1,697 6,170 /7,033 4,279 /4,684 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 296 0 1,004 0 0 0 0 1,506 379 0 672 120 3,977 APPROACH %23%0%77%0%0%0%0%80%20%0%85%15% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.864 0.000 1.066 0.464 0.881 APP/DEPART 1,300 /120 0 /379 1,885 /2,510 792 /968 0 SR-57 NB RAMPS NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE SR-57 NB RAMPS PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SR-57 SB RAMPS LOCATION #:5 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SR-57 SB RAMPS SR-57 SB RAMPS KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:X X X 1.5 X 1.5 X 3 1 X 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 71 139 308 94 246 115 973 0 4:15 PM 71 136 301 72 230 103 913 0 4:30 PM 93 131 283 80 236 135 958 0 4:45 PM 82 141 315 73 235 104 950 0 5:00 PM 76 138 348 104 272 139 1,077 0 5:15 PM 74 142 319 99 379 86 1,099 0 5:30 PM 95 151 358 83 304 58 1,049 0 5:45 PM 111 167 333 69 235 82 997 0 6:00 PM 101 156 350 80 212 51 950 0 6:15 PM 132 144 367 65 254 53 1,015 0 6:30 PM 136 124 380 77 183 36 936 0 6:45 PM 102 124 334 55 166 41 822 0 7:00 PM 83 79 233 58 187 43 683 0 7:15 PM 48 67 242 56 154 46 613 0 7:30 PM 48 59 170 29 94 37 437 0 7:45 PM 21 83 193 42 100 55 494 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 0 0 0 1,344 0 1,981 0 4,834 1,136 0 3,487 1,184 13,966 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %0%0%0%40%0%60%0%81%19%0%75%25% APPROACH %0%0%0%40%0%60%0%81%19%0%75%25% APP/DEPART 0 /1,184 3,325 /1,136 5,970 /6,178 4,671 /5,468 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 0 0 0 471 0 548 0 1,431 277 0 815 181 3,723 APPROACH %0%0%0%46%0%54%0%84%16%0%82%18% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.916 0.945 0.535 0.847 APP/DEPART 0 /181 1,019 /277 1,708 /1,902 996 /1,363 0 SR-57 SB RAMPS NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE SR-57 SB RAMPS PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:DOUGLASS LOCATION #:6 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS DOUGLASS DOUGLASS KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:0 2 0 1 0.5 1.5 2 3 1 2 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 23 2 6 35 3 108 56 262 15 14 260 38 822 0 5 14 19 4:15 PM 23 4 11 32 3 46 60 322 13 21 264 24 823 0 0 12 12 4:30 PM 14 2 5 35 1 58 68 315 25 13 299 28 863 0 7 9 16 4:45 PM 13 3 6 29 0 39 66 327 21 14 250 28 796 1 3 5 9 5:00 PM 18 4 6 30 2 91 85 342 18 15 320 57 988 0 5 9 14 5:15 PM 8 15 7 22 2 51 122 376 29 17 262 52 963 0 5 9 14 5:30 PM 21 5 12 25 2 44 132 291 27 24 201 56 840 0 4 10 14 5:45 PM 11 7 8 15 3 36 149 309 40 17 238 61 894 0 0 7 7 6:00 PM 26 12 7 9 3 34 252 297 32 16 157 60 905 0 0 4 4 6:15 PM 23 12 10 14 1 30 275 319 30 15 157 75 961 0 0 8 8 6:30 PM 23 14 3 23 1 25 228 294 44 17 159 73 904 4 0 15 19 6:45 PM 11 11 3 16 1 22 322 299 52 18 134 90 979 3 0 9 12 7:00 PM 19 10 4 12 3 26 213 218 45 10 171 60 791 1 0 5 6 7:15 PM 16 2 5 14 2 26 80 160 24 4 136 30 499 2 5 0 7 7:30 PM 17 3 3 10 4 23 38 140 17 9 125 21 410 2 0 6 8 7:45 PM 22 2 5 3 1 31 29 131 7 5 137 14 387 0 2 3 5 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 288 108 101 324 32 690 2,175 4,402 439 229 3,270 767 12,825 0 13 36 125 174 APPROACH %58%22%20%31%3%66%31%63%6%5%77%18% APPROACH %58%22%20%31%3%66%31%63%6%5%77%18% APP/DEPART 497 /3,050 1,046 /700 7,016 /4,827 4,266 /4,248 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 83 49 23 62 6 111 1,077 1,209 158 66 607 298 3,749 APPROACH %54%32%15%35%3%62%44%49%6%7%63%31% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.861 0.913 0.908 0.975 0.957 APP/DEPART 155 /1,424 179 /230 2,444 /1,294 971 /801 0 DOUGLASS NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE DOUGLASS PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:STRUCK LOCATION #:7 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS STRUCK STRUCK KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1.5 X 0.5 X X X X 3 1 1 3 X X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 78 4 204 68 4 230 588 0 0 4:15 PM 65 5 209 65 5 215 564 1 1 4:30 PM 77 9 213 56 5 230 590 0 0 4:45 PM 64 1 256 53 6 202 582 2 2 5:00 PM 116 9 284 57 3 259 728 0 0 5:15 PM 79 7 303 61 8 264 722 2 2 5:30 PM 52 7 275 62 6 246 648 1 1 5:45 PM 58 6 193 50 10 257 574 1 1 6:00 PM 55 4 191 47 12 258 567 0 0 6:15 PM 47 5 151 37 14 302 556 1 1 6:30 PM 41 5 177 36 12 310 581 0 0 6:45 PM 44 4 143 47 27 330 595 1 1 7:00 PM 26 1 137 24 6 214 408 0 0 7:15 PM 23 6 111 26 3 126 295 0 0 7:30 PM 13 4 101 29 2 144 293 1 1 7:45 PM 21 1 91 21 2 126 262 2 2 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 859 0 78 0 0 0 0 3,039 739 125 3,713 0 8,553 0 0 0 12 12 APPROACH %92%0%8%0%0%0%0%80%20%3%97%0% APPROACH %92%0%8%0%0%0%0%80%20%3%97%0% APP/DEPART 937 /0 0 /864 3,778 /3,117 3,838 /4,572 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 187 0 18 0 0 0 0 662 167 65 1,200 0 2,299 APPROACH %91%0%9%0%0%0%0%80%20%5%95%0% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.410 0.000 0.569 1.163 0.789 APP/DEPART 205 /0 0 /232 829 /680 1,265 /1,387 0 STRUCK NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE STRUCK PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:MAIN LOCATION #:8 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:KATELLA CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS MAIN MAIN KATELLA KATELLA NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 0 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 34 87 68 16 56 23 12 169 15 53 166 27 726 0 4:15 PM 37 76 69 26 58 21 18 152 17 45 176 33 728 0 4:30 PM 36 97 71 26 72 37 15 173 10 38 172 21 768 0 4:45 PM 36 72 72 20 63 19 17 166 13 55 184 23 740 0 5:00 PM 51 120 76 22 71 26 19 198 13 45 199 32 872 0 5:15 PM 51 112 67 15 59 31 16 189 15 44 247 13 859 0 5:30 PM 48 92 63 23 45 34 29 210 10 41 215 22 832 0 5:45 PM 48 77 60 25 33 30 18 138 13 48 225 33 748 0 6:00 PM 34 86 56 23 51 38 22 116 13 33 246 19 737 0 6:15 PM 55 75 57 17 40 31 16 103 8 35 224 31 692 0 6:30 PM 53 72 43 18 43 31 14 120 12 37 217 22 682 0 6:45 PM 44 43 36 15 29 36 12 101 8 52 289 15 680 0 7:00 PM 29 40 36 17 41 16 11 114 11 29 155 23 522 0 7:15 PM 30 44 41 17 27 6 13 84 15 38 108 12 435 0 7:30 PM 21 27 36 13 17 14 11 78 5 29 107 6 364 0 7:45 PM 19 29 20 13 13 10 9 80 10 25 85 10 323 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 626 1,149 871 306 718 403 252 2,191 188 647 3,015 342 10,708 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %24%43%33%21%50%28%10%83%7%16%75%9% APPROACH %24%43%33%21%50%28%10%83%7%16%75%9% APP/DEPART 2,646 /1,743 1,427 /1,553 2,631 /3,368 4,004 /4,044 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 186 276 192 73 163 136 64 440 41 157 976 87 2,791 APPROACH %28%42%29%20%44%37%12%81%8%13%80%7% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.662 0.782 0.547 0.997 0.800 APP/DEPART 654 /427 372 /361 545 /705 1,220 /1,298 0 MAIN NORTH SIDE KATELLA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE KATELLA SOUTH SIDE MAIN PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:MAIN LOCATION #:9 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:STRUCK CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS MAIN MAIN STRUCK STRUCK NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 29 179 6 9 99 14 7 22 49 9 32 5 460 0 4:15 PM 35 172 6 7 109 8 5 11 47 6 15 12 433 0 4:30 PM 36 187 3 2 119 6 11 19 45 7 25 7 467 0 4:45 PM 29 155 2 2 114 4 4 20 43 8 18 7 406 0 5:00 PM 48 214 3 6 118 9 11 15 49 6 27 10 516 0 5:15 PM 34 209 3 3 100 9 10 11 48 3 21 3 454 0 5:30 PM 31 184 3 2 86 4 9 16 42 5 13 6 401 0 5:45 PM 34 184 1 1 83 8 10 10 27 4 10 3 375 0 6:00 PM 36 159 0 4 77 12 4 9 43 6 19 2 371 0 6:15 PM 42 165 1 0 78 16 8 9 20 1 16 2 358 0 6:30 PM 47 157 1 3 73 13 2 17 15 1 11 4 344 0 6:45 PM 57 125 4 5 59 23 7 9 18 3 16 4 330 0 7:00 PM 17 89 0 1 70 7 2 5 20 3 13 4 231 0 7:15 PM 15 98 0 2 70 6 3 6 17 2 11 2 232 0 7:30 PM 8 75 1 3 43 3 2 9 14 0 6 3 167 0 7:45 PM 8 63 0 0 54 6 1 6 14 0 2 2 156 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 506 2,415 34 50 1,352 148 96 194 511 64 255 76 5,701 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %17%82%1%3%87%10%12%24%64%16%65%19% APPROACH %17%82%1%3%87%10%12%24%64%16%65%19% APP/DEPART 2,955 /2,587 1,550 /1,927 801 /278 395 /909 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 182 606 6 12 287 64 21 44 96 11 62 12 1,403 APPROACH %23%76%1%3%79%18%13%27%60%13%73%14% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.749 0.682 0.537 0.494 0.680 APP/DEPART 794 /639 363 /394 161 /62 85 /308 0 MAIN NORTH SIDE STRUCK WEST SIDE EAST SIDE STRUCK SOUTH SIDE MAIN PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SR-57 NB RAMPS LOCATION #:10 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:BALL CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SR-57 NB RAMPS SR-57 NB RAMPS BALL BALL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 X 1 X X X X 3 1 X 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 139 78 196 152 267 102 934 0 4:15 PM 156 54 225 149 250 101 935 0 4:30 PM 194 49 233 146 305 106 1,033 0 4:45 PM 199 76 216 131 192 84 898 0 5:00 PM 152 54 238 155 354 122 1,075 0 5:15 PM 165 43 246 137 227 89 907 0 5:30 PM 156 55 267 129 227 79 913 0 5:45 PM 153 51 228 136 182 76 826 0 6:00 PM 126 54 274 124 231 80 889 0 6:15 PM 131 64 284 130 196 72 877 0 6:30 PM 105 71 316 139 184 75 890 0 6:45 PM 118 79 218 190 170 66 841 0 7:00 PM 102 44 154 158 141 62 661 0 7:15 PM 105 25 122 139 117 48 556 0 7:30 PM 96 25 86 163 96 34 500 0 7:45 PM 86 25 74 150 86 35 456 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 2,183 0 847 0 0 0 0 3,377 2,328 0 3,225 1,231 13,191 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %72%0%28%0%0%0%0%59%41%0%72%28% APPROACH %72%0%28%0%0%0%0%59%41%0%72%28% APP/DEPART 3,030 /1,231 0 /2,328 5,705 /4,224 4,456 /5,408 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 480 0 268 0 0 0 0 1,092 583 0 781 293 3,497 APPROACH %64%0%36%0%0%0%0%65%35%0%73%27% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.680 0.000 1.066 0.564 0.813 APP/DEPART 748 /293 0 /583 1,675 /1,360 1,074 /1,261 0 SR-57 NB RAMPS NORTH SIDE BALL WEST SIDE EAST SIDE BALL SOUTH SIDE SR-57 NB RAMPS PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SR-57 SB RAMPS LOCATION #:11 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:BALL CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SR-57 SB RAMPS SR-57 SB RAMPS BALL BALL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:X X X 0.5 X 1.5 X 3 1 X 3 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 75 148 266 174 309 95 1,067 0 4:15 PM 65 164 316 104 319 82 1,050 0 4:30 PM 66 179 311 118 380 96 1,150 0 4:45 PM 76 195 259 95 347 56 1,028 0 5:00 PM 66 147 337 98 364 126 1,138 0 5:15 PM 66 152 326 89 345 55 1,033 0 5:30 PM 86 192 309 91 322 62 1,062 0 5:45 PM 86 190 274 80 310 37 977 0 6:00 PM 147 184 281 104 293 57 1,066 0 6:15 PM 165 189 249 94 283 50 1,030 0 6:30 PM 172 207 267 82 242 46 1,016 0 6:45 PM 106 162 268 92 235 48 911 0 7:00 PM 58 114 277 82 214 36 781 0 7:15 PM 45 106 216 74 188 26 655 0 7:30 PM 37 108 205 62 170 24 606 0 7:45 PM 24 94 198 44 159 21 540 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 0 0 0 1,340 0 2,531 0 4,359 1,483 0 4,480 917 15,110 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %0%0%0%35%0%65%0%75%25%0%83%17% APPROACH %0%0%0%35%0%65%0%75%25%0%83%17% APP/DEPART 0 /917 3,871 /1,483 5,842 /5,699 5,397 /7,011 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 0 0 0 590 0 742 0 1,065 372 0 1,053 201 4,023 APPROACH %0%0%0%44%0%56%0%74%26%0%84%16% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 1.229 0.826 0.640 0.875 APP/DEPART 0 /201 1,332 /372 1,437 /1,655 1,254 /1,795 0 SR-57 SB RAMPS NORTH SIDE BALL WEST SIDE EAST SIDE BALL SOUTH SIDE SR-57 SB RAMPS PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SUNKIST LOCATION #:12 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:BALL CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SUNKIST SUNKIST BALL BALL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 2 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 15 55 46 49 37 16 37 328 8 31 332 108 1,062 0 4:15 PM 10 60 54 49 33 34 37 334 10 47 311 121 1,100 0 4:30 PM 16 62 85 61 27 25 51 282 7 56 346 145 1,163 0 4:45 PM 14 51 58 63 42 30 37 262 6 43 361 143 1,110 0 5:00 PM 24 122 78 51 43 18 28 313 13 40 328 129 1,187 0 5:15 PM 20 121 66 50 33 31 45 256 8 48 322 131 1,131 0 5:30 PM 13 117 53 47 44 29 51 308 11 51 324 153 1,201 0 5:45 PM 14 48 32 49 43 34 32 272 11 65 304 119 1,023 0 6:00 PM 4 41 46 56 34 24 27 294 10 74 293 106 1,009 0 6:15 PM 15 30 52 44 36 16 35 269 14 80 278 105 974 0 6:30 PM 6 38 51 57 40 24 18 236 21 111 240 81 923 0 6:45 PM 6 31 53 42 29 19 20 273 11 100 249 73 906 0 7:00 PM 8 24 53 51 20 19 25 248 7 37 215 77 784 0 7:15 PM 12 16 54 36 6 17 15 204 11 36 184 62 653 0 7:30 PM 10 17 30 34 19 21 13 204 9 38 182 71 648 0 7:45 PM 2 17 27 20 16 13 10 184 4 20 163 49 525 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 189 850 838 759 502 370 481 4,267 161 877 4,432 1,673 15,399 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %10%45%45%47%31%23%10%87%3%13%63%24% APPROACH %10%45%45%47%31%23%10%87%3%13%63%24% APP/DEPART 1,877 /3,004 1,631 /1,540 4,909 /5,864 6,982 /4,991 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 31 140 202 199 139 83 100 1,072 56 365 1,060 365 3,812 APPROACH %8%38%54%47%33%20%8%87%5%20%59%20% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.416 0.780 0.830 0.818 0.794 APP/DEPART 373 /605 421 /560 1,228 /1,473 1,790 /1,174 0 SUNKIST NORTH SIDE BALL WEST SIDE EAST SIDE BALL SOUTH SIDE SUNKIST PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:SUNKIST LOCATION #:13 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:CERRITOS CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS SUNKIST SUNKIST CERRITOS CERRITOS NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 6 28 4 20 25 25 28 19 9 2 48 30 244 0 4:15 PM 5 40 1 15 24 35 32 26 6 3 30 28 245 0 4:30 PM 8 25 3 16 29 25 53 17 5 2 40 27 250 0 4:45 PM 6 34 4 17 25 31 31 27 12 3 34 26 250 0 5:00 PM 11 85 4 13 30 27 59 29 2 5 69 64 398 0 5:15 PM 4 90 5 15 22 22 27 26 4 6 55 49 325 0 5:30 PM 5 74 6 24 25 19 31 22 10 3 26 40 285 0 5:45 PM 2 27 5 28 20 20 21 38 5 5 26 15 212 0 6:00 PM 4 20 8 40 24 12 26 28 6 9 29 16 222 0 6:15 PM 6 20 12 64 25 9 21 48 6 10 18 16 255 0 6:30 PM 2 22 11 89 25 16 19 48 8 11 21 13 285 0 6:45 PM 0 19 11 65 19 18 24 44 7 6 18 15 246 0 7:00 PM 3 16 4 25 14 11 35 29 4 4 17 14 176 0 7:15 PM 0 12 3 16 9 3 19 12 1 5 9 23 112 0 7:30 PM 2 8 2 10 13 13 19 7 2 7 11 11 105 0 7:45 PM 2 9 3 1 10 15 19 4 1 6 8 5 83 0 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 66 529 86 458 339 301 464 424 88 87 459 392 3,693 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %10%78%13%42%31%27%48%43%9%9%49%42% APPROACH %10%78%13%42%31%27%48%43%9%9%49%42% APP/DEPART 681 /1,385 1,098 /514 976 /968 938 /826 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 12 81 42 258 93 55 90 168 27 36 86 60 1,008 APPROACH %9%60%31%64%23%14%32%59%9%20%47%33% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.338 1.390 0.792 0.330 0.633 APP/DEPART 135 /231 406 /156 285 /468 182 /153 0 SUNKIST NORTH SIDE CERRITOS WEST SIDE EAST SIDE CERRITOS SOUTH SIDE SUNKIST PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE:LOCATION:ANAHEIM PROJECT #:CA11-0408-05 4/6/11 NORTH & SOUTH:PHOENIX CLUB LOCATION #:14 WEDNESDAY EAST & WEST:BALL CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS PHOENIX CLUB PHOENIX CLUB BALL BALL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1.33 0.33 0.33 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 X X X X 3:30 PM 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 4:00 PM 29 0 14 3 1 4 5 250 24 4 334 2 670 0 1 1 4:15 PM 24 1 9 4 0 5 8 245 17 11 316 2 642 0 0 0 4:30 PM 21 1 9 2 0 7 5 251 25 9 387 1 718 0 0 0 4:45 PM 28 0 10 0 0 6 7 260 28 9 246 3 597 0 0 0 5:00 PM 33 0 15 1 0 3 8 244 39 10 429 1 783 0 1 1 5:15 PM 32 0 14 2 1 9 7 247 49 11 282 4 658 0 0 0 5:30 PM 43 0 11 1 0 6 5 247 54 10 262 3 642 0 1 1 5:45 PM 27 0 9 2 1 10 5 217 61 19 225 1 577 0 0 0 6:00 PM 43 1 16 1 0 10 11 182 115 22 253 1 655 0 1 1 6:15 PM 23 0 7 2 0 7 2 191 173 30 238 1 674 0 0 0 6:30 PM 25 0 6 1 0 4 4 183 198 40 235 2 698 0 1 1 6:45 PM 27 1 7 2 0 5 6 164 120 25 204 3 564 0 0 0 7:00 PM 20 0 8 1 0 5 4 157 52 13 179 0 439 0 0 0 7:15 PM 22 0 5 1 0 5 6 116 21 6 134 1 317 0 1 1 7:30 PM 17 0 5 1 0 3 4 92 21 3 103 0 249 0 1 1 7:45 PM 19 0 2 0 0 0 1 83 13 4 109 0 231 1 1 2 8:00 PM 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 VOLUMES 433 4 147 24 3 89 88 3,129 1,010 226 3,936 25 9,114 1 0 8 0 9 APPROACH %74%1%25%21%3%77%2%74%24%5%94%1% APPROACH %74%1%25%21%3%77%2%74%24%5%94%1% APP/DEPART 584 /117 116 /1,239 4,227 /3,300 4,187 /4,458 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 118 2 36 6 0 26 23 720 606 117 930 7 2,591 APPROACH %76%1%23%19%0%81%2%53%45%11%88%1% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.813 0.667 1.113 0.599 0.827 APP/DEPART 156 /32 32 /723 1,349 /762 1,054 /1,074 0 PHOENIX CLUB NORTH SIDE BALL WEST SIDE EAST SIDE BALL SOUTH SIDE PHOENIX CLUB PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices EXISTING DAILY ARTERIAL SEGMENT TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR HONDA CENTER (NO EVENTS DAY & ANAHEIM DUCKS HOCKEY GAME DAY) Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::MAIN STREETLocation: Date::S/O KATELLA AVENUESegment:04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 49 142 581 18 43 115 550 92 1,1312325741 12:15 167 12 150 10 31722 12:30 142 4 147 10 28914 12:45 130 9 138 6 26815 01:00 17 159 539 4 14 146 537 31 1,07613055 01:15 127 4 130 3 2577 01:30 131 4 134 8 26512 01:45 122 2 127 5 2497 02:00 28 140 599 2 12 111 461 40 1,060825110 02:15 132 3 120 6 2529 02:30 181 3 124 8 30511 02:45 146 4 106 6 25210 03:00 11 148 635 5 23 124 479 34 1,11442729 03:15 156 4 117 3 2737 03:30 167 6 130 0 2976 03:45 164 8 108 4 27212 04:00 49 198 778 17 90 138 517 139 1,295733624 04:15 196 12 130 7 32619 04:30 210 28 127 11 33739 04:45 174 33 122 24 29657 05:00 114 250 873 22 150 134 451 264 1,3242038442 05:15 226 36 111 19 33755 05:30 207 32 100 42 30774 05:45 190 60 106 33 29693 06:00 218 172 644 54 315 89 358 533 1,00246261100 06:15 185 71 89 44 274115 06:30 159 83 92 58 251141 06:45 128 107 88 70 216177 07:00 310 101 360 140 714 80 269 1,024 62961181201 07:15 112 154 80 68 192222 07:30 78 198 47 89 125287 07:45 69 222 62 92 131314 08:00 363 70 211 186 698 48 162 1,061 37392118278 08:15 45 190 37 94 82284 08:30 42 172 33 85 75257 08:45 54 150 44 92 98242 09:00 384 72 236 122 431 34 161 815 39792106214 09:15 30 112 30 76 60188 09:30 50 110 28 131 78241 09:45 84 87 69 85 153172 10:00 447 86 159 100 428 110 191 875 350102196202 10:15 34 106 41 112 75218 10:30 22 113 20 117 42230 10:45 17 109 20 116 37225 11:00 579 21 71 104 418 24 70 997 14111545219 11:15 18 104 16 116 34220 11:30 23 92 18 174 41266 11:45 9 118 12 174 21292 Totals 2,569 5,686 3,336 4,206 5,905 9,892 Split%57.5 56.5 42.543.5 Day Totals 7,542 15,7978,255 Day Splits 52.3 47.7 Peak Hour 11:00 05:00 07:30 12:15 07:30 04:30 Volume 579 873 796 581 1,163 1,354 Factor 0.83 0.87 0.90 0.97 0.93 0.88 Data File :D1104051* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::MAIN STREETLocation: Date::S/O KATELLA AVENUESegment:04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:NB SB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 38 157 610 13 36 136 577 74 1,1871229325 12:15 142 10 141 11 28321 12:30 161 5 131 7 29212 12:45 150 8 169 8 31916 01:00 30 150 549 3 14 132 527 44 1,07662829 01:15 144 5 133 5 27710 01:30 147 5 120 14 26719 01:45 108 1 142 5 2506 02:00 8 131 575 6 14 122 489 22 1,06412537 02:15 149 2 124 2 2734 02:30 148 4 131 2 2796 02:45 147 2 112 3 2595 03:00 21 142 629 2 21 122 475 42 1,10432645 03:15 165 3 96 8 26111 03:30 166 4 157 6 32310 03:45 156 12 100 4 25616 04:00 42 216 775 8 73 124 499 115 1,274534013 04:15 174 10 124 4 29814 04:30 180 30 144 13 32443 04:45 205 25 107 20 31245 05:00 119 228 788 20 147 120 453 266 1,2411834838 05:15 202 39 116 21 31860 05:30 184 38 126 44 31082 05:45 174 50 91 36 26586 06:00 182 180 502 55 309 95 305 491 8072427579 06:15 114 59 74 37 18896 06:30 110 78 71 52 181130 06:45 98 117 65 69 163186 07:00 294 91 332 137 688 76 231 982 56358167195 07:15 102 158 65 60 167218 07:30 82 185 42 82 124267 07:45 57 208 48 94 105302 08:00 318 58 204 187 651 37 165 969 3697195258 08:15 50 172 27 84 77256 08:30 62 170 46 73 108243 08:45 34 122 55 90 89212 09:00 342 63 179 132 436 35 145 778 3248198213 09:15 46 114 40 85 86199 09:30 38 103 38 100 76203 09:45 32 87 32 76 64163 10:00 463 38 88 120 430 30 104 893 19211468234 10:15 17 114 31 98 48212 10:30 17 100 24 121 41221 10:45 16 96 19 130 35226 11:00 568 18 65 98 429 20 62 997 12711038208 11:15 12 115 16 146 28261 11:30 16 110 17 166 33276 11:45 19 106 9 146 28252 Totals 2,425 5,296 3,248 4,032 5,673 9,328 Split%56.8 57.3 43.242.7 Day Totals 7,280 15,0017,721 Day Splits 51.5 48.5 Peak Hour 11:00 04:45 07:30 12:00 07:30 04:30 Volume 568 819 752 577 1,083 1,302 Factor 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.94 Data File :D1104051* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::E/O MAIN STREETSegment:04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 82 231 899 25 70 241 1,019 152 1,9182847253 12:15 216 14 244 22 46036 12:30 240 16 262 16 50232 12:45 212 15 272 16 48431 01:00 42 236 918 10 48 274 970 90 1,8881151021 01:15 261 17 228 9 48926 01:30 214 12 240 14 45426 01:45 207 9 228 8 43517 02:00 35 214 834 5 27 230 947 62 1,7811744422 02:15 204 9 239 5 44314 02:30 218 8 270 7 48815 02:45 198 5 208 6 40611 03:00 26 229 898 11 38 246 952 64 1,8501447525 03:15 227 7 244 3 47110 03:30 228 12 246 1 47413 03:45 214 8 216 8 43016 04:00 87 244 1,008 14 80 254 1,028 167 2,0361249826 04:15 218 17 252 10 47027 04:30 284 26 260 28 54454 04:45 262 23 262 37 52460 05:00 231 282 1,043 30 214 281 1,149 445 2,1922856358 05:15 273 44 281 43 55487 05:30 274 66 296 70 570136 05:45 214 74 291 90 505164 06:00 363 196 688 84 495 286 1,246 858 1,93487482171 06:15 170 106 324 78 494184 06:30 170 145 286 84 456229 06:45 152 160 350 114 502274 07:00 548 165 534 195 907 212 629 1,455 1,163104377299 07:15 139 212 157 118 296330 07:30 130 254 122 162 252416 07:45 100 246 138 164 238410 08:00 622 102 360 272 991 122 376 1,613 736150224422 08:15 91 286 98 166 189452 08:30 79 210 92 155 171365 08:45 88 223 64 151 152374 09:00 657 108 586 210 720 78 270 1,377 856165186375 09:15 94 175 56 166 150341 09:30 110 186 62 174 172360 09:45 274 149 74 152 348301 10:00 692 385 654 159 717 60 182 1,409 836152445311 10:15 136 178 58 184 194362 10:30 78 196 32 190 110386 10:45 55 184 32 166 87350 11:00 862 54 166 198 858 51 108 1,720 274202105400 11:15 50 191 26 211 76402 11:30 30 235 20 239 50474 11:45 32 234 11 210 43444 Totals 4,247 8,588 5,165 8,876 9,412 17,464 Split%49.2 54.9 50.845.1 Day Totals 14,041 26,87612,835 Day Splits 47.8 52.2 Peak Hour 11:00 04:30 07:30 06:00 11:00 04:45 Volume 862 1,101 1,058 1,246 1,720 2,211 Factor 0.90 0.97 0.92 0.89 0.91 0.97 Data File :D1104036 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::E/O MAIN STREETSegment:04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 83 246 948 24 63 278 1,124 146 2,0722652450 12:15 226 18 260 28 48646 12:30 222 9 270 14 49223 12:45 254 12 316 15 57027 01:00 66 224 950 10 31 271 1,011 97 1,9612349533 01:15 233 6 256 15 48921 01:30 262 8 243 14 50522 01:45 231 7 241 14 47221 02:00 35 188 873 10 36 258 904 71 1,7771444624 02:15 216 8 226 8 44216 02:30 223 10 210 7 43317 02:45 246 8 210 6 45614 03:00 26 190 871 10 35 214 860 61 1,731440414 03:15 237 6 211 4 44810 03:30 218 8 266 8 48416 03:45 226 11 169 10 39521 04:00 76 275 1,030 16 80 264 1,036 156 2,066753923 04:15 224 15 286 10 51025 04:30 260 32 242 32 50264 04:45 271 17 244 27 51544 05:00 224 280 990 36 233 264 1,028 457 2,0183154467 05:15 246 56 283 41 52997 05:30 240 68 236 66 476134 05:45 224 73 245 86 469159 06:00 337 220 700 102 479 264 846 816 1,54685484187 06:15 158 104 222 70 380174 06:30 178 122 196 76 374198 06:45 144 151 164 106 308257 07:00 514 118 513 158 966 176 560 1,480 1,073110294268 07:15 146 240 146 110 292350 07:30 129 272 122 148 251420 07:45 120 296 116 146 236442 08:00 576 95 371 278 945 104 365 1,521 736149199427 08:15 91 227 92 145 183372 08:30 107 242 87 152 194394 08:45 78 198 82 130 160328 09:00 649 100 405 213 774 75 289 1,423 694164175377 09:15 94 175 70 160 164335 09:30 122 190 88 172 210362 09:45 89 196 56 153 145349 10:00 642 76 224 182 703 64 193 1,345 417154140336 10:15 54 179 46 156 100335 10:30 50 170 45 152 95322 10:45 44 172 38 180 82352 11:00 804 46 167 206 886 35 109 1,690 27616981375 11:15 37 220 26 192 63412 11:30 42 233 30 223 72456 11:45 42 227 18 220 60447 Totals 4,032 8,042 5,231 8,325 9,263 16,367 Split%49.1 56.5 50.943.5 Day Totals 13,556 25,63012,074 Day Splits 47.1 52.9 Peak Hour 11:00 04:30 07:15 12:00 11:00 04:30 Volume 804 1,057 1,086 1,124 1,690 2,090 Factor 0.90 0.94 0.92 0.89 0.93 0.96 Data File :D1104036 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::E/O STRUCK AVENUESegment:04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 65 232 820 30 90 223 899 155 1,7191545545 12:15 184 16 204 16 38832 12:30 198 21 246 16 44437 12:45 206 23 226 18 43241 01:00 37 196 798 14 47 253 925 84 1,723944923 01:15 234 14 238 10 47224 01:30 178 11 205 13 38324 01:45 190 8 229 5 41913 02:00 19 157 667 10 27 218 890 46 1,5571037520 02:15 180 10 210 2 39012 02:30 188 7 252 4 44011 02:45 142 0 210 3 3523 03:00 31 190 730 10 38 250 930 69 1,6601344023 03:15 168 6 203 4 37110 03:30 184 10 260 4 44414 03:45 188 12 217 10 40522 04:00 99 198 883 15 68 222 886 167 1,7691642031 04:15 207 13 236 16 44329 04:30 222 16 222 29 44445 04:45 256 24 206 38 46262 05:00 254 280 1,050 26 191 276 1,082 445 2,1323755663 05:15 284 44 274 56 558100 05:30 290 59 264 74 554133 05:45 196 62 268 87 464149 06:00 404 185 669 78 402 284 1,296 806 1,96586469164 06:15 169 84 302 90 471174 06:30 163 118 354 106 517224 06:45 152 122 356 122 508244 07:00 550 142 463 140 700 214 622 1,250 1,085105356245 07:15 122 168 142 114 264282 07:30 105 180 134 161 239341 07:45 94 212 132 170 226382 08:00 611 98 304 192 744 113 449 1,355 753160211352 08:15 76 196 130 154 206350 08:30 56 180 114 154 170334 08:45 74 176 92 143 166319 09:00 604 106 596 189 628 104 415 1,232 1,011140210329 09:15 82 142 76 156 158298 09:30 126 151 108 166 234317 09:45 282 146 127 142 409288 10:00 645 375 613 143 655 176 388 1,300 1,001143551286 10:15 126 163 86 174 212337 10:30 65 191 56 156 121347 10:45 47 158 70 172 117330 11:00 915 40 139 158 727 62 188 1,642 327179102337 11:15 41 167 45 243 86410 11:30 26 188 50 243 76431 11:45 32 214 31 250 63464 Totals 4,234 7,732 4,317 8,970 8,551 16,702 Split%46.3 50.5 53.749.5 Day Totals 13,287 25,25311,966 Day Splits 47.4 52.6 Peak Hour 11:00 04:45 07:30 06:00 11:00 05:00 Volume 915 1,110 780 1,296 1,642 2,132 Factor 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.91 0.88 0.96 Data File :D1104037 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::E/O STRUCK AVENUESegment:04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 83 253 913 41 109 224 939 192 1,8522247763 12:15 228 28 224 22 45250 12:30 202 22 225 17 42739 12:45 230 18 266 22 49640 01:00 51 210 788 12 59 272 1,046 110 1,8341448226 01:15 201 13 264 14 46527 01:30 184 18 258 13 44231 01:45 193 16 252 10 44526 02:00 36 158 679 14 39 231 843 75 1,5221238926 02:15 171 7 233 14 40421 02:30 176 8 187 7 36315 02:45 174 10 192 3 36613 03:00 20 182 724 12 33 210 809 53 1,533239214 03:15 168 8 194 2 36210 03:30 186 6 230 5 41611 03:45 188 7 175 11 36318 04:00 76 200 842 14 69 220 857 145 1,699842022 04:15 193 18 208 16 40134 04:30 233 17 195 26 42843 04:45 216 20 234 26 45046 05:00 234 227 867 22 189 250 837 423 1,7043647758 05:15 208 46 226 50 43496 05:30 216 60 199 59 415119 05:45 216 61 162 89 378150 06:00 354 190 688 85 407 173 609 761 1,29786363171 06:15 199 92 178 74 377166 06:30 163 104 139 76 302180 06:45 136 126 119 118 255244 07:00 565 118 470 127 701 152 537 1,266 1,007128270255 07:15 127 177 152 118 279295 07:30 114 201 103 145 217346 07:45 111 196 130 174 241370 08:00 583 83 318 216 722 100 467 1,305 785157183373 08:15 80 176 96 150 176326 08:30 81 165 127 140 208305 08:45 74 165 144 136 218301 09:00 615 68 277 164 652 133 573 1,267 850148201312 09:15 70 158 142 140 212298 09:30 80 154 185 160 265314 09:45 59 176 113 167 172343 10:00 588 51 183 148 609 90 304 1,197 487136141284 10:15 56 150 70 148 126298 10:30 40 148 78 132 118280 10:45 36 163 66 172 102335 11:00 836 34 120 150 682 50 170 1,518 29015084300 11:15 34 184 38 202 72386 11:30 32 190 40 260 72450 11:45 20 158 42 224 62382 Totals 4,041 6,869 4,271 7,991 8,312 14,860 Split%46.2 51.4 53.848.6 Day Totals 12,262 23,17210,910 Day Splits 47.1 52.9 Peak Hour 11:00 12:00 07:15 12:45 11:00 12:45 Volume 836 913 790 1,060 1,518 1,885 Factor 0.80 0.90 0.91 0.97 0.84 0.95 Data File :D1104037 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::E/O DOUGLASS ROADSegment:04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 73 290 1,050 34 110 256 1,099 183 2,1491954653 12:15 240 25 275 16 51541 12:30 254 19 294 18 54837 12:45 266 32 274 20 54052 01:00 42 248 1,042 22 65 322 1,157 107 2,1991257034 01:15 298 14 280 8 57822 01:30 230 17 295 14 52531 01:45 266 12 260 8 52620 02:00 26 220 894 16 40 310 1,199 66 2,0931253028 02:15 236 12 271 3 50715 02:30 244 9 338 7 58216 02:45 194 3 280 4 4747 03:00 49 230 936 10 48 291 1,206 97 2,1421352123 03:15 218 6 277 9 49515 03:30 247 20 346 7 59327 03:45 241 12 292 20 53332 04:00 156 257 1,079 17 92 341 1,316 248 2,3952459841 04:15 258 20 333 27 59147 04:30 272 23 328 41 60064 04:45 292 32 314 64 60696 05:00 450 344 1,374 34 255 410 1,403 705 2,7775975493 05:15 348 60 364 90 712150 05:30 354 77 304 120 658197 05:45 328 84 325 181 653265 06:00 635 278 1,168 102 519 307 1,291 1,154 2,459132585234 06:15 288 110 324 126 612236 06:30 324 144 326 181 650325 06:45 278 163 334 196 612359 07:00 913 236 664 174 861 250 760 1,774 1,424176486350 07:15 166 202 184 212 350414 07:30 142 237 160 253 302490 07:45 120 248 166 272 286520 08:00 937 116 378 248 961 159 603 1,898 981256275504 08:15 88 239 152 228 240467 08:30 74 230 140 229 214459 08:45 100 244 152 224 252468 09:00 843 107 508 205 782 200 1,154 1,625 1,662196307401 09:15 92 198 156 217 248415 09:30 120 194 328 232 448426 09:45 189 185 470 198 659383 10:00 870 208 494 204 858 434 793 1,728 1,287190642394 10:15 150 202 189 232 339434 10:30 78 242 76 224 154466 10:45 58 210 94 224 152434 11:00 1,109 52 170 217 971 86 236 2,080 406238138455 11:15 50 210 52 288 102498 11:30 30 260 64 307 94567 11:45 38 284 34 276 72560 Totals 6,103 9,757 5,562 12,217 11,665 21,974 Split%44.4 47.7 55.652.3 Day Totals 17,779 33,63915,860 Day Splits 47.1 52.9 Peak Hour 11:00 05:00 07:30 09:30 11:00 05:00 Volume 1,109 1,374 972 1,421 2,080 2,777 Factor 0.90 0.97 0.98 0.76 0.92 0.92 Data File :D1104038 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::E/O DOUGLASS ROADSegment:04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 96 322 1,199 53 141 294 1,133 237 2,3322661679 12:15 306 34 280 30 58664 12:30 269 28 264 21 53349 12:45 302 26 295 19 59745 01:00 58 276 1,027 18 67 296 1,193 125 2,2201657234 01:15 258 17 308 18 56635 01:30 235 16 307 12 54228 01:45 258 16 282 12 54028 02:00 40 227 909 18 47 296 1,091 87 2,0001452332 02:15 232 10 281 14 51324 02:30 228 7 272 8 50015 02:45 222 12 242 4 46416 03:00 38 242 900 13 44 274 1,044 82 1,944351616 03:15 198 15 228 5 42620 03:30 225 6 310 10 53516 03:45 235 10 232 20 46730 04:00 125 232 998 17 82 298 1,138 207 2,1361653033 04:15 244 17 270 18 51435 04:30 276 26 302 40 57866 04:45 246 22 268 51 51473 05:00 420 267 1,020 26 234 358 1,162 654 2,1825462580 05:15 257 58 302 85 559143 05:30 252 70 268 121 520191 05:45 244 80 234 160 478240 06:00 568 226 807 109 502 226 773 1,070 1,580135452244 06:15 222 119 216 118 438237 06:30 192 124 181 124 373248 06:45 167 150 150 191 317341 07:00 886 140 544 164 807 198 642 1,693 1,186191338355 07:15 142 197 176 186 318383 07:30 134 202 117 234 251436 07:45 128 244 151 275 279519 08:00 907 103 382 227 807 131 550 1,714 932258234485 08:15 101 206 106 226 207432 08:30 90 200 158 208 248408 08:45 88 174 155 215 243389 09:00 862 83 317 188 772 172 692 1,634 1,009218255406 09:15 78 180 160 192 238372 09:30 90 203 228 230 318433 09:45 66 201 132 222 198423 10:00 852 63 222 162 738 103 365 1,590 587212166374 10:15 64 192 95 208 159400 10:30 49 194 80 196 129390 10:45 46 190 87 236 133426 11:00 1,029 40 150 225 889 63 210 1,918 360213103438 11:15 42 216 50 244 92460 11:30 44 242 51 306 95548 11:45 24 206 46 266 70472 Totals 5,881 8,475 5,130 9,993 11,011 18,468 Split%45.9 46.6 54.153.4 Day Totals 15,123 29,47914,356 Day Splits 48.7 51.3 Peak Hour 11:00 12:00 11:00 04:30 11:00 12:00 Volume 1,029 1,199 889 1,230 1,918 2,332 Factor 0.84 0.93 0.92 0.86 0.88 0.95 Data File :D1104038 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::SR-57 NB RAMP TO DOUGLASSSegment 04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 84 350 1,334 34 114 272 1,127 198 2,4612462258 12:15 308 24 302 14 61038 12:30 340 25 303 20 64345 12:45 336 31 250 26 58657 01:00 49 312 1,313 18 61 322 1,195 110 2,5081363431 01:15 352 18 308 10 66028 01:30 333 13 292 18 62531 01:45 316 12 273 8 58920 02:00 32 270 1,127 14 33 310 1,209 65 2,3361458028 02:15 285 11 270 4 55515 02:30 300 6 342 8 64214 02:45 272 2 287 6 5598 03:00 66 276 1,265 7 41 324 1,382 107 2,6471860025 03:15 286 8 291 12 57720 03:30 329 16 437 10 76626 03:45 374 10 330 26 70436 04:00 179 364 1,600 16 83 408 1,404 262 3,0042477240 04:15 414 19 332 31 74650 04:30 414 19 351 44 76563 04:45 408 29 313 80 721109 05:00 637 477 2,015 40 229 418 1,322 866 3,33791895131 05:15 554 60 356 130 910190 05:30 498 63 288 166 786229 05:45 486 66 260 250 746316 06:00 958 572 2,521 94 447 246 808 1,405 3,329164818258 06:15 614 97 204 196 818293 06:30 694 126 202 262 896388 06:45 641 130 156 336 797466 07:00 1,502 552 1,245 144 754 230 781 2,256 2,026283782427 07:15 294 192 180 372 474564 07:30 214 206 175 412 389618 07:45 185 212 196 435 381647 08:00 1,395 164 490 236 828 178 774 2,223 1,264370342606 08:15 108 194 188 349 296543 08:30 96 200 168 324 264524 08:45 122 198 240 352 362550 09:00 1,157 134 573 218 780 272 1,420 1,937 1,993292406510 09:15 130 190 220 306 350496 09:30 131 194 388 298 519492 09:45 178 178 540 261 718439 10:00 1,142 136 366 207 840 636 1,569 1,982 1,935253772460 10:15 106 196 473 317 579513 10:30 58 233 244 264 302497 10:45 66 204 216 308 282512 11:00 1,373 47 179 253 1,091 162 418 2,464 597292209545 11:15 54 250 100 354 154604 11:30 34 292 92 374 126666 11:45 44 296 64 353 108649 Totals 8,574 14,028 5,301 13,409 13,875 27,437 Split%51.1 38.2 48.961.8 Day Totals 18,710 41,31222,602 Day Splits 54.7 45.3 Peak Hour 07:15 06:00 11:00 09:30 11:00 05:00 Volume 1,589 2,521 1,091 2,037 2,464 3,337 Factor 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.92 Data File :D1104039* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::SR-57 NB RAMP TO DOUGLASSSegment 04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 118 348 1,316 82 200 314 1,213 318 2,52931662113 12:15 336 42 310 30 64672 12:30 304 39 289 26 59365 12:45 328 37 300 31 62868 01:00 62 314 1,231 24 79 308 1,271 141 2,5021062234 01:15 323 18 326 24 64942 01:30 268 22 329 16 59738 01:45 326 15 308 12 63427 02:00 48 282 1,042 16 48 354 1,211 96 2,2531463630 02:15 266 8 295 18 56126 02:30 256 12 296 12 55224 02:45 238 12 266 4 50416 03:00 46 284 1,102 16 49 316 1,284 95 2,386460020 03:15 236 18 257 9 49327 03:30 257 6 425 10 68216 03:45 325 9 286 23 61132 04:00 170 254 1,083 19 86 354 1,316 256 2,3992060839 04:15 254 23 324 34 57857 04:30 285 22 332 46 61768 04:45 290 22 306 70 59692 05:00 599 280 1,153 30 250 416 1,324 849 2,47774696104 05:15 304 63 351 124 655187 05:30 269 76 290 171 559247 05:45 300 81 267 230 567311 06:00 900 270 906 98 525 287 907 1,425 1,813200557298 06:15 247 133 248 158 495291 06:30 199 154 202 208 401362 06:45 190 140 170 334 360474 07:00 1,402 164 660 159 745 217 713 2,147 1,373298381457 07:15 190 182 190 336 380518 07:30 158 194 138 386 296580 07:45 148 210 168 382 316592 08:00 1,325 116 442 218 766 144 643 2,091 1,085353260571 08:15 112 196 146 350 258546 08:30 113 184 175 310 288494 08:45 101 168 178 312 279480 09:00 1,195 92 356 196 771 198 776 1,966 1,132278290474 09:15 92 188 192 288 284476 09:30 97 186 230 341 327527 09:45 75 201 156 288 231489 10:00 1,051 70 260 186 795 115 362 1,846 622268185454 10:15 74 202 86 255 160457 10:30 60 203 85 238 145441 10:45 56 204 76 290 132494 11:00 1,245 43 161 252 1,049 71 215 2,294 376266114518 11:15 46 288 48 288 94576 11:30 44 272 51 364 95636 11:45 28 237 45 327 73564 Totals 8,161 9,712 5,363 11,235 13,524 20,947 Split%46.4 39.7 53.660.3 Day Totals 16,598 34,47117,873 Day Splits 51.8 48.2 Peak Hour 07:30 12:00 11:00 04:30 11:00 04:30 Volume 1,471 1,316 1,049 1,405 2,294 2,564 Factor 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.84 0.90 0.92 Data File :D1104039* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::SR-57 NB TO SR-57 SB RAMPSSegment:04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 338 286 1,144 32 89 278 1,095 427 2,239104564136 12:15 286 14 259 70 54584 12:30 284 16 292 87 576103 12:45 288 27 266 77 554104 01:00 173 292 1,214 20 64 291 1,155 237 2,3694558365 01:15 336 16 286 48 62264 01:30 292 16 310 50 60266 01:45 294 12 268 30 56242 02:00 88 284 1,186 12 41 308 1,116 129 2,3023659248 02:15 308 10 266 19 57429 02:30 302 10 282 16 58426 02:45 292 9 260 17 55226 03:00 65 302 1,346 14 56 316 1,307 121 2,6532161835 03:15 332 8 278 6 61014 03:30 368 22 372 14 74036 03:45 344 12 341 24 68536 04:00 176 364 1,437 16 102 343 1,352 278 2,7892870744 04:15 348 18 327 33 67551 04:30 368 27 352 48 72075 04:45 357 41 330 67 687108 05:00 478 403 1,614 41 277 420 1,522 755 3,13664823105 05:15 372 64 450 88 822152 05:30 422 76 356 132 778208 05:45 417 96 296 194 713290 06:00 695 426 1,761 98 507 254 954 1,202 2,715131680229 06:15 458 110 294 150 752260 06:30 471 131 210 192 681323 06:45 406 168 196 222 602390 07:00 1,010 330 1,002 163 934 216 711 1,944 1,713205546368 07:15 259 260 192 234 451494 07:30 233 250 145 273 378523 07:45 180 261 158 298 338559 08:00 944 216 716 250 1,002 178 677 1,946 1,393236394486 08:15 186 244 169 226 355470 08:30 138 262 146 224 284486 08:45 176 246 184 258 360504 09:00 951 168 826 236 868 220 1,152 1,819 1,978195388431 09:15 188 208 180 258 368466 09:30 212 216 288 260 500476 09:45 258 208 464 238 722446 10:00 930 282 836 219 862 482 1,167 1,792 2,003205764424 10:15 220 198 376 258 596456 10:30 152 232 163 210 315442 10:45 182 213 146 257 328470 11:00 1,124 155 580 232 1,052 129 316 2,176 896260284492 11:15 172 244 73 276 245520 11:30 137 266 68 288 205554 11:45 116 310 46 300 162610 Totals 6,972 13,662 5,854 12,524 12,826 26,186 Split%52.2 45.6 47.854.4 Day Totals 18,378 39,01220,634 Day Splits 52.9 47.1 Peak Hour 11:00 05:45 11:00 09:30 11:00 05:00 Volume 1,124 1,772 1,052 1,610 2,176 3,136 Factor 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.84 0.89 0.95 Data File :D1104040 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::SR-57 NB TO SR-57 SB RAMPSSegment:04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 369 278 1,224 66 157 310 1,122 526 2,346120588186 12:15 316 33 274 92 590125 12:30 292 30 266 72 558102 12:45 338 28 272 85 610113 01:00 192 306 1,218 28 79 284 1,213 271 2,4314259070 01:15 332 15 330 54 66269 01:30 276 22 298 50 57472 01:45 304 14 301 46 60560 02:00 112 258 1,150 12 49 312 1,110 161 2,2603857050 02:15 294 12 275 38 56950 02:30 306 12 272 20 57832 02:45 292 13 251 16 54329 03:00 58 290 1,158 20 61 301 1,253 119 2,4111459134 03:15 284 15 232 9 51624 03:30 328 14 398 18 72632 03:45 256 12 322 17 57829 04:00 146 298 1,169 23 109 327 1,248 255 2,4171862541 04:15 284 24 316 21 60045 04:30 303 30 305 41 60871 04:45 284 32 300 66 58498 05:00 462 307 1,206 26 261 374 1,284 723 2,4905668182 05:15 303 62 332 100 635162 05:30 322 77 308 136 630213 05:45 274 96 270 170 544266 06:00 705 283 979 105 558 280 929 1,263 1,908152563257 06:15 244 134 242 135 486269 06:30 246 134 237 186 483320 06:45 206 185 170 232 376417 07:00 1,023 198 831 206 956 177 628 1,979 1,459194375400 07:15 231 240 181 259 412499 07:30 192 238 118 274 310512 07:45 210 272 152 296 362568 08:00 910 182 703 258 1,002 133 561 1,912 1,264240315498 08:15 183 256 125 240 308496 08:30 168 242 152 200 320442 08:45 170 246 151 230 321476 09:00 947 162 637 213 846 159 613 1,793 1,250178321391 09:15 182 196 149 254 331450 09:30 162 218 181 258 343476 09:45 131 219 124 257 255476 10:00 903 153 639 190 847 90 304 1,750 943226243416 10:15 168 209 78 218 246427 10:30 158 214 72 205 230419 10:45 160 234 64 254 224488 11:00 1,055 133 501 243 1,057 62 178 2,112 679205195448 11:15 146 285 40 270 186555 11:30 122 283 38 274 160557 11:45 100 246 38 306 138552 Totals 6,882 11,415 5,982 10,443 12,864 21,858 Split%52.2 46.5 47.853.5 Day Totals 16,425 34,72218,297 Day Splits 52.7 47.3 Peak Hour 07:15 12:30 11:00 03:30 11:00 04:45 Volume 1,069 1,268 1,057 1,363 2,112 2,530 Factor 0.90 0.94 0.93 0.86 0.95 0.93 Data File :D1104040 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::HOWELL AVE TO SR-57 SB RAMPSSegment:04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 613 554 1,920 38 105 332 1,290 718 3,210183886221 12:15 393 17 304 126 697143 12:30 508 24 318 188 826212 12:45 465 26 336 116 801142 01:00 308 500 1,998 24 85 338 1,360 393 3,35878838102 01:15 496 24 336 98 832122 01:30 522 19 376 75 89894 01:45 480 18 310 57 79075 02:00 156 514 2,085 19 74 338 1,346 230 3,4315485273 02:15 515 18 344 33 85951 02:30 584 17 354 32 93849 02:45 472 20 310 37 78257 03:00 94 542 2,213 28 105 356 1,346 199 3,5593089858 03:15 521 23 220 15 74138 03:30 620 30 388 19 1,00849 03:45 530 24 382 30 91254 04:00 239 612 2,364 29 246 368 1,445 485 3,8095298081 04:15 573 46 354 41 92787 04:30 583 76 358 70 941146 04:45 596 95 365 76 961171 05:00 581 726 2,691 105 692 420 1,716 1,273 4,407761,146181 05:15 663 142 495 118 1,158260 05:30 672 207 436 175 1,108382 05:45 630 238 365 212 995450 06:00 987 664 2,509 179 889 362 1,292 1,876 3,8011721,026351 06:15 604 194 359 213 963407 06:30 683 240 298 274 981514 06:45 558 276 273 328 831604 07:00 1,591 488 1,659 248 1,183 260 817 2,774 2,476322748570 07:15 479 291 220 373 699664 07:30 322 291 153 469 475760 07:45 370 353 184 427 554780 08:00 1,678 397 1,254 358 1,394 188 701 3,072 1,955462585820 08:15 300 346 179 388 479734 08:30 256 354 156 406 412760 08:45 301 336 178 422 479758 09:00 1,531 370 1,920 330 1,325 170 761 2,856 2,681370540700 09:15 384 338 140 379 524717 09:30 486 323 168 428 654751 09:45 680 334 283 354 963688 10:00 1,467 797 1,923 296 1,260 278 763 2,727 2,6863501,075646 10:15 452 338 242 360 694698 10:30 295 304 121 389 416693 10:45 379 322 122 368 501690 11:00 1,779 270 1,064 294 1,319 107 270 3,098 1,334436377730 11:15 336 308 68 391 404699 11:30 234 351 48 512 282863 11:45 224 366 47 440 271806 Totals 11,024 23,600 8,677 13,107 19,701 36,707 Split%64.3 44.0 35.756.0 Day Totals 21,784 56,40834,624 Day Splits 61.4 38.6 Peak Hour 11:00 05:00 07:45 04:45 11:00 05:00 Volume 1,779 2,691 1,411 1,716 3,098 4,407 Factor 0.87 0.93 0.99 0.87 0.90 0.95 Data File :D1104041* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::HOWELL AVE TO SR-57 SB RAMPSSegment:04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 642 484 1,991 62 150 354 1,300 792 3,291234838296 12:15 503 38 320 134 823172 12:30 528 26 312 136 840162 12:45 476 24 314 138 790162 01:00 358 526 1,972 36 107 310 1,365 465 3,337100836136 01:15 515 21 375 92 890113 01:30 484 30 350 79 834109 01:45 447 20 330 87 777107 02:00 202 467 1,906 18 80 327 1,238 282 3,1446679484 02:15 460 16 292 59 75275 02:30 568 26 319 42 88768 02:45 411 20 300 35 71155 03:00 100 542 2,092 21 103 352 1,393 203 3,4853089451 03:15 466 30 317 10 78340 03:30 586 28 358 32 94460 03:45 498 24 366 28 86452 04:00 215 572 2,222 46 270 383 1,411 485 3,6332495570 04:15 548 50 354 38 90288 04:30 588 82 330 72 918154 04:45 514 92 344 81 858173 05:00 594 636 2,360 109 702 384 1,452 1,296 3,812961,020205 05:15 614 157 374 124 988281 05:30 576 208 337 198 913406 05:45 534 228 357 176 891404 06:00 937 493 1,717 200 933 309 1,055 1,870 2,772170802370 06:15 438 227 284 192 722419 06:30 442 238 262 264 704502 06:45 344 268 200 311 544579 07:00 1,624 423 1,600 278 1,220 209 725 2,844 2,325332632610 07:15 419 294 200 378 619672 07:30 344 312 146 484 490796 07:45 414 336 170 430 584766 08:00 1,536 341 1,319 326 1,402 138 607 2,938 1,926447479773 08:15 342 375 140 382 482757 08:30 362 328 151 374 513702 08:45 274 373 178 333 452706 09:00 1,503 296 1,150 319 1,296 170 593 2,799 1,743358466677 09:15 316 294 139 391 455685 09:30 295 328 156 384 451712 09:45 243 355 128 370 371725 10:00 1,431 282 1,179 309 1,287 111 433 2,718 1,612375393684 10:15 309 310 113 322 422632 10:30 326 324 118 370 444694 10:45 262 344 91 364 353708 11:00 1,721 254 907 354 1,382 72 244 3,103 1,151383326737 11:15 271 354 70 420 341774 11:30 220 342 52 452 272794 11:45 162 332 50 466 212798 Totals 10,863 20,415 8,932 11,816 19,795 32,231 Split%63.3 45.1 36.754.9 Day Totals 20,748 52,02631,278 Day Splits 60.1 39.9 Peak Hour 07:30 05:00 08:00 03:30 11:00 05:00 Volume 1,743 2,360 1,402 1,461 3,103 3,812 Factor 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.93 Data File :D1104041* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::STATE COLLEGE TO HOWELL AVESegment:04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 325 266 951 42 102 267 1,063 427 2,01498533140 12:15 211 18 283 70 49488 12:30 240 20 239 100 479120 12:45 234 22 274 57 50879 01:00 171 233 949 28 92 260 1,117 263 2,0664649374 01:15 232 26 298 49 53075 01:30 244 18 288 42 53260 01:45 240 20 271 34 51154 02:00 84 256 959 18 58 271 1,124 142 2,0832952747 02:15 225 15 285 15 51030 02:30 268 11 293 18 56129 02:45 210 14 275 22 48536 03:00 56 291 1,104 22 81 270 1,229 137 2,3331556137 03:15 248 20 300 10 54830 03:30 301 20 311 11 61231 03:45 264 19 348 20 61239 04:00 138 275 1,159 22 180 323 1,273 318 2,4322859850 04:15 296 38 332 26 62864 04:30 284 56 290 42 57498 04:45 304 64 328 42 632106 05:00 359 314 1,381 86 523 336 1,447 882 2,82842650128 05:15 347 110 423 69 770179 05:30 362 142 356 119 718261 05:45 358 185 332 129 690314 06:00 616 312 1,296 146 657 271 1,053 1,273 2,349112583258 06:15 342 152 282 134 624286 06:30 332 164 256 158 588322 06:45 310 195 244 212 554407 07:00 993 261 818 186 876 210 720 1,869 1,538200471386 07:15 196 203 211 225 407428 07:30 173 227 144 310 317537 07:45 188 260 155 258 343518 08:00 979 180 603 295 1,059 158 663 2,038 1,266270338565 08:15 154 248 196 232 350480 08:30 140 254 152 252 292506 08:45 129 262 157 225 286487 09:00 829 148 623 261 1,042 182 728 1,871 1,351204330465 09:15 142 270 135 217 277487 09:30 159 251 160 232 319483 09:45 174 260 251 176 425436 10:00 780 201 668 248 1,051 306 842 1,831 1,510190507438 10:15 150 289 260 186 410475 10:30 153 258 144 212 297470 10:45 164 256 132 192 296448 11:00 925 128 507 248 1,048 115 301 1,973 808228243476 11:15 164 274 71 214 235488 11:30 110 260 62 235 172495 11:45 105 266 53 248 158514 Totals 6,255 11,018 6,769 11,560 13,024 22,578 Split%48.8 52.0 51.248.0 Day Totals 18,329 35,60217,273 Day Splits 48.5 51.5 Peak Hour 07:30 05:00 08:00 05:00 07:30 05:00 Volume 1,070 1,381 1,059 1,447 2,100 2,828 Factor 0.86 0.95 0.90 0.86 0.93 0.92 Data File :D1104042 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::STATE COLLEGE TO HOWELL AVESegment:04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 337 238 998 64 164 287 1,111 501 2,109110525174 12:15 254 35 274 72 528107 12:30 264 30 254 80 518110 12:45 242 35 296 75 538110 01:00 182 246 974 35 111 264 1,121 293 2,0954051075 01:15 264 24 293 52 55776 01:30 262 22 282 44 54466 01:45 202 30 282 46 48476 02:00 111 258 1,010 22 74 288 1,112 185 2,1224554667 02:15 248 12 288 28 53640 02:30 280 17 280 20 56037 02:45 224 23 256 18 48041 03:00 52 268 1,024 9 74 272 1,198 126 2,2221654025 03:15 220 25 304 6 52431 03:30 302 22 288 17 59039 03:45 234 18 334 13 56831 04:00 128 240 1,029 27 197 336 1,318 325 2,3471957646 04:15 250 42 333 22 58364 04:30 276 60 322 36 59896 04:45 263 68 327 51 590119 05:00 386 271 1,090 91 531 346 1,414 917 2,50442617133 05:15 284 117 376 76 660193 05:30 253 146 348 140 601286 05:45 282 177 344 128 626305 06:00 623 248 833 162 719 288 1,000 1,342 1,833107536269 06:15 204 169 268 134 472303 06:30 206 188 232 164 438352 06:45 175 200 212 218 387418 07:00 1,003 215 789 192 922 207 690 1,925 1,479198422390 07:15 190 238 186 250 376488 07:30 178 236 144 279 322515 07:45 206 256 153 276 359532 08:00 982 153 618 242 1,045 146 614 2,027 1,232294299536 08:15 160 272 146 240 306512 08:30 167 251 154 232 321483 08:45 138 280 168 216 306496 09:00 806 154 560 252 1,033 192 649 1,839 1,209184346436 09:15 148 236 153 204 301440 09:30 130 232 158 204 288436 09:45 128 313 146 214 274527 10:00 691 124 579 242 1,010 134 495 1,701 1,074179258421 10:15 164 259 134 168 298427 10:30 163 243 118 164 281407 10:45 128 266 109 180 237446 11:00 846 118 493 282 1,086 90 293 1,932 786188208470 11:15 144 272 87 198 231470 11:30 121 252 60 244 181496 11:45 110 280 56 216 166496 Totals 6,147 9,997 6,966 11,015 13,113 21,012 Split%47.6 53.1 52.446.9 Day Totals 17,981 34,12516,144 Day Splits 47.3 52.7 Peak Hour 07:15 04:30 11:00 05:00 07:30 05:00 Volume 1,099 1,094 1,086 1,414 2,095 2,504 Factor 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.98 0.95 Data File :D1104042 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANANEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::W/O STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARDSegment 04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 350 225 886 32 110 248 1,020 460 1,906108473140 12:15 231 24 282 86 513110 12:30 208 18 230 100 438118 12:45 222 36 260 56 48292 01:00 208 230 917 24 103 243 1,064 311 1,9815847382 01:15 228 33 283 48 51181 01:30 219 24 275 59 49483 01:45 240 22 263 43 50365 02:00 95 238 928 14 57 264 1,118 152 2,0463050244 02:15 218 14 300 22 51836 02:30 238 15 285 24 52339 02:45 234 14 269 19 50333 03:00 68 249 1,082 24 88 288 1,234 156 2,3161853742 03:15 237 18 302 14 53932 03:30 319 18 310 12 62930 03:45 277 28 334 24 61152 04:00 150 244 1,073 19 170 311 1,315 320 2,3883055549 04:15 259 32 347 30 60662 04:30 260 64 329 44 589108 04:45 310 55 328 46 638101 05:00 383 303 1,306 72 474 346 1,417 857 2,72343649115 05:15 322 120 406 72 728192 05:30 350 136 353 130 703266 05:45 331 146 312 138 643284 06:00 686 312 1,157 153 595 274 986 1,281 2,143121586274 06:15 277 117 264 160 541277 06:30 303 144 210 192 513336 06:45 265 181 238 213 503394 07:00 972 213 749 158 736 210 712 1,708 1,461196423354 07:15 198 166 194 231 392397 07:30 168 190 158 252 326442 07:45 170 222 150 293 320515 08:00 987 174 610 255 935 146 586 1,922 1,196274320529 08:15 144 216 173 270 317486 08:30 162 224 138 219 300443 08:45 130 240 129 224 259464 09:00 804 128 595 244 986 184 692 1,790 1,287180312424 09:15 170 262 100 220 270482 09:30 155 228 154 220 309448 09:45 142 252 254 184 396436 10:00 719 190 692 228 972 285 801 1,691 1,493166475394 10:15 172 274 256 192 428466 10:30 158 240 140 188 298428 10:45 172 230 120 173 292403 11:00 809 145 554 220 994 120 323 1,803 877199265419 11:15 149 242 67 190 216432 11:30 140 268 72 192 212460 11:45 120 264 64 228 184492 Totals 6,231 10,549 6,220 11,268 12,451 21,817 Split%48.4 50.0 51.650.0 Day Totals 17,488 34,26816,780 Day Splits 49.0 51.0 Peak Hour 07:30 05:15 09:45 04:45 07:45 05:00 Volume 1,089 1,315 994 1,433 1,973 2,723 Factor 0.93 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.93 0.94 Data File :D1104043* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANANEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::W/O STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARDSegment 04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 337 214 943 60 172 270 1,059 509 2,002116484176 12:15 239 48 254 71 493119 12:30 230 30 264 76 494106 12:45 260 34 271 74 531108 01:00 215 250 957 31 103 272 1,089 318 2,0464352274 01:15 238 28 292 60 53088 01:30 252 20 274 62 52682 01:45 217 24 251 50 46874 02:00 125 223 975 27 85 296 1,114 210 2,0895551982 02:15 262 18 272 32 53450 02:30 242 20 290 19 53239 02:45 248 20 256 19 50439 03:00 65 262 1,033 12 81 303 1,245 146 2,2782356535 03:15 238 31 320 8 55839 03:30 296 22 298 21 59443 03:45 237 16 324 13 56129 04:00 143 222 1,044 27 188 320 1,322 331 2,3661554242 04:15 238 33 346 26 58459 04:30 302 60 320 48 622108 04:45 282 68 336 54 618122 05:00 370 266 1,103 74 497 375 1,457 867 2,56044641118 05:15 294 114 382 78 676192 05:30 272 149 346 122 618271 05:45 271 160 354 126 625286 06:00 663 257 867 130 616 263 917 1,279 1,784120520250 06:15 216 137 252 154 468291 06:30 204 187 218 172 422359 06:45 190 162 184 217 374379 07:00 1,096 196 756 184 835 188 661 1,931 1,417217384401 07:15 202 213 164 248 366461 07:30 166 222 146 295 312517 07:45 192 216 163 336 355552 08:00 922 157 614 214 957 119 549 1,879 1,163260276474 08:15 172 262 142 246 314508 08:30 146 235 138 226 284461 08:45 139 246 150 190 289436 09:00 777 143 559 253 972 163 582 1,749 1,141174306427 09:15 146 230 146 199 292429 09:30 156 230 125 206 281436 09:45 114 259 148 198 262457 10:00 694 170 685 255 1,034 128 494 1,728 1,179168298423 10:15 181 252 130 156 311408 10:30 180 262 122 174 302436 10:45 154 265 114 196 268461 11:00 739 115 512 282 996 82 276 1,735 788160197442 11:15 145 220 84 188 229408 11:30 142 252 53 185 195437 11:45 110 242 57 206 167448 Totals 6,146 10,048 6,536 10,765 12,682 20,813 Split%48.3 51.5 51.748.5 Day Totals 17,301 33,49516,194 Day Splits 48.3 51.7 Peak Hour 07:15 04:30 10:15 05:00 07:30 05:00 Volume 1,139 1,144 1,061 1,457 2,051 2,560 Factor 0.85 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.93 0.95 Data File :D1104043* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::DOUGLASS ROADLocation Date::N/O KATELLA AVENUESegment 04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 1 74 308 1 8 94 288 9 59601681 12:15 64 1 72 0 1361 12:30 78 4 68 0 1464 12:45 92 2 54 1 1463 01:00 4 81 313 0 3 56 236 7 54911371 01:15 77 2 56 1 1333 01:30 80 0 59 2 1392 01:45 75 1 65 0 1401 02:00 6 68 244 0 0 62 246 6 49021302 02:15 60 0 51 1 1111 02:30 52 0 82 0 1340 02:45 64 0 51 3 1153 03:00 9 42 278 0 3 86 399 12 67711281 03:15 70 1 64 3 1344 03:30 76 1 143 1 2192 03:45 90 1 106 4 1965 04:00 18 92 349 0 9 144 403 27 75222362 04:15 78 1 87 4 1655 04:30 88 5 104 3 1928 04:45 91 3 68 9 15912 05:00 93 122 666 8 22 128 374 115 1,0401725025 05:15 174 2 82 14 25616 05:30 172 5 78 18 25023 05:45 198 7 86 44 28451 06:00 232 254 1,224 8 48 124 494 280 1,7182637834 06:15 294 12 131 42 42554 06:30 338 6 122 60 46066 06:45 338 22 117 104 455126 07:00 518 282 515 28 157 54 177 675 692101336129 07:15 125 37 46 141 171178 07:30 64 50 42 146 106196 07:45 44 42 35 130 79172 08:00 411 36 99 40 135 42 148 546 24710878148 08:15 23 31 26 108 49139 08:30 18 30 26 88 44118 08:45 22 34 54 107 76141 09:00 246 19 126 45 149 79 200 395 3267698121 09:15 28 40 65 70 93110 09:30 39 38 30 53 6991 09:45 40 26 26 47 6673 10:00 194 46 125 26 134 156 567 328 6924820274 10:15 34 34 205 52 23986 10:30 23 37 119 49 14286 10:45 22 37 87 45 10982 11:00 241 10 27 69 314 58 120 555 1475868127 11:15 6 91 26 44 32135 11:30 4 79 22 61 26140 11:45 7 75 14 78 21153 Totals 1,973 4,274 982 3,652 2,955 7,926 Split%53.9 33.2 46.166.8 Day Totals 4,634 10,8816,247 Day Splits 57.4 42.6 Peak Hour 07:15 06:15 11:00 10:00 07:15 06:00 Volume 525 1,252 314 567 694 1,718 Factor 0.90 0.93 0.86 0.69 0.89 0.93 Data File :D1104050* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::DOUGLASS ROADLocation Date::N/O KATELLA AVENUESegment 04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 14 60 247 20 39 108 288 53 535216822 12:15 62 6 52 6 11412 12:30 52 8 68 1 1209 12:45 73 5 60 5 13310 01:00 13 58 253 5 14 72 266 27 51941309 01:15 76 3 61 3 1376 01:30 62 4 71 5 1339 01:45 57 2 62 1 1193 02:00 8 56 198 2 4 73 257 12 45511293 02:15 52 0 46 2 982 02:30 54 2 74 3 1285 02:45 36 0 64 2 1002 03:00 6 42 183 2 8 78 351 14 53411203 03:15 35 3 50 2 855 03:30 44 2 142 1 1863 03:45 62 1 81 2 1433 04:00 24 51 168 2 12 118 353 36 52121694 04:15 32 6 72 3 1049 04:30 41 2 98 10 13912 04:45 44 2 65 9 10911 05:00 100 60 229 3 41 147 361 141 5901220715 05:15 60 8 76 18 13626 05:30 57 9 80 24 13733 05:45 52 21 58 46 11067 06:00 245 48 118 8 60 83 206 305 3243013138 06:15 37 16 46 42 8358 06:30 19 12 41 58 6070 06:45 14 24 36 115 50139 07:00 532 18 65 27 131 28 102 663 16710046127 07:15 24 32 26 158 50190 07:30 12 40 28 146 40186 07:45 11 32 20 128 31160 08:00 385 4 29 37 117 22 92 502 12110026137 08:15 8 23 21 104 29127 08:30 13 28 14 88 27116 08:45 4 29 35 93 39122 09:00 291 14 47 66 169 40 138 460 1857354139 09:15 14 40 40 80 54120 09:30 11 27 26 84 37111 09:45 8 36 32 54 4090 10:00 165 1 17 28 123 13 26 288 43461474 10:15 5 32 3 44 876 10:30 3 29 3 36 665 10:45 8 34 7 39 1573 11:00 212 8 18 70 298 4 12 510 304812118 11:15 2 87 4 42 6129 11:30 5 67 4 56 9123 11:45 3 74 0 66 3140 Totals 1,995 1,572 1,016 2,452 3,011 4,024 Split%39.1 33.7 60.966.3 Day Totals 3,468 7,0353,567 Day Splits 50.7 49.3 Peak Hour 07:00 12:45 11:00 03:30 07:15 03:30 Volume 532 269 298 413 673 602 Factor 0.84 0.88 0.86 0.73 0.89 0.81 Data File :D1104050* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARDLocation Date::N/O KATELLA AVENUESegment 04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 75 198 744 28 69 166 681 144 1,4252236450 12:15 170 18 160 18 33036 12:30 193 9 191 20 38429 12:45 183 14 164 15 34729 01:00 43 176 726 3 31 169 714 74 1,4401234515 01:15 178 17 181 9 35926 01:30 184 8 190 14 37422 01:45 188 3 174 8 36211 02:00 41 194 691 1 16 164 649 57 1,3401235813 02:15 148 4 153 8 30112 02:30 188 1 168 10 35611 02:45 161 10 164 11 32521 03:00 50 190 767 8 56 160 676 106 1,4431435022 03:15 174 12 162 10 33622 03:30 201 24 184 14 38538 03:45 202 12 170 12 37224 04:00 80 231 930 18 75 214 839 155 1,769844526 04:15 221 10 192 16 41326 04:30 218 26 235 28 45354 04:45 260 21 198 28 45849 05:00 155 304 1,135 32 146 292 987 301 2,1222459656 05:15 314 40 236 25 55065 05:30 281 30 259 44 54074 05:45 236 44 200 62 436106 06:00 307 216 781 49 322 196 648 629 1,4294241291 06:15 230 54 157 65 387119 06:30 172 87 141 80 313167 06:45 163 132 154 120 317252 07:00 491 112 397 182 970 124 446 1,461 843120236302 07:15 114 198 104 99 218297 07:30 92 306 116 118 208424 07:45 79 284 102 154 181438 08:00 602 106 327 248 936 86 301 1,538 628156192404 08:15 79 250 76 150 155400 08:30 72 238 72 168 144406 08:45 70 200 67 128 137328 09:00 481 82 294 156 538 70 432 1,019 726139152295 09:15 79 138 61 118 140256 09:30 70 132 102 112 172244 09:45 63 112 199 112 262224 10:00 520 86 223 147 513 244 390 1,033 613118330265 10:15 52 128 68 134 120262 10:30 38 117 38 140 76257 10:45 47 121 40 128 87249 11:00 608 38 117 156 578 38 128 1,186 24513576291 11:15 22 112 32 148 54260 11:30 34 168 32 172 66340 11:45 23 142 26 153 49295 Totals 3,453 7,132 4,250 6,891 7,703 14,023 Split%50.9 55.2 49.144.8 Day Totals 11,141 21,72610,585 Day Splits 48.7 51.3 Peak Hour 07:45 04:45 07:30 05:00 07:30 04:45 Volume 628 1,159 1,088 987 1,666 2,144 Factor 0.93 0.92 0.89 0.85 0.95 0.90 Data File :D1104044* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARDLocation Date::N/O KATELLA AVENUESegment 04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 67 180 779 27 71 172 680 138 1,4592035247 12:15 194 20 162 21 35641 12:30 184 12 184 14 36826 12:45 221 12 162 12 38324 01:00 80 198 710 22 62 160 665 142 1,3752135843 01:15 166 14 192 18 35832 01:30 182 8 170 20 35228 01:45 164 18 143 21 30739 02:00 47 144 676 10 54 168 670 101 1,3461631226 02:15 166 5 142 10 30815 02:30 194 17 182 13 37630 02:45 172 22 178 8 35030 03:00 38 196 826 18 49 154 698 87 1,524735025 03:15 194 5 182 7 37612 03:30 212 14 184 12 39626 03:45 224 12 178 12 40224 04:00 74 198 838 12 77 216 803 151 1,641641418 04:15 190 9 147 14 33723 04:30 214 32 232 28 44660 04:45 236 24 208 26 44450 05:00 133 280 1,008 24 153 318 1,008 286 2,0161359837 05:15 244 27 236 30 48057 05:30 258 42 228 42 48684 05:45 226 60 226 48 452108 06:00 320 198 631 50 323 155 565 643 1,1964235392 06:15 165 57 139 60 304117 06:30 140 94 142 80 282174 06:45 128 122 129 138 257260 07:00 523 106 361 192 996 116 410 1,519 771123222315 07:15 98 214 81 100 179314 07:30 89 282 116 137 205419 07:45 68 308 97 163 165471 08:00 607 92 337 258 886 84 281 1,493 618183176441 08:15 90 260 74 150 164410 08:30 57 190 64 141 121331 08:45 98 178 59 133 157311 09:00 488 79 294 164 583 56 252 1,071 546110135274 09:15 87 148 62 128 149276 09:30 72 127 78 120 150247 09:45 56 144 56 130 112274 10:00 505 60 200 138 473 58 154 978 354124118262 10:15 45 108 36 120 81228 10:30 46 112 26 147 72259 10:45 49 115 34 114 83229 11:00 675 50 133 150 643 38 123 1,318 25617288322 11:15 30 128 36 163 66291 11:30 28 188 25 154 53342 11:45 25 177 24 186 49363 Totals 3,557 6,793 4,370 6,309 7,927 13,102 Split%51.8 55.1 48.244.9 Day Totals 10,679 21,02910,350 Day Splits 49.2 50.8 Peak Hour 11:00 04:45 07:30 05:00 07:30 05:00 Volume 675 1,018 1,108 1,008 1,741 2,016 Factor 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.79 0.92 0.84 Data File :D1104044* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::BALL ROADLocation: Date::SUNKIST ST TO SR-57 SB RAMPSSegment:04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 436 388 1,511 42 173 374 1,506 609 3,017108762150 12:15 398 50 386 119 784169 12:30 371 39 375 113 746152 12:45 354 42 371 96 725138 01:00 202 406 1,569 33 120 374 1,476 322 3,0455678089 01:15 372 24 370 46 74270 01:30 424 34 372 42 79676 01:45 367 29 360 58 72787 02:00 117 438 1,748 26 117 348 1,552 234 3,3004378669 02:15 412 28 376 30 78858 02:30 482 23 434 20 91643 02:45 416 40 394 24 81064 03:00 155 396 1,532 24 168 418 1,778 323 3,3102881452 03:15 381 38 415 47 79685 03:30 380 46 459 34 83980 03:45 375 60 486 46 861106 04:00 277 376 1,665 50 374 436 1,937 651 3,60256812106 04:15 433 82 452 54 885136 04:30 446 134 517 86 963220 04:45 410 108 532 81 942189 05:00 729 445 1,669 112 762 475 1,921 1,491 3,59096920208 05:15 454 190 486 152 940342 05:30 420 220 492 203 912423 05:45 350 240 468 278 818518 06:00 1,235 406 1,527 244 1,123 432 1,726 2,358 3,253236838480 06:15 369 255 464 258 833513 06:30 376 274 440 337 816611 06:45 376 350 390 404 766754 07:00 1,678 359 1,187 319 1,477 318 1,115 3,155 2,302355677674 07:15 296 354 278 452 574806 07:30 297 386 285 470 582856 07:45 235 418 234 401 469819 08:00 1,509 265 1,084 450 1,647 250 849 3,156 1,933396515846 08:15 272 427 218 376 490803 08:30 282 400 189 377 471777 08:45 265 370 192 360 457730 09:00 1,337 266 1,228 362 1,529 205 838 2,866 2,066355471717 09:15 268 371 202 322 470693 09:30 300 396 208 336 508732 09:45 394 400 223 324 617724 10:00 1,273 472 1,255 384 1,452 251 662 2,725 1,917345723729 10:15 302 348 185 314 487662 10:30 240 364 120 328 360692 10:45 241 356 106 286 347642 11:00 1,322 164 676 364 1,478 114 338 2,800 1,014311278675 11:15 192 376 86 330 278706 11:30 174 372 76 381 250753 11:45 146 366 62 300 208666 Totals 10,270 16,651 10,420 15,698 20,690 32,349 Split%51.5 50.4 48.549.6 Day Totals 26,118 53,03926,921 Day Splits 50.8 49.2 Peak Hour 07:15 04:30 07:45 04:30 07:15 04:30 Volume 1,719 1,755 1,695 2,010 3,327 3,765 Factor 0.91 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.97 0.98 Data File :D1104052* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::BALL ROADLocation: Date::SUNKIST ST TO SR-57 SB RAMPSSegment:04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 467 344 1,351 56 205 366 1,463 672 2,814124710180 12:15 357 54 360 117 717171 12:30 342 52 366 124 708176 12:45 308 43 371 102 679145 01:00 252 395 1,539 26 134 360 1,448 386 2,98780755106 01:15 368 40 367 62 735102 01:30 424 38 368 54 79292 01:45 352 30 353 56 70586 02:00 164 462 1,773 32 132 360 1,482 296 3,2556482296 02:15 410 22 344 42 75464 02:30 536 32 390 36 92668 02:45 365 46 388 22 75368 03:00 152 408 1,610 37 174 416 1,720 326 3,3302882465 03:15 382 22 392 38 77460 03:30 424 39 448 34 87273 03:45 396 76 464 52 860128 04:00 299 350 1,572 54 417 434 1,770 716 3,34252784106 04:15 394 100 468 50 862150 04:30 434 138 440 106 874244 04:45 394 125 428 91 822216 05:00 781 428 1,681 116 752 458 1,884 1,533 3,565108886224 05:15 464 158 488 158 952316 05:30 402 244 500 226 902470 05:45 387 234 438 289 825523 06:00 1,172 371 1,444 217 1,123 376 1,380 2,295 2,824220747437 06:15 382 252 362 276 744528 06:30 359 290 328 326 687616 06:45 332 364 314 350 646714 07:00 1,630 386 1,231 334 1,446 286 1,032 3,076 2,263344672678 07:15 299 320 282 434 581754 07:30 274 386 274 456 548842 07:45 272 406 190 396 462802 08:00 1,537 248 930 390 1,586 208 760 3,123 1,690388456778 08:15 228 449 156 381 384830 08:30 234 408 196 382 430790 08:45 220 339 200 386 420725 09:00 1,326 232 890 362 1,492 188 738 2,818 1,628382420744 09:15 242 400 188 310 430710 09:30 220 356 185 334 405690 09:45 196 374 177 300 373674 10:00 1,289 228 856 378 1,504 154 509 2,793 1,365314382692 10:15 239 370 128 330 367700 10:30 209 372 96 318 305690 10:45 180 384 131 327 311711 11:00 1,360 176 660 394 1,493 107 362 2,853 1,022333283727 11:15 156 361 84 332 240693 11:30 186 386 98 345 284731 11:45 142 352 73 350 215702 Totals 10,429 15,537 10,458 14,548 20,887 30,085 Split%51.6 50.1 48.449.9 Day Totals 25,006 50,97225,966 Day Splits 50.9 49.1 Peak Hour 07:15 02:00 07:45 05:00 07:30 05:00 Volume 1,674 1,773 1,653 1,884 3,252 3,565 Factor 0.92 0.83 0.92 0.94 0.97 0.94 Data File :D1104052* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::BALL ROADLocation Date::SR-57 NB RAMPS TO PHOENIX CLUBSegment 04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 75 238 1,052 52 134 290 1,052 209 2,1041652868 12:15 276 22 248 18 52440 12:30 248 30 248 22 49652 12:45 290 30 266 19 55649 01:00 38 248 1,030 13 52 266 1,044 90 2,074851421 01:15 265 12 262 12 52724 01:30 253 15 276 12 52927 01:45 264 12 240 6 50418 02:00 47 254 967 9 58 275 1,212 105 2,1791252921 02:15 182 12 268 4 45016 02:30 246 12 399 11 64523 02:45 285 25 270 20 55545 03:00 68 236 1,020 16 58 344 1,407 126 2,4271258028 03:15 258 8 283 10 54118 03:30 261 15 466 16 72731 03:45 265 19 314 30 57949 04:00 263 274 1,077 15 120 380 1,408 383 2,4853265447 04:15 257 15 340 26 59741 04:30 264 58 396 80 660138 04:45 282 32 292 125 574157 05:00 792 285 1,117 77 407 454 1,332 1,199 2,44988739165 05:15 266 104 314 150 580254 05:30 294 110 306 216 600326 05:45 272 116 258 338 530454 06:00 938 272 1,286 123 579 300 1,071 1,517 2,357198572321 06:15 344 132 270 159 614291 06:30 370 152 269 211 639363 06:45 300 172 232 370 532542 07:00 1,169 211 563 170 834 196 612 2,003 1,175279407449 07:15 142 208 160 294 302502 07:30 114 228 128 279 242507 07:45 96 228 128 317 224545 08:00 1,100 78 358 224 905 157 562 2,005 920298235522 08:15 102 247 130 292 232539 08:30 82 226 115 266 197492 08:45 96 208 160 244 256452 09:00 961 92 312 204 830 160 1,109 1,791 1,421264252468 09:15 72 204 144 241 216445 09:30 59 196 288 242 347438 09:45 89 226 517 214 606440 10:00 922 105 275 203 823 601 938 1,745 1,213228706431 10:15 71 221 179 212 250433 10:30 58 192 94 230 152422 10:45 41 207 64 252 105459 11:00 945 28 131 240 959 82 228 1,904 359237110477 11:15 48 243 38 220 86463 11:30 31 244 66 250 97494 11:45 24 232 42 238 66470 Totals 7,318 9,188 5,759 11,975 13,077 21,163 Split%43.4 44.0 56.656.0 Day Totals 17,734 34,24016,506 Day Splits 48.2 51.8 Peak Hour 06:45 06:00 11:00 09:30 07:30 04:15 Volume 1,222 1,286 959 1,585 2,113 2,570 Factor 0.83 0.87 0.98 0.66 0.97 0.87 Data File :D1104055* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::BALL ROADLocation Date::SR-57 NB RAMPS TO PHOENIX CLUBSegment 04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 94 267 957 48 140 284 995 234 1,9522855176 12:15 222 18 214 18 43636 12:30 239 38 265 28 50466 12:45 229 36 232 20 46156 01:00 65 242 927 21 87 262 1,031 152 1,9581850439 01:15 218 18 252 14 47032 01:30 237 30 266 19 50349 01:45 230 18 251 14 48132 02:00 53 239 1,050 22 63 260 1,172 116 2,2221249934 02:15 275 8 282 7 55715 02:30 270 15 346 14 61629 02:45 266 18 284 20 55038 03:00 66 243 1,139 18 70 359 1,407 136 2,546860226 03:15 300 8 273 8 57316 03:30 280 18 492 18 77236 03:45 316 26 283 32 59958 04:00 323 240 959 12 151 412 1,404 474 2,3632065232 04:15 233 28 337 56 57084 04:30 234 59 358 92 592151 04:45 252 52 297 155 549207 05:00 804 239 978 71 363 488 1,374 1,167 2,352100727171 05:15 268 76 328 144 596220 05:30 252 98 316 206 568304 05:45 219 118 242 354 461472 06:00 1,024 193 634 120 633 298 885 1,657 1,519206491326 06:15 172 150 205 208 377358 06:30 134 181 194 244 328425 06:45 135 182 188 366 323548 07:00 1,154 129 451 172 848 210 656 2,002 1,107248339420 07:15 140 198 152 284 292482 07:30 104 244 164 290 268534 07:45 78 234 130 332 208566 08:00 1,118 55 265 253 839 120 465 1,957 730345175598 08:15 66 200 96 288 162488 08:30 81 192 125 222 206414 08:45 63 194 124 263 187457 09:00 919 62 262 203 847 146 487 1,766 749242208445 09:15 62 212 132 246 194458 09:30 74 233 117 223 191456 09:45 64 199 92 208 156407 10:00 977 56 184 210 862 88 284 1,839 468234144444 10:15 48 165 56 252 104417 10:30 44 258 90 241 134499 10:45 36 229 50 250 86479 11:00 912 26 86 220 990 76 210 1,902 296240102460 11:15 22 250 50 224 72474 11:30 24 274 54 236 78510 11:45 14 246 30 212 44458 Totals 7,509 7,892 5,893 10,370 13,402 18,262 Split%43.2 44.0 56.856.0 Day Totals 16,263 31,66415,401 Day Splits 48.6 51.4 Peak Hour 07:30 03:00 11:00 03:30 07:30 03:15 Volume 1,255 1,139 990 1,524 2,186 2,596 Factor 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.77 0.91 0.84 Data File :D1104055* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::SUNKIST STREETLocation Date::N/O CERRITOS AVENUEQSegment 04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 28 69 231 3 10 49 197 38 4281011813 12:15 66 1 52 4 1185 12:30 54 3 44 8 9811 12:45 42 3 52 6 949 01:00 13 42 221 3 5 51 195 18 41689311 01:15 69 2 52 1 1213 01:30 52 0 48 3 1003 01:45 58 0 44 1 1021 02:00 5 50 252 0 1 44 189 6 4411941 02:15 64 0 43 1 1071 02:30 77 0 51 0 1280 02:45 61 1 51 3 1124 03:00 7 72 334 2 11 56 262 18 59621284 03:15 67 4 60 0 1274 03:30 105 2 73 2 1784 03:45 90 3 73 3 1636 04:00 8 85 383 6 41 64 268 49 65131499 04:15 100 6 74 0 1746 04:30 108 7 70 3 17810 04:45 90 22 60 2 15024 05:00 59 196 593 11 135 74 267 194 860927020 05:15 172 34 58 10 23044 05:30 155 26 67 12 22238 05:45 70 64 68 28 13892 06:00 74 62 242 31 236 75 408 310 6501413745 06:15 58 46 96 24 15470 06:30 56 64 134 14 19078 06:45 66 95 103 22 169117 07:00 121 64 193 92 492 49 138 613 33126113118 07:15 56 115 28 27 84142 07:30 38 134 38 32 76166 07:45 35 151 23 36 58187 08:00 141 36 97 132 433 19 55 574 1523855170 08:15 20 134 17 38 37172 08:30 28 82 13 32 41114 08:45 13 85 6 33 19118 09:00 132 34 398 46 209 12 55 341 453424688 09:15 40 62 15 26 5588 09:30 100 51 14 38 11489 09:45 224 50 14 26 23876 10:00 145 154 230 27 170 19 44 315 2744617373 10:15 42 49 17 35 5984 10:30 16 44 4 28 2072 10:45 18 50 4 36 2286 11:00 175 16 36 36 178 6 15 353 51362272 11:15 6 58 2 50 8108 11:30 9 42 4 43 1385 11:45 5 42 3 46 888 Totals 908 3,210 1,921 2,093 2,829 5,303 Split%60.5 67.9 39.532.1 Day Totals 4,014 8,1324,118 Day Splits 50.6 49.4 Peak Hour 11:00 04:45 07:30 06:00 07:30 04:45 Volume 175 613 551 408 695 872 Factor 0.88 0.78 0.91 0.76 0.93 0.81 Data File :D1104053* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::SUNKIST STREETLocation Date::N/O CERRITOS AVENUEQSegment 04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 31 61 183 0 12 53 228 43 41191149 12:15 28 2 52 2 804 12:30 50 7 66 13 11620 12:45 44 3 57 7 10110 01:00 15 56 222 1 9 50 166 24 38841065 01:15 48 3 42 2 905 01:30 72 4 38 2 1106 01:45 46 1 36 7 828 02:00 14 74 282 1 6 52 210 20 49261267 02:15 52 1 53 4 1055 02:30 98 0 49 3 1473 02:45 58 4 56 1 1145 03:00 8 84 350 4 11 60 225 19 57531447 03:15 70 0 50 1 1201 03:30 100 4 57 1 1575 03:45 96 3 58 3 1546 04:00 14 92 357 5 47 46 195 61 55221387 04:15 78 6 53 2 1318 04:30 100 11 48 4 14815 04:45 87 25 48 6 13531 05:00 52 128 391 11 133 64 195 185 586719218 05:15 108 32 42 9 15041 05:30 92 34 44 16 13650 05:45 63 56 45 20 10876 06:00 74 64 197 36 239 37 132 313 3291610152 06:15 41 42 33 14 7456 06:30 50 65 29 26 7991 06:45 42 96 33 18 75114 07:00 110 62 158 98 483 16 79 593 2373178129 07:15 38 106 21 18 59124 07:30 21 147 20 27 41174 07:45 37 132 22 34 59166 08:00 127 27 94 133 426 15 51 553 1452442157 08:15 25 122 9 38 34160 08:30 20 93 9 30 29123 08:45 22 78 18 35 40113 09:00 117 31 101 54 197 7 39 314 140313885 09:15 27 50 11 24 3874 09:30 18 47 12 28 3075 09:45 25 46 9 34 3480 10:00 125 14 53 41 178 11 24 303 77342575 10:15 18 48 2 30 2078 10:30 13 41 6 34 1975 10:45 8 48 5 27 1375 11:00 176 11 43 43 195 4 17 371 60421585 11:15 14 44 3 44 1788 11:30 12 50 3 50 15100 11:45 6 58 7 40 1398 Totals 863 2,431 1,936 1,561 2,799 3,992 Split%60.9 69.2 39.130.8 Day Totals 3,497 6,7913,294 Day Splits 48.5 51.5 Peak Hour 11:00 04:30 07:30 12:00 07:30 04:30 Volume 176 423 534 228 657 625 Factor 0.88 0.83 0.91 0.86 0.94 0.81 Data File :D1104053* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::CERRITOS AVENUELocation Date::E/O SUNKIST STREETSegment 04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 5 28 140 3 8 52 167 13 3071804 12:15 23 1 39 1 622 12:30 47 2 36 2 834 12:45 42 2 40 1 823 01:00 2 48 176 1 2 38 154 4 3300861 01:15 44 0 48 1 921 01:30 41 1 39 0 801 01:45 43 0 29 1 721 02:00 1 33 111 2 5 47 174 6 2850802 02:15 21 1 44 1 652 02:30 29 1 43 0 721 02:45 28 1 40 0 681 03:00 3 32 140 1 6 47 238 9 3780791 03:15 29 2 44 2 734 03:30 39 1 82 1 1212 03:45 40 2 65 0 1052 04:00 13 37 160 1 7 79 266 20 42611162 04:15 44 0 62 3 1063 04:30 38 2 66 3 1045 04:45 41 4 59 6 10010 05:00 53 46 206 5 29 140 364 82 57031868 05:15 43 5 111 9 15414 05:30 55 5 65 14 12019 05:45 62 14 48 27 11041 06:00 138 74 464 3 39 54 177 177 6412012823 06:15 123 11 42 34 16545 06:30 142 11 43 34 18545 06:45 125 14 38 50 16364 07:00 308 57 125 24 111 34 119 419 244519175 07:15 38 32 40 79 78111 07:30 22 26 29 82 51108 07:45 8 29 16 96 24125 08:00 256 14 43 25 109 32 94 365 137714696 08:15 11 30 25 72 36102 08:30 8 22 18 53 2675 08:45 10 32 19 60 2992 09:00 120 6 27 18 69 23 698 189 725392957 09:15 10 24 37 34 4758 09:30 3 12 238 25 24137 09:45 8 15 400 22 40837 10:00 81 4 15 21 89 224 330 170 3451422835 10:15 5 21 61 23 6644 10:30 2 26 22 23 2449 10:45 4 21 23 21 2742 11:00 140 3 7 25 142 9 20 282 27201245 11:15 3 38 5 44 882 11:30 1 34 4 38 572 11:45 0 45 2 38 283 Totals 1,120 1,614 616 2,801 1,736 4,415 Split%36.6 35.5 63.464.5 Day Totals 3,417 6,1512,734 Day Splits 44.4 55.6 Peak Hour 07:15 06:00 11:00 09:30 07:15 09:30 Volume 328 464 142 923 440 943 Factor 0.85 0.82 0.79 0.58 0.88 0.58 Data File :D1104054* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::CERRITOS AVENUELocation Date::E/O SUNKIST STREETSegment 04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 4 47 155 6 17 47 139 21 2940946 12:15 30 2 24 1 543 12:30 44 8 28 1 729 12:45 34 1 40 2 743 01:00 4 29 132 5 14 36 153 18 2851656 01:15 37 3 36 1 734 01:30 38 4 43 0 814 01:45 28 2 38 2 664 02:00 2 30 115 2 8 48 154 10 2691783 02:15 27 1 34 0 611 02:30 28 3 42 1 704 02:45 30 2 30 0 602 03:00 2 30 117 1 5 53 250 7 3670831 03:15 31 2 42 0 732 03:30 26 0 92 1 1181 03:45 30 2 63 1 933 04:00 14 31 102 0 8 84 234 22 33611151 04:15 16 0 46 5 625 04:30 29 5 65 5 9410 04:45 26 3 39 3 656 05:00 51 38 114 2 25 111 280 76 39471499 05:15 21 3 78 12 9915 05:30 24 6 60 11 8417 05:45 31 14 31 21 6235 06:00 141 26 88 10 49 42 117 190 205206830 06:15 20 12 37 28 5740 06:30 16 11 22 40 3851 06:45 26 16 16 53 4269 07:00 285 13 37 16 96 22 68 381 105593575 07:15 9 17 20 72 2989 07:30 9 30 10 72 19102 07:45 6 33 16 82 22115 08:00 257 4 23 24 94 9 54 351 77681392 08:15 7 27 17 70 2497 08:30 6 17 12 64 1881 08:45 6 26 16 55 2281 09:00 157 7 19 28 99 19 82 256 101642692 09:15 4 17 21 37 2554 09:30 4 28 20 28 2456 09:45 4 26 22 28 2654 10:00 101 6 9 18 90 12 27 191 36211839 10:15 0 26 4 26 452 10:30 2 24 4 22 646 10:45 1 22 7 32 854 11:00 111 1 3 35 142 8 18 253 2127962 11:15 1 48 2 20 368 11:30 0 29 6 26 655 11:45 1 30 2 38 368 Totals 1,129 914 647 1,576 1,776 2,490 Split%36.7 36.4 63.363.6 Day Totals 2,223 4,2662,043 Day Splits 47.9 52.1 Peak Hour 07:15 12:00 11:00 04:30 07:30 04:30 Volume 294 155 142 293 406 407 Factor 0.90 0.82 0.74 0.66 0.88 0.68 Data File :D1104054* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::PHOENIX CLUBLocation Date::S/O BALL ROADSegment 04/06/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:SB NB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 8 38 149 3 10 46 147 18 2960843 12:15 38 4 32 5 709 12:30 32 2 30 0 622 12:45 41 1 39 3 804 01:00 0 31 142 3 3 60 187 3 3290913 01:15 30 0 42 0 720 01:30 43 0 40 0 830 01:45 38 0 45 0 830 02:00 0 17 114 0 1 30 118 1 2320470 02:15 28 0 28 0 560 02:30 28 0 26 0 540 02:45 41 1 34 0 751 03:00 0 30 123 0 0 37 149 0 2720670 03:15 31 0 31 0 620 03:30 30 0 43 0 730 03:45 32 0 38 0 700 04:00 1 26 115 0 0 39 128 1 2430650 04:15 26 0 34 0 600 04:30 29 0 25 0 540 04:45 34 0 30 1 641 05:00 9 36 146 0 0 52 267 9 4130880 05:15 40 0 62 2 1022 05:30 3 0 103 2 1062 05:45 67 0 50 5 1175 06:00 37 130 713 3 9 51 135 46 848818111 06:15 198 0 28 3 2263 06:30 232 4 26 6 25810 06:45 153 2 30 20 18322 07:00 119 70 139 8 31 24 93 150 232229430 07:15 28 8 27 20 5528 07:30 26 6 22 34 4840 07:45 15 9 20 43 3552 08:00 122 12 31 9 49 11 99 171 130322341 08:15 9 13 14 31 2344 08:30 2 11 14 19 1630 08:45 8 16 60 40 6856 09:00 144 2 14 18 89 69 816 233 830357153 09:15 3 24 54 41 5765 09:30 4 25 211 34 21559 09:45 5 22 482 34 48756 10:00 124 4 11 18 95 474 651 219 6622547843 10:15 4 29 116 28 12057 10:30 2 26 37 30 3956 10:45 1 22 24 41 2563 11:00 148 0 3 32 120 17 36 268 39311763 11:15 1 24 4 41 565 11:30 0 26 7 30 756 11:45 2 38 8 46 1084 Totals 712 1,700 407 2,826 1,119 4,526 Split%37.6 36.4 62.463.6 Day Totals 3,233 5,6452,412 Day Splits 42.7 57.3 Peak Hour 08:45 06:00 11:00 09:30 11:00 09:30 Volume 150 713 120 1,283 268 1,300 Factor 0.91 0.77 0.79 0.67 0.80 0.67 Data File :D1104056 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2680 Walnut Avenue, Ste C Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::PHOENIX CLUBLocation Date::S/O BALL ROADSegment 04/07/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:SB NB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 6 40 132 6 10 43 138 16 2702838 12:15 36 0 29 0 650 12:30 24 1 36 2 603 12:45 32 3 30 2 625 01:00 0 44 168 0 3 50 158 3 3260940 01:15 36 0 34 0 700 01:30 46 1 32 0 781 01:45 42 2 42 0 842 02:00 1 27 109 0 0 36 129 1 2380630 02:15 19 0 28 0 470 02:30 35 0 31 0 660 02:45 28 0 34 1 621 03:00 0 35 129 0 1 48 144 1 2730830 03:15 32 1 36 0 681 03:30 26 0 32 0 580 03:45 36 0 28 0 640 04:00 1 26 101 0 1 50 120 2 2211761 04:15 30 1 27 0 571 04:30 18 0 21 0 390 04:45 27 0 22 0 490 05:00 8 20 113 0 3 64 158 11 2711841 05:15 26 0 36 0 620 05:30 36 0 28 4 644 05:45 31 3 30 3 616 06:00 34 24 107 0 8 56 126 42 2334804 06:15 23 2 34 6 578 06:30 29 0 14 9 439 06:45 31 6 22 15 5321 07:00 124 23 65 7 29 26 73 153 138164923 07:15 23 3 13 22 3625 07:30 10 11 16 35 2646 07:45 9 8 18 51 2759 08:00 148 7 22 12 55 23 94 203 116423054 08:15 5 13 15 33 2046 08:30 6 14 38 33 4447 08:45 4 16 18 40 2256 09:00 125 6 13 20 86 40 97 211 110374657 09:15 5 21 17 32 2253 09:30 1 29 27 30 2859 09:45 1 16 13 26 1442 10:00 163 0 3 24 113 10 46 276 49361060 10:15 2 31 4 35 666 10:30 1 36 22 44 2380 10:45 0 22 10 48 1070 11:00 152 3 6 23 137 6 12 289 1840963 11:15 0 36 1 38 174 11:30 3 43 2 34 577 11:45 0 35 3 40 375 Totals 762 968 446 1,295 1,208 2,263 Split%42.8 36.9 57.263.1 Day Totals 1,741 3,4711,730 Day Splits 49.8 50.2 Peak Hour 10:30 01:00 11:00 01:00 11:00 01:00 Volume 170 168 137 158 289 326 Factor 0.89 0.91 0.80 0.79 0.94 0.87 Data File :D1104056 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX B: EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR ANGEL STADIUM Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR ANGEL STADIUM (NO EVENTS DAY) File Name : h11080071 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: DOUGLASS ROAD E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements DOUGLASS ROAD Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound DOUGLASS ROAD Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turn Int. Total 04:00 PM 80 1 31 27 290 3 1 5 1 6 4 223 19 3 694 04:15 PM 36 0 25 29 246 4 2 8 2 16 10 214 23 3 618 04:30 PM 70 0 27 31 291 6 3 5 5 15 6 251 28 10 748 04:45 PM 34 1 26 27 256 9 3 5 1 11 14 258 56 6 707 Total 220 2 109 114 1083 22 9 23 9 48 34 946 126 22 2767 05:00 PM 99 2 42 40 293 3 2 4 2 14 21 316 56 4 898 05:15 PM 54 0 20 36 308 4 2 3 4 5 13 291 58 5 803 05:30 PM 63 0 33 31 228 5 4 3 6 22 18 265 70 3 751 05:45 PM 43 1 22 34 215 1 1 6 5 5 14 247 81 3 678 Total 259 3 117 141 1044 13 9 16 17 46 66 1119 265 15 3130 06:00 PM 61 3 22 34 187 6 2 3 3 7 9 230 60 7 634 06:15 PM 28 1 17 18 183 5 0 1 1 13 7 170 28 3 475 06:30 PM 38 1 16 20 181 3 0 4 0 7 5 180 16 3 474 06:45 PM 24 1 10 13 154 1 0 1 1 8 5 136 12 2 368 Total 151 6 65 85 705 15 2 9 5 35 26 716 116 15 1951 07:00 PM 28 0 15 23 173 6 2 2 0 10 6 134 9 0 408 07:15 PM 32 0 3 7 139 3 0 1 0 14 15 133 9 3 359 07:30 PM 33 1 5 8 141 6 1 5 0 14 16 112 4 3 349 07:45 PM 22 0 8 10 162 6 0 1 0 14 9 112 1 3 348 Total 115 1 31 48 615 21 3 9 0 52 46 491 23 9 1464 Grand Total 745 12 322 388 3447 71 23 57 31 181 172 3272 530 61 9312 Apprch %69 1.1 29.8 9.9 87.7 1.8 0.6 21.2 11.5 67.3 4.3 81.1 13.1 1.5 Total %8 0.1 3.5 4.2 37 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.3 1.9 1.8 35.1 5.7 0.7 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h11080041 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: HOWELL AVENUE E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements HOWELL AVENUE Southbound KATELL AVENUE Westbound HOWELL AVENUE Northbound KATELL AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turns Right Thru Left U-Turns Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turns Int. Total 04:00 PM 24 6 56 1 40 317 7 1 25 4 22 13 231 22 1 770 04:15 PM 17 4 55 0 52 268 6 2 26 6 13 10 201 10 1 671 04:30 PM 28 4 66 1 74 318 23 2 31 3 14 9 253 18 0 844 04:45 PM 28 4 72 0 115 306 8 3 25 2 10 10 234 11 2 830 Total 97 18 249 2 281 1209 44 8 107 15 59 42 919 61 4 3115 05:00 PM 33 0 83 0 119 322 12 0 54 9 20 4 297 13 3 969 05:15 PM 25 2 59 0 127 313 16 3 19 2 9 9 318 16 6 924 05:30 PM 27 3 54 0 143 312 15 3 17 3 15 9 280 18 3 902 05:45 PM 21 6 57 0 119 275 9 2 25 4 14 8 213 8 1 762 Total 106 11 253 0 508 1222 52 8 115 18 58 30 1108 55 13 3557 06:00 PM 30 1 37 0 92 327 7 3 22 3 13 9 248 12 3 807 06:15 PM 12 2 50 1 39 242 13 1 16 4 9 9 222 9 2 631 06:30 PM 17 2 45 2 33 219 10 2 18 5 14 10 238 12 3 630 06:45 PM 7 2 32 0 39 198 6 2 9 1 6 9 173 9 1 494 Total 66 7 164 3 203 986 36 8 65 13 42 37 881 42 9 2562 07:00 PM 7 2 27 0 33 184 5 0 11 0 7 4 204 12 0 496 07:15 PM 9 0 21 0 32 191 6 0 10 1 6 7 181 5 3 472 07:30 PM 6 1 19 0 20 164 8 1 5 2 7 7 178 12 0 430 07:45 PM 4 1 20 0 22 188 12 2 8 0 7 3 160 8 0 435 Total 26 4 87 0 107 727 31 3 34 3 27 21 723 37 3 1833 Grand Total 295 40 753 5 1099 4144 163 27 321 49 186 130 3631 195 29 11067 Apprch %27 3.7 68.9 0.5 20.2 76.3 3 0.5 57.7 8.8 33.5 3.3 91.1 4.9 0.7 Total %2.7 0.4 6.8 0 9.9 37.4 1.5 0.2 2.9 0.4 1.7 1.2 32.8 1.8 0.3 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h11080091 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: MAIN STREET E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements MAIN STREET Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound MAIN STREET Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turn Int. Total 04:00 PM 16 49 26 2 21 170 41 66 104 37 15 184 12 3 746 04:15 PM 19 41 7 1 30 169 50 70 90 29 17 156 16 1 696 04:30 PM 29 67 23 1 24 174 44 82 100 34 14 153 20 1 766 04:45 PM 16 61 20 0 22 168 42 65 73 30 16 214 29 1 757 Total 80 218 76 4 97 681 177 283 367 130 62 707 77 6 2965 05:00 PM 25 71 26 1 34 204 45 72 91 32 13 226 25 3 868 05:15 PM 29 59 20 1 17 201 29 73 92 46 13 225 42 1 848 05:30 PM 35 42 16 2 24 157 39 60 91 31 14 220 31 3 765 05:45 PM 22 55 13 1 19 149 24 67 63 35 14 215 26 6 709 Total 111 227 75 5 94 711 137 272 337 144 54 886 124 13 3190 06:00 PM 14 53 19 0 22 141 39 71 75 31 17 150 20 3 655 06:15 PM 18 36 22 2 24 149 40 50 49 29 8 126 6 4 563 06:30 PM 10 40 22 1 10 136 30 41 55 20 10 151 14 2 542 06:45 PM 8 23 14 1 19 121 36 41 33 26 15 71 9 2 419 Total 50 152 77 4 75 547 145 203 212 106 50 498 49 11 2179 07:00 PM 14 34 16 0 25 128 24 46 51 34 9 87 8 0 476 07:15 PM 5 27 10 1 13 117 38 23 36 17 11 83 4 0 385 07:30 PM 8 18 21 1 19 91 28 26 37 12 8 87 8 2 366 07:45 PM 11 25 14 4 19 121 24 25 33 18 6 68 11 0 379 Total 38 104 61 6 76 457 114 120 157 81 34 325 31 2 1606 Grand Total 279 701 289 19 342 2396 573 878 1073 461 200 2416 281 32 9940 Apprch %21.7 54.4 22.4 1.5 10.3 72.4 17.3 36.4 44.5 19.1 6.8 82.5 9.6 1.1 Total %2.8 7.1 2.9 0.2 3.4 24.1 5.8 8.8 10.8 4.6 2 24.3 2.8 0.3 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h11080101 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: MAIN STREET E-W Direction: STRUCK AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements MAIN STREET Southbound STRUCK AVENUE Westbound MAIN STREET Northbound STRUCK AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 3 88 5 11 26 10 8 180 27 27 25 9 419 04:15 PM 11 85 4 9 23 8 6 130 21 40 12 8 357 04:30 PM 7 109 5 12 26 3 4 188 34 35 14 6 443 04:45 PM 3 101 4 9 20 1 1 161 32 31 18 4 385 Total 24 383 18 41 95 22 19 659 114 133 69 27 1604 05:00 PM 3 105 2 8 27 5 0 173 36 44 16 6 425 05:15 PM 6 104 2 9 16 5 1 177 27 38 9 11 405 05:30 PM 4 82 2 6 11 3 2 177 19 21 12 4 343 05:45 PM 2 74 5 0 9 6 3 166 22 20 8 3 318 Total 15 365 11 23 63 19 6 693 104 123 45 24 1491 06:00 PM 9 83 3 2 10 3 3 161 15 21 3 4 317 06:15 PM 4 87 4 3 8 2 2 100 15 12 7 4 248 06:30 PM 1 60 1 1 8 2 1 108 15 19 12 3 231 06:45 PM 3 60 3 0 8 0 0 86 12 25 5 1 203 Total 17 290 11 6 34 7 6 455 57 77 27 12 999 07:00 PM 0 49 1 0 6 2 0 83 14 20 6 2 183 07:15 PM 5 53 0 1 6 3 1 71 12 13 3 2 170 07:30 PM 4 44 0 0 4 0 0 71 6 12 3 1 145 07:45 PM 0 33 1 0 4 0 0 59 9 6 6 2 120 Total 9 179 2 1 20 5 1 284 41 51 18 7 618 Grand Total 65 1217 42 71 212 53 32 2091 316 384 159 70 4712 Apprch %4.9 91.9 3.2 21.1 63.1 15.8 1.3 85.7 13 62.6 25.9 11.4 Total %1.4 25.8 0.9 1.5 4.5 1.1 0.7 44.4 6.7 8.1 3.4 1.5 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : H11080151 Site Code : 00003873 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: PHOENIX CLUB E-W Direction: BALL ROAD Groups Printed- Turning Movements PHOENIX CLUB Southbound BALL ROAD Westbound PHOENIX CLUB Northbound BALL ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 4 0 3 1 343 8 15 0 46 26 270 7 723 04:15 PM 8 0 2 2 348 8 9 1 18 19 291 7 713 04:30 PM 5 0 1 3 348 3 7 0 35 22 276 2 702 04:45 PM 7 0 3 0 375 6 10 0 20 28 285 4 738 Total 24 0 9 6 1414 25 41 1 119 95 1122 20 2876 05:00 PM 5 0 1 2 406 7 14 0 45 17 207 6 710 05:15 PM 5 0 1 1 350 6 13 0 35 25 285 3 724 05:30 PM 3 0 1 2 306 7 8 0 22 14 250 7 620 05:45 PM 7 0 2 1 255 5 16 0 30 20 304 15 655 Total 20 0 5 6 1317 25 51 0 132 76 1046 31 2709 06:00 PM 6 0 2 1 241 5 12 1 60 20 237 3 588 06:15 PM 3 0 1 1 200 2 12 1 37 13 206 2 478 06:30 PM 8 0 2 2 191 3 5 0 16 15 194 2 438 06:45 PM 7 0 1 0 166 2 8 0 18 7 172 6 387 Total 24 0 6 4 798 12 37 2 131 55 809 13 1891 07:00 PM 4 0 1 1 174 6 4 0 11 16 148 5 370 07:15 PM 5 0 4 1 171 3 0 0 14 13 139 6 356 07:30 PM 1 1 0 2 156 2 4 0 17 17 112 5 317 07:45 PM 6 0 1 0 139 1 3 0 13 10 112 3 288 Total 16 1 6 4 640 12 11 0 55 56 511 19 1331 Grand Total 84 1 26 20 4169 74 140 3 437 282 3488 83 8807 Apprch %75.7 0.9 23.4 0.5 97.8 1.7 24.1 0.5 75.3 7.3 90.5 2.2 Total %1 0 0.3 0.2 47.3 0.8 1.6 0 5 3.2 39.6 0.9 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : H1108003 Site Code : 00005694 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SPORTSTOWN E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements SPORTSTOWN Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound SPORTSTOWN Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 12 0 23 17 295 13 11 3 1 10 206 16 607 04:15 PM 19 0 18 17 256 10 26 0 12 7 239 9 613 04:30 PM 8 0 24 12 292 8 23 1 13 15 183 10 589 04:45 PM 19 0 22 26 271 8 18 1 16 10 237 14 642 Total 58 0 87 72 1114 39 78 5 42 42 865 49 2451 05:00 PM 18 2 25 27 351 10 26 4 14 12 205 10 704 05:15 PM 13 2 10 16 169 2 7 0 6 7 257 3 492 05:30 PM 22 2 20 22 283 17 41 5 18 12 205 8 655 05:45 PM 14 1 18 18 270 5 9 2 6 9 262 14 628 Total 67 7 73 83 1073 34 83 11 44 40 929 35 2479 06:00 PM 16 0 16 21 271 6 15 3 5 7 173 12 545 06:15 PM 18 0 21 27 207 4 28 1 21 8 211 7 553 06:30 PM 24 0 20 18 203 4 45 2 23 9 135 8 491 06:45 PM 20 2 21 22 179 3 12 2 3 6 171 13 454 Total 78 2 78 88 860 17 100 8 52 30 690 40 2043 07:00 PM 19 1 21 14 182 2 8 1 6 8 190 8 460 07:15 PM 13 1 26 20 146 6 32 0 13 6 150 11 424 07:30 PM 13 1 16 10 134 2 4 0 7 9 129 7 332 07:45 PM 16 1 20 10 132 3 9 1 0 3 152 17 364 Total 61 4 83 54 594 13 53 2 26 26 621 43 1580 Grand Total 264 13 321 297 3641 103 314 26 164 138 3105 167 8553 Apprch %44.1 2.2 53.7 7.3 90.1 2.5 62.3 5.2 32.5 4 91.1 4.9 Total %3.1 0.2 3.8 3.5 42.6 1.2 3.7 0.3 1.9 1.6 36.3 2 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : H11080111 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SR-57 NB RAMPS E-W Direction: BALL ROAD Groups Printed- Turning Movements SR-57 NB ON RAMP Southbound BALL ROAD Westbound SR-57 NB ON-OFF RAMP Northbound BALL ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 101 335 0 77 0 178 138 232 0 1061 04:15 PM 0 0 0 77 254 0 84 0 204 110 204 0 933 04:30 PM 0 0 0 131 316 0 82 0 207 110 257 0 1103 04:45 PM 0 0 0 96 246 0 58 0 148 99 244 0 891 Total 0 0 0 405 1151 0 301 0 737 457 937 0 3988 05:00 PM 0 0 0 149 270 0 52 0 142 140 255 0 1008 05:15 PM 0 0 0 156 277 0 38 0 119 116 276 0 982 05:30 PM 0 0 0 106 217 0 51 0 126 118 219 0 837 05:45 PM 0 0 0 89 215 0 58 0 135 105 227 0 829 Total 0 0 0 500 979 0 199 0 522 479 977 0 3656 06:00 PM 0 0 0 83 180 0 36 0 150 141 225 0 815 06:15 PM 0 0 0 65 232 0 60 0 152 105 205 0 819 06:30 PM 0 0 0 68 162 0 46 0 133 135 159 0 703 06:45 PM 0 0 0 50 130 0 41 0 111 113 135 0 580 Total 0 0 0 266 704 0 183 0 546 494 724 0 2917 07:00 PM 0 0 0 80 136 0 45 0 118 145 138 0 662 07:15 PM 0 0 0 63 99 0 35 0 83 143 108 0 531 07:30 PM 0 0 0 67 121 0 31 0 88 158 105 0 570 07:45 PM 0 0 0 58 105 0 18 0 84 108 109 0 482 Total 0 0 0 268 461 0 129 0 373 554 460 0 2245 Grand Total 0 0 0 1439 3295 0 812 0 2178 1984 3098 0 12806 Apprch %0 0 0 30.4 69.6 0 27.2 0 72.8 39 61 0 Total %0 0 0 11.2 25.7 0 6.3 0 17 15.5 24.2 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h11080051 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SR-57 NB RAMPS E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements SR-57 NB ON RAMP Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound SR-57 NB ON - OFF RAMPS Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 79 297 0 70 0 53 91 182 0 772 04:15 PM 0 0 0 48 250 0 74 0 75 90 163 0 700 04:30 PM 0 0 0 41 335 0 104 0 112 101 206 0 899 04:45 PM 0 0 0 32 274 0 150 0 164 94 204 0 918 Total 0 0 0 200 1156 0 398 0 404 376 755 0 3289 05:00 PM 0 0 0 68 343 0 141 0 156 133 231 0 1072 05:15 PM 0 0 0 42 321 0 135 0 172 147 213 0 1030 05:30 PM 0 0 0 43 275 0 144 0 184 106 218 0 970 05:45 PM 0 0 0 30 231 0 132 0 151 88 184 0 816 Total 0 0 0 183 1170 0 552 0 663 474 846 0 3888 06:00 PM 0 0 0 38 220 0 101 0 144 100 174 0 777 06:15 PM 0 0 0 45 177 0 47 0 46 98 175 0 588 06:30 PM 0 0 0 46 175 0 41 0 48 95 164 0 569 06:45 PM 0 0 0 44 137 0 38 0 39 84 109 0 451 Total 0 0 0 173 709 0 227 0 277 377 622 0 2385 07:00 PM 0 0 0 50 159 0 32 0 39 107 125 0 512 07:15 PM 0 0 0 40 147 0 38 0 39 85 119 0 468 07:30 PM 0 0 0 55 129 0 43 0 30 93 98 0 448 07:45 PM 0 0 0 63 138 0 40 0 33 82 75 0 431 Total 0 0 0 208 573 0 153 0 141 367 417 0 1859 Grand Total 0 0 0 764 3608 0 1330 0 1485 1594 2640 0 11421 Apprch %0 0 0 17.5 82.5 0 47.2 0 52.8 37.6 62.4 0 Total %0 0 0 6.7 31.6 0 11.6 0 13 14 23.1 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h11080121 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SR-57 SB RAMPS E-W Direction: BALL ROAD Groups Printed- Turning Movements SR-57 SB ON-OFF RAMPS Southbound BALL ROAD Westbound SR-57 SB ON RAMP Northbound BALL ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 170 0 72 128 379 0 0 0 0 112 295 0 1156 04:15 PM 142 0 66 103 361 0 0 0 0 86 251 0 1009 04:30 PM 150 0 63 121 396 0 0 0 0 141 301 0 1172 04:45 PM 185 0 74 75 317 0 0 0 0 77 269 0 997 Total 647 0 275 427 1453 0 0 0 0 416 1116 0 4334 05:00 PM 203 0 82 89 325 0 0 0 0 103 313 0 1115 05:15 PM 190 0 72 70 317 0 0 0 0 98 316 0 1063 05:30 PM 188 0 60 69 283 0 0 0 0 72 280 0 952 05:45 PM 233 0 78 54 291 0 0 0 0 76 248 0 980 Total 814 0 292 282 1216 0 0 0 0 349 1157 0 4110 06:00 PM 260 0 87 42 294 0 0 0 0 85 286 0 1054 06:15 PM 220 0 67 40 339 0 0 0 0 78 237 0 981 06:30 PM 197 0 66 45 241 0 0 0 0 99 222 0 870 06:45 PM 130 0 47 41 209 0 0 0 0 79 207 0 713 Total 807 0 267 168 1083 0 0 0 0 341 952 0 3618 07:00 PM 140 0 60 36 213 0 0 0 0 72 218 0 739 07:15 PM 133 0 35 23 164 0 0 0 0 58 221 0 634 07:30 PM 119 0 38 22 183 0 0 0 0 60 216 0 638 07:45 PM 104 0 31 32 161 0 0 0 0 58 196 0 582 Total 496 0 164 113 721 0 0 0 0 248 851 0 2593 Grand Total 2764 0 998 990 4473 0 0 0 0 1354 4076 0 14655 Apprch %73.5 0 26.5 18.1 81.9 0 0 0 0 24.9 75.1 0 Total %18.9 0 6.8 6.8 30.5 0 0 0 0 9.2 27.8 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h11080061 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SR-57 SB RAMPS E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements SR-57 SB ON-OFF RAMPS Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound SR-57 SB ON RAMP Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 134 0 42 122 223 0 0 0 0 90 228 0 839 04:15 PM 112 0 45 121 208 0 0 0 0 66 211 0 763 04:30 PM 119 0 35 139 303 0 0 0 0 86 269 0 951 04:45 PM 122 0 36 121 312 0 0 0 0 83 256 0 930 Total 487 0 158 503 1046 0 0 0 0 325 964 0 3483 05:00 PM 72 0 38 127 376 0 0 0 0 96 331 0 1040 05:15 PM 83 0 41 107 381 0 0 0 0 81 316 0 1009 05:30 PM 87 0 37 88 376 0 0 0 0 69 282 0 939 05:45 PM 75 0 36 61 320 0 0 0 0 70 233 0 795 Total 317 0 152 383 1453 0 0 0 0 316 1162 0 3783 06:00 PM 130 0 37 71 293 0 0 0 0 60 240 0 831 06:15 PM 125 0 33 52 171 0 0 0 0 58 237 0 676 06:30 PM 100 0 33 55 163 0 0 0 0 87 221 0 659 06:45 PM 106 0 34 44 137 0 0 0 0 42 164 0 527 Total 461 0 137 222 764 0 0 0 0 247 862 0 2693 07:00 PM 87 0 31 59 138 0 0 0 0 50 197 0 562 07:15 PM 90 0 38 51 137 0 0 0 0 36 170 0 522 07:30 PM 79 0 21 41 114 0 0 0 0 39 170 0 464 07:45 PM 85 0 23 39 136 0 0 0 0 46 134 0 463 Total 341 0 113 190 525 0 0 0 0 171 671 0 2011 Grand Total 1606 0 560 1298 3788 0 0 0 0 1059 3659 0 11970 Apprch %74.1 0 25.9 25.5 74.5 0 0 0 0 22.4 77.6 0 Total %13.4 0 4.7 10.8 31.6 0 0 0 0 8.8 30.6 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h11080021 Site Code : 00005053 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left U-Turn Int. Total 04:00 PM 28 128 13 2 16 195 44 4 50 126 46 1 23 146 44 0 866 04:15 PM 28 115 23 1 12 244 50 20 39 148 28 0 26 146 44 5 929 04:30 PM 41 144 15 1 15 200 42 8 41 165 34 1 36 165 48 1 957 04:45 PM 20 74 25 0 16 274 52 14 48 167 31 2 24 184 54 1 986 Total 117 461 76 4 59 913 188 46 178 606 139 4 109 641 190 7 3738 05:00 PM 71 185 12 1 9 240 60 12 51 209 45 3 23 162 26 0 1109 05:15 PM 31 125 17 1 11 209 57 12 41 134 26 0 27 183 44 1 919 05:30 PM 38 147 12 0 14 181 44 15 46 102 47 1 25 180 31 2 885 05:45 PM 38 98 29 0 15 227 42 13 38 64 20 1 19 197 45 2 848 Total 178 555 70 2 49 857 203 52 176 509 138 5 94 722 146 5 3761 06:00 PM 32 92 10 2 12 156 38 11 29 141 38 1 30 165 32 3 792 06:15 PM 22 83 10 1 12 179 44 16 31 100 20 0 24 139 44 3 728 06:30 PM 23 86 12 0 11 136 45 9 34 88 28 0 22 121 23 0 638 06:45 PM 27 64 11 1 14 164 33 8 31 42 8 0 18 143 27 1 592 Total 104 325 43 4 49 635 160 44 125 371 94 1 94 568 126 7 2750 07:00 PM 14 60 18 0 9 114 26 11 34 59 33 1 12 117 26 0 534 07:15 PM 20 61 12 0 12 113 29 9 27 66 30 3 19 104 19 0 524 07:30 PM 17 43 14 1 13 116 27 7 28 56 20 0 14 101 13 2 472 07:45 PM 18 28 15 0 11 93 21 8 29 63 23 0 14 118 14 0 455 Total 69 192 59 1 45 436 103 35 118 244 106 4 59 440 72 2 1985 Grand Total 468 1533 248 11 202 2841 654 177 597 1730 477 14 356 2371 534 21 12234 Apprch %20.7 67.8 11 0.5 5.2 73.3 16.9 4.6 21.2 61.4 16.9 0.5 10.8 72.2 16.3 0.6 Total %3.8 12.5 2 0.1 1.7 23.2 5.3 1.4 4.9 14.1 3.9 0.1 2.9 19.4 4.4 0.2 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h11080081 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: STRUCK AVENUE E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements STRUCK AVENUE Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound STRUCK AVENUE Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 233 2 3 0 62 49 220 0 569 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 197 9 6 0 62 53 193 0 520 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 224 1 5 0 76 50 226 0 582 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 202 3 5 0 65 51 257 0 583 Total 0 0 0 0 856 15 19 0 265 203 896 0 2254 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 218 3 5 0 102 63 309 0 700 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 259 2 4 0 73 57 268 0 663 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 206 3 5 0 54 41 275 0 584 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 186 0 6 0 44 40 251 0 527 Total 0 0 0 0 869 8 20 0 273 201 1103 0 2474 06:00 PM 0 0 0 0 169 1 1 0 34 35 213 0 453 06:15 PM 0 0 0 0 171 3 3 0 37 38 154 0 406 06:30 PM 0 0 0 0 145 0 2 0 44 36 164 0 391 06:45 PM 0 0 0 0 148 2 2 0 24 29 115 0 320 Total 0 0 0 0 633 6 8 0 139 138 646 0 1570 07:00 PM 0 0 0 0 151 2 1 0 25 25 125 0 329 07:15 PM 0 0 0 0 122 0 1 0 19 20 114 0 276 07:30 PM 0 0 0 0 126 0 2 0 23 21 106 0 278 07:45 PM 0 0 0 0 164 1 1 0 24 20 102 0 312 Total 0 0 0 0 563 3 5 0 91 86 447 0 1195 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 2921 32 52 0 768 628 3092 0 7493 Apprch %0 0 0 0 98.9 1.1 6.3 0 93.7 16.9 83.1 0 Total %0 0 0 0 39 0.4 0.7 0 10.2 8.4 41.3 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h11080131 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SUNKIST STREET E-W Direction: BALL ROAD Groups Printed- Turning Movements SUNKIST STREET Southbound BALL ROAD Westbound SUNKIST STREET Northbound BALL ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turn Int. Total 04:00 PM 19 20 44 148 365 38 2 57 77 14 5 318 28 0 1135 04:15 PM 21 38 60 149 315 37 2 54 58 14 6 211 33 0 998 04:30 PM 23 36 50 145 336 45 5 65 95 14 11 317 45 2 1189 04:45 PM 29 41 62 122 302 62 4 52 143 22 7 239 51 0 1136 Total 92 135 216 564 1318 182 13 228 373 64 29 1085 157 2 4458 05:00 PM 21 44 39 127 352 36 4 77 133 19 11 298 42 0 1203 05:15 PM 28 42 66 128 305 54 1 63 169 21 6 274 55 1 1213 05:30 PM 34 32 51 114 314 51 3 49 136 25 7 255 47 1 1119 05:45 PM 40 45 48 135 310 71 2 50 143 14 5 216 54 0 1133 Total 123 163 204 504 1281 212 10 239 581 79 29 1043 198 2 4668 06:00 PM 21 29 53 132 373 48 3 50 96 12 9 259 35 3 1123 06:15 PM 29 32 53 130 349 57 3 57 56 12 5 195 37 0 1015 06:30 PM 23 18 65 83 325 30 3 47 33 8 7 202 27 0 871 06:45 PM 20 17 52 81 248 25 1 41 18 9 10 200 22 0 744 Total 93 96 223 426 1295 160 10 195 203 41 31 856 121 3 3753 07:00 PM 16 14 46 89 223 27 3 30 29 8 5 216 18 0 724 07:15 PM 23 16 47 74 200 21 2 40 21 7 2 198 24 0 675 07:30 PM 15 12 41 82 186 36 1 27 17 5 0 207 18 0 647 07:45 PM 21 16 48 77 175 20 2 24 14 8 2 183 13 0 603 Total 75 58 182 322 784 104 8 121 81 28 9 804 73 0 2649 Grand Total 383 452 825 1816 4678 658 41 783 1238 212 98 3788 549 7 15528 Apprch %23.1 27.2 49.7 25.2 65 9.1 0.6 35.1 55.4 9.5 2.2 85.3 12.4 0.2 Total %2.5 2.9 5.3 11.7 30.1 4.2 0.3 5 8 1.4 0.6 24.4 3.5 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : H11080141 Site Code : 00003873 Start Date : 8/25/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SUNKIST STREET E-W Direction: CERRITOS AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements SUNKIST STREET Southbound CERRITOS AVENUE Westbound SUNKIST STREET Northbound CERRITOS AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 24 30 13 38 43 3 3 37 3 3 20 29 246 04:15 PM 19 21 10 45 44 0 1 31 6 5 18 29 229 04:30 PM 19 32 10 39 41 3 1 45 5 7 13 35 250 04:45 PM 33 28 13 77 35 2 3 77 4 4 17 35 328 Total 95 111 46 199 163 8 8 190 18 19 68 128 1053 05:00 PM 26 29 15 55 53 1 2 82 15 5 14 39 336 05:15 PM 25 31 10 84 45 2 1 99 1 5 16 45 364 05:30 PM 20 28 6 57 27 0 1 89 7 3 19 38 295 05:45 PM 23 33 17 54 26 0 1 88 3 2 14 44 305 Total 94 121 48 250 151 3 5 358 26 15 63 166 1300 06:00 PM 25 33 12 54 42 1 1 71 5 3 19 14 280 06:15 PM 23 21 5 24 24 2 3 40 3 2 14 35 196 06:30 PM 22 18 12 12 18 1 2 24 1 6 12 13 141 06:45 PM 13 14 8 12 18 0 1 11 3 5 11 22 118 Total 83 86 37 102 102 4 7 146 12 16 56 84 735 07:00 PM 6 7 5 11 9 2 0 13 1 6 13 27 100 07:15 PM 17 3 5 15 16 0 0 13 3 2 6 14 94 07:30 PM 11 4 4 10 4 0 0 6 2 3 4 19 67 07:45 PM 16 10 1 6 5 0 0 4 1 3 6 14 66 Total 50 24 15 42 34 2 0 36 7 14 29 74 327 Grand Total 322 342 146 593 450 17 20 730 63 64 216 452 3415 Apprch %39.8 42.2 18 55.9 42.5 1.6 2.5 89.8 7.7 8.7 29.5 61.7 Total %9.4 10 4.3 17.4 13.2 0.5 0.6 21.4 1.8 1.9 6.3 13.2 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR ANGEL STADIUM (ANGEL STADIUM BASEBALL GAME DAY) File Name : h1108007 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: DOUGLASS ROAD E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements DOUGLASS ROAD Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound DOUGLASS ROAD Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turn Int. Total 04:00 PM 81 11 31 25 268 11 1 8 5 24 62 219 18 2 766 04:15 PM 34 4 29 21 254 18 2 2 0 22 66 218 18 4 692 04:30 PM 77 5 26 30 292 10 0 5 3 30 53 226 18 8 783 04:45 PM 49 6 26 23 291 19 3 7 3 9 49 233 19 3 740 Total 241 26 112 99 1105 58 6 22 11 85 230 896 73 17 2981 05:00 PM 110 2 35 40 351 5 2 4 1 14 52 216 17 3 852 05:15 PM 55 4 21 25 266 8 2 1 1 14 44 231 16 5 693 05:30 PM 53 4 21 26 237 13 2 1 3 18 56 218 35 5 692 05:45 PM 50 4 31 29 235 27 7 8 1 13 87 219 39 3 753 Total 268 14 108 120 1089 53 13 14 6 59 239 884 107 16 2990 06:00 PM 63 8 22 31 256 44 3 6 1 14 99 201 32 6 786 06:15 PM 42 9 16 11 213 59 0 4 2 11 193 216 28 2 806 06:30 PM 39 19 20 17 226 90 3 7 4 5 229 158 15 6 838 06:45 PM 29 15 14 8 185 73 3 4 0 5 240 198 11 3 788 Total 173 51 72 67 880 266 9 21 7 35 761 773 86 17 3218 07:00 PM 31 12 19 13 209 64 4 4 0 9 163 151 12 5 696 07:15 PM 36 7 10 16 174 28 0 3 2 14 88 125 10 9 522 07:30 PM 38 3 9 5 151 13 0 1 5 15 56 110 2 4 412 07:45 PM 24 0 7 6 156 10 0 6 2 10 32 107 9 6 375 Total 129 22 45 40 690 115 4 14 9 48 339 493 33 24 2005 Grand Total 811 113 337 326 3764 492 32 71 33 227 1569 3046 299 74 11194 Apprch %64.3 9 26.7 7.1 81.6 10.7 0.7 21.5 10 68.6 31.5 61.1 6 1.5 Total %7.2 1 3 2.9 33.6 4.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 2 14 27.2 2.7 0.7 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h1108004 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: HOWELL AVENUE E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements HOWELL AVENUE Southbound KATELL AVENUE Westbound HOWELL AVENUE Northbound KATELL AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turns Right Thru Left U-Turns Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turns Int. Total 04:00 PM 28 2 18 0 40 317 7 2 43 8 17 13 259 15 5 774 04:15 PM 28 4 18 0 52 268 6 1 20 4 21 10 223 17 3 675 04:30 PM 32 5 22 0 74 318 23 1 39 5 21 9 261 6 3 819 04:45 PM 42 8 22 0 55 306 8 0 24 7 28 10 244 13 3 770 Total 130 19 80 0 221 1209 44 4 126 24 87 42 987 51 14 3038 05:00 PM 33 3 33 0 44 372 12 2 51 6 22 4 303 16 3 904 05:15 PM 25 7 25 0 52 363 16 2 25 5 18 9 245 13 5 810 05:30 PM 29 1 29 0 68 362 15 2 41 4 15 9 299 20 6 900 05:45 PM 16 5 16 1 44 315 9 2 29 4 19 8 290 16 9 783 Total 103 16 103 1 208 1412 52 8 146 19 74 30 1137 65 23 3397 06:00 PM 20 9 20 0 92 327 7 3 29 5 17 9 241 6 12 797 06:15 PM 16 7 16 0 39 242 13 7 20 6 17 9 257 7 9 665 06:30 PM 16 5 16 2 33 219 10 6 34 6 7 10 248 6 5 623 06:45 PM 8 7 8 1 39 198 6 8 16 1 14 9 244 10 7 576 Total 60 28 60 3 203 986 36 24 99 18 55 37 990 29 33 2661 07:00 PM 16 5 16 0 33 184 5 2 24 2 8 4 190 9 4 502 07:15 PM 10 2 10 0 32 191 6 4 21 1 9 7 221 9 1 524 07:30 PM 8 2 8 0 20 164 8 5 28 1 12 7 198 3 7 471 07:45 PM 9 4 9 0 22 188 12 1 24 1 10 3 210 14 4 511 Total 43 13 43 0 107 727 31 12 97 5 39 21 819 35 16 2008 Grand Total 336 76 286 4 739 4334 163 48 468 66 255 130 3933 180 86 11104 Apprch %47.9 10.8 40.7 0.6 14 82 3.1 0.9 59.3 8.4 32.3 3 90.9 4.2 2 Total %3 0.7 2.6 0 6.7 39 1.5 0.4 4.2 0.6 2.3 1.2 35.4 1.6 0.8 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h1108009 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: MAIN STREET E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements MAIN STREET Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound MAIN STREET Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turn Int. Total 04:00 PM 22 39 15 0 29 168 34 76 80 27 13 168 18 3 692 04:15 PM 18 48 23 0 31 150 48 83 87 36 14 154 11 4 707 04:30 PM 30 77 19 1 30 187 46 74 102 31 16 147 17 3 780 04:45 PM 22 48 16 0 19 193 48 64 67 34 10 182 21 2 726 Total 92 212 73 1 109 698 176 297 336 128 53 651 67 12 2905 05:00 PM 33 73 34 0 19 202 42 90 92 42 7 192 17 3 846 05:15 PM 12 52 24 0 22 183 38 63 100 30 16 177 16 1 734 05:30 PM 18 50 13 3 26 177 28 65 95 30 7 166 13 9 700 05:45 PM 15 49 16 0 20 212 42 63 80 32 14 179 13 3 738 Total 78 224 87 3 87 774 150 281 367 134 44 714 59 16 3018 06:00 PM 18 39 15 0 33 225 38 75 66 34 12 150 15 4 724 06:15 PM 18 48 10 1 22 194 27 44 44 25 7 122 13 2 577 06:30 PM 16 37 13 0 19 169 35 39 49 22 11 136 11 2 559 06:45 PM 13 28 10 1 16 186 33 46 37 19 9 99 10 3 510 Total 65 152 48 2 90 774 133 204 196 100 39 507 49 11 2370 07:00 PM 20 21 11 0 15 170 45 52 33 23 10 93 13 3 509 07:15 PM 18 22 15 1 15 129 22 30 24 25 8 97 4 3 413 07:30 PM 11 24 13 1 24 108 33 28 35 15 12 81 9 2 396 07:45 PM 13 16 17 1 13 113 12 38 29 14 9 59 2 1 337 Total 62 83 56 3 67 520 112 148 121 77 39 330 28 9 1655 Grand Total 297 671 264 9 353 2766 571 930 1020 439 175 2202 203 48 9948 Apprch %23.9 54.1 21.3 0.7 9.6 75 15.5 38.9 42.7 18.4 6.7 83.8 7.7 1.8 Total %3 6.7 2.7 0.1 3.5 27.8 5.7 9.3 10.3 4.4 1.8 22.1 2 0.5 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h1108010 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: MAIN STREET E-W Direction: STRUCK AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements MAIN STREET Southbound STRUCK AVENUE Westbound MAIN STREET Northbound STRUCK AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 3 79 3 12 27 7 6 164 22 47 17 6 393 04:15 PM 11 97 7 12 22 6 1 166 27 44 20 66 479 04:30 PM 1 135 3 5 22 1 0 174 31 36 14 66 488 04:45 PM 7 93 2 8 19 5 4 169 37 37 18 6 405 Total 22 404 15 37 90 19 11 673 117 164 69 144 1765 05:00 PM 12 119 3 11 26 5 2 184 51 44 9 9 475 05:15 PM 5 83 3 7 14 4 2 162 31 26 10 6 353 05:30 PM 11 91 2 9 20 6 5 168 22 33 10 7 384 05:45 PM 5 99 2 7 8 1 0 154 25 33 10 2 346 Total 33 392 10 34 68 16 9 668 129 136 39 24 1558 06:00 PM 4 89 2 4 17 6 3 144 25 18 11 5 328 06:15 PM 7 78 3 2 6 2 4 121 20 22 10 2 277 06:30 PM 3 66 1 5 8 3 3 94 18 18 10 9 238 06:45 PM 6 58 5 6 10 1 6 84 16 26 10 0 228 Total 20 291 11 17 41 12 16 443 79 84 41 16 1071 07:00 PM 4 65 2 2 8 1 1 105 19 17 5 4 233 07:15 PM 3 59 1 3 7 4 1 59 8 33 3 6 187 07:30 PM 4 61 1 3 6 1 1 71 5 25 1 3 182 07:45 PM 1 37 0 1 14 3 3 62 7 18 7 2 155 Total 12 222 4 9 35 9 6 297 39 93 16 15 757 Grand Total 87 1309 40 97 234 56 42 2081 364 477 165 199 5151 Apprch %6.1 91.2 2.8 25.1 60.5 14.5 1.7 83.7 14.6 56.7 19.6 23.7 Total %1.7 25.4 0.8 1.9 4.5 1.1 0.8 40.4 7.1 9.3 3.2 3.9 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : H1108015 Site Code : 00003873 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: PHOENIX CLUB E-W Direction: BALL ROAD Groups Printed- Turning Movements PHOENIX CLUB Southbound BALL ROAD Westbound PHOENIX CLUB Northbound BALL ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 2 0 2 2 342 9 13 0 29 25 212 5 641 04:15 PM 4 0 1 3 350 10 13 0 24 28 223 7 663 04:30 PM 8 0 0 1 356 6 7 0 33 29 227 6 673 04:45 PM 7 0 1 1 288 9 14 0 31 25 232 5 613 Total 21 0 4 7 1336 34 47 0 117 107 894 23 2590 05:00 PM 3 0 2 2 310 9 16 0 38 20 225 4 629 05:15 PM 6 1 0 3 322 11 13 0 37 35 246 2 676 05:30 PM 5 0 1 1 273 7 10 0 43 25 217 5 587 05:45 PM 9 0 0 1 265 5 5 0 36 34 225 9 589 Total 23 1 3 7 1170 32 44 0 154 114 913 20 2481 06:00 PM 8 0 1 2 240 5 12 0 45 29 214 6 562 06:15 PM 7 0 2 4 237 6 15 0 51 25 217 10 574 06:30 PM 4 1 0 2 224 5 9 0 22 19 147 7 440 06:45 PM 8 1 0 1 140 5 7 1 27 23 145 0 358 Total 27 2 3 9 841 21 43 1 145 96 723 23 1934 07:00 PM 6 0 2 0 149 5 9 0 29 23 132 4 359 07:15 PM 5 0 0 1 147 8 2 0 23 27 143 4 360 07:30 PM 1 0 0 1 149 7 6 0 25 18 87 6 300 07:45 PM 7 0 0 0 126 1 5 0 26 14 99 10 288 Total 19 0 2 2 571 21 22 0 103 82 461 24 1307 Grand Total 90 3 12 25 3918 108 156 1 519 399 2991 90 8312 Apprch %85.7 2.9 11.4 0.6 96.7 2.7 23.1 0.1 76.8 11.5 85.9 2.6 Total %1.1 0 0.1 0.3 47.1 1.3 1.9 0 6.2 4.8 36 1.1 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : H11080031 Site Code : 00005694 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SPORTSTOWN E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements SPORTSTOWN Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound SPORTSTOWN Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 19 3 16 28 257 30 15 4 10 33 218 11 644 04:15 PM 16 5 22 26 334 25 24 3 16 39 240 12 762 04:30 PM 18 5 20 36 316 23 29 1 36 56 225 14 779 04:45 PM 23 3 19 32 347 24 17 2 18 29 253 16 783 Total 76 16 77 122 1254 102 85 10 80 157 936 53 2968 05:00 PM 26 3 32 39 319 12 16 4 17 28 208 24 728 05:15 PM 26 3 22 39 396 20 36 3 42 38 237 22 884 05:30 PM 29 3 24 32 347 16 35 3 36 19 245 26 815 05:45 PM 32 1 22 48 305 17 20 1 25 28 269 16 784 Total 113 10 100 158 1367 65 107 11 120 113 959 88 3211 06:00 PM 16 2 25 56 258 28 22 2 36 26 206 37 714 06:15 PM 19 5 22 44 334 19 24 2 22 30 275 29 825 06:30 PM 19 3 13 45 220 27 62 15 46 32 186 25 693 06:45 PM 21 0 20 43 302 28 24 3 33 30 231 35 770 Total 75 10 80 188 1114 102 132 22 137 118 898 126 3002 07:00 PM 27 0 29 38 226 16 20 2 21 30 213 17 639 07:15 PM 20 0 25 25 187 19 47 2 31 17 181 17 571 07:30 PM 11 6 23 28 156 8 17 4 15 16 151 19 454 07:45 PM 19 0 18 11 154 15 18 3 15 10 138 8 409 Total 77 6 95 102 723 58 102 11 82 73 683 61 2073 Grand Total 341 42 352 570 4458 327 426 54 419 461 3476 328 11254 Apprch %46.4 5.7 47.9 10.6 83.2 6.1 47.4 6 46.6 10.8 81.5 7.7 Total %3 0.4 3.1 5.1 39.6 2.9 3.8 0.5 3.7 4.1 30.9 2.9 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : H1108011 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SR-57 NB RAMPS E-W Direction: BALL ROAD Groups Printed- Turning Movements SR-57 NB ON RAMP Southbound BALL ROAD Westbound SR-57 NB ON-OFF RAMP Northbound BALL ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 101 369 0 14 0 103 121 248 0 956 04:15 PM 0 0 0 77 229 0 49 0 83 153 186 0 777 04:30 PM 0 0 0 68 331 0 33 0 109 142 222 0 905 04:45 PM 0 0 0 75 239 0 54 0 118 147 209 0 842 Total 0 0 0 321 1168 0 150 0 413 563 865 0 3480 05:00 PM 0 0 0 100 298 0 53 0 126 183 244 0 1004 05:15 PM 0 0 0 87 242 0 43 0 116 155 191 0 834 05:30 PM 0 0 0 123 203 0 43 0 125 159 228 0 881 05:45 PM 0 0 0 101 195 0 50 0 122 130 179 0 777 Total 0 0 0 411 938 0 189 0 489 627 842 0 3496 06:00 PM 0 0 0 93 192 0 38 0 126 131 204 0 784 06:15 PM 0 0 0 80 173 0 37 0 125 148 155 0 718 06:30 PM 0 0 0 92 161 0 35 0 110 147 160 0 705 06:45 PM 0 0 0 84 142 0 42 0 95 124 155 0 642 Total 0 0 0 349 668 0 152 0 456 550 674 0 2849 07:00 PM 0 0 0 84 107 0 37 0 105 138 132 0 603 07:15 PM 0 0 0 47 108 0 31 0 114 141 115 0 556 07:30 PM 0 0 0 80 93 0 33 0 79 139 78 0 502 07:45 PM 0 0 0 60 99 0 20 0 71 137 96 0 483 Total 0 0 0 271 407 0 121 0 369 555 421 0 2144 Grand Total 0 0 0 1352 3181 0 612 0 1727 2295 2802 0 11969 Apprch %0 0 0 29.8 70.2 0 26.2 0 73.8 45 55 0 Total %0 0 0 11.3 26.6 0 5.1 0 14.4 19.2 23.4 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : H1108005 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SR-57 NB RAMPS E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements SR-57 NB ON RAMP Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound SR-57 NB ON - OFF RAMPS Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 84 292 0 125 0 53 129 187 0 870 04:15 PM 0 0 0 60 254 0 134 0 35 83 189 0 755 04:30 PM 0 0 0 73 322 0 131 0 57 102 187 0 872 04:45 PM 0 0 0 51 297 0 143 0 44 114 165 0 814 Total 0 0 0 268 1165 0 533 0 189 428 728 0 3311 05:00 PM 0 0 0 95 378 0 69 0 56 153 213 0 964 05:15 PM 0 0 0 53 278 0 64 0 59 109 215 0 778 05:30 PM 0 0 0 60 252 0 74 0 69 126 224 0 805 05:45 PM 0 0 0 48 249 0 81 0 73 111 251 0 813 Total 0 0 0 256 1157 0 288 0 257 499 903 0 3360 06:00 PM 0 0 0 64 269 0 93 0 81 119 261 0 887 06:15 PM 0 0 0 59 206 0 99 0 63 103 328 0 858 06:30 PM 0 0 0 48 218 0 110 0 90 108 291 0 865 06:45 PM 0 0 0 47 176 0 115 0 88 97 297 0 820 Total 0 0 0 218 869 0 417 0 322 427 1177 0 3430 07:00 PM 0 0 0 55 189 0 87 0 49 84 214 0 678 07:15 PM 0 0 0 50 178 0 61 0 51 104 161 0 605 07:30 PM 0 0 0 57 147 0 42 0 47 107 134 0 534 07:45 PM 0 0 0 39 151 0 37 0 40 109 116 0 492 Total 0 0 0 201 665 0 227 0 187 404 625 0 2309 Grand Total 0 0 0 943 3856 0 1465 0 955 1758 3433 0 12410 Apprch %0 0 0 19.6 80.4 0 60.5 0 39.5 33.9 66.1 0 Total %0 0 0 7.6 31.1 0 11.8 0 7.7 14.2 27.7 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h1108012 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SR-57 SB RAMPS E-W Direction: BALL ROAD Groups Printed- Turning Movements SR-57 SB ON-OFF RAMPS Southbound BALL ROAD Westbound SR-57 SB ON RAMP Northbound BALL ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 178 0 65 119 343 0 0 0 0 124 297 0 1126 04:15 PM 187 0 78 91 231 0 0 0 0 88 268 0 943 04:30 PM 163 0 62 117 314 0 0 0 0 105 296 0 1057 04:45 PM 174 0 66 82 268 0 0 0 0 82 284 0 956 Total 702 0 271 409 1156 0 0 0 0 399 1145 0 4082 05:00 PM 183 0 65 110 322 0 0 0 0 117 367 0 1164 05:15 PM 193 0 64 59 296 0 0 0 0 110 277 0 999 05:30 PM 172 0 69 49 282 0 0 0 0 108 327 0 1007 05:45 PM 211 0 63 46 269 0 0 0 0 81 248 0 918 Total 759 0 261 264 1169 0 0 0 0 416 1219 0 4088 06:00 PM 211 0 59 57 263 0 0 0 0 80 277 0 947 06:15 PM 215 0 60 44 252 0 0 0 0 88 243 0 902 06:30 PM 177 0 51 48 222 0 0 0 0 102 250 0 850 06:45 PM 178 0 54 43 195 0 0 0 0 76 230 0 776 Total 781 0 224 192 932 0 0 0 0 346 1000 0 3475 07:00 PM 175 0 40 30 179 0 0 0 0 66 226 0 716 07:15 PM 122 0 35 32 193 0 0 0 0 77 225 0 684 07:30 PM 118 0 33 23 147 0 0 0 0 75 182 0 578 07:45 PM 98 0 30 31 141 0 0 0 0 67 205 0 572 Total 513 0 138 116 660 0 0 0 0 285 838 0 2550 Grand Total 2755 0 894 981 3917 0 0 0 0 1446 4202 0 14195 Apprch %75.5 0 24.5 20 80 0 0 0 0 25.6 74.4 0 Total %19.4 0 6.3 6.9 27.6 0 0 0 0 10.2 29.6 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h1108006 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SR-57 SB RAMPS E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements SR-57 SB ON-OFF RAMPS Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound SR-57 SB ON RAMP Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 150 0 69 109 233 0 0 0 0 88 244 0 893 04:15 PM 115 0 78 86 206 0 0 0 0 68 198 0 751 04:30 PM 156 0 68 149 228 0 0 0 0 95 218 0 914 04:45 PM 147 0 60 116 224 0 0 0 0 63 213 0 823 Total 568 0 275 460 891 0 0 0 0 314 873 0 3381 05:00 PM 160 0 65 141 294 0 0 0 0 105 286 0 1051 05:15 PM 160 0 79 84 248 0 0 0 0 78 245 0 894 05:30 PM 145 0 83 98 228 0 0 0 0 89 268 0 911 05:45 PM 172 0 98 63 257 0 0 0 0 79 288 0 957 Total 637 0 325 386 1027 0 0 0 0 351 1087 0 3813 06:00 PM 165 0 121 72 280 0 0 0 0 64 262 0 964 06:15 PM 160 0 166 56 210 0 0 0 0 74 262 0 928 06:30 PM 180 0 150 57 250 0 0 0 0 74 247 0 958 06:45 PM 179 0 165 54 211 0 0 0 0 61 231 0 901 Total 684 0 602 239 951 0 0 0 0 273 1002 0 3751 07:00 PM 117 0 106 57 179 0 0 0 0 63 189 0 711 07:15 PM 65 0 66 51 179 0 0 0 0 58 202 0 621 07:30 PM 61 0 41 41 149 0 0 0 0 62 196 0 550 07:45 PM 69 0 44 51 145 0 0 0 0 44 185 0 538 Total 312 0 257 200 652 0 0 0 0 227 772 0 2420 Grand Total 2201 0 1459 1285 3521 0 0 0 0 1165 3734 0 13365 Apprch %60.1 0 39.9 26.7 73.3 0 0 0 0 23.8 76.2 0 Total %16.5 0 10.9 9.6 26.3 0 0 0 0 8.7 27.9 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h1108002 Site Code : 00005053 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left U-Turn Int. Total 04:00 PM 50 86 38 1 54 268 53 9 59 184 38 3 26 170 42 1 1082 04:15 PM 37 133 28 3 61 248 65 6 50 141 30 1 21 199 42 7 1072 04:30 PM 44 138 28 2 37 242 69 7 77 201 36 5 31 206 44 2 1169 04:45 PM 51 175 34 0 32 247 78 10 52 161 30 0 42 204 48 5 1169 Total 182 532 128 6 184 1005 265 32 238 687 134 9 120 779 176 15 4492 05:00 PM 50 176 25 2 15 322 99 17 55 205 49 3 62 201 37 3 1321 05:15 PM 42 168 24 0 28 280 90 14 64 235 54 2 59 160 49 3 1272 05:30 PM 47 163 28 2 20 248 107 16 50 163 52 6 51 234 33 0 1220 05:45 PM 38 146 28 0 11 232 95 10 52 194 41 7 56 214 41 5 1170 Total 177 653 105 4 74 1082 391 57 221 797 196 18 228 809 160 11 4983 06:00 PM 42 173 32 1 22 206 114 16 47 138 41 5 84 230 54 6 1211 06:15 PM 25 164 38 3 11 183 116 11 48 136 26 2 88 204 50 3 1108 06:30 PM 32 146 30 5 18 194 138 10 63 111 29 3 101 173 33 5 1091 06:45 PM 23 149 41 1 12 184 125 13 47 95 29 5 97 163 31 3 1018 Total 122 632 141 10 63 767 493 50 205 480 125 15 370 770 168 17 4428 07:00 PM 19 92 24 2 12 169 76 9 35 80 27 6 73 166 31 2 823 07:15 PM 29 92 20 0 9 125 69 13 26 69 24 5 34 136 24 3 678 07:30 PM 16 70 19 1 4 128 47 11 34 91 24 2 33 111 21 2 614 07:45 PM 18 78 15 0 7 180 39 13 33 57 20 3 24 113 21 1 622 Total 82 332 78 3 32 602 231 46 128 297 95 16 164 526 97 8 2737 Grand Total 563 2149 452 23 353 3456 1380 185 792 2261 550 58 882 2884 601 51 16640 Apprch %17.7 67.4 14.2 0.7 6.6 64.3 25.7 3.4 21.6 61.8 15 1.6 20 65.3 13.6 1.2 Total %3.4 12.9 2.7 0.1 2.1 20.8 8.3 1.1 4.8 13.6 3.3 0.3 5.3 17.3 3.6 0.3 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h1108008 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: STRUCK AVENUE E-W Direction: KATELLA AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements STRUCK AVENUE Southbound KATELLA AVENUE Westbound STRUCK AVENUE Northbound KATELLA AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 212 2 6 0 74 65 180 0 539 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 195 2 5 0 55 52 197 0 506 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 244 1 4 0 65 45 209 0 568 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 225 1 7 0 68 57 213 0 571 Total 0 0 0 0 876 6 22 0 262 219 799 0 2184 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 265 2 3 0 118 40 201 0 629 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 229 1 5 0 64 39 223 0 561 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 228 3 6 0 58 42 198 0 535 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 248 4 6 0 49 48 228 0 583 Total 0 0 0 0 970 10 20 0 289 169 850 0 2308 06:00 PM 0 0 0 0 240 2 1 0 47 34 180 0 504 06:15 PM 0 0 0 0 258 2 2 0 34 30 175 0 501 06:30 PM 0 0 0 0 251 2 7 0 41 29 132 0 462 06:45 PM 0 0 0 0 223 5 3 0 26 33 148 0 438 Total 0 0 0 0 972 11 13 0 148 126 635 0 1905 07:00 PM 0 0 0 0 212 0 2 0 41 31 143 0 429 07:15 PM 0 0 0 0 186 1 3 0 23 38 100 0 351 07:30 PM 0 0 0 0 130 1 2 0 16 26 94 0 269 07:45 PM 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 30 29 78 0 280 Total 0 0 0 0 671 2 7 0 110 124 415 0 1329 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 3489 29 62 0 809 638 2699 0 7726 Apprch %0 0 0 0 99.2 0.8 7.1 0 92.9 19.1 80.9 0 Total %0 0 0 0 45.2 0.4 0.8 0 10.5 8.3 34.9 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : h1108013 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SUNKIST STREET E-W Direction: BALL ROAD Groups Printed- Turning Movements SUNKIST STREET Southbound BALL ROAD Westbound SUNKIST STREET Northbound BALL ROAD Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turn Right Thru Left Right Thru Left U-Turn Int. Total 04:00 PM 34 27 54 116 366 41 3 65 68 21 10 309 29 0 1143 04:15 PM 20 32 46 88 272 51 2 50 45 9 7 256 35 1 914 04:30 PM 24 32 40 104 337 32 1 63 59 12 8 301 44 1 1058 04:45 PM 25 39 53 84 292 45 2 55 43 14 4 252 43 1 952 Total 103 130 193 392 1267 169 8 233 215 56 29 1118 151 3 4067 05:00 PM 19 38 40 111 356 32 3 90 80 18 10 350 48 0 1195 05:15 PM 33 38 62 118 295 57 1 58 70 8 8 266 44 0 1058 05:30 PM 26 27 59 91 326 47 5 58 56 18 5 317 45 0 1080 05:45 PM 32 45 50 99 314 53 3 36 53 8 4 238 33 0 968 Total 110 148 211 419 1291 189 12 242 259 52 27 1171 170 0 4301 06:00 PM 25 33 41 94 355 44 3 49 48 12 8 267 29 1 1009 06:15 PM 15 34 53 78 301 66 9 55 43 6 8 227 22 0 917 06:30 PM 22 43 59 82 270 42 5 42 36 11 7 242 21 0 882 06:45 PM 20 25 41 74 244 53 2 36 20 5 11 236 30 0 797 Total 82 135 194 328 1170 205 19 182 147 34 34 972 102 1 3605 07:00 PM 18 19 43 80 244 34 0 38 19 10 3 212 21 2 743 07:15 PM 20 22 57 71 212 25 2 43 30 6 3 204 13 0 708 07:30 PM 18 6 43 70 162 23 5 26 9 10 3 195 13 0 583 07:45 PM 10 12 41 46 177 20 0 23 14 4 2 189 13 0 551 Total 66 59 184 267 795 102 7 130 72 30 11 800 60 2 2585 Grand Total 361 472 782 1406 4523 665 46 787 693 172 101 4061 483 6 14558 Apprch %22.4 29.2 48.4 21.2 68.1 10 0.7 47.6 41.9 10.4 2.2 87.3 10.4 0.1 Total %2.5 3.2 5.4 9.7 31.1 4.6 0.3 5.4 4.8 1.2 0.7 27.9 3.3 0 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 File Name : H1108014 Site Code : 00003873 Start Date : 8/24/2011 Page No : 1 City: ANAHEIM N-S Direction: SUNKIST STREET E-W Direction: CERRITOS AVENUE Groups Printed- Turning Movements SUNKIST STREET Southbound CERRITOS AVENUE Westbound SUNKIST STREET Northbound CERRITOS AVENUE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total 04:00 PM 17 22 16 37 51 1 1 40 8 8 17 29 247 04:15 PM 18 23 9 16 35 0 7 22 6 7 22 27 192 04:30 PM 37 21 12 32 37 0 2 29 9 2 13 32 226 04:45 PM 19 20 12 27 44 1 2 22 6 7 25 33 218 Total 91 86 49 112 167 2 12 113 29 24 77 121 883 05:00 PM 17 19 10 37 52 4 3 40 12 8 16 40 258 05:15 PM 32 35 10 34 30 2 1 42 8 7 15 34 250 05:30 PM 24 26 13 24 34 3 2 40 3 4 8 38 219 05:45 PM 23 28 16 24 31 1 0 30 4 3 23 26 209 Total 96 108 49 119 147 10 6 152 27 22 62 138 936 06:00 PM 22 27 11 21 28 0 0 32 4 4 16 22 187 06:15 PM 18 21 12 17 20 0 3 12 6 3 18 35 165 06:30 PM 15 36 19 13 13 3 0 25 2 2 13 16 157 06:45 PM 11 16 22 7 11 0 0 8 1 1 12 14 103 Total 66 100 64 58 72 3 3 77 13 10 59 87 612 07:00 PM 16 20 14 14 17 0 2 12 2 4 13 22 136 07:15 PM 10 13 8 12 5 0 1 19 0 3 8 31 110 07:30 PM 9 7 1 15 5 0 0 2 2 2 10 15 68 07:45 PM 8 6 3 8 8 0 0 2 4 5 7 12 63 Total 43 46 26 49 35 0 3 35 8 14 38 80 377 Grand Total 296 340 188 338 421 15 24 377 77 70 236 426 2808 Apprch %35.9 41.3 22.8 43.7 54.4 1.9 5 78.9 16.1 9.6 32.2 58.2 Total %10.5 12.1 6.7 12 15 0.5 0.9 13.4 2.7 2.5 8.4 15.2 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite H Tustin, CA. 92780 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices EXISTING DAILY ARTERIAL SEGMENT TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR ANGEL STADIUM (NO EVENTS DAY & ANGEL STADIUM BASEBALL GAME DAY) Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::BALL ROADLocation Date::SR-57 NB RAMPS TO PHOENIX CLUBSegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 57 294 1,084 66 205 269 1,068 262 2,1521456380 12:15 232 35 270 10 50245 12:30 286 54 272 21 55875 12:45 272 50 257 12 52962 01:00 25 266 990 45 109 258 1,075 134 2,065452449 01:15 234 24 260 5 49429 01:30 236 28 314 8 55036 01:45 254 12 243 8 49720 02:00 25 250 1,019 26 85 282 1,246 110 2,265453230 02:15 258 19 296 6 55425 02:30 238 20 402 8 64028 02:45 273 20 266 7 53927 03:00 18 258 1,074 20 70 336 1,549 88 2,623559425 03:15 278 16 308 5 58621 03:30 248 18 497 2 74520 03:45 290 16 408 6 69822 04:00 60 285 1,030 22 173 406 1,422 233 2,452869130 04:15 250 48 300 18 55066 04:30 245 51 398 15 64366 04:45 250 52 318 19 56871 05:00 119 291 1,025 76 375 405 1,301 494 2,3262269698 05:15 246 84 324 26 570110 05:30 236 105 310 34 546139 05:45 252 110 262 37 514147 06:00 212 228 826 128 606 272 938 818 1,76428500156 06:15 202 132 254 38 456170 06:30 190 164 224 62 414226 06:45 206 182 188 84 394266 07:00 735 160 527 187 865 182 660 1,600 1,18798342285 07:15 150 206 162 142 312348 07:30 119 240 164 182 283422 07:45 98 232 152 313 250545 08:00 1,148 90 308 220 795 159 553 1,943 861274249494 08:15 91 206 128 304 219510 08:30 68 178 120 264 188442 08:45 59 191 146 306 205497 09:00 1,001 42 155 222 828 142 509 1,829 664236184458 09:15 38 188 113 238 151426 09:30 36 223 138 253 174476 09:45 39 195 116 274 155469 10:00 1,016 54 119 190 892 124 384 1,908 503234178424 10:15 24 230 96 260 120490 10:30 25 224 86 260 111484 10:45 16 248 78 262 94510 11:00 1,060 14 76 251 1,008 68 222 2,068 29826882519 11:15 28 236 44 258 72494 11:30 22 256 65 256 87512 11:45 12 265 45 278 57543 Totals 5,476 8,233 6,011 10,927 11,487 19,160 Split%43.0 52.3 57.047.7 Day Totals 16,938 30,64713,709 Day Splits 44.7 55.3 Peak Hour 07:45 03:15 11:00 03:15 11:00 03:15 Volume 1,155 1,101 1,008 1,619 2,068 2,720 Factor 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.81 0.95 0.91 Data File :D1108025* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::BALL ROADLocation Date::SR-57 NB RAMPS TO PHOENIX CLUBSegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 36 276 1,096 40 129 247 1,021 165 2,117752347 12:15 276 20 262 14 53834 12:30 256 28 252 9 50837 12:45 288 41 260 6 54847 01:00 20 260 1,015 38 95 267 1,056 115 2,071652744 01:15 236 14 266 5 50219 01:30 241 21 272 4 51325 01:45 278 22 251 5 52927 02:00 18 251 1,074 8 58 256 1,186 76 2,260650714 02:15 290 16 282 4 57220 02:30 267 18 350 4 61722 02:45 266 16 298 4 56420 03:00 19 248 1,068 32 73 300 1,407 92 2,475254834 03:15 278 10 304 8 58218 03:30 260 16 455 2 71518 03:45 282 15 348 7 63022 04:00 60 284 1,158 23 149 432 1,531 209 2,689871631 04:15 254 29 334 7 58836 04:30 308 54 419 16 72770 04:45 312 43 346 29 65872 05:00 156 272 1,122 69 339 388 1,369 495 2,49132660101 05:15 302 80 391 26 693106 05:30 273 82 318 32 591114 05:45 275 108 272 66 547174 06:00 272 238 859 148 640 262 914 912 1,77350500198 06:15 234 155 250 58 484213 06:30 202 160 214 68 416228 06:45 185 177 188 96 373273 07:00 742 182 590 174 816 203 715 1,558 1,305116385290 07:15 140 208 164 143 304351 07:30 126 226 188 196 314422 07:45 142 208 160 287 302495 08:00 1,085 90 309 226 865 148 513 1,950 822260238486 08:15 90 209 140 286 230495 08:30 62 224 117 252 179476 08:45 67 206 108 287 175493 09:00 1,110 61 193 194 793 122 458 1,903 651334183528 09:15 48 204 114 242 162446 09:30 38 202 122 268 160470 09:45 46 193 100 266 146459 10:00 1,007 28 94 211 887 124 333 1,894 427273152484 10:15 20 241 88 228 108469 10:30 22 222 58 252 80474 10:45 24 213 63 254 87467 11:00 1,066 18 56 214 940 71 202 2,006 25826489478 11:15 14 226 40 266 54492 11:30 12 250 59 274 71524 11:45 12 250 32 262 44512 Totals 5,591 8,634 5,784 10,705 11,375 19,339 Split%44.6 50.8 55.449.2 Day Totals 16,489 30,71414,225 Day Splits 46.3 53.7 Peak Hour 08:15 04:30 11:00 03:30 11:00 04:30 Volume 1,159 1,194 940 1,569 2,006 2,738 Factor 0.87 0.96 0.94 0.86 0.96 0.94 Data File :D1108025* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::BALL ROADLocation Date::SUNKIST TO SR-57 SB RAMPSSegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 546 344 1,331 50 191 350 1,471 737 2,802164694214 12:15 316 58 387 141 703199 12:30 339 41 382 132 721173 12:45 332 42 352 109 684151 01:00 186 324 1,344 48 181 388 1,494 367 2,83857712105 01:15 356 44 378 39 73483 01:30 350 50 360 48 71098 01:45 314 39 368 42 68281 02:00 133 418 1,626 42 154 376 1,526 287 3,1524679488 02:15 386 26 376 32 76258 02:30 448 38 388 23 83661 02:45 374 48 386 32 76080 03:00 179 366 1,532 34 212 390 1,776 391 3,3083975673 03:15 330 34 434 52 76486 03:30 455 68 449 44 904112 03:45 381 76 503 44 884120 04:00 298 400 1,536 64 350 462 1,776 648 3,31248862112 04:15 345 78 441 54 786132 04:30 411 96 433 102 844198 04:45 380 112 440 94 820206 05:00 723 458 1,615 123 732 478 1,816 1,455 3,431113936236 05:15 406 146 475 162 881308 05:30 424 205 422 222 846427 05:45 327 258 441 226 768484 06:00 1,203 344 1,347 252 1,107 454 1,652 2,310 2,999228798480 06:15 371 231 458 242 829473 06:30 320 282 388 339 708621 06:45 312 342 352 394 664736 07:00 1,530 297 1,134 338 1,504 376 1,187 3,034 2,321364673702 07:15 293 378 307 360 600738 07:30 264 370 252 430 516800 07:45 280 418 252 376 532794 08:00 1,456 241 960 354 1,503 257 894 2,959 1,854390498744 08:15 244 395 223 352 467747 08:30 244 396 200 382 444778 08:45 231 358 214 332 445690 09:00 1,249 236 1,017 354 1,367 174 730 2,616 1,747313410667 09:15 236 319 192 314 428633 09:30 220 354 183 326 403680 09:45 325 340 181 296 506636 10:00 1,166 236 892 370 1,429 195 634 2,595 1,526296431666 10:15 250 328 178 280 428608 10:30 222 367 132 290 354657 10:45 184 364 129 300 313664 11:00 1,193 184 702 370 1,480 119 383 2,673 1,085270303640 11:15 192 357 112 292 304649 11:30 187 380 82 325 269705 11:45 139 373 70 306 209679 Totals 9,862 15,036 10,210 15,339 20,072 30,375 Split%49.5 50.9 50.549.1 Day Totals 25,549 50,44724,898 Day Splits 49.4 50.6 Peak Hour 07:15 04:45 07:45 03:30 07:30 04:45 Volume 1,556 1,668 1,563 1,855 3,085 3,483 Factor 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.96 0.93 Data File :D1108022* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::BALL ROADLocation Date::SUNKIST TO SR-57 SB RAMPSSegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 458 404 1,477 47 189 360 1,433 647 2,910102764149 12:15 358 48 372 134 730182 12:30 389 44 343 124 732168 12:45 326 50 358 98 684148 01:00 268 370 1,492 47 176 396 1,478 444 2,97084766131 01:15 396 45 372 52 76897 01:30 388 40 354 48 74288 01:45 338 44 356 84 694128 02:00 152 412 1,607 30 136 352 1,533 288 3,1404476474 02:15 362 34 381 38 74372 02:30 467 36 390 30 85766 02:45 366 36 410 40 77676 03:00 153 398 1,553 38 203 434 1,834 356 3,3873983277 03:15 362 28 428 36 79064 03:30 440 61 456 34 89695 03:45 353 76 516 44 869120 04:00 305 400 1,562 59 372 478 1,910 677 3,47267878126 04:15 366 84 502 60 868144 04:30 426 112 490 98 916210 04:45 370 117 440 80 810197 05:00 741 449 1,525 120 759 456 1,836 1,500 3,361122905242 05:15 396 164 456 165 852329 05:30 368 206 432 230 800436 05:45 312 269 492 224 804493 06:00 1,231 346 1,280 236 1,140 502 1,771 2,371 3,051209848445 06:15 313 252 492 289 805541 06:30 338 298 446 367 784665 06:45 283 354 331 366 614720 07:00 1,550 281 1,097 344 1,410 336 1,217 2,960 2,314362617706 07:15 300 317 301 398 601715 07:30 258 358 304 432 562790 07:45 258 391 276 358 534749 08:00 1,479 226 852 404 1,720 226 861 3,199 1,713393452797 08:15 212 452 250 340 462792 08:30 206 430 209 386 415816 08:45 208 434 176 360 384794 09:00 1,219 209 819 428 1,648 194 763 2,867 1,582320403748 09:15 204 406 200 304 404710 09:30 182 426 186 311 368737 09:45 224 388 183 284 407672 10:00 1,311 214 801 418 1,509 194 618 2,820 1,419303408721 10:15 178 388 160 333 338721 10:30 206 366 124 359 330725 10:45 203 337 140 316 343653 11:00 1,354 169 679 360 1,459 122 404 2,813 1,083333291693 11:15 198 373 104 346 302719 11:30 168 364 94 345 262709 11:45 144 362 84 330 228692 Totals 10,221 14,744 10,721 15,658 20,942 30,402 Split%48.5 51.2 51.548.8 Day Totals 26,379 51,34424,965 Day Splits 48.6 51.4 Peak Hour 07:15 04:30 08:15 03:45 08:00 03:45 Volume 1,581 1,641 1,744 1,986 3,199 3,531 Factor 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.96 Data File :D1108022* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::CERRITOS AVENUELocation Date::E/O SUNKIST STREETSegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 9 40 160 9 20 40 152 29 31218010 12:15 38 4 32 5 709 12:30 42 6 48 1 907 12:45 40 1 32 2 723 01:00 1 43 131 1 8 34 151 9 2821772 01:15 32 2 46 0 782 01:30 33 4 37 0 704 01:45 23 1 34 0 571 02:00 4 44 152 1 3 38 162 7 3141822 02:15 42 0 34 0 760 02:30 34 1 46 2 803 02:45 32 1 44 1 762 03:00 3 22 114 2 7 50 285 10 3992724 03:15 28 3 71 0 993 03:30 30 1 93 1 1232 03:45 34 1 71 0 1051 04:00 18 39 137 6 11 95 293 29 43031349 04:15 26 0 56 4 824 04:30 26 1 82 2 1083 04:45 46 4 60 9 10613 05:00 76 30 118 2 23 102 271 99 38961328 05:15 21 3 58 16 7919 05:30 23 5 68 16 9121 05:45 44 13 43 38 8751 06:00 148 29 141 9 45 59 149 193 290248833 06:15 41 8 34 34 7542 06:30 33 10 34 39 6749 06:45 38 18 22 51 6069 07:00 308 15 51 16 95 24 79 403 130603976 07:15 18 19 23 96 41115 07:30 8 24 14 72 2296 07:45 10 36 18 80 28116 08:00 208 7 23 30 114 20 55 322 78462776 08:15 5 26 12 56 1782 08:30 5 20 12 56 1776 08:45 6 38 11 50 1788 09:00 124 3 23 30 98 17 90 222 113422072 09:15 10 20 17 39 2759 09:30 3 28 24 25 2753 09:45 7 20 32 18 3938 10:00 92 5 11 26 103 20 58 195 69222548 10:15 4 22 17 22 2144 10:30 1 29 10 22 1151 10:45 1 26 11 26 1252 11:00 135 0 6 24 124 8 22 259 2828852 11:15 4 30 5 26 956 11:30 1 36 3 43 479 11:45 1 34 6 38 772 Totals 1,126 1,067 651 1,767 1,777 2,834 Split%37.6 36.6 62.463.4 Day Totals 2,418 4,6112,193 Day Splits 47.6 52.4 Peak Hour 07:00 12:15 11:00 03:15 07:00 03:15 Volume 308 163 124 330 403 461 Factor 0.80 0.95 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.86 Data File :D1108024* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::CERRITOS AVENUELocation Date::E/O SUNKIST STREETSegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 7 38 177 5 14 49 183 21 3602877 12:15 40 5 46 2 867 12:30 51 3 50 2 1015 12:45 48 1 38 1 862 01:00 1 30 118 3 10 24 139 11 2570543 01:15 26 1 39 0 651 01:30 43 3 34 0 773 01:45 19 3 42 1 614 02:00 1 35 127 0 3 34 157 4 2841691 02:15 26 1 40 0 661 02:30 28 1 36 0 641 02:45 38 1 47 0 851 03:00 3 20 103 2 9 64 275 12 3780842 03:15 28 1 63 1 912 03:30 23 4 88 0 1114 03:45 32 2 60 2 924 04:00 20 31 116 5 12 92 375 32 49111236 04:15 24 1 86 2 1103 04:30 31 0 85 7 1167 04:45 30 6 112 10 14216 05:00 72 35 125 2 31 118 412 103 537815310 05:15 26 6 114 12 14018 05:30 38 4 98 26 13630 05:45 26 19 82 26 10845 06:00 147 29 97 6 49 92 183 196 2802512131 06:15 21 7 35 28 5635 06:30 23 16 31 40 5456 06:45 24 20 25 54 4974 07:00 310 11 41 23 102 26 68 412 109673790 07:15 12 21 14 94 26115 07:30 8 24 12 72 2096 07:45 10 34 16 77 26111 08:00 242 10 32 32 134 10 45 376 77642096 08:15 11 30 11 52 2282 08:30 6 32 13 66 1998 08:45 5 40 11 60 16100 09:00 127 6 18 24 101 24 79 228 97423066 09:15 7 34 26 36 3370 09:30 2 21 14 25 1646 09:45 3 22 15 24 1846 10:00 118 10 19 31 99 8 24 217 43261857 10:15 3 25 7 32 1057 10:30 2 20 6 28 848 10:45 4 23 3 32 755 11:00 149 3 8 58 170 13 37 319 45301688 11:15 4 38 10 26 1464 11:30 1 36 7 42 878 11:45 0 38 7 51 789 Totals 1,197 981 734 1,977 1,931 2,958 Split%33.2 38.0 66.862.0 Day Totals 2,711 4,8892,178 Day Splits 44.5 55.5 Peak Hour 07:00 12:00 11:00 04:45 07:15 04:45 Volume 310 177 170 442 418 571 Factor 0.82 0.87 0.73 0.94 0.91 0.93 Data File :D1108024* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::DOUGLASS ROADLocation Date::N/O KATELLA AVENUESegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 16 68 352 4 20 92 277 36 62951609 12:15 108 4 66 6 17410 12:30 94 9 67 1 16110 12:45 82 3 52 4 1347 01:00 6 72 264 3 4 60 218 10 48221325 01:15 64 1 58 1 1222 01:30 68 0 46 3 1143 01:45 60 0 54 0 1140 02:00 5 51 194 0 5 86 325 10 51911371 02:15 46 2 70 1 1163 02:30 49 2 87 2 1364 02:45 48 1 82 1 1302 03:00 10 43 246 0 5 72 375 15 62131153 03:15 68 3 74 2 1425 03:30 76 0 114 2 1902 03:45 59 2 115 3 1745 04:00 38 43 182 1 9 130 378 47 56061737 04:15 44 2 68 4 1126 04:30 52 2 102 10 15412 04:45 43 4 78 18 12122 05:00 126 54 230 3 32 143 387 158 6171019713 05:15 52 6 77 16 12922 05:30 56 11 76 31 13242 05:45 68 12 91 69 15981 06:00 231 61 146 8 54 92 289 285 4353215340 06:15 34 9 76 41 11050 06:30 31 11 65 58 9669 06:45 20 26 56 100 76126 07:00 500 25 76 22 139 63 192 639 26810788129 07:15 21 49 48 152 69201 07:30 16 33 47 132 63165 07:45 14 35 34 109 48144 08:00 460 15 50 34 142 30 110 602 16013845172 08:15 12 36 21 114 33150 08:30 13 40 26 104 39144 08:45 10 32 33 104 43136 09:00 245 11 82 35 119 48 151 364 2337659111 09:15 18 34 34 68 52102 09:30 21 26 45 54 6680 09:45 32 24 24 47 5671 10:00 155 14 52 36 128 22 56 283 108373673 10:15 16 36 22 40 3876 10:30 13 26 6 38 1964 10:45 9 30 6 40 1570 11:00 220 5 15 64 300 5 15 520 304410108 11:15 4 88 5 46 9134 11:30 5 87 5 64 10151 11:45 1 61 0 66 1127 Totals 2,012 1,889 957 2,773 2,969 4,662 Split%40.5 32.2 59.567.8 Day Totals 3,730 7,6313,901 Day Splits 51.1 48.9 Peak Hour 07:15 12:15 11:00 03:15 07:15 03:15 Volume 531 356 300 433 682 679 Factor 0.87 0.82 0.85 0.83 0.85 0.89 Data File :D1108020* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::DOUGLASS ROADLocation Date::N/O KATELLA AVENUESegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 8 66 271 5 10 96 301 18 57211626 12:15 58 0 84 5 1425 12:30 75 5 66 1 1416 12:45 72 0 55 1 1271 01:00 10 60 270 2 7 52 224 17 49441126 01:15 74 1 50 2 1243 01:30 68 1 61 2 1293 01:45 68 3 61 2 1295 02:00 5 56 223 0 1 72 286 6 50901280 02:15 56 1 54 2 1103 02:30 56 0 78 0 1340 02:45 55 0 82 3 1373 03:00 7 69 236 0 1 58 337 8 57301270 03:15 56 1 62 2 1183 03:30 61 0 147 1 2081 03:45 50 0 70 4 1204 04:00 39 46 259 2 10 105 317 49 57671519 04:15 56 3 54 8 11011 04:30 65 1 98 11 16312 04:45 92 4 60 13 15217 05:00 140 98 417 1 32 140 374 172 7911323814 05:15 100 3 86 21 18624 05:30 104 18 80 28 18446 05:45 115 10 68 78 18388 06:00 241 87 193 6 40 82 212 281 4053316939 06:15 49 12 46 40 9552 06:30 32 7 51 58 8365 06:45 25 15 33 110 58125 07:00 550 29 69 44 154 47 146 704 21511276156 07:15 16 41 31 158 47199 07:30 11 31 40 154 51185 07:45 13 38 28 126 41164 08:00 413 11 45 28 124 52 192 537 23711463142 08:15 12 27 38 110 50137 08:30 11 36 68 100 79136 08:45 11 33 34 89 45122 09:00 285 12 63 46 143 64 181 428 2449176137 09:15 14 37 42 88 56125 09:30 23 33 47 62 7095 09:45 14 27 28 44 4271 10:00 167 8 19 30 130 25 63 297 82443374 10:15 4 36 16 32 2068 10:30 5 26 10 45 1571 10:45 2 38 12 46 1484 11:00 252 4 13 108 331 1 11 583 24445152 11:15 2 66 5 62 7128 11:30 4 74 5 61 9135 11:45 3 83 0 85 3168 Totals 2,117 2,078 983 2,644 3,100 4,722 Split%44.0 31.7 56.068.3 Day Totals 3,627 7,8224,195 Day Splits 53.6 46.4 Peak Hour 07:15 05:00 11:00 03:15 07:00 05:00 Volume 552 417 331 384 704 791 Factor 0.87 0.91 0.77 0.65 0.88 0.83 Data File :D1108020* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::HOWELL TO SR-57 SB RAMPSSegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 387 279 1,183 36 116 330 1,258 503 2,44198609134 12:15 324 34 302 109 626143 12:30 288 24 328 94 616118 12:45 292 22 298 86 590108 01:00 216 265 1,176 28 74 342 1,367 290 2,5437060798 01:15 272 24 369 48 64172 01:30 342 14 322 60 66474 01:45 297 8 334 38 63146 02:00 136 297 1,225 12 47 300 1,188 183 2,4135059762 02:15 318 17 285 33 60350 02:30 286 14 300 27 58641 02:45 324 4 303 26 62730 03:00 77 300 1,294 10 43 298 1,477 120 2,7711559825 03:15 320 14 352 14 67228 03:30 332 13 476 26 80839 03:45 342 6 351 22 69328 04:00 130 350 1,332 17 205 376 1,440 335 2,7723072647 04:15 334 34 330 19 66453 04:30 336 38 360 36 69674 04:45 312 116 374 45 686161 05:00 311 406 1,492 144 704 418 1,540 1,015 3,03252824196 05:15 339 163 370 84 709247 05:30 376 206 354 80 730286 05:45 371 191 398 95 769286 06:00 590 326 1,261 188 938 422 1,598 1,528 2,859112748300 06:15 327 257 405 122 732379 06:30 314 213 394 164 708377 06:45 294 280 377 192 671472 07:00 962 244 994 238 1,184 310 1,024 2,146 2,018178554416 07:15 294 308 266 229 560537 07:30 236 314 220 256 456570 07:45 220 324 228 299 448623 08:00 999 208 855 358 1,409 173 657 2,408 1,512260381618 08:15 226 376 170 260 396636 08:30 208 340 174 231 382571 08:45 213 335 140 248 353583 09:00 830 230 1,472 304 1,258 158 690 2,088 2,162222388526 09:15 338 320 177 198 515518 09:30 418 300 198 212 616512 09:45 486 334 157 198 643532 10:00 843 437 1,260 284 1,250 146 484 2,093 1,744192583476 10:15 338 312 140 211 478523 10:30 233 336 104 219 337555 10:45 252 318 94 221 346539 11:00 1,032 227 712 296 1,225 76 298 2,257 1,010223303519 11:15 176 315 68 278 244593 11:30 152 306 88 258 240564 11:45 157 308 66 273 223581 Totals 6,513 14,256 8,453 13,021 14,966 27,277 Split%52.3 56.5 47.743.5 Day Totals 21,474 42,24320,769 Day Splits 49.2 50.8 Peak Hour 07:30 09:15 08:00 05:45 07:45 05:00 Volume 1,075 1,679 1,409 1,619 2,448 3,032 Factor 0.90 0.86 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.92 Data File :D1108015* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::HOWELL TO SR-57 SB RAMPSSegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 425 288 1,151 54 141 270 1,118 566 2,269147558201 12:15 268 33 301 98 569131 12:30 281 32 278 82 559114 12:45 314 22 269 98 583120 01:00 198 304 1,179 26 74 297 1,105 272 2,2846460190 01:15 272 19 232 51 50470 01:30 339 11 266 47 60558 01:45 264 18 310 36 57454 02:00 137 294 1,240 20 76 260 1,110 213 2,3506155481 02:15 330 16 273 26 60342 02:30 320 24 293 30 61354 02:45 296 16 284 20 58036 03:00 79 292 1,178 23 125 296 1,290 204 2,4682758850 03:15 266 36 306 10 57246 03:30 292 32 392 20 68452 03:45 328 34 296 22 62456 04:00 122 300 1,233 29 281 282 1,254 403 2,4871458243 04:15 301 54 316 17 61771 04:30 304 88 330 36 634124 04:45 328 110 326 55 654165 05:00 322 400 1,456 113 676 414 1,572 998 3,02846814159 05:15 406 142 416 73 822215 05:30 348 216 358 91 706307 05:45 302 205 384 112 686317 06:00 572 296 1,089 203 927 254 994 1,499 2,083118550321 06:15 285 216 268 118 553334 06:30 302 249 240 146 542395 06:45 206 259 232 190 438449 07:00 1,019 231 831 250 1,085 220 838 2,104 1,669212451462 07:15 214 268 200 240 414508 07:30 186 267 204 287 390554 07:45 200 300 214 280 414580 08:00 965 190 786 288 1,368 184 612 2,333 1,398265374553 08:15 162 381 148 247 310628 08:30 210 335 144 216 354551 08:45 224 364 136 237 360601 09:00 859 205 791 297 1,181 152 507 2,040 1,298200357497 09:15 228 290 148 222 376512 09:30 174 282 117 224 291506 09:45 184 312 90 213 274525 10:00 923 155 716 270 1,153 113 406 2,076 1,122209268479 10:15 183 287 101 240 284527 10:30 164 306 96 224 260530 10:45 214 290 96 250 310540 11:00 1,040 208 688 328 1,236 68 214 2,276 902222276550 11:15 160 306 49 264 209570 11:30 166 302 51 258 217560 11:45 154 300 46 296 200596 Totals 6,661 12,338 8,323 11,020 14,984 23,358 Split%52.8 55.5 47.244.5 Day Totals 19,343 38,34218,999 Day Splits 49.6 50.4 Peak Hour 07:30 04:45 08:15 05:00 08:00 05:00 Volume 1,079 1,482 1,377 1,572 2,333 3,028 Factor 0.94 0.91 0.90 0.94 0.93 0.92 Data File :D1108015* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::SR-57 NB RAMP TO SR-57 SB RAMPSegment:08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 373 278 1,239 43 129 329 1,253 502 2,492112607155 12:15 314 32 298 92 612124 12:30 334 30 312 94 646124 12:45 313 24 314 75 62799 01:00 194 305 1,278 27 80 326 1,330 274 2,6086263189 01:15 326 14 312 51 63865 01:30 341 26 352 49 69375 01:45 306 13 340 32 64645 02:00 138 312 1,233 18 52 307 1,183 190 2,4166061978 02:15 298 9 286 26 58435 02:30 305 16 322 27 62743 02:45 318 9 268 25 58634 03:00 83 306 1,288 15 62 276 1,370 145 2,6581658231 03:15 314 19 288 16 60235 03:30 324 15 446 29 77044 03:45 344 13 360 22 70435 04:00 139 330 1,298 26 128 324 1,295 267 2,5932565451 04:15 340 28 282 18 62246 04:30 307 30 371 30 67860 04:45 321 44 318 66 639110 05:00 453 376 1,450 32 276 410 1,346 729 2,79679786111 05:15 322 50 314 94 636144 05:30 365 102 306 114 671216 05:45 387 92 316 166 703258 06:00 728 362 1,568 111 546 318 1,116 1,274 2,684142680253 06:15 428 131 278 154 706285 06:30 384 148 276 188 660336 06:45 394 156 244 244 638400 07:00 972 294 1,078 206 944 239 895 1,916 1,973200533406 07:15 308 246 248 222 556468 07:30 236 237 182 282 418519 07:45 240 255 226 268 466523 08:00 976 197 808 280 1,029 159 640 2,005 1,448286356566 08:15 202 254 162 230 364484 08:30 212 255 160 232 372487 08:45 197 240 159 228 356468 09:00 834 223 1,269 247 949 170 978 1,783 2,247216393463 09:15 296 225 232 213 528438 09:30 340 232 273 214 613446 09:45 410 245 303 191 713436 10:00 900 350 1,006 232 992 195 547 1,892 1,553232545464 10:15 250 242 153 210 403452 10:30 226 253 100 228 326481 10:45 180 265 99 230 279495 11:00 1,066 196 677 274 1,132 62 210 2,198 887256258530 11:15 156 288 42 248 198536 11:30 183 272 64 292 247564 11:45 142 298 42 270 184568 Totals 6,856 14,192 6,319 12,163 13,175 26,355 Split%53.8 48.0 46.252.0 Day Totals 18,482 39,53021,048 Day Splits 53.2 46.8 Peak Hour 07:30 06:00 11:00 03:15 11:00 05:00 Volume 1,066 1,568 1,132 1,418 2,198 2,796 Factor 0.93 0.92 0.95 0.79 0.97 0.89 Data File :D1108014* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::SR-57 NB RAMP TO SR-57 SB RAMPSegment:08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 420 316 1,236 42 116 316 1,176 536 2,412139632181 12:15 297 26 292 98 589124 12:30 306 26 292 90 598116 12:45 317 22 276 93 593115 01:00 199 320 1,227 28 78 312 1,222 277 2,4496863296 01:15 279 22 294 50 57372 01:30 336 10 300 42 63652 01:45 292 18 316 39 60857 02:00 123 302 1,210 14 54 334 1,145 177 2,3555463668 02:15 292 12 282 22 57434 02:30 344 10 278 28 62238 02:45 272 18 251 19 52337 03:00 68 284 1,096 13 59 304 1,345 127 2,4411458827 03:15 240 15 318 11 55826 03:30 268 13 421 20 68933 03:45 304 18 302 23 60641 04:00 165 246 1,052 16 118 340 1,437 283 2,4891958635 04:15 244 28 289 26 53354 04:30 274 28 422 50 69678 04:45 288 46 386 70 674116 05:00 468 316 1,215 52 314 506 1,791 782 3,00672822124 05:15 336 59 461 97 797156 05:30 291 92 442 133 733225 05:45 272 111 382 166 654277 06:00 724 256 950 102 576 338 952 1,300 1,902146594248 06:15 255 130 220 172 475302 06:30 236 156 214 176 450332 06:45 203 188 180 230 383418 07:00 1,043 211 763 206 992 192 708 2,035 1,471230403436 07:15 207 238 174 227 381465 07:30 188 240 160 306 348546 07:45 157 308 182 280 339588 08:00 956 168 702 266 1,176 181 671 2,132 1,373252349518 08:15 164 302 158 252 322554 08:30 172 314 185 228 357542 08:45 198 294 147 224 345518 09:00 995 209 730 266 949 159 533 1,944 1,263267368533 09:15 176 228 150 242 326470 09:30 166 232 122 271 288503 09:45 179 223 102 215 281438 10:00 1,026 138 673 234 964 108 350 1,990 1,023259246493 10:15 172 238 98 227 270465 10:30 167 244 84 262 251506 10:45 196 248 60 278 256526 11:00 1,171 209 698 296 1,182 82 227 2,353 925260291556 11:15 176 278 45 285 221563 11:30 162 292 58 318 220610 11:45 151 316 42 308 193624 Totals 7,358 11,552 6,578 11,557 13,936 23,109 Split%50.0 47.2 50.052.8 Day Totals 18,135 37,04518,910 Day Splits 51.0 49.0 Peak Hour 11:00 12:45 07:45 04:45 11:00 04:45 Volume 1,171 1,252 1,190 1,795 2,353 3,026 Factor 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.89 0.94 0.92 Data File :D1108014* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::SR-57 NB RAMPS TO DOUGLASS RDSegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 326 308 1,216 30 99 278 1,083 425 2,29986586116 12:15 334 16 272 92 606108 12:30 286 35 252 80 538115 12:45 288 18 281 68 56986 01:00 178 263 1,078 20 53 310 1,188 231 2,2666757387 01:15 270 19 276 42 54661 01:30 286 8 313 42 59950 01:45 259 6 289 27 54833 02:00 79 236 1,032 16 42 280 1,064 121 2,0964451660 02:15 268 7 276 15 54422 02:30 258 10 270 10 52820 02:45 270 9 238 10 50819 03:00 35 260 1,265 10 40 284 1,195 75 2,460754417 03:15 287 18 276 8 56326 03:30 398 4 333 7 73111 03:45 320 8 302 13 62221 04:00 162 295 1,173 23 89 352 1,272 251 2,4451364736 04:15 275 14 276 18 55132 04:30 301 24 378 47 67971 04:45 302 28 266 84 568112 05:00 519 277 1,140 46 236 394 1,242 755 2,38283671129 05:15 246 46 322 100 568146 05:30 278 74 296 132 574206 05:45 339 70 230 204 569274 06:00 853 327 1,520 97 483 283 995 1,336 2,515155610252 06:15 394 116 256 188 650304 06:30 397 142 232 194 629336 06:45 402 128 224 316 626444 07:00 1,287 314 869 142 707 254 765 1,994 1,634271568413 07:15 239 167 176 282 415449 07:30 176 210 153 344 329554 07:45 140 188 182 390 322578 08:00 1,399 134 497 228 845 240 773 2,244 1,270448374676 08:15 122 205 144 332 266537 08:30 126 212 202 319 328531 08:45 115 200 187 300 302500 09:00 1,005 98 457 192 796 266 1,534 1,801 1,991276364468 09:15 116 196 598 244 714440 09:30 125 192 414 253 539445 09:45 118 216 256 232 374448 10:00 962 115 340 187 833 184 496 1,795 836236299423 10:15 93 206 152 238 245444 10:30 70 220 94 238 164458 10:45 62 220 66 250 128470 11:00 1,114 46 214 208 992 89 262 2,106 476266135474 11:15 57 248 72 260 129508 11:30 54 270 59 274 113544 11:45 57 266 42 314 99580 Totals 7,919 10,801 5,215 11,869 13,134 22,670 Split%47.6 39.7 52.460.3 Day Totals 17,084 35,80418,720 Day Splits 52.3 47.7 Peak Hour 07:30 06:00 11:00 09:00 07:30 03:15 Volume 1,514 1,520 992 1,534 2,345 2,563 Factor 0.84 0.95 0.92 0.64 0.87 0.88 Data File :D1108013* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::SR-57 NB RAMPS TO DOUGLASS RDSegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 114 283 1,123 52 154 299 1,174 268 2,29748582100 12:15 284 36 288 26 57262 12:30 258 38 285 24 54362 12:45 298 28 302 16 60044 01:00 72 284 1,070 17 65 300 1,200 137 2,2702458441 01:15 258 17 269 20 52737 01:30 262 17 341 10 60327 01:45 266 14 290 18 55632 02:00 52 213 936 8 43 314 1,152 95 2,0881852726 02:15 248 16 258 8 50624 02:30 246 7 322 12 56819 02:45 229 12 258 14 48726 03:00 45 263 1,055 16 54 302 1,219 99 2,274556521 03:15 281 14 274 4 55518 03:30 273 6 360 14 63320 03:45 238 18 283 22 52140 04:00 185 256 1,166 14 89 370 1,284 274 2,4501862632 04:15 247 22 303 26 55048 04:30 294 22 355 37 64959 04:45 369 31 256 104 625135 05:00 529 390 1,515 40 213 411 1,159 742 2,67480801120 05:15 391 45 264 97 655142 05:30 382 60 264 128 646188 05:45 352 68 220 224 572292 06:00 831 312 866 108 491 260 899 1,322 1,765158572266 06:15 200 141 243 174 443315 06:30 204 126 200 209 404335 06:45 150 116 196 290 346406 07:00 1,259 142 559 169 747 210 762 2,006 1,321268352437 07:15 156 174 178 290 334464 07:30 139 222 202 344 341566 07:45 122 182 172 357 294539 08:00 1,479 131 454 209 809 192 690 2,288 1,144410323619 08:15 95 204 178 349 273553 08:30 112 209 150 358 262567 08:45 116 187 170 362 286549 09:00 1,073 100 393 208 768 139 560 1,841 953286239494 09:15 115 172 161 270 276442 09:30 94 208 136 260 230468 09:45 84 180 124 257 208437 10:00 1,022 57 245 188 776 104 327 1,798 572271161459 10:15 78 182 85 248 163430 10:30 48 212 74 229 122441 10:45 62 194 64 274 126468 11:00 1,079 65 249 284 1,078 56 201 2,157 450232121516 11:15 70 254 52 255 122509 11:30 50 276 40 296 90572 11:45 64 264 53 296 117560 Totals 7,740 9,631 5,287 10,627 13,027 20,258 Split%47.5 40.6 52.559.4 Day Totals 15,914 33,28517,371 Day Splits 52.2 47.8 Peak Hour 08:00 04:45 11:00 04:15 08:00 04:30 Volume 1,479 1,532 1,078 1,325 2,288 2,730 Factor 0.90 0.98 0.95 0.81 0.92 0.85 Data File :D1108013* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::STATE COLLEGE TO HOWELLSegment:08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 360 234 1,000 29 129 296 1,050 489 2,05091530120 12:15 272 38 224 102 496140 12:30 236 36 282 88 518124 12:45 258 26 248 79 506105 01:00 200 214 972 26 74 288 1,124 274 2,0966550291 01:15 259 23 282 48 54171 01:30 269 18 282 52 55170 01:45 230 7 272 35 50242 02:00 120 246 989 10 44 280 1,060 164 2,0494552655 02:15 240 10 246 28 48638 02:30 262 17 275 22 53739 02:45 241 7 259 25 50032 03:00 68 288 1,107 10 44 278 1,308 112 2,4151356623 03:15 248 14 300 14 54828 03:30 294 12 382 22 67634 03:45 277 8 348 19 62527 04:00 114 276 1,056 8 107 312 1,309 221 2,3652458832 04:15 256 24 319 14 57538 04:30 270 22 322 34 59256 04:45 254 53 356 42 61095 05:00 295 336 1,268 108 517 396 1,479 812 2,74741732149 05:15 251 102 372 78 623180 05:30 359 144 354 80 713224 05:45 322 163 357 96 679259 06:00 577 279 1,124 136 687 369 1,371 1,264 2,495113648249 06:15 290 185 338 128 628313 06:30 306 170 354 149 660319 06:45 249 196 310 187 559383 07:00 920 222 890 184 816 310 960 1,736 1,850180532364 07:15 256 184 236 208 492392 07:30 204 216 208 247 412463 07:45 208 232 206 285 414517 08:00 924 188 783 220 965 176 636 1,889 1,419270364490 08:15 217 264 173 231 390495 08:30 192 249 147 223 339472 08:45 186 232 140 200 326432 09:00 709 203 1,247 243 945 152 687 1,654 1,934202355445 09:15 312 246 182 160 494406 09:30 356 226 168 187 524413 09:45 376 230 185 160 561390 10:00 721 338 1,024 243 977 172 516 1,698 1,540167510410 10:15 275 235 136 170 411405 10:30 205 250 100 222 305472 10:45 206 249 108 162 314411 11:00 840 194 632 240 999 86 296 1,839 928194280434 11:15 156 273 74 214 230487 11:30 146 252 66 224 212476 11:45 136 234 70 208 206442 Totals 5,848 12,092 6,304 11,796 12,152 23,888 Split%50.6 51.9 49.448.1 Day Totals 18,100 36,04017,940 Day Splits 49.8 50.2 Peak Hour 07:30 09:15 10:45 05:00 07:45 05:00 Volume 1,033 1,382 1,014 1,479 1,974 2,747 Factor 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.94 Data File :D1108016 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::STATE COLLEGE TO HOWELLSegment:08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 388 244 977 59 156 264 1,036 544 2,013127508186 12:15 230 38 270 93 500131 12:30 236 33 250 84 486117 12:45 267 26 252 84 519110 01:00 185 260 971 28 75 267 1,021 260 1,9926452792 01:15 216 18 252 46 46864 01:30 271 18 262 46 53364 01:45 224 11 240 29 46440 02:00 117 238 1,016 17 65 302 1,110 182 2,1265154068 02:15 266 18 245 25 51143 02:30 278 16 278 26 55642 02:45 234 14 285 15 51929 03:00 58 234 954 11 79 251 1,216 137 2,1701948530 03:15 214 27 303 7 51734 03:30 240 26 334 14 57440 03:45 266 15 328 18 59433 04:00 102 266 991 26 189 320 1,309 291 2,3001358639 04:15 230 24 324 15 55439 04:30 250 69 303 28 55397 04:45 245 70 362 46 607116 05:00 297 314 1,208 85 511 366 1,541 808 2,74938680123 05:15 335 118 417 70 752188 05:30 324 142 396 88 720230 05:45 235 166 362 101 597267 06:00 583 260 939 151 695 367 1,080 1,278 2,019115627266 06:15 227 184 248 117 475301 06:30 280 166 260 134 540300 06:45 172 194 205 217 377411 07:00 940 203 771 182 828 218 773 1,768 1,544178421360 07:15 202 208 196 230 398438 07:30 182 184 172 265 354449 07:45 184 254 187 267 371521 08:00 909 164 716 232 1,019 194 616 1,928 1,332239358471 08:15 165 276 148 256 313532 08:30 177 247 154 198 331445 08:45 210 264 120 216 330480 09:00 756 205 697 243 963 140 530 1,719 1,227204345447 09:15 190 248 147 188 337436 09:30 154 240 138 202 292442 09:45 148 232 105 162 253394 10:00 786 156 643 230 928 118 441 1,714 1,084196274426 10:15 162 218 122 186 284404 10:30 156 248 105 214 261462 10:45 169 232 96 190 265422 11:00 871 174 594 280 1,066 86 237 1,937 831205260485 11:15 149 283 63 202 212485 11:30 139 236 48 226 187462 11:45 132 267 40 238 172505 Totals 5,992 10,477 6,574 10,910 12,566 21,387 Split%49.0 52.3 51.047.7 Day Totals 17,484 33,95316,469 Day Splits 48.5 51.5 Peak Hour 07:30 04:45 11:00 05:15 07:30 04:45 Volume 1,027 1,218 1,066 1,542 1,973 2,759 Factor 0.96 0.91 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.92 Data File :D1108016 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::E/O DOUGLASS ROADSegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 196 255 1,009 52 144 241 965 340 1,9744649698 12:15 270 38 220 58 49096 12:30 256 26 246 48 50274 12:45 228 28 258 44 48672 01:00 100 220 918 40 91 292 1,177 191 2,0954551285 01:15 245 30 262 24 50754 01:30 248 13 328 21 57634 01:45 205 8 295 10 50018 02:00 55 219 902 24 72 243 1,035 127 1,9372046244 02:15 228 20 256 14 48434 02:30 220 14 286 8 50622 02:45 235 14 250 13 48527 03:00 30 202 962 13 56 258 1,074 86 2,036746020 03:15 220 17 236 7 45624 03:30 288 16 310 2 59818 03:45 252 10 270 14 52224 04:00 131 247 977 20 102 290 1,192 233 2,1691053730 04:15 242 22 282 16 52438 04:30 240 25 316 39 55664 04:45 248 35 304 66 552101 05:00 411 220 928 33 230 374 1,193 641 2,1216559498 05:15 226 37 282 84 508121 05:30 232 86 263 104 495190 05:45 250 74 274 158 524232 06:00 591 198 742 82 469 298 1,118 1,060 1,860111496193 06:15 186 138 288 148 474286 06:30 187 108 290 118 477226 06:45 171 141 242 214 413355 07:00 794 156 508 162 748 256 807 1,542 1,315155412317 07:15 138 182 226 186 364368 07:30 110 204 151 214 261418 07:45 104 200 174 239 278439 08:00 975 107 420 190 829 162 562 1,804 982299269489 08:15 108 242 152 228 260470 08:30 106 194 129 234 235428 08:45 99 203 119 214 218417 09:00 771 91 627 186 733 124 484 1,504 1,111208215394 09:15 144 189 114 180 258369 09:30 171 178 126 198 297376 09:45 221 180 120 185 341365 10:00 870 134 338 192 792 125 344 1,662 682214259406 10:15 96 192 89 226 185418 10:30 64 198 55 216 119414 10:45 44 210 75 214 119424 11:00 997 49 200 222 856 55 191 1,853 391245104467 11:15 52 222 42 240 94462 11:30 50 216 62 252 112468 11:45 49 196 32 260 81456 Totals 5,921 8,531 5,122 10,142 11,043 18,673 Split%45.7 46.4 54.353.6 Day Totals 15,264 29,71614,452 Day Splits 48.6 51.4 Peak Hour 07:45 03:30 10:45 04:15 11:00 04:15 Volume 1,000 1,029 870 1,276 1,853 2,226 Factor 0.84 0.89 0.98 0.85 0.99 0.94 Data File :D1108012 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::E/O DOUGLASS ROADSegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 95 269 1,068 41 105 248 1,023 200 2,0914251783 12:15 262 22 253 18 51540 12:30 277 23 254 22 53145 12:45 260 19 268 13 52832 01:00 56 258 936 24 73 299 1,167 129 2,1031855742 01:15 217 26 304 16 52142 01:30 236 12 278 8 51420 01:45 225 11 286 14 51125 02:00 46 190 908 10 36 284 1,018 82 1,9261847428 02:15 230 10 228 6 45816 02:30 258 6 260 10 51816 02:45 230 10 246 12 47622 03:00 38 224 933 15 45 260 1,071 83 2,004448419 03:15 227 8 248 4 47512 03:30 262 9 304 12 56621 03:45 220 13 259 18 47931 04:00 141 256 1,052 12 75 299 1,169 216 2,2211455526 04:15 238 16 268 16 50632 04:30 266 25 312 30 57855 04:45 292 22 290 81 582103 05:00 391 324 1,183 40 251 328 1,145 642 2,32865652105 05:15 300 48 300 78 600126 05:30 295 72 279 107 574179 05:45 264 91 238 141 502232 06:00 582 230 725 90 512 199 769 1,094 1,494112429202 06:15 172 116 207 119 379235 06:30 192 128 192 150 384278 06:45 131 178 171 201 302379 07:00 833 142 500 142 734 184 674 1,567 1,174192326334 07:15 126 178 152 183 278361 07:30 128 186 152 204 280390 07:45 104 228 186 254 290482 08:00 1,011 112 398 165 794 151 559 1,805 957271263436 08:15 80 198 147 235 227433 08:30 108 242 125 249 233491 08:45 98 189 136 256 234445 09:00 822 100 351 206 786 108 448 1,608 799208208414 09:15 94 196 132 198 226394 09:30 84 186 116 208 200394 09:45 73 198 92 208 165406 10:00 884 56 206 184 810 114 330 1,694 536228170412 10:15 58 210 90 220 148430 10:30 39 204 71 207 110411 10:45 53 212 55 229 108441 11:00 976 49 209 206 877 72 227 1,853 436210121416 11:15 64 216 53 236 117452 11:30 42 225 55 270 97495 11:45 54 230 47 260 101490 Totals 5,875 8,469 5,098 9,600 10,973 18,069 Split%46.9 46.5 53.153.5 Day Totals 14,698 29,04214,344 Day Splits 49.4 50.6 Peak Hour 08:00 04:45 11:00 04:30 11:00 04:30 Volume 1,011 1,211 877 1,230 1,853 2,412 Factor 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.92 Data File :D1108012 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::E/O MAIN STREETSegment:08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 146 256 955 18 61 237 980 207 1,9352449342 12:15 239 12 235 47 47459 12:30 230 13 252 35 48248 12:45 230 18 256 40 48658 01:00 82 252 894 20 51 276 1,046 133 1,9403852858 01:15 222 16 248 15 47031 01:30 230 11 252 19 48230 01:45 190 4 270 10 46014 02:00 46 172 802 14 45 216 840 91 1,6422238836 02:15 232 12 224 7 45619 02:30 189 12 204 5 39317 02:45 209 7 196 12 40519 03:00 31 232 905 14 45 204 892 76 1,797643620 03:15 196 11 200 8 39619 03:30 257 11 256 1 51312 03:45 220 9 232 16 45225 04:00 104 246 1,024 18 109 232 976 213 2,0001247830 04:15 261 16 211 14 47230 04:30 258 32 275 30 53362 04:45 259 43 258 48 51791 05:00 235 298 1,001 39 210 256 989 445 1,9903555474 05:15 244 44 242 45 48689 05:30 222 65 233 60 455125 05:45 237 62 258 95 495157 06:00 356 223 735 89 490 284 1,016 846 1,75166507155 06:15 184 141 259 84 443225 06:30 182 114 265 86 447200 06:45 146 146 208 120 354266 07:00 528 150 510 186 876 224 685 1,404 1,195114374300 07:15 136 210 166 118 302328 07:30 120 238 160 130 280368 07:45 104 242 135 166 239408 08:00 702 113 409 246 877 118 415 1,579 824224231470 08:15 106 232 90 158 196390 08:30 90 185 111 167 201352 08:45 100 214 96 153 196367 09:00 599 101 585 175 688 74 264 1,287 849146175321 09:15 128 174 66 142 194316 09:30 151 162 72 150 223312 09:45 205 177 52 161 257338 10:00 711 136 334 167 744 50 176 1,455 510167186334 10:15 91 182 48 176 139358 10:30 52 210 38 184 90394 10:45 55 185 40 184 95369 11:00 850 38 165 166 764 38 115 1,614 28019276358 11:15 45 208 28 220 73428 11:30 48 190 28 207 76397 11:45 34 200 21 231 55431 Totals 4,390 8,319 4,960 8,394 9,350 16,713 Split%49.8 53.0 50.247.0 Day Totals 13,354 26,06312,709 Day Splits 48.8 51.2 Peak Hour 11:00 04:15 07:30 05:45 07:30 04:30 Volume 850 1,076 958 1,066 1,636 2,090 Factor 0.92 0.90 0.97 0.94 0.87 0.94 Data File :D1108010 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation: Date::E/O MAIN STREETSegment:08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 92 258 932 20 52 229 923 144 1,8553648756 12:15 214 6 222 25 43631 12:30 230 14 232 16 46230 12:45 230 12 240 15 47027 01:00 56 232 901 14 30 208 899 86 1,8002044034 01:15 218 7 250 18 46825 01:30 218 6 239 7 45713 01:45 233 3 202 11 43514 02:00 51 200 838 8 29 240 900 80 1,7381844026 02:15 215 8 242 11 45719 02:30 212 8 213 9 42517 02:45 211 5 205 13 41618 03:00 29 210 936 10 36 218 878 65 1,814642816 03:15 244 6 186 3 4309 03:30 266 11 272 8 53819 03:45 216 9 202 12 41821 04:00 87 261 1,071 18 93 242 950 180 2,0211150329 04:15 252 18 240 10 49228 04:30 268 31 238 24 50655 04:45 290 26 230 42 52068 05:00 210 316 1,197 45 238 284 942 448 2,1393260077 05:15 303 44 244 41 54785 05:30 288 59 228 60 516119 05:45 290 90 186 77 476167 06:00 414 254 786 101 527 198 761 941 1,54774452175 06:15 194 132 214 84 408216 06:30 212 138 185 104 397242 06:45 126 156 164 152 290308 07:00 583 150 513 176 898 186 636 1,481 1,149134336310 07:15 105 212 152 127 257339 07:30 148 224 134 142 282366 07:45 110 286 164 180 274466 08:00 773 97 408 246 973 128 463 1,746 871184225430 08:15 102 248 108 189 210437 08:30 115 254 103 174 218428 08:45 94 225 124 226 218451 09:00 692 88 351 220 782 80 291 1,474 642194168414 09:15 98 172 94 162 192334 09:30 85 184 62 147 147331 09:45 80 206 55 189 135395 10:00 776 71 227 198 777 60 203 1,553 430194131392 10:15 56 186 59 196 115382 10:30 58 195 48 192 106387 10:45 42 198 36 194 78392 11:00 820 56 206 195 858 37 129 1,678 33520593400 11:15 62 224 28 196 90420 11:30 44 230 34 202 78432 11:45 44 209 30 217 74426 Totals 4,583 8,366 5,293 7,975 9,876 16,341 Split%51.2 53.6 48.846.4 Day Totals 13,268 26,21712,949 Day Splits 49.4 50.6 Peak Hour 11:00 04:45 07:45 04:30 07:45 04:45 Volume 820 1,197 1,034 996 1,761 2,183 Factor 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.88 0.94 0.91 Data File :D1108010 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::E/O STRUCK AVENUESegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 191 229 807 36 104 202 816 295 1,6234143177 12:15 208 28 178 50 38678 12:30 200 20 224 54 42474 12:45 170 20 212 46 38266 01:00 94 200 743 34 75 248 1,015 169 1,7582844862 01:15 165 23 247 30 41253 01:30 206 10 260 24 46634 01:45 172 8 260 12 43220 02:00 44 154 674 18 63 185 800 107 1,4741733935 02:15 168 18 214 14 38232 02:30 170 14 211 5 38119 02:45 182 13 190 8 37221 03:00 20 164 789 10 48 214 857 68 1,646737817 03:15 188 17 188 3 37620 03:30 221 14 238 2 45916 03:45 216 7 217 8 43315 04:00 76 178 797 16 86 212 876 162 1,673839024 04:15 182 20 200 6 38226 04:30 229 22 242 20 47142 04:45 208 28 222 42 43070 05:00 223 211 838 24 172 240 881 395 1,7193845162 05:15 212 26 212 53 42479 05:30 196 66 201 50 397116 05:45 219 56 228 82 447138 06:00 382 198 670 64 394 243 955 776 1,62569441133 06:15 162 117 250 108 412225 06:30 158 92 244 83 402175 06:45 152 121 218 122 370243 07:00 503 136 429 126 648 218 678 1,151 1,107119354245 07:15 125 158 194 114 319272 07:30 102 176 134 100 236276 07:45 66 188 132 170 198358 08:00 708 108 360 175 723 146 486 1,431 846223254398 08:15 80 210 138 182 218392 08:30 90 164 102 153 192317 08:45 82 174 100 150 182324 09:00 566 88 529 164 630 108 411 1,196 940151196315 09:15 120 160 100 125 220285 09:30 140 142 113 144 253286 09:45 181 164 90 146 271310 10:00 631 141 343 152 657 92 275 1,288 618144233296 10:15 92 163 68 158 160321 10:30 58 164 48 154 106318 10:45 52 178 67 175 119353 11:00 796 33 153 166 652 42 154 1,448 30716675332 11:15 42 177 36 207 78384 11:30 39 161 51 205 90366 11:45 39 148 25 218 64366 Totals 4,234 7,132 4,252 8,204 8,486 15,336 Split%46.5 50.1 53.549.9 Day Totals 12,456 23,82211,366 Day Splits 47.7 52.3 Peak Hour 11:00 04:30 07:30 01:00 07:45 04:30 Volume 796 860 749 1,015 1,465 1,776 Factor 0.91 0.94 0.89 0.98 0.92 0.94 Data File :D1108011* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::E/O STRUCK AVENUESegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 84 242 870 33 79 192 846 163 1,7163243465 12:15 201 17 207 23 40840 12:30 203 16 205 16 40832 12:45 224 13 242 13 46626 01:00 50 188 709 15 47 276 1,000 97 1,7091546430 01:15 180 14 264 18 44432 01:30 169 11 246 10 41521 01:45 172 7 214 7 38614 02:00 44 154 690 8 29 234 811 73 1,5011838826 02:15 186 10 194 11 38021 02:30 176 5 180 9 35614 02:45 174 6 203 6 37712 03:00 34 183 773 10 42 200 824 76 1,597838318 03:15 182 8 186 3 36811 03:30 198 10 238 10 43620 03:45 210 14 200 13 41027 04:00 78 192 868 11 64 218 874 142 1,742841019 04:15 204 13 216 8 42021 04:30 204 22 222 18 42640 04:45 268 18 218 44 48662 05:00 222 270 1,066 33 189 209 850 411 1,9164747980 05:15 280 30 220 44 50074 05:30 277 54 230 46 507100 05:45 239 72 191 85 430157 06:00 372 240 700 76 441 169 635 813 1,33568409144 06:15 180 100 164 80 344180 06:30 169 109 154 106 323215 06:45 111 156 148 118 259274 07:00 528 121 454 114 640 157 573 1,168 1,027132278246 07:15 118 154 130 121 248275 07:30 111 166 120 113 231279 07:45 104 206 166 162 270368 08:00 791 94 348 156 709 127 489 1,500 837193221349 08:15 78 174 135 184 213358 08:30 96 211 108 194 204405 08:45 80 168 119 220 199388 09:00 614 82 296 188 667 87 376 1,281 672168169356 09:15 90 153 116 140 206293 09:30 68 152 94 144 162296 09:45 56 174 79 162 135336 10:00 654 62 192 152 660 90 265 1,314 457156152308 10:15 58 180 72 176 130356 10:30 32 163 60 164 92327 10:45 40 165 43 158 83323 11:00 790 52 173 174 694 68 195 1,484 368174120348 11:15 44 174 44 180 88354 11:30 39 164 45 212 84376 11:45 38 182 38 224 76406 Totals 4,261 7,139 4,261 7,738 8,522 14,877 Split%48.0 50.0 52.050.0 Day Totals 11,999 23,39911,400 Day Splits 48.7 51.3 Peak Hour 08:00 04:45 07:45 12:45 08:15 04:45 Volume 791 1,095 747 1,028 1,507 1,972 Factor 0.90 0.98 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.97 Data File :D1108011* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::W/O STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARDSegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 359 210 847 47 158 251 889 517 1,736121461168 12:15 219 49 196 64 415113 12:30 196 32 236 100 432132 12:45 222 30 206 74 428104 01:00 184 215 883 21 76 262 1,004 260 1,8876447785 01:15 234 24 250 41 48465 01:30 220 20 265 42 48562 01:45 214 11 227 37 44148 02:00 116 229 958 12 56 238 957 172 1,9153946751 02:15 257 21 216 28 47349 02:30 216 13 266 25 48238 02:45 256 10 237 24 49334 03:00 51 259 1,060 13 60 248 1,172 111 2,232650719 03:15 262 16 264 13 52629 03:30 283 17 338 16 62133 03:45 256 14 322 16 57830 04:00 117 240 1,042 19 139 285 1,226 256 2,2681552534 04:15 266 24 297 20 56344 04:30 272 34 316 42 58876 04:45 264 62 328 40 592102 05:00 390 290 1,210 80 428 385 1,345 818 2,55567675147 05:15 284 101 362 71 646172 05:30 324 115 306 118 630233 05:45 312 132 292 134 604266 06:00 668 296 1,201 112 490 283 1,038 1,158 2,239132579244 06:15 327 126 260 141 587267 06:30 310 126 243 169 553295 06:45 268 126 252 226 520352 07:00 993 264 833 162 707 206 796 1,700 1,629203470365 07:15 203 160 216 224 419384 07:30 189 193 204 272 393465 07:45 177 192 170 294 347486 08:00 925 182 586 173 802 164 618 1,727 1,204274346447 08:15 150 190 180 234 330424 08:30 122 230 142 202 264432 08:45 132 209 132 215 264424 09:00 722 148 634 234 882 174 900 1,604 1,534188322422 09:15 144 233 210 180 354413 09:30 158 207 246 176 404383 09:45 184 208 270 178 454386 10:00 680 205 732 218 875 264 758 1,555 1,490142469360 10:15 187 215 208 186 395401 10:30 167 228 152 164 319392 10:45 173 214 134 188 307402 11:00 718 166 562 222 878 104 323 1,596 885152270374 11:15 135 238 84 190 219428 11:30 133 236 81 190 214426 11:45 128 182 54 186 182368 Totals 5,923 10,548 5,551 11,026 11,474 21,574 Split%48.9 48.4 51.151.6 Day Totals 16,577 33,04816,471 Day Splits 49.8 50.2 Peak Hour 07:30 05:30 10:45 04:30 07:30 05:00 Volume 1,074 1,259 910 1,391 1,822 2,555 Factor 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.94 0.95 Data File :D1108017* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::KATELLA AVENUELocation Date::W/O STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARDSegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:EB WB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 387 230 888 58 147 210 878 534 1,766116440174 12:15 206 38 249 88 455126 12:30 214 24 198 87 412111 12:45 238 27 221 96 459123 01:00 201 202 856 32 80 216 949 281 1,8055741889 01:15 226 15 250 52 47667 01:30 220 18 235 48 45566 01:45 208 15 248 44 45659 02:00 112 231 886 20 84 238 1,032 196 1,9184646966 02:15 180 24 250 24 43048 02:30 259 18 248 26 50744 02:45 216 22 296 16 51238 03:00 57 220 866 13 81 247 1,131 138 1,9971646729 03:15 190 20 282 9 47229 03:30 224 29 314 16 53845 03:45 232 19 288 16 52035 04:00 130 228 959 24 169 331 1,300 299 2,2592455948 04:15 224 28 334 18 55846 04:30 245 65 314 46 559111 04:45 262 52 321 42 58394 05:00 390 282 1,120 87 444 396 1,440 834 2,56048678135 05:15 310 106 396 75 706181 05:30 274 128 328 129 602257 05:45 254 123 320 138 574261 06:00 641 262 819 114 557 280 961 1,198 1,780124542238 06:15 203 146 256 150 459296 06:30 204 144 220 172 424316 06:45 150 153 205 195 355348 07:00 995 178 677 166 693 204 792 1,688 1,469210382376 07:15 168 156 228 231 396387 07:30 175 168 180 274 355442 07:45 156 203 180 280 336483 08:00 932 160 628 203 892 204 662 1,824 1,290268364471 08:15 150 235 138 229 288464 08:30 156 234 178 226 334460 08:45 162 220 142 209 304429 09:00 693 150 573 206 847 159 592 1,540 1,165184309390 09:15 152 230 171 163 323393 09:30 122 190 146 188 268378 09:45 149 221 116 158 265379 10:00 739 164 690 219 877 122 457 1,616 1,147158286377 10:15 152 230 120 172 272402 10:30 182 211 133 207 315418 10:45 192 217 82 202 274419 11:00 792 160 603 220 911 84 278 1,703 881190244410 11:15 148 243 76 189 224432 11:30 164 207 62 190 226397 11:45 131 241 56 223 187464 Totals 6,069 9,565 5,782 10,472 11,851 20,037 Split%47.7 48.8 52.351.2 Day Totals 16,254 31,88815,634 Day Splits 49.0 51.0 Peak Hour 07:15 04:45 11:00 04:45 07:45 04:45 Volume 1,053 1,128 911 1,441 1,878 2,569 Factor 0.94 0.91 0.94 0.91 0.97 0.91 Data File :D1108017* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::MAIN STREETLocation Date::S/O KATELLA AVENUESegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 72 154 597 15 40 122 471 112 1,0682227637 12:15 144 8 94 13 23821 12:30 151 8 118 19 26927 12:45 148 9 137 18 28527 01:00 35 154 508 8 20 141 539 55 1,0471629524 01:15 117 6 142 6 25912 01:30 122 2 130 5 2527 01:45 115 4 126 8 24112 02:00 40 130 546 2 10 100 426 50 9721623018 02:15 154 3 106 3 2606 02:30 138 1 118 13 25614 02:45 124 4 102 8 22612 03:00 29 154 618 2 24 98 428 53 1,046825210 03:15 146 4 105 4 2518 03:30 172 4 123 9 29513 03:45 146 14 102 8 24822 04:00 64 194 781 7 81 94 474 145 1,2551228819 04:15 204 8 118 12 32220 04:30 192 24 136 24 32848 04:45 191 42 126 16 31758 05:00 123 212 757 27 140 124 416 263 1,1731833645 05:15 179 26 102 28 28154 05:30 192 36 92 29 28465 05:45 174 51 98 48 27299 06:00 183 147 489 46 285 99 335 468 8244024686 06:15 130 60 96 42 226102 06:30 108 76 62 48 170124 06:45 104 103 78 53 182156 07:00 329 106 319 116 634 74 249 963 56857180173 07:15 69 162 66 76 135238 07:30 74 154 70 110 144264 07:45 70 202 39 86 109288 08:00 371 58 218 168 587 44 171 958 38996102264 08:15 56 154 50 88 106242 08:30 60 150 38 96 98246 08:45 44 115 39 91 83206 09:00 371 54 216 89 368 30 147 739 3639484183 09:15 44 112 35 84 79196 09:30 56 90 36 92 92182 09:45 62 77 46 101 108178 10:00 424 54 130 90 400 33 93 824 2239287182 10:15 32 89 33 102 65191 10:30 28 123 13 114 41237 10:45 16 98 14 116 30214 11:00 543 11 63 84 389 19 90 932 15313530219 11:15 10 94 15 110 25204 11:30 24 103 24 147 48250 11:45 18 108 32 151 50259 Totals 2,584 5,242 2,978 3,839 5,562 9,081 Split%57.7 53.5 42.346.5 Day Totals 6,817 14,6437,826 Day Splits 53.4 46.6 Peak Hour 11:00 04:15 07:15 12:45 07:30 04:15 Volume 543 799 686 550 1,058 1,303 Factor 0.90 0.94 0.85 0.97 0.92 0.97 Data File :D1108021* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::MAIN STREETLocation Date::S/O KATELLA AVENUESegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 35 162 602 14 37 156 608 72 1,2101631830 12:15 134 8 154 9 28817 12:30 144 9 145 5 28914 12:45 162 6 153 5 31511 01:00 19 128 549 4 19 130 548 38 1,0971125815 01:15 122 9 141 2 26311 01:30 156 3 133 2 2895 01:45 143 3 144 4 2877 02:00 22 152 603 3 11 100 432 33 1,03562529 02:15 151 2 116 1 2673 02:30 168 2 112 5 2807 02:45 132 4 104 10 23614 03:00 23 158 622 4 20 106 461 43 1,08342648 03:15 128 2 108 8 23610 03:30 184 2 132 7 3169 03:45 152 12 115 4 26716 04:00 43 216 777 8 71 106 494 114 1,271632214 04:15 174 7 122 10 29617 04:30 224 22 138 15 36237 04:45 163 34 128 12 29146 05:00 106 214 761 20 164 110 430 270 1,1911432434 05:15 199 34 123 18 32252 05:30 184 50 83 29 26779 05:45 164 60 114 45 278105 06:00 205 164 510 39 297 87 373 502 8833025169 06:15 136 68 108 36 244104 06:30 104 79 98 59 202138 06:45 106 111 80 80 186191 07:00 345 102 323 121 759 72 230 1,104 55376174197 07:15 77 150 62 84 139234 07:30 84 230 46 92 130322 07:45 60 258 50 93 110351 08:00 405 60 241 222 878 44 168 1,283 409104104326 08:15 76 254 36 100 112354 08:30 68 204 56 91 124295 08:45 37 198 32 110 69308 09:00 373 42 151 166 562 38 137 935 2888980255 09:15 38 170 37 84 75254 09:30 38 118 27 102 65220 09:45 33 108 35 98 68206 10:00 435 46 144 116 435 36 115 870 25910982225 10:15 28 115 33 114 61229 10:30 40 100 26 104 66204 10:45 30 104 20 108 50212 11:00 571 15 72 166 584 18 79 1,155 15114333309 11:15 23 136 18 129 41265 11:30 20 142 26 154 46296 11:45 14 140 17 145 31285 Totals 2,582 5,355 3,837 4,075 6,419 9,430 Split%56.8 59.8 43.240.2 Day Totals 7,912 15,8497,937 Day Splits 50.1 49.9 Peak Hour 11:00 04:30 07:30 12:00 07:30 04:30 Volume 571 800 964 608 1,353 1,299 Factor 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.90 Data File :D1108021* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::PHOENIX CLUB DRIVELocation: Date::S/O BALL ROADSegment:08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:SB NB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 4 44 183 0 5 66 214 9 39701100 12:15 46 0 48 0 940 12:30 51 2 50 2 1014 12:45 42 3 50 2 925 01:00 3 44 142 3 3 42 172 6 3140863 01:15 27 0 44 0 710 01:30 27 0 38 2 652 01:45 44 0 48 1 921 02:00 2 34 145 1 3 41 191 5 3360751 02:15 38 0 47 0 850 02:30 30 0 60 0 900 02:45 43 2 43 2 864 03:00 3 14 107 0 4 59 205 7 3121731 03:15 28 3 58 1 864 03:30 29 1 40 1 692 03:45 36 0 48 0 840 04:00 0 31 126 0 0 54 174 0 3000850 04:15 26 0 43 0 690 04:30 33 0 33 0 660 04:45 36 0 44 0 800 05:00 11 44 169 0 2 36 144 13 3130800 05:15 39 0 40 0 790 05:30 38 0 34 4 724 05:45 48 2 34 7 829 06:00 25 34 160 2 7 38 144 32 3041723 06:15 38 0 38 0 760 06:30 48 2 40 10 8812 06:45 40 3 28 14 6817 07:00 119 27 87 4 26 36 122 145 209226326 07:15 24 6 36 25 6031 07:30 23 8 26 28 4936 07:45 13 8 24 44 3752 08:00 151 8 16 18 56 28 136 207 152393657 08:15 8 10 36 28 4438 08:30 0 16 36 40 3656 08:45 0 12 36 44 3656 09:00 163 0 10 15 65 58 141 228 151385853 09:15 2 14 26 36 2850 09:30 4 18 32 41 3659 09:45 4 18 25 48 2966 10:00 211 2 4 26 118 25 87 329 91502776 10:15 0 30 15 42 1572 10:30 2 28 23 54 2582 10:45 0 34 24 65 2499 11:00 218 0 11 32 127 17 37 345 48571789 11:15 7 32 9 62 1694 11:30 0 38 5 50 588 11:45 4 25 6 49 1074 Totals 910 1,160 416 1,767 1,326 2,927 Split%39.6 31.4 60.468.6 Day Totals 2,183 4,2532,070 Day Splits 48.7 51.3 Peak Hour 10:30 12:00 10:45 02:30 10:45 12:00 Volume 238 183 136 220 370 397 Factor 0.92 0.90 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.90 Data File :D1108026 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::PHOENIX CLUB DRIVELocation: Date::S/O BALL ROADSegment:08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:SB NB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 2 46 189 1 5 37 191 7 3800831 12:15 63 0 52 1 1151 12:30 33 4 54 1 875 12:45 47 0 48 0 950 01:00 1 53 167 1 5 55 205 6 37201081 01:15 36 2 61 1 973 01:30 45 1 48 0 931 01:45 33 1 41 0 741 02:00 1 29 87 0 2 40 228 3 3150690 02:15 26 2 54 1 803 02:30 14 0 68 0 820 02:45 18 0 66 0 840 03:00 0 10 107 0 0 72 204 0 3110820 03:15 30 0 44 0 740 03:30 30 0 46 0 760 03:45 37 0 42 0 790 04:00 1 35 130 0 0 52 202 1 3320870 04:15 36 0 47 0 830 04:30 38 0 54 0 920 04:45 21 0 49 1 701 05:00 6 23 94 0 4 58 203 10 2970810 05:15 28 0 49 3 773 05:30 18 3 50 2 685 05:45 25 1 46 1 712 06:00 26 26 114 0 4 42 144 30 2584684 06:15 26 0 30 4 564 06:30 35 0 44 9 799 06:45 27 4 28 9 5513 07:00 116 38 91 4 24 32 104 140 195207024 07:15 22 6 22 22 4428 07:30 14 6 26 31 4037 07:45 17 8 24 43 4151 08:00 182 8 27 24 80 26 80 262 107423466 08:15 11 20 20 48 3168 08:30 4 22 19 40 2362 08:45 4 14 15 52 1966 09:00 174 9 19 17 73 25 95 247 114573474 09:15 4 20 18 38 2258 09:30 2 14 33 40 3554 09:45 4 22 19 39 2361 10:00 192 3 8 25 122 17 59 314 67422067 10:15 0 32 20 56 2088 10:30 3 33 9 48 1281 10:45 2 32 13 46 1578 11:00 194 2 8 40 145 9 19 339 276011100 11:15 1 36 3 49 485 11:30 4 38 2 48 686 11:45 1 31 5 37 668 Totals 895 1,041 464 1,734 1,359 2,775 Split%37.5 34.1 62.565.9 Day Totals 2,198 4,1341,936 Day Splits 46.8 53.2 Peak Hour 10:15 12:15 10:45 02:15 10:45 12:15 Volume 210 196 146 260 349 405 Factor 0.88 0.78 0.91 0.90 0.87 0.88 Data File :D1108026 Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARDLocation: Date::N/O KATELLA AVENUESegment:08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 125 197 766 45 94 200 706 219 1,4723839783 12:15 190 19 180 28 37047 12:30 187 18 154 37 34155 12:45 192 12 172 22 36434 01:00 83 223 823 9 35 187 712 118 1,5352841037 01:15 216 10 185 20 40130 01:30 178 11 198 24 37635 01:45 206 5 142 11 34816 02:00 117 169 812 8 33 154 654 150 1,4663032338 02:15 222 10 156 37 37847 02:30 218 5 178 28 39633 02:45 203 10 166 22 36932 03:00 62 208 962 12 47 160 711 109 1,6731636828 03:15 226 12 159 13 38525 03:30 274 11 187 11 46122 03:45 254 12 205 22 45934 04:00 96 270 1,105 13 74 222 860 170 1,9651549228 04:15 257 18 188 20 44538 04:30 314 22 228 31 54253 04:45 264 21 222 30 48651 05:00 172 323 1,152 26 152 314 1,072 324 2,2242963755 05:15 278 26 278 26 55652 05:30 243 40 260 51 50391 05:45 308 60 220 66 528126 06:00 330 233 818 48 335 242 869 665 1,68760475108 06:15 208 60 210 64 418124 06:30 203 91 227 86 430177 06:45 174 136 190 120 364256 07:00 709 124 492 136 791 171 529 1,500 1,021158295294 07:15 116 175 148 154 264329 07:30 138 240 112 159 250399 07:45 114 240 98 238 212478 08:00 733 118 433 194 754 98 324 1,487 757196216390 08:15 114 204 84 200 198404 08:30 86 174 78 170 164344 08:45 115 182 64 167 179349 09:00 699 112 655 150 506 67 293 1,205 948187179337 09:15 177 144 76 165 253309 09:30 140 130 55 182 195312 09:45 226 82 95 165 321247 10:00 508 160 479 160 592 62 218 1,100 697124222284 10:15 136 124 61 127 197251 10:30 89 153 50 126 139279 10:45 94 155 45 131 139286 11:00 591 52 170 152 612 32 113 1,203 28313484286 11:15 38 132 34 156 72288 11:30 51 174 28 144 79318 11:45 29 154 19 157 48311 Totals 4,225 8,667 4,025 7,061 8,250 15,728 Split%55.1 48.8 44.951.2 Day Totals 11,086 23,97812,892 Day Splits 53.8 46.2 Peak Hour 07:45 04:30 07:30 04:45 07:30 05:00 Volume 804 1,179 878 1,074 1,671 2,224 Factor 0.84 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.87 0.87 Data File :D1108018* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARDLocation: Date::N/O KATELLA AVENUESegment:08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:NB SB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 92 208 933 28 73 168 710 165 1,6432137649 12:15 250 22 184 29 43451 12:30 224 9 180 20 40429 12:45 251 14 178 22 42936 01:00 82 234 831 13 40 153 683 122 1,5142238735 01:15 213 7 184 27 39734 01:30 205 9 179 19 38428 01:45 179 11 167 14 34625 02:00 76 206 858 12 34 159 675 110 1,5333036542 02:15 214 6 156 16 37022 02:30 238 7 194 16 43223 02:45 200 9 166 14 36623 03:00 63 223 904 3 46 196 726 109 1,6301941922 03:15 196 12 166 14 36226 03:30 271 16 190 14 46130 03:45 214 15 174 16 38831 04:00 96 238 1,044 6 71 222 867 167 1,9112846034 04:15 248 14 186 14 43428 04:30 246 29 242 24 48853 04:45 312 22 217 30 52952 05:00 203 320 1,229 26 167 252 910 370 2,1393557261 05:15 361 31 224 30 58561 05:30 302 62 256 60 558122 05:45 246 48 178 78 424126 06:00 400 272 774 56 341 212 641 741 1,41580484136 06:15 200 66 188 67 388133 06:30 182 82 116 107 298189 06:45 120 137 125 146 245283 07:00 729 120 506 158 905 118 402 1,634 908134238292 07:15 144 198 114 159 258357 07:30 128 273 84 190 212463 07:45 114 276 86 246 200522 08:00 888 92 412 220 880 79 308 1,768 720223171443 08:15 104 209 87 231 191440 08:30 108 225 74 214 182439 08:45 108 226 68 220 176446 09:00 657 94 353 178 642 54 240 1,299 593167148345 09:15 102 152 62 150 164302 09:30 75 162 64 168 139330 09:45 82 150 60 172 142322 10:00 610 84 290 138 553 53 187 1,163 477152137290 10:15 71 135 55 171 126306 10:30 80 134 42 127 122261 10:45 55 146 37 160 92306 11:00 706 65 168 166 640 23 139 1,346 30715888324 11:15 29 160 44 160 73320 11:30 38 152 40 184 78336 11:45 36 162 32 204 68366 Totals 4,602 8,302 4,392 6,488 8,994 14,790 Split%56.1 48.8 43.951.2 Day Totals 10,880 23,78412,904 Day Splits 54.3 45.7 Peak Hour 07:45 04:45 07:30 04:45 07:30 04:45 Volume 914 1,295 978 949 1,868 2,244 Factor 0.93 0.90 0.89 0.93 0.89 0.96 Data File :D1108018* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARDLocation: Date::S/O KATELLA AVENUESegment:08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 160 221 841 30 97 179 805 257 1,6464040070 12:15 220 18 212 60 43278 12:30 198 25 180 32 37857 12:45 202 24 234 28 43652 01:00 94 198 746 13 55 216 791 149 1,5372441437 01:15 211 18 199 27 41045 01:30 168 11 192 32 36043 01:45 169 13 184 11 35324 02:00 75 188 745 12 48 186 731 123 1,4762637438 02:15 191 12 176 17 36729 02:30 180 10 192 23 37233 02:45 186 14 177 9 36323 03:00 48 244 944 15 61 178 753 109 1,6971442229 03:15 204 14 160 3 36417 03:30 250 16 207 16 45732 03:45 246 16 208 15 45431 04:00 79 300 1,140 17 87 216 930 166 2,0701651633 04:15 291 18 228 11 51929 04:30 266 23 228 24 49447 04:45 283 29 258 28 54157 05:00 133 352 1,241 32 182 314 1,252 315 2,4931866650 05:15 306 36 326 28 63264 05:30 308 44 316 34 62478 05:45 275 70 296 53 571123 06:00 284 268 886 76 525 334 1,460 809 2,34645602121 06:15 217 112 348 60 565172 06:30 214 139 404 80 618219 06:45 187 198 374 99 561297 07:00 569 165 634 174 937 308 909 1,506 1,543119473293 07:15 190 199 272 138 462337 07:30 132 276 175 128 307404 07:45 147 288 154 184 301472 08:00 630 134 503 239 897 120 389 1,527 892170254409 08:15 124 246 98 172 222418 08:30 128 211 102 157 230368 08:45 117 201 69 131 186332 09:00 595 143 944 152 598 94 342 1,193 1,286160237312 09:15 238 172 80 148 318320 09:30 232 136 88 142 320278 09:45 331 138 80 145 411283 10:00 591 228 588 142 590 77 259 1,181 847146305288 10:15 201 134 68 165 269299 10:30 92 156 62 145 154301 10:45 67 158 52 135 119293 11:00 674 39 151 155 639 48 169 1,313 32013687291 11:15 36 140 36 172 72312 11:30 46 162 50 166 96328 11:45 30 182 35 200 65382 Totals 3,932 9,363 4,716 8,790 8,648 18,153 Split%51.6 54.5 48.445.5 Day Totals 13,506 26,80113,295 Day Splits 49.6 50.4 Peak Hour 07:45 04:45 07:30 06:00 07:30 05:00 Volume 683 1,249 1,049 1,460 1,703 2,493 Factor 0.93 0.89 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.94 Data File :D1108019* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARDLocation: Date::S/O KATELLA AVENUESegment:08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient: Interval Combined Day:NB SB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 90 230 845 40 118 211 833 208 1,6782944169 12:15 225 28 224 24 44952 12:30 178 30 186 21 36451 12:45 212 20 212 16 42436 01:00 79 202 722 23 81 198 752 160 1,4743140054 01:15 177 20 198 18 37538 01:30 180 22 178 16 35838 01:45 163 16 178 14 34130 02:00 53 164 757 11 31 166 700 84 1,4571733028 02:15 196 5 156 8 35213 02:30 200 8 174 14 37422 02:45 197 7 204 14 40121 03:00 39 206 870 6 45 192 732 84 1,602939815 03:15 198 18 174 11 37229 03:30 248 11 193 6 44117 03:45 218 10 173 13 39123 04:00 84 268 1,070 7 76 222 856 160 1,9261649023 04:15 264 14 194 22 45836 04:30 250 24 242 20 49244 04:45 288 31 198 26 48657 05:00 144 314 1,206 38 195 268 966 339 2,1722358261 05:15 326 32 226 29 55261 05:30 328 57 272 34 60091 05:45 238 68 200 58 438126 06:00 317 282 836 69 471 240 712 788 1,54852522121 06:15 220 126 202 66 422192 06:30 189 102 130 79 319181 06:45 145 174 140 120 285294 07:00 593 167 551 190 1,048 124 432 1,641 983118291308 07:15 142 234 120 136 262370 07:30 140 296 78 171 218467 07:45 102 328 110 168 212496 08:00 648 108 397 264 959 104 379 1,607 776188212452 08:15 87 254 98 170 185424 08:30 108 229 95 156 203385 08:45 94 212 82 134 176346 09:00 599 100 392 185 681 84 327 1,280 719163184348 09:15 108 162 74 150 182312 09:30 88 164 89 142 177306 09:45 96 170 80 144 176314 10:00 581 96 283 118 575 88 275 1,156 558143184261 10:15 63 142 60 170 123312 10:30 80 152 56 133 136285 10:45 44 163 71 135 115298 11:00 676 55 199 158 664 68 229 1,340 428132123290 11:15 47 171 67 172 114343 11:30 43 173 56 169 99342 11:45 54 162 38 203 92365 Totals 3,903 8,128 4,944 7,193 8,847 15,321 Split%53.1 55.9 46.944.1 Day Totals 12,137 24,16812,031 Day Splits 49.8 50.2 Peak Hour 07:30 04:45 07:30 05:00 07:30 04:45 Volume 697 1,256 1,142 966 1,839 2,220 Factor 0.93 0.96 0.87 0.89 0.93 0.93 Data File :D1108019* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::SUNKIST STREETLocation Date::N/O CERRITOS AVENUESegment 08/24/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Wednesday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 19 56 221 3 14 38 218 33 4395948 12:15 72 6 57 5 12911 12:30 54 1 55 7 1098 12:45 39 4 68 2 1076 01:00 20 35 201 4 11 70 204 31 40541058 01:15 52 1 46 3 984 01:30 52 2 52 9 10411 01:45 62 4 36 4 988 02:00 6 66 247 1 12 52 191 18 43821183 02:15 46 1 50 0 961 02:30 76 6 52 2 1288 02:45 59 4 37 2 966 03:00 6 74 403 4 15 51 230 21 63321256 03:15 76 2 53 3 1295 03:30 149 3 60 1 2094 03:45 104 6 66 0 1706 04:00 25 109 371 9 52 60 233 77 604516914 04:15 78 6 64 2 1428 04:30 100 12 51 12 15124 04:45 84 25 58 6 14231 05:00 56 147 416 14 116 66 259 172 6751721331 05:15 98 22 64 13 16235 05:30 98 24 60 8 15832 05:45 73 56 69 18 14274 06:00 83 86 226 50 248 56 251 331 4772414274 06:15 52 47 72 18 12465 06:30 52 66 62 14 11480 06:45 36 85 61 27 97112 07:00 145 48 161 93 485 38 104 630 2652686119 07:15 56 122 32 37 88159 07:30 26 132 13 32 39164 07:45 31 138 21 50 52188 08:00 150 35 103 98 344 16 50 494 1535051148 08:15 30 90 16 36 46126 08:30 20 102 5 32 25134 08:45 18 54 13 32 3186 09:00 121 29 165 64 230 10 36 351 201303994 09:15 29 48 10 26 3974 09:30 36 62 10 31 4693 09:45 71 56 6 34 7790 10:00 143 41 107 46 174 6 26 317 133384784 10:15 38 39 8 34 4673 10:30 15 47 7 33 2280 10:45 13 42 5 38 1880 11:00 142 19 52 45 185 5 16 327 68372482 11:15 16 40 4 39 2079 11:30 8 54 2 36 1090 11:45 9 46 5 30 1476 Totals 916 2,673 1,886 1,818 2,802 4,491 Split%59.5 67.3 40.532.7 Day Totals 3,704 7,2933,589 Day Splits 49.2 50.8 Peak Hour 07:15 03:30 07:15 05:00 07:15 03:30 Volume 169 440 490 259 659 690 Factor 0.85 0.74 0.89 0.94 0.88 0.83 Data File :D1108023* Transportation Studies, Inc. 2640 Walnut Avenue, Ste H Tustin, CA. 92780 ANAHEIMSite::SUNKIST STREETLocation Date::N/O CERRITOS AVENUESegment 08/25/11 :CITY OF ANAHEIMClient Interval Combined Day:NB SB Thursday Begin PMAMPMAMPMAM 12:00 24 70 244 3 7 48 229 31 473911812 12:15 58 0 60 9 1189 12:30 58 0 55 4 1134 12:45 58 4 66 2 1246 01:00 14 49 222 3 10 60 192 24 41451098 01:15 52 2 48 2 1004 01:30 52 1 56 7 1088 01:45 69 4 28 0 974 02:00 14 54 254 3 9 56 205 23 45951108 02:15 63 3 48 3 1116 02:30 70 1 43 2 1133 02:45 67 2 58 4 1256 03:00 6 89 424 2 12 44 217 18 64141336 03:15 106 2 51 0 1572 03:30 133 2 54 0 1872 03:45 96 6 68 2 1648 04:00 27 113 541 2 54 64 257 81 79861778 04:15 108 5 53 5 16110 04:30 140 16 66 7 20623 04:45 180 31 74 9 25440 05:00 51 196 762 16 122 70 265 173 1,027726623 05:15 202 26 63 10 26536 05:30 204 26 60 8 26434 05:45 160 54 72 26 23280 06:00 71 122 293 36 220 65 195 291 4881218748 06:15 78 47 52 14 13061 06:30 46 58 48 25 9483 06:45 47 79 30 20 7799 07:00 119 48 153 121 546 18 91 665 2442366144 07:15 39 137 27 32 66169 07:30 37 144 16 30 53174 07:45 29 144 30 34 59178 08:00 200 32 97 138 461 23 63 661 1605455192 08:15 20 125 21 48 41173 08:30 22 98 9 56 31154 08:45 23 100 10 42 33142 09:00 129 24 99 68 262 14 48 391 1473438102 09:15 36 71 12 33 48104 09:30 20 63 11 32 3195 09:45 19 60 11 30 3090 10:00 145 16 62 58 228 8 31 373 93282486 10:15 23 60 7 37 3097 10:30 13 62 3 44 16106 10:45 10 48 13 36 2384 11:00 168 13 57 36 159 4 16 327 73501786 11:15 20 32 2 38 2270 11:30 13 41 0 42 1383 11:45 11 50 10 38 2188 Totals 968 3,208 2,090 1,809 3,058 5,017 Split%63.9 68.3 36.131.7 Day Totals 3,899 8,0754,176 Day Splits 51.7 48.3 Peak Hour 08:00 04:45 07:15 04:30 07:30 04:45 Volume 200 782 563 273 717 1,049 Factor 0.89 0.96 0.98 0.92 0.93 0.99 Data File :D1108023* Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX C: EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME AND SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM NHL peak hour event trips (14,021 attendance)2,306 Counted Event Attendance Avg Seating Capacity Growth Factor Max Seating Capacity Growth Factor MLB peak hour event trips (25,462 attendance)4,973 DUCKS 14,021 11,264 0.80 18,900 1.35 MLB 25,462 29,402 1.15 Summary of Year 2011 Freeway Ramp Volumes P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 1 I-5 SB on-ramp at Lincoln 1%23 0%0 19 27 0 2 I-5 SB off-ramp to Machester/Disneyland Dr.0%0 0%0 0 0 0 3 I-5 SB on-ramp from Machester/Disneyland Dr.0%0 2%99 0 0 134 4 I-5 SB off-ramp to Harbor 1%23 0%0 19 27 0 5 I-5 SB off-ramp to Katella/Orangewood 2%46 3%149 37 53 201 6 I-5 NB off-ramp to Katella NA pending NA pending 7 SR-57 NB on-ramp from I-5 5%115 0%0 93 133 0 8 SR-57 NB on-ramp from chapman WB 5%115 0%0 93 133 0 9 SR-57 NB off-ramp to orange 1%23 0%0 19 27 0 10 SR-57 NB on-ramp from orangewood WB 2%46 0%0 37 53 0 11 SR-57 NB off-ramp to Katella NA 675 NA 235 542 779 317 12 SR-57 NB on-ramp from Katella NA 0 NA 95 0 0 128 13 SR-57 NB off-ramp to Ball NA 148 NA -121 119 171 -163 14 SR-57 SB on-ramp from SR-91 WB 2%46 5%249 37 53 335 15 SR-57 SB off-ramp to Lincoln 0%0 0%0 0 0 0 16 SR-57 SB on-ramp from Lincoln 0 0 0 17 SR-57 SB off-ramp to Ball NA 513 NA -69 412 593 -93 18 SR-57 SB on-ramp from Ball NA 43 NA 29 35 50 39 19 SR-57 SB off-ramp to katella NA 353 NA 688 283 407 927 P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ( 6-7 PM)P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 3 I-5 SB on-ramp from Machester/Disneyland Dr.900 660 660 790 660 790 4 I-5 SB off-ramp to Harbor 640 470 490 490 500 500 5 I-5 SB off-ramp to Katella 200 150 190 390 200 400 6 I-5 NB off-ramp to Katella 1,120 960 960 960 960 960 8 SR-57 NB on-ramp from chapman WB 330 270 360 360 400 400 9 SR-57 NB off-ramp to orangewood 280 225 240 240 250 250 10 SR-57 NB on-ramp from orangewood WB 280 230 270 270 280 280 11 SR-57 NB off-ramp to Katella NA 460 1,000 1,320 1,240 1,560 12 SR-57 NB on-ramp from Katella WB NA 200 200 330 200 330 13 SR-57 NB off-ramp to Ball NA 560 680 680 730 730 14 SR-57 SB on-ramp from SR-91 WB 1,530 924 960 1,300 980 1,320 15 SR-57 SB off-ramp to Lincoln 1,030 750 750 750 750 750 17 SR-57 SB off-ramp to Ball NA 690 1,100 1,100 1,280 1,280 18 SR-57 SB on-ramp from Ball EB NA 340 370 410 390 430 19 SR-57 SB off-ramp to katella NA 580 860 1,790 990 1,920 XX Calculated from ramp termini intersection volumes Ramp volume includes the off-ramp volumes to Manchester/Orangewood NB turning movement multiplied by the split from the model. Existing + Max HC Existing + Max HC + Avg MLB Calculated Event Trips Honda Center Event (Average Attendance) MLB Event(Average Attendance) New Honda Center (Maximum Attendance) EVENT TRIPS Computed NHL Event Trips (14,021 attendance) HC TD % based on Select Link Angel Stadium TD % based on Select LinkRamp SegmentID Computed MLB Event Trips (25,462 attendance) Ramp Segment Existing 2011 No Event Existing + Avg HCExisting 2008 (PTMLUP)Existing + Avg HC + Avg MLB Counted Event Attendance Avg Seating Capacity Growth Factor Max Seating Capacity Growth Factor NHL peak hour event trips (14,021 attendance)2306 14,021 11,264 0.80 18,900 1.35 MLB peak hour event trips (25,462 attendance)4973 25,462 29,402 1.15 Summary of Year 2011 Freeway Mainline Volumes and Speeds P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 1 I-5 SB b/w Lincoln & Machester/disneyland dr.3%69 3%149 56 80 201 2 I-5 SB b/w Disneyland Dr. & Harbor 3%69 5%249 56 80 335 3 I-5 SB b/w Harbor & Disney way 3%69 5%249 56 80 335 4 I-5 SB b/w Disney Way & Katella 2%46 3%149 37 53 201 5 I-5 NB b/w Katella & Gene Autry Way 0%0 0%0 0 0 0 6 SR-57 NB before connector from I-5 6%138 0%0 111 160 0 7 SR-57 NB b/w I-5 and Chapman loop on-ramp 11%254 0%0 204 293 0 8 SR-57 NB b/w Chapman & Orangewood 18%415 0%0 333 479 0 9 SR-57 NB b/w Orangewood & Katella 20%461 0%0 371 533 0 10 SR-57 NB b/w Katella & Ball 1%23 0%0 19 27 0 11 SR-57 SB b/w SR-91 & Lincoln 9%208 7%348 167 240 469 12 SR-57 SB b/w Lincoln & Ball 9%208 10%497 167 240 670 13 SR-57 SB b/w Ball & katella 1%23 9%448 19 27 603 P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour (6- 7PM)P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 1 I-5 SB b/w Lincoln & Machester/disneyland dr.5,960 6,020 6,220 6,040 6,240 68 2 I-5 SB b/w Disneyland Dr. & Harbor 7,880 6,480 6,540 6,880 6,560 6,900 73 3 I-5 SB b/w Harbor & Disney way 6,310 6,370 6,710 6,390 6,730 69 8 SR-57 NB b/w Chapman & Orangewood 8,770 7,010 7,340 7,340 7,490 7,490 69 9 SR-57 NB b/w Orangewood & Katella 7,790 6,230 6,600 6,600 6,760 6,760 70 10 SR-57 NB b/w Katella & Ball 7,950 6,420 6,440 6,440 6,450 6,450 64 11 SR-57 SB b/w SR-91 & Lincoln 7,390 5,700 5,870 6,340 5,940 6,410 65 12 SR-57 SB b/w Lincoln & Ball 7,370 6,540 6,710 7,380 6,780 7,450 69 13 SR-57 SB b/w Ball & katella 7,380 5,360 5,380 5,980 5,390 5,990 65 Source: xx Freeway No Event Volumes calculated based on adjacent segment growth rate Freeway No Event Volumes obtained from PeMs data April 7th 2011 (6-7 PM) Existing Speed Honda Center Event (Average Attendance) New Honda Center (Maximum Attendance) MLB Event(Average Attendance) Calculated Event Trips Existing + Max HC EVENT TRIPS ID Mainline Volumes Existing No Event 2011 Existing + Max HC + Avg MLB HC TD % based on Select Link Computed NHL Event Trips (14,021 attendance) Angel Stadium TD % based on Select Link Computed MLB Event Trips (25,462 attendance) Mainline VolumesID Existing 2008 (PTMLUP)Existing + Avg HC Existing + Avg HC + Avg MLB Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX D: HONDA CENTER EVENT TRIPS Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices (PROJECT TRIPS) Average Attendance Honda Center Event Peak Hour Trips L T R L T R L T R L T R 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 79 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 105 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 14 13 27 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 30 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 26 105 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 52 52 132 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 238 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 27 14 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 14 45 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 26 238 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 32 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 13 27 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 15 54 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 15 74 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 83 141 34 13 6 16 264 4 2 14 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 141 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 110 32 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 63 31 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 63 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 63 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 47 16 16 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 3 41 1 8 381 10 15 31 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 5 16 30 43 5 54 28 174 126 26 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 11 33 182 33 89 9 28 2 12 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 2 22 21 15 408 28 76 43 97 26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 328 186 9 24 113 19 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 240 112 498 22 111 28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps*Anaheim 41 107 370 3 106 19 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 55 619 724 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 35 36 10 14 4 814 370 109 46 193 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 9 2 6 2 10 10 24 411 78 106 4 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 29 5 27 43 490 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 10 59 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 58 65 16 30 54 1 14 7 22 334 5 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 90 130 2 2 15 36 3 3 9 1 27 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 10 49 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 223 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 25 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 223 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 167 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 167 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 83 84 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Orange 84 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Orange 84 Eastbound WestboundIDIntersectionJurisdictionNorthboundSouthbound Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices (PROJECT TRIPS) Peak Hour Project Trips L T R L T R L T R L T R 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 133 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 177 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 23 22 45 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 50 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 44 177 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 89 88 222 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 399 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 45 23 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 25 75 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 44 399 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 52 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 23 45 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 25 91 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 25 125 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 139 236 57 22 9 27 443 7 3 23 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 236 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 184 52 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 105 52 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 105 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 105 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 78 26 26 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 5 69 1 13 639 16 26 51 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 8 27 50 73 8 90 47 293 212 43 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 19 55 306 55 150 15 47 4 20 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 3 38 35 26 685 47 128 71 163 26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 0 550 311 15 40 190 32 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 403 189 836 36 186 28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps*Anaheim 69 0 179 621 5 178 32 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 93 1,039 1,215 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 58 61 16 24 7 1,366 620 183 77 324 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 15 3 9 4 18 16 40 690 131 178 7 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 49 8 44 71 822 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 16 98 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 97 109 27 50 90 1 24 12 36 561 8 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 151 218 4 3 26 61 5 5 15 1 46 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 16 82 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 374 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 40 42 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 374 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 281 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 281 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 140 141 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Orange 141 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Orange 141 Eastbound WestboundIDIntersectionJurisdictionNorthboundSouthbound Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX E: ANGEL STADIUM EVENT TRIPS (AVERAGE ATTENDANCE ANGEL STADIUM EVENT TRIPS) Average Attendance Angel Stadium Event Peak Hour Trips L T R L T R L T R L T R 1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 85 2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 127 3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 42 4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 42 5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 212 6 Manchester Avenue (I-5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 85 212 212 7 Anaheim Way (I-5 Northbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim 509 8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim 0 9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 42 42 10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim 42 509 11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 100 12 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim 93 13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim 187 93 93 14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 468 42 15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim 36 126 92 113 355 21 48 233 319 385 152 16 16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim 92 59 1,000 17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim 92 852 1,000 100 18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim/ Orange 796 149 19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Orange 447 348 20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Orange 447 21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange 348 99 22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim 98 16 37 2 9 99 240 102 98 293 115 23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim 45 134 3 52 24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim 1 31 16 3 3 25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim 15 6 39 24 126 26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Anaheim 55 6 28 27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 537 258 162 30 216 20 28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps*Anaheim 65 96 29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim 52 219 641 58 185 52 30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim 2 14 8 52 25 66 849 290 202 31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim 16 7 2 3 12 47 10 50 6 32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange 10 6 6 391 33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange 34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange 1 17 10 262 17 35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange 25 18 1 3 5 16 8 6 8 13 36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange 37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange 262 38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange 66 39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange 66 164 40 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange 164 41 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange 164 42 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange 33 33 98 43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Orange 98 44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Orange 98 Eastbound WestboundIDIntersectionJurisdictionNorthboundSouthbound Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Final Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX F: INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS L T R L T R L T R L T R Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 Without Project 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 0 2 4 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 0 2 4 0 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 0 2 3 1 2030 Without Project 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 0 2 4 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 0 2 4 0 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim Existing Conditions 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 0 1 3 1 2030 Without Project 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 3 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2030 Without Project 2 3 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.5 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 3 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 0 2 3 1 2030 Without Project 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 0 2 4 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 4 0 2 4 1 Manchester Avenue (I-5 SB Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1.5 0 1.5 2 2 1 0 3 1 2 3 0 2030 Without Project 1.5 0 1.5 2 2 1 0 4 2 2 4 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1.5 0 1.5 2 2 1 0 4 2 2 4 0 Anaheim Way (I-5 NB Ramps) / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1.5 3 0.5 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 3.5 1.5 2030 Without Project 1.5 3 0.5 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 4.5 1.5 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 3 1 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 4.5 1.5 Lewis Street / Ball Road Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 2 3 0 2030 Without Project 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 2 3 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 2 3 0 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2030 Without Project 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 2030 Without Project 2 2 1 2 1.5 1.5 2 4 0 2 5 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 2 1 2 1.5 1.5 2 5 0 2 5 0 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Anaheim Existing Conditions 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 2030 Without Project 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 2.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 2.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5 East Street / Ball Road Anaheim Existing Conditions 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 0 2030 Without Project 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 3 0 0 3 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 3 0 0 3 0 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Anaheim Existing Conditions 2 3 1 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 2030 Without Project 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2030 Without Project 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2.5 1.5 2 3 1 2030 Without Project 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 4 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 4 1 2 4 1 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Anaheim Existing Conditions 0 3 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2030 Without Project 1 3 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 3 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Anaheim Existing Conditions 2 3 0 2 3 0 1.5 1.5 0 1 1 1 2030 Without Project 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1.5 1.5 2 3 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1.5 1.5 2 3 0 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Anaheim / Existing Conditions Orange 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 3 0 2030 Without Project 2 4 1 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 4 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 5 0 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 4 1 State College Boulevard / I-5 NB Ramps Orange Existing Conditions 2 4 F 1 4 1 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 2 2030 Without Project 2 4 F 1 4 1 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 2 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 4 F 1 4 1 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 2 State College Boulevard / I-5 SB Ramps Orange Existing Conditions 0 5 0 0 4 F 1.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 2030 Without Project 0 5 0 0 4 F 1.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 0 5 0 0 4 F 1.5 0.5 2 0 0 0 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 Without Project 2 3 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 2.5 1.5 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 3 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 2.5 1.5 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 1 2030 Without Project 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 2030 Without Project 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 3 0 2 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 3 1 2 2 0 2 4 0 2 3 1 17 23 22 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 8 9 10 11 6 7 Eastbound Westbound 3 4 5 1 2 ID Intersection Jurisdiction Northbound Southbound V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\TrafficAnalysis\ICU\HondaCenter-IsecLaneConfigs-010312.xlsx 1/4/2012 L T R L T R L T R L T R Eastbound WestboundIDIntersectionJurisdictionNorthboundSouthbound Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2030 Without Project 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 1 1 2 0.5 0.5 2 3 0 2 3 0 2030 Without Project 1 1 1 2 0.5 1.5 2 3 0 2 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 1 1 2 0.5 1.5 2 4 1 2 3 1 Ball Road / SR-57 SB Ramps Anaheim Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0.5 0 1.5 0 3 F 0 3 F 2030 Without Project 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 F 0 3 F 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 F 0 4 F SR-57 SB Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 F 0 3 F 2030 Without Project 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 F 0 3 F 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 F 0 4 F Ball Road / SR-57 NB Ramps Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 F 0 3 F 2030 Without Project 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 F 0 3 F 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 F 0 4 F SR-57 NB Ramps / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 F 0 3 1 2030 Without Project 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 F 0 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 3 F 0 4 1 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Anaheim Existing Conditions 1 1 0 1 0.5 1.5 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 Without Project 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 3 4 2 2 4 1 3 4 1 2 5 2 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Anaheim Existing Conditions 1.33 0.34 0.33 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 2030 Without Project 1.33 0.34 0.33 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1.33 0.34 0.33 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 0 2030 Without Project 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 4 0 Main Street / Taft Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 1.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2030 Without Project 2.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 Main Street / Katella Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 0 2030 Without Project 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 0 Main Street / Struck Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2030 Without Project 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 2030 Without Project 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 3 1 2 3 1 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 2030 Without Project 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 2030 Without Project 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 2030 Without Project 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.33 1 3 0 1 3 0 2030 Without Project 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.33 1 3 0 1 3 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.33 1 3 0 1 3 0 Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 2030 Without Project 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 Without Project 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 3 1 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 3 1 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2.5 1.5 1 3 0 2030 Without Project 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2.5 1.5 1 3 0 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 2 2 3 0 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Orange Existing Conditions 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 F 0 3 F 2030 Without Project 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 F 0 3 F 2030 With Project With Recommended Mitigation 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 F 0 3 F Source: City of Anaheim F - Free right-turn lane 44 38 40 41 42 43 36 37 39 33 34 35 31 30 32 28 26 29 27 24 25 V:\11944-AnaheimPlanningServices\174653A-OCRoyals-HondaCenter\TrafficAnalysis\ICU\HondaCenter-IsecLaneConfigs-010312.xlsx 1/4/2012 Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX G-1: ICU WORKSHEETS UNDER 2011 BASELINE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 236 0.07 *3400 236 0.07 *NBL 2 3400 236 0.07 *3400 236 0.07 * NBT 3 5100 786 0.15 5100 786 0.15 NBT 3 5100 786 0.15 5100 786 0.15 NBR 1 1700 368 0.22 1700 368 0.22 NBR 1 1700 368 0.22 1700 368 0.22 SBL 2 3400 98 0.03 3400 98 0.03 SBL 2 3400 98 0.03 3400 98 0.03 SBT 3 5100 873 0.17 *5100 873 0.17 *SBT 3 5100 873 0.17 *5100 873 0.17 * SBR 1 1700 227 0.13 1700 227 0.13 SBR 1 1700 227 0.13 1700 227 0.13 EBL 2 3400 230 0.07 *3400 230 0.07 EBL 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 EBT 3 5100 770 0.15 5100 903 0.18 *EBT 3 5100 849 0.17 *5100 903 0.18 * EBR 1 1700 256 0.15 1700 256 0.15 EBR 1 1700 256 0.15 1700 256 0.15 WBL 2 3400 469 0.14 3400 469 0.14 *WBL 2 3400 469 0.14 *3400 469 0.14 * WBT 3 5100 1,200 0.24 *5100 1,200 0.24 WBT 3 5100 1,200 0.24 5100 1,200 0.24 WBR 1 1700 134 0.08 1700 134 0.08 WBR 1 1700 134 0.08 1700 134 0.08 N/S Movements 0.24 0.24 N/S Movements 0.24 0.24 E/W Movements 0.30 0.31 E/W Movements 0.30 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.59 0.61 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.60 0.61 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 236 0.07 *3400 236 0.07 * NBT 3 5100 786 0.15 5100 786 0.15 NBR 1 1700 368 0.22 1700 368 0.22 SBL 2 3400 98 0.03 3400 98 0.03 SBT 3 5100 873 0.17 *5100 873 0.17 * SBR 1 1700 227 0.13 1700 227 0.13 EBL 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 EBT 3 5100 934 0.18 *5100 988 0.19 * EBR 1 1700 256 0.15 1700 256 0.15 WBL 2 3400 469 0.14 *3400 469 0.14 * WBT 3 5100 1,200 0.24 5100 1,200 0.24 WBR 1 1700 134 0.08 1700 134 0.08 N/S Movements 0.24 0.24 E/W Movements 0.32 0.33 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.61 0.62 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 89 0.05 1700 89 0.05 NBL 1 1700 89 0.05 1700 89 0.05 NBT 1 1700 132 0.08 *1700 132 0.08 *NBT 1 1700 132 0.08 *1700 132 0.08 * NBR 1 1700 186 0.11 *1700 186 0.11 *NBR 1 1700 186 0.11 *1700 186 0.11 * SBL 1 1700 36 0.02 *1700 36 0.02 *SBL 1 1700 36 0.02 *1700 36 0.02 * SBT 1 1700 72 0.04 1700 72 0.04 SBT 1 1700 72 0.04 1700 72 0.04 SBR 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 *SBR 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 * EBL 2 3400 82 0.02 *3400 82 0.02 *EBL 2 3400 82 0.02 *3400 82 0.02 * EBT 3 5100 1,079 0.22 5100 1,256 0.26 EBT 3 5100 1,184 0.24 5100 1,256 0.26 EBR 0 52 52 EBR 0 52 52 WBL 2 3400 36 0.01 3400 36 0.01 WBL 2 3400 36 0.01 3400 36 0.01 WBT 3 5100 1,623 0.32 *5100 1,623 0.32 *WBT 3 5100 1,623 0.32 *5100 1,623 0.32 * WBR 1 1700 86 0.05 1700 86 0.05 WBR 1 1700 86 0.05 1700 86 0.05 N/S Movements 0.10 0.10 N/S Movements 0.10 0.10 E/W Movements 0.34 0.34 E/W Movements 0.34 0.34 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.04 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.04 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.53 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.53 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 89 0.05 1700 89 0.05 NBT 1 1700 132 0.08 *1700 132 0.08 * NBR 1 1700 186 0.11 *1700 186 0.11 * SBL 1 1700 36 0.02 *1700 36 0.02 * SBT 1 1700 72 0.04 1700 72 0.04 SBR 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 * EBL 2 3400 82 0.02 *3400 82 0.02 * EBT 3 5100 1,311 0.27 5100 1,383 0.28 EBR 0 52 52 WBL 2 3400 36 0.01 3400 36 0.01 WBT 3 5100 1,623 0.32 *5100 1,623 0.32 * WBR 1 1700 86 0.05 1700 86 0.05 N/S Movements 0.10 0.10 E/W Movements 0.34 0.34 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.04 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.53 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 213 0.06 3400 213 0.06 NBL 2 3400 213 0.06 3400 213 0.06 NBT 2 3400 776 0.23 *3400 776 0.23 *NBT 2 3400 776 0.23 *3400 776 0.23 * NBR 1 1700 123 0.07 1700 123 0.07 NBR 1 1700 123 0.07 1700 123 0.07 SBL 2 3400 66 0.02 *3400 89 0.03 *SBL 2 3400 80 0.02 *3400 89 0.03 * SBT 3 5100 526 0.10 5100 548 0.11 SBT 3 5100 539 0.11 5100 548 0.11 SBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 SBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 EBL 1 1700 104 0.06 1700 104 0.06 EBL 1 1700 104 0.06 1700 104 0.06 EBT 3 5100 697 0.16 *5100 742 0.17 *EBT 3 5100 724 0.17 *5100 742 0.17 * EBR 0 132 132 EBR 0 132 132 WBL 1 1700 147 0.09 *1700 147 0.09 *WBL 1 1700 147 0.09 *1700 147 0.09 * WBT 3 5100 822 0.16 5100 822 0.16 WBT 3 5100 822 0.16 5100 822 0.16 WBR 1 1700 106 0.06 1700 106 0.06 WBR 1 1700 106 0.06 1700 106 0.06 N/S Movements 0.25 0.25 N/S Movements 0.25 0.25 E/W Movements 0.25 0.26 E/W Movements 0.25 0.26 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.55 0.56 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.56 0.56 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 213 0.06 3400 213 0.06 NBT 2 3400 776 0.23 *3400 776 0.23 * NBR 1 1700 123 0.07 1700 123 0.07 SBL 2 3400 80 0.02 *3400 89 0.03 * SBT 3 5100 581 0.11 5100 590 0.12 SBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 EBL 1 1700 104 0.06 1700 104 0.06 EBT 3 5100 724 0.17 *5100 742 0.17 * EBR 0 132 132 WBL 1 1700 147 0.09 *1700 147 0.09 * WBT 3 5100 822 0.16 5100 822 0.16 WBR 1 1700 106 0.06 1700 106 0.06 N/S Movements 0.25 0.25 E/W Movements 0.25 0.26 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.56 0.56 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: Honda Center Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION:Year 2011 Conditions INTERSECTION:4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 NBL 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 NBT 3 5100 842 0.17 *5100 842 0.17 *NBT 3 5100 842 0.17 *5100 842 0.17 * NBR 1 1700 233 0.14 1700 233 0.14 NBR 1 1700 233 0.14 1700 233 0.14 SBL 1 1700 81 0.05 *1700 131 0.08 *SBL 1 1700 111 0.07 *1700 131 0.08 * SBT 3 5100 674 0.14 5100 674 0.14 SBT 3 5100 674 0.14 5100 674 0.14 SBR 0 15 15 SBR 0 15 15 EBL 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 EBL 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 EBT 1 1700 11 0.02 *1700 11 0.02 *EBT 1 1700 11 0.02 *1700 11 0.02 * EBR 0 23 23 EBR 0 23 23 WBL 1 1700 430 0.25 *1700 430 0.25 *WBL 1 1700 430 0.25 *1700 430 0.25 * WBT 1 1700 11 0.01 1700 11 0.01 WBT 1 1700 11 0.01 1700 11 0.01 WBR 1 1700 97 0.06 *1700 97 0.06 WBR 1 1700 97 0.06 1700 97 0.06 N/S Movements 0.21 0.24 N/S Movements 0.23 0.24 E/W Movements 0.27 0.27 E/W Movements 0.27 0.27 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.54 0.57 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.55 0.57 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 NBT 3 5100 842 0.17 *5100 842 0.17 * NBR 1 1700 233 0.14 1700 233 0.14 SBL 1 1700 111 0.07 *1700 131 0.08 * SBT 3 5100 716 0.14 5100 716 0.14 SBR 0 15 15 EBL 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 EBT 1 1700 11 0.02 *1700 11 0.02 * EBR 0 23 23 WBL 1 1700 430 0.25 *1700 430 0.25 * WBT 1 1700 11 0.01 1700 11 0.01 WBR 1 1700 97 0.06 1700 97 0.06 N/S Movements 0.23 0.24 E/W Movements 0.27 0.27 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.55 0.57 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 112 0.03 3400 112 0.03 NBL 2 3400 112 0.03 3400 112 0.03 NBT 3 5100 563 0.11 *5100 563 0.11 *NBT 3 5100 563 0.11 *5100 563 0.11 * NBR 1 1700 98 0.06 1700 142 0.08 NBR 1 1700 124 0.07 1700 142 0.08 SBL 2 3400 64 0.02 *3400 64 0.02 *SBL 2 3400 64 0.02 *3400 64 0.02 * SBT 3 5100 422 0.08 5100 422 0.08 SBT 3 5100 422 0.08 5100 422 0.08 SBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1700 160 0.09 SBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1700 160 0.09 EBL 2 3400 102 0.03 *3400 102 0.03 *EBL 2 3400 102 0.03 *3400 102 0.03 * EBT 4 6800 1,105 0.18 6800 1,282 0.21 EBT 4 6800 1,210 0.19 6800 1,282 0.21 EBR 0 113 113 EBR 0 113 113 WBL 2 3400 112 0.03 3400 112 0.03 WBL 2 3400 112 0.03 3400 112 0.03 WBT 3 5100 1,482 0.29 *5100 1,482 0.29 *WBT 3 5100 1,482 0.29 *5100 1,482 0.29 * WBR 1 1700 42 0.02 1700 42 0.02 WBR 1 1700 42 0.02 1700 42 0.02 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 E/W Movements 0.32 0.32 E/W Movements 0.32 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50 0.50 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50 0.50 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 112 0.03 3400 112 0.03 NBT 3 5100 563 0.11 *5100 563 0.11 * NBR 1 1700 124 0.07 1700 142 0.08 SBL 2 3400 64 0.02 *3400 64 0.02 * SBT 3 5100 422 0.08 5100 422 0.08 SBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1700 160 0.09 EBL 2 3400 102 0.03 *3400 102 0.03 * EBT 4 6800 1,422 0.23 6800 1,494 0.24 EBR 0 113 113 WBL 2 3400 112 0.03 3400 112 0.03 WBT 3 5100 1,482 0.29 *5100 1,482 0.29 * WBR 1 1700 42 0.02 1700 42 0.02 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 E/W Movements 0.32 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50 0.50 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:6 Manchester Avenue / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:6 Manchester Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1700 58 0.03 *1700 58 0.03 *NBL 1.5 1700 58 0.03 *1700 58 0.03 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 3400 166 0.05 3400 255 0.08 *NBR 1.5 3400 218 0.06 3400 255 0.08 * SBL 2 3400 22 0.01 3400 110 0.03 SBL 2 3400 74 0.02 3400 110 0.03 SBT 2 3400 42 0.01 *3400 42 0.01 *SBT 2 3400 42 0.01 *3400 42 0.01 * SBR 1 1700 7 0.00 1700 7 0.00 SBR 1 1700 7 0.00 1700 7 0.00 EBL 0 0 * 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5100 674 0.13 5100 896 0.18 EBT 3 5100 806 0.16 5100 896 0.18 EBR 1 1700 484 0.28 *1700 484 0.28 *EBR 1 1700 484 0.28 *1700 484 0.28 * WBL 2 3400 228 0.07 3400 228 0.07 WBL 2 3400 228 0.07 3400 228 0.07 WBT 3 5100 1,565 0.31 *5100 1,565 0.31 *WBT 3 5100 1,565 0.31 *5100 1,565 0.31 * WBR 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.05 0.05 N/S Movements 0.05 0.05 E/W Movements 0.31 0.31 E/W Movements 0.31 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.12 0.12 Rt. Turn Component 0.09 0.12 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.52 0.52 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50 0.52 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:6 Manchester Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1700 58 0.03 1700 58 0.03 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * NBR 1.5 3400 303 0.09 *3400 340 0.10 * SBL 2 3400 286 0.08 *3400 322 0.09 * SBT 2 3400 42 0.01 3400 42 0.01 SBR 1 1700 7 0.00 1700 7 0.00 EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5100 1,018 0.20 5100 1,108 0.22 EBR 1 1700 484 0.28 *1700 484 0.28 * WBL 2 3400 228 0.07 3400 228 0.07 WBT 3 5100 1,565 0.31 *5100 1,565 0.31 * WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.08 0.09 E/W Movements 0.31 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.12 0.12 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.56 0.57 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:7 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:7 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3400 672 0.20 *3400 672 0.20 *NBL 1.5 3400 672 0.20 *3400 672 0.20 * NBT 3 4520 817 0.18 4520 817 0.18 NBT 3 4520 817 0.18 4520 817 0.18 NBR 0.5 580 109 0.19 *580 109 0.19 *NBR 0.5 580 109 0.19 *580 109 0.19 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 43 0.01 *3400 43 0.01 EBL 2 3400 43 0.01 3400 43 0.01 EBT 3 5100 837 0.16 5100 1,236 0.24 *EBT 3 5100 1,075 0.21 *5100 1,236 0.24 * EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3.5 6800 1,228 0.18 *6800 1,228 0.18 WBT 3.5 6800 1,228 0.18 6800 1,228 0.18 WBR 1.5 1700 86 0.05 1700 86 0.05 WBR 1.5 1700 86 0.05 1700 86 0.05 N/S Movements 0.20 0.20 N/S Movements 0.20 0.20 E/W Movements 0.19 0.24 E/W Movements 0.21 0.24 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.49 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.46 0.49 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:7 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3400 672 0.20 *3400 672 0.20 * NBT 3 4520 817 0.18 4520 817 0.18 NBR 0.5 580 109 0.19 *580 109 0.19 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 43 0.01 3400 43 0.01 EBT 3 5100 1,584 0.31 *5100 1,745 0.34 * EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3.5 6800 1,228 0.18 6800 1,228 0.18 WBR 1.5 1700 86 0.05 1700 86 0.05 N/S Movements 0.20 0.20 E/W Movements 0.31 0.34 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.56 0.59 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 42 0.02 *1700 42 0.02 *NBL 1 1700 42 0.02 *1700 42 0.02 * NBT 2 3400 10 0.04 3400 10 0.04 NBT 2 3400 10 0.04 3400 10 0.04 NBR 0 133 133 NBR 0 133 133 SBL 1 1700 55 0.03 1700 55 0.03 SBL 1 1700 55 0.03 1700 55 0.03 SBT 1 1700 43 0.06 *1700 43 0.06 *SBT 1 1700 43 0.06 *1700 43 0.06 * SBR 0 54 54 SBR 0 54 54 EBL 1 1700 34 0.02 *1700 34 0.02 EBL 1 1700 34 0.02 1700 34 0.02 EBT 3 5100 844 0.17 5100 889 0.18 *EBT 3 5100 871 0.18 *5100 889 0.18 * EBR 0 25 48 EBR 0 39 48 WBL 2 3400 72 0.02 3400 72 0.02 *WBL 2 3400 72 0.02 *3400 72 0.02 * WBT 3 5100 877 0.18 *5100 877 0.18 WBT 3 5100 877 0.18 5100 877 0.18 WBR 0 28 28 WBR 0 28 28 N/S Movements 0.08 0.08 N/S Movements 0.08 0.08 E/W Movements 0.20 0.21 E/W Movements 0.20 0.21 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.33 0.34 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.33 0.34 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 42 0.02 *1700 42 0.02 * NBT 2 3400 10 0.04 3400 10 0.04 NBR 0 133 133 SBL 1 1700 55 0.03 1700 55 0.03 SBT 1 1700 43 0.06 *1700 43 0.06 * SBR 0 54 54 EBL 1 1700 34 0.02 1700 34 0.02 EBT 3 5100 871 0.18 *5100 889 0.18 * EBR 0 39 48 WBL 2 3400 72 0.02 *3400 72 0.02 * WBT 3 5100 877 0.18 5100 877 0.18 WBR 0 28 28 N/S Movements 0.08 0.08 E/W Movements 0.20 0.21 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.33 0.34 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 18 0.01 *1700 18 0.01 *NBL 1 1700 18 0.01 *1700 18 0.01 * NBT 2 3400 80 0.02 3400 80 0.02 NBT 2 3400 80 0.02 3400 80 0.02 NBR 1 1700 79 0.05 *1700 79 0.05 *NBR 1 1700 79 0.05 *1700 79 0.05 * SBL 1 1700 11 0.01 1700 36 0.02 SBL 1 1700 25 0.01 1700 36 0.02 SBT 2 3400 106 0.05 *3400 106 0.05 *SBT 2 3400 106 0.05 *3400 106 0.05 * SBR 0 49 49 SBR 0 49 49 EBL 1 1700 47 0.03 *1700 47 0.03 *EBL 1 1700 47 0.03 *1700 47 0.03 * EBT 2 3400 214 0.07 3400 289 0.09 EBT 2 3400 259 0.08 3400 289 0.09 EBR 0 20 20 EBR 0 20 20 WBL 1 1700 28 0.02 1700 28 0.02 WBL 1 1700 28 0.02 1700 28 0.02 WBT 2 3400 289 0.09 *3400 289 0.09 *WBT 2 3400 289 0.09 *3400 289 0.09 * WBR 0 6 6 WBR 0 6 6 N/S Movements 0.06 0.06 N/S Movements 0.06 0.06 E/W Movements 0.11 0.11 E/W Movements 0.11 0.11 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.23 0.23 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.23 0.23 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 18 0.01 *1700 18 0.01 * NBT 2 3400 80 0.02 3400 80 0.02 NBR 1 1700 79 0.05 *1700 79 0.05 * SBL 1 1700 25 0.01 1700 36 0.02 SBT 2 3400 106 0.05 *3400 106 0.05 * SBR 0 49 49 EBL 1 1700 47 0.03 1700 47 0.03 EBT 2 3400 301 0.11 *3400 331 0.12 * EBR 0 62 62 WBL 1 1700 28 0.02 *1700 28 0.02 * WBT 2 3400 289 0.09 3400 289 0.09 WBR 0 6 6 N/S Movements 0.06 0.06 E/W Movements 0.12 0.13 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.24 0.24 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 17 0.01 1700 17 0.01 NBL 1 1700 17 0.01 1700 17 0.01 NBT 1 1700 61 0.05 *1700 61 0.08 *NBT 1 1700 61 0.07 *1700 61 0.08 * NBR 0 24 68 NBR 0 50 68 SBL 1 1700 25 0.01 *1700 25 0.01 *SBL 1 1700 25 0.01 *1700 25 0.01 * SBT 1 1700 4 0.00 1700 4 0.00 SBT 1 1700 4 0.00 1700 4 0.00 SBR 1 1700 169 0.10 *1700 169 0.10 *SBR 1 1700 169 0.10 *1700 169 0.10 * EBL 1 1700 108 0.06 *1700 108 0.06 *EBL 1 1700 108 0.06 *1700 108 0.06 * EBT 3 5100 750 0.15 5100 1,149 0.23 EBT 3 5100 988 0.20 5100 1,149 0.23 EBR 0 8 8 EBR 0 8 8 WBL 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 WBL 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 WBT 3 5100 1,154 0.23 *5100 1,154 0.23 *WBT 3 5100 1,154 0.23 *5100 1,154 0.23 * WBR 0 30 30 WBR 0 30 30 N/S Movements 0.06 0.09 N/S Movements 0.08 0.09 E/W Movements 0.30 0.30 E/W Movements 0.30 0.30 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.43 0.46 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.45 0.46 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 17 0.01 1700 17 0.01 NBT 1 1700 61 0.07 *1700 61 0.08 * NBR 0 50 68 SBL 1 1700 67 0.04 *1700 67 0.04 * SBT 1 1700 4 0.00 1700 4 0.00 SBR 1 1700 169 0.10 *1700 169 0.10 * EBL 1 1700 108 0.06 1700 108 0.06 EBT 3 5100 1,497 0.30 *5100 1,658 0.33 * EBR 0 8 8 WBL 1 1700 16 0.01 *1700 16 0.01 * WBT 3 5100 1,154 0.23 5100 1,154 0.23 WBR 0 30 30 N/S Movements 0.10 0.12 E/W Movements 0.30 0.34 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.46 0.50 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way INTERSECTION:11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 2 3400 29 0.01 *3400 29 0.01 *NBR 2 3400 29 0.01 *3400 29 0.01 * SBL 2 3400 19 0.01 *3400 71 0.02 *SBL 2 3400 51 0.02 *3400 71 0.02 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 1700 9 0.01 *1700 9 0.01 *WBL 1.5 1700 9 0.01 *1700 9 0.01 * WBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 WBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 WBR 1.5 3400 23 0.01 *3400 23 0.01 WBR 1.5 3400 23 0.01 3400 23 0.01 N/S Movements 0.01 0.02 N/S Movements 0.02 0.02 E/W Movements 0.01 0.01 E/W Movements 0.01 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.07 0.08 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.07 0.08 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 2 3400 29 0.01 *3400 29 0.01 * SBL 2 3400 151 0.04 *3400 171 0.05 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 1700 9 0.01 *1700 9 0.01 * WBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 WBR 1.5 3400 23 0.01 3400 23 0.01 N/S Movements 0.04 0.05 E/W Movements 0.01 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.10 0.11 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:12 East Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:12 East Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 131 0.04 *3400 154 0.05 *SBL 2 3400 144 0.04 *3400 154 0.05 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 156 0.09 1700 156 0.09 SBR 1 1700 156 0.09 1700 156 0.09 EBL 1 1700 208 0.12 *1700 208 0.12 *EBL 1 1700 208 0.12 *1700 208 0.12 * EBT 3 5100 863 0.17 5100 908 0.18 EBT 3 5100 890 0.17 5100 908 0.18 EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 816 0.19 *5100 816 0.19 *WBT 3 5100 816 0.19 *5100 816 0.19 * WBR 0 176 176 WBR 0 176 176 N/S Movements 0.04 0.05 N/S Movements 0.04 0.05 E/W Movements 0.32 0.32 E/W Movements 0.32 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.41 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.41 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:12 East Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 93 93 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 144 0.04 *3400 154 0.05 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 156 0.09 1700 156 0.09 EBL 1 1700 208 0.12 *1700 208 0.12 * EBT 3 5100 890 0.17 5100 908 0.18 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 816 0.19 *5100 816 0.19 * WBR 0 176 176 N/S Movements 0.04 0.05 E/W Movements 0.32 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.41 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road INTERSECTION:13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 123 0.04 3400 123 0.04 NBL 2 3400 123 0.04 3400 123 0.04 NBT 3 5100 530 0.10 *5100 530 0.10 *NBT 3 5100 530 0.10 *5100 530 0.10 * NBR 1 1700 127 0.07 1700 127 0.07 NBR 1 1700 127 0.07 1700 127 0.07 SBL 2 3400 207 0.06 *3400 207 0.06 *SBL 2 3400 207 0.06 *3400 207 0.06 * SBT 3 5100 329 0.09 5100 354 0.10 SBT 3 5100 344 0.09 5100 354 0.10 SBR 0 132 132 SBR 0 132 132 EBL 1 1700 159 0.09 *1700 159 0.09 *EBL 1 1700 159 0.09 *1700 159 0.09 * EBT 3 5100 814 0.18 5100 905 0.19 EBT 3 5100 868 0.19 5100 905 0.19 EBR 0 88 88 EBR 0 88 88 WBL 1 1700 114 0.07 1700 114 0.07 WBL 1 1700 114 0.07 1700 114 0.07 WBT 3 5100 718 0.18 *5100 718 0.18 *WBT 3 5100 718 0.18 *5100 718 0.18 * WBR 0 208 208 WBR 0 208 208 N/S Movements 0.16 0.16 N/S Movements 0.16 0.16 E/W Movements 0.28 0.28 E/W Movements 0.28 0.28 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.49 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.49 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 123 0.04 *3400 123 0.04 * NBT 3 5100 530 0.10 5100 530 0.10 NBR 1 1700 127 0.07 1700 127 0.07 SBL 2 3400 207 0.06 3400 207 0.06 SBT 3 5100 531 0.13 *5100 541 0.13 * SBR 0 132 132 EBL 1 1700 159 0.09 1700 159 0.09 EBT 3 5100 961 0.21 *5100 998 0.21 * EBR 0 88 88 WBL 1 1700 207 0.12 *1700 207 0.12 * WBT 3 5100 718 0.18 5100 718 0.18 WBR 0 208 208 N/S Movements 0.17 0.17 E/W Movements 0.33 0.33 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.54 0.55 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 72 0.04 *1700 72 0.04 NBL 1 1700 72 0.04 *1700 72 0.04 NBT 3 5100 598 0.12 5100 598 0.12 *NBT 3 5100 598 0.12 5100 598 0.12 * NBR 0 15 15 NBR 0 15 15 SBL 1 1700 11 0.01 1700 36 0.02 *SBL 1 1700 26 0.02 1700 36 0.02 * SBT 3 5100 425 0.09 *5100 425 0.09 SBT 3 5100 425 0.09 *5100 425 0.09 SBR 0 58 58 SBR 0 58 58 EBL 1 1700 58 0.03 *1700 58 0.03 EBL 1 1700 58 0.03 1700 58 0.03 EBT 2 3400 113 0.06 3400 238 0.09 *EBT 2 3400 187 0.08 *3400 238 0.09 * EBR 0 80 80 EBR 0 80 80 WBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 *WBL 1 1700 20 0.01 *1700 20 0.01 * WBT 2 3400 122 0.04 *3400 122 0.04 WBT 2 3400 122 0.04 3400 122 0.04 WBR 0 27 27 WBR 0 27 27 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 E/W Movements 0.08 0.11 E/W Movements 0.09 0.11 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.27 0.30 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.28 0.30 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 72 0.04 1700 72 0.04 NBT 3 5100 1,066 0.21 *5100 1,066 0.21 * NBR 0 15 15 SBL 1 1700 26 0.02 *1700 36 0.02 * SBT 3 5100 425 0.09 5100 425 0.09 SBR 0 58 58 EBL 1 1700 58 0.03 1700 58 0.03 EBT 2 3400 187 0.09 *3400 238 0.11 * EBR 0 122 122 WBL 1 1700 20 0.01 *1700 20 0.01 * WBT 2 3400 122 0.04 3400 122 0.04 WBR 0 27 27 N/S Movements 0.23 0.23 E/W Movements 0.10 0.12 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.38 0.40 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 110 0.03 3,400 110 0.03 NBL 2 3,400 110 0.03 3,400 110 0.03 NBT 3 5,100 467 0.11 *5,100 606 0.19 *NBT 3 5,100 550 0.16 *5,100 606 0.19 * NBR 0 119 355 NBR 0 260 355 SBL 2 3,400 71 0.02 *3,400 128 0.04 *SBL 2 3,400 105 0.03 *3,400 128 0.04 * SBT 3 5,100 375 0.07 5,100 397 0.08 SBT 3 5,100 388 0.08 5,100 397 0.08 SBR 1 1,700 99 0.06 1,700 108 0.06 SBR 1 1,700 105 0.06 1,700 108 0.06 EBL 2 3,400 124 0.04 3,400 151 0.04 EBL 2 3,400 140 0.04 3,400 151 0.04 EBT 2.5 5,100 664 0.13 *5,100 1,107 0.22 *EBT 2.5 5,100 928 0.18 *5,100 1,107 0.22 * EBR 1.5 1,700 88 0.05 1,700 88 0.05 EBR 1.5 1,700 88 0.05 1,700 88 0.05 WBL 2 3,400 211 0.06 *3,400 218 0.06 *WBL 2 3,400 215 0.06 *3,400 218 0.06 * WBT 3 5,100 772 0.15 5,100 775 0.15 WBT 3 5,100 774 0.15 5,100 775 0.15 WBR 1 1,700 60 0.04 1,700 83 0.05 WBR 1 1,700 74 0.04 1,700 83 0.05 N/S Movements 0.14 0.23 N/S Movements 0.19 0.23 E/W Movements 0.19 0.28 E/W Movements 0.25 0.28 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.38 0.56 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.48 0.56 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 146 0.04 3,400 146 0.04 NBT 3 5,100 676 0.20 *5,100 732 0.23 * NBR 0 352 447 SBL 2 3,400 218 0.06 *3,400 241 0.07 * SBT 3 5,100 742 0.15 5,100 751 0.15 SBR 1 1,700 125 0.07 1,700 129 0.08 EBL 2 3,400 189 0.06 3,400 199 0.06 EBT 2.5 5,037 1,162 0.23 *5,100 1,341 0.26 * EBR 1.5 1,763 407 0.23 1,700 407 0.24 WBL 2 3,400 600 0.18 *3,400 602 0.18 * WBT 3 5,100 926 0.18 5,100 927 0.18 WBR 1 1,700 90 0.05 1,700 99 0.06 N/S Movements 0.27 0.30 E/W Movements 0.41 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.72 0.79 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C Impact PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive INTERSECTION:16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 3 5100 813 0.16 *5100 1,049 0.21 *NBT 3 5100 954 0.19 *5100 1,049 0.21 * NBR 0 12 12 NBR 0 12 12 SBL 2 3400 7 0.00 *3400 7 0.00 *SBL 2 3400 7 0.00 *3400 7 0.00 * SBT 3 5100 623 0.12 5100 623 0.12 SBT 3 5100 623 0.12 5100 623 0.12 SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 24 0.01 *1700 24 0.01 *WBL 1 1700 24 0.01 *1700 24 0.01 * WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 1 1700 43 0.03 *1700 43 0.03 *WBR 1 1700 43 0.03 *1700 43 0.03 * N/S Movements 0.16 0.21 N/S Movements 0.19 0.21 E/W Movements 0.01 0.01 E/W Movements 0.01 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.25 0.30 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.28 0.30 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 * 0 * NBT 3 5100 1,046 0.21 5100 1,141 0.23 NBR 0 12 12 SBL 2 3400 66 0.02 3400 66 0.02 SBT 3 5100 1,623 0.32 *5100 1,623 0.32 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 24 0.01 *1700 24 0.01 * WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 1 1700 43 0.03 *1700 43 0.03 * N/S Movements 0.32 0.32 E/W Movements 0.01 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.39 0.39 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way INTERSECTION:17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 8 0.00 3400 8 0.00 NBL 2 3400 8 0.00 3400 8 0.00 NBT 3 5100 776 0.15 *5100 960 0.19 *NBT 3 5100 886 0.17 *5100 960 0.19 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 1 0.00 *3400 1 0.00 *SBL 2 3400 1 0.00 *3400 1 0.00 * SBT 3 5100 623 0.13 5100 623 0.13 SBT 3 5100 623 0.13 5100 623 0.13 SBR 0 24 24 SBR 0 24 24 EBL 1.5 3,400 45 0.01 3,400 97 0.03 *EBL 1.5 3,400 77 0.02 *3,400 97 0.03 * EBT 1.5 1,700 0 0.02 *1,700 0 0.02 EBT 1.5 1,700 0 0.02 1,700 0 0.02 EBR 0 34 34 EBR 0 34 34 WBL 1 1700 4 0.00 *1700 4 0.00 WBL 1 1700 4 0.00 1700 4 0.00 WBT 1 1700 2 0.00 1700 2 0.00 *WBT 1 1700 2 0.00 *1700 2 0.00 * WBR 1 1700 4 0.00 *1700 4 0.00 *WBR 1 1700 4 0.00 *1700 4 0.00 * N/S Movements 0.15 0.19 N/S Movements 0.17 0.19 E/W Movements 0.02 0.03 E/W Movements 0.03 0.03 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.23 0.27 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.25 0.27 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 8 0.00 3400 8 0.00 NBT 3 5100 978 0.36 *5100 1,052 0.37 * NBR 0 852 852 SBL 2 3400 1,001 0.29 *3400 1,001 0.29 * SBT 3 5100 623 0.13 5100 623 0.13 SBR 0 24 24 EBL 1.5 2,219 77 0.03 2,511 97 0.04 EBT 1.5 2,881 100 0.05 *2,589 100 0.05 * EBR 0 34 34 WBL 1 1700 4 0.00 *1700 4 0.00 * WBT 1 1700 2 0.00 1700 2 0.00 WBR 1 1700 4 0.00 1700 4 0.00 N/S Movements 0.65 0.67 E/W Movements 0.05 0.05 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.75 0.77 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 50 0.01 3400 50 0.01 NBL 2 3400 50 0.01 3400 50 0.01 NBT 4 6800 597 0.10 *6800 702 0.11 *NBT 4 6800 660 0.11 *6800 702 0.11 * NBR 0 60 60 NBR 0 60 60 SBL 2 3400 68 0.02 *3400 68 0.02 *SBL 2 3400 68 0.02 *3400 68 0.02 * SBT 4 6800 487 0.09 6800 487 0.09 SBT 4 6800 487 0.09 6800 487 0.09 SBR 0 137 137 SBR 0 137 137 EBL 2 3400 140 0.04 *3400 192 0.06 *EBL 2 3400 171 0.05 *3400 192 0.06 * EBT 3 5100 375 0.08 5100 375 0.08 EBT 3 5100 375 0.08 5100 375 0.08 EBR 0 45 45 EBR 0 45 45 WBL 2 3400 96 0.03 3400 96 0.03 WBL 2 3400 96 0.03 3400 96 0.03 WBT 3 5100 529 0.12 *5100 529 0.12 *WBT 3 5100 529 0.12 *5100 529 0.12 * WBR 0 64 64 WBR 0 64 64 N/S Movements 0.12 0.13 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 E/W Movements 0.16 0.17 E/W Movements 0.17 0.17 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.32 0.35 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.34 0.35 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 50 0.01 3400 50 0.01 NBT 4 6800 1,456 0.22 *6800 1,498 0.23 * NBR 0 60 60 SBL 2 3400 68 0.02 *3400 68 0.02 * SBT 4 6800 487 0.09 6800 487 0.09 SBR 0 137 137 EBL 2 3400 320 0.09 *3400 341 0.10 * EBT 3 5100 375 0.08 5100 375 0.08 EBR 0 45 45 WBL 2 3400 96 0.03 3400 96 0.03 WBT 3 5100 529 0.12 *5100 529 0.12 * WBR 0 64 64 N/S Movements 0.24 0.25 E/W Movements 0.21 0.22 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50 0.52 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps INTERSECTION:19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 39 0.01 3400 39 0.01 NBL 2 3400 39 0.01 3400 39 0.01 NBT 4 6800 631 0.09 *6800 736 0.11 *NBT 4 6800 694 0.10 *6800 736 0.11 * NBR (free)50 85,000 304 0.00 85,000 304 0.00 NBR (free)50 85,000 304 0.00 85,000 304 0.00 SBL 1 1700 32 0.02 *1700 32 0.02 *SBL 1 1700 32 0.02 *1700 32 0.02 * SBT 4 6800 670 0.10 6800 670 0.10 SBT 4 6800 670 0.10 6800 670 0.10 SBR 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 SBR 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 EBL 0 0 * 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 1700 81 0.05 1700 81 0.05 WBL 1.5 1700 81 0.05 1700 81 0.05 WBT 1.5 3400 343 0.10 *3400 343 0.10 *WBT 1.5 3400 343 0.10 *3400 343 0.10 * WBR 2 3400 206 0.06 3400 206 0.06 WBR 2 3400 206 0.06 3400 206 0.06 N/S Movements 0.11 0.13 N/S Movements 0.12 0.13 E/W Movements 0.10 0.10 E/W Movements 0.10 0.10 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.26 0.28 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.27 0.28 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 39 0.01 3400 39 0.01 NBT 4 6800 1,141 0.17 *6800 1,183 0.17 * NBR (free)50 85,000 304 0.00 85,000 304 0.00 SBL 1 1700 32 0.02 *1700 32 0.02 * SBT 4 6800 670 0.10 6800 670 0.10 SBR 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 16 0.01 EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 1700 81 0.05 1700 81 0.05 WBT 1.5 3400 343 0.10 *3400 343 0.10 * WBR 2 3400 554 0.16 *3400 554 0.16 * N/S Movements 0.19 0.19 E/W Movements 0.10 0.10 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.04 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.38 0.39 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps INTERSECTION:20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 5 8500 918 0.11 *8500 1,023 0.12 *NBT 5 8500 981 0.12 *8500 1,023 0.12 * NBR 0 14 14 NBR 0 14 14 SBL 0 0 * 0 *SBL 0 0 * 0 * SBT 4 6800 582 0.09 6800 582 0.09 SBT 4 6800 582 0.09 6800 582 0.09 SBR (free)50 85000 168 0.00 85,000 168 0.00 SBR (free)50 85000 168 0.00 85,000 168 0.00 EBL 1.5 1700 56 0.03 1700 56 0.03 EBL 1.5 1700 56 0.03 1700 56 0.03 EBT 0.5 1700 136 0.08 *1700 136 0.08 *EBT 0.5 1700 136 0.08 *1700 136 0.08 * EBR 2 3400 329 0.10 *3400 329 0.10 *EBR 2 3400 329 0.10 *3400 329 0.10 * WBL 0 0 * 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.11 0.12 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 E/W Movements 0.08 0.08 E/W Movements 0.08 0.08 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.26 0.27 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.26 0.27 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 5 8500 1,428 0.17 *8500 1,470 0.17 * NBR 0 14 14 SBL 0 0 * 0 * SBT 4 6800 582 0.09 6800 582 0.09 SBR (free)50 85000 168 0.00 85,000 168 0.00 EBL 1.5 1700 56 0.03 1700 56 0.03 EBT 0.5 1700 136 0.08 *1700 136 0.08 * EBR 2 3400 329 0.10 *3400 329 0.10 * WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.17 0.17 E/W Movements 0.08 0.08 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.32 0.32 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 NBL 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 NBT 3 5100 862 0.17 *5100 940 0.18 *NBT 3 5100 909 0.18 *5100 940 0.18 * NBR 2 3400 89 0.03 3400 89 0.03 NBR 2 3400 89 0.03 3400 89 0.03 SBL 2 3400 295 0.09 *3400 295 0.09 *SBL 2 3400 295 0.09 *3400 295 0.09 * SBT 3 5100 897 0.18 5100 897 0.18 SBT 3 5100 897 0.18 5100 897 0.18 SBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 SBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 EBL 2 3400 122 0.04 *3400 148 0.04 *EBL 2 3400 138 0.04 *3400 148 0.04 * EBT 3 5100 469 0.09 5100 495 0.10 EBT 3 5100 485 0.10 5100 495 0.10 EBR 1 1700 282 0.17 *1700 282 0.17 *EBR 1 1700 282 0.17 *1700 282 0.17 * WBL 2 3400 130 0.04 3400 130 0.04 WBL 2 3400 130 0.04 3400 130 0.04 WBT 3 5100 618 0.12 *5100 618 0.12 *WBT 3 5100 618 0.12 *5100 618 0.12 * WBR 1 1700 366 0.22 *1700 366 0.22 *WBR 1 1700 366 0.22 *1700 366 0.22 * N/S Movements 0.26 0.27 N/S Movements 0.27 0.27 E/W Movements 0.16 0.16 E/W Movements 0.16 0.16 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.48 0.49 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.49 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 NBT 3 5100 1,257 0.25 *5100 1,288 0.25 * NBR 2 3400 89 0.03 3400 89 0.03 SBL 2 3400 295 0.09 *3400 295 0.09 * SBT 3 5100 897 0.18 5100 897 0.18 SBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 EBL 2 3400 237 0.07 *3400 247 0.07 * EBT 3 5100 485 0.10 5100 495 0.10 EBR 1 1700 282 0.17 *1700 282 0.17 * WBL 2 3400 130 0.04 3400 130 0.04 WBT 3 5100 618 0.12 *5100 618 0.12 * WBR 1 1700 366 0.22 *1700 366 0.22 * N/S Movements 0.33 0.34 E/W Movements 0.19 0.19 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.58 0.59 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 40 0.02 1,700 45 0.03 NBL 1 1,700 43 0.03 1,700 45 0.03 NBT 0.5 109 3 0.03 *109 3 0.03 *NBT 0.5 109 3 0.03 *109 3 0.03 * NBR 1.5 3,291 91 0.03 3,291 91 0.03 NBR 1.5 3,291 91 0.03 3,291 91 0.03 SBL 1 1,700 93 0.05 *1,700 162 0.10 *SBL 1 1,700 134 0.08 *1,700 162 0.10 * SBT 1 1,700 3 0.00 1,700 4 0.00 SBT 1 1,700 4 0.00 1,700 4 0.00 SBR 1 1,700 80 0.05 *1,700 93 0.05 *SBR 1 1,700 88 0.05 *1,700 93 0.05 * EBL 1 1,700 52 0.03 *1,700 52 0.03 EBL 1 1,700 52 0.03 1,700 52 0.03 EBT 3 5,100 777 0.16 5,100 1,416 0.29 *EBT 3 5,100 1,158 0.24 *5,100 1,416 0.29 * EBR 0 32 48 EBR 0 42 48 WBL 1 1,700 18 0.01 1,700 44 0.03 *WBL 1 1,700 33 0.02 *1,700 44 0.03 * WBT 3 5,100 867 0.17 *5,100 918 0.18 WBT 3 5,100 898 0.18 5,100 918 0.18 WBR 1 1,700 100 0.06 1,700 100 0.06 WBR 1 1,700 100 0.06 1,700 100 0.06 N/S Movements 0.08 0.12 N/S Movements 0.11 0.12 E/W Movements 0.20 0.31 E/W Movements 0.25 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.33 0.49 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.49 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 141 0.08 1,700 144 0.08 NBT 0.5 443 19 0.04 *443 19 0.04 * NBR 1.5 2,957 128 0.04 2,957 128 0.04 SBL 1 1,700 136 0.08 *1,700 164 0.10 * SBT 1 1,700 13 0.01 1,700 14 0.01 SBR 1 1,700 88 0.05 1,700 93 0.05 EBL 1 1,700 151 0.09 1,700 151 0.09 EBT 3 5,100 1,398 0.30 *5,100 1,656 0.35 * EBR 0 143 150 WBL 1 1,700 131 0.08 *1,700 142 0.08 * WBT 3 5,100 1,191 0.23 5,100 1,212 0.24 WBR 1 1,700 215 0.13 1,700 215 0.13 N/S Movements 0.12 0.14 E/W Movements 0.38 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.55 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 25 0.01 1,700 33 0.02 NBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1,700 33 0.02 NBT 2 3,400 120 0.08 *3,400 147 0.11 *NBT 2 3,400 136 0.10 *3,400 147 0.11 * NBR 0 165 215 NBR 0 195 215 SBL 1 1,700 222 0.13 *1,700 222 0.13 *SBL 1 1,700 222 0.13 *1,700 222 0.13 * SBT 2 3,400 85 0.05 3,400 158 0.07 SBT 2 3,400 128 0.06 3,400 158 0.07 SBR 0 77 85 SBR 0 82 85 EBL 2 3,400 103 0.03 *3,400 103 0.03 *EBL 2 3,400 103 0.03 *3,400 103 0.03 * EBT 3 5,100 1,005 0.20 5,100 1,095 0.23 EBT 3 5,100 1,059 0.22 5,100 1,095 0.23 EBR 0 21 68 EBR 0 49 68 WBL 2 3,400 148 0.04 3,400 441 0.13 WBL 2 3,400 322 0.09 3,400 441 0.13 WBT 2 3,400 903 0.27 *3,400 1,115 0.33 *WBT 2 3,400 1,029 0.30 *3,400 1,115 0.33 * WBR 1 1,700 333 0.20 1,700 376 0.22 WBR 1 1,700 359 0.21 1,700 376 0.22 N/S Movements 0.21 0.24 N/S Movements 0.23 0.24 E/W Movements 0.30 0.36 E/W Movements 0.33 0.36 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.56 0.65 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.61 0.65 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 30 0.02 1700 33 0.02 NBT 2 3400 136 0.10 *3400 147 0.11 * NBR 0 0 195 0 215 SBL 1 1700 222 0.13 *1700 222 0.13 * SBT 2 3400 173 0.08 3400 203 0.08 SBR 0 0 82 0 85 EBL 2 3400 103 0.03 3400 103 0.03 EBT 3 5100 1,193 0.24 *5100 1,229 0.26 * EBR 0 53 72 WBL 2 3400 374 0.11 *3400 492 0.14 * WBT 2 3400 1,029 0.30 3400 1,115 0.33 WBR 1 1,700 359 0.21 1700 376 0.22 N/S Movements 0.23 0.24 E/W Movements 0.35 0.40 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.63 0.69 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 13 0.01 *1,700 13 0.01 *NBL 1 1,700 13 0.01 *1,700 13 0.01 * NBT 2 3,400 67 0.02 3,400 86 0.04 NBT 2 3,400 78 0.03 3,400 86 0.04 NBR 0 1 56 NBR 0 34 56 SBL 0 31 337 SBL 0 213 337 SBT 2 3,400 52 0.04 *3,400 107 0.15 *SBT 2 3,400 85 0.11 *3,400 107 0.15 * SBR 0 65 65 SBR 0 65 65 EBL 1 1,700 99 0.06 *1,700 99 0.06 *EBL 1 1,700 99 0.06 *1,700 99 0.06 * EBT 2 3,400 57 0.02 3,400 207 0.07 EBT 2 3,400 146 0.05 3,400 207 0.07 EBR 0 16 31 EBR 0 25 31 WBL 1 1,700 1 0.00 1,700 48 0.03 WBL 1 1,700 29 0.02 1,700 48 0.03 WBT 2 3,400 83 0.04 *3,400 87 0.04 *WBT 2 3,400 85 0.04 *3,400 87 0.04 * WBR 0 45 65 WBR 0 57 65 N/S Movements 0.05 0.16 N/S Movements 0.11 0.16 E/W Movements 0.10 0.10 E/W Movements 0.10 0.10 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.20 0.31 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.26 0.31 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 14 0.01 *1,700 14 0.01 * NBT 2 3,400 78 0.03 3,400 86 0.04 NBR 0 34 56 SBL 0 245 368 SBT 2 3,400 101 0.12 *3,400 123 0.16 * SBR 0 65 65 EBL 1 1,700 102 0.06 *1,700 102 0.06 * EBT 2 3,400 150 0.05 3,400 210 0.07 EBR 0 25 31 WBL 1 1,700 29 0.02 1,700 48 0.03 WBT 2 3,400 85 0.04 *3,400 87 0.04 * WBR 0 57 65 N/S Movements 0.13 0.17 E/W Movements 0.10 0.11 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.28 0.33 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 38 0.02 *1,700 38 0.02 NBL 1 1,700 38 0.02 1,700 38 0.02 NBT 1 1,700 9 0.01 1,700 12 0.01 *NBT 1 1,700 11 0.01 *1,700 12 0.01 * NBR 1 1,700 76 0.04 *1,700 114 0.07 *NBR 1 1,700 98 0.06 *1,700 114 0.07 * SBL 2 3,400 159 0.05 3,400 194 0.06 *SBL 2 3,400 180 0.05 *3,400 194 0.06 * SBT 0.5 388 13 0.03 *388 13 0.03 SBT 0.5 388 13 0.03 388 13 0.03 SBR 0.5 1,312 44 0.03 1,312 44 0.03 SBR 0.5 1,312 44 0.03 1,312 44 0.03 EBL 2 3,400 73 0.02 *3,400 99 0.03 EBL 2 3,400 88 0.03 3,400 99 0.03 EBT 3 5,100 850 0.17 5,100 1,535 0.32 *EBT 3 5,100 1,258 0.26 *5,100 1,535 0.32 * EBR 0 30 77 EBR 0 58 77 WBL 2 3,400 51 0.02 3,400 179 0.05 *WBL 2 3,400 127 0.04 *3,400 179 0.05 * WBT 3 5,100 912 0.20 *5,100 983 0.25 WBT 3 5,100 955 0.23 5,100 983 0.25 WBR 0 132 295 WBR 0 229 295 Split phase N/S Movements 0.07 0.08 Split phase N/S Movements 0.08 0.08 E/W Movements 0.23 0.37 E/W Movements 0.30 0.37 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.35 0.50 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.50 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 53 0.03 *1,700 53 0.03 * NBT 1 1,700 16 0.01 1,700 17 0.01 NBR 1 1,700 138 0.08 *1,700 153 0.09 * SBL 2 3,400 180 0.05 3,400 194 0.06 SBT 0.5 779 37 0.05 *779 37 0.05 * SBR 0.5 921 44 0.05 921 44 0.05 EBL 2 3,400 88 0.03 3,400 99 0.03 EBT 3 5,100 1,384 0.28 *5,100 1,661 0.34 * EBR 0 58 77 WBL 2 3,400 127 0.04 *3,400 179 0.05 * WBT 3 5,100 955 0.23 5,100 983 0.25 WBR 0 229 295 Split phase N/S Movements 0.08 0.09 E/W Movements 0.32 0.39 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.47 0.54 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 0.5 893 182 0.20 *1601 732 0.46 *SBL 0.5 1437 510 0.35 *1601 732 0.46 * SBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBR 1.5 2507 511 0.20 *4035 822 0.20 *SBR 1.5 1963 697 0.35 *1799 822 0.46 * EBL 0 0 0 *EBL 0 0 0 * EBT 3 5100 1,054 0.21 *5100 1,069 0.21 EBT 3 5100 1,063 0.21 *5100 1,069 0.21 EBR (free)50 85000 342 0.00 85000 382 0.00 EBR (free)50 85000 366 0.00 85000 382 0.00 WBL 0 0 * 0 WBL 0 0 * 0 WBT 3 5100 912 0.18 5100 1,102 0.22 *WBT 3 5100 1,025 0.20 5100 1,102 0.22 * WBR (free)50 85000 177 0.00 85000 209 0.00 WBR (free)50 85000 196 0.00 85000 209 0.00 N/S Movements 0.20 0.46 N/S Movements 0.35 0.46 E/W Movements 0.21 0.22 E/W Movements 0.21 0.22 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.46 0.72 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.61 0.72 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B C Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 0.5 1437 510 0.35 *2063 732 0.35 * SBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBR 1.5 1963 697 0.35 *1799 822 0.46 * EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 1,118 0.22 *5100 1,124 0.22 * EBR (free)50 85000 372 0.00 85000 388 0.00 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 1,025 0.20 5100 1,102 0.22 WBR (free)50 85000 224 0.00 85000 237 0.00 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.22 0.22 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.10 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.62 0.73 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B C Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 1.5 2550 172 0.07 *2550 575 0.23 *SBL 1.5 2550 412 0.16 *2550 575 0.23 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1.5 2550 408 0.16 *2550 597 0.23 *SBR 1.5 2550 520 0.20 *2550 597 0.23 * EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 811 0.16 *5100 1,647 0.32 *EBT 3 5100 1,309 0.26 *5100 1,647 0.32 * EBR (free)50 85000 250 0.00 85000 286 0.00 EBR (free)50 85000 272 0.00 85000 286 0.00 WBL 0 0 * 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 677 0.13 5100 863 0.17 WBT 3 5100 788 0.15 5100 863 0.17 WBR (free)50 85000 256 0.00 85000 256 0.00 WBR (free)50 85000 256 0.00 85000 256 0.00 N/S Movements 0.07 0.23 N/S Movements 0.16 0.23 E/W Movements 0.16 0.32 E/W Movements 0.26 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.09 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.37 0.61 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.51 0.61 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 1.5 2550 949 0.37 *2550 1,112 0.44 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1.5 2550 778 0.31 *2550 854 0.33 * EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 1,471 0.29 *5100 1,808 0.35 * EBR (free)50 85000 302 0.00 85000 316 0.00 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 1,004 0.20 5100 1,079 0.21 WBR (free)50 85000 276 0.00 85000 276 0.00 N/S Movements 0.37 0.44 E/W Movements 0.29 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.71 0.84 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 429 0.25 *1700 498 0.29 *NBL 1 1700 470 0.28 *1700 498 0.29 * NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NBR 1 1700 135 0.08 *1700 314 0.18 *NBR 1 1700 242 0.14 *1700 314 0.18 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 631 0.12 5100 1,252 0.25 *EBT 3 5100 1,001 0.20 *5100 1,252 0.25 * EBR (free)50 85000 579 0.01 85000 584 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 582 0.01 85000 584 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 649 0.13 *5100 827 0.16 WBT 3 5100 755 0.15 5100 827 0.16 WBR (free)50 85000 269 0.00 85000 301 0.00 WBR (free)50 85000 288 0.00 85000 301 0.00 N/S Movements 0.25 0.29 N/S Movements 0.28 0.29 E/W Movements 0.13 0.25 E/W Movements 0.20 0.25 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.43 0.59 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.52 0.59 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 470 0.28 *1700 498 0.29 * NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NBR 1 1700 242 0.14 *1700 314 0.18 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 1,001 0.20 *5100 1,252 0.25 * EBR (free)50 85000 647 0.01 85000 649 0.01 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 755 0.15 5100 827 0.16 WBR (free)50 85000 384 0.00 85000 397 0.00 N/S Movements 0.28 0.29 E/W Movements 0.20 0.25 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.52 0.59 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 2517 227 0.09 *1700 320 0.19 *NBL 1.5 1700 282 0.17 *1700 320 0.19 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 2583 233 0.09 *3400 1,272 0.37 *NBR 1.5 3400 852 0.25 *3400 1,272 0.37 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 5 8500 605 0.07 8500 1,820 0.21 *EBT 5 8500 1,329 0.16 *8500 1,820 0.21 * EBR (free)50 85000 414 0.00 85000 414 0.00 EBR (free)50 85000 414 0.00 85000 414 0.00 WBL 0 0 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 715 0.14 *5100 715 0.14 WBT 3 5100 715 0.14 5100 715 0.14 WBR 1 1700 197 0.12 1700 197 0.12 WBR 1 1700 197 0.12 1700 197 0.12 N/S Movements 0.09 0.19 N/S Movements 0.17 0.19 E/W Movements 0.14 0.21 E/W Movements 0.16 0.21 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.19 Rt. Turn Component 0.08 0.19 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.28 0.64 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.46 0.64 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1700 334 0.20 *1700 372 0.22 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 3400 1,072 0.32 *3400 1,492 0.44 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 5 8500 1,970 0.23 *8500 2,460 0.29 * EBR (free)50 85000 472 0.01 85000 472 0.01 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 900 0.18 5100 900 0.18 WBR 1 1700 249 0.15 1700 249 0.15 N/S Movements 0.20 0.22 E/W Movements 0.23 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.12 0.22 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.60 0.78 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 40 0.02*1700 98 0.06 *NBL 1 1700 75 0.04*1700 98 0.06* NBT 1 1700 4 0.01 1700 65 0.05 NBT 1 1700 40 0.04 1700 65 0.05 NBR 0 0 11 0 27 NBR 0 0 21 0 27 SBL 1 1,700 44 0.03 1,700 68 0.04 SBL 1 1,700 58 0.03 1,700 68 0.04 SBT 0.5 23 1 0.04*171 8 0.05 *SBT 0.5 113 5 0.04*171 8 0.05* SBR 1.5 3,377 146 0.04 3,229 146 0.05 SBR 1.5 3,287 146 0.04 3,229 146 0.05 EBL 2 3400 64 0.02*3400 1,430 0.42 *EBL 2 3400 878 0.26*3400 1,430 0.42* EBT 3 5100 749 0.15 5100 1,369 0.27 EBT 3 5100 1,119 0.22 5100 1,369 0.27 EBR 1 1700 22 0.01 1700 205 0.12 EBR 1 1700 131 0.08 1700 205 0.12 WBL 2 3400 9 0.00 3400 86 0.03 WBL 2 3400 55 0.02 3400 86 0.03 WBT 3 5100 691 0.14*5100 691 0.14 *WBT 3 5100 691 0.14*5100 691 0.14* WBR 1 1700 58 0.03 1700 382 0.22 *WBR 1 1700 251 0.15 1700 382 0.22* N/S Movements 0.07 0.10 N/S Movements 0.09 0.10 E/W Movements 0.15 0.56 E/W Movements 0.39 0.56 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.05 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.27 0.76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 75 0.04*1700 98 0.06 * NBT 1 1700 42 0.05 1700 67 0.06 NBR 0 0 34 0 41 SBL 1 1,700 67 0.04 1,700 76 0.04 SBT 0.5 848 57 0.07*878 60 0.07 * SBR 1.5 2,552 171 0.07 2,522 171 0.07 EBL 2 3400 878 0.26*3400 1,430 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 1,184 0.23 5100 1,435 0.28 EBR 1 1700 980 0.58*1700 1,054 0.62 * WBL 2 3400 345 0.10 3400 376 0.11 WBT 3 5100 893 0.18*5100 893 0.18 * WBR 1 1700 251 0.15 1700 382 0.22 * N/S Movements 0.11 0.13 E/W Movements 0.43 0.60 Rt. Turn Component 0.30 0.29 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.89 1.06 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D F Impact Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 40 0.02 1 1,700 98 0.06 NBL 1 1700 75 0.04 1 1700 98 0.06 NBT 1 1700 4 0.01 *1 1,700 65 0.05 *NBT 1 1700 40 0.04 *1 1700 65 0.05 * NBR 0 0 11 0 27 NBR 0 0 21 0 0 27 SBL 1 1700 44 0.03 *1 1,700 68 0.04 *SBL 1 1700 58 0.03 *1 1700 68 0.04 * SBT 0.5 850 1 0.00 0.5 850 8 0.01 SBT 0.5 850 5 0.01 0.5 850 8 0.01 SBR 1.5 2550 146 0.06 *1.5 2,550 146 0.06 SBR 1.5 2550 146 0.06 1.5 2550 146 0.06 EBL 2 3400 64 0.02 *2 3,400 1,430 0.42 *EBL 2 3400 878 0.26 *2 3400 1,430 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 749 0.15 3 5,100 1,369 0.27 EBT 3 5100 1,119 0.22 3 5100 1,369 0.27 EBR 1 1700 22 0.01 1 1,700 205 0.12 EBR 1 1700 131 0.08 1 1700 205 0.12 WBL 2 3400 9 0.00 2 3,400 86 0.03 WBL 2 3400 55 0.02 2 3400 86 0.03 WBT 3 5100 691 0.14 *3 5,100 691 0.14 *WBT 3 5100 691 0.14 *3 5100 691 0.14 * WBR 1 1700 58 0.03 1 1,700 382 0.22 *WBR 1 1700 251 0.15 1 1700 382 0.22 * N/S Movements 0.03 0.09 N/S Movements 0.07 0.09 E/W Movements 0.15 0.56 E/W Movements 0.39 0.56 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.05 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.25 0.75 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.51 0.75 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 75 0.04 *1 1700 98 0.06 * NBT 1 1700 42 0.05 1 1700 67 0.06 NBR 0 0 34 0 0 41 SBL 1 1700 67 0.04 1 1700 76 0.04 SBT 0.5 850 57 0.07 *0.5 850 60 0.07 * SBR 1.5 2550 171 0.07 1.5 2550 171 0.07 EBL 2 3400 878 0.26 *2 3400 1,430 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 1,184 0.23 3 5100 1,435 0.28 EBR 1 1700 980 0.58 *2 3400 1,054 0.31 WBL 2 3400 345 0.10 2 3400 376 0.11 WBT 3 5100 893 0.18 *3 5100 893 0.18 * WBR 1 1700 251 0.15 1 1700 382 0.22 * N/S Movements 0.11 0.13 E/W Movements 0.43 0.60 Rt. Turn Component 0.30 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.89 0.78 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D C Add EBR Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.33 2,675 107 0.04 *2,585 122 0.05*NBL 1.33 2,618 116 0.04 *2,585 122 0.05 * NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.33 725 29 0.04 *815 38 0.05 NBR 0.33 782 35 0.05 815 38 0.05 SBL 1 1,700 3 0.00 1,700 7 0.00 SBL 1 1,700 5 0.00 1,700 7 0.00 SBT 1 1,700 1 0.01 *1,700 1 0.02*SBT 1 1,700 1 0.01 *1,700 1 0.02 * SBR 0 13 31 SBR 0 23 31 EBL 1 1,700 11 0.01 *1,700 27 0.02*EBL 1 1,700 21 0.01 *1,700 27 0.02 * EBT 2 3,400 690 0.20 3,400 730 0.21 EBT 2 3,400 714 0.21 3,400 730 0.21 EBR 1 1,700 94 0.06 1,700 784 0.46*EBR 1 1,700 505 0.30 *1,700 784 0.46 * WBL 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 151 0.09 WBL 1 1,700 98 0.06 1,700 151 0.09 WBT 2 3,400 798 0.24 *3,400 976 0.29*WBT 2 3,400 904 0.27 *3,400 976 0.29 * WBR 0 2 9 WBR 0 6 9 N/S Movements 0.05 0.07 N/S Movements 0.06 0.07 E/W Movements 0.24 0.31 E/W Movements 0.28 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.20 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.20 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.34 0.62 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.43 0.62 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.33 2,586 132 0.05 *2,559 138 0.05* NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.33 814 42 0.05 841 45 0.05 SBL 1 1,700 5 0.00 1,700 7 0.00 SBT 1 1,700 3 0.02 *1,700 3 0.02* SBR 0 27 34 EBL 1 1,700 32 0.02 *1,700 39 0.02* EBT 2 3,400 714 0.21 3,400 730 0.21 EBR 1 1,700 553 0.33 *1,700 832 0.49* WBL 1 1,700 108 0.06 1,700 161 0.09 WBT 2 3,400 954 0.28 *3,400 1,026 0.31* WBR 0 12 15 N/S Movements 0.07 0.08 E/W Movements 0.30 0.33 Rt. Turn Component 0.06 0.22 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.67 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3,150 151 0.05*3,089 200 0.06 *NBL 1.5 3,109 180 0.06*3,089 200 0.06* NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.5 250 12 0.05*311 20 0.06 *NBR 0.5 291 17 0.06*311 20 0.06* SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00* SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5,100 684 0.13*5,100 684 0.13 EBT 3 5,100 684 0.13 5,100 684 0.13 EBR 1 1,700 134 0.08 1,700 178 0.10 EBR 1 1,700 161 0.09 1,700 178 0.10 WBL 1 1,700 12 0.01*1,700 83 0.05 WBL 1 1,700 55 0.03 1,700 83 0.05 WBT 3 5,100 590 0.12 5,100 1,412 0.28 *WBT 3 5,100 1,080 0.21*5,100 1,412 0.28* WBR 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.05 0.06 N/S Movements 0.06 0.06 E/W Movements 0.14 0.28 E/W Movements 0.21 0.28 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.24 0.39 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.32 0.39 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3,039 190 0.06*3,027 210 0.07 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.5 361 23 0.06*373 26 0.07 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5,100 684 0.13 5,100 684 0.13 EBR 1 1,700 161 0.09 1,700 178 0.10 WBL 1 1,700 60 0.04 1,700 89 0.05 WBT 3 5,100 1,472 0.29*5,100 1,804 0.35 * WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.06 0.07 E/W Movements 0.29 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.40 0.47 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:33 Main Street / Taft Avenue INTERSECTION:33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3299 260 0.08 *3304 276 0.08 *NBL 1.5 3302 270 0.08 *3304 276 0.08 * NBT 0.5 101 8 0.08 96 8 0.08 NBT 0.5 98 8 0.08 96 8 0.08 NBR 1 1700 126 0.07 1700 126 0.07 NBR 1 1700 126 0.07 1700 126 0.07 SBL 1 1700 1 0.00 1700 1 0.00 SBL 1 1700 1 0.00 1700 1 0.00 SBT 1 1700 8 0.04 *1700 8 0.04 *SBT 1 1700 8 0.04 *1700 8 0.04 * SBR 0 54 54 SBR 0 54 54 EBL 1 1700 27 0.02 1700 27 0.02 EBL 1 1700 27 0.02 1700 27 0.02 EBT 2 3400 605 0.20 *3400 605 0.20 *EBT 2 3400 605 0.20 *3400 605 0.20 * EBR 0 91 91 EBR 0 91 91 WBL 1 1700 89 0.05 *1700 89 0.05 *WBL 1 1700 89 0.05 *1700 89 0.05 * WBT 2 3400 538 0.16 3400 636 0.19 WBT 2 3400 597 0.18 3400 636 0.19 WBR 0 1 1 WBR 0 1 1 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 E/W Movements 0.26 0.26 E/W Movements 0.26 0.26 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.43 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.43 0.43 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3425 270 0.08 *3304 276 0.08 * NBT 0.5 101 8 0.08 96 8 0.08 NBR 1 1700 126 0.07 1700 126 0.07 SBL 1 1700 1 0.00 1700 1 0.00 SBT 1 1700 8 0.04 *1700 8 0.04 * SBR 0 54 54 EBL 1 1700 27 0.02 1700 27 0.02 EBT 2 3400 605 0.20 *3400 605 0.20 * EBR 0 91 91 WBL 1 1700 89 0.05 *1700 89 0.05 * WBT 2 3400 597 0.18 3400 636 0.19 WBR 0 1 1 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 E/W Movements 0.26 0.26 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.43 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 114 0.03 3,400 211 0.06 NBL 2 3,400 172 0.05 3,400 211 0.06 NBT 2 3,400 195 0.06 *3,400 304 0.09 *NBT 2 3,400 260 0.08*3,400 304 0.09 * NBR 1 1,700 172 0.10 1,700 199 0.12 NBR 1 1,700 188 0.11 1,700 199 0.12 SBL 1 1,700 80 0.05 *1,700 80 0.05 *SBL 1 1,700 80 0.05*1,700 80 0.05 * SBT 2 3,400 126 0.04 3,400 176 0.05 SBT 2 3,400 156 0.05 3,400 176 0.05 SBR 1 1,700 69 0.04 1,700 159 0.09 *SBR 1 1,700 123 0.07 1,700 159 0.09 * EBL 1 1,700 63 0.04 *1,700 64 0.04 *EBL 1 1,700 64 0.04*1,700 64 0.04 * EBT 3 5,100 422 0.08 5,100 446 0.09 EBT 3 5,100 436 0.09 5,100 446 0.09 EBR 1 1,700 32 0.02 1,700 44 0.03 EBR 1 1,700 39 0.02 1,700 44 0.03 WBL 1 1,700 130 0.08 1,700 166 0.10 WBL 1 1,700 152 0.09 1,700 166 0.10 WBT 3 5,100 560 0.13 *5,100 1,121 0.24 *WBT 3 5,100 894 0.19*5,100 1,121 0.24 * WBR 0 81 89 WBR 0 86 89 N/S Movements 0.10 0.14 N/S Movements 0.12 0.14 E/W Movements 0.16 0.28 E/W Movements 0.23 0.28 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.32 0.46 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.40 0.46 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 172 0.05 3,400 211 0.06 NBT 2 3400 260 0.08 *3,400 304 0.09 * NBR 1 1700 189 0.11 1,700 200 0.12 SBL 1 1700 80 0.05 *1,700 80 0.05 * SBT 2 3400 156 0.05 3,400 176 0.05 SBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1,700 177 0.10 * EBL 1 1700 64 0.04 *1,700 64 0.04 * EBT 3 5100 447 0.09 5,100 457 0.09 EBR 1 1700 39 0.02 1,700 44 0.03 WBL 1 1700 152 0.09 1,700 166 0.10 WBT 3 5100 1,156 0.25 *5,100 1,383 0.29 * WBR 0 103 106 N/S Movements 0.12 0.14 E/W Movements 0.28 0.33 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.46 0.52 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:35 Main Street / Struck Avenue INTERSECTION:35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 70 0.04 1,700 221 0.13 *NBL 1 1,700 160 0.09 *1,700 221 0.13 * NBT 2 3,400 444 0.13 *3,400 662 0.20 NBT 2 3,400 574 0.17 3,400 662 0.20 NBR 0 3 7 NBR 0 5 7 SBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 *1,700 13 0.01 SBL 1 1,700 12 0.01 1,700 13 0.01 SBT 2 3,400 268 0.08 3,400 294 0.11 *SBT 2 3,400 283 0.10 *3,400 294 0.11 * SBR 0 19 80 SBR 0 55 80 EBL 1 1,700 17 0.01 1,700 22 0.01 EBL 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 22 0.01 EBT 1 1,700 40 0.07 *1,700 45 0.09 *EBT 1 1,700 43 0.08 *1,700 45 0.09 * EBR 0 85 100 EBR 0 94 100 WBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 *1,700 11 0.01 *WBL 1 1,700 11 0.01 *1,700 11 0.01 * WBT 1 1,700 28 0.03 1,700 74 0.05 WBT 1 1,700 55 0.04 1,700 74 0.05 WBR 0 18 18 WBR 0 18 18 N/S Movements 0.14 0.24 N/S Movements 0.19 0.24 E/W Movements 0.08 0.09 E/W Movements 0.09 0.09 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.27 0.38 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.33 0.38 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 185 0.11 *1,700 246 0.14 * NBT 2 3,400 574 0.18 3,400 662 0.20 NBR 0 24 26 SBL 1 1,700 12 0.01 1,700 13 0.01 SBT 2 3,400 284 0.10 *3,400 295 0.11 * SBR 0 59 83 EBL 1 1,700 25 0.01 1,700 27 0.02 EBT 1 1,700 59 0.09 *1,700 62 0.10 * EBR 0 102 108 WBL 1 1,700 17 0.01 *1,700 17 0.01 * WBT 1 1,700 63 0.06 1,700 82 0.07 WBR 0 31 31 N/S Movements 0.21 0.26 E/W Movements 0.10 0.11 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.36 0.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue INTERSECTION:36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 100 0.06 *1700 100 0.06 *NBL 1 1700 100 0.06 *1700 100 0.06 * NBT 2 3400 137 0.05 3400 137 0.05 NBT 2 3400 137 0.05 3400 137 0.05 NBR 0 35 35 NBR 0 35 35 SBL 1 1700 17 0.01 1700 17 0.01 SBL 1 1700 17 0.01 1700 17 0.01 SBT 2 3400 125 0.08 *3400 125 0.08 *SBT 2 3400 125 0.08 *3400 125 0.08 * SBR 0 130 146 SBR 0 140 146 EBL 1 1700 138 0.08 *1700 138 0.08 *EBL 1 1700 138 0.08 *1700 138 0.08 * EBT 2 3400 549 0.16 3400 549 0.16 EBT 2 3400 549 0.16 3400 549 0.16 EBR 1 1700 101 0.06 1700 101 0.06 EBR 1 1700 101 0.06 1700 101 0.06 WBL 1 1700 46 0.03 1700 46 0.03 WBL 1 1700 46 0.03 1700 46 0.03 WBT 2 3400 427 0.13 *3400 509 0.15 *WBT 2 3400 476 0.14 *3400 509 0.15 * WBR 1 1700 15 0.01 1700 15 0.01 WBR 1 1700 15 0.01 1700 15 0.01 N/S Movements 0.13 0.14 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 E/W Movements 0.21 0.23 E/W Movements 0.22 0.23 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.39 0.42 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 100 0.06 *1700 100 0.06 * NBT 2 3400 137 0.05 3400 137 0.05 NBR 0 35 35 SBL 1 1700 17 0.01 1700 17 0.01 SBT 2 3400 125 0.08 *3400 125 0.08 * SBR 0 140 146 EBL 1 1700 138 0.08 *1700 138 0.08 * EBT 2 3400 549 0.16 3400 549 0.16 EBR 1 1700 101 0.06 1700 101 0.06 WBL 1 1700 46 0.03 1700 46 0.03 WBT 2 3400 476 0.14 *3400 509 0.15 * WBR 1 1700 15 0.01 1700 15 0.01 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 E/W Movements 0.22 0.23 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 38 0.02 1700 38 0.02 NBL 1 1700 38 0.02 1700 38 0.02 NBT 2 3400 169 0.05 *3400 169 0.05 *NBT 2 3400 169 0.05 *3400 169 0.05 * NBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 NBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBL 1 1700 110 0.06 *1700 110 0.06 *SBL 1 1700 110 0.06 *1700 110 0.06 * SBT 2 3400 114 0.03 3400 114 0.03 SBT 2 3400 114 0.03 3400 114 0.03 SBR 1 1700 71 0.04 1700 71 0.04 SBR 1 1700 71 0.04 1700 71 0.04 EBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 70 0.04 *EBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 70 0.04 * EBT 3 5100 647 0.13 5100 647 0.13 EBT 3 5100 647 0.13 5100 647 0.13 EBR 0 22 22 EBR 0 22 22 WBL 1 1700 78 0.05 1700 78 0.05 WBL 1 1700 78 0.05 1700 78 0.05 WBT 3 5100 554 0.14 *5100 928 0.22 *WBT 3 5100 777 0.19 *5100 928 0.22 * WBR 0 170 170 WBR 0 170 170 N/S Movements 0.11 0.11 N/S Movements 0.11 0.11 E/W Movements 0.18 0.26 E/W Movements 0.23 0.26 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.35 0.42 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.39 0.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 38 0.02 1700 38 0.02 NBT 2 3400 169 0.05 *3400 169 0.05 * NBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBL 1 1700 110 0.06 *1700 110 0.06 * SBT 2 3400 114 0.03 3400 114 0.03 SBR 1 1700 71 0.04 1700 71 0.04 EBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 70 0.04 * EBT 3 5100 647 0.13 5100 647 0.13 EBR 0 22 22 WBL 1 1700 78 0.05 1700 78 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,039 0.24 *5100 1,190 0.27 * WBR 0 170 170 N/S Movements 0.11 0.11 E/W Movements 0.28 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.47 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue INTERSECTION:38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 74 0.04 1700 74 0.04 NBL 1 1700 74 0.04 1700 74 0.04 NBT 3 5100 561 0.13 *5100 561 0.13 *NBT 3 5100 561 0.13 *5100 561 0.13 * NBR 0 105 105 NBR 0 105 105 SBL 1 1700 63 0.04 *1700 103 0.06 *SBL 1 1700 87 0.05 *1700 103 0.06 * SBT 3 5100 414 0.11 5100 414 0.11 SBT 3 5100 414 0.11 5100 414 0.11 SBR 0 131 131 SBR 0 131 131 EBL 1 1700 173 0.10 *1700 173 0.10 *EBL 1 1700 173 0.10 *1700 173 0.10 * EBT 2 3400 369 0.11 3400 369 0.11 EBT 2 3400 369 0.11 3400 369 0.11 EBR 1 1700 65 0.04 1700 65 0.04 EBR 1 1700 65 0.04 1700 65 0.04 WBL 1 1700 47 0.03 1700 47 0.03 WBL 1 1700 47 0.03 1700 47 0.03 WBT 2 3400 231 0.07 *3400 273 0.08 *WBT 2 3400 256 0.08 *3400 273 0.08 * WBR 1 1700 65 0.04 1700 65 0.04 WBR 1 1700 65 0.04 1700 65 0.04 N/S Movements 0.17 0.19 N/S Movements 0.18 0.19 E/W Movements 0.17 0.18 E/W Movements 0.18 0.18 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.39 0.42 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 74 0.04 1700 74 0.04 NBT 3 5100 561 0.13 *5100 561 0.13 * NBR 0 105 105 SBL 1 1700 87 0.05 *1700 103 0.06 * SBT 3 5100 480 0.12 5100 480 0.12 SBR 0 131 131 EBL 1 1700 173 0.10 *1700 173 0.10 * EBT 2 3400 369 0.11 3400 369 0.11 EBR 1 1700 65 0.04 1700 65 0.04 WBL 1 1700 47 0.03 1700 47 0.03 WBT 2 3400 256 0.08 *3400 273 0.08 * WBR 1 1700 65 0.04 1700 65 0.04 N/S Movements 0.18 0.19 E/W Movements 0.18 0.18 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 118 0.07 1700 118 0.07 NBL 1 1700 118 0.07 1700 118 0.07 NBT 2 3400 366 0.11 *3400 366 0.11 *NBT 2 3400 366 0.11 *3400 366 0.11 * NBR 1 1700 121 0.07 1700 121 0.07 NBR 1 1700 121 0.07 1700 121 0.07 SBL 1 1700 125 0.07 *1700 125 0.07 *SBL 1 1700 125 0.07 *1700 125 0.07 * SBT 2 3400 333 0.10 3400 333 0.10 SBT 2 3400 333 0.10 3400 333 0.10 SBR 1 1700 118 0.07 1700 118 0.07 SBR 1 1700 118 0.07 1700 118 0.07 EBL 2 3400 206 0.06 *3400 206 0.06 *EBL 2 3400 206 0.06 *3400 206 0.06 * EBT 3 5100 699 0.15 5100 699 0.15 EBT 3 5100 699 0.15 5100 699 0.15 EBR 0 82 82 EBR 0 82 82 WBL 2 3400 146 0.04 3400 146 0.04 WBL 2 3400 146 0.04 3400 146 0.04 WBT 3 5100 659 0.15 *5100 1,033 0.23 *WBT 3 5100 882 0.20 *5100 1,033 0.23 * WBR 0 126 126 WBR 0 126 126 N/S Movements 0.18 0.18 N/S Movements 0.18 0.18 E/W Movements 0.21 0.29 E/W Movements 0.26 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.45 0.52 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.52 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 118 0.07 1700 118 0.07 NBT 2 3400 366 0.11 *3400 366 0.11 * NBR 1 1700 121 0.07 1700 121 0.07 SBL 1 1700 125 0.07 *1700 125 0.07 * SBT 2 3400 333 0.10 3400 333 0.10 SBR 1 1700 184 0.11 1700 184 0.11 EBL 2 3400 206 0.06 *3400 206 0.06 * EBT 3 5100 699 0.15 5100 699 0.15 EBR 0 82 82 WBL 2 3400 146 0.04 3400 146 0.04 WBT 3 5100 1,046 0.23 *5100 1,197 0.26 * WBR 0 126 126 N/S Movements 0.18 0.18 E/W Movements 0.29 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.52 0.55 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:40 N Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:40 N Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0.33 635 59 0.09 635 59 0.09 NBL 0.33 635 59 0.09 635 59 0.09 NBT 0.34 258 24 0.09 258 24 0.09 NBT 0.34 258 24 0.09 258 24 0.09 NBR 0.33 807 75 0.09 807 75 0.09 NBR 0.33 807 75 0.09 807 75 0.09 SBL 0.33 436 10 0.02 436 10 0.02 SBL 0.33 436 10 0.02 436 10 0.02 SBT 0.34 654 15 0.02 654 15 0.02 SBT 0.34 654 15 0.02 654 15 0.02 SBR 0.33 610 14 0.02 610 14 0.02 SBR 0.33 610 14 0.02 610 14 0.02 EBL 1 1700 13 0.01 1700 13 0.01 *EBL 1 1700 13 0.01 1700 13 0.01 * EBT 3 5100 935 0.19 *5100 935 0.19 EBT 3 5100 935 0.19 *5100 935 0.19 EBR 0 34 34 EBR 0 34 34 WBL 1 1700 38 0.02 *1700 38 0.02 WBL 1 1700 38 0.02 *1700 38 0.02 WBT 3 5100 763 0.15 5100 1,044 0.21 *WBT 3 5100 930 0.19 5100 1,044 0.21 * WBR 0 19 19 WBR 0 19 19 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 E/W Movements 0.21 0.22 E/W Movements 0.21 0.22 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.38 0.38 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.38 0.38 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:40 N Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0.33 635 59 0.09 635 59 0.09 NBT 0.34 258 24 0.09 258 24 0.09 NBR 0.33 807 75 0.09 807 75 0.09 SBL 0.33 436 10 0.02 436 10 0.02 SBT 0.34 654 15 0.02 654 15 0.02 SBR 0.33 610 14 0.02 610 14 0.02 EBL 1 1700 13 0.01 *1700 13 0.01 * EBT 3 5100 935 0.19 5100 935 0.19 EBR 0 34 34 WBL 1 1700 38 0.02 1700 38 0.02 WBT 3 5100 1,094 0.22 *5100 1,208 0.24 * WBR 0 19 19 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 E/W Movements 0.23 0.25 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.39 0.41 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:41 N Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:41 N Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 48 0.03 1700 48 0.03 NBL 1 1700 48 0.03 1700 48 0.03 NBT 1 1700 138 0.08 *1700 138 0.08 *NBT 1 1700 138 0.08 *1700 138 0.08 * NBR 1 1700 74 0.04 1700 74 0.04 NBR 1 1700 74 0.04 1700 74 0.04 SBL 1 1700 100 0.06 *1700 100 0.06 *SBL 1 1700 100 0.06 *1700 100 0.06 * SBT 1 1700 171 0.10 1700 171 0.10 SBT 1 1700 171 0.10 1700 171 0.10 SBR 1 1700 44 0.03 1700 44 0.03 SBR 1 1700 44 0.03 1700 44 0.03 EBL 1 1700 51 0.03 1700 51 0.03 *EBL 1 1700 51 0.03 *1700 51 0.03 * EBT 3 5100 898 0.19 *5100 898 0.19 EBT 3 5100 898 0.19 5100 898 0.19 EBR 0 48 48 EBR 0 48 48 WBL 1 1700 82 0.05 *1700 82 0.05 WBL 1 1700 82 0.05 1700 82 0.05 WBT 3 5100 745 0.19 5100 1,026 0.24 *WBT 3 5100 912 0.22 *5100 1,026 0.24 * WBR 0 211 211 WBR 0 211 211 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 E/W Movements 0.23 0.27 E/W Movements 0.25 0.27 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.46 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.46 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:41 N Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 48 0.03 1700 48 0.03 NBT 1 1700 138 0.08 *1700 138 0.08 * NBR 1 1700 74 0.04 1700 74 0.04 SBL 1 1700 100 0.06 *1700 100 0.06 * SBT 1 1700 171 0.10 1700 171 0.10 SBR 1 1700 44 0.03 1700 44 0.03 EBL 1 1700 51 0.03 *1700 51 0.03 * EBT 3 5100 898 0.19 5100 898 0.19 EBR 0 48 48 WBL 1 1700 82 0.05 1700 82 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,076 0.25 *5100 1,190 0.27 * WBR 0 211 211 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 E/W Movements 0.28 0.30 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.47 0.49 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:42 N Tustin Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:42 N Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 219 0.0644 3400 359 0.1056 NBL 2 3400 302 0.09 3400 359 0.11 NBT 3 5100 749 0.1469 *5100 749 0.1469 *NBT 3 5100 749 0.15 *5100 749 0.15 * NBR 1 1700 380 0.2235 1700 380 0.2235 NBR 1 1700 380 0.22 1700 380 0.22 SBL 2 3400 449 0.1321 *3400 449 0.1321 *SBL 2 3400 449 0.13 *3400 449 0.13 * SBT 3 5100 621 0.1488 5100 621 0.1488 SBT 3 5100 621 0.15 5100 621 0.15 SBR 0 138 138 SBR 0 138 138 EBL 2 3400 229 0.0674 3400 229 0.0674 EBL 2 3400 229 0.07 3400 229 0.07 EBT 3 5100 902 0.1769 *5100 902 0.1769 *EBT 3 5100 902 0.18 *5100 902 0.18 * EBR 1 1700 127 0.0747 1700 127 0.0747 EBR 1 1700 127 0.07 1700 127 0.07 WBL 2 3400 384 0.1129 *3400 384 0.1129 *WBL 2 3400 384 0.11 *3400 384 0.11 * WBT 3 5100 785 0.1539 5100 926 0.1816 WBT 3 5100 869 0.17 5100 926 0.18 WBR 1 1700 591 0.3476 *1700 591 0.3476 *WBR 1 1700 591 0.35 *1700 591 0.35 * N/S Movements 0.28 0.28 N/S Movements 0.28 0.28 E/W Movements 0.29 0.29 E/W Movements 0.29 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.03 Rt. Turn Component 0..00 0.03 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.62 0.65 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.62 0.65 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:42 N Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 335 0.10 3400 392 0.12 NBT 3 5100 749 0.15 *5100 749 0.15 * NBR 1 1700 380 0.22 1700 380 0.22 SBL 2 3400 449 0.13 *3400 449 0.13 * SBT 3 5100 621 0.16 5100 621 0.16 SBR 0 171 171 EBL 2 3400 229 0.07 3400 229 0.07 EBT 3 5100 902 0.18 *5100 902 0.18 * EBR 1 1700 127 0.07 1700 127 0.07 WBL 2 3400 384 0.11 *3400 384 0.11 * WBT 3 5100 967 0.19 5100 1,024 0.20 WBR 1 1700 591 0.35 *1700 591 0.35 * N/S Movements 0.28 0.28 E/W Movements 0.29 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.03 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.64 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 314 0.09 *3400 314 0.09 *SBL 2 3400 314 0.09 *3400 314 0.09 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 356 0.21 *1700 356 0.21 *SBR 1 1700 356 0.21 *1700 356 0.21 * EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 2.5 3,610 937 0.26 *3,610 937 0.26 *EBT 2.5 3,610 937 0.26 *3,610 937 0.26 * EBR 1.5 3,190 828 0.26 3,190 828 0.26 EBR 1.5 3,190 828 0.26 3,190 828 0.26 WBL 1 1700 484 0.28 *1700 484 0.28 *WBL 1 1700 484 0.28 *1700 484 0.28 * WBT 3 5100 1,485 0.29 5100 1,626 0.32 WBT 3 5100 1,569 0.31 5100 1,626 0.32 WBR 50 85000 0 0.00 85000 0 0.00 WBR 50 85000 0 0.00 85000 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.09 0.09 N/S Movements 0.09 0.09 E/W Movements 0.54 0.54 E/W Movements 0.54 0.54 Rt. Turn Component 0.12 0.12 Rt. Turn Component 0.12 0.12 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.80 0.80 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.80 0.80 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 314 0.09 *3400 314 0.09 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 356 0.21 *1700 356 0.21 * EBL 0 0 0 EBT 2.5 3,610 937 0.26 *3,610 937 0.26 * EBR 1.5 3,190 828 0.26 3,190 828 0.26 WBL 1 1700 484 0.28 *1700 484 0.28 * WBT 3 5100 1,667 0.33 5100 1,724 0.34 WBR 50 85000 0 0.00 85000 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.09 0.09 E/W Movements 0.54 0.54 Rt. Turn Component 0.12 0.12 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.80 0.80 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 998 0.29 *3400 998 0.29 *NBL 2 3400 998 0.29 *3400 998 0.29 * NBT 0 5 0.00 5 0.00 NBT 0 5 0.00 5 0.00 NBR 1 1700 774 0.46 *1700 774 0.46 *NBR 1 1700 774 0.46 *1700 774 0.46 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 1 1700 26 0.02 *1700 26 0.02 *SBR 1 1700 26 0.02 *1700 26 0.02 * EBL 0 0 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 2 3400 844 0.25 *3400 844 0.25 EBT 2 3400 844 0.25 3400 844 0.25 EBR (free)50 85000 415 0.00 85000 415 0.00 EBR (free)50 85000 415 0.00 85000 415 0.00 WBL 0 0 * 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 1,218 0.24 5100 1,359 0.27 *WBT 3 5100 1,302 0.26 *5100 1,359 0.27 * WBR (free)50 85000 268 0.00 85000 268 0.00 WBR (free)50 85000 268 0.00 85000 268 0.00 N/S Movements 0.29 0.29 N/S Movements 0.29 0.29 E/W Movements 0.25 0.27 E/W Movements 0.26 0.27 Rt. Turn Component 0.18 0.18 Rt. Turn Component 0.18 0.18 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.77 0.79 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.78 0.79 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 998 0.29 *3400 998 0.29 * NBT 0 5 0.00 5 0.00 NBR 1 1700 774 0.46 *1700 774 0.46 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 1 1700 26 0.02 *1700 26 0.02 * EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 2 3400 844 0.25 3400 844 0.25 EBR (free)50 85000 415 0.00 85000 415 0.00 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 1,400 0.27 *5100 1,457 0.29 * WBR (free)50 85000 268 0.00 85000 268 0.00 N/S Movements 0.29 0.29 E/W Movements 0.27 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.18 0.18 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.80 0.81 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2011 Conditions Year 2011 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX G-2: ICU WORKSHEETS UNDER 2013 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 260 0.08 *3400 260 0.08 *NBL 2 3400 260 0.08 *3400 260 0.08 * NBT 3 5100 860 0.17 5100 860 0.17 NBT 3 5100 860 0.17 5100 860 0.17 NBR 1 1700 400 0.24 1700 400 0.24 NBR 1 1700 400 0.24 1700 400 0.24 SBL 2 3400 110 0.03 3400 110 0.03 SBL 2 3400 110 0.03 3400 110 0.03 SBT 3 5100 960 0.19 *5100 960 0.19 *SBT 3 5100 960 0.19 *5100 960 0.19 * SBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1700 250 0.15 SBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1700 250 0.15 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 250 0.07 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 EBT 3 5100 850 0.17 5100 980 0.19 *EBT 3 5100 930 0.18 *5100 980 0.19 * EBR 1 1700 280 0.16 1700 280 0.16 EBR 1 1700 280 0.16 1700 280 0.16 WBL 2 3400 520 0.15 3400 520 0.15 *WBL 2 3400 520 0.15 *3400 520 0.15 * WBT 3 5100 1,320 0.26 *5100 1,320 0.26 WBT 3 5100 1,320 0.26 5100 1,320 0.26 WBR 1 1700 150 0.09 1700 150 0.09 WBR 1 1700 150 0.09 1700 150 0.09 N/S Movements 0.26 0.26 N/S Movements 0.26 0.26 E/W Movements 0.33 0.35 E/W Movements 0.34 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.65 0.66 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.65 0.66 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 260 0.08 *3400 260 0.08 * NBT 3 5100 860 0.17 5100 860 0.17 NBR 1 1700 400 0.24 1700 400 0.24 SBL 2 3400 110 0.03 3400 110 0.03 SBT 3 5100 960 0.19 *5100 960 0.19 * SBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1700 250 0.15 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 EBT 3 5100 1,020 0.20 *5100 1,070 0.21 * EBR 1 1700 280 0.16 1700 280 0.16 WBL 2 3400 520 0.15 *3400 520 0.15 * WBT 3 5100 1,320 0.26 5100 1,320 0.26 WBR 1 1700 150 0.09 1700 150 0.09 N/S Movements 0.26 0.26 E/W Movements 0.35 0.36 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.67 0.68 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 100 0.06 1700 100 0.06 NBL 1 1700 100 0.06 1700 100 0.06 NBT 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 *NBT 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 * NBR 1 1700 200 0.12 *1700 200 0.12 *NBR 1 1700 200 0.12 *1700 200 0.12 * SBL 1 1700 40 0.02 *1700 40 0.02 *SBL 1 1700 40 0.02 *1700 40 0.02 * SBT 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 SBT 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 SBR 1 1700 170 0.10 *1700 170 0.10 *SBR 1 1700 170 0.10 *1700 170 0.10 * EBL 2 3400 90 0.03 *3400 90 0.03 *EBL 2 3400 90 0.03 *3400 90 0.03 * EBT 3 5100 1,190 0.25 5100 1,370 0.28 EBT 3 5100 1,300 0.27 5100 1,370 0.28 EBR 0 60 60 EBR 0 60 60 WBL 2 3400 40 0.01 3400 40 0.01 WBL 2 3400 40 0.01 3400 40 0.01 WBT 3 5100 1,790 0.35 *5100 1,790 0.35 *WBT 3 5100 1,790 0.35 *5100 1,790 0.35 * WBR 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBR 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 N/S Movements 0.11 0.11 N/S Movements 0.11 0.11 E/W Movements 0.38 0.38 E/W Movements 0.38 0.38 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.04 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.04 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.58 0.58 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.58 0.58 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 100 0.06 1700 100 0.06 NBT 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 * NBR 1 1700 200 0.12 *1700 200 0.12 * SBL 1 1700 40 0.02 *1700 40 0.02 * SBT 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 SBR 1 1700 170 0.10 *1700 170 0.10 * EBL 2 3400 90 0.03 *3400 90 0.03 * EBT 3 5100 1,430 0.29 5100 1,500 0.31 EBR 0 60 60 WBL 2 3400 40 0.01 3400 40 0.01 WBT 3 5100 1,790 0.35 *5100 1,790 0.35 * WBR 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 N/S Movements 0.11 0.11 E/W Movements 0.38 0.38 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.04 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.58 0.58 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 NBL 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 NBT 2 3400 850 0.25 *3400 850 0.25 *NBT 2 3400 850 0.25 *3400 850 0.25 * NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *3400 90 0.03 *SBL 2 3400 80 0.02 *3400 90 0.03 * SBT 3 5100 580 0.11 5100 600 0.12 SBT 3 5100 590 0.12 5100 600 0.12 SBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 SBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 EBL 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 EBL 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 EBT 3 5100 770 0.18 *5100 820 0.19 *EBT 3 5100 800 0.19 *5100 820 0.19 * EBR 0 150 150 EBR 0 150 150 WBL 1 1700 160 0.09 *1700 160 0.09 *WBL 1 1700 160 0.09 *1700 160 0.09 * WBT 3 5100 900 0.18 5100 900 0.18 WBT 3 5100 900 0.18 5100 900 0.18 WBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 WBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 N/S Movements 0.27 0.28 N/S Movements 0.27 0.28 E/W Movements 0.27 0.28 E/W Movements 0.28 0.28 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.60 0.61 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.60 0.61 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 NBT 2 3400 850 0.25 *3400 850 0.25 * NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBL 2 3400 80 0.02 *3400 90 0.03 * SBT 3 5100 630 0.12 5100 640 0.13 SBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 EBL 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 EBT 3 5100 800 0.19 *5100 820 0.19 * EBR 0 150 150 WBL 1 1700 160 0.09 *1700 160 0.09 * WBT 3 5100 900 0.18 5100 900 0.18 WBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 N/S Movements 0.27 0.28 E/W Movements 0.28 0.28 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.60 0.61 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: Honda Center Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION:Year 2013 Conditions INTERSECTION:4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 NBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 NBT 3 5100 930 0.18 *5100 930 0.18 *NBT 3 5100 930 0.18 *5100 930 0.18 * NBR 1 1700 260 0.15 1700 260 0.15 NBR 1 1700 260 0.15 1700 260 0.15 SBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 140 0.08 *SBL 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 140 0.08 * SBT 3 5100 740 0.15 5100 740 0.15 SBT 3 5100 740 0.15 5100 740 0.15 SBR 0 20 20 SBR 0 20 20 EBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 EBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 EBT 1 1700 10 0.02 *1700 10 0.02 *EBT 1 1700 10 0.02 *1700 10 0.02 * EBR 0 30 30 EBR 0 30 30 WBL 1 1700 470 0.28 *1700 470 0.28 *WBL 1 1700 470 0.28 *1700 470 0.28 * WBT 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 WBT 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 WBR 1 1700 110 0.06 *1700 110 0.06 WBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 N/S Movements 0.24 0.26 N/S Movements 0.25 0.26 E/W Movements 0.30 0.30 E/W Movements 0.30 0.30 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.59 0.61 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.60 0.61 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 NBT 3 5100 930 0.18 *5100 930 0.18 * NBR 1 1700 260 0.15 1700 260 0.15 SBL 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 140 0.08 * SBT 3 5100 780 0.16 5100 780 0.16 SBR 0 20 20 EBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 EBT 1 1700 10 0.02 *1700 10 0.02 * EBR 0 30 30 WBL 1 1700 470 0.28 *1700 470 0.28 * WBT 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 WBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 N/S Movements 0.25 0.26 E/W Movements 0.30 0.30 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.60 0.61 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 120 0.04 3400 120 0.04 NBL 2 3400 120 0.04 3400 120 0.04 NBT 3 5100 620 0.12 *5100 620 0.12 *NBT 3 5100 620 0.12 *5100 620 0.12 * NBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 150 0.09 NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 150 0.09 SBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *3400 70 0.02 *SBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *3400 70 0.02 * SBT 3 5100 460 0.09 5100 460 0.09 SBT 3 5100 460 0.09 5100 460 0.09 SBR 1 1700 180 0.11 1700 180 0.11 SBR 1 1700 180 0.11 1700 180 0.11 EBL 2 3400 110 0.03 *3400 110 0.03 *EBL 2 3400 110 0.03 *3400 110 0.03 * EBT 4 6800 1,220 0.20 6800 1,400 0.22 EBT 4 6800 1,330 0.21 6800 1,400 0.22 EBR 0 120 120 EBR 0 120 120 WBL 2 3400 120 0.04 3400 120 0.04 WBL 2 3400 120 0.04 3400 120 0.04 WBT 3 5100 1,630 0.32 *5100 1,630 0.32 *WBT 3 5100 1,630 0.32 *5100 1,630 0.32 * WBR 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 WBR 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 E/W Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.35 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.54 0.54 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.54 0.54 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 120 0.04 3400 120 0.04 NBT 3 5100 620 0.12 *5100 620 0.12 * NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 150 0.09 SBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *3400 70 0.02 * SBT 3 5100 460 0.09 5100 460 0.09 SBR 1 1700 180 0.11 1700 180 0.11 EBL 2 3400 110 0.03 *3400 110 0.03 * EBT 4 6800 1,540 0.24 6800 1,610 0.25 EBR 0 120 120 WBL 2 3400 120 0.04 3400 120 0.04 WBT 3 5100 1,630 0.32 *5100 1,630 0.32 * WBR 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 E/W Movements 0.35 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.54 0.54 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:6 Manchester Avenue / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:6 Manchester Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1700 60 0.04 *1700 60 0.04 *NBL 1.5 1700 60 0.04 *1700 60 0.04 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 3400 180 0.05 3400 270 0.08 *NBR 1.5 3400 230 0.07 3400 270 0.08 * SBL 2 3400 20 0.01 3400 110 0.03 SBL 2 3400 70 0.02 3400 110 0.03 SBT 2 3400 50 0.01 *3400 50 0.01 *SBT 2 3400 50 0.01 *3400 50 0.01 * SBR 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 SBR 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 EBL 0 0 * 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5100 740 0.15 5100 960 0.19 EBT 3 5100 870 0.17 5100 960 0.19 EBR 1 1700 530 0.31 *1700 530 0.31 *EBR 1 1700 530 0.31 *1700 530 0.31 * WBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 WBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 WBT 3 5100 1,720 0.34 *5100 1,720 0.34 *WBT 3 5100 1,720 0.34 *5100 1,720 0.34 * WBR 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.05 0.05 N/S Movements 0.05 0.05 E/W Movements 0.34 0.34 E/W Movements 0.34 0.34 Rt. Turn Component 0.13 0.13 Rt. Turn Component 0.11 0.13 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.57 0.57 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.54 0.57 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:6 Manchester Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1700 60 0.04 1700 60 0.04 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * NBR 1.5 3400 320 0.09 *3400 360 0.11 * SBL 2 3400 280 0.08 *3400 320 0.09 * SBT 2 3400 50 0.01 3400 50 0.01 SBR 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5100 1,080 0.21 5100 1,170 0.23 EBR 1 1700 530 0.31 *1700 530 0.31 * WBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 WBT 3 5100 1,720 0.34 *5100 1,720 0.34 * WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.08 0.09 E/W Movements 0.34 0.34 Rt. Turn Component 0.13 0.13 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.60 0.61 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:7 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:7 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3400 740 0.22 *3400 740 0.22 *NBL 1.5 3400 740 0.22 *3400 740 0.22 * NBT 3 4520 900 0.20 4520 900 0.20 NBT 3 4520 900 0.20 4520 900 0.20 NBR 0.5 580 120 0.21 *580 120 0.21 *NBR 0.5 580 120 0.21 *580 120 0.21 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 50 0.01 *3400 50 0.01 EBL 2 3400 50 0.01 3400 50 0.01 EBT 3 5100 920 0.18 5100 1,320 0.26 *EBT 3 5100 1,160 0.23 *5100 1,320 0.26 * EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3.5 6800 1,350 0.20 *6800 1,350 0.20 WBT 3.5 6800 1,350 0.20 6800 1,350 0.20 WBR 1.5 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBR 1.5 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 N/S Movements 0.22 0.22 N/S Movements 0.22 0.22 E/W Movements 0.21 0.26 E/W Movements 0.23 0.26 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.48 0.53 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50 0.53 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:7 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3400 740 0.22 *3400 740 0.22 * NBT 3 4520 900 0.20 4520 900 0.20 NBR 0.5 580 120 0.21 *580 120 0.21 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 50 0.01 3400 50 0.01 EBT 3 5100 1,670 0.33 *5100 1,830 0.36 * EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3.5 6800 1,350 0.20 6800 1,350 0.20 WBR 1.5 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 N/S Movements 0.22 0.22 E/W Movements 0.33 0.36 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.60 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 *NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 * NBT 2 3400 10 0.05 3400 10 0.05 NBT 2 3400 10 0.05 3400 10 0.05 NBR 0 150 150 NBR 0 150 150 SBL 1 1700 60 0.04 1700 60 0.04 SBL 1 1700 60 0.04 1700 60 0.04 SBT 1 1700 50 0.06 *1700 50 0.06 *SBT 1 1700 50 0.06 *1700 50 0.06 * SBR 0 60 60 SBR 0 60 60 EBL 1 1700 40 0.02 *1700 40 0.02 EBL 1 1700 40 0.02 1700 40 0.02 EBT 3 5100 930 0.19 5100 980 0.20 *EBT 3 5100 960 0.20 *5100 980 0.20 * EBR 0 30 50 EBR 0 40 50 WBL 2 3400 80 0.02 3400 80 0.02 *WBL 2 3400 80 0.02 *3400 80 0.02 * WBT 3 5100 960 0.19 *5100 960 0.19 WBT 3 5100 960 0.19 5100 960 0.19 WBR 0 30 30 WBR 0 30 30 N/S Movements 0.09 0.09 N/S Movements 0.09 0.09 E/W Movements 0.22 0.23 E/W Movements 0.22 0.23 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.36 0.37 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.36 0.37 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 * NBT 2 3400 10 0.05 3400 10 0.05 NBR 0 150 150 SBL 1 1700 60 0.04 1700 60 0.04 SBT 1 1700 50 0.06 *1700 50 0.06 * SBR 0 60 60 EBL 1 1700 40 0.02 1700 40 0.02 EBT 3 5100 960 0.20 *5100 980 0.20 * EBR 0 40 50 WBL 2 3400 80 0.02 *3400 80 0.02 * WBT 3 5100 960 0.19 5100 960 0.19 WBR 0 30 30 N/S Movements 0.09 0.09 E/W Movements 0.22 0.23 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.36 0.37 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 20 0.01 *1700 20 0.01 *NBL 1 1700 20 0.01 *1700 20 0.01 * NBT 2 3400 90 0.03 3400 90 0.03 NBT 2 3400 90 0.03 3400 90 0.03 NBR 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 90 0.05 *NBR 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 90 0.05 * SBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 40 0.02 SBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 40 0.02 SBT 2 3400 120 0.05 *3400 120 0.05 *SBT 2 3400 120 0.05 *3400 120 0.05 * SBR 0 50 50 SBR 0 50 50 EBL 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 *EBL 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 * EBT 2 3400 240 0.08 3400 320 0.10 EBT 2 3400 290 0.09 3400 320 0.10 EBR 0 20 20 EBR 0 20 20 WBL 1 1700 30 0.02 1700 30 0.02 WBL 1 1700 30 0.02 1700 30 0.02 WBT 2 3400 320 0.10 *3400 320 0.10 *WBT 2 3400 320 0.10 *3400 320 0.10 * WBR 0 10 10 WBR 0 10 10 N/S Movements 0.06 0.06 N/S Movements 0.06 0.06 E/W Movements 0.13 0.13 E/W Movements 0.13 0.13 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.25 0.25 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.25 0.25 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 20 0.01 *1700 20 0.01 * NBT 2 3400 90 0.03 3400 90 0.03 NBR 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 90 0.05 * SBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 40 0.02 SBT 2 3400 120 0.05 *3400 120 0.05 * SBR 0 50 50 EBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 EBT 2 3400 330 0.11 *3400 360 0.12 * EBR 0 60 60 WBL 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 * WBT 2 3400 320 0.10 3400 320 0.10 WBR 0 10 10 N/S Movements 0.06 0.06 E/W Movements 0.13 0.14 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.25 0.26 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 NBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 NBT 1 1700 70 0.06 *1700 70 0.08 *NBT 1 1700 70 0.08 *1700 70 0.08 * NBR 0 30 70 NBR 0 60 70 SBL 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 *SBL 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 * SBT 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBT 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 190 0.11 *1700 190 0.11 *SBR 1 1700 190 0.11 *1700 190 0.11 * EBL 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 120 0.07 *EBL 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 120 0.07 * EBT 3 5100 830 0.16 5100 1,230 0.24 EBT 3 5100 1,070 0.21 5100 1,230 0.24 EBR 0 10 10 EBR 0 10 10 WBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 WBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 WBT 3 5100 1,270 0.25 *5100 1,270 0.25 *WBT 3 5100 1,270 0.25 *5100 1,270 0.25 * WBR 0 30 30 WBR 0 30 30 N/S Movements 0.08 0.10 N/S Movements 0.09 0.10 E/W Movements 0.33 0.33 E/W Movements 0.33 0.33 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.48 0.50 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.50 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 NBT 1 1700 70 0.08 *1700 70 0.08 * NBR 0 60 70 SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 70 0.04 * SBT 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 190 0.11 *1700 190 0.11 * EBL 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 120 0.07 EBT 3 5100 1,580 0.31 5100 1,740 0.34 * EBR 0 10 10 WBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 * WBT 3 5100 1,270 0.25 *5100 1,270 0.25 WBR 0 30 30 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 E/W Movements 0.33 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.53 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way INTERSECTION:11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 2 3400 30 0.01 *3400 30 0.01 *NBR 2 3400 30 0.01 *3400 30 0.01 * SBL 2 3400 20 0.01 *3400 70 0.02 *SBL 2 3400 50 0.01 *3400 70 0.02 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 1700 10 0.01 *1700 10 0.01 *WBL 1.5 1700 10 0.01 *1700 10 0.01 * WBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 WBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 WBR 1.5 3400 30 0.01 *3400 30 0.01 WBR 1.5 3400 30 0.01 3400 30 0.01 N/S Movements 0.01 0.02 N/S Movements 0.01 0.02 E/W Movements 0.01 0.01 E/W Movements 0.01 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.07 0.08 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.07 0.08 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 2 3400 30 0.01 *3400 30 0.01 * SBL 2 3400 150 0.04 *3400 170 0.05 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 1700 10 0.01 *1700 10 0.01 * WBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 WBR 1.5 3400 30 0.01 3400 30 0.01 N/S Movements 0.04 0.05 E/W Movements 0.01 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.10 0.11 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:12 East Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:12 East Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 140 0.04 *3400 160 0.05 *SBL 2 3400 150 0.04 *3400 160 0.05 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 170 0.10 SBR 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 170 0.10 EBL 1 1700 230 0.14 *1700 230 0.14 *EBL 1 1700 230 0.14 *1700 230 0.14 * EBT 3 5100 950 0.19 5100 1,000 0.20 EBT 3 5100 980 0.19 5100 1,000 0.20 EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 900 0.21 *5100 900 0.21 *WBT 3 5100 900 0.21 *5100 900 0.21 * WBR 0 190 190 WBR 0 190 190 N/S Movements 0.04 0.05 N/S Movements 0.04 0.05 E/W Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.35 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.45 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.45 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:12 East Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 90 90 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 150 0.04 *3400 160 0.05 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 170 0.10 EBL 1 1700 230 0.14 *1700 230 0.14 * EBT 3 5100 980 0.19 5100 1,000 0.20 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 900 0.21 *5100 900 0.21 * WBR 0 190 190 N/S Movements 0.04 0.05 E/W Movements 0.35 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.45 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road INTERSECTION:13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 140 0.04 3400 140 0.04 NBL 2 3400 140 0.04 3400 140 0.04 NBT 3 5100 580 0.11 *5100 580 0.11 *NBT 3 5100 580 0.11 *5100 580 0.11 * NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBL 2 3400 230 0.07 *3400 230 0.07 *SBL 2 3400 230 0.07 *3400 230 0.07 * SBT 3 5100 360 0.10 5100 390 0.11 SBT 3 5100 380 0.10 5100 390 0.11 SBR 0 150 150 SBR 0 150 150 EBL 1 1700 170 0.10 *1700 170 0.10 *EBL 1 1700 170 0.10 *1700 170 0.10 * EBT 3 5100 900 0.20 5100 990 0.21 EBT 3 5100 950 0.21 5100 990 0.21 EBR 0 100 100 EBR 0 100 100 WBL 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 130 0.08 WBL 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 130 0.08 WBT 3 5100 790 0.20 *5100 790 0.20 *WBT 3 5100 790 0.20 *5100 790 0.20 * WBR 0 230 230 WBR 0 230 230 N/S Movements 0.18 0.18 N/S Movements 0.18 0.18 E/W Movements 0.30 0.30 E/W Movements 0.30 0.30 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.53 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.53 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 140 0.04 *3400 140 0.04 * NBT 3 5100 580 0.11 5100 580 0.11 NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBL 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 SBT 3 5100 570 0.14 *5100 580 0.14 * SBR 0 150 150 EBL 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 170 0.10 EBT 3 5100 1,040 0.22 *5100 1,080 0.23 * EBR 0 100 100 WBL 1 1700 220 0.13 *1700 220 0.13 * WBT 3 5100 790 0.20 5100 790 0.20 WBR 0 230 230 N/S Movements 0.18 0.18 E/W Movements 0.35 0.36 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.59 0.60 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 80 0.05 *1700 80 0.05 NBL 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 NBT 3 5100 660 0.13 5100 660 0.13 *NBT 3 5100 660 0.13 5100 660 0.13 * NBR 0 20 20 NBR 0 20 20 SBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 40 0.02 *SBL 1 1700 30 0.02 1700 40 0.02 * SBT 3 5100 470 0.10 *5100 470 0.10 SBT 3 5100 470 0.10 5100 470 0.10 SBR 0 60 60 SBR 0 60 60 EBL 1 1700 60 0.04 *1700 60 0.04 EBL 1 1700 60 0.04 1700 60 0.04 EBT 2 3400 120 0.06 3400 250 0.10 *EBT 2 3400 190 0.08 *3400 250 0.10 * EBR 0 90 90 EBR 0 90 90 WBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 *WBL 1 1700 20 0.01 *1700 20 0.01 * WBT 2 3400 130 0.05 *3400 130 0.05 WBT 2 3400 130 0.05 3400 130 0.05 WBR 0 30 30 WBR 0 30 30 N/S Movements 0.15 0.16 N/S Movements 0.15 0.16 E/W Movements 0.08 0.11 E/W Movements 0.09 0.11 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.28 0.32 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.30 0.32 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 NBT 3 5100 1,130 0.23 *5100 1,130 0.23 * NBR 0 20 20 SBL 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 40 0.02 * SBT 3 5100 470 0.10 5100 470 0.10 SBR 0 60 60 EBL 1 1700 60 0.04 1700 60 0.04 EBT 2 3400 190 0.09 *3400 250 0.11 * EBR 0 130 130 WBL 1 1700 20 0.01 *1700 20 0.01 * WBT 2 3400 130 0.05 3400 130 0.05 WBR 0 30 30 N/S Movements 0.24 0.25 E/W Movements 0.11 0.12 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.40 0.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 120 0.04 3,400 120 0.04 NBL 2 3,400 120 0.04 3,400 120 0.04 NBT 3 5,100 510 0.13 *5,100 650 0.20 *NBT 3 5,100 590 0.17*5,100 650 0.20 * NBR 0 130 370 NBR 0 270 370 SBL 2 3,400 80 0.02 *3,400 140 0.04 *SBL 2 3,400 110 0.03*3,400 140 0.04 * SBT 3 5,100 410 0.08 5,100 430 0.08 SBT 3 5,100 420 0.08 5,100 430 0.08 SBR 1 1,700 110 0.06 1,700 120 0.07 SBR 1 1,700 120 0.07 1,700 120 0.07 EBL 2 3,400 140 0.04 3,400 170 0.05 EBL 2 3,400 160 0.05 3,400 170 0.05 EBT 2.5 5,100 730 0.14 *5,100 1,170 0.23 *EBT 2.5 5,100 990 0.19*5,100 1,170 0.23 * EBR 1.5 1,700 100 0.06 1,700 100 0.06 EBR 1.5 1,700 100 0.06 1,700 100 0.06 WBL 2 3,400 230 0.07 *3,400 240 0.07 *WBL 2 3,400 230 0.07*3,400 240 0.07 * WBT 3 5,100 850 0.17 5,100 850 0.17 WBT 3 5,100 850 0.17 5,100 850 0.17 WBR 1 1,700 70 0.04 1,700 90 0.05 WBR 1 1,700 80 0.05 1,700 90 0.05 N/S Movements 0.15 0.24 N/S Movements 0.20 0.24 E/W Movements 0.21 0.30 E/W Movements 0.26 0.30 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.59 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.51 0.59 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 160 0.05 3,400 160 0.05 NBT 3 5,100 720 0.21 *5,100 780 0.24 * NBR 0 360 460 SBL 2 3,400 220 0.06 *3,400 250 0.07 * SBT 3 5,100 770 0.15 5,100 780 0.15 SBR 1 1,700 140 0.08 1,700 140 0.08 EBL 2 3,400 210 0.06 3,400 220 0.06 EBT 2.5 5,059 1,220 0.24 *5,100 1,400 0.27 * EBR 1.5 1,741 420 0.24 1,700 420 0.25 WBL 2 3,400 610 0.18 *3,400 620 0.18 * WBT 3 5,100 1,000 0.20 5,100 1,000 0.20 WBR 1 1,700 100 0.06 1,700 110 0.06 N/S Movements 0.28 0.32 E/W Movements 0.42 0.46 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.75 0.82 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D Impact PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive INTERSECTION:16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 3 5100 890 0.18 *5100 1,130 0.22 *NBT 3 5100 1,030 0.20 *5100 1,130 0.22 * NBR 0 10 10 NBR 0 10 10 SBL 2 3400 10 0.00 *3400 10 0.00 *SBL 2 3400 10 0.00 *3400 10 0.00 * SBT 3 5100 690 0.14 5100 690 0.14 SBT 3 5100 690 0.14 5100 690 0.14 SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 *WBL 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 * WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 *WBR 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 * N/S Movements 0.18 0.23 N/S Movements 0.21 0.23 E/W Movements 0.02 0.02 E/W Movements 0.02 0.02 Rt. Turn Component 0.03 0.03 Rt. Turn Component 0.03 0.03 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.27 0.32 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.30 0.32 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 * 0 * NBT 3 5100 1,120 0.22 5100 1,220 0.24 NBR 0 10 10 SBL 2 3400 70 0.02 3400 70 0.02 SBT 3 5100 1,690 0.33 *5100 1,690 0.33 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 * WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 * N/S Movements 0.33 0.33 E/W Movements 0.02 0.02 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.41 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way INTERSECTION:17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 10 0.00 3400 10 0.00 NBL 2 3400 10 0.00 3400 10 0.00 NBT 3 5100 850 0.17 *5100 1,030 0.20 *NBT 3 5100 960 0.19 *5100 1,030 0.20 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 0 0.00 *3400 0 0.00 *SBL 2 3400 0 0.00 *3400 0 0.00 * SBT 3 5100 690 0.14 5100 690 0.14 SBT 3 5100 690 0.14 5100 690 0.14 SBR 0 30 30 SBR 0 30 30 EBL 1.5 3,400 50 0.01 3,400 100 0.03 *EBL 1.5 3,400 80 0.02 3,400 100 0.03 * EBT 1.5 1,700 0 0.02 *1,700 0 0.02 EBT 1.5 1,700 0 0.02 1,700 0 0.02 EBR 0 40 40 EBR 0 40 40 WBL 1 1700 0 0.00 *1700 0 0.00 WBL 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 WBT 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 *WBT 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 * WBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 WBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.17 0.20 N/S Movements 0.19 0.20 E/W Movements 0.02 0.03 E/W Movements 0.02 0.03 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.24 0.28 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.26 0.28 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 10 0.00 3400 10 0.00 NBT 3 5100 1,050 0.37 *5100 1,120 0.39 * NBR 0 850 850 SBL 2 3400 1,000 0.29 *3400 1,000 0.29 * SBT 3 5100 690 0.14 5100 690 0.14 SBR 0 30 30 EBL 1.5 2,267 80 0.04 2,550 100 0.04 EBT 1.5 2,833 100 0.05 *2,550 100 0.05 * EBR 0 40 40 WBL 1 1700 0 0.00 *1700 0 0.00 * WBT 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 WBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.67 0.68 E/W Movements 0.05 0.05 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.77 0.79 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 60 0.02 3400 60 0.02 NBL 2 3400 60 0.02 3400 60 0.02 NBT 4 6800 660 0.11 *6800 770 0.12 *NBT 4 6800 720 0.12 *6800 770 0.12 * NBR 0 70 70 NBR 0 70 70 SBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *3400 70 0.02 *SBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *3400 70 0.02 * SBT 4 6800 540 0.10 6800 540 0.10 SBT 4 6800 540 0.10 6800 540 0.10 SBR 0 150 150 SBR 0 150 150 EBL 2 3400 150 0.04 *3400 200 0.06 *EBL 2 3400 180 0.05 *3400 200 0.06 * EBT 3 5100 410 0.09 5100 410 0.09 EBT 3 5100 410 0.09 5100 410 0.09 EBR 0 50 50 EBR 0 50 50 WBL 2 3400 110 0.03 3400 110 0.03 WBL 2 3400 110 0.03 3400 110 0.03 WBT 3 5100 580 0.13 *5100 580 0.13 *WBT 3 5100 580 0.13 *5100 580 0.13 * WBR 0 70 70 WBR 0 70 70 N/S Movements 0.13 0.14 N/S Movements 0.14 0.14 E/W Movements 0.17 0.19 E/W Movements 0.18 0.19 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.35 0.38 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.37 0.38 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 60 0.02 3400 60 0.02 NBT 4 6800 1,520 0.23 *6800 1,570 0.24 * NBR 0 70 70 SBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *3400 70 0.02 * SBT 4 6800 540 0.10 6800 540 0.10 SBR 0 150 150 EBL 2 3400 330 0.10 *3400 350 0.10 * EBT 3 5100 410 0.09 5100 410 0.09 EBR 0 50 50 WBL 2 3400 110 0.03 3400 110 0.03 WBT 3 5100 580 0.13 *5100 580 0.13 * WBR 0 70 70 N/S Movements 0.25 0.26 E/W Movements 0.22 0.23 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.54 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps INTERSECTION:19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 40 0.01 3400 40 0.01 NBL 2 3400 40 0.01 3400 40 0.01 NBT 4 6800 690 0.10 *6800 800 0.12 *NBT 4 6800 750 0.11 *6800 800 0.12 * NBR (free)50 85,000 330 0.00 85,000 330 0.00 NBR (free)50 85,000 330 0.00 85,000 330 0.00 SBL 1 1700 40 0.02 *1700 40 0.02 *SBL 1 1700 40 0.02 *1700 40 0.02 * SBT 4 6800 740 0.11 6800 740 0.11 SBT 4 6800 740 0.11 6800 740 0.11 SBR 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 SBR 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 EBL 0 0 * 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBL 1.5 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBT 1.5 3400 380 0.11 *3400 380 0.11 *WBT 1.5 3400 380 0.11 *3400 380 0.11 * WBR 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 WBR 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 N/S Movements 0.13 0.14 N/S Movements 0.13 0.14 E/W Movements 0.11 0.11 E/W Movements 0.11 0.11 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.29 0.30 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.30 0.30 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 40 0.01 3400 40 0.01 NBT 4 6800 1,200 0.18 *6800 1,250 0.18 * NBR (free)50 85,000 330 0.00 85,000 330 0.00 SBL 1 1700 40 0.02 *1700 40 0.02 * SBT 4 6800 740 0.11 6800 740 0.11 SBR 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBT 1.5 3400 380 0.11 *3400 380 0.11 * WBR 2 3400 580 0.17 *3400 580 0.17 * N/S Movements 0.20 0.21 E/W Movements 0.11 0.11 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.04 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.40 0.40 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps INTERSECTION:20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 5 8500 1,010 0.12 *8500 1,120 0.13 *NBT 5 8500 1,070 0.13 *8500 1,120 0.13 * NBR 0 20 20 NBR 0 20 20 SBL 0 0 * 0 *SBL 0 0 * 0 * SBT 4 6800 640 0.09 6800 640 0.09 SBT 4 6800 640 0.09 6800 640 0.09 SBR (free)50 85000 180 0.00 85,000 180 0.00 SBR (free)50 85000 180 0.00 85,000 180 0.00 EBL 1.5 1700 60 0.04 1700 60 0.04 EBL 1.5 1700 60 0.04 1700 60 0.04 EBT 0.5 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 *EBT 0.5 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 * EBR 2 3400 360 0.11 *3400 360 0.11 *EBR 2 3400 360 0.11 *3400 360 0.11 * WBL 0 0 * 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.12 0.13 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 E/W Movements 0.09 0.09 E/W Movements 0.09 0.09 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.28 0.29 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.28 0.29 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 5 8500 1,520 0.18 *8500 1,570 0.19 * NBR 0 20 20 SBL 0 0 * 0 * SBT 4 6800 640 0.09 6800 640 0.09 SBR (free)50 85000 180 0.00 85,000 180 0.00 EBL 1.5 1700 60 0.04 1700 60 0.04 EBT 0.5 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 * EBR 2 3400 360 0.11 *3400 360 0.11 * WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.18 0.19 E/W Movements 0.09 0.09 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.34 0.34 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 NBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 NBT 3 5100 950 0.19 *5100 1,030 0.20 *NBT 3 5100 1,000 0.20 *5100 1,030 0.20 * NBR 2 3400 100 0.03 3400 100 0.03 NBR 2 3400 100 0.03 3400 100 0.03 SBL 2 3400 320 0.09 *3400 320 0.09 *SBL 2 3400 320 0.09 *3400 320 0.09 * SBT 3 5100 990 0.19 5100 990 0.19 SBT 3 5100 990 0.19 5100 990 0.19 SBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 SBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 EBL 2 3400 130 0.04 *3400 160 0.05 *EBL 2 3400 150 0.04 *3400 160 0.05 * EBT 3 5100 520 0.10 5100 550 0.11 EBT 3 5100 540 0.11 5100 550 0.11 EBR 1 1700 310 0.18 *1700 310 0.18 *EBR 1 1700 310 0.18 *1700 310 0.18 * WBL 2 3400 140 0.04 3400 140 0.04 WBL 2 3400 140 0.04 3400 140 0.04 WBT 3 5100 680 0.13 *5100 680 0.13 *WBT 3 5100 680 0.13 *5100 680 0.13 * WBR 1 1700 400 0.24 *1700 400 0.24 *WBR 1 1700 400 0.24 *1700 400 0.24 * N/S Movements 0.28 0.30 N/S Movements 0.29 0.30 E/W Movements 0.17 0.18 E/W Movements 0.18 0.18 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.52 0.54 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.54 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 NBT 3 5100 1,350 0.26 *5100 1,380 0.27 * NBR 2 3400 100 0.03 3400 100 0.03 SBL 2 3400 320 0.09 *3400 320 0.09 * SBT 3 5100 990 0.19 5100 990 0.19 SBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 260 0.08 * EBT 3 5100 540 0.11 5100 550 0.11 EBR 1 1700 310 0.18 *1700 310 0.18 * WBL 2 3400 140 0.04 3400 140 0.04 WBT 3 5100 680 0.13 *5100 680 0.13 * WBR 1 1700 400 0.24 *1700 400 0.24 * N/S Movements 0.36 0.36 E/W Movements 0.21 0.21 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.63 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 40 0.02 1,700 50 0.03 NBL 1 1,700 40 0.02 1,700 50 0.03 NBT 0.5 109 3 0.03 *109 3 0.03 *NBT 0.5 109 3 0.03 *109 3 0.03 * NBR 1.5 3,291 100 0.03 3,291 100 0.03 NBR 1.5 3,291 100 0.03 3,291 100 0.03 SBL 1 1,700 100 0.06 *1,700 170 0.10 *SBL 1 1,700 140 0.08 *1,700 170 0.10 * SBT 1 1,700 0 0.00 1,700 0 0.00 SBT 1 1,700 0 0.00 1,700 0 0.00 SBR 1 1,700 90 0.05 *1,700 100 0.06 *SBR 1 1,700 100 0.06 *1,700 100 0.06 * EBL 1 1,700 60 0.04 *1,700 60 0.04 EBL 1 1,700 60 0.04 1,700 60 0.04 EBT 3 5,100 850 0.17 5,100 1,490 0.30 *EBT 3 5,100 1,230 0.25 *5,100 1,490 0.30 * EBR 0 40 60 EBR 0 50 60 WBL 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 50 0.03 *WBL 1 1,700 40 0.02 *1,700 50 0.03 * WBT 3 5,100 950 0.19 *5,100 1,000 0.20 WBT 3 5,100 980 0.19 5,100 1,000 0.20 WBR 1 1,700 110 0.06 1,700 110 0.06 WBR 1 1,700 110 0.06 1,700 110 0.06 N/S Movements 0.09 0.13 N/S Movements 0.11 0.13 E/W Movements 0.22 0.33 E/W Movements 0.27 0.33 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.36 0.51 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.51 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 140 0.08 1,700 150 0.09 NBT 0.5 425 20 0.05 *425 20 0.05 * NBR 1.5 2,975 140 0.05 2,975 140 0.05 SBL 1 1,700 140 0.08 *1,700 170 0.10 * SBT 1 1,700 10 0.01 1,700 10 0.01 SBR 1 1,700 100 0.06 1,700 100 0.06 EBL 1 1,700 160 0.09 1,700 160 0.09 EBT 3 5,100 1,470 0.32 *5,100 1,730 0.37 * EBR 0 150 160 WBL 1 1,700 140 0.08 *1,700 150 0.09 * WBT 3 5,100 1,270 0.25 5,100 1,290 0.25 WBR 1 1,700 230 0.14 1,700 230 0.14 N/S Movements 0.13 0.15 E/W Movements 0.40 0.46 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.58 0.66 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1,700 40 0.02 NBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1,700 40 0.02 NBT 2 3,400 130 0.09*3,400 160 0.11*NBT 2 3,400 150 0.11*3,400 160 0.11 * NBR 0 180 230 NBR 0 210 230 SBL 1 1,700 240 0.14*1,700 240 0.14*SBL 1 1,700 240 0.14*1,700 240 0.14 * SBT 2 3,400 90 0.05 3,400 160 0.07 SBT 2 3,400 130 0.06 3,400 160 0.07 SBR 0 80 90 SBR 0 80 90 EBL 2 3,400 110 0.03*3,400 110 0.03*EBL 2 3,400 110 0.03*3,400 110 0.03 * EBT 3 5,100 1,110 0.22 5,100 1,200 0.25 EBT 3 5,100 1,160 0.24 5,100 1,200 0.25 EBR 0 20 70 EBR 0 50 70 WBL 2 3,400 160 0.05 3,400 450 0.13 WBL 2 3,400 330 0.10 3,400 450 0.13 WBT 2 3,400 990 0.29*3,400 1,200 0.35*WBT 2 3,400 1,120 0.33*3,400 1,200 0.35 * WBR 1 1,700 370 0.22 1,700 410 0.24 WBR 1 1,700 400 0.24 1,700 410 0.24 N/S Movements 0.23 0.26 N/S Movements 0.25 0.26 E/W Movements 0.32 0.39 E/W Movements 0.36 0.39 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.61 0.69 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.66 0.69 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 30 0.02 1700 40 0.02 NBT 2 3400 150 0.11*3400 160 0.11* NBR 0 0 210 0 230 SBL 1 1700 240 0.14*1700 240 0.14* SBT 2 3400 180 0.08 3400 210 0.09 SBR 0 0 80 0 90 EBL 2 3400 110 0.03 3400 110 0.03 EBT 3 5100 1,290 0.26*5100 1,330 0.27* EBR 0 50 70 WBL 2 3400 380 0.11*3400 500 0.15* WBT 2 3400 1,120 0.33 3400 1,200 0.35 WBR 1 1,700 400 0.24 1700 410 0.24 N/S Movements 0.25 0.26 E/W Movements 0.37 0.42 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.67 0.73 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B C Impact Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 10 0.01*1,700 10 0.01*NBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 *1,700 10 0.01* NBT 2 3,400 70 0.02 3,400 90 0.04 NBT 2 3,400 80 0.03 3,400 90 0.04 NBR 0 0 60 NBR 0 30 60 SBL 0 30 340 SBL 0 210 340 SBT 2 3,400 60 0.05*3,400 120 0.16*SBT 2 3,400 90 0.11 *3,400 120 0.16* SBR 0 70 70 SBR 0 70 70 EBL 1 1,700 110 0.06*1,700 110 0.06*EBL 1 1,700 110 0.06 *1,700 110 0.06* EBT 2 3,400 60 0.02 3,400 210 0.07 EBT 2 3,400 150 0.05 3,400 210 0.07 EBR 0 20 30 EBR 0 30 30 WBL 1 1,700 0 0.00 1,700 50 0.03 WBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1,700 50 0.03 WBT 2 3,400 90 0.04*3,400 90 0.05*WBT 2 3,400 90 0.04 *3,400 90 0.05* WBR 0 50 70 WBR 0 60 70 N/S Movements 0.05 0.16 N/S Movements 0.11 0.16 E/W Movements 0.11 0.11 E/W Movements 0.11 0.11 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.21 0.32 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.27 0.32 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 10 0.01*1,700 10 0.01* NBT 2 3,400 80 0.03 3,400 90 0.04 NBR 0 30 60 SBL 0 240 370 SBT 2 3,400 110 0.12*3,400 140 0.17* SBR 0 70 70 EBL 1 1,700 110 0.06*1,700 110 0.06* EBT 2 3,400 150 0.05 3,400 210 0.07 EBR 0 30 30 WBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1,700 50 0.03 WBT 2 3,400 90 0.04*3,400 90 0.05* WBR 0 60 70 N/S Movements 0.13 0.18 E/W Movements 0.11 0.11 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.29 0.34 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 40 0.02*1,700 40 0.02 NBL 1 1,700 40 0.02 1,700 40 0.02 NBT 1 1,700 10 0.01 1,700 10 0.01 *NBT 1 1,700 10 0.01 *1,700 10 0.01 * NBR 1 1,700 80 0.05*1,700 120 0.07 *NBR 1 1,700 100 0.06 *1,700 120 0.07 * SBL 2 3,400 170 0.05 3,400 210 0.06 *SBL 2 3,400 190 0.06 *3,400 210 0.06 * SBT 0.5 283 10 0.04*283 10 0.04 SBT 0.5 283 10 0.04 283 10 0.04 SBR 0.5 1,417 50 0.04 1,417 50 0.04 SBR 0.5 1,417 50 0.04 1,417 50 0.04 EBL 2 3,400 80 0.02*3,400 110 0.03 EBL 2 3,400 100 0.03 3,400 110 0.03 EBT 3 5,100 940 0.19 5,100 1,620 0.33 *EBT 3 5,100 1,350 0.28 *5,100 1,620 0.33 * EBR 0 30 80 EBR 0 60 80 WBL 2 3,400 60 0.02 3,400 190 0.06 *WBL 2 3,400 140 0.04 *3,400 190 0.06 * WBT 3 5,100 1,000 0.23*5,100 1,070 0.27 WBT 3 5,100 1,040 0.25 5,100 1,070 0.27 WBR 0 150 310 WBR 0 250 310 Split phase N/S Movements 0.07 0.09 Split phase N/S Movements 0.08 0.09 E/W Movements 0.25 0.39 E/W Movements 0.32 0.39 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.38 0.52 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.45 0.52 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 60 0.04*1,700 60 0.04 * NBT 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 20 0.01 NBR 1 1,700 140 0.08*1,700 160 0.09 * SBL 2 3,400 190 0.06 3,400 210 0.06 SBT 0.5 638 30 0.05*638 30 0.05 * SBR 0.5 1,063 50 0.05 1,063 50 0.05 EBL 2 3,400 100 0.03 3,400 110 0.03 EBT 3 5,100 1,480 0.30*5,100 1,750 0.36 * EBR 0 60 80 WBL 2 3,400 140 0.04*3,400 190 0.06 * WBT 3 5,100 1,040 0.25 5,100 1,070 0.27 WBR 0 250 310 Split phase N/S Movements 0.09 0.10 E/W Movements 0.34 0.41 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.56 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 0.5 895 200 0.22 *1574 750 0.48 *SBL 0.5 1408 530 0.38 *1574 750 0.48 * SBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBR 1.5 2505 560 0.22 *3892 870 0.22 *SBR 1.5 1992 750 0.38 *1826 870 0.48 * EBL 0 0 0 *EBL 0 0 0 * EBT 3 5100 1,160 0.23 *5100 1,170 0.23 EBT 3 5100 1,170 0.23 *5100 1,170 0.23 EBR (free)50 85000 380 0.00 85000 420 0.00 EBR (free)50 85000 400 0.00 85000 420 0.00 WBL 0 0 * 0 WBL 0 0 * 0 WBT 3 5100 1,000 0.20 5100 1,190 0.23 *WBT 3 5100 1,110 0.22 5100 1,190 0.23 * WBR (free)50 85000 190 0.00 85000 220 0.00 WBR (free)50 85000 210 0.00 85000 220 0.00 N/S Movements 0.22 0.48 N/S Movements 0.38 0.48 E/W Movements 0.23 0.23 E/W Movements 0.23 0.23 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50 0.76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.66 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B C Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 0.5 1408 530 0.38 *1992 750 0.38 * SBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBR 1.5 1992 750 0.38 *1826 870 0.48 * EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 1,230 0.24 *5100 1,230 0.24 * EBR (free)50 85000 410 0.00 85000 430 0.01 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 1,110 0.22 5100 1,190 0.23 WBR (free)50 85000 240 0.00 85000 250 0.00 N/S Movements 0.38 0.38 E/W Movements 0.24 0.24 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.10 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.67 0.77 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B C Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 1.5 2550 190 0.07 *2550 590 0.23 *SBL 1.5 2550 430 0.17 *2550 590 0.23 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1.5 2550 450 0.18 *2550 640 0.25 *SBR 1.5 2550 560 0.22 *2550 640 0.25 * EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 890 0.17 *5100 1,730 0.34 *EBT 3 5100 1,390 0.27 *5100 1,730 0.34 * EBR (free)50 85000 280 0.00 85000 320 0.00 EBR (free)50 85000 300 0.00 85000 320 0.00 WBL 0 0 * 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 740 0.15 5100 930 0.18 WBT 3 5100 850 0.17 5100 930 0.18 WBR (free)50 85000 280 0.00 85000 280 0.00 WBR (free)50 85000 280 0.00 85000 280 0.00 N/S Movements 0.07 0.23 N/S Movements 0.17 0.23 E/W Movements 0.17 0.34 E/W Movements 0.27 0.34 Rt. Turn Component 0.10 0.02 Rt. Turn Component 0.05 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.40 0.64 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.54 0.64 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 1.5 2550 970 0.38 *2550 1,130 0.44 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1.5 2550 820 0.32 *2550 900 0.35 * EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 1,550 0.30 *5100 1,890 0.37 * EBR (free)50 85000 330 0.00 85000 350 0.00 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 1,070 0.21 5100 1,150 0.23 WBR (free)50 85000 300 0.00 85000 300 0.00 N/S Movements 0.38 0.44 E/W Movements 0.30 0.37 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.73 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 470 0.28 *1700 540 0.32 *NBL 1 1700 510 0.30 *1700 540 0.32 * NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NBR 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 330 0.19 *NBR 1 1700 260 0.15 *1700 330 0.19 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 690 0.14 5100 1,310 0.26 *EBT 3 5100 1,060 0.21 *5100 1,310 0.26 * EBR (free)50 85000 640 0.01 85000 650 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 640 0.01 85000 650 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 710 0.14 *5100 890 0.17 WBT 3 5100 820 0.16 5100 890 0.17 WBR (free)50 85000 300 0.00 85000 330 0.00 WBR (free)50 85000 320 0.00 85000 330 0.00 N/S Movements 0.28 0.32 N/S Movements 0.30 0.32 E/W Movements 0.14 0.26 E/W Movements 0.21 0.26 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.47 0.62 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.56 0.62 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 510 0.30 *1700 540 0.32 * NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NBR 1 1700 260 0.15 *1700 330 0.19 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 1,060 0.21 *5100 1,310 0.26 * EBR (free)50 85000 700 0.01 85000 710 0.01 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 820 0.16 5100 890 0.17 WBR (free)50 85000 420 0.00 85000 430 0.01 N/S Movements 0.30 0.32 E/W Movements 0.21 0.26 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.56 0.62 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 2500 250 0.10 *1700 340 0.20 *NBL 1.5 1700 310 0.18 *1700 340 0.20 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 2600 260 0.10 *3400 1,300 0.38 *NBR 1.5 3400 880 0.26 *3400 1,300 0.38 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 5 8500 670 0.08 8500 1,880 0.22 *EBT 5 8500 1,390 0.16 *8500 1,880 0.22 * EBR (free)50 85000 460 0.01 85000 460 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 460 0.01 85000 460 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 790 0.15 *5100 790 0.15 WBT 3 5100 790 0.15 5100 790 0.15 WBR 1 1700 220 0.13 1700 220 0.13 WBR 1 1700 220 0.13 1700 220 0.13 N/S Movements 0.10 0.20 N/S Movements 0.18 0.20 E/W Movements 0.15 0.22 E/W Movements 0.16 0.22 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.18 Rt. Turn Component 0.08 0.18 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.30 0.65 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.47 0.65 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1700 360 0.21 *1700 390 0.23 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 3400 1,100 0.32 *3400 1,520 0.45 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 5 8500 2,030 0.24 *8500 2,520 0.30 * EBR (free)50 85000 520 0.01 85000 520 0.01 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 970 0.19 5100 970 0.19 WBR 1 1700 270 0.16 1700 270 0.16 N/S Movements 0.21 0.23 E/W Movements 0.24 0.30 Rt. Turn Component 0.11 0.22 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.61 0.79 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B C Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 40 0.02 *1700 100 0.06 *NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 100 0.06 * NBT 1 1700 4 0.01 1700 70 0.06 NBT 1 1700 40 0.04 1700 70 0.06 NBR 0 0 10 0 30 NBR 0 0 20 0 30 SBL 1 1,700 50 0.03 1,700 70 0.04 SBL 1 1,700 60 0.04 1,700 70 0.04 SBT 0.5 23 1 0.05 *200 10 0.05 *SBT 0.5 200 10 0.05 *200 10 0.05 * SBR 1.5 3,377 160 0.05 3,200 160 0.05 SBR 1.5 3,200 160 0.05 3,200 160 0.05 EBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *3400 1,440 0.42 *EBL 2 3400 880 0.26 *3400 1,440 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 820 0.16 5100 1,440 0.28 EBT 3 5100 1,190 0.23 5100 1,440 0.28 EBR 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 200 0.12 EBR 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 200 0.12 WBL 2 3400 10 0.00 3400 90 0.03 WBL 2 3400 60 0.02 3400 90 0.03 WBT 3 5100 760 0.15 *5100 760 0.15 *WBT 3 5100 760 0.15 *5100 760 0.15 * WBR 1 1700 60 0.04 1700 380 0.22 *WBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1700 380 0.22 * N/S Movements 0.07 0.11 N/S Movements 0.09 0.11 E/W Movements 0.17 0.57 E/W Movements 0.41 0.57 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.03 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.03 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.29 0.76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.55 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 100 0.06 * NBT 1 1700 40 0.04 1700 70 0.06 NBR 0 0 30 0 40 SBL 1 1,700 70 0.04 1,700 80 0.05 SBT 0.5 816 60 0.07 *816 60 0.07 * SBR 1.5 2,584 190 0.07 2,584 190 0.07 EBL 2 3400 880 0.26 *3400 1,440 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 1,260 0.25 5100 1,510 0.30 EBR 1 1700 980 0.58 *1700 1,050 0.62 * WBL 2 3400 350 0.10 3400 380 0.11 WBT 3 5100 960 0.19 *5100 960 0.19 * WBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1700 380 0.22 N/S Movements 0.11 0.13 E/W Movements 0.45 0.61 Rt. Turn Component 0.29 0.26 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 1.06 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D F Impact Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 40 0.02 1 1,700 100 0.06 NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 1 1700 100 0.06 NBT 1 1700 4 0.01 *1 1,700 70 0.06 *NBT 1 1700 40 0.04 *1 1700 70 0.06 * NBR 0 0 10 0 30 NBR 0 0 20 0 0 30 SBL 1 1700 50 0.03 *1 1,700 70 0.04 *SBL 1 1700 60 0.04 *1 1700 70 0.04 * SBT 0.5 850 1 0.00 0.5 850 10 0.01 SBT 0.5 850 10 0.01 0.5 850 10 0.01 SBR 1.5 2550 160 0.06 *1.5 2,550 160 0.06 SBR 1.5 2550 160 0.06 1.5 2550 160 0.06 EBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *2 3,400 1,440 0.42 *EBL 2 3400 880 0.26 *2 3400 1,440 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 820 0.16 3 5,100 1,440 0.28 EBT 3 5100 1,190 0.23 3 5100 1,440 0.28 EBR 1 1700 20 0.01 1 1,700 200 0.12 EBR 1 1700 130 0.08 1 1700 200 0.12 WBL 2 3400 10 0.00 2 3,400 90 0.03 WBL 2 3400 60 0.02 2 3400 90 0.03 WBT 3 5100 760 0.15 *3 5,100 760 0.15 *WBT 3 5100 760 0.15 *3 5100 760 0.15 * WBR 1 1700 60 0.04 1 1,700 380 0.22 *WBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1 1700 380 0.22 * N/S Movements 0.04 0.10 N/S Movements 0.07 0.10 E/W Movements 0.17 0.57 E/W Movements 0.41 0.57 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.03 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.03 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.27 0.76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1 1700 100 0.06 * NBT 1 1700 40 0.04 1 1700 70 0.06 NBR 0 0 30 0 0 40 SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 1 1700 80 0.05 SBT 0.5 850 60 0.07 *0.5 850 60 0.07 * SBR 1.5 2550 190 0.07 1.5 2550 190 0.07 EBL 2 3400 880 0.26 *2 3400 1,440 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 1,260 0.25 3 5100 1,510 0.30 EBR 1 1700 980 0.58 *2 3400 1,050 0.31 WBL 2 3400 350 0.10 2 3400 380 0.11 WBT 3 5100 960 0.19 *3 5100 960 0.19 * WBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1 1700 380 0.22 N/S Movements 0.11 0.13 E/W Movements 0.45 0.61 Rt. Turn Component 0.29 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.79 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D C Add EBR Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.33 2,720 120 0.04 *2,600 130 0.05*NBL 1.33 2,600 130 0.05 *2,600 130 0.05 * NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.33 680 30 0.04 *800 40 0.05 NBR 0.33 800 40 0.06 800 40 0.05 SBL 1 1,700 0 0.00 1,700 0 0.00 SBL 1 1,700 0 0.00 1,700 0 0.00 SBT 1 1,700 0 0.01 *1,700 0 0.02*SBT 1 1,700 0 0.01 *1,700 0 0.02 * SBR 0 10 30 SBR 0 20 30 EBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 *1,700 30 0.02*EBL 1 1,700 20 0.01 *1,700 30 0.02 * EBT 2 3,400 760 0.22 3,400 800 0.24 EBT 2 3,400 780 0.23 3,400 800 0.24 EBR 1 1,700 100 0.06 1,700 790 0.46*EBR 1 1,700 510 0.30 *1,700 790 0.46 * WBL 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 150 0.09 WBL 1 1,700 100 0.06 1,700 150 0.09 WBT 2 3,400 880 0.26 *3,400 1,060 0.31*WBT 2 3,400 990 0.29 *3,400 1,060 0.31 * WBR 0 0 10 WBR 0 0 10 N/S Movements 0.05 0.07 N/S Movements 0.06 0.07 E/W Movements 0.26 0.33 E/W Movements 0.30 0.33 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.18 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.18 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.36 0.63 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.33 2,550 150 0.06 *2,550 150 0.06* NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.33 850 50 0.06 850 50 0.06 SBL 1 1,700 0 0.00 1,700 0 0.00 SBT 1 1,700 0 0.01 *1,700 0 0.02* SBR 0 20 30 EBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 *1,700 40 0.02* EBT 2 3,400 780 0.23 3,400 800 0.24 EBR 1 1,700 560 0.33 *1,700 840 0.49* WBL 1 1,700 110 0.06 1,700 160 0.09 WBT 2 3,400 1,040 0.31 *3,400 1,110 0.33* WBR 0 10 20 N/S Movements 0.07 0.08 E/W Movements 0.33 0.36 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.20 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.68 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A B Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3,211 170 0.05*3,117 220 0.07 *NBL 1.5 3,238 200 0.06*3,117 220 0.07* NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.5 189 10 0.05*283 20 0.07 *NBR 0.5 162 10 0.06*283 20 0.07* SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00* SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5,100 750 0.15*5,100 750 0.15 EBT 3 5,100 750 0.15 5,100 750 0.15 EBR 1 1,700 150 0.09 1,700 190 0.11 EBR 1 1,700 180 0.11 1,700 190 0.11 WBL 1 1,700 10 0.01*1,700 80 0.05 WBL 1 1,700 50 0.03 1,700 80 0.05 WBT 3 5,100 650 0.13 5,100 1,470 0.29 *WBT 3 5,100 1,140 0.22*5,100 1,470 0.29* WBR 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.05 0.07 N/S Movements 0.06 0.07 E/W Movements 0.15 0.29 E/W Movements 0.22 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.26 0.41 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.34 0.41 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3,104 210 0.07*3,008 230 0.08 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.5 296 20 0.07*392 30 0.08 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5,100 750 0.15 5,100 750 0.15 EBR 1 1,700 180 0.11 1,700 190 0.11 WBL 1 1,700 60 0.04 1,700 90 0.05 WBT 3 5,100 1,530 0.30*5,100 1,860 0.36 * WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.07 0.08 E/W Movements 0.30 0.36 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.49 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:33 Main Street / Taft Avenue INTERSECTION:33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3287 290 0.09 *3294 310 0.09 *NBL 1.5 3290 300 0.09 *3294 310 0.09 * NBT 0.5 113 10 0.09 106 10 0.09 NBT 0.5 110 10 0.09 106 10 0.09 NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBL 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBL 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBT 1 1700 10 0.04 *1700 10 0.04 *SBT 1 1700 10 0.04 *1700 10 0.04 * SBR 0 60 60 SBR 0 60 60 EBL 1 1700 30 0.02 1700 30 0.02 EBL 1 1700 30 0.02 1700 30 0.02 EBT 2 3400 670 0.23 *3400 670 0.23 *EBT 2 3400 670 0.23 *3400 670 0.23 * EBR 0 100 100 EBR 0 100 100 WBL 1 1700 100 0.06 *1700 100 0.06 *WBL 1 1700 100 0.06 *1700 100 0.06 * WBT 2 3400 590 0.17 3400 690 0.20 WBT 2 3400 650 0.19 3400 690 0.20 WBR 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.13 0.14 N/S Movements 0.13 0.14 E/W Movements 0.29 0.29 E/W Movements 0.29 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.46 0.47 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.47 0.47 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3400 300 0.09 *3294 310 0.09 * NBT 0.5 113 10 0.09 106 10 0.09 NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBL 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBT 1 1700 10 0.04 *1700 10 0.04 * SBR 0 60 60 EBL 1 1700 30 0.02 1700 30 0.02 EBT 2 3400 670 0.23 *3400 670 0.23 * EBR 0 100 100 WBL 1 1700 100 0.06 *1700 100 0.06 * WBT 2 3400 650 0.19 3400 690 0.20 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.13 0.14 E/W Movements 0.29 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.46 0.47 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 130 0.04 3,400 230 0.07 NBL 2 3,400 190 0.06 3,400 230 0.07 NBT 2 3,400 210 0.06 *3,400 320 0.09 *NBT 2 3,400 280 0.08*3,400 320 0.09 * NBR 1 1,700 190 0.11 1,700 220 0.13 NBR 1 1,700 210 0.12 1,700 220 0.13 SBL 1 1,700 90 0.05 *1,700 90 0.05 *SBL 1 1,700 90 0.05*1,700 90 0.05 * SBT 2 3,400 140 0.04 3,400 190 0.06 SBT 2 3,400 170 0.05 3,400 190 0.06 SBR 1 1,700 80 0.05 1,700 170 0.10 *SBR 1 1,700 130 0.08 1,700 170 0.10 * EBL 1 1,700 70 0.04 *1,700 70 0.04 *EBL 1 1,700 70 0.04*1,700 70 0.04 * EBT 3 5,100 460 0.09 5,100 480 0.09 EBT 3 5,100 470 0.09 5,100 480 0.09 EBR 1 1,700 40 0.02 1,700 50 0.03 EBR 1 1,700 50 0.03 1,700 50 0.03 WBL 1 1,700 140 0.08 1,700 180 0.11 WBL 1 1,700 160 0.09 1,700 180 0.11 WBT 3 5,100 620 0.14 *5,100 1,180 0.25 *WBT 3 5,100 950 0.20*5,100 1,180 0.25 * WBR 0 90 100 WBR 0 90 100 N/S Movements 0.11 0.15 N/S Movements 0.14 0.15 E/W Movements 0.18 0.29 E/W Movements 0.25 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.35 0.49 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.43 0.49 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 190 0.06 3,400 230 0.07 NBT 2 3400 280 0.08 *3,400 320 0.09 * NBR 1 1700 210 0.12 1,700 220 0.13 SBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1,700 90 0.05 * SBT 2 3400 170 0.05 3,400 190 0.06 SBR 1 1700 150 0.09 1,700 190 0.11 * EBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1,700 70 0.04 * EBT 3 5100 480 0.09 5,100 490 0.10 EBR 1 1700 50 0.03 1,700 50 0.03 WBL 1 1700 160 0.09 1,700 180 0.11 WBT 3 5100 1,210 0.26 *5,100 1,440 0.31 * WBR 0 110 120 N/S Movements 0.14 0.15 E/W Movements 0.30 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.54 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:35 Main Street / Struck Avenue INTERSECTION:35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 80 0.05 1,700 230 0.14 *NBL 1 1,700 170 0.10*1,700 230 0.14 * NBT 2 3,400 490 0.14 *3,400 710 0.21 NBT 2 3,400 620 0.18 3,400 710 0.21 NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 *1,700 10 0.01 SBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 1,700 10 0.01 SBT 2 3,400 290 0.09 3,400 320 0.12 *SBT 2 3,400 310 0.11*3,400 320 0.12 * SBR 0 20 80 SBR 0 60 80 EBL 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 30 0.02 EBL 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 30 0.02 EBT 1 1,700 40 0.08 *1,700 50 0.09 *EBT 1 1,700 40 0.08*1,700 50 0.09 * EBR 0 90 100 EBR 0 100 100 WBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 *1,700 10 0.01 *WBL 1 1,700 10 0.01*1,700 10 0.01 * WBT 1 1,700 30 0.03 1,700 80 0.06 WBT 1 1,700 60 0.05 1,700 80 0.06 WBR 0 20 20 WBR 0 20 20 N/S Movements 0.15 0.25 N/S Movements 0.21 0.25 E/W Movements 0.08 0.09 E/W Movements 0.09 0.09 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.28 0.40 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.35 0.40 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 200 0.12 *1,700 260 0.15 * NBT 2 3,400 620 0.19 3,400 710 0.21 NBR 0 20 20 SBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 1,700 10 0.01 SBT 2 3,400 310 0.11 *3,400 320 0.12 * SBR 0 60 80 EBL 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 30 0.02 EBT 1 1,700 60 0.10 *1,700 70 0.11 * EBR 0 110 110 WBL 1 1,700 20 0.01 *1,700 20 0.01 * WBT 1 1,700 70 0.06 1,700 90 0.07 WBR 0 30 30 N/S Movements 0.23 0.27 E/W Movements 0.11 0.12 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.39 0.44 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue INTERSECTION:36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 110 0.06 *1700 110 0.06 *NBL 1 1700 110 0.06 *1700 110 0.06 * NBT 2 3400 150 0.06 3400 150 0.06 NBT 2 3400 150 0.06 3400 150 0.06 NBR 0 40 40 NBR 0 40 40 SBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 SBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 SBT 2 3400 140 0.08 *3400 140 0.09 *SBT 2 3400 140 0.09 *3400 140 0.09 * SBR 0 140 160 SBR 0 150 160 EBL 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 *EBL 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 * EBT 2 3400 600 0.18 3400 600 0.18 EBT 2 3400 600 0.18 3400 600 0.18 EBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 EBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 WBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 WBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 WBT 2 3400 470 0.14 *3400 550 0.16 *WBT 2 3400 520 0.15 *3400 550 0.16 * WBR 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 WBR 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 N/S Movements 0.15 0.15 N/S Movements 0.15 0.15 E/W Movements 0.23 0.25 E/W Movements 0.24 0.25 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.45 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.45 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 110 0.06 *1700 110 0.06 * NBT 2 3400 150 0.06 3400 150 0.06 NBR 0 40 40 SBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 SBT 2 3400 140 0.09 *3400 140 0.09 * SBR 0 150 160 EBL 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 * EBT 2 3400 600 0.18 3400 600 0.18 EBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 WBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 WBT 2 3400 520 0.15 *3400 550 0.16 * WBR 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 N/S Movements 0.15 0.15 E/W Movements 0.24 0.25 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.45 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 40 0.02 1700 40 0.02 NBL 1 1700 40 0.02 1700 40 0.02 NBT 2 3400 190 0.06 *3400 190 0.06 *NBT 2 3400 190 0.06 *3400 190 0.06 * NBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 NBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBL 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 120 0.07 *SBL 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 120 0.07 * SBT 2 3400 130 0.04 3400 130 0.04 SBT 2 3400 130 0.04 3400 130 0.04 SBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 SBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 EBL 1 1700 80 0.05 *1700 80 0.05 *EBL 1 1700 80 0.05 *1700 80 0.05 * EBT 3 5100 710 0.14 5100 710 0.14 EBT 3 5100 710 0.14 5100 710 0.14 EBR 0 20 20 EBR 0 20 20 WBL 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBL 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBT 3 5100 610 0.16 *5100 980 0.23 *WBT 3 5100 830 0.20 *5100 980 0.23 * WBR 0 190 190 WBR 0 190 190 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 E/W Movements 0.20 0.28 E/W Movements 0.25 0.28 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.38 0.45 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.45 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 40 0.02 1700 40 0.02 NBT 2 3400 190 0.06 *3400 190 0.06 * NBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBL 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 120 0.07 * SBT 2 3400 130 0.04 3400 130 0.04 SBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 EBL 1 1700 80 0.05 *1700 80 0.05 * EBT 3 5100 710 0.14 5100 710 0.14 EBR 0 20 20 WBL 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,090 0.25 *5100 1,240 0.28 * WBR 0 190 190 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 E/W Movements 0.30 0.33 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.47 0.50 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue INTERSECTION:38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 NBL 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 NBT 3 5100 620 0.15 *5100 620 0.15 *NBT 3 5100 620 0.15 *5100 620 0.15 * NBR 0 120 120 NBR 0 120 120 SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 110 0.06 *SBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 110 0.06 * SBT 3 5100 460 0.12 5100 460 0.12 SBT 3 5100 460 0.12 5100 460 0.12 SBR 0 140 140 SBR 0 140 140 EBL 1 1700 190 0.11 *1700 190 0.11 *EBL 1 1700 190 0.11 *1700 190 0.11 * EBT 2 3400 410 0.12 3400 410 0.12 EBT 2 3400 410 0.12 3400 410 0.12 EBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 EBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 WBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 WBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 WBT 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 290 0.09 *WBT 2 3400 280 0.08 *3400 290 0.09 * WBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 WBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 N/S Movements 0.19 0.21 N/S Movements 0.20 0.21 E/W Movements 0.19 0.20 E/W Movements 0.19 0.20 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.46 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.46 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 NBT 3 5100 620 0.15 *5100 620 0.15 * NBR 0 120 120 SBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 110 0.06 * SBT 3 5100 530 0.13 5100 530 0.13 SBR 0 140 140 EBL 1 1700 190 0.11 *1700 190 0.11 * EBT 2 3400 410 0.12 3400 410 0.12 EBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 WBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 WBT 2 3400 280 0.08 *3400 290 0.09 * WBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 N/S Movements 0.20 0.21 E/W Movements 0.19 0.20 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.44 0.46 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 130 0.08 NBL 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 130 0.08 NBT 2 3400 400 0.12 *3400 400 0.12 *NBT 2 3400 400 0.12 *3400 400 0.12 * NBR 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 130 0.08 NBR 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 130 0.08 SBL 1 1700 140 0.08 *1700 140 0.08 *SBL 1 1700 140 0.08 *1700 140 0.08 * SBT 2 3400 370 0.11 3400 370 0.11 SBT 2 3400 370 0.11 3400 370 0.11 SBR 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 130 0.08 SBR 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 130 0.08 EBL 2 3400 230 0.07 *3400 230 0.07 *EBL 2 3400 230 0.07 *3400 230 0.07 * EBT 3 5100 770 0.17 5100 770 0.17 EBT 3 5100 770 0.17 5100 770 0.17 EBR 0 90 90 EBR 0 90 90 WBL 2 3400 160 0.05 3400 160 0.05 WBL 2 3400 160 0.05 3400 160 0.05 WBT 3 5100 720 0.17 *5100 1,090 0.24 *WBT 3 5100 940 0.21 *5100 1,090 0.24 * WBR 0 140 140 WBR 0 140 140 N/S Movements 0.20 0.20 N/S Movements 0.20 0.20 E/W Movements 0.24 0.31 E/W Movements 0.28 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.49 0.56 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.56 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 130 0.08 NBT 2 3400 400 0.12 *3400 400 0.12 * NBR 1 1700 130 0.08 1700 130 0.08 SBL 1 1700 140 0.08 *1700 140 0.08 * SBT 2 3400 370 0.11 3400 370 0.11 SBR 1 1700 200 0.12 1700 200 0.12 EBL 2 3400 230 0.07 *3400 230 0.07 * EBT 3 5100 770 0.17 5100 770 0.17 EBR 0 90 90 WBL 2 3400 160 0.05 3400 160 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,100 0.24 *5100 1,250 0.27 * WBR 0 140 140 N/S Movements 0.20 0.20 E/W Movements 0.31 0.34 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.56 0.59 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:40 N Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:40 N Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0.33 600 60 0.10 600 60 0.10 NBL 0.33 600 60 0.10 600 60 0.10 NBT 0.34 300 30 0.10 300 30 0.10 NBT 0.34 300 30 0.10 300 30 0.10 NBR 0.33 800 80 0.10 800 80 0.10 NBR 0.33 800 80 0.10 800 80 0.10 SBL 0.33 340 10 0.03 340 10 0.03 SBL 0.33 340 10 0.03 340 10 0.03 SBT 0.34 680 20 0.03 680 20 0.03 SBT 0.34 680 20 0.03 680 20 0.03 SBR 0.33 680 20 0.03 680 20 0.03 SBR 0.33 680 20 0.03 680 20 0.03 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 EBT 3 5100 1,030 0.21 *5100 1,030 0.21 *EBT 3 5100 1,030 0.21 *5100 1,030 0.21 * EBR 0 40 40 EBR 0 40 40 WBL 1 1700 40 0.02 *1700 40 0.02 *WBL 1 1700 40 0.02 *1700 40 0.02 * WBT 3 5100 840 0.17 5100 1,120 0.22 WBT 3 5100 1,010 0.20 5100 1,120 0.22 WBR 0 20 20 WBR 0 20 20 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 E/W Movements 0.23 0.23 E/W Movements 0.23 0.23 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.41 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.41 0.41 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:40 N Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0.33 600 60 0.10 600 60 0.10 NBT 0.34 300 30 0.10 300 30 0.10 NBR 0.33 800 80 0.10 800 80 0.10 SBL 0.33 340 10 0.03 340 10 0.03 SBT 0.34 680 20 0.03 680 20 0.03 SBR 0.33 680 20 0.03 680 20 0.03 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 *1700 10 0.01 * EBT 3 5100 1,030 0.21 5100 1,030 0.21 EBR 0 40 40 WBL 1 1700 40 0.02 1700 40 0.02 WBT 3 5100 1,170 0.23 *5100 1,280 0.25 * WBR 0 20 20 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 E/W Movements 0.24 0.26 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.44 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:41 N Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:41 N Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 NBT 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 *NBT 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 * NBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 NBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 SBL 1 1700 110 0.06 *1700 110 0.06 *SBL 1 1700 110 0.06 *1700 110 0.06 * SBT 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 SBT 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 SBR 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 SBR 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 EBL 1 1700 60 0.04 1700 60 0.04 *EBL 1 1700 60 0.04 *1700 60 0.04 * EBT 3 5100 990 0.20 *5100 990 0.20 EBT 3 5100 990 0.20 5100 990 0.20 EBR 0 50 50 EBR 0 50 50 WBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 90 0.05 WBL 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBT 3 5100 820 0.21 5100 1,100 0.26 *WBT 3 5100 990 0.24 *5100 1,100 0.26 * WBR 0 230 230 WBR 0 230 230 N/S Movements 0.15 0.15 N/S Movements 0.15 0.15 E/W Movements 0.26 0.30 E/W Movements 0.27 0.30 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.46 0.50 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.48 0.50 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:41 N Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 NBT 1 1700 150 0.09 *1700 150 0.09 * NBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 SBL 1 1700 110 0.06 *1700 110 0.06 * SBT 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 SBR 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 EBL 1 1700 60 0.04 *1700 60 0.04 * EBT 3 5100 990 0.20 5100 990 0.20 EBR 0 50 50 WBL 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,150 0.27 *5100 1,260 0.29 * WBR 0 230 230 N/S Movements 0.15 0.15 E/W Movements 0.31 0.33 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.51 0.53 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A A Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:42 N Tustin Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:42 N Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 240 0.0706 3400 360 0.1059 NBL 2 3400 320 0.09 3400 380 0.11 NBT 3 5100 820 0.1608 *5100 1,370 0.2686 *NBT 3 5100 820 0.16 *5100 820 0.16 * NBR 1 1700 420 0.2471 1700 530 0.3118 NBR 1 1700 420 0.25 1700 420 0.25 SBL 2 3400 490 0.1441 *3400 840 0.2471 *SBL 2 3400 490 0.14 *3400 490 0.14 * SBT 3 5100 680 0.1627 5100 1,260 0.2902 SBT 3 5100 680 0.16 5100 680 0.16 SBR 0 150 220 SBR 0 150 150 EBL 2 3400 250 0.0735 3400 270 0.0794 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 EBT 3 5100 990 0.1941 *5100 1,540 0.3020 *EBT 3 5100 990 0.19 *5100 990 0.19 * EBR 1 1700 140 0.0824 1700 320 0.1882 EBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 WBL 2 3400 420 0.1235 *3400 460 0.1353 *WBL 2 3400 420 0.12 *3400 420 0.12 * WBT 3 5100 860 0.1686 5100 1,190 0.2333 WBT 3 5100 940 0.18 5100 1,000 0.20 WBR 1 1700 650 0.3824 *1700 780 0.4588 WBR 1 1700 650 0.38 *1700 650 0.38 * N/S Movements 0.30 0.52 N/S Movements 0.30 0.30 E/W Movements 0.32 0.44 E/W Movements 0.32 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0..00 0.04 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.67 1.00 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.67 0.71 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B C Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:42 N Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 350 0.10 3400 410 0.12 NBT 3 5100 820 0.16 *5100 820 0.16 * NBR 1 1700 420 0.25 1700 420 0.25 SBL 2 3400 490 0.14 *3400 490 0.14 * SBT 3 5100 680 0.17 5100 680 0.17 SBR 0 180 180 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 EBT 3 5100 990 0.19 *5100 990 0.19 * EBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 WBL 2 3400 420 0.12 *3400 420 0.12 * WBT 3 5100 1,040 0.20 5100 1,100 0.22 WBR 1 1700 650 0.38 *1700 650 0.38 * N/S Movements 0.30 0.30 E/W Movements 0.32 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.03 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.71 0.70 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C B Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 350 0.10 *3400 350 0.10 *SBL 2 3400 350 0.10 *3400 350 0.10 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 390 0.23 *1700 390 0.23 *SBR 1 1700 390 0.23 *1700 390 0.23 * EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 2.5 3,610 1,030 0.29 *3,610 1,030 0.29 *EBT 2.5 3,610 1,030 0.29 *3,610 1,030 0.29 * EBR 1.5 3,190 910 0.29 3,190 910 0.29 EBR 1.5 3,190 910 0.29 3,190 910 0.29 WBL 1 1700 530 0.31 *1700 530 0.31 *WBL 1 1700 530 0.31 *1700 530 0.31 * WBT 3 5100 1,630 0.32 5100 1,770 0.35 WBT 3 5100 1,710 0.34 5100 1,770 0.35 WBR 50 85000 0 0.00 85000 0 0.00 WBR 50 85000 0 0.00 85000 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.10 0.10 N/S Movements 0.10 0.10 E/W Movements 0.60 0.60 E/W Movements 0.60 0.60 Rt. Turn Component 0.13 0.13 Rt. Turn Component 0.13 0.13 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.88 0.88 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.88 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 350 0.10 *3400 350 0.10 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 390 0.23 *1700 390 0.23 * EBL 0 0 0 EBT 2.5 3,610 1,030 0.29 *3,610 1,030 0.29 * EBR 1.5 3,190 910 0.29 3,190 910 0.29 WBL 1 1700 530 0.31 *1700 530 0.31 * WBT 3 5100 1,810 0.35 5100 1,870 0.37 WBR 50 85000 0 0.00 85000 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.10 0.10 E/W Movements 0.60 0.60 Rt. Turn Component 0.13 0.13 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.88 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 1,100 0.32 *3400 1,100 0.32 *NBL 2 3400 1,100 0.32 *3400 1,100 0.32 * NBT 0 10 0.00 10 0.00 NBT 0 10 0.00 10 0.00 NBR 1 1700 850 0.50 *1700 850 0.50 *NBR 1 1700 850 0.50 *1700 850 0.50 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 *SBR 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 * EBL 0 0 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 2 3400 930 0.27 *3400 930 0.27 EBT 2 3400 930 0.27 3400 930 0.27 EBR (free)50 85000 460 0.01 85000 460 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 460 0.01 85000 460 0.01 WBL 0 0 * 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 1,340 0.26 5100 1,480 0.29 *WBT 3 5100 1,420 0.28 *5100 1,480 0.29 * WBR (free)50 85000 290 0.00 85000 290 0.00 WBR (free)50 85000 290 0.00 85000 290 0.00 N/S Movements 0.32 0.32 N/S Movements 0.32 0.32 E/W Movements 0.27 0.29 E/W Movements 0.28 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.19 0.19 Rt. Turn Component 0.19 0.19 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.84 0.86 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 1,100 0.32 *3400 1,100 0.32 * NBT 0 10 0.00 10 0.00 NBR 1 1700 850 0.50 *1700 850 0.50 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 * EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 2 3400 930 0.27 3400 930 0.27 EBR (free)50 85000 460 0.01 85000 460 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 1,520 0.30 *5100 1,580 0.31 * WBR (free)50 85000 290 0.00 85000 290 0.00 N/S Movements 0.32 0.32 E/W Movements 0.30 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.19 0.19 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.87 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX G-3: ICU WORKSHEETS UNDER 2030 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:1 Harbor Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 630 0.19 *3400 630 0.19 *NBL 2 3400 630 0.19 *3400 630 0.19 * NBT 3 5100 1,090 0.21 5100 1,090 0.21 NBT 3 5100 1,090 0.21 5100 1,090 0.21 NBR 1 1700 230 0.14 1700 230 0.14 NBR 1 1700 230 0.14 1700 230 0.14 SBL 2 3400 200 0.06 3400 200 0.06 SBL 2 3400 200 0.06 3400 200 0.06 SBT 3 5100 730 0.14 *5100 730 0.14 *SBT 3 5100 730 0.14 *5100 730 0.14 * SBR 1 1700 580 0.34 *1700 580 0.34 *SBR 1 1700 580 0.34 *1700 580 0.34 * EBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *3400 510 0.15 *EBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *3400 510 0.15 * EBT 4 6800 1,730 0.28 6800 1,860 0.30 EBT 4 6800 1,810 0.29 6800 1,860 0.30 EBR 0 170 170 EBR 0 170 170 WBL 2 3400 420 0.12 3400 420 0.12 WBL 2 3400 420 0.12 3400 420 0.12 WBT 4 6800 2,350 0.37 *6800 2,350 0.37 *WBT 4 6800 2,350 0.37 *6800 2,350 0.37 * WBR 0 170 170 WBR 0 170 170 N/S Movements 0.33 0.33 N/S Movements 0.33 0.33 E/W Movements 0.52 0.52 E/W Movements 0.52 0.52 Rt. Turn Component 0.05 0.05 Rt. Turn Component 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.95 0.95 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.95 0.95 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:1 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 630 0.19 *3400 630 0.19 * NBT 3 5100 1,090 0.21 5100 1,090 0.21 NBR 1 1700 230 0.14 1700 230 0.14 SBL 2 3400 200 0.06 3400 200 0.06 SBT 3 5100 730 0.14 *5100 730 0.14 * SBR 1 1700 580 0.34 *1700 580 0.34 * EBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *3400 510 0.15 * EBT 4 6800 1,900 0.30 6800 1,950 0.31 EBR 0 170 170 WBL 2 3400 420 0.12 3400 420 0.12 WBT 4 6800 2,350 0.37 *6800 2,350 0.37 * WBR 0 170 170 N/S Movements 0.33 0.33 E/W Movements 0.52 0.52 Rt. Turn Component 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.95 0.95 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E CMP Intersection, LOS E is acceptable Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:2 Clementine Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 NBL 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 NBT 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 120 0.07 *NBT 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 120 0.07 * NBR 1 1700 430 0.25 *1700 430 0.25 *NBR 1 1700 430 0.25 *1700 430 0.25 * SBL 1 1700 300 0.18 *1700 300 0.18 *SBL 1 1700 300 0.18 *1700 300 0.18 * SBT 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBT 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 SBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 EBL 2 3400 90 0.03 *3400 90 0.03 *EBL 2 3400 90 0.03 *3400 90 0.03 * EBT 4 6800 1,950 0.30 6800 2,130 0.32 EBT 4 6800 2,060 0.31 6800 2,130 0.32 EBR 0 70 70 EBR 0 70 70 WBL 2 3400 160 0.05 3400 160 0.05 WBL 2 3400 160 0.05 3400 160 0.05 WBT 4 6800 2,930 0.44 *6800 2,930 0.44 *WBT 4 6800 2,930 0.44 *6800 2,930 0.44 * WBR 0 80 80 WBR 0 80 80 N/S Movements 0.25 0.25 N/S Movements 0.25 0.25 E/W Movements 0.47 0.47 E/W Movements 0.47 0.47 Rt. Turn Component 0.14 0.14 Rt. Turn Component 0.14 0.14 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.90 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.90 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:2 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 NBT 1 1700 120 0.07 *1700 120 0.07 * NBR 1 1700 430 0.25 *1700 430 0.25 * SBL 1 1700 300 0.18 *1700 300 0.18 * SBT 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 EBL 2 3400 90 0.03 *3400 90 0.03 * EBT 4 6800 2,190 0.33 6800 2,260 0.34 EBR 0 70 70 WBL 2 3400 160 0.05 3400 160 0.05 WBT 4 6800 2,930 0.44 *6800 2,930 0.44 * WBR 0 80 80 N/S Movements 0.25 0.25 E/W Movements 0.47 0.47 Rt. Turn Component 0.14 0.14 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.90 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D CMP Intersection, LOS E is acceptable Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 300 0.09 3400 300 0.09 NBL 2 3400 300 0.09 3400 300 0.09 NBT 3 5100 1,800 0.35 *5100 1,800 0.35 *NBT 3 5100 1,800 0.35 *5100 1,800 0.35 * NBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1700 160 0.09 NBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1700 160 0.09 SBL 2 3400 460 0.14 *3400 480 0.14 *SBL 2 3400 470 0.14 *3400 480 0.14 * SBT 3 5100 880 0.17 5100 900 0.18 SBT 3 5100 890 0.17 5100 900 0.18 SBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 EBL 2 3400 240 0.07 *3400 240 0.07 *EBL 2 3400 240 0.07 *3400 240 0.07 * EBT 3 5100 1,000 0.20 5100 1,050 0.21 EBT 3 5100 1,030 0.20 5100 1,050 0.21 EBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1700 300 0.18 EBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1700 300 0.18 WBL 2 3400 170 0.05 3400 170 0.05 WBL 2 3400 170 0.05 3400 170 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,640 0.32 *5100 1,640 0.32 *WBT 3 5100 1,640 0.32 *5100 1,640 0.32 * WBR 1 1700 540 0.32 1700 540 0.32 WBR 1 1700 540 0.32 1700 540 0.32 N/S Movements 0.49 0.49 N/S Movements 0.49 0.49 E/W Movements 0.39 0.39 E/W Movements 0.39 0.39 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.94 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.94 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 300 0.09 3400 300 0.09 NBT 3 5100 1,800 0.35 *5100 1,800 0.35 * NBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1700 160 0.09 SBL 2 3400 470 0.14 *3400 480 0.14 * SBT 3 5100 930 0.18 5100 940 0.18 SBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 EBL 2 3400 240 0.07 *3400 240 0.07 * EBT 3 5100 1,030 0.20 5100 1,050 0.21 EBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1700 300 0.18 WBL 2 3400 170 0.05 3400 170 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,640 0.32 *5100 1,640 0.32 * WBR 1 1700 540 0.32 1700 540 0.32 N/S Movements 0.49 0.49 E/W Movements 0.39 0.39 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.94 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E CMP Intersection, LOS E is acceptable Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: Honda Center Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION:Year 2030 Conditions INTERSECTION:4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:4 Anaheim Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 130 0.04 3400 130 0.04 NBL 2 3400 130 0.04 3400 130 0.04 NBT 3 5100 1,880 0.37 *5100 1,880 0.37 *NBT 3 5100 1,880 0.37 *5100 1,880 0.37 * NBR 1 1700 510 0.30 1700 510 0.30 NBR 1 1700 510 0.30 1700 510 0.30 SBL 2 3400 330 0.10 *3400 380 0.11 *SBL 2 3400 360 0.11 *3400 380 0.11 * SBT 3 5100 1,280 0.26 5100 1,280 0.26 SBT 3 5100 1,280 0.26 5100 1,280 0.26 SBR 0 70 70 SBR 0 70 70 EBL 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 EBL 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 EBT 1 1700 70 0.14 *1700 70 0.14 *EBT 1 1700 70 0.14 *1700 70 0.14 * EBR 0 170 170 EBR 0 170 170 WBL 2 3400 690 0.20 *3400 690 0.20 *WBL 2 3400 690 0.20 *3400 690 0.20 * WBT 0.5 540 100 0.19 540 100 0.19 WBT 0.5 540 100 0.19 540 100 0.19 WBR 1.5 2860 530 0.19 2860 530 0.19 WBR 1.5 2860 530 0.19 2860 530 0.19 N/S Movements 0.47 0.48 N/S Movements 0.47 0.48 E/W Movements 0.34 0.34 E/W Movements 0.34 0.34 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.86 0.87 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.87 0.87 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:4 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 130 0.04 3400 130 0.04 NBT 3 5100 1,880 0.37 *5100 1,880 0.37 * NBR 1 1700 510 0.30 1700 510 0.30 SBL 2 3400 360 0.11 *3400 380 0.11 * SBT 3 5100 1,320 0.27 5100 1,320 0.27 SBR 0 70 70 EBL 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 EBT 1 1700 70 0.14 *1700 70 0.14 * EBR 0 170 170 WBL 2 3400 690 0.20 *3400 690 0.20 * WBT 0.5 540 100 0.19 540 100 0.19 WBR 1.5 2860 530 0.19 2860 530 0.19 N/S Movements 0.47 0.48 E/W Movements 0.34 0.34 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.87 0.87 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D CMP Intersection, LOS E is acceptable PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 340 0.10 3400 340 0.10 NBL 2 3400 340 0.10 3400 340 0.10 NBT 3 5100 1,160 0.23 *5100 1,160 0.23 *NBT 3 5100 1,160 0.23 *5100 1,160 0.23 * NBR 1 1700 370 0.22 1700 410 0.24 NBR 1 1700 400 0.24 1700 410 0.24 SBL 2 3400 430 0.13 *3400 430 0.13 *SBL 2 3400 430 0.13 *3400 430 0.13 * SBT 3 5100 540 0.11 5100 540 0.11 SBT 3 5100 540 0.11 5100 540 0.11 SBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1700 300 0.18 SBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1700 300 0.18 EBL 2 3400 490 0.14 *3400 490 0.14 EBL 2 3400 490 0.14 3400 490 0.14 EBT 4 6800 2,050 0.32 6800 2,230 0.35 *EBT 4 6800 2,160 0.34 *6800 2,230 0.35 * EBR 0 150 150 EBR 0 150 150 WBL 2 3400 590 0.17 3400 590 0.17 *WBL 2 3400 590 0.17 *3400 590 0.17 * WBT 4 6800 2,410 0.35 *6800 2,410 0.35 WBT 4 6800 2,410 0.35 6800 2,410 0.35 WBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 WBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.50 0.52 E/W Movements 0.51 0.52 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.93 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.92 0.93 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 340 0.10 3400 340 0.10 NBT 3 5100 1,160 0.23 *5100 1,160 0.23 * NBR 1 1700 400 0.24 1700 410 0.24 SBL 2 3400 430 0.13 *3400 430 0.13 * SBT 3 5100 540 0.11 5100 540 0.11 SBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1700 300 0.18 EBL 2 3400 490 0.14 3400 490 0.14 EBT 4 6800 2,370 0.37 *6800 2,440 0.38 * EBR 0 150 150 WBL 2 3400 590 0.17 *3400 590 0.17 * WBT 4 6800 2,410 0.35 6800 2,410 0.35 WBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1700 120 0.07 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.54 0.55 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.95 0.96 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:6 Manchester Avenue / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:6 Manchester Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 2488 200 0.08 2040 200 0.10 NBL 1.5 2217 200 0.09 2040 200 0.10 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * NBR 1.5 2612 210 0.08 3060 300 0.10 NBR 1.5 2883 260 0.09 3060 300 0.10 SBL 2 3400 520 0.15 *3400 610 0.18 *SBL 2 3400 570 0.17 *3400 610 0.18 * SBT 2 3400 150 0.04 3400 150 0.04 SBT 2 3400 150 0.04 3400 150 0.04 SBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 4 6800 1,930 0.28 *6800 2,150 0.32 *EBT 4 6800 2,060 0.30 *6800 2,150 0.32 * EBR 2 3400 1,110 0.33 3400 1,110 0.33 EBR 2 3400 1,110 0.33 3400 1,110 0.33 WBL 2 3400 770 0.23 *3400 770 0.23 *WBL 2 3400 770 0.23 *3400 770 0.23 * WBT 4 6800 2,480 0.36 6800 2,480 0.36 WBT 4 6800 2,480 0.36 6800 2,480 0.36 WBR 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.15 0.18 N/S Movements 0.17 0.18 E/W Movements 0.51 0.54 E/W Movements 0.53 0.54 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.71 0.77 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.75 0.77 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:6 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1855 200 0.11 1729 200 0.12 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * NBR 1.5 3245 350 0.11 3371 390 0.12 SBL 2 3400 780 0.23 *3400 820 0.24 * SBT 2 3400 150 0.04 3400 150 0.04 SBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 4 6800 2,270 0.33 *6800 2,360 0.35 * EBR 2 3400 1,110 0.33 3400 1,110 0.33 WBL 2 3400 770 0.23 *3400 770 0.23 * WBT 4 6800 2,480 0.36 6800 2,480 0.36 WBR 0 0 0 Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT N/S Movements 0.23 0.24 E/W Movements 0.56 0.57 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.84 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D CMP Intersection, LOS E is acceptable INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:7 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:7 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 2521 860 0.34 2521 860 0.34 NBL 1.5 2521 860 0.34 2521 860 0.34 NBT 3 4924 1,680 0.34 4924 1,680 0.34 NBT 3 4924 1,680 0.34 4924 1,680 0.34 NBR 0.5 1055 360 0.34 1055 360 0.34 NBR 0.5 1055 360 0.34 1055 360 0.34 SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 50 0.01 *3400 50 0.01 EBL 2 3400 50 0.01 3400 50 0.01 EBT 4 6800 2,600 0.38 6800 3,000 0.44 *EBT 4 6800 2,840 0.42 *6800 3,000 0.44 * EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 4.5 7663 2,870 0.37 *7663 2,870 0.37 WBT 4.5 7663 2,870 0.37 7663 2,870 0.37 WBR 1.5 2537 950 0.37 2537 950 0.37 WBR 1.5 2537 950 0.37 2537 950 0.37 N/S Movements 0.34 0.34 N/S Movements 0.34 0.34 E/W Movements 0.39 0.44 E/W Movements 0.42 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.78 0.83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.81 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:7 Anaheim Way / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 2521 860 0.34 2521 860 0.34 NBT 3 4924 1,680 0.34 4924 1,680 0.34 NBR 0.5 1055 360 0.34 1055 360 0.34 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 50 0.01 3400 50 0.01 EBT 4 6800 3,350 0.49 *6800 3,510 0.52 * EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 4.5 7663 2,870 0.37 7663 2,870 0.37 WBR 1.5 2537 950 0.37 2537 950 0.37 Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT N/S Movements 0.34 0.34 E/W Movements 0.49 0.52 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.88 0.91 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E CMP Intersection, LOS E is acceptable INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 380 0.22 1700 380 0.22 NBL 1 1700 380 0.22 1700 380 0.22 NBT 2 3400 10 0.31 *3400 10 0.31 *NBT 2 3400 10 0.31 *3400 10 0.31 * NBR 0 1,040 1,040 NBR 0 1,040 1,040 SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 70 0.04 *SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 70 0.04 * SBT 1 1700 110 0.12 1700 110 0.12 SBT 1 1700 110 0.12 1700 110 0.12 SBR 0 90 90 SBR 0 90 90 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 EBT 3 5100 1,410 0.35 *5100 1,460 0.36 *EBT 3 5100 1,440 0.35 *5100 1,460 0.36 * EBR 0 360 380 EBR 0 370 380 WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *3400 510 0.15 *WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *3400 510 0.15 * WBT 3 5100 1,760 0.35 5100 1,760 0.35 WBT 3 5100 1,760 0.35 5100 1,760 0.35 WBR 0 10 10 WBR 0 10 10 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.50 0.51 E/W Movements 0.50 0.51 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.91 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.91 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 380 0.22 1700 380 0.22 NBT 2 3400 10 0.31 *3400 10 0.31 * NBR 0 1,040 1,040 SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 70 0.04 * SBT 1 1700 110 0.12 1700 110 0.12 SBR 0 90 90 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 EBT 3 5100 1,440 0.35 *5100 1,460 0.36 * EBR 0 370 380 WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *3400 510 0.15 * WBT 3 5100 1,760 0.35 5100 1,760 0.35 WBR 0 10 10 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.50 0.51 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.91 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E Impact Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 NBT 2 3400 1,030 0.30 *3400 1,030 0.30 *NBT 2 3400 1,030 0.30 *3400 1,030 0.30 * NBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1700 300 0.18 NBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1700 300 0.18 SBL 1 1700 130 0.08 *1700 160 0.09 *SBL 1 1700 140 0.08 *1700 160 0.09 * SBT 2 3400 710 0.28 3400 710 0.28 SBT 2 3400 710 0.28 3400 710 0.28 SBR 0 230 230 SBR 0 230 230 EBL 1 1700 190 0.11 *1700 190 0.11 EBL 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 EBT 2 3400 840 0.32 3400 920 0.35 *EBT 2 3400 890 0.34 *3400 920 0.35 * EBR 0 260 260 EBR 0 260 260 WBL 1 1700 240 0.14 1700 240 0.14 *WBL 1 1700 240 0.14 *1700 240 0.14 * WBT 2 3400 1,240 0.36 *3400 1,240 0.36 WBT 2 3400 1,240 0.36 3400 1,240 0.36 WBR 1 1700 210 0.12 1700 210 0.12 WBR 1 1700 210 0.12 1700 210 0.12 N/S Movements 0.38 0.40 N/S Movements 0.39 0.40 E/W Movements 0.48 0.49 E/W Movements 0.48 0.49 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.94 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.94 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 NBT 2 3400 1,030 0.30 *3400 1,030 0.30 * NBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1700 300 0.18 SBL 1 1700 140 0.08 *1700 160 0.09 * SBT 2 3400 710 0.28 3400 710 0.28 SBR 0 230 230 EBL 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 EBT 2 3400 930 0.36 *3400 960 0.37 * EBR 0 300 300 WBL 1 1700 240 0.14 *1700 240 0.14 * WBT 2 3400 1,240 0.36 3400 1,240 0.36 WBR 1 1700 210 0.12 1700 210 0.12 N/S Movements 0.39 0.40 E/W Movements 0.50 0.51 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.94 0.96 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 250 0.07 *NBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 250 0.07 * NBT 2 3400 670 0.20 3400 670 0.20 NBT 2 3400 670 0.20 3400 670 0.20 NBR 1 1700 530 0.31 1700 570 0.34 NBR 1 1700 560 0.33 1700 570 0.34 SBL 2 3400 380 0.11 3400 380 0.11 SBL 2 3400 380 0.11 3400 380 0.11 SBT 1.5 1907 460 0.24 *1907 460 0.24 *SBT 1.5 1907 460 0.24 *1907 460 0.24 * SBR 1.5 3193 770 0.24 3193 770 0.24 SBR 1.5 3193 770 0.24 3193 770 0.24 EBL 2 3400 420 0.12 3400 420 0.12 EBL 2 3400 420 0.12 3400 420 0.12 EBT 4 6800 2,120 0.33 *6800 2,520 0.39 *EBT 4 6800 2,360 0.36 *6800 2,520 0.39 * EBR 0 110 110 EBR 0 110 110 WBL 2 3400 490 0.14 *3400 490 0.14 *WBL 2 3400 490 0.14 *3400 490 0.14 * WBT 5 8500 2,740 0.34 8500 2,740 0.34 WBT 5 8500 2,740 0.34 8500 2,740 0.34 WBR 0 190 190 WBR 0 190 190 N/S Movements 0.31 0.31 N/S Movements 0.31 0.31 E/W Movements 0.47 0.53 E/W Movements 0.51 0.53 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.84 0.90 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.87 0.90 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 250 0.07 NBT 2 3400 670 0.20 *3400 670 0.20 * NBR 1 1700 560 0.33 1700 570 0.34 SBL 2 3400 420 0.12 *3400 420 0.12 * SBT 1.5 1907 460 0.24 1907 460 0.24 SBR 1.5 3193 770 0.24 3193 770 0.24 EBL 2 3400 420 0.12 3400 420 0.12 EBT 4 6800 2,870 0.44 *6800 3,030 0.46 * EBR 0 110 110 WBL 2 3400 490 0.14 *3400 490 0.14 * WBT 5 8500 2,740 0.34 8500 2,740 0.34 WBR 0 190 190 N/S Movements 0.32 0.32 E/W Movements 0.58 0.61 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.95 0.98 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way INTERSECTION:11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 2 3400 110 0.03 3400 110 0.03 NBR 2 3400 110 0.03 3400 110 0.03 SBL 2 3400 400 0.12 *3400 450 0.13 *SBL 2 3400 430 0.13 *3400 450 0.13 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 SBR 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 EBL 1 1700 200 0.12 *1700 200 0.12 *EBL 1 1700 200 0.12 *1700 200 0.12 * EBT 2.5 4054 620 0.15 4054 620 0.15 EBT 2.5 4054 620 0.15 4054 620 0.15 EBR 0.5 1046 160 0.15 1046 160 0.15 EBR 0.5 1046 160 0.15 1046 160 0.15 WBL 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 170 0.10 WBL 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 170 0.10 WBT 2.5 3555 1,680 0.47 *3555 1,680 0.47 *WBT 2.5 3555 1,680 0.47 *3555 1,680 0.47 * WBR 0.5 1545 730 0.47 1545 730 0.47 WBR 0.5 1545 730 0.47 1545 730 0.47 N/S Movements 0.12 0.13 N/S Movements 0.13 0.13 E/W Movements 0.59 0.59 E/W Movements 0.59 0.59 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.76 0.77 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.77 0.77 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:11 I-5 HOV Ramps / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 2 3400 110 0.03 3400 110 0.03 SBL 2 3400 530 0.16 *3400 550 0.16 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 EBL 1 1700 200 0.12 *1700 200 0.12 * EBT 2.5 4054 620 0.15 4054 620 0.15 EBR 0.5 1046 160 0.15 1046 160 0.15 WBL 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 170 0.10 WBT 2.5 3555 1,680 0.47 *3555 1,680 0.47 * WBR 0.5 1545 730 0.47 1545 730 0.47 N/S Movements 0.16 0.16 E/W Movements 0.59 0.59 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.80 0.80 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:12 East Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:12 East Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 270 0.08 *3400 290 0.09 *SBL 2 3400 280 0.08 *3400 290 0.09 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1700 390 0.23 SBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1700 390 0.23 EBL 2 3400 870 0.26 *3400 870 0.26 *EBL 2 3400 870 0.26 *3400 870 0.26 * EBT 3 5100 1,680 0.33 5100 1,730 0.34 EBT 3 5100 1,710 0.34 5100 1,730 0.34 EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 1,900 0.47 *5100 1,900 0.47 *WBT 3 5100 1,900 0.47 *5100 1,900 0.47 * WBR 0 480 480 WBR 0 480 480 N/S Movements 0.08 0.09 N/S Movements 0.08 0.09 E/W Movements 0.72 0.72 E/W Movements 0.72 0.72 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.86 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:12 East Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 90 90 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 280 0.08 *3400 290 0.09 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1700 390 0.23 EBL 2 3400 870 0.26 *3400 870 0.26 * EBT 3 5100 1,710 0.34 5100 1,730 0.34 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 1,900 0.47 *5100 1,900 0.47 * WBR 0 480 480 N/S Movements 0.08 0.09 E/W Movements 0.72 0.72 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road INTERSECTION:13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 220 0.06 3400 220 0.06 NBL 2 3400 220 0.06 3400 220 0.06 NBT 3 5100 1,570 0.31 *5100 1,570 0.31 *NBT 3 5100 1,570 0.31 *5100 1,570 0.31 * NBR 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 NBR 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 SBL 2 3400 280 0.08 *3400 280 0.08 *SBL 2 3400 280 0.08 *3400 280 0.08 * SBT 3 5100 610 0.12 5100 640 0.13 SBT 3 5100 630 0.12 5100 640 0.13 SBR 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 170 0.10 SBR 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 170 0.10 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 250 0.07 *EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 250 0.07 * EBT 3 5100 1,490 0.33 5100 1,580 0.35 EBT 3 5100 1,540 0.34 5100 1,580 0.35 EBR 0 180 180 EBR 0 180 180 WBL 2 3400 170 0.05 3400 170 0.05 WBL 2 3400 170 0.05 3400 170 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,920 0.43 *5100 1,920 0.43 *WBT 3 5100 1,920 0.43 *5100 1,920 0.43 * WBR 0 270 270 WBR 0 270 270 N/S Movements 0.39 0.39 N/S Movements 0.39 0.39 E/W Movements 0.50 0.50 E/W Movements 0.50 0.50 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.94 0.94 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.94 0.94 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:13 State College Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 220 0.06 3400 220 0.06 NBT 3 5100 1,570 0.31 *5100 1,570 0.31 * NBR 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 SBL 2 3400 280 0.08 *3400 280 0.08 * SBT 3 5100 820 0.16 5100 830 0.16 SBR 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 170 0.10 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 250 0.07 * EBT 3 5100 1,630 0.35 5100 1,670 0.36 EBR 0 180 180 WBL 2 3400 260 0.08 3400 260 0.08 WBT 3 5100 1,920 0.43 *5100 1,920 0.43 * WBR 0 270 270 N/S Movements 0.39 0.39 E/W Movements 0.50 0.50 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.94 0.94 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 340 0.10 3400 340 0.10 NBL 2 3400 340 0.10 3400 340 0.10 NBT 3 5100 1,520 0.31 *5100 1,520 0.31 *NBT 3 5100 1,520 0.31 *5100 1,520 0.31 * NBR 0 70 70 NBR 0 70 70 SBL 2 3400 20 0.01 *3400 50 0.01 *SBL 2 3400 40 0.01 *3400 50 0.01 * SBT 3 5100 720 0.17 5100 720 0.17 SBT 3 5100 720 0.17 5100 720 0.17 SBR 0 160 160 SBR 0 160 160 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 250 0.07 *EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 250 0.07 * EBT 2 3400 730 0.21 3400 860 0.25 EBT 2 3400 800 0.24 3400 860 0.25 EBR 1 1700 200 0.12 1700 200 0.12 EBR 1 1700 200 0.12 1700 200 0.12 WBL 2 3400 60 0.02 3400 60 0.02 WBL 2 3400 60 0.02 3400 60 0.02 WBT 2 3400 970 0.31 *3400 970 0.31 *WBT 2 3400 970 0.31 *3400 970 0.31 * WBR 0 90 90 WBR 0 90 90 N/S Movements 0.32 0.33 N/S Movements 0.32 0.33 E/W Movements 0.39 0.39 E/W Movements 0.39 0.39 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.75 0.76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.76 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:14 State College Boulevard / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 340 0.10 3400 340 0.10 NBT 3 5100 1,990 0.40 *5100 1,990 0.40 * NBR 0 70 70 SBL 2 3400 40 0.01 *3400 50 0.01 * SBT 3 5100 720 0.17 5100 720 0.17 SBR 0 160 160 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *3400 250 0.07 * EBT 2 3400 800 0.24 3400 860 0.25 EBR 1 1700 240 0.14 1700 240 0.14 WBL 2 3400 60 0.02 3400 60 0.02 WBT 2 3400 970 0.31 *3400 970 0.31 * WBR 0 90 90 N/S Movements 0.42 0.42 E/W Movements 0.39 0.39 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.85 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 530 0.16 *3,400 530 0.16 *NBL 2 3,400 530 0.16*3,400 530 0.16 * NBT 3 5,100 830 0.16 5,100 970 0.19 NBT 3 5,100 910 0.18 5,100 970 0.19 NBR 1 1,700 250 0.15 1,700 490 0.29 NBR 1 1,700 390 0.23 1,700 490 0.29 SBL 2 3,400 320 0.09 3,400 380 0.11 SBL 2 3,400 350 0.10 3,400 380 0.11 SBT 2 3,400 680 0.20 *3,400 700 0.21 *SBT 2 3,400 690 0.20*3,400 700 0.21 * SBR 2 3,400 820 0.24 3,400 830 0.24 SBR 2 3,400 830 0.24 3,400 830 0.24 EBL 3 5,100 900 0.18 5,100 930 0.18 EBL 3 5,100 920 0.18 5,100 930 0.18 EBT 3 5,100 1,240 0.24 *5,100 1,680 0.33 *EBT 3 5,100 1,500 0.29*5,100 1,680 0.33 * EBR 1 1,700 420 0.25 1,700 420 0.25 EBR 1 1,700 420 0.25 1,700 420 0.25 WBL 2 3,400 690 0.20 *3,400 700 0.21 *WBL 2 3,400 690 0.20*3,400 700 0.21 * WBT 4 6,800 1,670 0.25 6,800 1,670 0.25 WBT 4 6,800 1,670 0.25 6,800 1,670 0.25 WBR 1 1,700 350 0.21 1,700 370 0.22 WBR 1 1,700 360 0.21 1,700 370 0.22 N/S Movements 0.36 0.36 N/S Movements 0.36 0.36 E/W Movements 0.45 0.54 E/W Movements 0.50 0.54 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.95 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.95 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 570 0.17 *3,400 570 0.17 * NBT 3 5,100 1,040 0.20 5,100 1,100 0.22 NBR 1 1,700 480 0.28 1,700 580 0.34 SBL 2 3,400 460 0.14 3,400 490 0.14 SBT 2 3,400 1,040 0.31 *3,400 1,050 0.31 * SBR 2 3,400 850 0.25 3,400 850 0.25 EBL 3 5,100 970 0.19 5,100 980 0.19 EBT 3 5,100 1,730 0.34 *5,100 1,910 0.37 * EBR 1 1,700 740 0.44 1,700 740 0.44 WBL 2 3,400 1,070 0.31 *3,400 1,080 0.32 * WBT 4 6,800 1,820 0.27 6,800 1,820 0.27 WBR 1 1,700 380 0.22 1,700 390 0.23 N/S Movements 0.47 0.48 E/W Movements 0.65 0.69 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.18 1.22 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive INTERSECTION:16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 NBL 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 NBT 3 5100 1,000 0.20 *5100 1,240 0.24 *NBT 3 5100 1,140 0.22 *5100 1,240 0.24 * NBR 1 1700 510 0.30 1700 510 0.30 NBR 1 1700 510 0.30 1700 510 0.30 SBL 2 3400 400 0.12 *3400 400 0.12 *SBL 2 3400 400 0.12 *3400 400 0.12 * SBT 3 5100 1,030 0.23 5100 1,030 0.23 SBT 3 5100 1,030 0.23 5100 1,030 0.23 SBR 0 140 140 SBR 0 140 140 EBL 1 1700 60 0.04 *1700 60 0.04 *EBL 1 1700 60 0.04 *1700 60 0.04 * EBT 1 1700 30 0.05 1700 30 0.05 EBT 1 1700 30 0.05 1700 30 0.05 EBR 0 50 50 EBR 0 50 50 WBL 2 3400 1,160 0.34 3400 1,160 0.34 WBL 2 3400 1,160 0.34 3400 1,160 0.34 WBT 1 1700 60 0.36 *1700 60 0.36 *WBT 1 1700 60 0.36 *1700 60 0.36 * WBR 0 560 560 WBR 0 560 560 N/S Movements 0.31 0.36 N/S Movements 0.34 0.36 E/W Movements 0.41 0.41 E/W Movements 0.41 0.41 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.78 0.82 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.80 0.82 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:16 State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 80 0.05 *1700 80 0.05 * NBT 3 5100 1,230 0.24 5100 1,330 0.26 NBR 1 1700 510 0.30 1700 510 0.30 SBL 2 3400 460 0.14 3400 460 0.14 SBT 3 5100 2,030 0.43 *5100 2,030 0.43 * SBR 0 140 140 EBL 1 1700 60 0.04 *1700 60 0.04 * EBT 1 1700 30 0.05 1700 30 0.05 EBR 0 50 50 WBL 2 3400 1,160 0.34 3400 1,160 0.34 WBT 1 1700 60 0.36 *1700 60 0.36 * WBR 0 560 560 N/S Movements 0.47 0.47 E/W Movements 0.41 0.41 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.93 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way INTERSECTION:17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 470 0.14 *3400 470 0.14 *NBL 2 3400 470 0.14 *3400 470 0.14 * NBT 3 5100 1,390 0.27 5100 1,570 0.31 NBT 3 5100 1,500 0.29 5100 1,570 0.31 NBR 1 1700 420 0.25 1700 420 0.25 NBR 1 1700 420 0.25 1700 420 0.25 SBL 2 3400 0 0.00 3400 0 0.00 SBL 2 3400 0 0.00 3400 0 0.00 SBT 3 5100 1,380 0.27 *5100 1,380 0.27 *SBT 3 5100 1,380 0.27 *5100 1,380 0.27 * SBR 1 1700 560 0.33 1700 560 0.33 SBR 1 1700 560 0.33 1700 560 0.33 EBL 2 3400 230 0.07 *3400 280 0.08 *EBL 2 3400 260 0.08 *3400 280 0.08 * EBT 1.5 1700 210 0.12 1700 210 0.12 EBT 1.5 1700 210 0.12 1700 210 0.12 EBR 1.5 3400 710 0.21 3400 710 0.21 EBR 1.5 3400 710 0.21 3400 710 0.21 WBL 2 3400 20 0.01 3400 20 0.01 WBL 2 3400 20 0.01 3400 20 0.01 WBT 3 5100 700 0.15 *5100 700 0.15 *WBT 3 5100 700 0.15 *5100 700 0.15 * WBR 0 40 40 WBR 0 40 40 N/S Movements 0.41 0.41 N/S Movements 0.41 0.41 E/W Movements 0.27 0.27 E/W Movements 0.27 0.27 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.73 0.73 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.73 0.73 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:17 State College Boulevard / Gene Autry Way Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 470 0.14 3400 470 0.14 NBT 3 5100 1,590 0.31 *5100 1,660 0.33 * NBR 1 1700 1,270 0.75 *1700 1,270 0.75 * SBL 2 3400 1,000 0.29 *3400 1,000 0.29 * SBT 3 5100 1,380 0.27 5100 1,380 0.27 SBR 1 1700 560 0.33 1700 560 0.33 EBL 2 3400 260 0.08 *3400 280 0.08 * EBT 1.5 1700 310 0.18 1700 310 0.18 EBR 1.5 3400 710 0.21 3400 710 0.21 WBL 2 3400 20 0.01 3400 20 0.01 WBT 3 5100 700 0.15 *5100 700 0.15 * WBR 0 40 40 N/S Movements 0.61 0.62 E/W Movements 0.33 0.33 Rt. Turn Component 0.43 0.42 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.41 1.41 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 100 0.03 3400 100 0.03 NBL 2 3400 100 0.03 3400 100 0.03 NBT 4 6800 1,960 0.29 *6800 2,070 0.30 *NBT 4 6800 2,020 0.30 *6800 2,070 0.30 * NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBL 2 3400 670 0.20 *3400 670 0.20 *SBL 2 3400 670 0.20 *3400 670 0.20 * SBT 4 6800 1,400 0.28 6800 1,400 0.28 SBT 4 6800 1,400 0.28 6800 1,400 0.28 SBR 0 520 520 SBR 0 520 520 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 300 0.09 EBL 2 3400 280 0.08 3400 300 0.09 EBT 3 5100 870 0.18 *5100 870 0.18 *EBT 3 5100 870 0.18 *5100 870 0.18 * EBR 0 50 50 EBR 0 50 50 WBL 2 3400 630 0.19 *3400 630 0.19 *WBL 2 3400 630 0.19 *3400 630 0.19 * WBT 4 6800 1,750 0.26 6800 1,750 0.26 WBT 4 6800 1,750 0.26 6800 1,750 0.26 WBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1700 390 0.23 WBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1700 390 0.23 N/S Movements 0.49 0.50 N/S Movements 0.49 0.50 E/W Movements 0.37 0.37 E/W Movements 0.37 0.37 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.92 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.92 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 100 0.03 3400 100 0.03 NBT 4 6800 2,820 0.41 *6800 2,870 0.42 * NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBL 2 3400 670 0.20 *3400 670 0.20 * SBT 4 6800 1,400 0.28 6800 1,400 0.28 SBR 0 520 520 EBL 2 3400 430 0.13 *3400 450 0.13 * EBT 3 5100 870 0.18 5100 870 0.18 EBR 0 50 50 WBL 2 3400 630 0.19 3400 630 0.19 WBT 4 6800 1,750 0.26 *6800 1,750 0.26 * WBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1700 390 0.23 N/S Movements 0.61 0.62 E/W Movements 0.38 0.39 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.05 1.06 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps INTERSECTION:19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 930 0.27 *3400 930 0.27 *NBL 2 3400 930 0.27 *3400 930 0.27 * NBT 4 6800 1,670 0.25 6800 1,780 0.26 NBT 4 6800 1,730 0.25 6800 1,780 0.26 NBR (free)50 85,000 390 0.00 85,000 390 0.00 NBR (free)50 85,000 390 0.00 85,000 390 0.00 SBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 SBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 SBT 4 6800 1,870 0.28 *6800 1,870 0.28 *SBT 4 6800 1,870 0.28 *6800 1,870 0.28 * SBR 1 1700 180 0.11 1700 180 0.11 SBR 1 1700 180 0.11 1700 180 0.11 EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 2720 160 0.06 2720 160 0.06 WBL 1.5 2720 160 0.06 2720 160 0.06 WBT 1.5 2380 140 0.06 2380 140 0.06 WBT 1.5 2380 140 0.06 2380 140 0.06 WBR 2 3400 590 0.17 *3400 590 0.17 *WBR 2 3400 590 0.17 *3400 590 0.17 * N/S Movements 0.55 0.55 N/S Movements 0.55 0.55 E/W Movements 0.06 0.06 E/W Movements 0.06 0.06 Rt. Turn Component 0.09 0.09 Rt. Turn Component 0.09 0.09 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.74 0.74 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.74 0.74 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:19 State College Boulevard / I-5 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 930 0.27 *3400 930 0.27 * NBT 4 6800 2,180 0.32 6800 2,230 0.33 NBR (free)50 85,000 390 0.00 85,000 390 0.00 SBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1700 50 0.03 SBT 4 6800 1,870 0.28 *6800 1,870 0.28 * SBR 1 1700 180 0.11 1700 180 0.11 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 2720 160 0.06 2720 160 0.06 WBT 1.5 2380 140 0.06 2380 140 0.06 WBR 2 3400 940 0.28 *3400 940 0.28 * N/S Movements 0.55 0.55 E/W Movements 0.06 0.06 Rt. Turn Component 0.19 0.19 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.85 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps INTERSECTION:20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 5 8500 2,680 0.32 *8500 2,790 0.34 *NBT 5 8500 2,740 0.33 *8500 2,790 0.34 * NBR 0 80 80 NBR 0 80 80 SBL 0 0 * 0 *SBL 0 0 * 0 * SBT 4 6800 1,720 0.25 6800 1,720 0.25 SBT 4 6800 1,720 0.25 6800 1,720 0.25 SBR (free)50 85000 320 0.00 85,000 320 0.00 SBR (free)50 85000 320 0.00 85,000 320 0.00 EBL 1.5 1700 150 0.09 1700 150 0.09 EBL 1.5 1700 150 0.09 1700 150 0.09 EBT 0.5 1700 720 0.42 *1700 720 0.42 *EBT 0.5 1700 720 0.42 *1700 720 0.42 * EBR 2 3400 340 0.10 3400 340 0.10 EBR 2 3400 340 0.10 3400 340 0.10 WBL 0 0 * 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.32 0.34 N/S Movements 0.33 0.34 E/W Movements 0.42 0.42 E/W Movements 0.42 0.42 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.80 0.81 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.81 0.81 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:20 State College Boulevard / I-5 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 5 8500 3,190 0.38 *8500 3,240 0.39 * NBR 0 80 80 SBL 0 0 * 0 * SBT 4 6800 1,720 0.25 6800 1,720 0.25 SBR (free)50 85000 320 0.00 85,000 320 0.00 EBL 1.5 1700 150 0.09 1700 150 0.09 EBT 0.5 1700 720 0.42 *1700 720 0.42 * EBR 2 3400 340 0.10 3400 340 0.10 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.38 0.39 E/W Movements 0.42 0.42 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.86 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 210 0.06 3400 210 0.06 NBL 2 3400 210 0.06 3400 210 0.06 NBT 3 5100 1,490 0.29 *5100 1,570 0.31 *NBT 3 5100 1,540 0.30 *5100 1,570 0.31 * NBR 2 3400 780 0.23 3400 780 0.23 NBR 2 3400 780 0.23 3400 780 0.23 SBL 2 3400 160 0.05 *3400 160 0.05 *SBL 2 3400 160 0.05 *3400 160 0.05 * SBT 4 6800 1,520 0.22 6800 1,520 0.22 SBT 4 6800 1,520 0.22 6800 1,520 0.22 SBR 1 1700 230 0.14 1700 230 0.14 SBR 1 1700 230 0.14 1700 230 0.14 EBL 2 3400 390 0.11 3400 420 0.12 EBL 2 3400 410 0.12 3400 420 0.12 EBT 3 5100 1,350 0.26 *5100 1,380 0.27 *EBT 3 5100 1,370 0.27 *5100 1,380 0.27 * EBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 EBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *3400 510 0.15 *WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *3400 510 0.15 * WBT 2.5 4206 1,200 0.29 4206 1,200 0.29 WBT 2.5 4206 1,200 0.29 4206 1,200 0.29 WBR 1.5 2594 740 0.29 2594 740 0.29 WBR 1.5 2594 740 0.29 2594 740 0.29 N/S Movements 0.34 0.35 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.41 0.42 E/W Movements 0.42 0.42 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.80 0.83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.82 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 210 0.06 3400 210 0.06 NBT 3 5100 1,890 0.37 *5100 1,920 0.38 * NBR 2 3400 780 0.23 3400 780 0.23 SBL 2 3400 160 0.05 *3400 160 0.05 * SBT 4 6800 1,520 0.22 6800 1,520 0.22 SBR 1 1700 230 0.14 1700 230 0.14 EBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *3400 520 0.15 * EBT 3 5100 1,370 0.27 5100 1,380 0.27 EBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 3400 510 0.15 WBT 2.5 4206 1,200 0.29 *4206 1,200 0.29 * WBR 1.5 2594 740 0.29 2594 740 0.29 N/S Movements 0.42 0.42 E/W Movements 0.44 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.91 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E Impact Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 620 0.18 *3,400 630 0.19 *NBL 2 3,400 620 0.18 *3,400 630 0.19 * NBT 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 20 0.01 NBT 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 20 0.01 NBR 2 3,400 1,170 0.34 *3,400 1,170 0.34 *NBR 2 3,400 1,170 0.34 *3,400 1,170 0.34 * SBL 1 1,700 150 0.09 1,700 220 0.13 SBL 1 1,700 190 0.11 1,700 220 0.13 SBT 1 1,700 20 0.01 *1,700 20 0.01 *SBT 1 1,700 20 0.01 *1,700 20 0.01 * SBR 1 1,700 120 0.07 *1,700 130 0.08 *SBR 1 1,700 130 0.08 *1,700 130 0.08 * EBL 2 3,400 130 0.04 3,400 130 0.04 EBL 2 3,400 130 0.04 3,400 130 0.04 EBT 3 5,100 1,220 0.24 *5,100 1,860 0.36 *EBT 3 5,100 1,600 0.31 *5,100 1,860 0.36 * EBR 1 1,700 480 0.28 1,700 500 0.29 EBR 1 1,700 490 0.29 1,700 500 0.29 WBL 2 3,400 890 0.26 *3,400 920 0.27 *WBL 2 3,400 910 0.27 *3,400 920 0.27 * WBT 3 5,100 1,730 0.34 5,100 1,780 0.35 WBT 3 5,100 1,760 0.35 5,100 1,780 0.35 WBR 1 1,700 140 0.08 1,700 140 0.08 WBR 1 1,700 140 0.08 1,700 140 0.08 N/S Movements 0.19 0.20 N/S Movements 0.19 0.20 E/W Movements 0.50 0.64 E/W Movements 0.58 0.64 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.75 0.88 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.83 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 720 0.21 *3,400 730 0.21 * NBT 1 1,700 40 0.02 1,700 40 0.02 NBR 2 3,400 1,210 0.36 *3,400 1,210 0.36 * SBL 1 1,700 190 0.11 1,700 220 0.13 SBT 1 1,700 30 0.02 *1,700 30 0.02 * SBR 1 1,700 130 0.08 1,700 130 0.08 EBL 2 3,400 230 0.07 3,400 230 0.07 EBT 3 5,100 1,840 0.36 *5,100 2,100 0.41 * EBR 1 1,700 590 0.35 1,700 600 0.35 WBL 2 3,400 1,010 0.30 *3,400 1,020 0.30 * WBT 3 5,100 2,050 0.40 5,100 2,070 0.41 WBR 1 1,700 260 0.15 1,700 260 0.15 N/S Movements 0.23 0.23 E/W Movements 0.66 0.71 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.94 0.99 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 90 0.05 1,700 100 0.06 NBL 1 1,700 90 0.05 1,700 100 0.06 NBT 2 3,400 990 0.29*3,400 1,020 0.30 *NBT 2 3,400 1,010 0.30 *3,400 1,020 0.30 * NBR 1 1,700 600 0.35 1,700 650 0.38 NBR 1 1,700 630 0.37 1,700 650 0.38 SBL 2 3,400 360 0.11*3,400 360 0.11 *SBL 2 3,400 360 0.11 *3,400 360 0.11 * SBT 2 3,400 360 0.15 3,400 430 0.17 SBT 2 3,400 400 0.16 3,400 430 0.17 SBR 0 140 150 SBR 0 140 150 EBL 2 3,400 230 0.07 3,400 230 0.07 EBL 2 3,400 230 0.07 3,400 230 0.07 EBT 3 5,100 1,740 0.35*5,100 1,830 0.37 *EBT 3 5,100 1,790 0.36 *5,100 1,830 0.37 * EBR 0 20 70 EBR 0 50 70 WBL 2 3,400 600 0.18*3,400 890 0.26 *WBL 2 3,400 770 0.23 *3,400 890 0.26 * WBT 3 5,100 1,960 0.38 5,100 2,170 0.43 WBT 3 5,100 2,090 0.41 5,100 2,170 0.43 WBR 1 1,700 810 0.48 1,700 850 0.50 WBR 1 1,700 840 0.49 1,700 850 0.50 N/S Movements 0.40 0.41 N/S Movements 0.40 0.41 E/W Movements 0.52 0.63 E/W Movements 0.59 0.63 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.97 1.09 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.04 1.09 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E F LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 100 0.06 NBT 2 3400 1,010 0.30*3400 1,020 0.30 * NBR 1 1700 630 0.37 1700 650 0.38 SBL 2 3400 360 0.11*3400 360 0.11 * SBT 2 3400 450 0.17 3400 480 0.19 SBR 0 0 140 0 150 EBL 2 3400 230 0.07 3400 230 0.07 EBT 3 5100 1,920 0.39*5100 1,960 0.40 * EBR 0 50 70 WBL 2 3400 820 0.24*3400 940 0.28 * WBT 3 5100 2,090 0.41 5100 2,170 0.43 WBR 1 1,700 840 0.49 1700 850 0.50 N/S Movements 0.40 0.41 E/W Movements 0.63 0.67 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.08 1.13 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1,700 30 0.02 NBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1,700 30 0.02 NBT 2 3,400 580 0.23 *3,400 600 0.25 *NBT 2 3,400 590 0.24 *3,400 600 0.25 * NBR 0 200 260 NBR 0 230 260 SBL 1 1,700 150 0.09 *1,700 460 0.27 *SBL 1 1,700 330 0.19 *1,700 460 0.27 * SBT 2 3,400 320 0.14 3,400 380 0.16 SBT 2 3,400 350 0.15 3,400 380 0.16 SBR 0 160 160 SBR 0 160 160 EBL 1 1,700 170 0.10 *1,700 170 0.10 *EBL 1 1,700 170 0.10 *1,700 170 0.10 * EBT 2 3,400 260 0.08 3,400 410 0.13 EBT 2 3,400 350 0.11 3,400 410 0.13 EBR 0 20 30 EBR 0 30 30 WBL 1 1,700 230 0.14 1,700 280 0.16 WBL 1 1,700 260 0.15 1,700 280 0.16 WBT 2 3,400 720 0.34 *3,400 720 0.34 *WBT 2 3,400 720 0.34 *3,400 720 0.34 * WBR 0 430 450 WBR 0 440 450 N/S Movements 0.32 0.52 N/S Movements 0.44 0.52 E/W Movements 0.44 0.44 E/W Movements 0.44 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.81 1.02 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 1.02 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D F LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E F Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1,700 30 0.02 NBT 2 3,400 590 0.24 *3,400 600 0.25 * NBR 0 230 260 SBL 1 1,700 360 0.21 *1,700 490 0.29 * SBT 2 3,400 370 0.16 3,400 400 0.16 SBR 0 160 160 EBL 1 1,700 170 0.10 *1,700 170 0.10 * EBT 2 3,400 350 0.11 3,400 410 0.13 EBR 0 30 30 WBL 1 1,700 260 0.15 1,700 280 0.16 WBT 2 3,400 720 0.34 *3,400 720 0.34 * WBR 0 440 450 N/S Movements 0.45 0.54 E/W Movements 0.44 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.94 1.04 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E F Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 130 0.08 1,700 130 0.08 NBL 1 1,700 130 0.08 1,700 130 0.08 NBT 1 1,700 90 0.05*1,700 90 0.05 *NBT 1 1,700 90 0.05*1,700 90 0.05 * NBR 1 1,700 210 0.12*1,700 250 0.15 *NBR 1 1,700 230 0.14*1,700 250 0.15 * SBL 2 3,400 500 0.15*3,400 540 0.16 *SBL 2 3,400 520 0.15*3,400 540 0.16 * SBT 0.5 756 20 0.03 756 20 0.03 SBT 0.5 756 20 0.03 756 20 0.03 SBR 1.5 2,644 70 0.03 2,644 70 0.03 SBR 1.5 2,644 70 0.03 2,644 70 0.03 EBL 2 3,400 190 0.06*3,400 220 0.06 EBL 2 3,400 210 0.06*3,400 220 0.06 EBT 3 5,100 2,070 0.42 5,100 2,750 0.56 *EBT 3 5,100 2,480 0.51 5,100 2,750 0.56 * EBR 0 70 120 EBR 0 100 120 WBL 2 3,400 90 0.03 3,400 220 0.06 *WBL 2 3,400 170 0.05 3,400 220 0.06 * WBT 3 5,100 2,580 0.51*5,100 2,650 0.52 WBT 3 5,100 2,620 0.51*5,100 2,650 0.52 WBR 1 1,700 530 0.31 1,700 690 0.41 WBR 1 1,700 630 0.37 1,700 690 0.41 Split phase N/S Movements 0.22 0.24 Split phase N/S Movements 0.23 0.24 E/W Movements 0.56 0.63 E/W Movements 0.58 0.63 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.86 0.92 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.86 0.92 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 150 0.09 1,700 150 0.09 NBT 1 1,700 100 0.06*1,700 100 0.06 * NBR 1 1,700 270 0.16*1,700 290 0.17 * SBL 2 3,400 520 0.15*3,400 540 0.16 * SBT 0.5 1,236 40 0.03 1,236 40 0.03 SBR 1.5 2,164 70 0.03 2,164 70 0.03 EBL 2 3,400 210 0.06 3,400 220 0.06 EBT 3 5,100 2,610 0.53*5,100 2,880 0.59 * EBR 0 100 120 WBL 2 3,400 170 0.05*3,400 220 0.06 * WBT 3 5,100 2,620 0.51 5,100 2,650 0.52 WBR 1 1,700 630 0.37 1,700 690 0.41 Split phase N/S Movements 0.24 0.25 E/W Movements 0.58 0.65 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.89 0.97 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E Impact PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 640 0.38 *1700 1,190 0.70 *SBL 1 1700 970 0.57 *1700 1,190 0.70 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 2 3400 650 0.19 *3400 960 0.28 *SBR 2 3400 840 0.25 *3400 960 0.28 * EBL 0 0 * 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5100 2,120 0.42 5100 2,130 0.42 EBT 3 5100 2,130 0.42 5100 2,130 0.42 EBR (free)50 85000 580 0.01 85000 620 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 600 0.01 85000 620 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 2,940 0.58 *5100 3,130 0.61 *WBT 3 5100 3,050 0.60 *5100 3,130 0.61 * WBR (free)50 85000 620 0.01 85000 650 0.01 WBR (free)50 85000 640 0.01 85000 650 0.01 N/S Movements 0.38 0.70 N/S Movements 0.57 0.70 E/W Movements 0.58 0.61 E/W Movements 0.60 0.61 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.36 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.22 1.36 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E F LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 970 0.57 *1700 1,190 0.70 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 2 3400 840 0.25 *3400 960 0.28 * EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5100 2,190 0.43 5100 2,190 0.43 EBR (free)50 85000 610 0.01 85000 630 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 3,050 0.60 *5100 3,130 0.61 * WBR (free)50 85000 670 0.01 85000 680 0.01 N/S Movements 0.57 0.70 E/W Movements 0.60 0.61 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.22 1.36 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 240 0.14 *1700 640 0.38 *SBL 1 1700 480 0.28 *1700 640 0.38 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 2 3400 570 0.17 *3400 760 0.22 *SBR 2 3400 680 0.20 *3400 760 0.22 * EBL 0 0 * 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 2,200 0.43 5100 3,040 0.60 *EBT 3 5100 2,700 0.53 *5100 3,040 0.60 * EBR (free)50 85000 510 0.01 85000 550 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 530 0.01 85000 550 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 2,430 0.48 *5100 2,620 0.51 WBT 3 5100 2,540 0.50 5100 2,620 0.51 WBR (free)50 85000 510 0.01 85000 510 0.01 WBR (free)50 85000 510 0.01 85000 510 0.01 N/S Movements 0.14 0.38 N/S Movements 0.28 0.38 E/W Movements 0.48 0.60 E/W Movements 0.53 0.60 Rt. Turn Component 0.03 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.69 1.02 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.86 1.02 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B F LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D F Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 1,020 0.60 *1700 1,180 0.69 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 2 3400 940 0.28 *3400 1,020 0.30 * EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 2,860 0.56 *5100 3,200 0.63 * EBR (free)50 85000 560 0.01 85000 580 0.01 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 2,760 0.54 5100 2,840 0.56 WBR (free)50 85000 530 0.01 85000 530 0.01 N/S Movements 0.60 0.69 E/W Movements 0.56 0.63 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.21 1.37 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 2663 590 0.22 *2439 660 0.27 *NBL 1.5 2510 630 0.25 *2439 660 0.27 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 2437 540 0.22 *2661 720 0.27 *NBR 1.5 2590 650 0.25 *2661 720 0.27 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5100 2,240 0.44 5100 2,860 0.56 EBT 3 5100 2,610 0.51 5100 2,860 0.56 EBR (free)50 85000 650 0.01 85000 660 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 650 0.01 85000 660 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 2,960 0.58 *5100 3,140 0.62 *WBT 3 5100 3,070 0.60 *5100 3,140 0.62 * WBR (free)50 85000 1,060 0.01 85000 1,090 0.01 WBR (free)50 85000 1,080 0.01 85000 1,090 0.01 N/S Movements 0.22 0.27 N/S Movements 0.25 0.27 E/W Movements 0.58 0.62 E/W Movements 0.60 0.62 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.94 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.94 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 2510 630 0.25 *2439 660 0.27 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 2590 650 0.25 *2661 720 0.27 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5100 2,610 0.51 5100 2,860 0.56 EBR (free)50 85000 710 0.01 85000 720 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 3,070 0.60 *5100 3,140 0.62 * WBR (free)50 85000 1,180 0.01 85000 1,190 0.01 N/S Movements 0.25 0.27 E/W Movements 0.60 0.62 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.94 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1962 300 0.15 *1700 390 0.23 *NBL 1.5 1700 360 0.21 *1700 390 0.23 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 3138 480 0.15 *3400 1,520 0.45 *NBR 1.5 3400 1,100 0.32 *3400 1,520 0.45 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 5 8500 1,850 0.22 8500 3,060 0.36 EBT 5 8500 2,570 0.30 8500 3,060 0.36 EBR (free)50 85000 500 0.01 85000 500 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 500 0.01 85000 500 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 2,970 0.58 *5100 2,970 0.58 *WBT 3 5100 2,970 0.58 *5100 2,970 0.58 * WBR 1 1700 530 0.31 1700 530 0.31 WBR 1 1700 530 0.31 1700 530 0.31 N/S Movements 0.15 0.23 N/S Movements 0.21 0.23 E/W Movements 0.58 0.58 E/W Movements 0.58 0.58 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.22 Rt. Turn Component 0.11 0.22 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.79 1.08 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.96 1.08 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C F LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E F Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1700 410 0.24 *1700 440 0.26 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 3400 1,320 0.39 *3400 1,740 0.51 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 5 8500 3,210 0.38 8500 3,700 0.44 EBR (free)50 85000 560 0.01 85000 560 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 3,150 0.62 *5100 3,150 0.62 * WBR 1 1700 580 0.34 1700 580 0.34 N/S Movements 0.24 0.26 E/W Movements 0.62 0.62 Rt. Turn Component 0.15 0.25 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.06 1.18 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 1,060 0.31*3400 1,120 0.33*NBL 2 3400 1,090 0.32*3400 1,120 0.33 * NBT 2 3400 580 0.17 3400 640 0.19 NBT 2 3400 620 0.18 3400 640 0.19 NBR 1 1700 640 0.38*1700 660 0.39*NBR 1 1700 650 0.38*1700 660 0.39 * SBL 2 3400 530 0.16 3400 550 0.16 SBL 2 3400 540 0.16 3400 550 0.16 SBT 2 3400 320 0.09*3400 330 0.10*SBT 2 3400 320 0.09*3400 330 0.10 * SBR 1 1700 390 0.23*1700 390 0.23 SBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1700 390 0.23 EBL 2 3400 260 0.08*3400 1,630 0.48*EBL 2 3400 1,070 0.31*3400 1,630 0.48 * EBT 4 6800 1,500 0.22 6800 2,120 0.31 EBT 4 6800 1,870 0.28 6800 2,120 0.31 EBR 1 1700 500 0.29 1700 680 0.40 EBR 1 1700 610 0.36 1700 680 0.40 WBL 2 3400 570 0.17 3400 650 0.19 WBL 2 3400 620 0.18 3400 650 0.19 WBT 4 6800 2,220 0.33*6800 2,220 0.33*WBT 4 6800 2,220 0.33*6800 2,220 0.33 * WBR 1 1700 850 0.50*1700 1,170 0.69*WBR 1 1700 1,040 0.61*1700 1,170 0.69 * N/S Movements 0.41 0.43 N/S Movements 0.41 0.43 E/W Movements 0.40 0.81 E/W Movements 0.64 0.81 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.20 Rt. Turn Component 0.13 0.20 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.88 1.48 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.23 1.48 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D F LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 1,090 0.32*3400 1,120 0.33* NBT 2 3400 620 0.18 3400 640 0.19 NBR 1 1700 660 0.39 1700 670 0.39 SBL 2 3400 550 0.16 3400 560 0.16 SBT 2 3400 370 0.11*3400 380 0.11* SBR 1 1700 420 0.25 1700 420 0.25 EBL 2 3400 1,070 0.31*3400 1,630 0.48* EBT 4 6800 1,940 0.29 6800 2,190 0.32 EBR 1 1700 1,460 0.86*1700 1,530 0.90* WBL 2 3400 910 0.27 3400 940 0.28 WBT 4 6800 2,420 0.36*6800 2,420 0.36* WBR 1 1700 1,040 0.61*1700 1,170 0.69* N/S Movements 0.43 0.44 E/W Movements 0.67 0.84 Rt. Turn Component 0.35 0.42 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.50 1.74 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.33 1,882 980 0.52 *1,880 990 0.53*NBL 1.33 1,880 990 0.53 *1,880 990 0.53 * NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.33 1,518 790 0.52 *1,520 800 0.53*NBR 0.33 1,520 800 0.53 *1,520 800 0.53 * SBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 1,700 10 0.01 SBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 1,700 10 0.01 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00*SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 1 1,700 10 0.01 1,700 30 0.02 SBR 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 30 0.02 EBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1,700 50 0.03 EBL 1 1,700 40 0.02 1,700 50 0.03 EBT 3 5,100 1,820 0.54 *5,100 1,860 0.68*EBT 3 5,100 1,840 0.62 *5,100 1,860 0.68 * EBR 0 920 1,610 EBR 0 1,330 1,610 WBL 1 1,700 600 0.35 *1,700 730 0.43*WBL 1 1,700 680 0.40 *1,700 730 0.43 * WBT 3 5,100 3,150 0.62 5,100 3,330 0.66 WBT 3 5,100 3,260 0.65 5,100 3,330 0.66 WBR 0 30 40 WBR 0 30 40 N/S Movements 0.52 0.53 N/S Movements 0.53 0.53 E/W Movements 0.89 1.11 E/W Movements 1.02 1.11 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.46 1.69 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.60 1.69 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.33 1,887 1,010 0.54 *1,887 1,010 0.54* NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.33 1,513 810 0.54 *1,513 810 0.54* SBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 1,700 10 0.01 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00* SBR 1 1,700 20 0.01 1,700 30 0.02 EBL 1 1,700 50 0.03 1,700 60 0.04 EBT 3 5,100 1,840 0.63 *5,100 1,860 0.69* EBR 0 1,380 1,660 WBL 1 1,700 690 0.41 *1,700 740 0.44* WBT 3 5,100 3,310 0.66 5,100 3,380 0.67 WBR 0 40 50 N/S Movements 0.54 0.54 E/W Movements 1.04 1.13 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.62 1.71 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Impact Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3,287 580 0.18*3,245 630 0.19*NBL 1.5 3,292 610 0.19*3,245 630 0.19 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.5 113 20 0.18*155 30 0.19*NBR 0.5 108 20 0.19*155 30 0.19 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00*SBT 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 *EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5,100 2,670 0.52 5,100 2,670 0.52 EBT 3 5,100 2,670 0.52 5,100 2,670 0.52 EBR 1 1,700 350 0.21 1,700 390 0.23 EBR 1 1,700 380 0.22 1,700 390 0.23 WBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 1,700 80 0.05 WBL 1 1,700 50 0.03 1,700 80 0.05 WBT 3 5,100 3,000 0.59*5,100 3,820 0.75*WBT 3 5,100 3,490 0.68*5,100 3,820 0.75 * WBR 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.18 0.19 N/S Movements 0.19 0.19 E/W Movements 0.59 0.75 E/W Movements 0.68 0.75 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.81 0.99 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.92 0.99 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3,243 620 0.19*3,200 640 0.20* NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.5 157 30 0.19*200 40 0.20* SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00* 0 0.00* SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 * 0 * EBT 3 5,100 2,670 0.52 5,100 2,670 0.52 EBR 1 1,700 380 0.22 1,700 390 0.23 WBL 1 1,700 60 0.04 1,700 90 0.05 WBT 3 5,100 3,880 0.76*5,100 4,210 0.83* WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.19 0.20 E/W Movements 0.76 0.83 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.08 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E F Impact PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:33 Main Street / Taft Avenue INTERSECTION:33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2.5 4792 1,400 0.29 *4796 1,420 0.30 *NBL 2.5 4794 1,410 0.29 *4796 1,420 0.30 * NBT 0.5 308 90 0.29 304 90 0.30 NBT 0.5 306 90 0.29 304 90 0.30 NBR 1 1700 500 0.29 1700 500 0.29 NBR 1 1700 500 0.29 1700 500 0.29 SBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 SBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 SBT 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 *SBT 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 * SBR 1 1700 200 0.12 *1700 200 0.12 *SBR 1 1700 200 0.12 *1700 200 0.12 * EBL 2 3400 70 0.02 3400 70 0.02 EBL 2 3400 70 0.02 3400 70 0.02 EBT 3 5100 2,010 0.39 *5100 2,010 0.39 *EBT 3 5100 2,010 0.39 *5100 2,010 0.39 * EBR 1 1700 590 0.35 1700 590 0.35 EBR 1 1700 590 0.35 1700 590 0.35 WBL 2 3400 470 0.14 *3400 470 0.14 *WBL 2 3400 470 0.14 *3400 470 0.14 * WBT 3 5100 2,240 0.44 5100 2,340 0.46 WBT 3 5100 2,300 0.45 5100 2,340 0.46 WBR 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 WBR 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 N/S Movements 0.32 0.33 N/S Movements 0.32 0.33 E/W Movements 0.53 0.53 E/W Movements 0.53 0.53 Rt. Turn Component 0.07 0.07 Rt. Turn Component 0.07 0.07 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.97 0.98 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.97 0.98 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:33 Main Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2.5 4826 1,410 0.29 *4796 1,420 0.30 * NBT 0.5 308 90 0.29 304 90 0.30 NBR 1 1700 500 0.29 1700 500 0.29 SBL 1 1700 20 0.01 1700 20 0.01 SBT 1 1700 50 0.03 *1700 50 0.03 * SBR 1 1700 200 0.12 *1700 200 0.12 * EBL 2 3400 70 0.02 3400 70 0.02 EBT 3 5100 2,010 0.39 *5100 2,010 0.39 * EBR 1 1700 590 0.35 1700 590 0.35 WBL 2 3400 470 0.14 *3400 470 0.14 * WBT 3 5100 2,300 0.45 5100 2,340 0.46 WBR 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 N/S Movements 0.32 0.33 E/W Movements 0.53 0.53 Rt. Turn Component 0.07 0.07 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.97 0.98 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 200 0.06*3,400 300 0.09 *NBL 2 3,400 260 0.08 *3,400 300 0.09 * NBT 2 3,400 870 0.26 3,400 980 0.29 NBT 2 3,400 940 0.28 3,400 980 0.29 NBR 1 1,700 500 0.29 1,700 530 0.31 NBR 1 1,700 520 0.31 1,700 530 0.31 SBL 1 1,700 130 0.08 1,700 130 0.08 SBL 1 1,700 130 0.08 1,700 130 0.08 SBT 2 3,400 1,010 0.30*3,400 1,060 0.31 *SBT 2 3,400 1,040 0.31 *3,400 1,060 0.31 * SBR 1 1,700 530 0.31 1,700 620 0.36 SBR 1 1,700 580 0.34 1,700 620 0.36 EBL 2 3,400 320 0.09 3,400 320 0.09 *EBL 2 3,400 320 0.09 *3,400 320 0.09 * EBT 3 5,100 1,920 0.38*5,100 1,940 0.38 EBT 3 5,100 1,930 0.38 5,100 1,940 0.38 EBR 1 1,700 160 0.09 1,700 170 0.10 EBR 1 1,700 170 0.10 1,700 170 0.10 WBL 2 3,400 230 0.07*3,400 270 0.08 WBL 2 3,400 250 0.07 3,400 270 0.08 WBT 3 5,100 1,610 0.32 5,100 2,170 0.43 *WBT 3 5,100 1,940 0.38 *5,100 2,170 0.43 * WBR 1 1,700 220 0.13 1,700 230 0.14 WBR 1 1,700 220 0.13 1,700 230 0.14 N/S Movements 0.36 0.40 N/S Movements 0.38 0.40 E/W Movements 0.44 0.52 E/W Movements 0.47 0.52 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.97 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.97 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 260 0.08*3,400 300 0.09 * NBT 2 3400 940 0.28 3,400 980 0.29 NBR 1 1700 520 0.31 1,700 530 0.31 SBL 1 1700 130 0.08 1,700 130 0.08 SBT 2 3400 1,040 0.31*3,400 1,060 0.31 * SBR 1 1700 600 0.35 1,700 640 0.38 EBL 2 3400 320 0.09*3,400 320 0.09 * EBT 3 5100 1,940 0.38 5,100 1,950 0.38 EBR 1 1700 170 0.10 1,700 170 0.10 WBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3,400 270 0.08 WBT 3 5100 2,200 0.43*5,100 2,430 0.48 * WBR 1 1700 240 0.14 1,700 250 0.15 N/S Movements 0.38 0.40 E/W Movements 0.53 0.57 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.96 1.02 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E F Impact Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:35 Main Street / Struck Avenue INTERSECTION:35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 320 0.19 *1,700 470 0.28 *NBL 1 1,700 410 0.24*1,700 470 0.28 * NBT 2 3,400 1,210 0.39 3,400 1,430 0.46 NBT 2 3,400 1,340 0.43 3,400 1,430 0.46 NBR 0 130 130 NBR 0 130 130 SBL 1 1,700 120 0.07 1,700 120 0.07 SBL 1 1,700 120 0.07 1,700 120 0.07 SBT 2 3,400 1,020 0.31 *3,400 1,050 0.34 *SBT 2 3,400 1,040 0.33*3,400 1,050 0.34 * SBR 0 30 90 SBR 0 70 90 EBL 1 1,700 50 0.03 1,700 60 0.04 EBL 1 1,700 50 0.03 1,700 60 0.04 EBT 2 3,400 170 0.10 *3,400 180 0.11 *EBT 2 3,400 170 0.10*3,400 180 0.11 * EBR 0 170 180 EBR 0 180 180 WBL 1 1,700 100 0.06 *1,700 100 0.06 *WBL 1 1,700 100 0.06*1,700 100 0.06 * WBT 2 3,400 140 0.08 3,400 190 0.09 WBT 2 3,400 170 0.09 3,400 190 0.09 WBR 0 120 120 WBR 0 120 120 N/S Movements 0.50 0.61 N/S Movements 0.57 0.61 E/W Movements 0.16 0.16 E/W Movements 0.16 0.16 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.71 0.83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.78 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:35 Main Street / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 440 0.26 *1,700 500 0.29 * NBT 2 3,400 1,340 0.44 3,400 1,430 0.46 NBR 0 150 150 SBL 1 1,700 120 0.07 1,700 120 0.07 SBT 2 3,400 1,040 0.33 *3,400 1,050 0.34 * SBR 0 70 90 EBL 1 1,700 50 0.03 1,700 60 0.04 EBT 2 3,400 190 0.11 *3,400 200 0.11 * EBR 0 190 190 WBL 1 1,700 110 0.06 *1,700 110 0.06 * WBT 2 3,400 180 0.09 3,400 200 0.10 WBR 0 130 130 N/S Movements 0.59 0.63 E/W Movements 0.18 0.18 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.81 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue INTERSECTION:36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 280 0.08 3400 280 0.08 NBL 2 3400 280 0.08 3400 280 0.08 NBT 2 3400 890 0.38 *3400 890 0.38 *NBT 2 3400 890 0.38 *3400 890 0.38 * NBR 0 390 390 NBR 0 390 390 SBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 90 0.05 *SBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 90 0.05 * SBT 2 3400 550 0.29 3400 550 0.30 SBT 2 3400 550 0.29 3400 550 0.30 SBR 0 440 460 SBR 0 450 460 EBL 2 3400 360 0.11 3400 360 0.11 EBL 2 3400 360 0.11 3400 360 0.11 EBT 3 5100 1,680 0.33 *5100 1,680 0.33 *EBT 3 5100 1,680 0.33 *5100 1,680 0.33 * EBR 1 1700 260 0.15 1700 260 0.15 EBR 1 1700 260 0.15 1700 260 0.15 WBL 2 3400 340 0.10 *3400 340 0.10 *WBL 2 3400 340 0.10 *3400 340 0.10 * WBT 3 5100 1,410 0.28 5100 1,490 0.29 WBT 3 5100 1,460 0.29 5100 1,490 0.29 WBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 WBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 N/S Movements 0.43 0.43 N/S Movements 0.43 0.43 E/W Movements 0.43 0.43 E/W Movements 0.43 0.43 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.91 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.91 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:36 Batavia Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 280 0.08 3400 280 0.08 NBT 2 3400 890 0.38 *3400 890 0.38 * NBR 0 390 390 SBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 90 0.05 * SBT 2 3400 550 0.29 3400 550 0.30 SBR 0 450 460 EBL 2 3400 360 0.11 3400 360 0.11 EBT 3 5100 1,680 0.33 *5100 1,680 0.33 * EBR 1 1700 260 0.15 1700 260 0.15 WBL 2 3400 340 0.10 *3400 340 0.10 * WBT 3 5100 1,460 0.29 5100 1,490 0.29 WBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 N/S Movements 0.43 0.43 E/W Movements 0.43 0.43 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.91 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 330 0.19 *1700 330 0.19 *NBL 1 1700 330 0.19 *1700 330 0.19 * NBT 2 3400 580 0.17 3400 580 0.17 NBT 2 3400 580 0.17 3400 580 0.17 NBR 1 1700 340 0.20 1700 340 0.20 NBR 1 1700 340 0.20 1700 340 0.20 SBL 1 1700 310 0.18 1700 310 0.18 SBL 1 1700 310 0.18 1700 310 0.18 SBT 2 3400 690 0.20 *3400 690 0.20 *SBT 2 3400 690 0.20 *3400 690 0.20 * SBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 EBL 2 3400 420 0.12 3400 420 0.12 *EBL 2 3400 420 0.12 3400 420 0.12 * EBT 3 5100 1,370 0.27 *5100 1,370 0.27 EBT 3 5100 1,370 0.27 *5100 1,370 0.27 EBR 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 EBR 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 WBL 2 3400 210 0.06 *3400 210 0.06 WBL 2 3400 210 0.06 *3400 210 0.06 WBT 3 5100 820 0.16 5100 1,190 0.23 *WBT 3 5100 1,040 0.20 5100 1,190 0.23 * WBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 WBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 N/S Movements 0.40 0.40 N/S Movements 0.40 0.40 E/W Movements 0.33 0.36 E/W Movements 0.33 0.36 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.78 0.80 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.78 0.80 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:37 Batavia Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 330 0.19 *1700 330 0.19 * NBT 2 3400 580 0.17 3400 580 0.17 NBR 1 1700 340 0.20 1700 340 0.20 SBL 1 1700 310 0.18 1700 310 0.18 SBT 2 3400 690 0.20 *3400 690 0.20 * SBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 EBL 2 3400 420 0.12 *3400 420 0.12 * EBT 3 5100 1,370 0.27 5100 1,370 0.27 EBR 1 1700 190 0.11 1700 190 0.11 WBL 2 3400 210 0.06 3400 210 0.06 WBT 3 5100 1,300 0.25 *5100 1,450 0.28 * WBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 N/S Movements 0.40 0.40 E/W Movements 0.38 0.41 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.83 0.85 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue INTERSECTION:38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 NBL 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 NBT 3 5100 1,100 0.22 *5100 1,100 0.22 *NBT 3 5100 1,100 0.22 *5100 1,100 0.22 * NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1700 110 0.06 *SBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 110 0.06 * SBT 3 5100 820 0.16 5100 820 0.16 SBT 3 5100 820 0.16 5100 820 0.16 SBR 1 1700 380 0.22 1700 380 0.22 SBR 1 1700 380 0.22 1700 380 0.22 EBL 2 3400 550 0.16 3400 550 0.16 EBL 2 3400 550 0.16 3400 550 0.16 EBT 3 5100 1,630 0.32 *5100 1,630 0.32 *EBT 3 5100 1,630 0.32 *5100 1,630 0.32 * EBR 1 1700 410 0.24 1700 410 0.24 EBR 1 1700 410 0.24 1700 410 0.24 WBL 1 1700 80 0.05 *1700 80 0.05 *WBL 1 1700 80 0.05 *1700 80 0.05 * WBT 3 5100 460 0.09 5100 500 0.10 WBT 3 5100 490 0.10 5100 500 0.10 WBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 WBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 N/S Movements 0.26 0.28 N/S Movements 0.27 0.28 E/W Movements 0.37 0.37 E/W Movements 0.37 0.37 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.67 0.70 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.69 0.70 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:38 Glassell Street / Taft Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C PM PK. HR. WITH HC+MLB EVENT NBL 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 110 0.06 NBT 3 5100 1,100 0.22 *5100 1,100 0.22 * NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1700 140 0.08 SBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 110 0.06 * SBT 3 5100 890 0.17 5100 890 0.17 SBR 1 1700 380 0.22 1700 380 0.22 EBL 2 3400 550 0.16 3400 550 0.16 EBT 3 5100 1,630 0.32 *5100 1,630 0.32 * EBR 1 1700 410 0.24 1700 410 0.24 WBL 1 1700 80 0.05 *1700 80 0.05 * WBT 3 5100 490 0.10 5100 500 0.10 WBR 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 N/S Movements 0.27 0.28 E/W Movements 0.37 0.37 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.69 0.70 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B B Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK.HR. WITH NEW HC+MLB EVENT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 300 0.09 *3400 300 0.09 *NBL 2 3400 300 0.09 *3400 300 0.09 * NBT 2 3400 1,140 0.34 3400 1,140 0.34 NBT 2 3400 1,140 0.34 3400 1,140 0.34 NBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1700 160 0.09 NBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1700 160 0.09 SBL 2 3400 200 0.06 3400 200 0.06 SBL 2 3400 200 0.06 3400 200 0.06 SBT 2 3400 1,140 0.34 *3400 1,140 0.34 *SBT 2 3400 1,140 0.34 *3400 1,140 0.34 * SBR 1 1700 260 0.15 1700 260 0.15 SBR 1 1700 260 0.15 1700 260 0.15 EBL 2 3400 480 0.14 3400 480 0.14 EBL 2 3400 480 0.14 3400 480 0.14 EBT 3 5100 1,980 0.39 *5100 1,980 0.39 *EBT 3 5100 1,980 0.39 *5100 1,980 0.39 * EBR 1 1700 450 0.26 1700 450 0.26 EBR 1 1700 450 0.26 1700 450 0.26 WBL 2 3400 230 0.07 *3400 230 0.07 *WBL 2 3400 230 0.07 *3400 230 0.07 * WBT 3 5100 820 0.16 5100 1,190 0.23 WBT 3 5100 1,040 0.20 5100 1,190 0.23 WBR 1 1700 100 0.06 1700 100 0.06 WBR 1 1700 100 0.06 1700 100 0.06 N/S Movements 0.42 0.42 N/S Movements 0.42 0.42 E/W Movements 0.46 0.46 E/W Movements 0.46 0.46 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.93 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.93 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:39 Glassell Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C PM PK. HR. WITH HC+MLB EVENT NBL 2 3400 300 0.09 *3400 300 0.09 * NBT 2 3400 1,140 0.34 3400 1,140 0.34 NBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1700 160 0.09 SBL 2 3400 200 0.06 3400 200 0.06 SBT 2 3400 1,140 0.34 *3400 1,140 0.34 * SBR 1 1700 330 0.19 1700 330 0.19 EBL 2 3400 480 0.14 3400 480 0.14 EBT 3 5100 1,980 0.39 *5100 1,980 0.39 * EBR 1 1700 450 0.26 1700 450 0.26 WBL 2 3400 230 0.07 *3400 230 0.07 * WBT 3 5100 1,200 0.24 5100 1,350 0.26 WBR 1 1700 100 0.06 1700 100 0.06 N/S Movements 0.42 0.42 E/W Movements 0.46 0.46 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.93 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Honda Center Traffic Study PM PK.HR. WITH NEW HC+MLB EVENT Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:40 N Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:40 N Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0.33 397 70 0.18 397 70 0.18 NBL 0.33 397 70 0.18 397 70 0.18 NBT 0.34 850 150 0.18 850 150 0.18 NBT 0.34 850 150 0.18 850 150 0.18 NBR 0.33 453 80 0.18 453 80 0.18 NBR 0.33 453 80 0.18 453 80 0.18 SBL 0.33 425 10 0.02 425 10 0.02 SBL 0.33 425 10 0.02 425 10 0.02 SBT 0.34 850 20 0.02 850 20 0.02 SBT 0.34 850 20 0.02 850 20 0.02 SBR 0.33 425 10 0.02 425 10 0.02 SBR 0.33 425 10 0.02 425 10 0.02 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 EBT 3 5100 2,010 0.40 *5100 2,010 0.40 *EBT 3 5100 2,010 0.40 *5100 2,010 0.40 * EBR 0 40 40 EBR 0 40 40 WBL 1 1700 310 0.18 *1700 310 0.18 *WBL 1 1700 310 0.18 *1700 310 0.18 * WBT 3 5100 1,090 0.22 5100 1,370 0.27 WBT 3 5100 1,260 0.25 5100 1,370 0.27 WBR 0 20 20 WBR 0 20 20 N/S Movements 0.20 0.20 N/S Movements 0.20 0.20 E/W Movements 0.58 0.58 E/W Movements 0.58 0.58 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.83 0.83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.83 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:40 N Schaffer Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0.33 397 70 0.18 397 70 0.18 NBT 0.34 850 150 0.18 850 150 0.18 NBR 0.33 453 80 0.18 453 80 0.18 SBL 0.33 425 10 0.02 425 10 0.02 SBT 0.34 850 20 0.02 850 20 0.02 SBR 0.33 425 10 0.02 425 10 0.02 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1700 10 0.01 EBT 3 5100 2,010 0.40 *5100 2,010 0.40 * EBR 0 40 40 WBL 1 1700 310 0.18 *1700 310 0.18 * WBT 3 5100 1,420 0.28 5100 1,530 0.30 WBR 0 20 20 N/S Movements 0.20 0.20 E/W Movements 0.58 0.58 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.83 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:41 N Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:41 N Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 NBT 2 3400 320 0.09 *3400 320 0.09 *NBT 2 3400 320 0.09 *3400 320 0.09 * NBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 NBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 SBL 1 1700 270 0.16 *1700 270 0.16 *SBL 1 1700 270 0.16 *1700 270 0.16 * SBT 2 3400 460 0.14 3400 460 0.14 SBT 2 3400 460 0.14 3400 460 0.14 SBR 1 1700 420 0.25 1700 420 0.25 SBR 1 1700 420 0.25 1700 420 0.25 EBL 1 1700 260 0.15 1700 260 0.15 *EBL 1 1700 260 0.15 *1700 260 0.15 * EBT 3 5100 1,650 0.35 *5100 1,650 0.35 EBT 3 5100 1,650 0.35 5100 1,650 0.35 EBR 0 140 140 EBR 0 140 140 WBL 1 1700 90 0.05 *1700 90 0.05 WBL 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBT 3 5100 910 0.25 5100 1,190 0.30 *WBT 3 5100 1,080 0.28 *5100 1,190 0.30 * WBR 0 360 360 WBR 0 360 360 N/S Movements 0.25 0.25 N/S Movements 0.25 0.25 E/W Movements 0.40 0.46 E/W Movements 0.44 0.46 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.71 0.76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.74 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:41 N Cambridge Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 1700 70 0.04 NBT 2 3400 320 0.09 *3400 320 0.09 * NBR 1 1700 80 0.05 1700 80 0.05 SBL 1 1700 270 0.16 *1700 270 0.16 * SBT 2 3400 460 0.14 3400 460 0.14 SBR 1 1700 420 0.25 1700 420 0.25 EBL 1 1700 260 0.15 *1700 260 0.15 * EBT 3 5100 1,650 0.35 5100 1,650 0.35 EBR 0 140 140 WBL 1 1700 90 0.05 1700 90 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,240 0.31 *5100 1,350 0.34 * WBR 0 360 360 N/S Movements 0.25 0.25 E/W Movements 0.47 0.49 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.77 0.79 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:42 N Tustin Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:42 N Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 220 0.0647 3400 360 0.1059 NBL 2 3400 300 0.09 3400 360 0.11 NBT 3 5100 1,370 0.2686 *5100 1,370 0.2686 *NBT 3 5100 1,370 0.27 *5100 1,370 0.27 * NBR 1 1700 530 0.3118 1700 530 0.3118 NBR 1 1700 530 0.31 1700 530 0.31 SBL 2 3400 840 0.2471 *3400 840 0.2471 *SBL 2 3400 840 0.25 *3400 840 0.25 * SBT 3 5100 1,260 0.2902 5100 1,260 0.2902 SBT 3 5100 1,260 0.29 5100 1,260 0.29 SBR 0 220 220 SBR 0 220 220 EBL 2 3400 270 0.0794 3400 270 0.0794 EBL 2 3400 270 0.08 3400 270 0.08 EBT 3 5100 1,540 0.3020 *5100 1,540 0.3020 *EBT 3 5100 1,540 0.30 *5100 1,540 0.30 * EBR 1 1700 320 0.1882 1700 320 0.1882 EBR 1 1700 320 0.19 1700 320 0.19 WBL 2 3400 460 0.1353 *3400 460 0.1353 *WBL 2 3400 460 0.14 *3400 460 0.14 * WBT 3 5100 1,050 0.2059 5100 1,190 0.2333 WBT 3 5100 1,130 0.22 5100 1,190 0.23 WBR 1 1700 780 0.4588 *1700 780 0.4588 WBR 1 1700 780 0.46 1700 780 0.46 N/S Movements 0.52 0.52 N/S Movements 0.52 0.52 E/W Movements 0.44 0.44 E/W Movements 0.44 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0..00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.00 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.00 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:42 N Tustin Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 330 0.10 3400 390 0.11 NBT 3 5100 1,370 0.27 *5100 1,370 0.27 * NBR 1 1700 530 0.31 1700 530 0.31 SBL 2 3400 840 0.25 *3400 840 0.25 * SBT 3 5100 1,260 0.30 5100 1,260 0.30 SBR 0 250 250 EBL 2 3400 270 0.08 3400 270 0.08 EBT 3 5100 1,540 0.30 *5100 1,540 0.30 * EBR 1 1700 320 0.19 1700 320 0.19 WBL 2 3400 460 0.14 *3400 460 0.14 * WBT 3 5100 1,230 0.24 5100 1,290 0.25 WBR 1 1700 780 0.46 1700 780 0.46 N/S Movements 0.52 0.52 E/W Movements 0.44 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.00 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 400 0.12 *3400 400 0.12 *SBL 2 3400 400 0.12 *3400 400 0.12 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 410 0.24 *1700 410 0.24 *SBR 1 1700 410 0.24 *1700 410 0.24 * EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 2.5 4,026 1,930 0.48 *4,026 1,930 0.48 *EBT 2.5 4,026 1,930 0.48 *4,026 1,930 0.48 * EBR 1.5 2,774 1,330 0.48 2,774 1,330 0.48 EBR 1.5 2,774 1,330 0.48 2,774 1,330 0.48 WBL 1 1700 520 0.31 *1700 520 0.31 *WBL 1 1700 520 0.31 *1700 520 0.31 * WBT 3 5100 1,850 0.36 5100 1,990 0.39 WBT 3 5100 1,930 0.38 5100 1,990 0.39 WBR 50 85000 0 0.00 85000 0 0.00 WBR 50 85000 0 0.00 85000 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 E/W Movements 0.79 0.79 E/W Movements 0.79 0.79 Rt. Turn Component 0.12 0.12 Rt. Turn Component 0.12 0.12 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.08 1.08 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.08 1.08 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:43 SR-55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 400 0.12 *3400 400 0.12 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 410 0.24 *1700 410 0.24 * EBL 0 0 0 EBT 2.5 4,026 1,930 0.48 *4,026 1,930 0.48 * EBR 1.5 2,774 1,330 0.48 2,774 1,330 0.48 WBL 1 1700 520 0.31 *1700 520 0.31 * WBT 3 5100 2,030 0.40 5100 2,090 0.41 WBR 50 85000 0 0.00 85000 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 E/W Movements 0.79 0.79 Rt. Turn Component 0.12 0.12 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.08 1.08 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 1,070 0.31 *3400 1,070 0.31 *NBL 2 3400 1,070 0.31 *3400 1,070 0.31 * NBT 0 30 0.00 30 0.00 NBT 0 30 0.00 30 0.00 NBR 1 1700 830 0.49 *1700 830 0.49 *NBR 1 1700 830 0.49 *1700 830 0.49 * SBL 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 *SBR 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 * EBL 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 2 3400 1,550 0.46 *3400 1,550 0.46 *EBT 2 3400 1,550 0.46 *3400 1,550 0.46 * EBR (free)50 85000 450 0.01 85000 450 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 450 0.01 85000 450 0.01 WBL 0 0 * 0 *WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 1,320 0.26 5100 1,460 0.29 WBT 3 5100 1,400 0.27 5100 1,460 0.29 WBR (free)50 85000 290 0.00 85000 290 0.00 WBR (free)50 85000 290 0.00 85000 290 0.00 N/S Movements 0.31 0.31 N/S Movements 0.31 0.31 E/W Movements 0.46 0.46 E/W Movements 0.46 0.46 Rt. Turn Component 0.19 0.19 Rt. Turn Component 0.19 0.19 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 1.01 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 1.01 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:44 SR-55 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 1,070 0.31 *3400 1,070 0.31 * NBT 0 30 0.00 30 0.00 NBR 1 1700 830 0.49 *1700 830 0.49 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 1 1700 30 0.02 *1700 30 0.02 * EBL 0 0 0 EBT 2 3400 1,550 0.46 *3400 1,550 0.46 * EBR (free)50 85000 450 0.01 85000 450 0.01 WBL 0 0 * 0 * WBT 3 5100 1,500 0.29 5100 1,560 0.31 WBR (free)50 85000 290 0.00 85000 290 0.00 N/S Movements 0.31 0.31 E/W Movements 0.46 0.46 Rt. Turn Component 0.19 0.19 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 1.01 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX G-4: ICU WORKSHEETS UNDER 2011 BASELINE CONDITIONS (MITIGATED) (COMPARSION 3 – PROJECT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT VS. AAHC EVENT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 40 0.02 1 1,700 100 0.06 NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 1 1700 100 0.06 NBT 1 1700 4 0.01 *1 1,700 70 0.06 *NBT 1 1700 40 0.04 *1 1700 70 0.06 * NBR 0 0 10 0 30 NBR 0 0 20 0 0 30 SBL 1 1700 50 0.03 *1 1,700 70 0.04 *SBL 1 1700 60 0.04 *1 1700 70 0.04 * SBT 0.5 850 1 0.00 0.5 850 10 0.01 SBT 0.5 850 10 0.01 0.5 850 10 0.01 SBR 1.5 2550 160 0.06 *1.5 2,550 160 0.06 SBR 1.5 2550 160 0.06 1.5 2550 160 0.06 EBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *2 3,400 1,440 0.42 *EBL 2 3400 880 0.26 *2 3400 1,440 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 820 0.16 3 5,100 1,440 0.28 EBT 3 5100 1,190 0.23 3 5100 1,440 0.28 EBR 1 1700 20 0.01 1 1,700 200 0.12 EBR 1 1700 130 0.08 1 1700 200 0.12 WBL 2 3400 10 0.00 2 3,400 90 0.03 WBL 2 3400 60 0.02 2 3400 90 0.03 WBT 3 5100 760 0.15 *3 5,100 760 0.15 *WBT 3 5100 760 0.15 *3 5100 760 0.15 * WBR 1 1700 60 0.04 1 1,700 380 0.22 *WBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1 1700 380 0.22 * N/S Movements 0.04 0.10 N/S Movements 0.07 0.10 E/W Movements 0.17 0.57 E/W Movements 0.41 0.57 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.03 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.03 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.27 0.76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1 1700 100 0.06 * NBT 1 1700 40 0.04 1 1700 70 0.06 NBR 0 0 30 0 0 40 SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 1 1700 80 0.05 SBT 0.5 850 60 0.07 *0.5 850 60 0.07 * SBR 1.5 2550 190 0.07 1.5 2550 190 0.07 EBL 2 3400 880 0.26 *2 3400 1,440 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 1,260 0.25 3 5100 1,510 0.30 EBR 1 1700 980 0.58 *2 3400 1,050 0.31 WBL 2 3400 350 0.10 2 3400 380 0.11 WBT 3 5100 960 0.19 *3 5100 960 0.19 * WBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1 1700 380 0.22 N/S Movements 0.11 0.13 E/W Movements 0.45 0.61 Rt. Turn Component 0.29 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.79 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D C Add EBR Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX G-5: ICU WORKSHEETS UNDER 2013 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS (MITIGATED) (COMPARSION 3 – PROJECT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT VS. AAHC EVENT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 40 0.02 1 1,700 100 0.06 NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 1 1700 100 0.06 NBT 1 1700 4 0.01 *1 1,700 70 0.06 *NBT 1 1700 40 0.04 *1 1700 70 0.06 * NBR 0 0 10 0 30 NBR 0 0 20 0 0 30 SBL 1 1700 50 0.03 *1 1,700 70 0.04 *SBL 1 1700 60 0.04 *1 1700 70 0.04 * SBT 0.5 850 1 0.00 0.5 850 10 0.01 SBT 0.5 850 10 0.01 0.5 850 10 0.01 SBR 1.5 2550 160 0.06 *1.5 2,550 160 0.06 SBR 1.5 2550 160 0.06 1.5 2550 160 0.06 EBL 2 3400 70 0.02 *2 3,400 1,440 0.42 *EBL 2 3400 880 0.26 *2 3400 1,440 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 820 0.16 3 5,100 1,440 0.28 EBT 3 5100 1,190 0.23 3 5100 1,440 0.28 EBR 1 1700 20 0.01 1 1,700 200 0.12 EBR 1 1700 130 0.08 1 1700 200 0.12 WBL 2 3400 10 0.00 2 3,400 90 0.03 WBL 2 3400 60 0.02 2 3400 90 0.03 WBT 3 5100 760 0.15 *3 5,100 760 0.15 *WBT 3 5100 760 0.15 *3 5100 760 0.15 * WBR 1 1700 60 0.04 1 1,700 380 0.22 *WBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1 1700 380 0.22 * N/S Movements 0.04 0.10 N/S Movements 0.07 0.10 E/W Movements 0.17 0.57 E/W Movements 0.41 0.57 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.03 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.03 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.27 0.76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)A C INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1 1700 100 0.06 * NBT 1 1700 40 0.04 1 1700 70 0.06 NBR 0 0 30 0 0 40 SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 1 1700 80 0.05 SBT 0.5 850 60 0.07 *0.5 850 60 0.07 * SBR 1.5 2550 190 0.07 1.5 2550 190 0.07 EBL 2 3400 880 0.26 *2 3400 1,440 0.42 * EBT 3 5100 1,260 0.25 3 5100 1,510 0.30 EBR 1 1700 980 0.58 *2 3400 1,050 0.31 WBL 2 3400 350 0.10 2 3400 380 0.11 WBT 3 5100 960 0.19 *3 5100 960 0.19 * WBR 1 1700 250 0.15 1 1700 380 0.22 N/S Movements 0.11 0.13 E/W Movements 0.45 0.61 Rt. Turn Component 0.29 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.79 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D C Add EBR Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2013 Conditions Year 2013 Conditions Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX G-6: ICU WORKSHEETS UNDER 2030 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS (MITIGATED) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 300 0.09 2 3,400 300 0.09 NBL 2 3400 300 0.09 2 3,400 300 0.09 NBT 3 5100 1,800 0.35 *3 5,100 1,800 0.35 *NBT 3 5100 1,800 0.35 *3 5,100 1,800 0.35 * NBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1 1,700 160 0.09 NBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1 1,700 160 0.09 SBL 2 3400 460 0.14 *2 3,400 480 0.14 *SBL 2 3400 470 0.14 *2 3,400 480 0.14 * SBT 3 5100 880 0.17 3 5,100 900 0.18 SBT 3 5100 890 0.17 3 5,100 900 0.18 SBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1 1,700 140 0.08 SBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1 1,700 140 0.08 EBL 2 3400 240 0.07 *2 3,400 240 0.07 *EBL 2 3400 240 0.07 *2 3,400 240 0.07 * EBT 3 5100 1,000 0.20 3 5,100 1,050 0.21 EBT 3 5100 1,030 0.20 3 5,100 1,050 0.21 EBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1 1,700 300 0.18 EBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1 1,700 300 0.18 WBL 2 3400 170 0.05 2 3,400 170 0.05 WBL 2 3400 170 0.05 2 3,400 170 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,640 0.32 *4 6,800 1,640 0.24 *WBT 3 5100 1,640 0.32 *4 6,800 1,640 0.24 * WBR 1 1700 540 0.32 1 1,700 540 0.32 WBR 1 1700 540 0.32 1 1,700 540 0.32 N/S Movements 0.49 0.49 N/S Movements 0.49 0.49 E/W Movements 0.39 0.31 E/W Movements 0.39 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.86 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add one WBT Add one WBT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:3 Anaheim Boulevard / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h NBL 2 3400 300 0.09 2 3400 300 0.09 NBT 3 5100 1,800 0.35 *3 5100 1,800 0.35 * NBR 1 1700 160 0.09 1 1700 160 0.09 SBL 2 3400 470 0.14 *2 3400 480 0.14 * SBT 3 5100 930 0.18 3 5100 940 0.18 SBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1 1700 140 0.08 EBL 2 3400 240 0.07 *2 3400 240 0.07 * EBT 3 5100 1,030 0.20 3 5100 1,050 0.21 EBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1 1700 300 0.18 WBL 2 3400 170 0.05 2 3400 170 0.05 WBT 3 5100 1,640 0.32 *4 6800 1,640 0.24 * WBR 1 1700 540 0.32 1 1700 540 0.32 N/S Movements 0.49 0.49 E/W Movements 0.39 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add one WBT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 340 0.10 2 3,400 340 0.10 NBL 2 3400 340 0.10 2 3400 340 0.10 NBT 3 5100 1,160 0.23 *4 6,800 1,160 0.17 *NBT 3 5100 1,160 0.23 *4 6800 1,160 0.17 * NBR 1 1700 370 0.22 1 1,700 410 0.24 NBR 1 1700 400 0.24 1 1700 410 0.24 SBL 2 3400 430 0.13 *2 3,400 430 0.13 *SBL 2 3400 430 0.13 *2 3400 430 0.13 * SBT 3 5100 540 0.11 3 5,100 540 0.11 SBT 3 5100 540 0.11 3 5100 540 0.11 SBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1 1,700 300 0.18 SBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1 1700 300 0.18 EBL 2 3400 490 0.14 *2 3,400 490 0.14 EBL 2 3400 490 0.14 2 3400 490 0.14 EBT 4 6800 2,050 0.32 4 6,800 2,230 0.35 *EBT 4 6800 2,160 0.34 *4 6800 2,230 0.35 * EBR 0 150 0 150 EBR 0 150 0 150 WBL 2 3400 590 0.17 2 3,400 590 0.17 *WBL 2 3400 590 0.17 *2 3400 590 0.17 * WBT 4 6800 2,410 0.35 *4 6,800 2,410 0.35 WBT 4 6800 2,410 0.35 4 6800 2,410 0.35 WBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1 1,700 120 0.07 WBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1 1700 120 0.07 N/S Movements 0.35 0.30 N/S Movements 0.35 0.30 E/W Movements 0.50 0.52 E/W Movements 0.51 0.52 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.87 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.92 0.87 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add one NBT Add one NBT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:5 Anaheim Boulevard / Haster Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 340 0.10 2 3400 340 0.10 NBT 3 5100 1,160 0.23 *4 6800 1,160 0.17 * NBR 1 1700 400 0.24 1 1700 410 0.24 SBL 2 3400 430 0.13 *2 3400 430 0.13 * SBT 3 5100 540 0.11 3 5100 540 0.11 SBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1 1700 300 0.18 EBL 2 3400 490 0.14 2 3400 490 0.14 EBT 4 6800 2,370 0.37 *4 6800 2,440 0.36 * EBR 0 150 1 1700 150 0.09 WBL 2 3400 590 0.17 *2 3400 590 0.17 * WBT 4 6800 2,410 0.35 4 6800 2,410 0.35 WBR 1 1700 120 0.07 1 1700 120 0.07 N/S Movements 0.35 0.30 E/W Movements 0.54 0.53 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.95 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add one NBT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 380 0.22 1 1,700 380 0.22 NBL 1 1700 380 0.22 1 1700 380 0.22 NBT 2 3400 10 0.31 *2 3,400 10 0.31 *NBT 2 3400 10 0.31 *2 3400 10 0.31 * NBR 0 1,040 0 1,040 NBR 0 1,040 0 1,040 SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1 1,700 70 0.04 *SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1 1700 70 0.04 * SBT 1 1700 110 0.12 1 1,700 110 0.12 SBT 1 1700 110 0.12 1 1700 110 0.12 SBR 0 90 0 90 SBR 0 90 0 90 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1 1,700 10 0.01 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1 1700 10 0.01 EBT 3 5100 1,410 0.35 *3 5,100 1,440 0.28 *EBT 3 5100 1,410 0.35 *3 5100 1,460 0.29 * EBR 0 360 1 1,700 370 0.22 EBR 0 360 1 1700 380 0.22 WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *2 3,400 510 0.15 *WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *2 3400 510 0.15 * WBT 3 5100 1,760 0.35 3 5,100 1,760 0.35 WBT 3 5100 1,760 0.35 3 5100 1,760 0.35 WBR 0 10 0 10 WBR 0 10 0 10 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.50 0.43 E/W Movements 0.50 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.84 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Add one EBR Add one EBR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:8 Lewis Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 380 0.22 1 1700 380 0.22 NBT 2 3400 10 0.31 *2 3400 10 0.31 * NBR 0 1,040 0 1,040 SBL 1 1700 70 0.04 *1 1700 70 0.04 * SBT 1 1700 110 0.12 1 1700 110 0.12 SBR 0 90 0 90 EBL 1 1700 10 0.01 1 1700 10 0.01 EBT 3 5100 1,440 0.35 *3 5100 1,460 0.29 * EBR 0 370 1 1700 380 0.22 WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *2 3400 510 0.15 * WBT 3 5100 1,760 0.35 3 5100 1,760 0.35 WBR 0 10 0 10 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.50 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.84 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Add one EBR Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1 1,700 50 0.03 NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1 1700 50 0.03 NBT 2 3400 1,030 0.30 *2 3,400 1,030 0.30 *NBT 2 3400 1,030 0.30 *2 3400 1,030 0.30 * NBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1 1,700 300 0.18 NBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1 1700 300 0.18 SBL 1 1700 130 0.08 *1 1,700 160 0.09 *SBL 1 1700 140 0.08 *1 1700 160 0.09 * SBT 2 3400 710 0.28 2 3,400 710 0.28 SBT 2 3400 710 0.28 2 3400 710 0.28 SBR 0 230 0 230 SBR 0 230 0 230 EBL 1 1700 190 0.11 *2 3,400 190 0.06 *EBL 1 1700 190 0.11 1 1700 190 0.11 * EBT 2 3400 840 0.32 2 3,400 920 0.27 EBT 2 3400 890 0.34 *2 3400 920 0.27 EBR 0 260 1 1,700 260 0.15 EBR 0 260 1 1700 260 0.15 WBL 1 1700 240 0.14 1 1,700 240 0.14 WBL 1 1700 240 0.14 *1 1700 240 0.14 WBT 2 3400 1,240 0.36 *2 3,400 1,240 0.36 *WBT 2 3400 1,240 0.36 2 3400 1,240 0.36 * WBR 1 1700 210 0.12 1 1,700 210 0.12 WBR 1 1700 210 0.12 1 1700 210 0.12 N/S Movements 0.38 0.40 N/S Movements 0.39 0.40 E/W Movements 0.48 0.42 E/W Movements 0.48 0.48 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.87 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.92 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Add EBR, EBL Add EBR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:9 Lewis Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 50 0.03 1 1700 50 0.03 NBT 2 3400 1,030 0.30 *2 3400 1,030 0.30 * NBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1 1700 300 0.18 SBL 1 1700 140 0.08 *1 1700 160 0.09 * SBT 2 3400 710 0.28 2 3400 710 0.28 SBR 0 230 0 230 EBL 1 1700 190 0.11 1 1700 190 0.11 * EBT 2 3400 930 0.36 *2 3400 960 0.28 EBR 0 300 1 1700 300 0.18 WBL 1 1700 240 0.14 *1 1700 240 0.14 WBT 2 3400 1,240 0.36 2 3400 1,240 0.36 * WBR 1 1700 210 0.12 1 1700 210 0.12 N/S Movements 0.39 0.40 E/W Movements 0.50 0.48 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.94 0.92 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Add EBR Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *2 3,400 250 0.07 NBL 2 3400 250 0.07 *2 3400 250 0.07 * NBT 2 3400 670 0.20 2 3,400 670 0.20 *NBT 2 3400 670 0.20 2 3400 670 0.20 NBR 1 1700 530 0.31 1 1,700 570 0.34 NBR 1 1700 560 0.33 1 1700 570 0.34 SBL 2 3400 380 0.11 2 3,400 380 0.11 *SBL 2 3400 380 0.11 2 3400 380 0.11 SBT 1.5 1907 460 0.24 *1.5 2,550 460 0.18 SBT 1.5 1907 460 0.24 *1.5 1907 460 0.24 * SBR 1.5 3193 770 0.24 1.5 2,550 770 0.30 SBR 1.5 3193 770 0.24 1.5 3193 770 0.24 EBL 2 3400 420 0.12 2 3,400 420 0.12 EBL 2 3400 420 0.12 2 3400 420 0.12 EBT 4 6800 2,120 0.33 *4 6,800 2,520 0.39 *EBL 4 6800 2,360 0.36 *4 6800 2,520 0.39 * EBR 0 110 0 110 EBL 0 110 0 110 WBL 2 3400 490 0.14 *2 3,400 490 0.14 *WBL 2 3400 490 0.14 *2 3400 490 0.14 * WBT 5 8500 2,740 0.34 5 8,500 2,740 0.34 WBT 5 8500 2,740 0.34 5 8500 2,740 0.34 WBR 0 190 0 190 WBR 0 190 0 190 N/S Movements 0.31 0.31 N/S Movements 0.31 0.31 E/W Movements 0.47 0.53 E/W Movements 0.51 0.53 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.84 0.89 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.87 0.90 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Impact Impact INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:10 Lewis Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 250 0.07 2 3400 250 0.07 NBT 2 3400 670 0.20 *2 3400 670 0.20 * NBR 1 1700 560 0.33 1 1700 570 0.34 SBL 2 3400 420 0.12 *2 3400 420 0.12 * SBT 1.5 1907 460 0.24 1.5 1907 460 0.24 SBR 1.5 3193 770 0.24 1.5 3193 770 0.24 EBL 2 3400 420 0.12 2 3400 420 0.12 EBT 4 6800 2,870 0.44 *5 8500 3,030 0.37 * EBR 0 110 0 110 WBL 2 3400 490 0.14 *2 3400 490 0.14 * WBT 5 8500 2,740 0.34 5 8500 2,740 0.34 WBR 0 190 0 190 N/S Movements 0.32 0.32 E/W Movements 0.58 0.51 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.95 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add one EBT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 530 0.16 *2 3,400 530 0.16 NBL 2 3,400 530 0.16 *2 3,400 530 0.16 NBT 3 5,100 830 0.16 3 5,100 970 0.19 *NBT 3 5,100 910 0.18 3 5,100 970 0.19 * NBR 1 1,700 250 0.15 1 1,700 490 0.29 NBR 1 1,700 390 0.23 1 1,700 490 0.29 SBL 2 3,400 320 0.09 2 3,400 380 0.11 *SBL 2 3,400 350 0.10 2 3,400 380 0.11 * SBT 2 3,400 680 0.20 *3 5,100 700 0.14 SBT 2 3,400 690 0.20 *3 5,100 700 0.14 SBR 2 3,400 820 0.24 2 3,400 830 0.24 SBR 2 3,400 830 0.24 2 3,400 830 0.24 EBL 3 5,100 900 0.18 2 3,400 930 0.27 *EBL 3 5,100 920 0.18 3 5,100 930 0.18 EBT 3 5,100 1,240 0.24 *4 6,800 1,680 0.25 EBT 3 5,100 1,500 0.29 *3 5,100 1,680 0.33 * EBR 1 1,700 420 0.25 1 1,700 420 0.25 EBR 1 1,700 420 0.25 1 1,700 420 0.25 WBL 2 3,400 690 0.20 *2 3,400 700 0.21 WBL 2 3,400 690 0.20 *2 3,400 700 0.21 * WBT 4 6,800 1,670 0.25 4 6,800 1,670 0.25 *WBT 4 6,800 1,670 0.25 4 6,800 1,670 0.25 WBR 1 1,700 350 0.21 1 1,700 370 0.22 WBR 1 1,700 360 0.21 1 1,700 370 0.22 N/S Movements 0.36 0.30 N/S Movements 0.36 0.30 E/W Movements 0.45 0.52 E/W Movements 0.50 0.54 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.87 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.89 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add one SBT Add one SBT Restripe EBL to EBT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:15 State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h NBL 2 3,400 570 0.17 *2 3,400 570 0.17 * NBT 3 5,100 1,040 0.20 3 5,100 1,100 0.22 NBR 1 1,700 480 0.28 1 1,700 580 0.34 SBL 2 3,400 460 0.14 2 3,400 490 0.14 SBT 2 3,400 1,040 0.31 *3 5,100 1,050 0.21 * SBR 2 3,400 850 0.25 2 3,400 850 0.25 EBL 3 5,100 970 0.19 3 5,100 980 0.19 EBT 3 5,100 1,730 0.34 *3 5,100 1,910 0.37 * EBR 1 1,700 740 0.44 1 1,700 740 0.44 WBL 2 3,400 1,070 0.31 *2 3,400 1,080 0.32 * WBT 4 6,800 1,820 0.27 4 6,800 1,820 0.27 WBR 1 1,700 380 0.22 1 1,700 390 0.23 N/S Movements 0.47 0.37 E/W Movements 0.65 0.69 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.18 1.12 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Add one SBT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 100 0.03 2 3,400 100 0.03 NBL 2 3400 100 0.03 2 3400 100 0.03 NBT 4 6800 1,960 0.29 *5 8,500 2,070 0.26 *NBT 4 6800 2,020 0.30 *5 8500 2,070 0.26 * NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 0 140 NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 0 140 SBL 2 3400 670 0.20 *2 3,400 670 0.20 *SBL 2 3400 670 0.20 *2 3400 670 0.20 * SBT 4 6800 1,400 0.28 4 6,800 1,400 0.28 SBT 4 6800 1,400 0.28 4 6800 1,400 0.28 SBR 0 520 0 520 SBR 0 520 0 520 EBL 2 3400 250 0.07 2 3,400 300 0.09 EBL 2 3400 280 0.08 2 3400 300 0.09 EBT 3 5100 870 0.18 *3 5,100 870 0.18 *EBT 3 5100 870 0.18 *3 5100 870 0.18 * EBR 0 50 0 50 EBR 0 50 0 50 WBL 2 3400 630 0.19 *2 3,400 630 0.19 *WBL 2 3400 630 0.19 *2 3400 630 0.19 * WBT 4 6800 1,750 0.26 4 6,800 1,750 0.26 WBT 4 6800 1,750 0.26 4 6800 1,750 0.26 WBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1 1,700 390 0.23 WBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1 1700 390 0.23 N/S Movements 0.49 0.46 N/S Movements 0.49 0.46 E/W Movements 0.37 0.37 E/W Movements 0.37 0.37 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.87 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.87 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Restripe NBR to NBT Restripe NBR to NBT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:18 State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 100 0.03 2 3400 100 0.03 NBT 4 6800 2,820 0.41 *5 8500 2,870 0.35 * NBR 1 1700 140 0.08 0 140 SBL 2 3400 670 0.20 *2 3400 670 0.20 * SBT 4 6800 1,400 0.28 4 6800 1,400 0.28 SBR 0 520 0 520 EBL 2 3400 430 0.13 *2 3400 450 0.13 * EBT 3 5100 870 0.18 3 5100 870 0.18 EBR 0 50 0 50 WBL 2 3400 630 0.19 2 3400 630 0.19 WBT 4 6800 1,750 0.26 *4 6800 1,750 0.26 * WBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1 1700 390 0.23 N/S Movements 0.61 0.55 E/W Movements 0.38 0.39 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.05 0.99 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F E Restripe NBR to NBT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date ######## PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 210 0.06 2 3,400 210 0.06 NBL 2 3400 210 0.06 2 3400 210 0.06 NBT 3 5100 1,490 0.29 *3 5,100 1,570 0.31 *NBT 3 5100 1,540 0.30 *3 5100 1,570 0.31 * NBR 2 3400 780 0.23 2 3,400 780 0.23 NBR 2 3400 780 0.23 2 3400 780 0.23 SBL 2 3400 160 0.05 *2 3,400 160 0.05 *SBL 2 3400 160 0.05 *2 3400 160 0.05 * SBT 4 6800 1,520 0.22 4 6,800 1,520 0.22 SBT 4 6800 1,520 0.22 4 6800 1,520 0.22 SBR 1 1700 230 0.14 1 1,700 230 0.14 SBR 1 1700 230 0.14 1 1700 230 0.14 EBL 2 3400 390 0.11 2 3,400 420 0.12 EBL 2 3400 410 0.12 2 3400 420 0.12 EBT 3 5100 1,350 0.26 *3 5,100 1,380 0.27 *EBT 3 5100 1,370 0.27 *3 5100 1,380 0.27 * EBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1 1,700 140 0.08 EBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1 1700 140 0.08 WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *2 3,400 510 0.15 *WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *2 3400 510 0.15 * WBT 2.5 4206 1,200 0.29 2.5 4,250 1,200 0.28 WBT 2.5 4206 1,200 0.29 2.5 4206 1,200 0.29 WBR 1.5 2594 740 0.29 1.5 2,550 740 0.29 WBR 1.5 2594 740 0.29 1.5 2594 740 0.29 N/S Movements 0.34 0.35 N/S Movements 0.35 0.35 E/W Movements 0.41 0.42 E/W Movements 0.42 0.42 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.80 0.83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.82 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:21 State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 210 0.06 2 3400 210 0.06 NBT 3 5100 1,890 0.37 *4 6800 1,920 0.28 * NBR 2 3400 780 0.23 1 1700 780 0.46 * SBL 2 3400 160 0.05 *2 3400 160 0.05 * SBT 4 6800 1,520 0.22 4 6800 1,520 0.22 SBR 1 1700 230 0.14 1 1700 230 0.14 EBL 2 3400 510 0.15 *2 3400 520 0.15 * EBT 3 5100 1,370 0.27 3 5100 1,380 0.27 EBR 1 1700 140 0.08 1 1700 140 0.08 WBL 2 3400 510 0.15 2 3400 510 0.15 WBT 2.5 4206 1,200 0.29 *2.5 4206 1,200 0.29 * WBR 1.5 2594 740 0.29 1.5 2594 740 0.29 N/S Movements 0.42 0.33 E/W Movements 0.44 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.03 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.84 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Restripe 1 NBR to NBT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions Year 2030 Conditions INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 620 0.18 *2 3,400 630 0.19 *NBL 2 3,400 620 0.18 *2 3,400 630 0.19 * NBT 1 1,700 20 0.01 1 1,700 20 0.01 NBT 1 1,700 20 0.01 1 1,700 20 0.01 NBR 2 3,400 1,170 0.34 *2 3,400 1,170 0.34 *NBR 2 3,400 1,170 0.34 *2 3,400 1,170 0.34 * SBL 1 1,700 150 0.09 1 1,700 220 0.13 SBL 1 1,700 190 0.11 1 1,700 220 0.13 SBT 1 1,700 20 0.01 *1 1,700 20 0.01 *SBT 1 1,700 20 0.01 *1 1,700 20 0.01 * SBR 1 1,700 120 0.07 *1 1,700 130 0.08 *SBR 1 1,700 130 0.08 *1 1,700 130 0.08 * EBL 2 3,400 130 0.04 2 3,400 130 0.04 EBL 2 3,400 130 0.04 2 3,400 130 0.04 EBT 3 5,100 1,220 0.24 *4 6,800 1,860 0.27 *EBT 3 5,100 1,600 0.31 *4 6,800 1,860 0.27 * EBR 1 1,700 480 0.28 1 1,700 500 0.29 EBR 1 1,700 490 0.29 1 1,700 500 0.29 WBL 2 3,400 890 0.26 *2 3,400 920 0.27 *WBL 2 3,400 910 0.27 *2 3,400 920 0.27 * WBT 3 5,100 1,730 0.34 3 5,100 1,780 0.35 WBT 3 5,100 1,760 0.35 3 5,100 1,780 0.35 WBR 1 1,700 140 0.08 1 1,700 140 0.08 WBR 1 1,700 140 0.08 1 1,700 140 0.08 N/S Movements 0.19 0.20 N/S Movements 0.19 0.20 E/W Movements 0.50 0.54 E/W Movements 0.58 0.54 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.75 0.79 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.83 0.79 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D C Add EBT Add EBT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:22 Sportstown / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h NBL 2 3,400 720 0.21 *2 3,400 730 0.21 * NBT 1 1,700 40 0.02 1 1,700 40 0.02 NBR 2 3,400 1,210 0.36 *2 3,400 1,210 0.36 * SBL 1 1,700 190 0.11 1 1,700 220 0.13 SBT 1 1,700 30 0.02 *1 1,700 30 0.02 * SBR 1 1,700 130 0.08 1 1,700 130 0.08 EBL 2 3,400 230 0.07 2 3,400 230 0.07 EBT 3 5,100 1,840 0.36 *4 6,800 2,100 0.31 * EBR 1 1,700 590 0.35 1 1,700 600 0.35 WBL 2 3,400 1,010 0.30 *2 3,400 1,020 0.30 * WBT 3 5,100 2,050 0.40 3 5,100 2,070 0.41 WBR 1 1,700 260 0.15 1 1,700 260 0.15 N/S Movements 0.23 0.23 E/W Movements 0.66 0.61 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.94 0.89 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add EBT Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) Honda Center Traffic Study INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 90 0.05 1 1,700 100 0.06 NBL 1 1,700 90 0.05 1 1,700 100 0.06 NBT 2 3,400 990 0.29 *3 5,100 1,020 0.20 *NBT 2 3,400 1,010 0.30 *2 3,400 1,020 0.30 * NBR 1 1,700 600 0.35 1 1,700 650 0.38 NBR 1 1,700 630 0.37 1 1,700 650 0.38 SBL 2 3,400 360 0.11 *2 3,400 360 0.11 *SBL 2 3,400 360 0.11 *2 3,400 360 0.11 * SBT 2 3,400 360 0.15 2 3,400 430 0.17 SBT 2 3,400 400 0.16 2 3,400 430 0.17 SBR 0 140 0 150 SBR 0 140 0 150 EBL 2 3,400 230 0.07 2 3,400 230 0.07 EBL 2 3,400 230 0.07 2 3,400 230 0.07 EBT 3 5,100 1,740 0.35 *4 6,800 1,830 0.28 *EBT 3 5,100 1,790 0.36 *4 6,800 1,830 0.28 * EBR 0 20 0 70 EBR 0 50 0 70 WBL 2 3,400 600 0.18 *2 3,400 890 0.26 *WBL 2 3,400 770 0.23 *2 3,400 890 0.26 * WBT 3 5,100 1,960 0.38 3 5,100 2,170 0.43 WBT 3 5,100 2,090 0.41 3 5,100 2,170 0.43 WBR 1 1,700 810 0.48 1 1,700 850 0.50 WBR 1 1,700 840 0.49 1 1,700 850 0.50 N/S Movements 0.40 0.31 N/S Movements 0.40 0.41 E/W Movements 0.52 0.54 E/W Movements 0.59 0.54 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.97 0.90 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.04 1.00 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F E Add 1 EBT Add 1 EBT Add 1 NBT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:23 Sunkist Street / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h NBL 1 1700 90 0.05 1 1700 100 0.06 NBT 2 3400 1,010 0.30 *2 3400 1,020 0.30 * NBR 1 1700 630 0.37 1 1700 650 0.38 SBL 2 3400 360 0.11 *2 3400 360 0.11 * SBT 2 3400 450 0.17 2 3400 480 0.19 SBR 0 0 140 0 0 150 EBL 2 3400 230 0.07 2 3400 230 0.07 EBT 3 5100 1,920 0.39 *4 6800 1,960 0.30 * EBR 0 50 0 70 WBL 2 3400 820 0.24 *2 3400 940 0.28 * WBT 3 5100 2,090 0.41 3 5100 2,170 0.43 WBR 1 1,700 840 0.49 1 1,700 850 0.50 N/S Movements 0.40 0.41 E/W Movements 0.63 0.58 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.08 1.03 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Add 1 EBT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1 1,700 30 0.02 NBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1 1,700 30 0.02 NBT 2 3,400 580 0.23 *2 3,400 600 0.18 *NBT 2 3,400 590 0.24 *2 3,400 600 0.25 * NBR 0 200 1 1,700 260 0.15 NBR 0 230 0 260 SBL 1 1,700 150 0.09 *1 1,700 460 0.27 *SBL 1 1,700 330 0.19 *1 1,700 460 0.27 * SBT 2 3,400 320 0.14 2 3,400 380 0.16 SBT 2 3,400 350 0.15 2 3,400 380 0.16 SBR 0 160 0 160 SBR 0 160 0 160 EBL 1 1,700 170 0.10 *1 1,700 170 0.10 *EBL 1 1,700 170 0.10 *1 1,700 170 0.10 * EBT 2 3,400 260 0.08 2 3,400 410 0.13 EBT 2 3,400 350 0.11 2 3,400 410 0.13 EBR 0 20 0 30 EBR 0 30 0 30 WBL 1 1,700 230 0.14 1 1,700 280 0.16 WBL 1 1,700 260 0.15 1 1,700 280 0.16 WBT 2 3,400 720 0.34 *2 3,400 720 0.21 *WBT 2 3,400 720 0.34 *2 3,400 720 0.21 * WBR 0 430 1 1,700 450 0.26 WBR 0 440 1 1,700 450 0.26 N/S Movements 0.32 0.45 N/S Movements 0.44 0.52 E/W Movements 0.44 0.31 E/W Movements 0.44 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.81 0.81 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.89 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add NBR, WBR Add WBR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:24 Sunkist Street / Cerritos Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h NBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1 1,700 30 0.02 NBT 2 3,400 590 0.24 *2 3,400 600 0.25 * NBR 0 230 0 260 SBL 1 1,700 360 0.21 *1 1,700 490 0.29 * SBT 2 3,400 370 0.16 2 3,400 400 0.16 SBR 0 160 0 160 EBL 1 1,700 170 0.10 *1 1,700 170 0.10 * EBT 2 3,400 350 0.11 2 3,400 410 0.13 EBR 0 30 0 30 WBL 1 1,700 260 0.15 1 1,700 280 0.16 WBT 2 3,400 720 0.34 *2 3,400 720 0.21 * WBR 0 440 1 1,700 450 0.26 N/S Movements 0.45 0.54 E/W Movements 0.44 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.94 0.90 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add WBR Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1,700 130 0.08 1 1,700 130 0.08 NBL 1 1,700 130 0.08 1 1,700 130 0.08 NBT 1 1,700 90 0.05 *1 1,700 90 0.05 *NBT 1 1,700 90 0.05 *1 1,700 90 0.05 * NBR 1 1,700 210 0.12 *1 1,700 250 0.15 *NBR 1 1,700 230 0.14 *1 1,700 250 0.15 * SBL 2 3,400 500 0.15 *2 3,400 540 0.16 *SBL 2 3,400 520 0.15 *2 3,400 540 0.16 * SBT 0.5 756 20 0.03 0.5 756 20 0.03 SBT 0.5 756 20 0.03 0.5 756 20 0.03 SBR 1.5 2,644 70 0.03 1.5 2,644 70 0.03 SBR 1.5 2,644 70 0.03 1.5 2,644 70 0.03 EBL 2 3,400 190 0.06 *2 3,400 220 0.06 *EBL 2 3,400 210 0.06 *2 3,400 220 0.06 * EBT 3 5,100 2,070 0.42 4 6,800 2,750 0.42 EBT 3 5,100 2,480 0.51 4 6,800 2,750 0.42 EBR 0 70 0 120 EBR 0 100 0 120 WBL 2 3,400 90 0.03 2 3,400 220 0.06 WBL 2 3,400 170 0.05 2 3,400 220 0.06 WBT 3 5,100 2,580 0.51 *3 5,100 2,650 0.52 *WBT 3 5,100 2,620 0.51 *3 5,100 2,650 0.52 * WBR 1 1,700 530 0.31 1 1,700 690 0.41 WBR 1 1,700 630 0.37 1 1,700 690 0.41 Split phase N/S Movements 0.22 0.24 Split phase N/S Movements 0.23 0.24 E/W Movements 0.56 0.58 E/W Movements 0.58 0.58 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.01 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.86 0.88 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.86 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Add one EBT Add one EBT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:25 Howell Avenue / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h NBL 1 1,700 150 0.09 1 1,700 150 0.09 NBT 1 1,700 100 0.06 *1 1,700 100 0.06 * NBR 1 1,700 270 0.16 *1 1,700 290 0.17 * SBL 2 3,400 520 0.15 *2 3,400 540 0.16 * SBT 0.5 1,236 40 0.03 0.5 1,236 40 0.03 SBR 1.5 2,164 70 0.03 1.5 2,164 70 0.03 EBL 2 3,400 210 0.06 2 3,400 220 0.06 * EBT 3 5,100 2,610 0.53 *4 6,800 2,880 0.44 EBR 0 100 0 120 WBL 2 3,400 170 0.05 *2 3,400 220 0.06 WBT 3 5,100 2,620 0.51 3 5,100 2,650 0.52 * WBR 1 1,700 630 0.37 1 1,700 690 0.41 Split phase N/S Movements 0.24 0.25 E/W Movements 0.58 0.58 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.89 0.90 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Add one EBT Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) Honda Center Traffic Study INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 640 0.38 *2 3,400 1,190 0.35 *SBL 1 1700 970 0.57 *2 3400 1,190 0.35 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBR 2 3400 650 0.19 *2 3,400 960 0.28 *SBR 2 3400 840 0.25 *2 3400 960 0.28 * EBL 0 0 *0 0 *EBL 0 0 *0 0 * EBT 3 5100 2,120 0.42 3 5,100 2,130 0.42 EBT 3 5100 2,130 0.42 3 5100 2,130 0.42 EBR (free)50 85000 580 0.01 50 85,000 620 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 600 0.01 50 85000 620 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 2,940 0.58 *4 6,800 3,130 0.46 *WBT 3 5100 3,050 0.60 *3 5100 3,130 0.61 * WBR (free)50 85000 620 0.01 50 85,000 650 0.01 WBR (free)50 85000 640 0.01 50 85000 650 0.01 N/S Movements 0.38 0.35 N/S Movements 0.57 0.35 E/W Movements 0.58 0.46 E/W Movements 0.60 0.61 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 0.86 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.22 1.01 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Add SBL, WBT Add SBL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:26 Ball Road / SR-57 Southbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 970 0.57 *2 3400 1,190 0.35 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBR 2 3400 840 0.25 *2 3400 960 0.28 * EBL 0 0 *0 0 * EBT 3 5100 2,190 0.43 3 5100 2,190 0.43 EBR (free)50 85000 610 0.01 50 85000 630 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 3,050 0.60 *3 5100 3,130 0.61 * WBR (free)50 85000 670 0.01 50 85000 680 0.01 N/S Movements 0.57 0.35 E/W Movements 0.60 0.61 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.22 1.01 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Add SBL Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 *NBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 240 0.14 *2 3,400 640 0.19 *SBL 1 1700 480 0.28 *2 3400 640 0.19 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBR 2 3400 570 0.17 *2 3,400 760 0.22 *SBR 2 3400 680 0.20 *2 3400 760 0.22 * EBL 0 0 *0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 2,200 0.43 4 6,800 3,040 0.45 *EBT 3 5100 2,700 0.53 *3 5100 3,040 0.60 * EBR (free)50 85000 510 0.01 50 85,000 550 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 530 0.01 50 85000 550 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 0 *WBL 0 0 *0 0 * WBT 3 5100 2,430 0.48 *4 6,800 2,620 0.39 WBT 3 5100 2,540 0.50 3 5100 2,620 0.51 WBR (free)50 85000 510 0.01 50 85,000 510 0.01 WBR (free)50 85000 510 0.01 50 85000 510 0.01 N/S Movements 0.14 0.19 N/S Movements 0.28 0.19 E/W Movements 0.48 0.45 E/W Movements 0.53 0.60 Rt. Turn Component 0.03 0.04 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.04 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.69 0.72 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.86 0.87 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)B C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Add 1 SBL, 1 EBT and 1 WBT Add SBL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:27 SR-57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 1,020 0.60 *2 3400 1,180 0.35 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 SBR 2 3400 940 0.28 *2 3400 1,020 0.30 * EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 2,860 0.56 *3 5100 3,200 0.63 * EBR (free)50 85000 560 0.01 50 85000 580 0.01 WBL 0 0 *0 0 * WBT 3 5100 2,760 0.54 3 5100 2,840 0.56 WBR (free)50 85000 530 0.01 50 85000 530 0.01 N/S Movements 0.60 0.35 E/W Movements 0.56 0.63 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.21 1.02 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Add SBL Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 2663 590 0.22 *2 3,400 660 0.19 *NBL 1.5 2510 630 0.25 *2 3,400 660 0.19 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 2437 540 0.22 *2 3,400 720 0.21 *NBR 1.5 2590 650 0.25 *2 3,400 720 0.21 * SBL 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 *0 0 EBL 0 0 *0 0 * EBT 3 5100 2,240 0.44 3 5,100 2,860 0.56 *EBT 3 5100 2,610 0.51 3 5100 2,860 0.56 EBR (free)50 85000 650 0.01 50 85,000 660 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 650 0.01 50 85000 660 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 0 *WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 2,960 0.58 *4 6,800 3,140 0.46 WBT 3 5100 3,070 0.60 *3 5100 3,140 0.62 * WBR (free)50 85000 1,060 0.01 50 85,000 1,090 0.01 WBR (free)50 85000 1,080 0.01 50 85000 1,090 0.01 N/S Movements 0.22 0.19 N/S Movements 0.25 0.19 E/W Movements 0.58 0.56 E/W Movements 0.60 0.62 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.02 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.82 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add NBL, WBT Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add NBL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:28 Ball Road / SR-57 Northbound Ramps Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 2510 630 0.25 *2 3,400 660 0.19 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 2590 650 0.25 *2 3,400 720 0.21 * SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 *0 0 * EBT 3 5100 2,610 0.51 3 5100 2,860 0.56 EBR (free)50 85000 710 0.01 50 85000 720 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 3,070 0.60 *3 5100 3,140 0.62 * WBR (free)50 85000 1,180 0.01 50 85000 1,190 0.01 N/S Movements 0.25 0.19 E/W Movements 0.60 0.62 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.02 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.90 0.88 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D Restripe NBLR to NBR, Add NBL Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1962 300 0.15 *1.5 1700 390 0.23 *NBL 1.5 1700 360 0.21 *1.5 1041 390 0.37 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 3138 480 0.15 *2.5 5100 1,520 0.30 *NBR 1.5 3400 1,100 0.32 *1.5 4059 1,520 0.37 * SBL 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 *0 0 *EBL 0 0 *0 0 * EBT 5 8500 1,850 0.22 5 8,500 3,060 0.36 EBT 5 8500 2,570 0.30 5 8500 3,060 0.36 EBR (free)50 85000 500 0.01 50 85,000 500 0.01 EBR (free)50 85000 500 0.01 50 85000 500 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 2,970 0.58 *4 6,800 2,970 0.44 *WBT 3 5100 2,970 0.58 *4 6800 2,970 0.44 * WBR 1 1700 530 0.31 1 1,700 530 0.31 WBR 1 1700 530 0.31 1 1700 530 0.31 N/S Movements 0.15 0.23 N/S Movements 0.21 0.37 E/W Movements 0.58 0.44 E/W Movements 0.58 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.07 Rt. Turn Component 0.11 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.79 0.78 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.96 0.86 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)C C LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add WBT, NBR Add WBT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:29 SR-57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 1700 410 0.24 *1.5 1029 440 0.43 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 NBR 1.5 3400 1,320 0.39 *1.5 4071 1,740 0.43 * SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 *0 0 * EBT 5 8500 3,210 0.38 5 8500 3,700 0.44 EBR (free)50 85000 560 0.01 50 85000 560 0.01 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 3,150 0.62 *4 6800 3,150 0.46 * WBR 1 1700 580 0.34 1 1700 580 0.34 N/S Movements 0.24 0.43 E/W Movements 0.62 0.46 Rt. Turn Component 0.15 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.06 0.94 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F E Add WBT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 1,060 0.31 *3 5,100 1,120 0.22 *NBL 2 3400 1,090 0.32 *2 3400 1,120 0.33 * NBT 2 3400 580 0.17 4 6,800 640 0.09 NBT 2 3400 620 0.18 2 3400 640 0.19 NBR 1 1700 640 0.38 *2 3,400 660 0.19 NBR 1 1700 650 0.38 *1 1700 660 0.39 * SBL 2 3400 530 0.16 2 3,400 550 0.16 SBL 2 3400 540 0.16 2 3400 550 0.16 SBT 2 3400 320 0.09 *4 6,800 330 0.05 *SBT 2 3400 320 0.09 *2 3400 330 0.10 * SBR 1 1700 390 0.23 *1 1,700 390 0.23 SBR 1 1700 390 0.23 1 1700 390 0.23 EBL 2 3400 260 0.08 *3 5,100 1,630 0.32 *EBL 2 3400 1,070 0.31 *3 5100 1,630 0.32 * EBT 4 6800 1,500 0.22 4 6,800 2,120 0.31 EBT 4 6800 1,870 0.28 4 6800 2,120 0.31 EBR 1 1700 500 0.29 1 1,700 680 0.40 EBR 1 1700 610 0.36 1 1700 680 0.40 WBL 2 3400 570 0.17 2 3,400 650 0.19 WBL 2 3400 620 0.18 2 3400 650 0.19 WBT 4 6800 2,220 0.33 *5 8,500 2,220 0.26 *WBT 4 6800 2,220 0.33 *4 6800 2,220 0.33 * WBR 1 1700 850 0.50 *2 3,400 1,170 0.34 WBR 1 1700 1,040 0.61 *2 3400 1,170 0.34 N/S Movements 0.41 0.27 N/S Movements 0.41 0.43 E/W Movements 0.40 0.58 E/W Movements 0.64 0.65 Rt. Turn Component 0.02 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.13 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.88 0.90 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.23 1.12 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Add 1 NBL, 2 NBT, 1NBR, 2 SBT, 1 EBL, 1 WBT, 1WBR Add EBL, WBR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:30 Douglass Road / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h NBL 2 3400 1,090 0.32 *2 3400 1,120 0.33 * NBT 2 3400 620 0.18 2 3400 640 0.19 NBR 1 1700 660 0.39 1 1700 670 0.39 SBL 2 3400 550 0.16 2 3400 560 0.16 SBT 2 3400 370 0.11 *2 3400 380 0.11 * SBR 1 1700 420 0.25 1 1700 420 0.25 EBL 2 3400 1,070 0.31 *3 5100 1,630 0.32 * EBT 4 6800 1,940 0.29 4 6800 2,190 0.32 EBR 1 1700 1,460 0.86 *1 1700 1,530 0.90 * WBL 2 3400 910 0.27 2 3400 940 0.28 WBT 4 6800 2,420 0.36 *4 6800 2,420 0.36 * WBR 1 1700 1,040 0.61 *2 3400 1,170 0.34 N/S Movements 0.43 0.44 E/W Movements 0.67 0.68 Rt. Turn Component 0.35 0.25 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.50 1.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Add EBL, WBR Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.33 1,882 980 0.52 *1.33 1,880 990 0.53 *NBL 1.33 1,880 990 0.53 *1.33 1,880 990 0.53 * NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0.34 0 0 0.00 NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0.34 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.33 1,518 790 0.52 *0.33 1,520 800 0.53 *NBR 0.33 1,520 800 0.53 *0.33 1,520 800 0.53 * SBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 1 1,700 10 0.01 SBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 1 1,700 10 0.01 SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * SBR 1 1,700 10 0.01 1 1,700 30 0.02 SBR 1 1,700 20 0.01 1 1,700 30 0.02 EBL 1 1,700 30 0.02 1 1,700 50 0.03 EBL 1 1,700 40 0.02 1 1,700 50 0.03 EBT 3 5,100 1,820 0.54 *3 5,100 1,860 0.36 *EBT 3 5,100 1,840 0.62 *3 5,100 1,860 0.36 * EBR 0 920 1 1,700 1,610 0.95 *EBR 0 1,330 1 1,700 1,610 0.95 * WBL 1 1,700 600 0.35 *1 1,700 730 0.43 *WBL 1 1,700 680 0.40 *1 1,700 730 0.43 * WBT 3 5,100 3,150 0.62 3 5,100 3,330 0.66 WBT 3 5,100 3,260 0.65 3 5,100 3,330 0.66 WBR 0 30 0 40 WBR 0 30 0 40 N/S Movements 0.52 0.53 N/S Movements 0.53 0.53 E/W Movements 0.89 0.79 E/W Movements 1.02 0.79 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.06 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.06 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.46 1.43 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.60 1.43 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Add EBR Add EBR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:31 Phoenix Club Drive / Ball Road Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h NBL 1.33 1,887 1,010 0.54 *1.33 1,887 1,010 0.54 * NBT 0.34 0 0 0.00 0.34 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.33 1,513 810 0.54 *0.33 1,513 810 0.54 * SBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 1 1,700 10 0.01 SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * SBR 1 1,700 20 0.01 1 1,700 30 0.02 EBL 1 1,700 50 0.03 1 1,700 60 0.04 * EBT 3 5,100 1,840 0.63 *3 5,100 1,860 0.36 EBR 0 1,380 1 1,700 1,660 0.98 * WBL 1 1,700 690 0.41 *2 3,400 740 0.22 WBT 3 5,100 3,310 0.66 3 5,100 3,380 0.67 * WBR 0 40 0 50 N/S Movements 0.54 0.54 E/W Movements 1.04 0.71 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.08 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.62 1.37 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)F F Add EBR Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1.5 3,287 580 0.18 *1.5 3,245 630 0.19 *NBL 1.5 3,292 610 0.19 *1.5 3,245 630 0.19 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.5 113 20 0.18 *0.5 155 30 0.19 *NBR 0.5 108 20 0.19 *0.5 155 30 0.19 * SBL 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 *SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 *0 0 EBL 0 0 *0 0 EBT 3 5,100 2,670 0.52 3 5,100 2,670 0.52 *EBT 3 5,100 2,670 0.52 3 5,100 2,670 0.52 * EBR 1 1,700 350 0.21 1 1,700 390 0.23 EBR 1 1,700 380 0.22 1 1,700 390 0.23 WBL 1 1,700 10 0.01 1 1,700 80 0.05 *WBL 1 1,700 50 0.03 1 1,700 80 0.05 * WBT 3 5,100 3,000 0.59 *4 6,800 3,820 0.56 WBT 3 5,100 3,490 0.68 *4 6,800 3,820 0.56 WBR 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.18 0.19 N/S Movements 0.19 0.19 E/W Movements 0.59 0.57 E/W Movements 0.68 0.57 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.81 0.81 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.92 0.81 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add one WBT Add one WBT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:32 Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h NBL 1.5 3,243 620 0.19 *1.5 3,200 640 0.20 * NBT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 NBR 0.5 157 30 0.19 *0.5 200 40 0.20 * SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 *0 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 *0 0 * EBT 3 5,100 2,670 0.52 3 5,100 2,670 0.52 EBR 1 1,700 380 0.22 1 1,700 390 0.23 WBL 1 1,700 60 0.04 1 1,700 90 0.05 WBT 3 5,100 3,880 0.76 *4 6,800 4,210 0.62 * WBR 0 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.19 0.20 E/W Movements 0.76 0.62 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 0.87 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E D Add one WBT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 1 Comparison 2 PROJECT: PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION:ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITHOUT EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3,400 200 0.06 *2 3,400 300 0.09 NBL 2 3,400 260 0.08 *2 3,400 300 0.09 * NBT 2 3,400 870 0.26 2 3,400 980 0.29 *NBT 2 3,400 940 0.28 2 3,400 980 0.29 NBR 1 1,700 500 0.29 1 1,700 530 0.31 NBR 1 1,700 520 0.31 1 1,700 530 0.31 SBL 1 1,700 130 0.08 1 1,700 130 0.08 *SBL 1 1,700 130 0.08 1 1,700 130 0.08 SBT 2 3,400 1,010 0.30 *3 5,100 1,060 0.21 SBT 2 3,400 1,040 0.31 *2 3,400 1,060 0.31 * SBR 1 1,700 530 0.31 1 1,700 620 0.36 *SBR 1 1,700 580 0.34 1 1,700 620 0.36 EBL 2 3,400 320 0.09 2 3,400 320 0.09 EBL 2 3,400 320 0.09 *2 3,400 320 0.09 EBT 3 5,100 1,920 0.38 *3 5,100 1,940 0.38 *EBT 3 5,100 1,930 0.38 3 5,100 1,940 0.38 * EBR 1 1,700 160 0.09 1 1,700 170 0.10 EBR 1 1,700 170 0.10 1 1,700 170 0.10 WBL 2 3,400 230 0.07 *2 3,400 270 0.08 *WBL 2 3,400 250 0.07 2 3,400 270 0.08 * WBT 3 5,100 1,610 0.32 4 6,800 2,170 0.35 WBT 3 5,100 1,940 0.38 *4 6,800 2,170 0.35 WBR 1 1,700 220 0.13 0 230 WBR 1 1,700 220 0.13 0 230 N/S Movements 0.36 0.36 N/S Movements 0.38 0.40 E/W Movements 0.44 0.46 E/W Movements 0.47 0.46 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.87 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.91 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)D D LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Restripe WBR to WBT Restripe WBR to WBT Add SBT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET Comparison 3 PROJECT: ANALYSIS CONDITION: INTERSECTION:34 Main Street / Katella Avenue Date 12/16/2011 PM PK. HR. WITH EVENT+AS MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/h NBL 2 3400 260 0.08 *2 3400 300 0.09 * NBT 2 3400 940 0.28 2 3400 980 0.29 NBR 1 1700 520 0.31 1 1700 530 0.31 SBL 1 1700 130 0.08 1 1700 130 0.08 SBT 2 3400 1,040 0.31 *2 3400 1,060 0.31 * SBR 1 1700 600 0.35 1 1700 640 0.38 EBL 2 3400 320 0.09 *2 3400 320 0.09 * EBT 3 5100 1,940 0.38 3 5100 1,950 0.38 EBR 1 1700 170 0.10 1 1700 170 0.10 WBL 2 3400 250 0.07 2 3400 270 0.08 WBT 3 5100 2,200 0.43 *4 6800 2,430 0.39 * WBR 1 1700 240 0.14 0 250 N/S Movements 0.38 0.40 E/W Movements 0.53 0.49 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.96 0.94 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)E E Restripe WBR to WBT Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) PM PK.HR. WITH PROJECT+AS Honda Center Traffic Study Honda Center Traffic Study Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation)Year 2030 Conditions (Mitigation) Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX H-1: CALTRANS RAMP TERMINI SYNCHRO WORKSHEETS UNDER 2011 BASELINE CONDITIONS Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 674 484 228 1565 0 58 0 166 22 42 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1399 1447 3303 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1400 1447 3303 3406 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)0 702 504 238 1630 0 78 0 224 26 50 8 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 263 0 0 0 0 84 102 0 0 7 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 702 241 238 1630 0 70 32 14 26 50 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)43.0 43.0 13.0 60.2 9.0 19.9 10.9 4.1 6.0 6.0 Effective Green, g (s)43.0 43.0 13.0 60.2 9.0 19.9 10.9 4.1 6.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.14 0.67 0.10 0.22 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2338 728 477 3273 162 309 175 150 227 102 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 0.07 c0.33 c0.04 0.01 0.01 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.33 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.22 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 14.3 14.6 35.5 7.4 38.1 27.9 35.1 41.3 39.8 39.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 Delay (s)14.7 15.8 31.5 11.5 38.8 28.0 35.2 41.9 40.3 39.2 Level of Service B B C B D C D D D D Approach Delay (s)15.1 14.1 33.2 40.7 Approach LOS B B C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)43 837 0 0 1228 86 672 817 109 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)45 881 0 0 1279 90 738 898 120 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 55 0 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)45 881 0 0 1287 26 369 1372 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 36.0 29.1 29.1 42.0 42.0 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 36.0 29.1 29.1 42.0 42.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.40 0.32 0.32 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)117 1957 1876 399 644 2640 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.18 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.27 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.45 0.69 0.07 0.57 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 19.8 26.5 21.1 17.5 16.9 Progression Factor 1.15 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.7 2.1 0.3 3.7 0.7 Delay (s)49.4 17.6 28.5 21.4 21.2 17.6 Level of Service D B C C C B Approach Delay (s)19.2 28.1 18.4 0.0 Approach LOS B C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)9 23 0 29 19 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 Frt 0.91 0.85 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot)3299 1470 2842 3502 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm)3299 1470 2842 3502 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 1.00 0.64 0.79 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)12 32 0 45 24 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)15 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)13 1 0 45 24 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Perm Free custom Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases 3 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 3.2 34.4 20.2 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 3.2 34.4 20.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.59 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)307 137 2842 2056 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 14.2 14.2 0.0 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay (s)14.3 14.2 0.0 3.0 Level of Service B B A A Approach Delay (s)14.3 0.0 3.0 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 34.4 Sum of lost time (s)0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 81 343 206 39 631 0 32 670 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 87 369 222 41 657 0 34 705 17 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 7 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 78 378 40 41 657 0 34 705 10 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)19.7 19.7 19.7 6.3 66.2 5.4 65.5 65.5 Effective Green, g (s)19.7 19.7 19.7 6.3 66.2 5.4 65.5 65.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.60 0.05 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)278 583 480 189 3711 84 3672 907 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.02 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.12 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.65 0.08 0.22 0.18 0.40 0.19 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 41.9 37.6 49.5 9.8 50.7 10.2 9.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 2.5 0.1 0.6 0.1 3.2 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)39.6 44.4 37.7 46.3 8.0 53.9 10.3 9.1 Level of Service D D D D A D B A Approach Delay (s)0.0 41.7 10.3 12.2 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.30 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.9%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)56 136 329 0 0 0 0 918 14 0 582 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1715 2682 7244 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1715 2682 7244 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)62 143 366 0 0 0 0 956 15 0 600 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 267 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)56 149 99 0 0 0 0 970 0 0 600 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%5%6%5%5%5%6%6%5%5%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)15.3 15.3 15.3 78.7 78.7 Effective Green, g (s)15.3 15.3 15.3 78.7 78.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.72 0.72 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)225 239 373 5183 4411 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.62 0.27 0.19 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 42.2 44.6 42.3 5.1 4.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 4.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)42.6 49.0 42.6 5.2 2.8 Level of Service D D D A A Approach Delay (s)44.3 0.0 5.2 2.8 Approach LOS D A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1054 912 0 182 511 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1620 1447 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1620 1447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1133 1025 0 204 574 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 30 30 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1133 1025 0 369 349 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)53.7 53.7 26.7 26.7 Effective Green, g (s)53.7 53.7 26.7 26.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2919 2919 481 429 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.21 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.35 0.77 0.81 Uniform Delay, d1 9.5 9.3 28.8 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 6.5 10.7 Delay (s)9.9 6.8 35.4 40.1 Level of Service A A D D Approach Delay (s)9.9 6.8 37.7 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 811 677 0 172 408 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3123 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3123 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph)0 845 778 0 193 458 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 97 97 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 845 778 0 325 132 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 7 Permitted Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s)66.2 66.2 13.8 13.8 Effective Green, g (s)66.2 66.2 13.8 13.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.74 0.74 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.2 1.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3599 3599 479 213 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.16 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.22 0.68 0.62 Uniform Delay, d1 3.8 3.7 36.0 35.7 Progression Factor 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 3.0 4.0 Delay (s)4.0 3.3 39.0 39.7 Level of Service A A D D Approach Delay (s)4.0 3.3 39.3 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.3%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)631 0 0 649 429 135 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.70 0.70 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph)651 0 0 927 517 163 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 50 Lane Group Flow (vph)651 0 0 927 517 113 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)46.0 46.0 34.4 34.4 Effective Green, g (s)46.0 46.0 34.4 34.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2501 2501 651 583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.19 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.37 0.79 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 12.4 13.3 24.7 18.5 Progression Factor 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.4 6.2 0.1 Delay (s)12.5 13.7 30.9 18.6 Level of Service B B C B Approach Delay (s)12.5 13.7 27.9 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.3%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)605 0 0 912 227 233 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3216 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3216 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)624 0 0 1086 247 253 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 63 136 Lane Group Flow (vph)624 0 0 1086 280 21 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)68.2 68.2 11.8 11.8 Effective Green, g (s)68.2 68.2 11.8 11.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.76 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5501 4672 422 182 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.18 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.23 0.66 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 2.9 3.2 37.2 34.5 Progression Factor 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.1 Delay (s)2.4 3.3 40.3 34.6 Level of Service A A D C Approach Delay (s)2.4 3.3 38.5 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.30 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 937 828 484 1485 0 0 0 0 314 0 356 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0 986 872 515 1580 0 0 0 0 349 0 396 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 80 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1342 140 515 1580 0 0 0 0 349 0 363 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s)32.0 32.0 29.0 66.0 24.0 24.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.0 32.0 29.0 66.0 24.0 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.66 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1412 419 494 3229 793 366 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.11 c0.30 0.32 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.33 1.04 0.49 0.44 0.99 Uniform Delay, d1 33.2 25.9 35.5 8.5 32.3 37.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.92 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.9 0.5 49.7 0.1 0.4 44.4 Delay (s)47.1 26.3 81.6 7.9 32.7 82.3 Level of Service D C F A C F Approach Delay (s)42.3 26.1 0.0 59.0 Approach LOS D C A E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2011 Baseline No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 844 0 0 1486 0 998 5 774 0 0 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3406 4893 1633 1638 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3406 4893 1633 1638 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 938 0 0 1615 0 1018 5 790 0 0 27 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 938 0 0 1615 0 509 514 777 0 0 26 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%5%5%5%5%5%5% Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)35.0 35.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 Effective Green, g (s)35.0 35.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1192 1713 898 901 846 861 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.31 c0.51 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.94 0.57 0.57 0.92 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 29.2 31.5 14.7 14.8 20.5 10.3 Progression Factor 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 11.0 2.6 2.6 16.5 0.0 Delay (s)12.1 42.5 17.3 17.4 37.0 10.3 Level of Service B D B B D B Approach Delay (s)12.1 42.5 25.9 10.3 Approach LOS B D C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 806 484 228 1565 0 58 0 218 74 42 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1396 1447 3303 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1399 1447 3303 3406 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)0 840 504 238 1630 0 78 0 295 88 50 8 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 272 0 0 0 0 114 136 0 0 7 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 840 232 238 1630 0 70 39 14 88 50 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)41.5 41.5 13.0 58.7 10.5 19.0 8.5 8.0 6.0 6.0 Effective Green, g (s)41.5 41.5 13.0 58.7 10.5 19.0 8.5 8.0 6.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.14 0.65 0.12 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2256 703 477 3191 189 295 137 294 227 102 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 0.07 c0.33 c0.04 0.02 0.03 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.33 0.50 0.51 0.37 0.13 0.10 0.30 0.22 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 15.8 15.4 35.5 8.2 36.7 28.8 37.3 38.4 39.8 39.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 Delay (s)16.2 16.7 35.8 8.7 37.1 28.9 37.4 39.0 40.3 39.2 Level of Service B B D A D C D D D D Approach Delay (s)16.4 12.2 33.8 39.4 Approach LOS B B C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)43 1075 0 0 1228 86 672 817 109 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)45 1132 0 0 1279 90 738 898 120 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 55 0 12 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)45 1132 0 0 1287 26 369 1375 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 36.0 29.1 29.1 42.0 42.0 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 36.0 29.1 29.1 42.0 42.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.40 0.32 0.32 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)117 1957 1876 399 644 2640 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.23 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.27 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.58 0.69 0.07 0.57 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 21.1 26.5 21.1 17.5 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.3 2.1 0.3 3.7 0.7 Delay (s)43.2 22.3 28.5 21.4 21.2 17.6 Level of Service D C C C C B Approach Delay (s)23.1 28.1 18.4 0.0 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)9 23 0 29 51 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 Frt 0.91 0.85 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot)3299 1470 2842 3502 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm)3299 1470 2842 3502 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 1.00 0.64 0.79 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)12 32 0 45 65 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)15 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)13 1 0 45 65 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Perm Free custom Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases 3 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 3.2 34.6 20.4 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 3.2 34.6 20.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.59 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)305 136 2842 2065 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.02 c0.02 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 14.3 14.3 0.0 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay (s)14.4 14.3 0.0 3.0 Level of Service B B A A Approach Delay (s)14.4 0.0 3.0 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 34.6 Sum of lost time (s)5.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 81 343 206 39 694 0 32 670 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 87 369 222 41 723 0 34 705 17 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 7 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 78 378 40 41 723 0 34 705 10 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)19.7 19.7 19.7 6.3 66.2 5.4 65.5 65.5 Effective Green, g (s)19.7 19.7 19.7 6.3 66.2 5.4 65.5 65.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.60 0.05 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)278 583 480 189 3711 84 3672 907 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.12 c0.02 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.12 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.65 0.08 0.22 0.19 0.40 0.19 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 41.9 37.6 49.5 9.9 50.7 10.2 9.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 2.5 0.1 0.6 0.1 3.2 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)39.6 44.4 37.7 50.1 10.0 53.9 10.3 9.1 Level of Service D D D D A D B A Approach Delay (s)0.0 41.7 12.1 12.2 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)56 136 329 0 0 0 0 981 14 0 582 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1715 2682 7245 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1715 2682 7245 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)62 143 366 0 0 0 0 1022 15 0 600 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 267 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)56 149 99 0 0 0 0 1036 0 0 600 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%5%6%5%5%5%6%6%5%5%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)15.3 15.3 15.3 78.7 78.7 Effective Green, g (s)15.3 15.3 15.3 78.7 78.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.72 0.72 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)225 239 373 5183 4411 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.62 0.27 0.20 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 42.2 44.6 42.3 5.2 4.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 4.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)42.6 49.0 42.6 5.3 5.0 Level of Service D D D A A Approach Delay (s)44.3 0.0 5.3 5.0 Approach LOS D A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1063 1025 0 510 697 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1674 1447 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1674 1447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1143 1152 0 573 783 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 10 15 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1143 1152 0 696 635 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)39.3 39.3 41.1 41.1 Effective Green, g (s)39.3 39.3 41.1 41.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2137 2137 764 661 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 c0.24 0.42 v/s Ratio Perm c0.44 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.54 0.91 0.96 Uniform Delay, d1 18.6 18.7 22.8 23.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.0 14.8 25.5 Delay (s)19.6 19.7 37.5 49.1 Level of Service B B D D Approach Delay (s)19.6 19.7 43.1 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1309 788 0 412 520 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3191 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3191 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1364 906 0 463 584 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 57 57 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1364 906 0 657 276 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 7 Permitted Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s)56.3 56.3 23.7 23.7 Effective Green, g (s)56.3 56.3 23.7 23.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.2 1.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3061 3061 840 365 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.19 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.30 0.78 0.76 Uniform Delay, d1 8.7 7.7 30.8 30.5 Progression Factor 1.00 0.79 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 4.4 7.7 Delay (s)9.2 6.4 35.2 38.2 Level of Service A A D D Approach Delay (s)9.2 6.4 36.2 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1001 0 0 755 470 242 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.70 0.70 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph)1032 0 0 1079 566 292 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph)1032 0 0 1079 566 283 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)43.2 43.2 37.2 37.2 Effective Green, g (s)43.2 43.2 37.2 37.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2349 2349 704 630 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.22 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.46 0.80 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 15.4 15.6 23.2 19.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.6 6.3 0.2 Delay (s)16.0 16.3 29.5 19.2 Level of Service B B C B Approach Delay (s)16.0 16.3 26.0 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1329 0 0 912 282 852 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3102 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3102 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)1370 0 0 1086 307 926 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 25 25 Lane Group Flow (vph)1370 0 0 1086 745 438 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)50.2 50.2 29.8 29.8 Effective Green, g (s)50.2 50.2 29.8 29.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4049 3439 1027 459 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.18 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.32 0.87dr 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 10.8 10.7 26.5 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.2 2.2 30.3 Delay (s)11.1 10.9 28.7 59.7 Level of Service B B C E Approach Delay (s)11.1 10.9 40.3 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.9%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 937 828 484 1569 0 0 0 0 314 0 356 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0 986 872 515 1669 0 0 0 0 349 0 396 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 79 301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1343 135 515 1669 0 0 0 0 349 0 371 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s)31.0 31.0 29.0 65.0 25.0 25.0 Effective Green, g (s)31.0 31.0 29.0 65.0 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.65 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1368 406 494 3180 826 381 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.10 c0.30 0.34 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 v/c Ratio 0.98 0.33 1.04 0.52 0.42 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 34.2 26.5 35.5 9.3 31.4 37.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.88 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.9 0.5 49.3 0.1 0.4 38.6 Delay (s)54.1 27.0 80.9 8.3 31.8 75.8 Level of Service D C F A C E Approach Delay (s)47.8 25.4 0.0 55.2 Approach LOS D C A E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2011 Baseline with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 844 0 0 1570 0 998 5 774 0 0 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3406 4893 1633 1638 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3406 4893 1633 1638 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 938 0 0 1707 0 1018 5 790 0 0 27 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 938 0 0 1707 0 509 514 775 0 0 27 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%5%5%5%5%5%5% Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)36.0 36.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 Effective Green, g (s)36.0 36.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1226 1761 882 885 831 845 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.31 c0.50 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.97 0.58 0.58 0.93 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 28.3 31.5 15.4 15.4 21.3 10.8 Progression Factor 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 14.7 2.7 2.8 18.6 0.0 Delay (s)10.7 46.1 18.1 18.2 40.0 10.8 Level of Service B D B B D B Approach Delay (s)10.7 46.1 27.7 10.8 Approach LOS B D C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 31.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1018 484 228 1565 0 58 0 303 286 42 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1393 1447 3303 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1396 1447 3303 3406 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1060 504 238 1630 0 78 0 409 340 50 8 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 318 0 0 0 0 146 188 0 0 7 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1060 186 238 1630 0 70 62 21 340 50 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)33.2 33.2 12.9 50.3 15.8 24.3 8.5 16.4 9.1 9.1 Effective Green, g (s)33.2 33.2 12.9 50.3 15.8 24.3 8.5 16.4 9.1 9.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.56 0.18 0.27 0.09 0.18 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1805 562 473 2735 284 376 137 602 344 154 v/s Ratio Prot 0.22 0.07 c0.33 0.04 0.03 c0.10 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 c0.02 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.33 0.50 0.60 0.25 0.16 0.15 0.56 0.15 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 22.9 20.4 35.6 13.1 32.0 25.1 37.4 33.5 36.9 36.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 1.6 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)24.3 22.0 35.9 14.1 32.1 25.2 37.6 34.8 37.1 36.4 Level of Service C C D B C C D C D D Approach Delay (s)23.5 16.9 31.5 35.1 Approach LOS C B C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.9%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)43 1584 0 0 1228 86 672 817 109 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)45 1667 0 0 1279 90 738 898 120 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 55 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)45 1667 0 0 1287 26 369 1385 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 36.0 29.1 29.1 42.0 42.0 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 36.0 29.1 29.1 42.0 42.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.40 0.32 0.32 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)117 1957 1876 399 644 2640 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.34 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.27 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.85 0.69 0.07 0.57 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 24.6 26.5 21.1 17.5 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 4.9 2.1 0.3 3.7 0.8 Delay (s)43.2 29.5 28.5 21.4 21.2 17.7 Level of Service D C C C C B Approach Delay (s)29.9 28.1 18.4 0.0 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)9 23 0 29 151 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 Frt 0.91 0.85 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot)3299 1470 2842 3502 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm)3299 1470 2842 3502 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 1.00 0.64 0.79 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)12 32 0 45 191 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)15 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)13 1 0 45 191 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Perm Free custom Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases 3 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 3.2 35.3 21.1 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 3.2 35.3 21.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.60 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)299 133 2842 2093 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.02 c0.05 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 14.6 0.0 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay (s)14.7 14.7 0.0 3.0 Level of Service B B A A Approach Delay (s)14.7 0.0 3.0 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 35.3 Sum of lost time (s)5.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 81 343 554 39 1141 0 32 670 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 87 369 596 41 1189 0 34 705 17 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 0 7 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 78 378 251 41 1189 0 34 705 10 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)22.4 22.4 22.4 6.3 63.5 5.4 62.8 62.8 Effective Green, g (s)22.4 22.4 22.4 6.3 63.5 5.4 62.8 62.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.58 0.05 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)316 663 546 189 3559 84 3520 870 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.19 c0.02 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.12 0.09 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.57 0.46 0.22 0.33 0.40 0.20 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 36.7 39.5 38.5 49.5 12.2 50.7 11.4 10.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.3 3.2 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)37.1 40.7 39.1 50.1 12.4 53.9 11.6 10.2 Level of Service D D D D B D B B Approach Delay (s)0.0 39.5 13.7 13.4 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.2%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)56 136 329 0 0 0 0 1428 14 0 582 168 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1715 2682 7249 5959 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1715 2682 7249 5959 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)62 143 366 0 0 0 0 1488 15 0 600 173 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 334 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 40 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)56 149 32 0 0 0 0 1502 0 0 733 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%5%6%5%5%5%6%6%5%5%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)9.5 9.5 9.5 84.5 84.5 Effective Green, g (s)9.5 9.5 9.5 84.5 84.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.77 0.77 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)140 148 232 5569 4578 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.40 1.01 0.14 0.27 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 47.6 50.2 46.5 3.7 3.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 75.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)48.9 126.0 46.7 3.8 3.4 Level of Service D F D A A Approach Delay (s)67.6 0.0 3.8 3.4 Approach LOS E A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1118 1025 0 510 697 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1674 1447 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1674 1447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1202 1152 0 573 783 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 2 2 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1202 1152 0 704 648 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)36.3 36.3 54.1 54.1 Effective Green, g (s)36.3 36.3 54.1 54.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1776 1776 906 783 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.24 0.42 v/s Ratio Perm c0.45 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.65 0.78 0.83 Uniform Delay, d1 26.9 26.5 18.2 19.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 1.8 3.9 6.9 Delay (s)29.0 28.4 22.0 25.9 Level of Service C C C C Approach Delay (s)29.0 28.4 23.9 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.1%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1471 1004 0 949 778 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3244 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3244 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1532 1154 0 1066 874 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 23 23 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1532 1154 0 1305 589 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 7 Permitted Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s)42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s)42.0 42.0 38.0 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.2 1.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2283 2283 1370 585 v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 0.24 0.40 v/s Ratio Perm c0.43 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.51 0.95 1.01 Uniform Delay, d1 18.6 16.8 25.1 26.0 Progression Factor 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.8 14.4 39.1 Delay (s)20.2 13.5 39.5 65.1 Level of Service C B D E Approach Delay (s)20.2 13.5 47.6 Approach LOS C B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.9%ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1001 0 0 755 470 242 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.70 0.70 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph)1032 0 0 1079 566 292 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 15 Lane Group Flow (vph)1032 0 0 1079 566 277 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)50.1 50.1 40.3 40.3 Effective Green, g (s)50.1 50.1 40.3 40.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2451 2451 686 614 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.22 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.44 0.83 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 15.8 16.0 26.7 21.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.6 7.6 0.2 Delay (s)16.3 16.5 34.3 22.0 Level of Service B B C C Approach Delay (s)16.3 16.5 30.1 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1970 0 0 1149 334 1072 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3096 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3096 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)2031 0 0 1368 363 1165 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 4 4 Lane Group Flow (vph)2031 0 0 1368 942 578 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)49.0 49.0 31.0 31.0 Effective Green, g (s)49.0 49.0 31.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3952 3357 1066 477 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.22 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.42 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.41 1.10dr 1.21 Uniform Delay, d1 13.0 12.0 27.8 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 8.6 113.5 Delay (s)13.4 12.4 36.4 143.0 Level of Service B B D F Approach Delay (s)13.4 12.4 77.0 Approach LOS B B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.4%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 937 828 484 1667 0 0 0 0 314 0 356 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0 986 872 515 1773 0 0 0 0 349 0 396 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 80 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1342 131 515 1773 0 0 0 0 349 0 376 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s)30.0 30.0 30.0 65.0 25.0 25.0 Effective Green, g (s)30.0 30.0 30.0 65.0 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.65 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1324 393 511 3180 826 381 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.10 c0.30 0.36 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 v/c Ratio 1.01 0.33 1.01 0.56 0.42 0.99 Uniform Delay, d1 35.0 27.2 35.0 9.6 31.4 37.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.85 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 28.2 0.5 38.7 0.2 0.4 42.1 Delay (s)63.2 27.7 69.7 8.4 31.8 79.4 Level of Service E C E A C E Approach Delay (s)54.9 22.2 0.0 57.1 Approach LOS D C A E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 39.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2011 Baseline AAHC Event & Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 844 0 0 1668 0 998 5 774 0 0 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3406 4893 1633 1638 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3406 4893 1633 1638 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 938 0 0 1813 0 1018 5 790 0 0 27 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 938 0 0 1813 0 509 514 771 0 0 27 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%5%5%5%5%5%5% Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)38.0 38.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s)38.0 38.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1294 1859 849 852 800 814 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.31 c0.50 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.98 0.60 0.60 0.96 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 26.5 30.5 16.7 16.8 23.1 11.7 Progression Factor 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 15.3 3.1 3.2 24.2 0.0 Delay (s)9.0 45.8 19.9 19.9 47.3 11.7 Level of Service A D B B D B Approach Delay (s)9.0 45.8 31.8 11.7 Approach LOS A D C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 896 484 228 1565 0 58 0 255 110 42 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1394 1447 3303 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1398 1447 3303 3406 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)0 933 504 238 1630 0 78 0 345 131 50 8 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 287 0 0 0 0 132 159 0 0 7 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 933 217 238 1630 0 70 45 17 131 50 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)38.7 38.7 13.0 55.9 11.0 19.5 8.5 10.8 8.3 8.3 Effective Green, g (s)38.7 38.7 13.0 55.9 11.0 19.5 8.5 10.8 8.3 8.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.14 0.62 0.12 0.22 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2104 655 477 3039 198 302 137 396 314 141 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 0.07 c0.33 c0.04 0.02 0.04 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.33 0.50 0.54 0.35 0.15 0.12 0.33 0.16 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 18.1 17.0 35.5 9.7 36.2 28.5 37.3 36.3 37.6 37.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.4 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)18.7 18.4 35.8 10.4 36.6 28.6 37.5 36.8 37.9 37.1 Level of Service B B D B D C D D D D Approach Delay (s)18.6 13.6 33.6 37.1 Approach LOS B B C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)43 1236 0 0 1228 86 672 817 109 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)45 1301 0 0 1279 90 738 898 120 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 55 0 7 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)45 1301 0 0 1287 26 369 1380 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 36.0 29.1 29.1 42.0 42.0 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 36.0 29.1 29.1 42.0 42.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.40 0.32 0.32 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)117 1957 1876 399 644 2640 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.27 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.27 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.66 0.69 0.07 0.57 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 22.1 26.5 21.1 17.5 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.8 2.1 0.3 3.7 0.7 Delay (s)43.2 23.9 28.5 21.4 21.2 17.7 Level of Service D C C C C B Approach Delay (s)24.5 28.1 18.4 0.0 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)9 23 0 29 71 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 Frt 0.91 0.85 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot)3299 1470 2842 3502 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm)3299 1470 2842 3502 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 1.00 0.64 0.79 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)12 32 0 45 90 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)15 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)13 1 0 45 90 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Perm Free custom Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases 3 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 3.2 34.7 20.5 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 3.2 34.7 20.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.59 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)304 136 2842 2069 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.02 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 14.4 14.3 0.0 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay (s)14.4 14.4 0.0 3.0 Level of Service B B A A Approach Delay (s)14.4 0.0 3.0 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 34.7 Sum of lost time (s)5.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 81 343 206 39 736 0 32 670 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 87 369 222 41 767 0 34 705 17 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 8 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 78 378 40 41 767 0 34 705 9 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)19.7 19.7 19.7 11.1 66.2 5.4 60.7 60.7 Effective Green, g (s)19.7 19.7 19.7 11.1 66.2 5.4 60.7 60.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.60 0.05 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)278 583 480 333 3711 84 3403 841 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.12 c0.02 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.12 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.65 0.08 0.12 0.21 0.40 0.21 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 41.9 37.6 45.0 10.0 50.7 12.5 11.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 3.2 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)39.6 44.4 37.7 45.2 10.1 53.9 12.6 11.1 Level of Service D D D D B D B B Approach Delay (s)0.0 41.7 11.9 14.4 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)24.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)56 136 329 0 0 0 0 1023 14 0 582 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1715 2682 7245 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1715 2682 7245 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)62 143 366 0 0 0 0 1066 15 0 600 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 213 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)56 149 153 0 0 0 0 1080 0 0 600 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%5%6%5%5%5%6%6%5%5%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)15.4 15.4 15.4 78.6 78.6 Effective Green, g (s)15.4 15.4 15.4 78.6 78.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.71 0.71 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)227 240 375 5177 4406 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.62 0.41 0.21 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 42.1 44.6 43.1 5.3 5.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 4.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)42.5 48.8 43.7 5.4 5.0 Level of Service D D D A A Approach Delay (s)44.9 0.0 5.4 5.0 Approach LOS D A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1069 1102 0 732 822 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1689 1447 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1689 1447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1149 1238 0 822 924 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1149 1238 0 913 831 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)30.0 30.0 60.4 60.4 Effective Green, g (s)30.0 30.0 60.4 60.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1468 1468 1020 874 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 c0.25 0.54 v/s Ratio Perm c0.57 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.84 0.89 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 32.8 17.1 18.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 6.1 10.0 19.3 Delay (s)36.3 38.9 27.0 37.7 Level of Service D D C D Approach Delay (s)36.3 38.9 32.1 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 35.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1647 863 0 575 597 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3214 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3214 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1716 992 0 646 671 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 39 39 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1716 992 0 862 377 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 7 Permitted Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s)50.1 50.1 29.9 29.9 Effective Green, g (s)50.1 50.1 29.9 29.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.2 1.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2724 2724 1068 460 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.20 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.36 0.81 0.82 Uniform Delay, d1 13.6 11.1 27.4 27.6 Progression Factor 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.4 4.3 10.3 Delay (s)14.7 9.0 31.7 37.9 Level of Service B A C D Approach Delay (s)14.7 9.0 33.7 Approach LOS B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.5%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1252 0 0 827 498 314 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.70 0.70 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph)1291 0 0 1181 600 378 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 5 Lane Group Flow (vph)1291 0 0 1181 600 373 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)48.1 48.1 42.3 42.3 Effective Green, g (s)48.1 48.1 42.3 42.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2354 2354 720 645 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.24 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.50 0.83 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 18.3 17.8 25.7 22.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.8 7.9 0.8 Delay (s)19.2 18.5 33.6 22.8 Level of Service B B C C Approach Delay (s)19.2 18.5 29.4 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1820 0 0 912 320 1272 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3079 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3079 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)1876 0 0 1086 348 1383 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 7 7 Lane Group Flow (vph)1876 0 0 1086 1033 684 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)49.0 49.0 31.0 31.0 Effective Green, g (s)49.0 49.0 31.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3952 3357 1061 477 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.18 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm c0.49 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.32 1.30dr 1.43 Uniform Delay, d1 12.6 11.3 29.1 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 21.3 207.4 Delay (s)13.0 11.6 50.4 236.9 Level of Service B B D F Approach Delay (s)13.0 11.6 124.9 Approach LOS B B F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 53.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.9%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 937 828 484 1626 0 0 0 0 314 0 356 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0 986 872 515 1730 0 0 0 0 349 0 396 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 80 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1342 131 515 1730 0 0 0 0 349 0 374 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s)30.0 30.0 30.0 65.0 25.0 25.0 Effective Green, g (s)30.0 30.0 30.0 65.0 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.65 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1324 393 511 3180 826 381 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.10 c0.30 0.35 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 v/c Ratio 1.01 0.33 1.01 0.54 0.42 0.98 Uniform Delay, d1 35.0 27.2 35.0 9.5 31.4 37.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.86 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 28.2 0.5 38.9 0.2 0.4 40.7 Delay (s)63.2 27.7 69.8 8.4 31.8 78.0 Level of Service E C E A C E Approach Delay (s)54.9 22.5 0.0 56.3 Approach LOS D C A E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2011 Baseline with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 844 0 0 1627 0 998 5 774 0 0 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3406 4893 1633 1638 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3406 4893 1633 1638 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 938 0 0 1768 0 1018 5 790 0 0 27 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 938 0 0 1768 0 509 514 773 0 0 27 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%5%5%5%5%5%5% Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)37.0 37.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 Effective Green, g (s)37.0 37.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1260 1810 865 868 815 829 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.31 c0.50 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.98 0.59 0.59 0.95 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 31.1 16.1 16.1 22.2 11.2 Progression Factor 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 15.8 2.9 3.0 21.2 0.0 Delay (s)9.7 46.9 19.0 19.1 43.5 11.3 Level of Service A D B B D B Approach Delay (s)9.7 46.9 29.7 11.3 Approach LOS A D C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1108 484 228 1565 0 58 0 340 322 42 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1392 1447 3303 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1395 1447 3303 3406 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1154 504 238 1630 0 78 0 459 383 50 8 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 323 0 0 0 0 162 171 0 0 7 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1154 181 238 1630 0 70 71 63 383 50 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)32.3 32.3 12.6 49.1 16.8 25.3 8.5 17.6 9.3 9.3 Effective Green, g (s)32.3 32.3 12.6 49.1 16.8 25.3 8.5 17.6 9.3 9.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.14 0.55 0.19 0.28 0.09 0.20 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1756 547 462 2669 302 392 137 646 352 157 v/s Ratio Prot 0.24 0.07 c0.33 0.04 0.03 c0.12 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.02 c0.04 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.33 0.52 0.61 0.23 0.18 0.46 0.59 0.14 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 24.2 21.0 35.9 13.9 31.1 24.5 38.6 32.9 36.7 36.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 1.6 0.4 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 1.5 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)26.1 22.6 36.3 15.0 31.3 24.6 39.5 34.4 36.9 36.2 Level of Service C C D B C C D C D D Approach Delay (s)25.1 17.7 31.9 34.7 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.9%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)43 1745 0 0 1228 86 672 817 109 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)45 1837 0 0 1279 90 738 898 120 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 55 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)45 1837 0 0 1287 26 369 1386 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 36.0 29.1 29.1 42.0 42.0 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 36.0 29.1 29.1 42.0 42.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.40 0.32 0.32 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)117 1957 1876 399 644 2640 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.38 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.27 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.94 0.69 0.07 0.57 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 25.9 26.5 21.1 17.5 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 10.3 2.1 0.3 3.7 0.8 Delay (s)43.2 36.2 28.5 21.4 21.2 17.7 Level of Service D D C C C B Approach Delay (s)36.4 28.1 18.4 0.0 Approach LOS D C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.8%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)9 23 0 29 171 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 Frt 0.91 0.85 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot)3299 1470 2842 3502 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm)3299 1470 2842 3502 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 1.00 0.64 0.79 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph)12 32 0 45 216 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)15 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)13 1 0 45 216 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Perm Free custom Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases 3 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 3.2 35.4 21.2 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 3.2 35.4 21.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.60 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)298 133 2842 2097 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.02 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 14.7 0.0 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay (s)14.8 14.7 0.0 3.1 Level of Service B B A A Approach Delay (s)14.8 0.0 3.1 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 35.4 Sum of lost time (s)5.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 81 343 554 39 1183 0 32 670 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 87 369 596 41 1232 0 34 705 17 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 365 0 0 0 0 0 8 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 78 378 231 41 1232 0 34 705 9 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)22.4 22.4 22.4 9.3 63.5 5.4 59.8 59.8 Effective Green, g (s)22.4 22.4 22.4 9.3 63.5 5.4 59.8 59.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.58 0.05 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)316 663 546 279 3559 84 3352 829 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.20 c0.02 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.12 0.09 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.57 0.42 0.15 0.35 0.40 0.21 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 36.7 39.5 38.2 46.7 12.3 50.7 12.9 11.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 3.2 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)37.1 40.7 38.7 46.9 12.6 53.9 13.1 11.5 Level of Service D D D D B D B B Approach Delay (s)0.0 39.3 13.7 14.9 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)24.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)56 136 329 0 0 0 0 1470 14 0 582 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1715 2682 7250 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1715 2682 7250 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)62 143 366 0 0 0 0 1531 15 0 600 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 334 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)56 149 32 0 0 0 0 1545 0 0 600 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%5%6%5%5%5%6%6%5%5%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)9.5 9.5 9.5 84.5 84.5 Effective Green, g (s)9.5 9.5 9.5 84.5 84.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.77 0.77 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)140 148 232 5569 4737 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.40 1.01 0.14 0.28 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 47.6 50.2 46.5 3.8 3.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 75.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)48.9 126.0 46.7 3.9 3.3 Level of Service D F D A A Approach Delay (s)67.6 0.0 3.9 3.3 Approach LOS E A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1124 1102 0 732 822 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1689 1447 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1689 1447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1209 1238 0 822 924 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1209 1238 0 913 831 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)30.0 30.0 60.4 60.4 Effective Green, g (s)30.0 30.0 60.4 60.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1468 1468 1020 874 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.25 0.54 v/s Ratio Perm c0.57 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.84 0.89 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 32.5 32.8 17.1 18.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 6.1 10.0 19.3 Delay (s)37.9 38.9 27.0 37.7 Level of Service D D C D Approach Delay (s)37.9 38.9 32.1 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 35.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.0%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1808 1079 0 1112 854 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3251 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3251 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1883 1240 0 1249 960 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 15 15 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1883 1240 0 1503 676 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 7 Permitted Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s)41.0 41.0 39.0 39.0 Effective Green, g (s)41.0 41.0 39.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.2 1.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2229 2229 1409 601 v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 0.25 0.46 v/s Ratio Perm c0.49 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.56 1.07 1.12 Uniform Delay, d1 21.7 17.9 25.5 25.5 Progression Factor 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 1.0 43.9 75.9 Delay (s)25.8 14.5 69.4 101.4 Level of Service C B E F Approach Delay (s)25.8 14.5 79.4 Approach LOS C B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.3%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1252 0 0 827 498 314 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.70 0.70 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph)1291 0 0 1181 600 378 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 5 Lane Group Flow (vph)1291 0 0 1181 600 373 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)48.1 48.1 42.3 42.3 Effective Green, g (s)48.1 48.1 42.3 42.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2354 2354 720 645 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.24 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.50 0.83 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 18.3 17.8 25.7 22.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.8 7.9 0.8 Delay (s)19.2 18.5 33.6 22.8 Level of Service B B C C Approach Delay (s)19.2 18.5 29.4 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2460 0 0 1149 372 1492 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3078 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3078 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)2536 0 0 1368 404 1622 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)2536 0 0 1368 1214 810 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)49.0 49.0 31.0 31.0 Effective Green, g (s)49.0 49.0 31.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3952 3357 1060 477 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.22 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm c0.58 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.41 1.54dr 1.70 Uniform Delay, d1 14.4 12.0 29.5 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.4 76.7 322.8 Delay (s)15.2 12.4 106.2 352.3 Level of Service B B F F Approach Delay (s)15.2 12.4 204.7 Approach LOS B B F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 79.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.4%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 937 828 484 1724 0 0 0 0 314 0 356 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0 986 872 515 1834 0 0 0 0 349 0 396 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 80 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1342 126 515 1834 0 0 0 0 349 0 378 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s)29.0 29.0 31.0 65.0 25.0 25.0 Effective Green, g (s)29.0 29.0 31.0 65.0 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.65 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1279 380 528 3180 826 381 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.10 c0.30 0.37 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.33 0.98 0.58 0.42 0.99 Uniform Delay, d1 35.5 27.9 34.1 9.8 31.4 37.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.84 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 39.3 0.5 29.5 0.2 0.4 43.8 Delay (s)74.8 28.4 59.6 8.4 31.8 81.2 Level of Service E C E A C F Approach Delay (s)63.9 19.6 0.0 58.1 Approach LOS E B A E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 844 0 0 1725 0 998 5 774 0 0 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3406 4893 1633 1638 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3406 4893 1633 1638 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 938 0 0 1875 0 1018 5 790 0 0 27 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 938 0 0 1875 0 509 514 769 0 0 27 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%5%5%5%5%5%5% Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)39.0 39.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 Effective Green, g (s)39.0 39.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1328 1908 833 835 784 798 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.31 c0.50 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.98 0.61 0.62 0.98 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 30.2 17.4 17.5 24.0 12.2 Progression Factor 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 16.6 3.3 3.4 27.8 0.0 Delay (s)8.3 46.7 20.8 20.9 51.8 12.2 Level of Service A D C C D B Approach Delay (s)8.3 46.7 34.3 12.2 Approach LOS A D C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 34.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX H-2: CALTRANS RAMP TERMINI SYNCHRO WORKSHEETS UNDER 2013 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 740 530 250 1720 0 60 0 180 20 50 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1397 1447 3303 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.87 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1222 1447 3303 3406 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 779 558 263 1811 0 63 0 189 21 53 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 238 0 0 0 0 82 85 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 779 320 263 1811 0 57 17 11 21 53 1 Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)51.6 51.6 6.0 61.8 4.4 10.7 10.7 2.7 9.0 9.0 Effective Green, g (s)51.6 51.6 6.0 61.8 4.4 10.7 10.7 2.7 9.0 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.07 0.69 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2805 874 220 3360 79 154 172 99 341 152 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.08 c0.37 c0.04 0.01 0.01 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.37 1.20 0.54 0.72 0.11 0.07 0.21 0.16 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 9.7 10.4 42.0 7.0 42.2 35.4 35.2 42.6 37.0 36.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.2 121.1 0.6 23.8 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)10.0 11.6 156.1 6.0 66.0 35.5 35.3 43.7 37.2 36.5 Level of Service A B F A E D D D D D Approach Delay (s)10.6 25.1 42.3 38.7 Approach LOS B C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 920 0 0 1350 90 740 900 120 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 968 0 0 1421 95 779 947 126 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 56 0 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 968 0 0 1430 29 389 1447 0 0 0 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 38.0 31.1 31.1 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 38.0 31.1 31.1 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)117 2066 2005 426 613 2514 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.20 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.28 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.47 0.71 0.07 0.63 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 42.5 18.7 25.6 19.7 19.3 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.8 2.2 0.3 5.0 1.0 Delay (s)43.6 19.5 27.8 20.1 24.3 19.6 Level of Service D B C C C B Approach Delay (s)20.7 27.3 20.6 0.0 Approach LOS C C C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)10 30 0 30 20 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 Frt 0.91 0.85 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot)3291 1470 2842 3502 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm)3291 1470 2842 3502 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)11 32 0 32 21 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)15 15 0 29 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)12 1 0 3 21 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases 3 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s)1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Effective Green, g (s)1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)293 131 253 312 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 c0.01 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Delay (s)6.2 6.1 6.1 6.2 Level of Service A A A A Approach Delay (s)6.1 6.1 6.2 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 14.6 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 90 380 230 40 690 0 40 740 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 95 400 242 42 726 0 42 779 21 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 85 410 46 42 726 0 42 779 12 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)21.1 21.1 21.1 5.7 64.5 5.7 64.7 64.7 Effective Green, g (s)21.1 21.1 21.1 5.7 64.5 5.7 64.7 64.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.59 0.05 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)297 625 514 171 3616 88 3627 896 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.12 c0.02 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.66 0.09 0.25 0.20 0.48 0.21 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 38.0 41.1 36.6 50.1 10.7 50.7 10.7 9.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 2.5 0.1 0.8 0.1 4.0 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)38.5 43.6 36.6 50.8 10.8 54.7 10.8 9.4 Level of Service D D D D B D B A Approach Delay (s)0.0 40.7 13.0 13.0 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)17.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)60 150 360 0 0 0 0 1010 20 0 640 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1700 2682 7238 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1700 2682 7238 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)63 158 379 0 0 0 0 1063 21 0 674 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 218 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)57 164 161 0 0 0 0 1083 0 0 674 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)16.7 16.7 16.7 77.3 77.3 Effective Green, g (s)16.7 16.7 16.7 77.3 77.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.70 0.70 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)246 258 407 5086 4333 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.10 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.64 0.40 0.21 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 41.0 43.8 42.1 5.7 5.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 4.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)41.4 48.2 42.6 5.8 5.5 Level of Service D D D A A Approach Delay (s)44.0 0.0 5.8 5.5 Approach LOS D A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.6%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1160 1000 190 200 560 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.98 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4776 1620 1447 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4776 1620 1447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1221 1053 200 211 589 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 23 0 29 29 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1221 1230 0 382 360 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)53.1 53.1 27.3 27.3 Effective Green, g (s)53.1 53.1 27.3 27.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2887 2818 491 439 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.26 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.44 0.78 0.82 Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 10.2 28.6 29.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.5 7.0 11.2 Delay (s)10.5 10.7 35.6 40.3 Level of Service B B D D Approach Delay (s)10.5 10.7 37.9 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.7%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 890 740 0 190 450 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3123 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3123 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 937 779 0 200 474 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 96 96 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 937 779 0 341 141 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 7 Permitted Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s)65.7 65.7 14.3 14.3 Effective Green, g (s)65.7 65.7 14.3 14.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.73 0.73 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.2 1.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3572 3572 496 220 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.16 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.22 0.69 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 4.1 3.9 35.7 35.4 Progression Factor 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 3.2 4.7 Delay (s)4.2 3.3 38.9 40.2 Level of Service A A D D Approach Delay (s)4.2 3.3 39.3 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.2%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)690 0 0 710 470 150 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)726 0 0 747 495 158 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 30 Lane Group Flow (vph)726 0 0 747 495 128 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)46.9 46.9 33.5 33.5 Effective Green, g (s)46.9 46.9 33.5 33.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2550 2550 634 567 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.15 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.29 0.78 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 12.2 25.0 19.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 5.7 0.1 Delay (s)12.4 12.5 30.7 19.4 Level of Service B B C B Approach Delay (s)12.4 12.5 28.0 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)670 0 0 1010 250 260 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3214 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3214 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)705 0 0 1063 263 274 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 71 142 Lane Group Flow (vph)705 0 0 1063 296 28 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)67.7 67.7 12.3 12.3 Effective Green, g (s)67.7 67.7 12.3 12.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5460 4638 439 189 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.17 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.23 0.67 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 3.1 3.3 36.9 34.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.1 Delay (s)3.1 3.5 40.2 34.4 Level of Service A A D C Approach Delay (s)3.1 3.5 38.3 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.30 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1030 910 530 1630 0 0 0 0 350 0 390 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1084 958 558 1716 0 0 0 0 368 0 411 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 66 315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1497 164 558 1716 0 0 0 0 368 0 380 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s)41.0 41.0 38.0 84.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s)41.0 41.0 38.0 84.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.70 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1507 448 539 3425 716 330 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.12 c0.33 0.35 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 v/c Ratio 0.99 0.37 1.04 0.50 0.51 1.15 Uniform Delay, d1 39.4 29.7 41.0 8.3 41.4 47.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.86 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 21.4 0.5 45.4 0.1 0.6 96.9 Delay (s)60.8 30.2 81.5 7.2 42.1 143.9 Level of Service E C F A D F Approach Delay (s)53.6 25.4 0.0 95.8 Approach LOS D C A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 47.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2013 Opening Year No Events - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 930 0 0 1630 0 1100 10 850 0 0 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3438 4940 1633 1639 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3438 4940 1633 1639 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 979 0 0 1716 0 1158 11 895 0 0 32 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 979 0 0 1716 0 579 590 886 0 0 32 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5% Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)41.0 41.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 Effective Green, g (s)41.0 41.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1175 1688 939 942 884 900 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.36 c0.58 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.83 1.02 0.62 0.63 1.00 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 36.4 39.5 16.8 16.9 25.5 11.1 Progression Factor 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 26.1 3.0 3.1 30.7 0.0 Delay (s)13.9 65.6 19.8 20.1 56.2 11.1 Level of Service B E B C E B Approach Delay (s)13.9 65.6 35.7 11.1 Approach LOS B E D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 41.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 870 530 250 1720 0 60 0 230 70 50 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1395 1447 3303 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1396 1447 3303 3406 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 916 558 263 1811 0 63 0 242 74 53 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 234 0 0 0 0 110 114 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 916 324 263 1811 0 57 15 9 74 53 1 Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)52.2 52.2 6.0 62.4 4.4 6.5 6.5 6.3 8.4 8.4 Effective Green, g (s)52.2 52.2 6.0 62.4 4.4 6.5 6.5 6.3 8.4 8.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.69 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2838 884 220 3392 79 101 105 231 318 142 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.08 c0.37 c0.04 0.01 c0.02 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.37 1.20 0.53 0.72 0.14 0.08 0.32 0.17 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 9.8 10.1 42.0 6.7 42.2 39.1 39.0 39.8 37.6 37.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.2 121.1 0.6 23.8 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)10.1 11.2 156.0 5.8 66.0 39.4 39.1 40.6 37.8 37.0 Level of Service B B F A E D D D D D Approach Delay (s)10.5 24.9 44.2 39.3 Approach LOS B C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 1160 0 0 1350 90 740 900 120 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 1221 0 0 1421 95 779 947 126 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 56 0 12 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 1221 0 0 1430 29 389 1451 0 0 0 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 38.0 31.1 31.1 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 38.0 31.1 31.1 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)117 2066 2005 426 613 2514 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.25 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.28 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.59 0.71 0.07 0.63 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 42.5 20.0 25.6 19.7 19.3 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.3 2.2 0.3 5.0 1.0 Delay (s)43.6 21.3 27.8 20.1 24.3 19.7 Level of Service D C C C C B Approach Delay (s)22.2 27.3 20.6 0.0 Approach LOS C C C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)10 30 0 30 50 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 Frt 0.91 0.85 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot)3291 1470 2842 3502 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm)3291 1470 2842 3502 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)11 32 0 32 53 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)15 15 0 26 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)12 1 0 6 53 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases 3 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s)1.4 1.4 3.2 3.2 Effective Green, g (s)1.4 1.4 3.2 3.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)278 124 548 675 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 c0.02 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 7.0 7.0 5.4 5.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Delay (s)7.1 7.0 5.4 5.6 Level of Service A A A A Approach Delay (s)7.1 5.4 5.6 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 16.6 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 90 380 230 40 750 0 40 740 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 95 400 242 42 789 0 42 779 21 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 85 410 46 42 789 0 42 779 12 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)21.1 21.1 21.1 8.1 64.5 5.7 62.3 62.3 Effective Green, g (s)21.1 21.1 21.1 8.1 64.5 5.7 62.3 62.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.59 0.05 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)297 625 514 243 3616 88 3492 863 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.13 c0.02 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.66 0.09 0.17 0.22 0.48 0.22 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 38.0 41.1 36.6 47.8 10.8 50.7 11.8 10.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 2.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 4.0 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)38.5 43.6 36.6 48.1 10.9 54.7 12.0 10.5 Level of Service D D D D B D B B Approach Delay (s)0.0 40.7 12.8 14.1 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.3%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)60 150 360 0 0 0 0 1070 20 0 640 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1700 2682 7239 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1700 2682 7239 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)63 158 379 0 0 0 0 1126 21 0 674 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 170 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)57 164 209 0 0 0 0 1146 0 0 674 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)16.8 16.8 16.8 77.2 77.2 Effective Green, g (s)16.8 16.8 16.8 77.2 77.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.70 0.70 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)247 260 410 5080 4327 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.10 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.63 0.51 0.23 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 40.9 43.7 42.8 5.8 5.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 4.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)41.3 48.0 43.5 5.9 5.6 Level of Service D D D A A Approach Delay (s)44.5 0.0 5.9 5.6 Approach LOS D A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.30 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.6%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1170 1110 0 530 750 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1670 1447 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1670 1447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1232 1168 0 558 789 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 15 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1232 1168 0 697 624 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 Effective Green, g (s)40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2186 2186 746 646 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.24 0.42 v/s Ratio Perm c0.43 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.53 0.93 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 18.4 18.1 23.6 24.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.9 18.5 26.6 Delay (s)19.5 19.0 42.1 50.8 Level of Service B B D D Approach Delay (s)19.5 19.0 46.2 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.2%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1390 850 0 430 560 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3186 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3186 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1463 895 0 453 589 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 59 59 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1463 895 0 653 271 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 7 Permitted Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s)56.5 56.5 23.5 23.5 Effective Green, g (s)56.5 56.5 23.5 23.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.2 1.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3072 3072 832 362 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.18 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.29 0.78 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 8.9 7.6 30.9 30.5 Progression Factor 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 4.5 7.2 Delay (s)9.4 5.7 35.4 37.8 Level of Service A A D D Approach Delay (s)9.4 5.7 36.2 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1060 0 0 710 510 260 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)1116 0 0 747 537 274 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 5 Lane Group Flow (vph)1116 0 0 747 537 269 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)44.4 44.4 36.0 36.0 Effective Green, g (s)44.4 44.4 36.0 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2414 2414 681 610 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.15 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.31 0.79 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 15.0 13.6 23.7 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.3 5.6 0.2 Delay (s)15.6 14.0 29.3 19.9 Level of Service B B C B Approach Delay (s)15.6 14.0 26.1 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1390 0 0 1010 310 880 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3107 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3107 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)1463 0 0 1063 326 926 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 12 12 Lane Group Flow (vph)1463 0 0 1063 777 451 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)47.8 47.8 32.2 32.2 Effective Green, g (s)47.8 47.8 32.2 32.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3855 3275 1112 496 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.17 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.32 0.70 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 12.4 12.0 24.8 27.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 1.6 20.5 Delay (s)12.7 12.2 26.3 48.0 Level of Service B B C D Approach Delay (s)12.7 12.2 34.3 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1030 910 530 1710 0 0 0 0 350 0 390 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1084 958 558 1800 0 0 0 0 368 0 411 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 67 319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1496 160 558 1800 0 0 0 0 368 0 386 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s)40.0 40.0 38.0 83.0 27.0 27.0 Effective Green, g (s)40.0 40.0 38.0 83.0 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.69 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1471 437 539 3384 743 343 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.12 c0.33 0.37 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 v/c Ratio 1.02 0.37 1.04 0.53 0.50 1.13 Uniform Delay, d1 40.0 30.4 41.0 9.0 40.6 46.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.83 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 27.9 0.5 45.0 0.1 0.5 87.2 Delay (s)67.9 30.9 80.9 7.6 41.1 133.7 Level of Service E C F A D F Approach Delay (s)59.2 24.9 0.0 89.9 Approach LOS E C A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2013 Opening Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 930 0 0 1710 0 1100 10 850 0 0 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3438 4940 1633 1639 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3438 4940 1633 1639 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 979 0 0 1800 0 1158 11 895 0 0 32 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 979 0 0 1800 0 579 590 885 0 0 32 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5% Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)42.0 42.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 Effective Green, g (s)42.0 42.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1203 1729 925 929 872 887 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.36 c0.58 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.81 1.04 0.63 0.64 1.01 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 39.0 17.5 17.6 26.0 11.5 Progression Factor 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 33.2 3.2 3.3 34.1 0.0 Delay (s)12.3 72.2 20.7 20.9 60.1 11.5 Level of Service B E C C E B Approach Delay (s)12.3 72.2 37.8 11.5 Approach LOS B E D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1080 530 250 1720 0 60 0 320 280 50 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1393 1447 3303 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1375 1447 3303 3406 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1137 558 263 1811 0 63 0 337 295 53 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 284 0 0 0 0 153 160 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1137 274 263 1811 0 57 18 12 295 53 2 Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)44.2 44.2 6.0 54.4 4.4 6.5 6.5 14.3 16.4 16.4 Effective Green, g (s)44.2 44.2 6.0 54.4 4.4 6.5 6.5 14.3 16.4 16.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.07 0.60 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2403 748 220 2958 79 100 105 525 621 278 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 c0.08 c0.37 c0.04 0.01 c0.09 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.37 1.20 0.61 0.72 0.18 0.12 0.56 0.09 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 15.2 14.2 42.0 11.2 42.2 39.2 39.1 35.0 30.6 30.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.4 121.1 0.9 23.8 0.3 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)15.9 15.6 156.0 9.7 66.0 39.6 39.3 36.3 30.6 30.1 Level of Service B B F A E D D D C C Approach Delay (s)15.8 28.2 43.2 35.3 Approach LOS B C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.0%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 1670 0 0 1350 90 740 900 120 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 1758 0 0 1421 95 779 947 126 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 56 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 1758 0 0 1430 29 389 1461 0 0 0 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 38.0 31.1 31.1 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 38.0 31.1 31.1 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)117 2066 2005 426 613 2514 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.36 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.28 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.85 0.71 0.07 0.63 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 42.5 23.4 25.6 19.7 19.3 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 4.7 2.2 0.3 5.0 1.0 Delay (s)43.6 28.1 27.8 20.1 24.3 19.7 Level of Service D C C C C B Approach Delay (s)28.5 27.3 20.7 0.0 Approach LOS C C C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)10 30 0 150 50 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 Frt 0.91 0.85 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot)3291 1470 2842 3502 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm)3291 1470 2842 3502 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)11 32 0 158 53 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)15 15 0 126 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)12 1 0 32 53 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases 3 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s)1.2 1.2 3.4 3.4 Effective Green, g (s)1.2 1.2 3.4 3.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)238 106 582 717 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 c0.02 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 7.2 7.1 5.3 5.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)7.3 7.2 5.4 5.4 Level of Service A A A A Approach Delay (s)7.3 5.4 5.4 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.7 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 16.6 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 90 380 230 40 1200 0 40 740 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 95 400 242 42 1263 0 42 779 21 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 202 0 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 85 410 40 42 1263 0 42 779 11 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)18.1 18.1 18.1 18.3 67.5 5.7 55.1 55.1 Effective Green, g (s)18.1 18.1 18.1 18.3 67.5 5.7 55.1 55.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.61 0.05 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)255 536 441 549 3784 88 3089 763 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.20 c0.02 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.76 0.09 0.08 0.33 0.48 0.25 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 40.6 43.9 39.0 38.7 10.3 50.7 15.7 13.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 6.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 4.0 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)41.4 50.3 39.1 38.8 10.6 54.7 15.9 13.8 Level of Service D D D D B D B B Approach Delay (s)0.0 45.6 11.5 17.8 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)60 150 360 0 0 0 0 1520 20 0 640 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1700 2682 7245 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1700 2682 7245 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)63 158 379 0 0 0 0 1600 21 0 674 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)57 164 375 0 0 0 0 1620 0 0 674 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)22.5 22.5 22.5 71.5 71.5 Effective Green, g (s)22.5 22.5 22.5 71.5 71.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.65 0.65 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)331 348 549 4709 4008 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.10 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.47 0.68 0.34 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 36.1 38.5 40.5 8.7 7.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.7 3.2 0.2 0.1 Delay (s)36.3 39.2 43.7 8.9 7.7 Level of Service D D D A A Approach Delay (s)41.8 0.0 8.9 7.7 Approach LOS D A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.6%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1230 1110 0 530 750 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1670 1447 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1670 1447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1295 1168 0 558 789 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 15 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1295 1168 0 697 624 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 Effective Green, g (s)40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2186 2186 746 646 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.24 0.42 v/s Ratio Perm c0.43 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.53 0.93 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 18.7 18.1 23.6 24.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.9 18.5 26.6 Delay (s)19.9 19.0 42.1 50.8 Level of Service B B D D Approach Delay (s)19.9 19.0 46.2 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.4%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1550 1070 0 970 820 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3239 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3239 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1632 1126 0 1021 863 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 23 23 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1632 1126 0 1274 564 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 7 Permitted Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s)42.1 42.1 37.9 37.9 Effective Green, g (s)42.1 42.1 37.9 37.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.2 1.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2289 2289 1364 584 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.23 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm c0.41 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.49 0.93 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 16.6 24.9 25.4 Progression Factor 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.7 11.7 28.5 Delay (s)21.0 12.4 36.6 54.0 Level of Service C B D D Approach Delay (s)21.0 12.4 42.0 Approach LOS C B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.2%ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1060 0 0 820 510 260 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)1116 0 0 863 537 274 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 5 Lane Group Flow (vph)1116 0 0 863 537 269 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)44.4 44.4 36.0 36.0 Effective Green, g (s)44.4 44.4 36.0 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2414 2414 681 610 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.18 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.36 0.79 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 15.0 14.0 23.7 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.4 5.6 0.2 Delay (s)15.6 14.4 29.3 19.9 Level of Service B B C B Approach Delay (s)15.6 14.4 26.1 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2030 0 0 1240 360 1100 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3101 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3101 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)2137 0 0 1305 379 1158 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 3 3 Lane Group Flow (vph)2137 0 0 1305 955 576 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)47.0 47.0 33.0 33.0 Effective Green, g (s)47.0 47.0 33.0 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3791 3220 1137 508 v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 0.21 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm c0.42 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.41 1.03dr 1.13 Uniform Delay, d1 14.6 13.0 26.1 28.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.4 5.5 82.6 Delay (s)15.2 13.4 31.6 111.1 Level of Service B B C F Approach Delay (s)15.2 13.4 61.5 Approach LOS B B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.3%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1030 910 530 1030 0 0 0 0 350 0 390 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1084 958 558 1084 0 0 0 0 368 0 411 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 65 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1498 155 558 1084 0 0 0 0 368 0 305 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s)38.9 38.9 40.0 83.9 26.1 26.1 Effective Green, g (s)38.9 38.9 40.0 83.9 26.1 26.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.70 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1430 425 568 3421 718 331 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.12 c0.33 0.22 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.37 0.98 0.32 0.51 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 40.5 31.1 39.7 7.0 41.3 46.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 37.3 0.5 21.5 0.0 0.6 30.2 Delay (s)77.9 31.6 53.4 5.6 42.0 76.2 Level of Service E C D A D E Approach Delay (s)67.0 21.8 0.0 60.0 Approach LOS E C A E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 49.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2013 Opening Year AAHC Event&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 930 0 0 1810 0 1100 10 850 0 0 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3438 4940 1633 1639 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3438 4940 1633 1639 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 979 0 0 1905 0 1158 11 895 0 0 32 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 979 0 0 1905 0 579 590 882 0 0 32 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5% Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)44.0 44.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 Effective Green, g (s)44.0 44.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1261 1811 898 901 846 861 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.36 c0.57 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.78 1.05 0.64 0.65 1.04 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 33.6 38.0 18.8 19.0 27.0 12.4 Progression Factor 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 36.3 3.6 3.7 42.6 0.0 Delay (s)9.6 74.3 22.4 22.7 69.6 12.4 Level of Service A E C C E B Approach Delay (s)9.6 74.3 42.9 12.4 Approach LOS A E D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 960 530 250 1720 0 60 0 270 110 50 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1394 1447 3303 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1385 1447 3303 3406 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1011 558 263 1811 0 63 0 284 116 53 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 241 0 0 0 0 129 135 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1011 317 263 1811 0 57 16 10 116 53 1 Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)51.2 51.2 6.0 61.4 4.4 6.5 6.5 7.3 9.4 9.4 Effective Green, g (s)51.2 51.2 6.0 61.4 4.4 6.5 6.5 7.3 9.4 9.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.07 0.68 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2784 867 220 3338 79 100 105 268 356 159 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.08 c0.37 c0.04 0.01 c0.04 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.37 1.20 0.54 0.72 0.16 0.10 0.43 0.15 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 10.5 10.6 42.0 7.2 42.2 39.2 39.0 39.4 36.7 36.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.2 121.1 0.6 23.8 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)10.9 11.8 156.0 6.2 66.0 39.5 39.2 40.5 36.9 36.1 Level of Service B B F A E D D D D D Approach Delay (s)11.2 25.2 43.7 39.2 Approach LOS B C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 1320 0 0 1350 90 740 900 120 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 1389 0 0 1421 95 779 947 126 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 56 0 7 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 1389 0 0 1430 29 389 1456 0 0 0 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 38.0 31.1 31.1 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 38.0 31.1 31.1 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)117 2066 2005 426 613 2514 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.28 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.28 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.67 0.71 0.07 0.63 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 42.5 21.0 25.6 19.7 19.3 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.8 2.2 0.3 5.0 1.0 Delay (s)43.6 22.7 27.8 20.1 24.3 19.7 Level of Service D C C C C B Approach Delay (s)23.5 27.3 20.7 0.0 Approach LOS C C C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.6%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)10 30 0 30 70 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 Frt 0.91 0.85 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot)3291 1470 2842 3502 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm)3291 1470 2842 3502 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)11 32 0 32 74 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)15 15 0 26 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)12 1 0 6 74 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases 3 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s)1.4 1.4 3.3 3.3 Effective Green, g (s)1.4 1.4 3.3 3.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)276 123 562 692 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 c0.02 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 7.0 7.0 5.4 5.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Delay (s)7.1 7.1 5.4 5.6 Level of Service A A A A Approach Delay (s)7.1 5.4 5.6 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.09 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 16.7 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 90 380 230 40 800 0 40 740 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 95 400 242 42 842 0 42 779 21 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 85 410 46 42 842 0 42 779 12 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)20.9 20.9 20.9 9.9 64.7 5.7 60.7 60.7 Effective Green, g (s)20.9 20.9 20.9 9.9 64.7 5.7 60.7 60.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.59 0.05 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)295 619 510 297 3627 88 3403 841 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 c0.02 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.66 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.48 0.23 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 38.2 41.3 36.7 46.1 10.8 50.7 12.6 11.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 2.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 4.0 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)38.7 43.9 36.8 46.4 11.0 54.7 12.8 11.2 Level of Service D D D D B D B B Approach Delay (s)0.0 41.0 12.6 14.9 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)60 150 360 0 0 0 0 1120 20 0 640 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1700 2682 7240 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1700 2682 7240 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)63 158 379 0 0 0 0 1179 21 0 674 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 143 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)57 164 236 0 0 0 0 1199 0 0 674 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)16.9 16.9 16.9 77.1 77.1 Effective Green, g (s)16.9 16.9 16.9 77.1 77.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.70 0.70 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)249 261 412 5075 4322 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.10 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.63 0.57 0.24 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 40.8 43.6 43.2 5.9 5.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 4.1 1.6 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)41.2 47.7 44.8 6.0 5.6 Level of Service D D D A A Approach Delay (s)45.2 0.0 6.0 5.6 Approach LOS D A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.6%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1170 1170 0 750 870 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1686 1447 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1686 1447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1232 1232 0 789 916 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1232 1232 0 898 805 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)27.3 27.3 53.1 53.1 Effective Green, g (s)27.3 27.3 53.1 53.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1484 1484 995 854 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.25 0.53 v/s Ratio Perm c0.56 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.83 0.90 0.94 Uniform Delay, d1 29.2 29.2 16.2 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 5.5 11.0 18.1 Delay (s)34.7 34.7 27.1 35.1 Level of Service C C C D Approach Delay (s)34.7 34.7 30.9 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1730 930 0 590 640 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3209 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3209 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1821 979 0 621 674 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 42 42 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1821 979 0 842 369 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 7 Permitted Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s)50.6 50.6 29.4 29.4 Effective Green, g (s)50.6 50.6 29.4 29.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.2 1.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2751 2751 1048 453 v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 0.20 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.36 0.80 0.82 Uniform Delay, d1 13.7 10.8 27.7 27.8 Progression Factor 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.4 4.3 10.3 Delay (s)15.0 8.0 32.0 38.1 Level of Service B A C D Approach Delay (s)15.0 8.0 33.9 Approach LOS B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.7%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1130 0 0 890 540 330 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)1189 0 0 937 568 347 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 8 Lane Group Flow (vph)1189 0 0 937 568 339 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)44.0 44.0 36.4 36.4 Effective Green, g (s)44.0 44.0 36.4 36.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2392 2392 689 616 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.19 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.82 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 15.5 14.5 23.9 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.5 7.6 0.6 Delay (s)16.3 15.0 31.5 21.1 Level of Service B B C C Approach Delay (s)16.3 15.0 27.6 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1880 0 0 1010 340 1300 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3082 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3082 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)1979 0 0 1063 358 1368 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 2 2 Lane Group Flow (vph)1979 0 0 1063 1040 682 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)44.0 44.0 36.0 36.0 Effective Green, g (s)44.0 44.0 36.0 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3549 3014 1233 554 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.17 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm c0.49 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.35 1.12dr 1.23 Uniform Delay, d1 16.2 14.2 24.4 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.3 5.2 118.8 Delay (s)16.8 14.5 29.6 145.8 Level of Service B B C F Approach Delay (s)16.8 14.5 75.7 Approach LOS B B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.8%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1030 910 530 1770 0 0 0 0 350 0 390 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1084 958 558 1863 0 0 0 0 368 0 411 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 66 327 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1497 152 558 1863 0 0 0 0 368 0 391 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s)38.0 38.0 38.0 81.0 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s)38.0 38.0 38.0 81.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.68 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1397 415 539 3303 798 368 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.12 c0.33 0.38 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 v/c Ratio 1.07 0.37 1.04 0.56 0.46 1.06 Uniform Delay, d1 41.0 31.7 41.0 10.2 38.8 45.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.80 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 45.7 0.5 44.7 0.2 0.4 64.7 Delay (s)86.7 32.2 80.5 8.3 39.3 110.2 Level of Service F C F A D F Approach Delay (s)73.9 25.0 0.0 76.7 Approach LOS E C A E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 51.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2013 Opening Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 930 0 0 1770 0 1100 10 850 0 0 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3438 4940 1633 1639 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3438 4940 1633 1639 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 979 0 0 1863 0 1158 11 895 0 0 32 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 979 0 0 1863 0 579 590 883 0 0 32 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5% Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)43.0 43.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 Effective Green, g (s)43.0 43.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1232 1770 912 915 859 874 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.36 c0.57 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.79 1.05 0.63 0.64 1.03 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 34.5 38.5 18.1 18.3 26.5 11.9 Progression Factor 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 36.8 3.4 3.5 38.1 0.0 Delay (s)10.5 75.3 21.5 21.8 64.6 12.0 Level of Service B E C C E B Approach Delay (s)10.5 75.3 40.3 12.0 Approach LOS B E D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 47.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1170 530 250 1720 0 60 0 360 320 50 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1392 1447 3303 3406 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 1524 3303 4893 1618 1369 1447 3303 3406 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1232 558 263 1811 0 63 0 379 337 53 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 291 0 0 0 0 173 179 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1232 267 263 1811 0 57 19 14 337 53 2 Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)43.1 43.1 6.0 53.3 4.4 6.5 6.5 15.4 17.5 17.5 Effective Green, g (s)43.1 43.1 6.0 53.3 4.4 6.5 6.5 15.4 17.5 17.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.07 0.59 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.17 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2343 730 220 2898 79 100 105 565 662 296 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.08 c0.37 c0.04 0.01 c0.10 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.37 1.20 0.62 0.72 0.19 0.13 0.60 0.08 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 16.3 14.8 42.0 11.9 42.2 39.3 39.1 34.4 29.7 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.4 121.1 0.9 23.8 0.3 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)17.2 16.2 156.0 10.3 66.0 39.6 39.3 36.1 29.7 29.3 Level of Service B B F B E D D D C C Approach Delay (s)16.9 28.8 42.9 35.1 Approach LOS B C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.2%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 1830 0 0 1350 90 740 900 120 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 4893 5801 1234 1379 5657 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 1926 0 0 1421 95 779 947 126 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 56 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 1926 0 0 1430 29 389 1462 0 0 0 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)3.2 38.0 31.1 31.1 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s)3.2 38.0 31.1 31.1 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.42 0.35 0.35 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)117 2066 2005 426 613 2514 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.39 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.28 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.93 0.71 0.07 0.63 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 42.5 24.8 25.6 19.7 19.3 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 9.2 2.2 0.3 5.0 1.0 Delay (s)43.6 34.0 27.8 20.1 24.3 19.7 Level of Service D C C C C B Approach Delay (s)34.2 27.3 20.7 0.0 Approach LOS C C C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.4%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)10 30 0 30 170 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 Frt 0.91 0.85 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot)3291 1470 2842 3502 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm)3291 1470 2842 3502 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)11 32 0 32 179 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)15 15 0 25 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)12 1 0 7 179 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases 3 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s)1.2 1.2 3.4 3.4 Effective Green, g (s)1.2 1.2 3.4 3.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s)6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)238 106 582 717 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 c0.05 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 7.2 7.1 5.3 5.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 Delay (s)7.3 7.2 5.3 5.8 Level of Service A A A A Approach Delay (s)7.3 5.3 5.8 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.20 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 16.6 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 90 380 580 40 1250 0 40 740 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3258 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 95 400 611 42 1316 0 42 779 21 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 434 0 0 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 85 410 177 42 1316 0 42 779 12 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)24.6 24.6 24.6 5.7 61.0 5.7 61.2 61.2 Effective Green, g (s)24.6 24.6 24.6 5.7 61.0 5.7 61.2 61.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.55 0.05 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)347 729 600 171 3419 88 3431 848 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.21 c0.02 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.56 0.30 0.25 0.38 0.48 0.23 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 35.1 37.9 35.5 50.1 13.9 50.7 12.4 10.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 4.0 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)35.4 38.9 35.8 50.8 14.2 54.7 12.5 10.9 Level of Service D D D D B D B B Approach Delay (s)0.0 36.9 15.3 14.6 Approach LOS A D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.7%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)60 150 360 0 0 0 0 1570 20 0 640 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1700 2682 7246 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1700 2682 7246 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)63 158 379 0 0 0 0 1653 21 0 674 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)57 164 376 0 0 0 0 1673 0 0 674 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)22.6 22.6 22.6 71.4 71.4 Effective Green, g (s)22.6 22.6 22.6 71.4 71.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.65 0.65 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)332 349 551 4703 4002 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.10 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.47 0.68 0.36 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 36.0 38.4 40.4 8.8 7.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.7 3.2 0.2 0.1 Delay (s)36.2 39.2 43.6 9.0 7.7 Level of Service D D D A A Approach Delay (s)41.7 0.0 9.0 7.7 Approach LOS D A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.6%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1170 1190 0 750 870 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1686 1447 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1686 1447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1232 1253 0 789 916 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1232 1253 0 898 805 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)27.3 27.3 53.1 53.1 Effective Green, g (s)27.3 27.3 53.1 53.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1484 1484 995 854 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.26 0.53 v/s Ratio Perm c0.56 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.84 0.90 0.94 Uniform Delay, d1 29.2 29.4 16.2 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 6.1 11.0 18.1 Delay (s)34.7 35.4 27.1 35.1 Level of Service C D C D Approach Delay (s)34.7 35.4 30.9 Approach LOS C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.3%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1890 1150 0 1130 900 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3248 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3248 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1989 1211 0 1189 947 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 17 17 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1989 1211 0 1447 655 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 7 Permitted Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s)41.0 41.0 39.0 39.0 Effective Green, g (s)41.0 41.0 39.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.2 1.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2229 2229 1407 601 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 0.25 0.45 v/s Ratio Perm c0.47 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.54 1.03 1.09 Uniform Delay, d1 22.5 17.7 25.5 25.5 Progression Factor 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 0.9 31.6 63.5 Delay (s)28.4 13.7 57.1 89.0 Level of Service C B E F Approach Delay (s)28.4 13.7 67.1 Approach LOS C B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 118.8%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1130 0 0 890 540 330 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)1189 0 0 937 568 347 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 8 Lane Group Flow (vph)1189 0 0 937 568 339 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)44.0 44.0 36.4 36.4 Effective Green, g (s)44.0 44.0 36.4 36.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2392 2392 689 616 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.19 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.82 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 15.5 14.5 23.9 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.5 7.6 0.6 Delay (s)16.3 15.0 31.5 21.1 Level of Service B B C C Approach Delay (s)16.3 15.0 27.6 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1390 0 0 1240 390 1520 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3116 2621 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3116 2621 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)1463 0 0 1305 411 1600 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 19 Lane Group Flow (vph)1463 0 0 1305 928 1053 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)44.0 44.0 36.0 36.0 Effective Green, g (s)44.0 44.0 36.0 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3549 3014 1246 1048 v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.21 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.43 0.85dr 1.00 Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 14.9 23.1 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.5 2.2 28.9 Delay (s)15.1 15.4 25.2 55.9 Level of Service B B C E Approach Delay (s)15.1 15.4 41.6 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.0%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1030 910 530 1870 0 0 0 0 350 0 390 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4412 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1084 958 558 1968 0 0 0 0 368 0 411 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 66 331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1497 148 558 1968 0 0 0 0 368 0 396 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s)37.0 37.0 38.0 80.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s)37.0 37.0 38.0 80.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.67 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1360 404 539 3262 826 381 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.11 c0.33 0.40 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 v/c Ratio 1.10 0.37 1.04 0.60 0.45 1.04 Uniform Delay, d1 41.5 32.4 41.0 11.2 38.0 45.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.86 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 56.7 0.6 45.8 0.3 0.4 56.7 Delay (s)98.2 32.9 83.5 9.9 38.4 101.7 Level of Service F C F A D F Approach Delay (s)82.9 26.2 0.0 71.8 Approach LOS F C A E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2013 Opening Year with Project&Concurrent AS Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 930 0 0 1580 290 1100 10 850 0 0 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3438 4825 1633 1639 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3438 4825 1633 1639 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 979 0 0 1663 305 1158 11 895 0 0 32 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 979 0 0 1946 0 579 590 880 0 0 31 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5% Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)45.0 45.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 Effective Green, g (s)45.0 45.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1289 1809 885 888 833 848 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.36 c0.57 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.76 1.08 0.65 0.66 1.06 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 37.5 19.5 19.7 27.5 12.9 Progression Factor 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 44.9 3.8 3.9 47.3 0.0 Delay (s)8.9 82.4 23.3 23.6 74.8 12.9 Level of Service A F C C E B Approach Delay (s)8.9 82.4 45.7 12.9 Approach LOS A F D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX H-3: CALTRANS RAMP TERMINI SYNCHRO WORKSHEETS UNDER 2030 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1930 1110 770 2480 0 200 0 210 520 150 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)6166 2682 3303 6166 1618 1459 1447 3303 3406 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)6166 2682 3303 6166 1618 0 1447 3303 3406 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2032 1168 811 2611 0 211 0 221 547 158 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 464 0 0 0 0 37 118 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2032 704 811 2611 0 150 108 19 547 158 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)37.7 37.7 26.8 68.7 25.6 25.6 16.5 20.0 10.9 Effective Green, g (s)37.7 37.7 26.8 68.7 25.6 25.6 16.5 20.0 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.57 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.17 0.09 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1937 843 738 3530 345 311 199 551 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 c0.25 0.42 c0.09 0.07 c0.17 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.83 1.10 0.74 0.43 0.35 0.09 0.99 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 38.3 46.6 19.0 40.9 40.1 45.2 49.9 52.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 34.7 9.6 51.0 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.2 36.3 1.4 Delay (s)75.9 47.8 84.1 10.8 41.8 40.8 45.4 86.2 53.4 Level of Service E D F B D D D F D Approach Delay (s)65.6 28.1 42.6 78.9 Approach LOS E C D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 49.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.3%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 2600 0 0 2870 950 860 1680 360 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 6166 6689 1158 1379 5638 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 6166 6689 1158 1379 5638 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 2737 0 0 3021 1000 905 1768 379 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 2737 0 0 3420 579 606 2445 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)4.2 63.0 55.1 55.1 47.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s)4.2 63.0 55.1 55.1 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)116 3237 3071 532 540 2208 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.44 c0.51 c0.44 0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.50 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.85 1.11 1.09 1.12 1.11 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 24.3 32.5 32.5 36.5 36.5 Progression Factor 0.59 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.9 56.4 65.3 76.9 55.7 Delay (s)34.4 8.4 88.8 97.7 113.4 92.2 Level of Service C A F F F F Approach Delay (s)8.9 90.1 96.4 0.0 Approach LOS A F F A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 69.1 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.2%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)200 620 160 170 1680 730 50 0 110 400 0 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1805 5028 1805 4951 1805 2842 3502 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1805 5028 1805 4951 1805 2842 3502 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)211 653 168 179 1768 768 53 0 116 421 0 53 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 48 0 0 87 0 0 0 98 0 0 46 Lane Group Flow (vph)211 773 0 179 2449 0 53 0 18 421 0 7 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Over Prot Over Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 1 7 5 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)12.6 47.0 13.6 49.0 13.5 13.6 12.0 12.6 Effective Green, g (s)12.6 47.0 13.6 49.0 13.5 13.6 12.0 12.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.52 0.15 0.55 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.14 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)254 2637 274 2708 272 431 469 227 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.15 0.10 c0.49 0.03 0.01 c0.12 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.83 0.29 0.65 0.90 0.19 0.04 0.90 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 37.5 12.0 35.8 18.2 33.3 32.4 38.2 33.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.0 0.1 5.5 4.8 0.4 0.0 19.5 0.1 Delay (s)57.5 12.0 41.3 23.0 33.6 32.5 57.7 33.3 Level of Service E B D C C C E C Approach Delay (s)21.3 24.2 32.8 55.0 Approach LOS C C C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.6 Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.6%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 160 140 590 930 1670 0 50 1870 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3212 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3212 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 168 147 621 979 1758 0 53 1968 189 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 241 0 0 0 0 0 67 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 102 213 380 979 1758 0 53 1968 122 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.5 15.5 15.5 34.9 68.9 6.9 41.1 41.1 Effective Green, g (s)15.5 15.5 15.5 34.9 68.9 6.9 41.1 41.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.32 0.63 0.06 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)218 453 378 1048 3862 107 2304 569 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.29 0.03 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 c0.14 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.47 1.00 0.93 0.46 0.50 0.85 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 43.5 43.5 47.2 36.4 10.7 49.9 31.7 23.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.8 47.3 14.5 0.4 3.6 4.3 0.9 Delay (s)45.0 44.2 94.6 51.0 11.1 53.4 36.0 24.3 Level of Service D D F D B D D C Approach Delay (s)0.0 77.7 25.4 35.4 Approach LOS A E C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)150 720 340 0 0 0 0 2680 80 0 1720 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1701 2682 7228 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1701 2682 7228 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)158 758 358 0 0 0 0 2821 84 0 1811 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)142 774 356 0 0 0 0 2901 0 0 1811 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)48.5 48.5 48.5 45.5 45.5 Effective Green, g (s)48.5 48.5 48.5 45.5 45.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)713 750 1183 2990 2550 v/s Ratio Prot c0.40 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.46 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.20 1.03 0.30 0.97 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 30.8 19.8 31.6 26.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 41.4 0.1 10.8 1.7 Delay (s)19.0 72.1 20.0 42.4 28.5 Level of Service B E B D C Approach Delay (s)51.5 0.0 42.4 28.5 Approach LOS D A D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.8%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2120 2940 0 640 650 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2232 3095 0 674 684 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2232 3095 0 674 683 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)72.0 72.0 39.0 39.0 Effective Green, g (s)72.0 72.0 39.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2936 2936 553 872 v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 c0.63 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.76 1.05 1.22 0.78 Uniform Delay, d1 17.7 24.0 40.5 36.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 33.1 114.1 4.7 Delay (s)19.6 57.1 154.6 41.3 Level of Service B E F D Approach Delay (s)19.6 57.1 97.6 Approach LOS B E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.11 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2200 2430 0 240 570 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2316 2558 0 253 600 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 7 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2316 2558 0 253 593 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)60.0 60.0 21.0 21.0 Effective Green, g (s)60.0 60.0 21.0 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3262 3262 397 626 v/s Ratio Prot 0.47 c0.52 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.78 0.64 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 9.5 10.5 31.1 34.0 Progression Factor 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.9 3.3 23.5 Delay (s)10.8 6.6 34.4 57.5 Level of Service B A C E Approach Delay (s)10.8 6.6 50.6 Approach LOS B A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.4%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2240 0 0 2960 590 540 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3230 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3230 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)2358 0 0 3116 621 568 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 5 5 Lane Group Flow (vph)2358 0 0 3116 809 370 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)77.2 77.2 33.2 33.2 Effective Green, g (s)77.2 77.2 33.2 33.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3148 3148 894 383 v/s Ratio Prot 0.48 c0.64 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.99 0.90 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 21.0 41.9 42.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 13.8 12.5 36.7 Delay (s)16.4 34.8 54.3 79.6 Level of Service B C D E Approach Delay (s)16.4 34.8 62.3 Approach LOS B C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1850 0 0 3500 300 480 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3162 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3162 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)1947 0 0 3684 316 505 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 16 16 Lane Group Flow (vph)1947 0 0 3684 542 247 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)61.2 61.2 18.8 18.8 Effective Green, g (s)61.2 61.2 18.8 18.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4936 4193 661 290 v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 c0.60 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.88 0.82 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 6.3 11.4 34.0 34.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 2.9 8.0 20.7 Delay (s)6.5 14.4 42.0 55.0 Level of Service A B D E Approach Delay (s)6.5 14.4 46.2 Approach LOS A B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.6%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1930 1330 520 1850 0 0 0 0 400 0 410 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4463 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4463 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 1947 0 0 0 0 421 0 432 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2648 784 547 1947 0 0 0 0 421 0 405 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)65.0 65.0 20.0 90.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s)65.0 65.0 20.0 90.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.17 0.75 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2417 710 284 3670 551 254 v/s Ratio Prot 0.59 c0.60 c0.32 0.40 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 v/c Ratio 1.10 1.10 1.93 0.53 0.76 1.59 Uniform Delay, d1 27.5 27.5 50.0 6.2 47.7 50.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 50.3 66.0 428.3 0.1 6.2 284.5 Delay (s)77.8 93.5 473.3 5.7 54.0 334.5 Level of Service E F F A D F Approach Delay (s)81.4 108.3 0.0 196.0 Approach LOS F F A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 105.7 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.1%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2030 Future Year No Events- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1550 0 0 1610 0 1070 30 830 0 0 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4940 4940 1633 1641 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4940 4940 1633 1641 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1632 0 0 1695 0 1126 32 874 0 0 32 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1632 0 0 1695 0 574 584 873 0 0 32 Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)42.0 42.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 Effective Green, g (s)42.0 42.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1729 1729 925 930 872 887 v/s Ratio Prot 0.33 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.36 c0.57 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.98 0.62 0.63 1.00 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 38.6 17.4 17.5 26.0 11.5 Progression Factor 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 17.1 3.1 3.2 30.8 0.1 Delay (s)23.3 55.7 20.5 20.7 56.8 11.6 Level of Service C E C C E B Approach Delay (s)23.3 55.7 36.2 11.6 Approach LOS C E D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2060 1110 770 2480 0 200 0 260 570 150 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)6166 2682 3303 6166 1618 1432 1447 3303 3406 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)6166 2682 3303 6166 1618 0 1447 3303 3406 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2168 1168 811 2611 0 211 0 274 600 158 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 529 0 0 0 0 77 145 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2168 639 811 2611 0 169 83 11 600 158 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)45.4 45.4 20.8 70.4 23.9 23.9 8.5 26.3 10.9 Effective Green, g (s)45.4 45.4 20.8 70.4 23.9 23.9 8.5 26.3 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.17 0.59 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.22 0.09 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2333 1015 573 3617 322 285 102 724 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 c0.25 0.42 c0.10 0.06 c0.18 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.63 1.42 0.72 0.52 0.29 0.11 0.83 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 35.8 30.4 49.6 17.8 43.0 40.9 52.2 44.7 52.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 3.0 189.8 0.4 1.5 0.6 0.5 7.8 1.4 Delay (s)43.8 33.4 224.6 8.7 44.5 41.4 52.7 52.5 53.4 Level of Service D C F A D D D D D Approach Delay (s)40.2 59.9 46.1 52.7 Approach LOS D E D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 50.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.1%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 2840 0 0 2870 950 860 1680 360 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 6166 6689 1158 1379 5638 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 6166 6689 1158 1379 5638 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 2989 0 0 3021 1000 905 1768 379 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 2989 0 0 3420 579 606 2446 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)4.2 63.0 55.1 55.1 47.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s)4.2 63.0 55.1 55.1 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)116 3237 3071 532 540 2208 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.48 c0.51 c0.44 0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.50 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.92 1.11 1.09 1.12 1.11 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 26.3 32.5 32.5 36.5 36.5 Progression Factor 0.68 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 3.8 56.4 65.3 76.9 55.8 Delay (s)40.3 16.4 88.8 97.7 113.4 92.3 Level of Service D B F F F F Approach Delay (s)16.8 90.1 96.5 0.0 Approach LOS B F F A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 70.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.2%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)200 620 160 170 1680 730 50 0 110 430 0 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1805 5028 1805 4951 1805 2842 3502 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1805 5028 1805 4951 1805 2842 3502 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)211 653 168 179 1768 768 53 0 116 453 0 53 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 48 0 0 87 0 0 0 98 0 0 46 Lane Group Flow (vph)211 773 0 179 2449 0 53 0 18 453 0 7 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Over Prot Over Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 1 7 5 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)12.6 47.0 13.6 49.0 13.5 13.6 12.0 12.6 Effective Green, g (s)12.6 47.0 13.6 49.0 13.5 13.6 12.0 12.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.52 0.15 0.55 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.14 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)254 2637 274 2708 272 431 469 227 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.15 0.10 c0.49 0.03 0.01 c0.13 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.83 0.29 0.65 0.90 0.19 0.04 0.97 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 37.5 12.0 35.8 18.2 33.3 32.4 38.6 33.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.0 0.1 5.5 4.8 0.4 0.0 32.6 0.1 Delay (s)57.5 12.0 41.3 23.0 33.6 32.5 71.2 33.3 Level of Service E B D C C C E C Approach Delay (s)21.3 24.2 32.8 67.2 Approach LOS C C C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.6 Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.5%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 160 140 590 930 1730 0 50 1870 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3212 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3212 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 168 147 621 979 1821 0 53 1968 189 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 237 0 0 0 0 0 67 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 102 213 384 979 1821 0 53 1968 122 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.5 15.5 15.5 34.9 68.9 6.9 41.1 41.1 Effective Green, g (s)15.5 15.5 15.5 34.9 68.9 6.9 41.1 41.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.32 0.63 0.06 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)218 453 378 1048 3862 107 2304 569 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.30 0.03 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 c0.14 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.47 1.02 0.93 0.47 0.50 0.85 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 43.5 43.5 47.2 36.4 10.9 49.9 31.7 23.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.8 50.3 14.5 0.4 3.6 4.3 0.9 Delay (s)45.0 44.2 97.5 51.0 11.3 53.4 36.0 24.3 Level of Service D D F D B D D C Approach Delay (s)0.0 79.7 25.2 35.4 Approach LOS A E C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)150 720 340 0 0 0 0 2740 80 0 1720 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1701 2682 7229 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1701 2682 7229 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)158 758 358 0 0 0 0 2884 84 0 1811 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)142 774 356 0 0 0 0 2964 0 0 1811 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)48.5 48.5 48.5 45.5 45.5 Effective Green, g (s)48.5 48.5 48.5 45.5 45.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)713 750 1183 2990 2550 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.46 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.20 1.03 0.30 0.99 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 30.8 19.8 32.1 26.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 41.4 0.1 14.5 1.7 Delay (s)19.0 72.1 20.0 46.6 28.5 Level of Service B E B D C Approach Delay (s)51.5 0.0 46.6 28.5 Approach LOS D A D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.5%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2120 3050 0 970 840 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2232 3211 0 1021 884 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2232 3211 0 1021 883 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)72.0 72.0 39.0 39.0 Effective Green, g (s)72.0 72.0 39.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2936 2936 553 872 v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 c0.66 c0.60 v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.76 1.09 1.85 1.01 Uniform Delay, d1 17.7 24.0 40.5 40.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 48.4 387.8 33.7 Delay (s)19.6 72.4 428.3 74.2 Level of Service B E F E Approach Delay (s)19.6 72.4 264.0 Approach LOS B E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 106.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 120.2%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2700 2540 0 480 680 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2842 2674 0 505 716 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 3 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2842 2674 0 505 713 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)73.7 73.7 37.3 37.3 Effective Green, g (s)73.7 73.7 37.3 37.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3005 3005 529 834 v/s Ratio Prot c0.58 0.55 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.89 0.95 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 21.3 19.7 40.5 38.8 Progression Factor 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.9 0.4 27.9 8.6 Delay (s)29.2 13.3 68.4 47.4 Level of Service C B E D Approach Delay (s)29.2 13.3 56.1 Approach LOS C B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2610 0 0 3070 630 650 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3215 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3215 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)2747 0 0 3232 663 684 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 2 2 Lane Group Flow (vph)2747 0 0 3232 921 422 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)77.0 77.0 33.4 33.4 Effective Green, g (s)77.0 77.0 33.4 33.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3140 3140 895 386 v/s Ratio Prot 0.56 c0.66 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.87 1.03 1.03 1.09 Uniform Delay, d1 17.6 21.5 43.3 43.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 24.2 37.7 73.1 Delay (s)21.3 45.7 81.0 116.4 Level of Service C D F F Approach Delay (s)21.3 45.7 92.1 Approach LOS C D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.1%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2570 0 0 3500 360 1100 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3101 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3101 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)2705 0 0 3684 379 1158 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)2705 0 0 3684 957 578 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)67.0 67.0 43.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s)67.0 67.0 43.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4053 3443 1111 497 v/s Ratio Prot 0.37 c0.60 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm c0.42 v/c Ratio 0.67 1.07 1.06dr 1.16 Uniform Delay, d1 18.7 26.5 35.7 38.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 38.1 7.0 93.9 Delay (s)19.5 64.6 42.8 132.4 Level of Service B E D F Approach Delay (s)19.5 64.6 76.5 Approach LOS B E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 51.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.11 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.5%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1930 1330 520 1930 0 0 0 0 400 0 410 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4463 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4463 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 2032 0 0 0 0 421 0 432 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2648 784 547 2032 0 0 0 0 421 0 412 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)63.0 63.0 20.0 88.0 22.0 22.0 Effective Green, g (s)63.0 63.0 20.0 88.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.17 0.73 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2343 688 284 3588 606 279 v/s Ratio Prot 0.59 c0.60 c0.32 0.42 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 v/c Ratio 1.13 1.14 1.93 0.57 0.69 1.48 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 28.5 50.0 7.3 45.9 49.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.86 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 64.6 79.6 428.1 0.2 3.5 232.3 Delay (s)93.1 108.1 472.3 6.4 49.3 281.3 Level of Service F F F A D F Approach Delay (s)96.6 105.3 0.0 166.8 Approach LOS F F A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 108.6 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.1%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2030 Future Year with AAHC Event - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1550 0 0 1690 0 1070 30 830 0 0 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4940 4940 1633 1641 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4940 4940 1633 1641 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1632 0 0 1779 0 1126 32 874 0 0 32 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1632 0 0 1779 0 574 584 873 0 0 32 Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)42.0 42.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 Effective Green, g (s)42.0 42.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1729 1729 925 930 872 887 v/s Ratio Prot 0.33 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.36 c0.57 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.94 1.03 0.62 0.63 1.00 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 39.0 17.4 17.5 26.0 11.5 Progression Factor 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 29.4 3.1 3.2 30.8 0.1 Delay (s)23.2 68.4 20.5 20.7 56.8 11.6 Level of Service C E C C E B Approach Delay (s)23.2 68.4 36.2 11.6 Approach LOS C E D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2270 1110 770 2480 0 200 0 350 780 150 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)6166 2682 3303 6166 1618 1405 1447 3303 3406 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)6166 2682 3303 6166 1618 1413 1447 3303 3406 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2389 1168 811 2611 0 211 0 368 821 158 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 509 0 0 0 0 117 180 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2389 659 811 2611 0 190 77 15 821 158 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)39.7 39.7 20.8 64.7 29.6 38.7 9.1 31.4 10.9 Effective Green, g (s)39.7 39.7 20.8 64.7 29.6 38.7 9.1 31.4 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.54 0.25 0.32 0.08 0.26 0.09 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2040 887 573 3325 399 454 110 864 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 c0.25 0.42 0.12 0.04 c0.25 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.74 1.42 0.79 0.48 0.17 0.13 0.95 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 35.6 49.6 22.1 38.6 29.1 51.8 43.5 52.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 82.6 5.6 189.8 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.6 19.5 1.4 Delay (s)122.8 41.2 226.5 13.1 39.5 29.3 52.3 63.1 53.4 Level of Service F D F B D C D E D Approach Delay (s)96.0 63.6 40.4 61.5 Approach LOS F E D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 75.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.1%ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 3350 0 0 2870 950 860 1680 360 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 6166 6689 1158 1379 5638 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 6166 6689 1158 1379 5638 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 3526 0 0 3021 1000 905 1768 379 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 3526 0 0 3420 579 606 2446 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)4.2 63.0 55.1 55.1 47.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s)4.2 63.0 55.1 55.1 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)116 3237 3071 532 540 2208 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.57 0.51 c0.44 0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.50 v/c Ratio 0.46 1.09 1.11 1.09 1.12 1.11 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 28.5 32.5 32.5 36.5 36.5 Progression Factor 0.65 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 43.7 56.4 65.3 76.9 55.8 Delay (s)38.7 54.1 88.8 97.7 113.4 92.3 Level of Service D D F F F F Approach Delay (s)53.9 90.1 96.5 0.0 Approach LOS D F F A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 79.8 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.3%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)200 620 160 170 1680 730 50 0 110 530 0 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1805 5028 1805 4951 1805 2842 3502 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1805 5028 1805 4951 1805 2842 3502 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)211 653 168 179 1768 768 53 0 116 558 0 53 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 48 0 0 87 0 0 0 98 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow (vph)211 773 0 179 2449 0 53 0 18 558 0 6 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Over Prot Over Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 1 7 5 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)11.0 44.4 13.6 48.0 16.5 13.6 15.0 11.0 Effective Green, g (s)11.0 44.4 13.6 48.0 16.5 13.6 15.0 11.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.49 0.15 0.53 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.12 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)221 2480 273 2641 331 429 584 197 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.15 0.10 c0.49 0.03 0.01 c0.16 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.95 0.31 0.66 0.93 0.16 0.04 0.96 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 39.3 13.7 36.0 19.4 30.9 32.6 37.2 34.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 47.5 0.1 5.6 6.4 0.2 0.0 26.3 0.1 Delay (s)86.7 13.7 41.6 25.7 31.1 32.7 63.5 34.9 Level of Service F B D C C C E C Approach Delay (s)28.6 26.8 32.2 61.0 Approach LOS C C C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.3%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 160 140 940 930 1730 0 50 1870 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3212 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3212 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 168 147 989 979 1821 0 53 1968 189 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 102 213 741 979 1821 0 53 1968 99 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)30.5 30.5 30.5 34.5 63.2 7.6 36.5 36.5 Effective Green, g (s)30.5 30.5 30.5 34.5 63.2 7.6 36.5 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.29 0.53 0.06 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)394 816 682 950 3247 108 1875 464 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.30 0.03 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 c0.28 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.26 1.09 1.03 0.56 0.49 1.05 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 35.7 35.7 44.8 42.8 19.1 54.3 41.8 31.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 60.1 37.3 0.7 3.5 35.2 1.0 Delay (s)36.1 35.9 104.9 80.0 19.8 57.8 77.0 32.1 Level of Service D D F F B E E C Approach Delay (s)0.0 88.2 40.9 72.7 Approach LOS A F D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 61.8 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)150 720 340 0 0 0 0 3190 80 0 1720 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1701 2682 7233 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1701 2682 7233 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)158 758 358 0 0 0 0 3358 84 0 1811 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)142 774 352 0 0 0 0 3439 0 0 1811 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)46.5 46.5 46.5 57.5 57.5 Effective Green, g (s)46.5 46.5 46.5 57.5 57.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)627 659 1039 3466 2955 v/s Ratio Prot c0.48 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.46 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.23 1.17 0.34 0.99 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 24.7 36.8 25.9 31.0 23.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 93.9 0.2 13.6 1.0 Delay (s)24.9 130.7 26.1 44.6 24.0 Level of Service C F C D C Approach Delay (s)89.5 0.0 44.6 24.0 Approach LOS F A D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 47.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.7%ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2120 3050 0 970 840 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2232 3211 0 1021 884 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2232 3211 0 1021 884 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)59.0 59.0 52.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s)59.0 59.0 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2406 2406 738 1162 v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 c0.66 c0.60 v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.93 1.33 1.38 0.76 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 30.5 34.0 28.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.8 153.5 181.0 3.0 Delay (s)36.3 184.0 215.0 31.7 Level of Service D F F C Approach Delay (s)36.3 184.0 129.9 Approach LOS D F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 125.1 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 120.2%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2700 2760 0 1020 940 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2842 2905 0 1074 989 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2842 2905 0 1074 988 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)68.0 68.0 43.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s)68.0 68.0 43.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2773 2773 610 961 v/s Ratio Prot 0.58 c0.59 c0.63 v/s Ratio Perm 0.37 v/c Ratio 1.02 1.05 1.76 1.03 Uniform Delay, d1 26.0 26.0 38.5 38.5 Progression Factor 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 23.8 24.6 349.0 36.5 Delay (s)49.8 37.5 387.5 75.0 Level of Service D D F E Approach Delay (s)49.8 37.5 237.7 Approach LOS D D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 94.9 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 184.7%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2610 0 0 3070 630 650 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3215 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3215 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)2747 0 0 3232 663 684 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 2 2 Lane Group Flow (vph)2747 0 0 3232 921 422 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)76.0 76.0 34.4 34.4 Effective Green, g (s)76.0 76.0 34.4 34.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3099 3099 922 397 v/s Ratio Prot 0.56 c0.66 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.89 1.04 1.00 1.06 Uniform Delay, d1 18.4 22.0 42.8 42.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 28.8 29.1 62.7 Delay (s)22.6 50.8 71.9 105.5 Level of Service C D E F Approach Delay (s)22.6 50.8 82.5 Approach LOS C D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.1%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3210 0 0 3730 410 1320 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3096 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3096 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3379 0 0 3926 432 1389 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)3379 0 0 3926 1126 693 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)77.0 77.0 33.0 33.0 Effective Green, g (s)77.0 77.0 33.0 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4658 3957 851 381 v/s Ratio Prot 0.47 c0.64 0.36 v/s Ratio Perm c0.50 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.99 1.65dr 1.82 Uniform Delay, d1 14.4 21.2 43.5 43.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 12.6 153.8 379.0 Delay (s)15.4 33.8 197.3 422.5 Level of Service B C F F Approach Delay (s)15.4 33.8 283.1 Approach LOS B C F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 76.7 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.24 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.0%ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1930 1330 520 2030 0 0 0 0 400 0 410 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4463 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4463 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 2137 0 0 0 0 421 0 432 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2648 784 547 2137 0 0 0 0 421 0 417 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)60.0 60.0 21.0 86.0 24.0 24.0 Effective Green, g (s)60.0 60.0 21.0 86.0 24.0 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.72 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2232 655 298 3507 661 305 v/s Ratio Prot 0.59 c0.60 c0.32 0.44 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 v/c Ratio 1.19 1.20 1.84 0.61 0.64 1.37 Uniform Delay, d1 30.0 30.0 49.5 8.6 44.0 48.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.82 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 88.7 103.0 387.2 0.3 2.0 184.6 Delay (s)118.7 133.0 430.8 7.3 46.0 232.6 Level of Service F F F A D F Approach Delay (s)122.0 93.6 0.0 140.5 Approach LOS F F A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 113.3 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.1%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2030 Future Year with AAHC&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1550 0 0 1790 0 1070 30 830 0 0 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4940 4940 1633 1641 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4940 4940 1633 1641 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1632 0 0 1884 0 1126 32 874 0 0 32 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1632 0 0 1884 0 574 584 873 0 0 32 Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)44.0 44.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 Effective Green, g (s)44.0 44.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1811 1811 898 903 846 861 v/s Ratio Prot 0.33 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.36 c0.57 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.90 1.04 0.64 0.65 1.03 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 35.9 38.0 18.7 18.9 27.0 12.4 Progression Factor 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 32.5 3.5 3.6 39.5 0.1 Delay (s)19.6 70.5 22.2 22.4 66.5 12.5 Level of Service B E C C E B Approach Delay (s)19.6 70.5 41.3 12.5 Approach LOS B E D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2150 1110 770 2480 0 200 0 300 570 150 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)6166 2682 3303 6166 1618 1414 1447 3303 3406 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)6166 2682 3303 6166 1618 0 1447 3303 3406 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2263 1168 811 2611 0 211 0 316 600 158 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 508 0 0 0 0 116 158 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2263 660 811 2611 0 184 56 13 600 158 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)46.0 46.0 19.8 70.0 24.3 24.3 8.9 26.3 10.9 Effective Green, g (s)46.0 46.0 19.8 70.0 24.3 24.3 8.9 26.3 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.17 0.58 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.22 0.09 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2364 1028 545 3597 328 286 107 724 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 c0.25 0.42 c0.11 0.04 c0.18 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.64 1.49 0.73 0.56 0.20 0.12 0.83 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 36.0 30.3 50.1 18.1 43.1 39.7 51.9 44.7 52.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.9 3.1 222.4 0.4 2.2 0.3 0.5 7.8 1.4 Delay (s)46.9 33.3 258.6 9.9 45.2 40.1 52.4 52.5 53.4 Level of Service D C F A D D D D D Approach Delay (s)42.3 68.8 45.9 52.7 Approach LOS D E D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.8%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 3000 0 0 2870 950 860 1680 360 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 6166 6689 1158 1379 5638 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 6166 6689 1158 1379 5638 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 3158 0 0 3021 1000 905 1768 379 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 3158 0 0 3420 579 606 2446 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)4.2 63.0 55.1 55.1 47.0 47.0 Effective Green, g (s)4.2 63.0 55.1 55.1 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)116 3237 3071 532 540 2208 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.51 c0.51 c0.44 0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.50 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.98 1.11 1.09 1.12 1.11 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 27.8 32.5 32.5 36.5 36.5 Progression Factor 0.69 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 8.3 56.4 65.3 76.9 55.8 Delay (s)40.9 21.6 88.8 97.7 113.4 92.3 Level of Service D C F F F F Approach Delay (s)21.9 90.1 96.5 0.0 Approach LOS C F F A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 70.7 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.2%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)200 620 160 170 1680 730 50 0 110 450 0 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1805 5028 1805 4951 1805 2842 3502 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1805 5028 1805 4951 1805 2842 3502 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)211 653 168 179 1768 768 53 0 116 474 0 53 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 48 0 0 87 0 0 0 98 0 0 46 Lane Group Flow (vph)211 773 0 179 2449 0 53 0 18 474 0 7 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Over Prot Over Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 1 7 5 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)12.0 46.4 13.6 49.0 14.5 13.6 13.0 12.0 Effective Green, g (s)12.0 46.4 13.6 49.0 14.5 13.6 13.0 12.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.52 0.15 0.54 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)241 2592 273 2696 291 429 506 215 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.15 0.10 c0.49 0.03 0.01 c0.14 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.88 0.30 0.66 0.91 0.18 0.04 0.94 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 38.3 12.5 36.0 18.5 32.6 32.6 38.1 33.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 27.8 0.1 5.6 5.0 0.3 0.0 24.9 0.1 Delay (s)66.1 12.5 41.6 23.4 32.9 32.7 63.0 34.0 Level of Service E B D C C C E C Approach Delay (s)23.5 24.6 32.7 60.1 Approach LOS C C C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 160 140 590 930 1780 0 50 1870 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3212 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3212 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 168 147 621 979 1874 0 53 1968 189 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 235 0 0 0 0 0 64 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 102 213 386 979 1874 0 53 1968 125 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.2 15.2 15.2 34.9 69.2 6.9 41.4 41.4 Effective Green, g (s)15.2 15.2 15.2 34.9 69.2 6.9 41.4 41.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.32 0.63 0.06 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)214 444 371 1048 3879 107 2321 574 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.30 0.03 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 c0.14 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.48 1.04 0.93 0.48 0.50 0.85 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 43.7 43.8 47.4 36.4 10.9 49.9 31.4 23.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.8 57.4 14.5 0.4 3.6 4.1 0.9 Delay (s)45.4 44.6 104.8 51.0 11.3 53.4 35.5 24.2 Level of Service D D F D B D D C Approach Delay (s)0.0 84.6 24.9 35.0 Approach LOS A F C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)150 720 340 0 0 0 0 2790 80 0 1720 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1701 2682 7229 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1701 2682 7229 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)158 758 358 0 0 0 0 2937 84 0 1811 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)142 774 356 0 0 0 0 3017 0 0 1811 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)48.5 48.5 48.5 45.5 45.5 Effective Green, g (s)48.5 48.5 48.5 45.5 45.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)713 750 1183 2990 2550 v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.46 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.20 1.03 0.30 1.01 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 30.8 19.8 32.2 26.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 41.4 0.1 18.7 1.7 Delay (s)19.0 72.1 20.0 50.9 28.5 Level of Service B E B D C Approach Delay (s)51.5 0.0 50.9 28.5 Approach LOS D A D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.1%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2120 3130 0 1190 960 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2232 3295 0 1253 1011 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2232 3295 0 1253 1011 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)67.0 67.0 44.0 44.0 Effective Green, g (s)67.0 67.0 44.0 44.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2732 2732 624 983 v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 c0.67 c0.74 v/s Ratio Perm 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.82 1.21 2.01 1.03 Uniform Delay, d1 21.5 26.5 38.0 38.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 96.4 459.3 36.2 Delay (s)24.4 122.9 497.3 74.2 Level of Service C F F E Approach Delay (s)24.4 122.9 308.4 Approach LOS C F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 148.6 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 191.1%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 3040 2620 0 640 760 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 3200 2758 0 674 800 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 2 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 3200 2758 0 674 798 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)73.0 73.0 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s)73.0 73.0 38.0 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2977 2977 539 849 v/s Ratio Prot c0.65 0.56 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 v/c Ratio 1.07 0.93 1.25 0.94 Uniform Delay, d1 23.5 21.1 41.0 39.9 Progression Factor 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 40.9 0.7 127.5 17.8 Delay (s)64.4 6.1 168.5 57.7 Level of Service E A F E Approach Delay (s)64.4 6.1 108.3 Approach LOS E A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 51.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 167.0%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2860 0 0 3140 660 720 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3209 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3209 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3011 0 0 3305 695 758 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)3011 0 0 3305 990 461 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)79.0 79.0 31.4 31.4 Effective Green, g (s)79.0 79.0 31.4 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3221 3221 840 363 v/s Ratio Prot 0.62 c0.68 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 v/c Ratio 0.93 1.03 1.18 1.27 Uniform Delay, d1 18.2 20.5 44.3 44.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 23.0 92.4 141.0 Delay (s)24.8 43.5 136.7 185.3 Level of Service C D F F Approach Delay (s)24.8 43.5 152.1 Approach LOS C D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 56.5 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.0%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3060 0 0 3500 390 1520 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3081 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3081 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3221 0 0 3684 411 1600 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)3221 0 0 3684 1211 800 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)67.0 67.0 43.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s)67.0 67.0 43.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4053 3443 1104 497 v/s Ratio Prot 0.44 c0.60 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm c0.58 v/c Ratio 0.79 1.07 1.47dr 1.61 Uniform Delay, d1 21.0 26.5 38.5 38.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 38.1 57.6 283.6 Delay (s)22.7 64.6 96.1 322.1 Level of Service C E F F Approach Delay (s)22.7 64.6 186.0 Approach LOS C E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 76.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.6%ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1930 1330 520 1990 0 0 0 0 400 0 410 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4463 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4463 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 2095 0 0 0 0 421 0 432 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2648 784 547 2095 0 0 0 0 421 0 415 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)62.0 62.0 20.0 87.0 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g (s)62.0 62.0 20.0 87.0 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.17 0.72 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2306 677 284 3547 633 292 v/s Ratio Prot 0.59 c0.60 c0.32 0.43 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 v/c Ratio 1.15 1.16 1.93 0.59 0.67 1.42 Uniform Delay, d1 29.0 29.0 50.0 7.9 44.9 48.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.83 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 72.3 87.0 427.8 0.2 2.6 208.5 Delay (s)101.3 116.0 471.2 6.8 47.6 257.0 Level of Service F F F A D F Approach Delay (s)104.7 102.9 0.0 153.6 Approach LOS F F A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 110.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.1%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2030 Future Year with Project - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1550 0 0 1750 0 1070 30 830 0 0 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4940 4940 1633 1641 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4940 4940 1633 1641 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1632 0 0 1842 0 1126 32 874 0 0 32 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1632 0 0 1842 0 574 584 874 0 0 32 Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)41.0 41.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 Effective Green, g (s)41.0 41.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1688 1688 939 944 884 900 v/s Ratio Prot 0.33 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.36 c0.57 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.97 1.09 0.61 0.62 0.99 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 38.8 39.5 16.7 16.8 25.1 11.1 Progression Factor 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 51.3 3.0 3.0 27.6 0.1 Delay (s)24.9 90.8 19.7 19.9 52.7 11.1 Level of Service C F B B D B Approach Delay (s)24.9 90.8 33.9 11.1 Approach LOS C F C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 50.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2360 1110 770 2480 0 200 0 390 820 150 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)6166 2682 3303 6166 1618 1403 1447 3303 3406 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)6166 2682 3303 6166 1618 1410 1447 3303 3406 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2484 1168 811 2611 0 211 0 411 863 158 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 524 0 0 0 0 122 193 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2484 644 811 2611 0 190 96 21 863 158 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)37.3 37.3 18.8 60.3 34.0 45.5 11.5 33.4 10.9 Effective Green, g (s)37.3 37.3 18.8 60.3 34.0 45.5 11.5 33.4 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.16 0.50 0.28 0.38 0.10 0.28 0.09 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1917 834 517 3098 458 533 139 919 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.40 c0.25 0.42 0.12 0.05 c0.26 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.30 0.77 1.57 0.84 0.41 0.18 0.15 0.94 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 41.4 37.5 50.6 25.8 34.9 24.8 49.8 42.3 52.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 137.1 6.9 258.7 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.5 16.7 1.4 Delay (s)178.4 44.4 302.3 21.7 35.5 25.0 50.2 59.0 53.4 Level of Service F D F C D C D E D Approach Delay (s)135.6 88.2 36.9 58.1 Approach LOS F F D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 100.9 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.14 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)19.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.9%ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 3510 0 0 2870 950 860 1680 360 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.81 0.81 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 6166 6689 1158 1379 5638 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 6166 6689 1158 1379 5638 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 3695 0 0 3021 1000 905 1768 379 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 3695 0 0 3420 579 606 2446 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)4.2 64.0 56.1 56.1 46.0 46.0 Effective Green, g (s)4.2 64.0 56.1 56.1 46.0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.53 0.47 0.47 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)116 3289 3127 541 529 2161 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.60 0.51 c0.44 0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.50 v/c Ratio 0.46 1.12 1.09 1.07 1.15 1.13 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 28.0 31.9 31.9 37.0 37.0 Progression Factor 0.72 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 58.1 48.1 59.1 85.9 65.8 Delay (s)42.3 70.2 80.1 91.0 122.9 102.8 Level of Service D E F F F F Approach Delay (s)69.8 81.7 106.8 0.0 Approach LOS E F F A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 84.6 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.6%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 11: Gene Autry Way & I-5 HOV Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)200 620 160 170 1680 730 50 0 110 550 0 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1805 5028 1805 4951 1805 2842 3502 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1805 5028 1805 4951 1805 2842 3502 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)211 653 168 179 1768 768 53 0 116 579 0 53 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 48 0 0 87 0 0 0 98 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow (vph)211 773 0 179 2449 0 53 0 18 579 0 6 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Over Prot Over Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 1 7 5 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)11.0 43.4 13.6 47.0 17.5 13.6 16.0 11.0 Effective Green, g (s)11.0 43.4 13.6 47.0 17.5 13.6 16.0 11.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.48 0.15 0.52 0.19 0.15 0.18 0.12 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)221 2425 273 2586 351 429 623 197 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.15 0.10 c0.49 0.03 0.01 c0.17 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.95 0.32 0.66 0.95 0.15 0.04 0.93 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 39.3 14.3 36.0 20.3 30.1 32.6 36.4 34.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 47.5 0.1 5.6 8.3 0.2 0.0 20.3 0.1 Delay (s)86.7 14.3 41.6 28.7 30.3 32.7 56.7 34.9 Level of Service F B D C C C E C Approach Delay (s)29.1 29.5 31.9 54.9 Approach LOS C C C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 160 140 940 930 2230 0 50 1870 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 3212 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 3212 2682 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 168 147 989 979 2347 0 53 1968 189 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 212 0 0 0 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 102 213 777 979 2347 0 53 1968 99 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)28.8 28.8 28.8 35.3 65.3 7.2 37.4 37.4 Effective Green, g (s)28.8 28.8 28.8 35.3 65.3 7.2 37.4 37.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.54 0.06 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)372 771 644 972 3355 102 1922 475 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.38 0.03 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 c0.29 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.28 1.21 1.01 0.70 0.52 1.02 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 37.1 37.1 45.6 42.4 20.1 54.7 41.3 30.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 107.1 30.6 1.2 4.4 26.8 1.0 Delay (s)37.5 37.3 152.7 73.0 21.4 59.1 68.1 31.4 Level of Service D D F E C E E C Approach Delay (s)0.0 124.8 36.6 64.8 Approach LOS A F D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 62.5 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.4%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 20: I-5 SB Ramps & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)150 720 340 0 0 0 0 3240 80 0 1720 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1618 1701 2682 7233 6166 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1618 1701 2682 7233 6166 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)158 758 358 0 0 0 0 3411 84 0 1811 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)142 774 351 0 0 0 0 3492 0 0 1811 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)45.5 45.5 45.5 58.5 58.5 Effective Green, g (s)45.5 45.5 45.5 58.5 58.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.49 0.49 Clearance Time (s)7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)613 645 1017 3526 3006 v/s Ratio Prot c0.48 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.46 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.23 1.20 0.35 0.99 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 25.4 37.2 26.6 30.5 22.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 104.4 0.2 13.1 0.9 Delay (s)25.5 141.7 26.8 43.5 23.2 Level of Service C F C D C Approach Delay (s)96.5 0.0 43.5 23.2 Approach LOS F A D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.3%ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2120 3130 0 1190 960 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2232 3295 0 1253 1011 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2232 3295 0 1253 1011 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)68.0 68.0 43.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s)68.0 68.0 43.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2773 2773 610 961 v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 c0.67 c0.74 v/s Ratio Perm 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.80 1.19 2.05 1.05 Uniform Delay, d1 20.7 26.0 38.5 38.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 88.6 480.0 43.7 Delay (s)23.3 114.6 518.5 82.2 Level of Service C F F F Approach Delay (s)23.3 114.6 323.7 Approach LOS C F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 149.2 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 193.4%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 3200 2840 0 1180 1020 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 1703 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 1703 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 3368 2989 0 1242 1074 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 3368 2989 0 1242 1073 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)72.0 72.0 39.0 39.0 Effective Green, g (s)72.0 72.0 39.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2936 2936 553 872 v/s Ratio Prot c0.69 0.61 c0.73 v/s Ratio Perm 0.40 v/c Ratio 1.15 1.02 2.25 1.23 Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 24.0 40.5 40.5 Progression Factor 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 70.7 10.5 566.5 113.6 Delay (s)94.7 22.3 607.0 154.1 Level of Service F C F F Approach Delay (s)94.7 22.3 397.0 Approach LOS F C F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 150.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 204.7%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2860 0 0 3140 660 720 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3209 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3209 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3011 0 0 3305 695 758 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)3011 0 0 3305 990 461 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)77.0 77.0 33.4 33.4 Effective Green, g (s)77.0 77.0 33.4 33.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3140 3140 893 386 v/s Ratio Prot 0.62 c0.68 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 v/c Ratio 0.96 1.05 1.11 1.20 Uniform Delay, d1 20.0 21.5 43.3 43.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.0 32.1 64.6 110.5 Delay (s)29.0 53.6 107.9 153.8 Level of Service C D F F Approach Delay (s)29.0 53.6 122.5 Approach LOS C D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 57.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.0%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3700 0 0 3730 440 1740 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3079 1386 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3079 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3895 0 0 3926 463 1832 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)3895 0 0 3926 1379 916 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)66.0 66.0 44.0 44.0 Effective Green, g (s)66.0 66.0 44.0 44.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3992 3391 1129 508 v/s Ratio Prot 0.54 c0.64 0.45 v/s Ratio Perm c0.66 v/c Ratio 0.98 1.16 1.64dr 1.80 Uniform Delay, d1 26.2 27.0 38.0 38.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.6 74.7 107.8 369.2 Delay (s)35.8 101.7 145.8 407.2 Level of Service D F F F Approach Delay (s)35.8 101.7 250.1 Approach LOS D F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 110.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 123.1%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1930 1330 520 2090 0 0 0 0 400 0 410 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4463 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4463 1310 1703 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 2200 0 0 0 0 421 0 432 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2648 784 547 2200 0 0 0 0 421 0 415 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)58.0 58.0 27.0 90.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s)58.0 58.0 27.0 90.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.22 0.75 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2157 633 383 3670 551 254 v/s Ratio Prot 0.59 c0.60 c0.32 0.45 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 v/c Ratio 1.23 1.24 1.43 0.60 0.76 1.64 Uniform Delay, d1 31.0 31.0 46.5 6.8 47.7 50.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.81 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 106.8 120.5 205.1 0.2 6.2 303.0 Delay (s)137.8 151.5 244.9 5.7 54.0 353.0 Level of Service F F F A D F Approach Delay (s)140.9 53.4 0.0 205.4 Approach LOS F D A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 114.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.1%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 44: Katella Ave & 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1550 0 0 1850 0 1070 30 830 0 0 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4940 4940 1633 1641 1538 1565 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4940 4940 1633 1641 1538 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1632 0 0 1947 0 1126 32 874 0 0 32 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1632 0 0 1947 0 574 584 873 0 0 32 Turn Type Perm Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)43.0 43.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 Effective Green, g (s)43.0 43.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1770 1770 912 916 859 874 v/s Ratio Prot 0.33 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.36 c0.57 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.92 1.10 0.63 0.64 1.02 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 36.9 38.5 18.0 18.2 26.5 11.9 Progression Factor 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 54.3 3.3 3.4 34.9 0.1 Delay (s)14.9 92.8 21.3 21.6 61.4 12.0 Level of Service B F C C E B Approach Delay (s)14.9 92.8 38.6 12.0 Approach LOS B F D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 50.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.7%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX H-4: CALTRANS RAMP TERMINI SYNCHRO WORKSHEETS UNDER 2011 BASELINE CONDITIONS (MITIGATED) (COMPARSION 3 – PROJECT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT VS. AAHC EVENT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT) Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2011 Baseline with Project & AS Event (Mitigation) - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2460 0 0 1149 372 1492 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3113 2621 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3113 2621 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)2536 0 0 1368 404 1622 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 1 2 Lane Group Flow (vph)2536 0 0 1368 938 1085 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)49.0 49.0 31.0 31.0 Effective Green, g (s)49.0 49.0 31.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3952 3357 1072 903 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.22 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.41 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.41 1.02dr 1.20 Uniform Delay, d1 14.4 12.0 27.7 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.4 7.9 101.3 Delay (s)15.2 12.4 35.6 130.8 Level of Service B B D F Approach Delay (s)15.2 12.4 86.7 Approach LOS B B F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 39.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.6%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX H-5: CALTRANS RAMP TERMINI SYNCHRO WORKSHEETS UNDER 2013 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS (MITIGATED) (COMPARSION 3 – PROJECT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT VS. AAHC EVENT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT) Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Ave & SR-57 NB Ramps 2013 Opening Year Project&Concurrent AS Event (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1390 0 0 1240 390 1520 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 6166 3116 2621 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 6166 3116 2621 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)1463 0 0 1305 411 1600 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 19 Lane Group Flow (vph)1463 0 0 1305 928 1053 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)44.0 44.0 36.0 36.0 Effective Green, g (s)44.0 44.0 36.0 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3549 3014 1246 1048 v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.21 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.43 0.85dr 1.00 Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 14.9 23.1 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.5 2.2 28.9 Delay (s)15.1 15.4 25.2 55.9 Level of Service B B C E Approach Delay (s)15.1 15.4 41.6 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.0%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX H-6: CALTRANS RAMP TERMINI SYNCHRO WORKSHEETS UNDER 2030 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS (MITIGATED) Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices (COMPARISON 1 – PROJECT VS. NO EVENTS) Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2030 Future Year with Project (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 3000 0 0 2870 950 860 1680 360 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 6166 6689 1158 3303 4893 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 6166 6689 1158 3303 4893 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 3158 0 0 3021 1000 905 1768 379 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 3158 0 0 3420 579 905 1768 379 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)4.2 67.0 59.1 59.1 43.0 41.0 41.0 Effective Green, g (s)4.2 67.0 59.1 59.1 43.0 41.0 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.56 0.49 0.49 0.36 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)116 3443 3294 570 1184 1672 521 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.51 c0.51 0.27 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.50 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.92 1.04 1.02 0.76 1.06 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 24.0 30.4 30.4 34.0 39.5 34.6 Progression Factor 0.64 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 3.5 26.8 41.9 3.0 39.0 8.6 Delay (s)38.3 14.0 57.2 72.3 37.0 78.5 43.2 Level of Service D B E E D E D Approach Delay (s)14.4 59.5 61.8 0.0 Approach LOS B E E A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2120 3130 0 1190 960 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.86 0.97 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 6166 3303 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 6166 3303 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2232 3295 0 1253 1011 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2232 3295 0 1253 1011 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)67.0 67.0 44.0 44.0 Effective Green, g (s)67.0 67.0 44.0 44.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2732 3443 1211 983 v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 c0.53 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.96 1.03 1.03 Uniform Delay, d1 21.5 25.1 38.0 38.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 8.2 35.2 36.2 Delay (s)24.4 33.3 73.2 74.2 Level of Service C C E E Approach Delay (s)24.4 33.3 73.7 Approach LOS C C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 140.8%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2860 0 0 3140 660 720 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.86 0.97 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 6166 3303 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 6166 3303 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3011 0 0 3305 695 758 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 2 Lane Group Flow (vph)3011 0 0 3305 695 756 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)79.0 79.0 31.4 31.4 Effective Green, g (s)79.0 79.0 31.4 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3221 4059 864 702 v/s Ratio Prot c0.62 0.54 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.81 0.80 1.08 Uniform Delay, d1 18.2 15.1 41.4 44.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 1.9 5.5 56.5 Delay (s)24.8 17.0 46.9 100.8 Level of Service C B D F Approach Delay (s)24.8 17.0 75.0 Approach LOS C B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.4%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3060 0 0 3500 390 1520 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.81 0.97 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 7259 3116 2621 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 7259 3116 2621 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3221 0 0 3684 411 1600 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)3221 0 0 3684 939 1072 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)67.0 67.0 43.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s)67.0 67.0 43.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4053 4053 1117 939 v/s Ratio Prot 0.44 c0.51 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.41 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.91 0.97dr 1.14 Uniform Delay, d1 21.0 23.8 35.4 38.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 4.0 5.8 76.6 Delay (s)22.7 27.8 41.2 115.1 Level of Service C C D F Approach Delay (s)22.7 27.8 80.6 Approach LOS C C F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2030 Future Year with Project (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1930 1330 520 1990 0 0 0 0 400 0 410 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 2682 3303 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 2682 3303 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 2095 0 0 0 0 421 0 432 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 2095 0 0 0 0 421 0 420 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)57.0 57.0 19.0 81.0 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s)57.0 57.0 19.0 81.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.16 0.68 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2324 1274 523 3303 798 368 v/s Ratio Prot 0.42 c0.52 c0.17 0.43 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.87 1.10 1.05 0.63 0.53 1.14 Uniform Delay, d1 28.3 31.5 50.5 11.1 39.5 45.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.80 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 56.8 49.1 0.3 0.6 91.0 Delay (s)32.3 88.3 92.9 9.2 40.2 136.5 Level of Service C F F A D F Approach Delay (s)55.1 26.5 0.0 89.0 Approach LOS E C A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.2%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices (COMPARISON 2 – PROJECT VS. AAHC EVENT) Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2030 Future Year with Project (Mitigation) - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 3000 0 0 2870 950 860 1680 360 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 6166 6689 1158 3303 4893 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 6166 6689 1158 3303 4893 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 3158 0 0 3021 1000 905 1768 379 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 3158 0 0 3420 579 905 1768 379 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)4.2 67.0 59.1 59.1 43.0 41.0 41.0 Effective Green, g (s)4.2 67.0 59.1 59.1 43.0 41.0 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.56 0.49 0.49 0.36 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)116 3443 3294 570 1184 1672 521 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.51 c0.51 0.27 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.50 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.92 1.04 1.02 0.76 1.06 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 24.0 30.4 30.4 34.0 39.5 34.6 Progression Factor 0.64 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 3.5 26.8 41.9 3.0 39.0 8.6 Delay (s)38.3 14.0 57.2 72.3 37.0 78.5 43.2 Level of Service D B E E D E D Approach Delay (s)14.4 59.5 61.8 0.0 Approach LOS B E E A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project (Mitigation) - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2120 3130 0 1190 960 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3303 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3303 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2232 3295 0 1253 1011 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2232 3295 0 1253 1010 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)71.0 71.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s)71.0 71.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2895 2895 1101 894 v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 c0.67 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.77 1.14 1.14 1.13 Uniform Delay, d1 18.4 24.5 40.0 40.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 66.9 73.5 72.7 Delay (s)20.4 91.4 113.5 112.7 Level of Service C F F F Approach Delay (s)20.4 91.4 113.1 Approach LOS C F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 77.4 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.14 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 140.8%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project (Mitigation) - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2860 0 0 3140 660 720 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3303 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3303 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3011 0 0 3305 695 758 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 2 Lane Group Flow (vph)3011 0 0 3305 695 756 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)79.0 79.0 31.4 31.4 Effective Green, g (s)79.0 79.0 31.4 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3221 3221 864 702 v/s Ratio Prot 0.62 c0.68 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.93 1.03 0.80 1.08 Uniform Delay, d1 18.2 20.5 41.4 44.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 23.0 5.5 56.5 Delay (s)24.8 43.5 46.9 100.8 Level of Service C D D F Approach Delay (s)24.8 43.5 75.0 Approach LOS C D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.4%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project (Mitigation) - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3060 0 0 3500 390 1520 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.81 0.97 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 7259 3116 2621 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 7259 3116 2621 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3221 0 0 3684 411 1600 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)3221 0 0 3684 939 1072 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)64.0 64.0 46.0 46.0 Effective Green, g (s)64.0 64.0 46.0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3871 3871 1194 1005 v/s Ratio Prot 0.44 c0.51 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.41 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.95 0.90dr 1.07 Uniform Delay, d1 23.5 26.5 32.7 37.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 6.9 3.5 47.9 Delay (s)25.7 33.5 36.2 84.9 Level of Service C C D F Approach Delay (s)25.7 33.5 62.2 Approach LOS C C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 37.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2030 Future Year with Project (Mitigation) - PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1930 1330 520 1990 0 0 0 0 400 0 410 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 2682 3303 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 2682 3303 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 2095 0 0 0 0 421 0 432 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 2095 0 0 0 0 421 0 420 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)57.0 57.0 19.0 81.0 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g (s)57.0 57.0 19.0 81.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.16 0.68 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2324 1274 523 3303 798 368 v/s Ratio Prot 0.42 c0.52 c0.17 0.43 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.87 1.10 1.05 0.63 0.53 1.14 Uniform Delay, d1 28.3 31.5 50.5 11.1 39.5 45.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.80 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 56.8 49.1 0.3 0.6 91.0 Delay (s)32.3 88.3 92.9 9.2 40.2 136.5 Level of Service C F F A D F Approach Delay (s)55.1 26.5 0.0 89.0 Approach LOS E C A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.2%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices (COMPARSION 3 – PROJECT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT VS. AAHC EVENT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT) Honda Center Traffic Study 6: Katella Avenue & Manchester Avenue 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2360 1110 770 2480 0 200 0 390 820 150 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 2682 3303 6166 1618 1403 1447 3303 3406 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 2682 3303 6166 1618 1410 1447 3303 3406 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2484 1168 811 2611 0 211 0 411 863 158 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 591 0 0 0 0 126 196 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2484 577 811 2611 0 190 92 18 863 158 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s)37.3 37.3 19.8 61.3 33.0 43.3 10.3 33.6 10.9 Effective Green, g (s)37.3 37.3 19.8 61.3 33.0 43.3 10.3 33.6 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.17 0.51 0.28 0.36 0.09 0.28 0.09 Clearance Time (s)5.3 5.3 4.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2256 834 545 3150 445 507 124 925 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 c0.25 0.42 0.12 0.05 c0.26 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.10 0.69 1.49 0.83 0.43 0.18 0.15 0.93 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 41.4 36.3 50.1 24.9 35.7 26.2 50.8 42.1 52.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 52.9 4.7 224.6 1.4 0.7 0.2 0.6 15.8 1.4 Delay (s)94.3 41.0 269.7 23.3 36.4 26.4 51.3 57.9 53.4 Level of Service F D F C D C D E D Approach Delay (s)77.3 81.7 38.0 57.2 Approach LOS E F D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 73.8 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.1%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 7: Katella Avenue & Anaheim Way 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 3510 0 0 2870 950 860 1680 360 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3303 6166 6689 1158 3303 4893 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3303 6166 6689 1158 3303 4893 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)53 3695 0 0 3021 1000 905 1768 379 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)53 3695 0 0 3421 580 905 1768 379 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s)4.2 68.0 60.1 60.1 42.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s)4.2 68.0 60.1 60.1 42.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s)4.7 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)116 3494 3350 580 1156 1631 508 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.60 0.51 0.27 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.50 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.46 1.06 1.02 1.00 0.78 1.08 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 26.0 29.9 29.9 34.9 40.0 35.5 Progression Factor 0.78 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 31.2 21.1 37.2 3.5 48.8 9.6 Delay (s)46.0 44.6 51.1 67.1 38.5 88.8 45.1 Level of Service D D D E D F D Approach Delay (s)44.6 53.4 68.5 0.0 Approach LOS D D E A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.3%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 19: Anaheim Way & State College Boulevard 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 160 140 940 930 2230 0 50 1870 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.81 0.86 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1550 2609 2621 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1550 2609 2621 3303 6166 1703 6166 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 168 147 989 979 2347 0 53 1968 189 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 119 205 0 0 0 0 0 91 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 0 0 151 371 458 979 2347 0 53 1968 98 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s)20.5 20.5 20.5 38.6 73.6 7.2 42.4 42.4 Effective Green, g (s)20.5 20.5 20.5 38.6 73.6 7.2 42.4 42.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.32 0.61 0.06 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s)6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 7.0 5.2 6.5 6.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)265 446 448 1062 3782 102 2179 538 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.38 0.03 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.14 c0.17 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.95dr 1.02 0.92 0.62 0.52 0.90 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 45.7 48.1 49.8 39.2 14.5 54.7 36.9 26.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 12.5 48.4 12.8 0.8 4.4 6.7 0.7 Delay (s)48.5 60.6 98.2 52.0 15.3 59.1 43.5 27.6 Level of Service D E F D B E D C Approach Delay (s)0.0 78.3 26.1 42.5 Approach LOS A E C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 41.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 26: Ball Road & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 2120 3130 0 1190 960 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3303 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3303 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2232 3295 0 1253 1011 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2232 3295 0 1253 1011 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)68.0 68.0 43.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s)68.0 68.0 43.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2773 2773 1184 961 v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 c0.67 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.80 1.19 1.06 1.05 Uniform Delay, d1 20.7 26.0 38.5 38.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 88.6 43.0 43.7 Delay (s)23.3 114.6 81.5 82.2 Level of Service C F F F Approach Delay (s)23.3 114.6 81.8 Approach LOS C F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 78.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.14 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 161.4%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 27: Katella Avenue & SR-57 SB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 3200 2840 0 1180 1020 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3303 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3303 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 3368 2989 0 1242 1074 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 3368 2989 0 1242 1073 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s)71.0 71.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s)71.0 71.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2895 2895 1101 894 v/s Ratio Prot c0.69 0.61 0.38 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 v/c Ratio 1.16 1.03 1.13 1.20 Uniform Delay, d1 24.5 24.5 40.0 40.0 Progression Factor 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 77.7 20.4 69.6 101.0 Delay (s)102.2 33.3 109.6 141.0 Level of Service F C F F Approach Delay (s)102.2 33.3 124.2 Approach LOS F C F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 84.3 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.18 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 175.0%ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 28: Ball Road & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2860 0 0 3140 660 720 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 4893 3303 2682 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 4893 3303 2682 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3011 0 0 3305 695 758 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 2 Lane Group Flow (vph)3011 0 0 3305 695 756 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)77.0 77.0 33.4 33.4 Effective Green, g (s)77.0 77.0 33.4 33.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3140 3140 919 746 v/s Ratio Prot 0.62 c0.68 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.96 1.05 0.76 1.01 Uniform Delay, d1 20.0 21.5 39.6 43.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.0 32.1 3.6 36.3 Delay (s)29.0 53.6 43.2 79.6 Level of Service C D D E Approach Delay (s)29.0 53.6 62.2 Approach LOS C D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.4%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 29: Katella Avenue & SR-57 NB Ramps 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3700 0 0 3730 440 1740 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.81 0.81 0.97 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)7259 7259 3114 2621 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)7259 7259 3114 2621 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)3895 0 0 3926 463 1832 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph)3895 0 0 3926 1068 1227 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 2 6 8 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s)67.0 67.0 43.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s)67.0 67.0 43.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4053 4053 1116 939 v/s Ratio Prot 0.54 c0.54 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm c0.47 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.97 1.11dr 1.31 Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 25.5 37.6 38.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.6 8.5 17.4 145.8 Delay (s)32.9 34.0 55.0 184.3 Level of Service C C D F Approach Delay (s)32.9 34.0 124.1 Approach LOS C C F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.9%ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Traffic Study 43: Katella Ave & SR-55 SB Off-Ramp 2030 Future Year with Project&AS Event (Mitigation)- PM Peak Hour HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 7 - Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 1930 1330 520 2090 0 0 0 0 400 0 410 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4893 2682 3303 4893 3303 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4893 2682 3303 4893 3303 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 2200 0 0 0 0 421 0 432 RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Lane Group Flow (vph)0 2032 1400 547 2200 0 0 0 0 421 0 416 Heavy Vehicles (%)6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)58.0 58.0 24.1 87.1 22.9 22.9 Effective Green, g (s)58.0 58.0 24.1 87.1 22.9 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.20 0.73 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2365 1296 663 3552 630 291 v/s Ratio Prot 0.42 c0.52 c0.17 0.45 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 v/c Ratio 0.86 1.08 0.83 0.62 0.67 1.43 Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 31.0 45.9 8.2 45.0 48.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.81 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 49.7 7.0 0.3 2.7 211.8 Delay (s)30.7 80.7 45.5 6.9 47.7 260.3 Level of Service C F D A D F Approach Delay (s)51.1 14.6 0.0 155.4 Approach LOS D B A F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 49.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.2%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX I-1: FREEWAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2011 BASELINE CONDITIONS ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 1- Lincoln Avenue to Disneyland Drive ANALYSIS YEAR:Existing 5,960 6,020 6,220 5 5 5 0.90 0.9 0.9 9 9 9 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 1.00 Level Level Level 1,384 1,398 1,444 68 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)68 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)68 20.3 20.5 21.2 C C C ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 2 - Harbor Boulevard to Katella Avenue ANALYSIS YEAR:Existing 6,310 6,370 6,710 5 5 5 0.90 0.9 0.9 9 9 9 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 1.00 Level Level Level 1,465 1,479 1,558 69 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)69 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)69 21.4 21.6 22.7 C C C ROUTE: SR-57 Southbound SEGMENT: 3- Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road ANALYSIS YEAR:Existing Volume, V (veh/hr)6,540 6,710 7,380 Number of mainline lanes, N 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 % Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % RVs 0 0 0 Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fp 1.00 1.00 1.00 Terrain type Level Level Level 1,549 1,589 1,747 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)69 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)69 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)69 Density, D (pc/mi/ln)22.5 23.1 25.4 Level of Service C C C Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV EXISTING WITH AA HC EVENTS + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV EXISTING WITH AA HC EVENTS + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV EXISTING WITH AA HC EVENTS + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln)Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) EXISTING WITH AA HC EVENT EXISTING WITH AA HC EVENT EXISTING WITH AA HC EVENT Driver population factor, fp Driver population factor, fp Number of mainline lanes, N Terrain type Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln)Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Average passenger-car speed (mi/h) Density, D (pc/mi/ln)Density, D (pc/mi/ln) EXISTING NO EVENT Level of Service Level of Service Level of Service Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Driver population factor, fp Terrain type PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr)Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp % Trucks and buses % Trucks and buses % RVs % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D (pc/mi/ln) HONDA CENTER ENHANCED PROJECT EIR TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr)Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses % Trucks and buses % RVs % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service Level of Service EXISTING NO EVENT EXISTING NO EVENT Terrain type Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln)Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Average passenger-car speed (mi/h) Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Driver population factor, fp ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 1- Lincoln Avenue to Disneyland Drive ANALYSIS YEAR:Existing 6,040 6,240 5 5 0.9 0.9 9 9 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 Level Level 1,403 1,449 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)68 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)68 20.6 21.2 C C ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 2 - Harbor Boulevard to Katella Avenue ANALYSIS YEAR:Existing 6,390 6,730 5 5 0.9 0.9 9 9 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 Level Level 1,484 1,563 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)69 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)69 21.6 22.8 C C ROUTE: SR-57 Southbound SEGMENT: 3- Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road ANALYSIS YEAR:Existing 6,780 7,450 5 5 0.87 0.87 6 6 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.971 0.971 1.00 1.00 Level Level 1,605 1,764 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)69 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)69 23.3 25.6 C C HONDA CENTER ENHANCED PROJECT EIR TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV EXISTING WITH PROJECT + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV EXISTING WITH PROJECT + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV EXISTING WITH PROJECT + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV EXISTING WITH PROJECT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV EXISTING WITH PROJECT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV EXISTING WITH PROJECT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX I-2: FREEWAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2013 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 1- Lincoln Avenue to Disneyland Drive ANALYSIS YEAR:2013 Opening Year 6,560 6,620 6,820 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 0.95 9 9 9 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 1.00 Level Level Level 1,443 1,456 1,500 65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 22.2 22.4 23.1 C C C ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 2 - Harbor Boulevard to Katella Avenue ANALYSIS YEAR:2013 Opening Year 6,940 7,000 7,340 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 0.95 9 9 9 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 1.00 Level Level Level 1,527 1,540 1,615 65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 23.5 23.7 24.8 C C C ROUTE: SR-57 Southbound SEGMENT: 3- Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road ANALYSIS YEAR:2013 Opening Year Volume, V (veh/hr)7,190 7,360 8,030 Number of mainline lanes, N 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 % Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % RVs 0 0 0 Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fp 1.00 1.00 1.00 Terrain type Level Level Level 1,559 1,596 1,741 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Density, D (pc/mi/ln)24.0 24.6 26.8 Level of Service C C D Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2013 WITH AA HC EVENTS + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2013 WITH AA HC EVENTS + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2013 WITH AA HC EVENTS + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln)Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) 2013 WITH AA HC EVENT 2013 WITH AA HC EVENT 2013 WITH AA HC EVENT Driver population factor, fp Driver population factor, fp Number of mainline lanes, N Terrain type Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln)Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Average passenger-car speed (mi/h) Density, D (pc/mi/ln)Density, D (pc/mi/ln) 2013 NO EVENT Level of Service Level of Service Level of Service Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Driver population factor, fp Terrain type PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr)Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp % Trucks and buses % Trucks and buses % RVs % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Trucks and buses PCE, ET Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses % Trucks and buses % RVs % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Density, D (pc/mi/ln)Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service Level of Service 2013 NO EVENT 2013 NO EVENT Terrain type Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln)Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Average passenger-car speed (mi/h) Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Driver population factor, fp HONDA CENTER ENHANCED PROJECT EIR TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr)Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 1- Lincoln Avenue to Disneyland Drive ANALYSIS YEAR:2013 Opening Year 6,640 6,840 5 5 0.95 0.95 9 9 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 Level Level 1,461 1,505 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 22.5 23.2 C C ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 2 - Harbor Boulevard to Katella Avenue ANALYSIS YEAR:2013 Opening Year 7,020 7,360 5 5 0.95 0.95 9 9 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 Level Level 1,544 1,619 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 23.8 24.9 C C ROUTE: SR-57 Southbound SEGMENT: 3- Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road ANALYSIS YEAR:2013 Opening Year 7,430 8,100 5 5 0.95 0.95 6 6 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.971 0.971 1.00 1.00 Level Level 1,611 1,756 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 24.8 27.0 C D Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2013 WITH PROJECT + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2013 WITH PROJECT + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2013 WITH PROJECT + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2013 WITH PROJECT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2013 WITH PROJECT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2013 WITH PROJECT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF HONDA CENTER ENHANCED PROJECT EIR TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX I-3: FREEWAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2030 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 1- Lincoln Avenue to Disneyland Drive ANALYSIS YEAR:2030 Future Year 8,700 8,760 8,960 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 0.95 9 9 9 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 1.00 Level Level Level 1,914 1,927 1,971 65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 29.4 29.6 30.3 D D D ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 2 - Harbor Boulevard to Katella Avenue ANALYSIS YEAR:2030 Future Year 9,150 9,210 9,550 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 0.95 9 9 9 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 1.00 Level Level Level 2,013 2,026 2,101 65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 31.0 31.2 32.3 D D D ROUTE: SR-57 Southbound SEGMENT: 3- Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road ANALYSIS YEAR:2030 Future Year Volume, V (veh/hr)8,340 8,510 9,180 Number of mainline lanes, N 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 % Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % RVs 0 0 0 Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fp 1.00 1.00 1.00 Terrain type Level Level Level 1,808 1,845 1,991 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Density, D (pc/mi/ln)27.8 28.4 30.6 Level of Service D D D Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2030 WITH AA HC EVENTS + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2030 WITH AA HC EVENTS + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2030 WITH AA HC EVENTS + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln)Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) 2030 WITH AA HC EVENT 2030 WITH AA HC EVENT 2030 WITH AA HC EVENT Driver population factor, fp Driver population factor, fp Number of mainline lanes, N Terrain type Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln)Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Average passenger-car speed (mi/h) Density, D (pc/mi/ln)Density, D (pc/mi/ln) 2030 NO EVENTS Level of Service Level of Service Level of Service Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Driver population factor, fp Terrain type PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr)Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp % Trucks and buses % Trucks and buses % RVs % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D (pc/mi/ln) HONDA CENTER ENHANCED PROJECT EIR TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr)Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses % Trucks and buses % RVs % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service Level of Service 2030 NO EVENTS 2030 NO EVENTS Terrain type Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln)Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Average passenger-car speed (mi/h) Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Driver population factor, fp ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 1- Lincoln Avenue to Disneyland Drive ANALYSIS YEAR:2030 Future Year 8,780 8,980 5 5 0.95 0.95 9 9 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 Level Level 1,932 1,976 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 29.7 30.4 D D ROUTE: I-5 Southbound SEGMENT: 2 - Harbor Boulevard to Katella Avenue ANALYSIS YEAR:2030 Future Year 9,230 9,570 5 5 0.95 0.95 9 9 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.957 0.957 1.00 1.00 Level Level 2,031 2,105 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 31.2 32.4 D D ROUTE: SR-57 Southbound SEGMENT: 3- Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road ANALYSIS YEAR:2030 Future Year 8,580 9,250 5 5 0.95 0.95 6 6 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.971 0.971 1.00 1.00 Level Level 1,861 2,006 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 Average passenger-car speed (mi/h)65 28.6 30.9 D D HONDA CENTER ENHANCED PROJECT EIR TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2030 WITH PROJECT + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2030 WITH PROJECT + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2030 WITH PROJECT + CONCURRENT AS EVENT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2030 WITH PROJECT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2030 WITH PROJECT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Driver population factor, fp Terrain type Flow rate, VF (pc/h/ln) Density, D (pc/mi/ln) Level of Service % Trucks and buses % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 2030 WITH PROJECT PM Peak Hour Volume, V (veh/hr) Number of mainline lanes, N Peak Hour Factor, PHF Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX J-1: HCS FREEWAY WEAVING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2011 BASELINE CONDITIONS 2011 Baseline No Events ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 68 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.18 Weaving ratio, R 0.41 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4860 30 630 440 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1350 8 175 122 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5643 34 721 503 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.68 0.33 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.53 58.49 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.39 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 56.67 mph Weaving segment density, D 24.35 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10786 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10322 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9290 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1224 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1380 2380 b Volume ratio, VR 0.18 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.41 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.08 Weaving ratio, R 0.45 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5355 10 260 215 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1539 3 75 62 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6339 11 307 254 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.43 0.13 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 53.52 63.85 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.74 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 62.87 mph Weaving segment density, D 21.99 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9925 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 561 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1382 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.08 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.45 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 70 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.11 Weaving ratio, R 0.33 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5550 10 450 220 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1595 3 129 63 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6570 11 532 260 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.15 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 56.42 67.29 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.69 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 65.92 mph Weaving segment density, D 22.37 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11863 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11517 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10020 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 792 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1474 2400 b Volume ratio, VR 0.11 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.33 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.12 Weaving ratio, R 0.26 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5670 10 550 190 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1629 3 158 55 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6712 11 651 224 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.43 0.16 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 53.34 62.48 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.45 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.27 mph Weaving segment density, D 31.00 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7940 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 875 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1899 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.12 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.26 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.16 Weaving ratio, R 0.36 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4460 20 560 320 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1282 6 161 92 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5280 23 662 378 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.39 0.16 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 54.59 62.49 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.61 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.04 mph Weaving segment density, D 25.98 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7940 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1040 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1585 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.16 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.36 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.33 Weaving ratio, R 0.44 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3126 50 874 700 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 898 14 251 201 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3700 59 1034 828 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.62 0.23 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 36.00 59.81 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.05 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 49.06 mph Weaving segment density, D 22.91 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8806 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1862 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1124 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.33 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.44 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 68 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.16 Weaving ratio, R 0.42 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5420 30 630 460 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1506 8 175 128 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6293 34 721 526 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.73 0.36 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 48.60 57.63 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.34 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 55.92 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.09 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10877 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10409 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9368 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1247 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1514 2380 b Volume ratio, VR 0.16 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.42 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.09 Weaving ratio, R 0.39 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5450 20 340 220 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1566 6 98 63 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6452 23 402 260 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.14 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.99 63.30 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.78 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 62.18 mph Weaving segment density, D 22.96 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9925 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 662 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1427 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.09 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.39 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 70 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.19 Weaving ratio, R 0.21 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5340 10 990 260 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1534 3 284 75 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6322 11 1172 307 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.55 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 53.80 63.39 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.09 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.32 mph Weaving segment density, D 25.48 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11732 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11390 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9909 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1479 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1562 2400 b Volume ratio, VR 0.19 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.21 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.13 Weaving ratio, R 0.22 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5570 10 670 190 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1601 3 193 55 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6594 11 793 224 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.18 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.89 61.81 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.51 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 60.45 mph Weaving segment density, D 31.52 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7940 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1017 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1905 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.13 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.22 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.22 Weaving ratio, R 0.29 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4170 20 840 350 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1198 6 241 101 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4936 23 994 414 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.43 0.21 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 53.36 60.40 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.83 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 58.69 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.12 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9300 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9029 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7855 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1408 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1591 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.22 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.29 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.33 Weaving ratio, R 0.43 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3230 50 910 700 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 928 14 261 201 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3824 59 1077 828 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.66 0.23 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 35.68 59.54 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.05 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 48.80 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.72 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8806 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1905 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1157 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.33 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.43 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 68 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.17 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5640 40 750 450 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1567 11 208 125 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6548 46 858 515 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.77 0.40 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 47.69 56.57 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.39 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 54.81 mph Weaving segment density, D 29.07 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10822 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10356 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9320 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1373 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1593 2380 b Volume ratio, VR 0.17 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.09 Weaving ratio, R 0.39 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5450 20 340 220 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1566 6 98 63 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6452 23 402 260 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.14 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.99 63.30 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.78 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 62.18 mph Weaving segment density, D 22.96 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9925 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 662 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1427 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.09 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.39 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 70 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.24 Weaving ratio, R 0.17 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5020 10 1310 260 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1443 3 376 75 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5943 11 1550 307 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.60 0.30 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.58 60.99 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.37 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 58.76 mph Weaving segment density, D 26.59 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11580 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11243 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9781 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1857 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1562 2400 b Volume ratio, VR 0.24 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.17 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.15 Weaving ratio, R 0.32 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5450 20 660 310 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1566 6 190 89 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6452 23 781 367 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.47 0.19 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.50 61.16 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.58 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 59.67 mph Weaving segment density, D 31.94 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7940 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1148 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1905 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.15 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.32 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.36 Weaving ratio, R 0.18 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3800 20 1770 390 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1092 6 509 112 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4498 23 2095 461 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.59 0.45 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.53 52.90 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.49 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 51.63 mph Weaving segment density, D 34.27 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 8541 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 8292 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7214 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2556 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1769 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.36 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.18 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.36 Weaving ratio, R 0.36 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3300 70 1230 680 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 948 20 353 195 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3906 82 1456 805 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.89 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 34.06 57.77 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.19 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 46.15 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.08 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8806 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2261 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1249 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.36 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.36 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2011 Baseline with Project ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 68 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.17 Weaving ratio, R 0.43 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5430 30 630 470 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1508 8 175 131 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6304 34 721 537 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.73 0.36 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 48.53 57.55 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.34 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 55.83 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.21 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10870 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10402 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9362 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1258 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1519 2380 b Volume ratio, VR 0.17 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.43 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.10 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5610 20 380 230 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1612 6 109 66 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6641 23 449 272 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.46 0.15 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.59 62.94 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.79 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.75 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.92 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9925 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 721 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1477 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.10 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 70 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.22 Weaving ratio, R 0.18 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5250 10 1230 270 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1509 3 353 78 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6215 11 1456 319 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.59 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.74 61.56 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.27 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 59.36 mph Weaving segment density, D 26.96 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11637 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11298 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9829 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1775 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1600 2400 b Volume ratio, VR 0.22 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.18 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.14 Weaving ratio, R 0.21 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5530 10 720 190 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1589 3 207 55 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6547 11 852 224 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.46 0.18 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.71 61.51 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.54 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 60.10 mph Weaving segment density, D 31.76 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7940 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1076 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1908 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.14 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.21 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.25 Weaving ratio, R 0.28 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4030 20 970 370 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1158 6 279 106 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4771 23 1148 438 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.46 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.77 59.28 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.95 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 57.51 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.73 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9170 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 8903 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7746 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1586 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1595 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.25 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.28 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.33 Weaving ratio, R 0.43 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3270 50 930 700 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 940 14 267 201 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3871 59 1101 828 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.68 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 35.53 59.40 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.05 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 48.64 mph Weaving segment density, D 24.09 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8806 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1929 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1171 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.33 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.43 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 68 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.17 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5650 40 750 460 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1569 11 208 128 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6560 46 858 526 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.78 0.40 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 47.63 56.49 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.39 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 54.73 mph Weaving segment density, D 29.20 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10816 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10350 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9315 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1384 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1598 2380 b Volume ratio, VR 0.17 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.10 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5610 20 380 230 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1612 6 109 66 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6641 23 449 272 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.46 0.15 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.59 62.94 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.79 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.75 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.92 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9925 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 721 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1477 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.10 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 70 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.27 Weaving ratio, R 0.15 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4930 10 1550 270 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1417 3 445 78 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5836 11 1835 319 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.64 0.36 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 51.56 59.03 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.56 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 56.81 mph Weaving segment density, D 28.17 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11468 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11134 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9687 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2154 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1600 2400 b Volume ratio, VR 0.27 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.15 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.16 Weaving ratio, R 0.30 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5410 20 710 310 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1555 6 204 89 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6404 23 840 367 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.47 0.20 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.32 60.85 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.61 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 59.32 mph Weaving segment density, D 32.17 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7940 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1207 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1908 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.16 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.30 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.39 Weaving ratio, R 0.18 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3660 20 1900 410 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1052 6 546 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4333 23 2249 485 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.62 0.50 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.00 51.60 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.61 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 50.57 mph Weaving segment density, D 35.05 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 8386 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 8142 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7084 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2734 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1772 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.39 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.18 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.36 Weaving ratio, R 0.35 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3340 70 1250 680 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 960 20 359 195 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3954 82 1479 805 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.91 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 33.93 57.64 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.20 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 46.02 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.47 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8806 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2284 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1264 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.36 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.35 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX J-2: HCS FREEWAY WEAVING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2013 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS 2013 Opening Year No Events ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.18 Weaving ratio, R 0.41 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5350 40 690 480 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1408 11 182 126 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5885 44 748 520 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.65 0.20 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 35.77 60.81 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.41 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 54.13 mph Weaving segment density, D 26.59 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10509 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10056 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9553 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1268 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1439 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.18 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.41 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.08 Weaving ratio, R 0.45 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5900 20 280 230 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1553 5 74 61 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6396 21 303 249 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.43 0.13 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 53.50 63.86 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.73 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 62.90 mph Weaving segment density, D 22.16 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 552 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1393 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.08 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.45 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.11 Weaving ratio, R 0.32 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6100 10 500 240 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1605 3 132 63 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6613 10 542 260 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.15 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.90 62.87 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.77 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.61 mph Weaving segment density, D 24.10 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11724 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11383 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10814 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 802 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1485 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.11 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.32 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.12 Weaving ratio, R 0.26 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6230 10 610 210 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1639 3 161 55 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6754 10 661 227 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.37 0.13 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 55.02 63.75 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.60 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 62.60 mph Weaving segment density, D 24.45 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 888 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1530 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.12 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.26 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.16 Weaving ratio, R 0.36 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4910 20 620 350 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1292 5 163 92 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5323 21 672 379 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.39 0.16 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 54.52 62.43 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.61 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 60.97 mph Weaving segment density, D 26.22 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8670 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1051 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1598 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.16 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.36 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.33 Weaving ratio, R 0.45 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3430 50 970 780 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 903 13 255 205 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3718 54 1051 845 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.64 0.23 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 35.83 59.63 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.06 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 48.79 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.23 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9616 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1896 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1133 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.33 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.45 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.16 Weaving ratio, R 0.42 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5960 40 690 500 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1568 11 182 132 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6556 44 748 542 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.75 0.38 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 46.35 54.89 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.36 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 53.29 mph Weaving segment density, D 29.61 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10601 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10144 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9637 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1290 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1578 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.16 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.42 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.09 Weaving ratio, R 0.40 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6060 20 370 250 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1595 5 97 66 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6570 21 401 271 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.14 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.85 63.21 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.77 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 62.08 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.40 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 672 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1452 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.09 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.40 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.18 Weaving ratio, R 0.21 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5890 10 1040 280 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1550 3 274 74 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6386 10 1127 303 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.54 0.23 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 50.70 59.63 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.13 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 57.77 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.09 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11485 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11150 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10592 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1430 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1565 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.18 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.21 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.13 Weaving ratio, R 0.22 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6130 10 730 210 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1613 3 192 55 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6646 10 791 227 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.39 0.14 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 54.64 63.23 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.67 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.94 mph Weaving segment density, D 24.78 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1018 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1534 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.13 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.22 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.22 Weaving ratio, R 0.30 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4620 20 900 380 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1216 5 237 100 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5009 21 975 412 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.43 0.21 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 53.40 60.53 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.81 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 58.83 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.27 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9324 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9052 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8599 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1387 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1604 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.22 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.30 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.33 Weaving ratio, R 0.44 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3530 50 1010 780 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 929 13 266 205 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3827 54 1095 845 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.68 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 35.52 59.37 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.06 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 48.52 mph Weaving segment density, D 24.00- pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9616 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1940 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1164 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.33 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.44 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.17 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6170 40 820 500 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1624 11 216 132 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6787 44 889 542 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.87 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 34.14 59.44 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.42 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 52.68 mph Weaving segment density, D 31.37 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10531 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10078 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9574 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1431 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1652 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.17 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.09 Weaving ratio, R 0.40 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6060 20 370 250 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1595 5 97 66 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6570 21 401 271 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.14 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.85 63.21 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.77 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 62.08 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.40 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 672 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1452 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.09 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.40 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.23 Weaving ratio, R 0.17 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5570 10 1360 280 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1466 3 358 74 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6039 10 1474 303 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.59 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.67 57.64 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.37 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 55.62 mph Weaving segment density, D 28.14 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11368 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11037 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10485 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1777 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1565 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.23 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.17 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.15 Weaving ratio, R 0.31 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6010 20 720 330 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1582 5 189 87 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6516 21 780 357 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.40 0.15 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 54.31 62.73 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.74 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.32 mph Weaving segment density, D 25.03 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1137 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1534 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.15 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.31 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.35 Weaving ratio, R 0.19 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4250 20 1830 420 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1118 5 482 111 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4607 21 1984 455 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.58 0.42 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.87 53.75 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.41 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 52.34 mph Weaving segment density, D 33.75 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 8642 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 8390 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7970 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2439 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1766 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.35 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.19 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.36 Weaving ratio, R 0.36 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3600 70 1330 760 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 947 18 350 200 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3903 75 1442 824 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.89 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 34.05 57.75 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.20 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 46.10 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.09 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9616 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2266 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1248 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.36 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.36 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2013 Opening Year with Project ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.16 Weaving ratio, R 0.42 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5970 40 690 510 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1571 11 182 134 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6567 44 748 552 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.76 0.38 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 46.30 54.82 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.37 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 53.21 mph Weaving segment density, D 29.73 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10595 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10139 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9632 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1300 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1582 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.16 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.42 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study Max Honda Center Attendance ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.10 Weaving ratio, R 0.39 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6140 20 410 260 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1616 5 108 68 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6657 21 444 281 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.46 0.15 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.56 62.91 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.79 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.72 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.99 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 725 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1480 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.10 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.39 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.21 Weaving ratio, R 0.18 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5810 20 1270 280 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1529 5 334 74 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6299 21 1376 303 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.58 0.27 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.88 58.23 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.27 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 56.25 mph Weaving segment density, D 28.44 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11407 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11075 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10521 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1679 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1599 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.21 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.18 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.14 Weaving ratio, R 0.21 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6090 10 780 210 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1603 3 205 55 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6602 10 845 227 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.39 0.15 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 54.49 63.00 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.70 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.66 mph Weaving segment density, D 24.93 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1072 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1536 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.14 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.21 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.24 Weaving ratio, R 0.28 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4480 20 1030 400 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1179 5 271 105 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4857 21 1116 433 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.87 59.53 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.92 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 57.77 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.81 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9206 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 8938 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8491 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1549 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1606 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.24 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.28 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.33 Weaving ratio, R 0.43 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3580 50 1020 780 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 942 13 268 205 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3881 54 1105 845 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.69 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 35.43 59.30 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.06 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 48.47 mph Weaving segment density, D 24.28 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9616 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1950 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1177 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.33 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.43 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.17 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6180 40 820 510 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1626 11 216 134 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6798 44 889 552 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.88 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 34.09 59.39 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.42 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 52.60 mph Weaving segment density, D 31.49 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10525 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10072 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9568 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1441 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1656 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.17 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.10 Weaving ratio, R 0.39 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 6140 20 410 260 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1616 5 108 68 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6657 21 444 281 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.46 0.15 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.56 62.91 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.79 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.72 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.99 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 725 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1480 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.10 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.39 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.25 Weaving ratio, R 0.15 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5490 20 1590 280 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1445 5 418 74 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5952 21 1723 303 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.62 0.34 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 48.88 56.16 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.52 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 54.12 mph Weaving segment density, D 29.56 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11308 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10979 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10430 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2026 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1599 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.25 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.15 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.15 Weaving ratio, R 0.30 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5970 20 770 330 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1571 5 203 87 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6472 21 834 357 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.40 0.16 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 54.15 62.49 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.77 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.03 mph Weaving segment density, D 25.18 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1191 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1536 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.15 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.30 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.37 Weaving ratio, R 0.18 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4110 20 1960 440 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1082 5 516 116 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4456 21 2125 477 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.60 0.46 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.39 52.57 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.52 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 51.35 mph Weaving segment density, D 34.46 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 8500 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 8252 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7839 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2602 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1769 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.37 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.18 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.36 Weaving ratio, R 0.36 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3650 70 1340 760 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 961 18 353 200 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3957 75 1452 824 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.90 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 33.97 57.68 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.19 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 46.08 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.38 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9616 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2276 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1261 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.36 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.36 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX J-3: HCS FREEWAY WEAVING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2030 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS 2030 Future Year No Events ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.18 Weaving ratio, R 0.40 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 7150 50 980 650 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1882 13 258 171 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 7865 55 1062 704 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 2.22 0.30 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 32.06 57.27 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.49 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 50.09 mph Weaving segment density, D 38.68 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS E Capacity of base condition, cb 10465 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10014 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9513 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1766 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1937 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.18 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.40 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.08 Weaving ratio, R 0.42 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 7850 20 420 300 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2066 5 111 79 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 8511 21 455 325 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.53 0.17 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 50.95 61.92 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.69 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 60.83 mph Weaving segment density, D 30.62 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 780 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1862 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.08 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.42 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.15 Weaving ratio, R 0.47 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 7840 30 750 660 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2063 8 197 174 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 8500 32 813 715 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.61 0.25 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.20 58.83 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.96 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 57.13 mph Weaving segment density, D 35.22 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 11584 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11247 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10685 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1528 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 2012 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.15 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.47 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.13 Weaving ratio, R 0.31 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 10600 30 1100 500 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2789 8 289 132 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 11492 32 1192 542 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.57 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 50.12 59.35 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.61 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 57.95 mph Weaving segment density, D 45.76 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS F Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10838 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1734 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 2651 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.13 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.31 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.13 Weaving ratio, R 0.41 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 8930 30 780 550 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2350 8 205 145 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 9682 32 845 596 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.54 0.23 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 50.70 59.65 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.44 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 58.32 mph Weaving segment density, D 47.82 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS F Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8670 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1441 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 2788 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.13 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.41 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.36 Weaving ratio, R 0.37 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4620 90 1640 980 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1216 24 432 258 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5009 97 1778 1062 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 2.36 0.39 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 31.35 54.69 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.25 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 43.20 mph Weaving segment density, D 36.79 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS E Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9616 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2840 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1589 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.36 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.37 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 68 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.16 Weaving ratio, R 0.42 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5420 30 630 460 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1506 8 175 128 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6293 34 721 526 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.73 0.36 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 48.60 57.63 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.34 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 55.92 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.09 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10877 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10409 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9368 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1247 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1514 2380 b Volume ratio, VR 0.16 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.42 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.09 Weaving ratio, R 0.39 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5450 20 340 220 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1566 6 98 63 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6452 23 402 260 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.14 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.99 63.30 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.78 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 62.18 mph Weaving segment density, D 22.96 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9925 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 662 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1427 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.09 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.39 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 70 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.19 Weaving ratio, R 0.21 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5340 10 990 260 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1534 3 284 75 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6322 11 1172 307 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.55 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 53.80 63.39 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.09 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.32 mph Weaving segment density, D 25.48 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11732 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11390 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9909 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1479 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1562 2400 b Volume ratio, VR 0.19 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.21 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.13 Weaving ratio, R 0.22 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5570 10 670 190 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1601 3 193 55 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6594 11 793 224 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.18 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.89 61.81 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.51 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 60.45 mph Weaving segment density, D 31.52 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7940 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1017 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1905 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.13 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.22 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.22 Weaving ratio, R 0.29 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4170 20 840 350 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1198 6 241 101 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4936 23 994 414 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.43 0.21 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 53.36 60.40 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.83 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 58.69 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.12 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9300 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9029 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7855 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1408 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1591 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.22 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.29 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.33 Weaving ratio, R 0.43 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3230 50 910 700 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 928 14 261 201 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3824 59 1077 828 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.66 0.23 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 35.68 59.54 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.05 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 48.80 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.72 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8806 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1905 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1157 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.33 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.43 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 68 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.17 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5640 40 750 450 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1567 11 208 125 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6548 46 858 515 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.77 0.40 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 47.69 56.57 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.39 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 54.81 mph Weaving segment density, D 29.07 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10822 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10356 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9320 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1373 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1593 2380 b Volume ratio, VR 0.17 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.09 Weaving ratio, R 0.39 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5450 20 340 220 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1566 6 98 63 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6452 23 402 260 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.45 0.14 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.99 63.30 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.78 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 62.18 mph Weaving segment density, D 22.96 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9925 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 662 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1427 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.09 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.39 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 70 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.24 Weaving ratio, R 0.17 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5020 10 1310 260 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1443 3 376 75 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5943 11 1550 307 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.60 0.30 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.58 60.99 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.37 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 58.76 mph Weaving segment density, D 26.59 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11580 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11243 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9781 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1857 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1562 2400 b Volume ratio, VR 0.24 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.17 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.15 Weaving ratio, R 0.32 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5450 20 660 310 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1566 6 190 89 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6452 23 781 367 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.47 0.19 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.50 61.16 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.58 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 59.67 mph Weaving segment density, D 31.94 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7940 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1148 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1905 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.15 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.32 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.36 Weaving ratio, R 0.18 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3800 20 1770 390 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1092 6 509 112 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4498 23 2095 461 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.59 0.45 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.53 52.90 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.49 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 51.63 mph Weaving segment density, D 34.27 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 8541 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 8292 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7214 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2556 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1769 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.36 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.18 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.36 Weaving ratio, R 0.36 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3300 70 1230 680 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 948 20 353 195 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3906 82 1456 805 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.89 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 34.06 57.77 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.19 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 46.15 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.08 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8806 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2261 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1249 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.36 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.36 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2030 Future Year with Project ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 68 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.17 Weaving ratio, R 0.43 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5430 30 630 470 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1508 8 175 131 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6304 34 721 537 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.73 0.36 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 48.53 57.55 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.34 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 55.83 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.21 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10870 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10402 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9362 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1258 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1519 2380 b Volume ratio, VR 0.17 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.43 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.10 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5610 20 380 230 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1612 6 109 66 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6641 23 449 272 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.46 0.15 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.59 62.94 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.79 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.75 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.92 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9925 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 721 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1477 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.10 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 70 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.22 Weaving ratio, R 0.18 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5250 10 1230 270 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1509 3 353 78 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6215 11 1456 319 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.59 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.74 61.56 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.27 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 59.36 mph Weaving segment density, D 26.96 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11637 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11298 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9829 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1775 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1600 2400 b Volume ratio, VR 0.22 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.18 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.14 Weaving ratio, R 0.21 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5530 10 720 190 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1589 3 207 55 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6547 11 852 224 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.46 0.18 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.71 61.51 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.54 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 60.10 mph Weaving segment density, D 31.76 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7940 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1076 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1908 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.14 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.21 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.25 Weaving ratio, R 0.28 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4030 20 970 370 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1158 6 279 106 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4771 23 1148 438 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.46 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.77 59.28 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.95 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 57.51 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.73 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 9170 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 8903 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7746 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1586 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1595 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.25 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.28 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.33 Weaving ratio, R 0.43 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3270 50 930 700 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 940 14 267 201 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3871 59 1101 828 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.68 0.24 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 35.53 59.40 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.05 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 48.64 mph Weaving segment density, D 24.09 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8806 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1929 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1171 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.33 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.43 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 68 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.17 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5650 40 750 460 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1569 11 208 128 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6560 46 858 526 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.15 0.0035 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.78 0.40 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 47.63 56.49 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.39 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 54.73 mph Weaving segment density, D 29.20 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10816 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10350 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9315 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1384 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1598 2380 b Volume ratio, VR 0.17 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Chapman On to Orangewood Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1230 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.10 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5610 20 380 230 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1612 6 109 66 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6641 23 449 272 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.46 0.15 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.59 62.94 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.79 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 61.75 mph Weaving segment density, D 23.92 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS B Capacity of base condition, cb 11750 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11408 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9925 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 721 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1477 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.10 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1230 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 70 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.27 Weaving ratio, R 0.15 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 4930 10 1550 270 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1417 3 445 78 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 5836 11 1835 319 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.64 0.36 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 51.56 59.03 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.56 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 56.81 mph Weaving segment density, D 28.17 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 11468 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11134 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9687 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2154 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1600 2400 b Volume ratio, VR 0.27 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.15 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.16 Weaving ratio, R 0.30 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5410 20 710 310 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1555 6 204 89 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6404 23 840 367 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.47 0.20 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 52.32 60.85 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.61 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 59.32 mph Weaving segment density, D 32.17 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 9400 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9126 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7940 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1207 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1908 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.16 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.30 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 4 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.39 Weaving ratio, R 0.18 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3660 20 1900 410 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1052 6 546 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4333 23 2249 485 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.62 0.50 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.00 51.60 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.61 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 50.57 mph Weaving segment density, D 35.05 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 8386 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 8142 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 7084 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2734 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1772 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.39 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.18 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.36 Weaving ratio, R 0.35 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3340 70 1250 680 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 960 20 359 195 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 3954 82 1479 805 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 1.91 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 33.93 57.64 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.20 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 46.02 mph Weaving segment density, D 27.47 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS C Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 8806 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2284 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1264 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.36 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.35 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX J-4: HCS FREEWAY WEAVING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2030 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS (MITIGATED) Comparison 1&2: 2030 Future Year No Events vs. With Project - Mitigated _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Avenue Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 10590 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1740 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 570 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1970 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 10590 1740 570 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2787 458 150 v Trucks and buses 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 11649 1887 618 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3820 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 9320 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 7433 9600 No FO F R v 1887 3800 No R v v 2750 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? Yes 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3920 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3920 4400 No 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 24.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.598 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.9 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 9810 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1570 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 360 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 9810 1570 360 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2582 413 95 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 10636 1702 390 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4670 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8509 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6807 9600 No FO F R v 1702 2000 No R v v 1919 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4670 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4670 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 39.9 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.581 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.1 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 10220 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1450 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 650 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 10220 1450 650 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2689 382 171 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 11081 1572 705 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4752 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8865 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 7293 9600 No FO F R v 1572 2000 No R v v 2056 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4752 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4752 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 40.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.569 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 72.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.3 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Mitigation Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 8580 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1960 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 620 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 8580 1960 620 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2258 516 163 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 9303 2125 672 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3508 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7443 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5318 9600 No FO F R v 2125 3800 No R v v 1967 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3508 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3508 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 20.9 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.619 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.0 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.8 mph Comparison 3: 2030 Future Year AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event vs. With Project and Concurrent AS Event – Mitigated ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Weaving Location: Disneyland On to Harbor Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1520 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.23 Weaving ratio, R 0.38 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5880 60 1100 670 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1547 16 289 176 v Trucks and buses 9 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6468 66 1192 726 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 2.11 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 32.66 57.55 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.68 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 49.06 mph Weaving segment density, D 34.45 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 10338 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 9893 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9398 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 1918 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1690 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.23 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.38 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1520 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Orangewood On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1360 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.31 Weaving ratio, R 0.27 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 5590 40 1850 700 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1471 11 487 184 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 6060 43 2005 758 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.74 0.49 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 46.60 51.92 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.90 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 50.14 mph Weaving segment density, D 35.37 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS D Capacity of base condition, cb 11022 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10701 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10166 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2763 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1773 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.31 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.27 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1360 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Weaving Location: Katella On to Ball Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 2130 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.20 Weaving ratio, R 0.31 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 8140 30 1420 630 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2142 8 374 166 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 8825 32 1539 683 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.57 0.29 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 50.05 57.72 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 0.99 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 56.00 mph Weaving segment density, D 39.57 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS E Capacity of base condition, cb 11746 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11404 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10834 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 2222 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 2215 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.20 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.31 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2130 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: Ball On to Katella Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 2490 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type B Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.25 Weaving ratio, R 0.23 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 8120 30 2130 640 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2137 8 561 168 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 8803 32 2309 693 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.08 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 6.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.70 1.00 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.50 0.50 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 0.61 0.37 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 49.23 55.20 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 1.25 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 3.50 Type of operation is Unconstrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 53.55 mph Weaving segment density, D 44.21 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS F Capacity of base condition, cb 11436 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 11103 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 10548 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 3002 4000 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 2367 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.25 0.80 c Weaving ratio, R 0.23 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 2490 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. ______________________________Operational Analysis_____________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date Performed: 11/02/11 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Weaving Location: SR-91 Cnctr to Lincoln Off Jurisdiction: Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ___________________________________Inputs______________________________________ Freeway free-flow speed, SFF 65 mph Weaving number of lanes, N 5 Weaving segment length, L 1620 ft Terrain type Level Grade % Length mi Weaving type A Multilane or C-D Volume ratio, VR 0.44 Weaving ratio, R 0.32 ___________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions____________________ Non-Weaving Weaving V V V V o1 o2 w1 w2 Volume, V 3710 110 2010 960 veh/h Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 976 29 529 253 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 0 % Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population adjustment, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, v 4022 119 2179 1040 pc/h _______________________Weaving and Non-Weaving Speeds__________________________ Weaving Non-Weaving a (Exhibit 24-6) 0.35 0.0020 b (Exhibit 24-6) 2.20 4.00 c (Exhibit 24-6) 0.97 1.30 d (Exhibit 24-6) 0.80 0.75 Weaving intensity factor, Wi 2.49 0.44 Weaving and non-weaving speeds, Si 30.77 53.22 Number of lanes required for unconstrained operation, Nw (Exhibit 24-7) 2.54 Maximum number of lanes, Nw (max) (Exhibit 24-7) 1.40 Type of operation is Constrained _________Weaving Segment Speed, Density, Level of Service and Capacity_________ Weaving segment speed, S 40.34 mph Weaving segment density, D 36.49 pc/mi/ln Level of service, LOS E Capacity of base condition, cb 10426 pc/h Capacity as a 15-minute flow rate, c 10122 pc/h Capacity as a full-hour volume, ch 9616 pc/h _______________________Limitations on Weaving Segments_________________________ If Max Exceeded See Note Analyzed Maximum Note Weaving flow rate, Vw 3219 2800 a Average flow rate (pcphpl) 1472 2350 b Volume ratio, VR 0.44 0.20 c Weaving ratio, R 0.32 N/A d Weaving length (ft) 1620 2500 e Notes: a. Weaving segments longer than 2500 ft. are treated as isolated merge and diverge areas using the procedures of Chapter 25, "Ramps and Ramp Junctions". b. Capacity constrained by basic freeway capacity. c. Capacity occurs under constrained operating conditions. d. Three-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.45. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. e. Four-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.35. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. f. Capacity constrained by maximum allowable weaving flow rate: 2,800 pc/h (Type A), 4,000 (Type B), 3,500 (Type C). g. Five-lane Type A segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.20. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. h. Type B weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.80. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. i. Type C weaving segments do not operate well at volume ratios greater than 0.50. Poor operations and some local queuing are expected in such cases. Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX K-1: HCS FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2011 BASELINE CONDITIONS 2011 Baseline No Events ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2011 Baseline No Events ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 6,600 7,663 0.9 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 26.9 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,663 User Input Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2011 Baseline No Events ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 6,820 7,919 0.9 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 27.8 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,919 User Input Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6230 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 460 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 410 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6230 460 410 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1790 132 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7376 545 485 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 2880 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 5901 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5356 9600 No FO F R v 545 2000 No R v v 1510 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 2880 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 2880 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 24.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.477 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.6 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.8 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 64.7 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6420 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 560 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 580 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6420 560 580 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1845 161 167 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7601 663 687 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3688 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7601 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6938 9600 No FO F R v 663 2000 No R v v 1956 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3688 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3688 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 31.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.488 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.1 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.9 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6540 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 690 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 180 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6540 690 180 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1879 198 52 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7743 817 213 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3162 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6195 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5378 9600 No FO F R v 817 2000 No R v v 1516 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3162 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3162 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 26.9 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.502 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.0 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.8 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.8 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 5360 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 580 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 260 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 5360 580 260 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1540 167 75 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 6346 687 308 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3154 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6346 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5659 9600 No FO F R v 687 2000 No R v v 1596 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3154 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3154 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 26.9 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.490 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.5 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 64.2 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2011 Baseline with AA HC Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 6,600 7,663 0.9 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 26.9 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,663 User Input Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2011 Baseline with AA HC Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 6,850 7,954 0.9 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 28.0 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,954 User Input Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6600 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1000 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 410 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6600 1000 410 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1897 287 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7814 1184 485 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3394 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6252 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5068 9600 No FO F R v 1184 2000 No R v v 1429 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3394 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3394 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 28.9 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.535 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.0 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.1 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.7 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6440 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 680 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 580 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6440 680 580 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1851 195 167 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7624 805 687 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3778 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7624 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6819 9600 No FO F R v 805 2000 No R v v 1923 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3778 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3778 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.2 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.500 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.0 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.5 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6710 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1100 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 180 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6710 1100 180 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1928 316 52 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7944 1302 213 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3506 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6356 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5054 9600 No FO F R v 1302 2000 No R v v 1425 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3506 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3506 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 29.9 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.545 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.1 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.3 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 5380 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 860 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 260 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 5380 860 260 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1546 247 75 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 6369 1018 308 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3351 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6369 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5351 9600 No FO F R v 1018 2000 No R v v 1509 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3351 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3351 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 28.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.520 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.5 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.8 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.2 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2011 Baseline AA HC Event and AS Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 6,600 7,663 0.9 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 26.9 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,663 User Input Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2011 Baseline AA HC Event and AS Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,060 8,197 0.9 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 28.8 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,197 User Input Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6600 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1320 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 410 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6600 1320 410 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1897 379 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7814 1563 485 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3607 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6252 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4689 9600 No FO F R v 1563 2000 No R v v 1322 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3607 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3607 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 30.8 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.569 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.5 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.5 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6440 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 680 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 580 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6440 680 580 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1851 195 167 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7624 805 687 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3778 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7624 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6819 9600 No FO F R v 805 2000 No R v v 1923 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3778 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3778 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.2 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.500 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.0 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.5 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7380 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1100 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 180 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7380 1100 180 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2121 316 52 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8737 1302 213 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3782 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6990 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5688 9600 No FO F R v 1302 2000 No R v v 1604 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3782 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3782 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.3 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.545 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.4 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.3 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 5980 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1790 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 260 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 5980 1790 260 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1718 514 75 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7080 2119 308 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4282 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7080 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4961 9600 No FO F R v 2119 2000 Yes R v v 1399 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4282 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4282 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 36.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.619 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.8 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ 2011 Baseline with Project ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2011 Baseline With Project ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 6,600 7,663 0.9 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 26.9 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,663 User Input Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2011 Baseline With Project ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 6,870 7,977 0.9 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 28.0 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,977 User Input Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6760 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1240 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 410 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6760 1240 410 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1943 356 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8003 1468 485 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3620 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6403 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4935 9600 No FO F R v 1468 2000 No R v v 1391 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3620 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3620 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 30.9 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.560 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.3 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.8 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6450 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 730 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 580 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6450 730 580 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1853 210 167 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7636 864 687 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3817 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7636 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6772 9600 No FO F R v 864 2000 No R v v 1909 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3817 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3817 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.506 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.8 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.4 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6780 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1280 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 180 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6780 1280 180 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1948 368 52 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8027 1515 213 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3654 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6422 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4907 9600 No FO F R v 1515 2000 No R v v 1384 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3654 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3654 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 31.2 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.564 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.2 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.3 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.6 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 5390 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 990 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 260 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 5390 990 260 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1549 284 75 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 6381 1172 308 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3443 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6381 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5209 9600 No FO F R v 1172 2000 No R v v 1469 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3443 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3443 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 29.4 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.533 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.0 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.7 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2011 Baseline With Project and Concurrent AS Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 6,600 7,663 0.9 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 26.9 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,663 User Input Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2011 Baseline With Project and Concurrent AS Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,070 8,209 0.9 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 28.9 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,209 User Input Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6760 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1560 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 410 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6760 1560 410 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1943 448 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8003 1847 485 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3833 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6403 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4556 9600 No FO F R v 1847 2000 No R v v 1285 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3833 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3833 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.7 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.594 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.4 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.5 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6450 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 730 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 580 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6450 730 580 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1853 210 167 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7636 864 687 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3817 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7636 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6772 9600 No FO F R v 864 2000 No R v v 1909 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3817 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3817 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.506 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.8 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.4 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7450 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1280 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 180 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7450 1280 180 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2141 368 52 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8820 1515 213 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3931 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7056 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5541 9600 No FO F R v 1515 2000 No R v v 1562 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3931 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3931 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 33.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.564 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.2 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.6 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.7 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 5990 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1920 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 260 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 5990 1920 260 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1721 552 75 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7092 2273 308 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4374 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7092 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4819 9600 No FO F R v 2273 2000 Yes R v v 1359 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4374 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4374 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 37.4 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.633 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.4 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.2 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX K-2: HCS FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2013 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS 2013 Opening Year No Events ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2013 Opening Year Without Events ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,260 7,986 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 28.1 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,986 User Input Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2013 Opening Year Without Events ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,500 8,250 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 29.0 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,250 User Input Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6850 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 510 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 450 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6850 510 450 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1803 134 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7427 553 488 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 2903 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 5942 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5389 9600 No FO F R v 553 2000 No R v v 1519 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 2903 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 2903 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 24.7 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.478 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.6 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.8 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 64.6 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7060 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 620 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 640 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7060 620 640 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1858 163 168 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7655 672 694 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3717 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7655 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6983 9600 No FO F R v 672 2000 No R v v 1969 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3717 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3717 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 31.7 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.488 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.0 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.8 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7190 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 760 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 200 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7190 760 200 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1892 200 53 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7795 824 217 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3184 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6236 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5412 9600 No FO F R v 824 2000 No R v v 1526 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3184 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3184 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 27.1 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.502 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.9 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.8 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 5900 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 640 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 290 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 5900 640 290 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1553 168 76 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 6397 694 314 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3181 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6397 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5703 9600 No FO F R v 694 2000 No R v v 1608 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3181 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3181 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 27.1 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.490 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.4 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 64.1 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2013 Opening Year AA HC Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,260 7,986 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 28.1 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,986 User Input Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2013 Opening Year AA HC Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,540 8,294 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 29.2 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,294 User Input Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study Average Honda Center Attendancet __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7220 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1050 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 450 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7220 1050 450 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1900 276 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7828 1138 488 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3372 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6263 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5125 9600 No FO F R v 1138 2000 No R v v 1445 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3372 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3372 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 28.8 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.530 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.1 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.8 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7080 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 740 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 640 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7080 740 640 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1863 195 168 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7676 802 694 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3799 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7676 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6874 9600 No FO F R v 802 2000 No R v v 1938 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3799 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3799 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.4 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.500 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.0 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.1 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.5 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7360 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1170 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 200 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7360 1170 200 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1937 308 53 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7980 1269 217 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3499 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6384 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5115 9600 No FO F R v 1269 2000 No R v v 1442 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3499 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3499 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 29.8 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.542 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.8 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.1 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.4 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 5920 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 920 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 290 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 5920 920 290 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1558 242 76 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 6419 997 314 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3361 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6419 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5422 9600 No FO F R v 997 2000 No R v v 1529 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3361 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3361 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 28.7 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.518 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.5 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.3 mph 2013 Opening Year Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2013 Opening Year AA HC Event and Concurrent AS Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,260 7,986 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 28.1 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,986 User Input Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2013 Opening Year AA HC Event and Concurrent AS Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,740 8,514 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 29.9 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,514 User Input Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7220 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1370 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 450 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7220 1370 450 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1900 361 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7828 1485 488 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3568 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6263 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4778 9600 No FO F R v 1485 2000 No R v v 1347 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3568 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3568 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 30.4 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.562 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.4 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.7 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7080 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 740 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 640 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7080 740 640 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1863 195 168 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7676 802 694 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3799 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7676 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6874 9600 No FO F R v 802 2000 No R v v 1938 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3799 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3799 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.4 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.500 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.0 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.1 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.5 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 8030 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1170 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 200 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 8030 1170 200 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2113 308 53 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8706 1269 217 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3752 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6965 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5696 9600 No FO F R v 1269 2000 No R v v 1606 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3752 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3752 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.0 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.542 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.8 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.4 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.4 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study - AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6520 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1850 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 290 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6520 1850 290 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1716 487 76 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7069 2006 314 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4213 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7069 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5063 9600 No FO F R v 2006 2000 Yes R v v 1428 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4213 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4213 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 36.0 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.609 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.0 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.1 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.1 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Opening Year with Project ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2013 Opening Year With Project ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,260 7,986 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 28.1 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,986 User Input Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2013 Opening Year With Project ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,550 8,305 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 29.2 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,305 User Input Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7380 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1290 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 450 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7380 1290 450 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1942 339 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8001 1399 488 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3580 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6401 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5002 9600 No FO F R v 1399 2000 No R v v 1410 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3580 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3580 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 30.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.554 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.5 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.0 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7090 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 790 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 640 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7090 790 640 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1866 208 168 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7687 857 694 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3835 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7687 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6830 9600 No FO F R v 857 2000 No R v v 1926 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3835 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3835 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.7 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.505 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.9 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.4 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6780 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1280 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 180 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6780 1280 180 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1948 368 52 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8027 1515 213 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3654 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6422 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4907 9600 No FO F R v 1515 2000 No R v v 1384 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3654 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3654 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 31.2 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.564 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.2 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.3 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.6 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 5930 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1050 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 290 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 5930 1050 290 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1561 276 76 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 6429 1138 314 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3445 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6429 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5291 9600 No FO F R v 1138 2000 No R v v 1492 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3445 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3445 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 29.4 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.530 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.9 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 62.8 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2013 Opening Year With Project and Concurrent AS Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,260 7,986 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 28.1 0.957 Level of service, LOS C 1.00 Level 7,986 User Input Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2013 Opening Year With Project and Concurrent AS Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,750 8,525 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 30.0 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,525 User Input Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7380 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1610 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 450 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7380 1610 450 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1942 424 118 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8001 1746 488 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3776 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 6401 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4655 9600 No FO F R v 1746 2000 No R v v 1312 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3776 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3776 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.2 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.585 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.6 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.6 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.9 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 7090 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 790 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 640 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 7090 790 640 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1866 208 168 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7687 857 694 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3835 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7687 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6830 9600 No FO F R v 857 2000 No R v v 1926 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3835 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3835 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 32.7 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.505 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.9 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.4 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 8100 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1350 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 200 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 8100 1350 200 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2132 355 53 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8782 1464 217 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3889 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7026 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5562 9600 No FO F R v 1464 2000 No R v v 1568 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3889 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3889 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 33.2 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.560 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.6 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.8 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6530 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1980 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 290 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6530 1980 290 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1718 521 76 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7080 2147 314 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4298 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7080 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4933 9600 No FO F R v 2147 2000 Yes R v v 1391 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4298 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4298 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 36.7 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.621 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.6 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 75.3 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.7 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX K-3: HCS FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2030 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS 2030 Future Year No Events _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Avenue Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 12710 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1740 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 570 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1970 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 12710 1740 570 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 3345 458 150 v Trucks and buses 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 13981 1887 618 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4304 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 11185 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9298 9600 No FO F R v 1887 3800 No R v v 3440 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? Yes 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5785 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5785 4400 No 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 40.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.598 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.3 mph ______________________________________________________________________________ ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2030 Future Year Without Events ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,770 8,547 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 30.1 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,547 User Input Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 9280 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 790 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 360 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 9280 790 360 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2442 208 95 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 10061 857 390 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3993 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8049 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 7192 9600 No FO F R v 857 2000 No R v v 2028 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3993 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3993 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 34.1 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.505 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.9 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 72.8 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 63.3 mph ______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 12230 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1280 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 650 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 12230 1280 650 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 3218 337 171 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 13260 1388 705 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 5408 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 10608 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9220 9600 No FO F R v 1388 2000 No R v v 2600 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5408 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5408 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 46.3 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.553 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.5 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.6 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.4 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 8340 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1370 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 620 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 8340 1370 620 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2195 361 163 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 9042 1485 672 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3992 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7234 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5749 9600 No FO F R v 1485 2000 No R v v 1621 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3992 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3992 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 34.1 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence D _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.562 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.4 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.8 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study No Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 10290 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 820 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 510 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 10290 820 510 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2708 216 134 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 11157 889 553 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 5366 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 11157 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 10268 9600 Yes FO F R v 889 2000 No R v v 2895 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? Yes 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5757 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5757 4400 Yes 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 49.3 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.508 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.8 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.9 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Avenue Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study- Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 12710 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1740 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 570 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1970 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 12710 1740 570 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 3345 458 150 v Trucks and buses 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 13981 1887 618 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4304 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 11185 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9298 9600 No FO F R v 1887 3800 No R v v 3440 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? Yes 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5785 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5785 4400 No 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 40.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.598 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.3 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2030 Future Year AA HC Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,810 8,591 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 30.2 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,591 User Input Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study- Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 9650 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1330 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 360 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 9650 1330 360 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2539 350 95 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 10463 1442 390 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4463 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8371 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6929 9600 No FO F R v 1442 2000 No R v v 1954 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4463 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4463 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 38.1 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.558 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.4 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.1 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.8 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study- Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 12250 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1400 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 650 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 12250 1400 650 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 3224 368 171 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 13282 1518 705 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 5489 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 10626 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9108 9600 No FO F R v 1518 2000 No R v v 2568 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5489 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5489 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 47.0 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.565 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.2 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.1 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study- Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 8510 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1780 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 620 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 8510 1780 620 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2239 468 163 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 9227 1930 672 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4307 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7382 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5452 9600 No FO F R v 1930 2000 No R v v 1537 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4307 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4307 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 36.8 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.602 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.2 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.4 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study- Average Attendance Honda Center Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 10310 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1100 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 510 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 10310 1100 510 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2713 289 134 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 11178 1193 553 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 5546 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 11178 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9985 9600 Yes FO F R v 1193 2000 No R v v 2816 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? Yes 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5778 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5778 4400 Yes 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 49.4 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.535 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 55.0 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.4 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Avenue Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 12710 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1740 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 570 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1970 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 12710 1740 570 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 3345 458 150 v Trucks and buses 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 13981 1887 618 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4304 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 11185 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9298 9600 No FO F R v 1887 3800 No R v v 3440 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? Yes 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5785 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5785 4400 No 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 40.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.598 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.3 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2030 Future Year AA HC Event and Concurrent AS Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 8,010 8,811 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 31.0 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,811 User Input Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 9650 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1650 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 360 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 9650 1650 360 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2539 434 95 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 10463 1789 390 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4659 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8371 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6582 9600 No FO F R v 1789 2000 No R v v 1856 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4659 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4659 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 39.8 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.589 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.5 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.5 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.8 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 12250 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1400 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 650 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 12250 1400 650 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 3224 368 171 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 13282 1518 705 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 5489 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 10626 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9108 9600 No FO F R v 1518 2000 No R v v 2568 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5489 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5489 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 47.0 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.565 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.2 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.1 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 9180 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1780 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 620 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 9180 1780 620 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2416 468 163 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 9953 1930 672 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4560 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7963 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6033 9600 No FO F R v 1930 2000 No R v v 1701 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4560 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4560 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 39.0 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.602 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.2 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.1 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.4 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 10910 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 2030 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 510 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 10910 2030 510 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2871 534 134 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 11829 2201 553 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 6399 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 11829 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9628 9600 Yes FO F R v 2201 2000 Yes R v v 2715 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? Yes 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 6429 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 6429 4400 Yes 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 55.0 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.626 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.5 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.3 mph 2030 Future Year with Project _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Avenue Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 12710 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1740 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 570 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1970 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 12710 1740 570 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 3345 458 150 v Trucks and buses 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 13981 1887 618 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4304 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 11185 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9298 9600 No FO F R v 1887 3800 No R v v 3440 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? Yes 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5785 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5785 4400 No 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 40.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.598 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.3 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2030 Future Year With Project ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 7,820 8,602 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 30.2 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,602 User Input Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 12260 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1450 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 650 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 12260 1450 650 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 3226 382 171 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 13292 1572 705 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 5523 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 10634 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9062 9600 No FO F R v 1572 2000 No R v v 2555 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5523 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5523 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 47.2 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.569 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.0 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study Max Honda Center Attendance __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 8580 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1960 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 620 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 8580 1960 620 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2258 516 163 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 9303 2125 672 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4444 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7443 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5318 9600 No FO F R v 2125 2000 Yes R v v 1499 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4444 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4444 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 38.0 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.619 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.8 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.8 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 10320 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1230 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 510 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 10320 1230 510 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2716 324 134 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 11189 1334 553 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 5631 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 11189 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9855 9600 Yes FO F R v 1334 2000 No R v v 2779 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? Yes 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5789 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5789 4400 Yes 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 49.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.548 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.2 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Avenue Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 12710 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1740 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 570 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1970 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 12710 1740 570 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 3345 458 150 v Trucks and buses 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 13981 1887 618 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4304 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 11185 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9298 9600 No FO F R v 1887 3800 No R v v 3440 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? Yes 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5785 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5785 4400 No 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 40.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.598 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.3 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ ROUTE: I-5 Southbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2030 Future Year With Project and Concurrent AS Event ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 8,020 8,822 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 31.0 0.957 Level of service, LOS D 1.00 Level 8,822 User Input Flow rate, VF % RVs Trucks and buses PCE, ET Density, D Driver population factor, fp Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Terrain type Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: I-5 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 8020 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 660 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 700 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 700 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 820 vph Position of adjacent ramp Upstream Type of adjacent ramp Off Distance to adjacent ramp 1130 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 8020 660 820 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2111 174 216 v Trucks and buses 9 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.957 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 8822 716 889 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 2365 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7058 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6342 9600 No FO F R v 716 3800 No R v v 2346 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 Yes 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 2823 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 2823 4400 No 12A _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 9.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence A _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.492 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 56.2 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 72.4 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 64.9 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 9810 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1890 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 360 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 9810 1890 360 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2582 497 95 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 10636 2049 390 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4866 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8509 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6460 9600 No FO F R v 2049 2000 Yes R v v 1821 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4866 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4866 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 41.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.612 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.9 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.6 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.1 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 12260 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1450 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 650 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 12260 1450 650 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 3226 382 171 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 13292 1572 705 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 5523 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 10634 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9062 9600 No FO F R v 1572 2000 No R v v 2555 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 5523 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 5523 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 47.2 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.569 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.0 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 9250 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1960 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 620 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 9250 1960 620 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2434 516 163 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 10029 2125 672 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4697 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8024 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5899 9600 No FO F R v 2125 2000 Yes R v v 1663 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4697 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4697 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 40.1 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.619 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 74.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.9 mph ______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – with Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 10920 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 2160 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 510 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 10920 2160 510 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2874 568 134 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 11840 2342 553 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 6483 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 11840 9600 Yes Fi F v = v - v 9498 9600 No FO F R v 2342 2000 Yes R v v 2678 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 6483 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 6483 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 55.5 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence F _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.639 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 59.0 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX K-4: HCS FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2011 BASELINE CONDITIONS (MITIGATED) (COMPARSION 3 – PROJECT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT VS. AAHC EVENT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT) _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2011 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 5990 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1920 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 260 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 5990 1920 260 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1721 552 75 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7092 2273 308 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3526 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7092 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4819 9600 No FO F R v 2273 3800 No R v v 1783 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3526 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3526 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 21.1 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.633 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.3 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.2 mph Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX K-5: HCS FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2013 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS (MITIGATED) (COMPARSION 3 – PROJECT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT VS. AAHC EVENT AND CONCURRENT AS EVENT) _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 10/30/2011 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2013 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 4 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 6530 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1980 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 290 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 6530 1980 290 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 1718 521 76 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 7080 2147 314 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3430 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7080 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 4933 9600 No FO F R v 2147 3800 No R v v 1825 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3430 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3430 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 20.3 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.621 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.6 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.6 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.7 mph _______________________________________________________________________________ Honda Center Enhancement Project EIR Draft Traffic Study Report - Appendices APPENDIX K-6: HCS FREEWAY RAMP ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNDER 2030 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS (MITIGATED) Comparison 1&2: 2030 Future Year No Events vs. With Project - Mitigated ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2030 Future Year With Project Mitigated ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 10,590 11,649 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 41.0 0.957 Level of service, LOS E 1.00 Level 11,649 User Input Flow rate, VF Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Density, D Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Driver population factor, fp Terrain type HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses % RVs _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 9810 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1570 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 360 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 9810 1570 360 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2582 413 95 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 10636 1702 390 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4670 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8509 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6807 9600 No FO F R v 1702 2000 No R v v 1919 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4670 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4670 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 39.9 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.581 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 53.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.1 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 10220 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1450 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 650 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 10220 1450 650 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2689 382 171 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 11081 1572 705 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4752 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8865 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 7293 9600 No FO F R v 1572 2000 No R v v 2056 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4752 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4752 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 40.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.569 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 72.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.3 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Mitigation Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 8580 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1960 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 620 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 8580 1960 620 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2258 516 163 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 9303 2125 672 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3508 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 7443 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5318 9600 No FO F R v 2125 3800 No R v v 1967 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3508 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3508 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 20.9 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.619 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 73.0 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.8 mph Comparison 3: 2030 Future Year AAHC Event and Concurrent AS Event vs. With Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event - Mitigated ROUTE: I-5 Northbound RAMP: Off-Ramp to Katella Avenue FORECAST YEAR: 2030 Future Year With Project and Concurrent AS Event - Mitigated ANALYSIS PERIOD: PM Peak Hour Flow Inputs and Adjustments LOS and Performance Measures 10,590 11,649 0.95 Max Upstream Fwy Flow, VF1 11,750 9 If overcapacity (v>Max v)?No 0 Density Factor 0.01758 1.5 Number of lanes, N 5 1.2 41.0 0.957 Level of service, LOS E 1.00 Level 11,649 User Input Flow rate, VF Trucks and buses PCE, ET Recreational vehicle PCE, ER Density, D Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV Driver population factor, fp Terrain type HONDA CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY RAMP MAJOR DIVERGE WORKSHEET Volume, V Flow rate, VF Peak Hour Factor, PHF % Trucks and buses % RVs _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 9810 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1890 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 360 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1950 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 9810 1890 360 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2582 497 95 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 10636 2049 390 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3729 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8509 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 6460 9600 No FO F R v 2049 3800 No R v v 2390 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3729 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3729 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 22.8 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.612 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.9 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 71.4 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.9 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 NB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 10220 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 1 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1450 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 650 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1500 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 10220 1450 650 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2689 382 171 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 11081 1572 705 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.436 Using Equation 8 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4752 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8865 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 7293 9600 No FO F R v 1572 2000 No R v v 2056 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4752 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4752 4400 Yes 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 40.6 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence E _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.569 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 54.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 72.7 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.3 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Ball Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 9250 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 1960 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 620 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1180 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 9250 1960 620 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2434 516 163 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 10029 2125 672 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 3659 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 8024 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 5899 9600 No FO F R v 2125 3800 No R v v 2182 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 3659 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 3659 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 22.2 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.619 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.7 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 72.2 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 61.7 mph _________________________________Diverge Analysis______________________________ Analyst: PB Agency/Co.: Parsons Brinckerhoff Date performed: 11/02/11 Analysis time period: PM Peak Hour Freeway/Dir of Travel: SR-57 SB Junction: Off-Ramp at Katella Jurisdiction: City of Anaheim Analysis Year: 2030 Description: Honda Center Traffic Study – With Project and Concurrent AS Event __________________________________Freeway Data_________________________________ Type of analysis Diverge Number of lanes in freeway 5 Free-flow speed on freeway 70.0 mph Volume on freeway 10920 vph _________________________________Off Ramp Data_________________________________ Side of freeway Right Number of lanes in ramp 2 Free-Flow speed on ramp 35.0 mph Volume on ramp 2160 vph Length of first accel/decel lane 500 ft Length of second accel/decel lane 500 ft _________________________Adjacent Ramp Data (if one exists)____________________ Does adjacent ramp exist? Yes Volume on adjacent ramp 510 vph Position of adjacent ramp Downstream Type of adjacent ramp On Distance to adjacent ramp 1120 ft ____________________Conversion to pc/h Under Base Conditions___________________ Junction Components Freeway Ramp Adjacent Ramp Volume, V (vph) 10920 2160 510 vph Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak 15-min volume, v15 2874 568 134 v Trucks and buses 6 6 6 % Recreational vehicles 0 0 0 % Terrain type: Level Level Level Grade 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Length 0.00 mi 0.00 mi 0.00 mi Trucks and buses PCE, ET 1.5 1.5 1.5 Recreational vehicle PCE, ER 1.2 1.2 1.2 Heavy vehicle adjustment, fHV 0.971 0.971 0.971 Driver population factor, fP 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow rate, vp 11840 2342 553 pcph _________________________Estimation of V12 Diverge Areas_______________________ L = (Equation 25-8 or 25-9) EQ P = 0.260 Using Equation 0 FD v = v + (v - v ) P = 4196 pc/h 12 R F R FD _______________________________Capacity Checks_________________________________ Actual Maximum LOS F? v = v 9472 9600 No Fi F v = v - v 7130 9600 No FO F R v 2342 3800 No R v v 2638 pc/h (Equation 25-15 or 25-16) 3 or av34 Is v v > 2700 pc/h? No 3 or av34 Is v v > 1.5 v /2 No 3 or av34 12 If yes, v = 4196 (Equation 25-18) 12A ______________________Flow Entering Diverge Influence Area_____________________ Actual Max Desirable Violation? v 4196 4400 No 12 _________________Level of Service Determination (if not F)_____________________ Density, D = 4.252 + 0.0086 v - 0.009 L = 26.8 pc/mi/ln R 12 D Level of service for ramp-freeway junction areas of influence C _____________________________Speed Estimation__________________________________ Intermediate speed variable, D = 0.639 S Space mean speed in ramp influence area, S = 52.1 mph R Space mean speed in outer lanes, S = 70.4 mph 0 Space mean speed for all vehicles, S = 60.9 mph 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item.