HomeMy Public PortalAboutAppendixI_TrafficData.pdf........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX I
T RAFFIC D ATA
TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS,INC.
LSCTransportationConsultants,Inc.
Design,Community&Environment,Inc.
Preparedfor
Preparedby
CanyonSprings
TrafficImpactAnalysis
CANYON SPRINGS
Traffic Impact Analysis
Prepared for
Design, Community & Environment, Inc.
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510 848-3815
Prepared by
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C
P.O. Box 5875
Tahoe City, California 96145
530 583-4053
August 27, 2012
LSC #117100
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis ES 1
Executive Summary
PURPOSE
This report presents the traffic impacts associated with the development of the Canyon Springs
Project in the Glenshire area of Truckee, California. The proposed project would consist of up to
177 single-family market-rate residences and approximately 26 affordable housing units, with
the remainder of the approximately 284-acre site used for recreation and open space. Analysis
is conducted for both 2011 and 2031 conditions. Two project alternatives are evaluated:
• Proposed Project – Full Land Use with Access via Martis Peak Road Only: Full access
would be provided via a single connection from the development to the north, connecting
with Martis Peak Road at a point roughly 700 feet south of the Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak
Road/Whitehorse Road intersection. A gated access point would be provided at the end of
Edinburgh Drive for emergency access only.
• Access Alternative – Full Land Use with Edinburgh Access Open: Under this
alternative, the Edinburgh connection would be open to general traffic. Full access to the
project site would be provided via Martis Peak Road and Edinburgh Drive.
FINDINGS
The findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis are as follows:
1. The project is expected to generate up to 257 one-way vehicle-trips (164 inbound and 93
outbound) at the site access point(s) during the PM peak hour, 194 one-way trips (46
inbound and 148 outbound) during the AM peak hour, and approximately 2,578 one-way
trips over the course of a weekday. Of the Canyon Springs trips made to/from points located
west of Glenshire, if the Edinburgh access is not open about 45 percent are expected to use
the Glenshire Drive route and 55 percent would use the Hirschdale Road/I-80 route. With
the Edinburgh access open, the project would generate the same number of trips, but an
additional 15 percent of trips made to/from the west would use the Glenshire Drive route
rather than the Hirschdale Road/I-80 route.
2. All of the study intersections operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) during all
analysis periods under 2011 and 2031 conditions, with or without the project, except the
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. The left-turn movement from Glenshire
Drive onto Donner Pass Road exceeds the LOS standard during the 2011 commuter PM
peak hours, with or without the project. Implementation of the project would cause this
intersection to exceed the LOS threshold during the AM peak periods, and it would
exacerbate an existing LOS deficiency during the PM peak periods. However, under 2031
conditions, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS, due to implementation of
the Donner Pass Road Extension. The Edinburgh access alternative would result in differing
traffic volume impacts, but it would generally not affect the findings of the intersection LOS
analysis.
3. Traffic queue lengths are not expected to exceed the existing storage capacity at any of the
study intersections during any of the 2011 and 2031 analysis periods, with or without the
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
ES 2 Traffic Impact Analysis
project. Implementation of the Edinburgh access alternative would not affect the findings of
the intersection queuing analysis.
4. Roadway LOS is acceptable on all study roadway segments under 2011 and 2031
conditions, with or without the project. Implementation of the Edinburgh access alternative
would not affect the findings of the roadway LOS analysis.
5. The proposed project would not increase traffic on the existing local roadway segments from
Edinburgh Drive to Somerset Drive, as the Edinburgh access point would not be open to
project traffic. Therefore, the proposed development would meet the Town’s adopted
standard for impact on local residential roadways, so long as the provisions of Circulation
Element Policy P2.4 can be met. With the Edinburgh access open, the project is expected to
result in an increase of up to 90 PM peak-hour one-way trips and 860 Average Daily one-
way Trips (ADT) on the local roadways from Edinburgh Drive to Somerset Drive. As this
increase is less than 1,000 ADT, the development would meet the Town’s adopted standard
for impact on local residential roadways, so long as the provisions of Circulation Element
Policy P2.4 can be met.
6. With the project, the pavement width on the relatively short segment of Martis Peak Road
providing access to the project site does not meet the design standards. Implementation of
the Edinburgh access alternative does not affect this finding.
7. A new eastbound left-turn lane is warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with
Dorchester Drive (West) under 2011 and 2031 conditions, with or without the Canyon
Springs project. Implementation of the Edinburgh access alternative results in the same
finding.
8. The segment of Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road has an
existing geometric deficiency, due to the fact that the grade and roadway width are sub-
standard. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the total two-way traffic
volume on this roadway segment by about 50 percent during PM peak periods. With the
Edinburgh access open, the increase in traffic on this segment would be slightly less (45
percent) than that under the proposed alternative.
9. The driver sight distance at the study intersections is adequate, with the exception of the
Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road/Whitehorse Road intersection. Drivers exiting Whitehorse
Road do not have adequate corner sight distance to judge acceptable gaps looking in either
direction along Glenshire Drive. However, adequate stopping sight distance is provided for
oncoming drivers along Glenshire Drive to react to the presence of a vehicle entering the
roadway, and no traffic incidents were reported at this intersection from 2006 to 2010. The
addition of project traffic through the intersection is not considered to have a significant
impact on driver sight distance at this location, given that the additional traffic would consist
of vehicles going at a relatively low travel speed while either turning from Martis Peak Road
or decelerating along Glenshire Drive to turn into Martis Peak Road (not using the
Whitehorse Road leg of the intersection that has the driver sight distance deficiency).
Although implementation of the Edinburgh access alternative would result in a slightly lower
level of project traffic using this intersection, the conclusions regarding driver sight distance
would not be affected.
10. The proposed project is estimated to generate up to approximately 2,076 new Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) in the region during the summer PM peak hour. In comparison with the
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis ES 3
proposed alternative, implementation of the Edinburgh access alternative would save about
34 VMT, for a total of 2,042 new VMT.
11. Approximately 388 one-way trips are expected to be generated over the course of a busy
day during the busiest construction phase (Phase 1), with about 96 exiting trips occurring
during the PM peak hour of commuter traffic. The number of construction vehicle trips
exiting the site during the PM peak hour is similar to that generated upon full buildout of the
project. Consequently, the traffic impacts during the construction phase are identical to
those under full buildout of the proposed project. All study intersections and roadway
segments are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the construction phases,
except the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. In addition, an eastbound left-
turn lane is warranted along Glenshire Drive at Dorchester Drive (West) during the
construction phases. The findings are the same under the Edinburgh access alternative.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following mitigation measures are recommended to address transportation impacts with the
proposed project:
1. Construct a center turn lane on Donner Pass Road to allow two-stage left-turn movements
to be made from Glenshire Drive. This would improve the intersection LOS to an acceptable
level in 2011 without Canyon Springs. It is estimated that Phases 1 through 5 of the Canyon
Springs Project could be constructed before the LOS threshold is exceeded. With the
Edinburgh access open, only Phases 1 through 4 could be completed. However, even with
full buildout of Canyon Springs, the delays at the intersection would be shorter than under
existing conditions without the lane improvements (and without any development). That is,
implementation of the entire Canyon Springs development and the lane improvements
would result in an improvement over existing traffic conditions at this intersection.
Furthermore, with implementation of the approved Railyard Master Plan Project, the Donner
Pass Road Extension would be constructed east of Bridge Street, tying into a new T-
intersection on Glenshire Drive. This would substantially reduce the left-turning traffic
volume from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road, as when faced with long delays for
making left-turn movements from Glenshire Drive, drivers can be expected to shift their
travel patterns to instead use the Donner Pass Road Extension. As a result, the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection is shown to operate within the LOS thresholds with
implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension.
The Railyard Master Plan Project is a planned project and it is included in the Town of
Truckee Traffic Fee Program, which requires entities initiating new development within the
Town to pay traffic impact fees. The project applicant would be required to pay the current
traffic impact fee. However, according to Table CIR-6 in the Town of Truckee 2025 General
Plan Circulation Element, when a Category 3 Project (such as Canyon Springs) encounters
an existing unacceptable Level of Service on an arterial or collector road, that development
is allowed if either of the following are true:
• Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as identified in
Table CIR-5; or
• Improvements to impacted roads and intersections are identified in the CIP, fully funded,
and scheduled for completion within three years.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
ES 4 Traffic Impact Analysis
The construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension is not fully funded, nor is it scheduled
for completion within three years. Therefore, the proposed Canyon Springs Project (at 100
percent of development) would not meet the criteria set forth in Table CIR-6 for an allowable
development.
2. The segment of Martis Peak Road providing access to the project site should be widened to
meet the design standards for a Collector as a part of the development project.
3. An eastbound left-turn pocket is recommended to be constructed along Glenshire Drive at
its intersection with Dorchester Drive (West).
4. Additional guardrail was recently installed by Nevada County along the segment of
Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road. The County does not have any additional
improvements planned for this roadway segment. It is recommended that the project
applicant contribute up to $50,000 to fund a safety study as well as implementation of safety
improvements along this roadway segment. The scope and cost of the study should be
reviewed and approved by the Town. Examples of potential safety improvements are
improved warning signage, provision of delineator posts with reflectors, recessed reflectors
in the center line, provision of chevron signs, and installation of a warning flasher for
eastbound traffic entering the roadway segment.
5. It should be ensured that the final landscaping plans provide adequate driver sight distance
along the project roadways.
6. If any Canyon Springs construction traffic accesses the site to/from the west via the
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection before implementation of the Donner Pass
Road Extension, this would exacerbate an existing LOS deficiency. If the center turn lane is
constructed on Donner Pass Road, some level of construction traffic could access the site
via this intersection before the LOS threshold is exceeded. It is estimated that up to about
13 homes could be constructed at one time during Phase 1 (with a total of about 60 trips
exiting the Canyon Springs site during the PM peak hour) before the LOS threshold is
exceeded. Or, if all project construction traffic is prohibited from using the Glenshire Drive
route for trips made to/from the west, this impact would be avoided. Additionally, the need
for an eastbound left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive at the western end of Dorchester Drive
would be avoided. However, this mitigation measure may not be feasible. The safety
improvements along Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road (as discussed above) are
recommended to be implemented before the start of the construction phases.
All of the recommendations above are also applicable with the Edinburgh access open. That is,
implementation of the Edinburgh Access Alternative generally does not affect the recommended
mitigation measures.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION Page
1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................1
Scope of Study ...........................................................................................................1
2 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................3
Existing Setting............................................................................................................3
Safety Analysis............................................................................................................7
3 Proposed Conditions.......................................................................................................17
Project Description....................................................................................................17
Access .......................................................................................................................17
Trip Generation.........................................................................................................16
Trip Distribution.........................................................................................................20
Travel Time, Distance and Trip Assignment .............................................................20
4 Level of Service and Roadway Capacity.........................................................................31
Level of Service Thresholds......................................................................................31
Analysis Methodology ...............................................................................................32
Intersection Level of Service Analysis .......................................................................32
Intersection Queuing Analysis ...................................................................................34
Roadway Capacity ....................................................................................................34
Impact on Local Residential Roadway......................................................................34
5 Future Cumulative Conditions.........................................................................................37
Methodology..............................................................................................................37
Future 2031 Traffic Volumes.....................................................................................38
Future Intersection Level of Service Analysis ...........................................................39
Future Intersection Queuing Analysis .......................................................................39
Future Roadway Capacity .........................................................................................45
Future Impact on Local Residential Roadways.........................................................45
6 Edinburgh Access Alternative.........................................................................................47
Travel Time, Travel Distance, and Trip Assignment.................................................47
Intersection Level of Service.....................................................................................54
Intersection Queuing Analysis ...................................................................................56
Roadway Capacity ....................................................................................................59
Impact on Local Residential Roadways ....................................................................59
7 Traffic Impacts and Mitigation.........................................................................................63
Intersection LOS........................................................................................................63
Intersection Queuing.................................................................................................65
Roadway LOS...........................................................................................................65
Local Road Impacts...................................................................................................65
Impact on Martis Peak Road.....................................................................................65
Turn Lane Warrants..................................................................................................65
Traffic Safety and Drive Sight Distance Impacts.......................................................66
Vehicle Miles of Travel..............................................................................................67
Construction Traffic Impacts......................................................................................69
Impact of Edinburgh Access Alternative....................................................................70
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page ii Traffic Impact Analysis
APPENDIX
A – Count Data
B – Speed Study Results
C – LOS Criteria
D – 2011 LOS Calculations
E– Teichert Boca Quarry Expansion Traffic Volumes
F – 2031 LOS Calculations
G –LOS Calculation with Edinburgh Open
H – Turn Lane Conceptual Layout
I – Turn Lane Warrant Charts
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Year 2011 Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM Without Project ............................9
2 Accident Data Glenshire Area (2006-2010)........................................................................11
3 Trip Generation...................................................................................................................19
4 Trip Distribution...................................................................................................................20
5 Trip Assignment - Proposed Project Alternative.................................................................22
6 Detailed Trip Assignment - Proposed Project Alternative...................................................24
7 Project Generated Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM .........................................27
8 Year 2011 Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM With
Proposed Project.................................................................................................................29
9 Year 2011 Intersection LOS ...............................................................................................33
10 Year 2011 Roadway LOS Analysis ....................................................................................35
11 Year 2031 Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM Without Project ............................41
12 Year 2031 Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM
With Proposed Project........................................................................................................43
13 Year 2031 Intersection LOS................................................................................................44
14 Year 2031 Roadway LOS Analysis .....................................................................................46
15 Trip Assignment – With Edinburgh Access Alternative.......................................................49
16 Detailed Trip Assignment With Edinburgh Access ..............................................................51
17 Project Impact on Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM with
Edinburgh Access...............................................................................................................54
18 Existing and Future with Project Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM
With Edinburgh Access.......................................................................................................54
19 Intersection LOS With Edinburgh Access Alternative.........................................................58
20 Roadway LOS Analysis – Edinburgh Access Alternative....................................................60
21 Local Road Impacts – Edinburgh Access Alternative..........................................................61
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
22 Intersection LOS with Lane Improvements ........................................................................65
23 VMT Calculations................................................................................................................69
24 Construction Trip Generation..............................................................................................70
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control............................................................4
2 Existing PM Traffic Volumes Without Project......................................................................8
3 Existing Driver Sight Distance at Whitehorse Approach to Glenshire Drive........................14
4 2011 Project Generated PM Traffic Volumes......................................................................25
5 2031 Project Generated PM Traffic Volumes......................................................................26
6 2011 PM Traffic Volumes With Project...............................................................................28
7 2031 PM Traffic Volumes Without Project..........................................................................40
8 2031 PM Traffic Volumes With Project...............................................................................42
9 2011 Project Net Impact on PM Traffic Volumes With Edinburg Access............................52
10 2031 Project Net Impact on PM Traffic Volumes with Edinburgh Access...........................53
11 2011 PM Traffic Volumes with Edinburgh Access..............................................................55
12 2031 PM Traffic Volumes with Edinburgh Access..............................................................56
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 1
Section 1
Introduction
This engineering report documents the findings and conclusions of a Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) for the Canyon Springs Development, proposed to be located in the Glenshire Area of
Truckee, California. The purpose of this engineering study is to determine the impacts of the
traffic generated by the project on the surrounding roadway infrastructure, as well as other
transportation-related factors. This study determines if mitigation is required to allow
transportation facilities to operate in conformance with adopted standards and consistent with
pertinent policies under the current adopted Town of Truckee and Nevada County standards.
This project is planned to be constructed in several phases. However, the study examines the
Canyon Springs site-generated traffic volumes for build out only. This study also provides the
technical basis for the Canyon Springs EIR Transportation Section.
SCOPE OF STUDY
This traffic engineering study analyzes traffic data, intersection capacity, level of service, and
traffic impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the requirements of the Town of
Truckee, Nevada County, and Caltrans standards. The study also includes an analysis and
estimation of Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) associated with the proposed project. Based upon
input provided by the Town of Truckee, the following intersections were identified for analysis:
• Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
• Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension (future intersection)
• Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (western intersection)
• Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
• Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
• Glenshire Drive/Hirschdale Road
• I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Hirschdale Road
• I-80 Westbound Ramps/Hirschdale Road
The following roadway segments were identified for analysis:
• Glenshire Drive between Donner Pass Road and Highland Avenue
• Glenshire Drive between Highland Avenue and Dorchester Drive (west)
• Glenshire Drive between Dorchester Drive (west) and Somerset Drive
• Glenshire Drive between Somerset Drive and Martis Peak Road
• Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road
• Hirschdale Road between Glenshire Drive and I-80 Westbound Ramps
• Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and Project Access
• Somerset Drive between Glenshire Drive and Courtenay Lane
• Courtenay Lane between Somerset Drive and Regency Circle
• Regency Circle between Courtenay Lane and Edinburgh Drive
• Edinburgh Drive
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 2 Traffic Impact Analysis
Two project alternatives are evaluated, as follows:
• Full Buildout: This proposed option analyzes full buildout of all phases of the proposed
development. This scenario evaluates the Canyon Springs development with a single
vehicular access point on Martis Peak Road. The connection to Edinburgh Drive is
assumed to be gated for emergency access only and closed to the public.
• Full Buildout with Edinburgh Access Open: This scenario evaluates full buildout of all
phases of the proposed development with public access points at both Martis Peak Road
and Edinburgh Drive.
This analysis considers the following six scenarios:
1. Existing (2011) without Project
2. Existing (2011) with Project
3. Existing (2011) with Project with Edinburgh access
4. Future (2031) without Project
5. Future (2031) with Project
6. Future (2031) with Project with Edinburgh access
The results of this traffic study are used to develop recommendations to mitigate project traffic
impacts.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 3
Section 2
Existing Conditions
This section documents the existing setting and operational traffic conditions in the vicinity of the
Canyon Springs site, providing a foundation for comparison to future conditions. Existing
roadway conditions were studied to identify if the roadways are currently operating in a safe and
efficient manner. The study area and the intersections evaluated are shown in Figure 1.
EXISTING SETTING
Land Uses
Land uses in the Glenshire area are primarily residential. A local commercial area, consisting of
a general store and other small commercial uses, and an elementary school serve the local
community.
Existing Roadways
The roadways within the study area are described below.
Interstate 80
Interstate 80 (I-80) provides interregional highway connections east to Reno, Nevada and
beyond, and west to Sacramento, California and the San Francisco Bay Area. The Town of
Truckee area lies along both sides of I-80, 34 miles west of Reno and 90 miles east of
Sacramento. This section of I-80 is currently a four-lane divided highway with limited truck
climbing lanes, and with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. There are a total of eight
interchanges serving Truckee on I-80, including the Donner Lake Road and Hirschdale Road
interchanges. The Glenshire area is served by two interchanges: the Donner Pass Road
(Eastern) interchange and the Hirschdale Road interchange.
Donner Pass Road
Donner Pass Road extends from the intersection with State Route (SR) 89 North (east of
Downtown Truckee) westward to Donner Lake, Donner Summit, and Soda Springs. This
roadway provides a vital link for local circulation in the Town of Truckee by providing access to
the Pioneer Trail area to the east, historic Downtown Truckee, public and commercial uses in
the Gateway area such as the Tahoe Forest Hospital, Gateway Commercial Center, and several
school facilities, as well as Donner Lake State Park, and the Donner Lake residential area to the
west. At its nearest point to the project site, Donner Pass Road is a two-lane roadway accessing
Historic Downtown Truckee to the west and the Pioneer Trail area, I-80 and SR 89 North to the
east. At its intersection with Glenshire Drive, this roadway provides a single through lane in
each direction with a dedicated left-turn lane for left-turns onto Glenshire Drive, and the posted
speed limit is 45 miles per hour.
Glenshire Drive
Glenshire Drive is a two-lane roadway providing access between the Truckee commercial core
on the west through the Glenshire area to Hirschdale Road on the east. It provides the only
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
0
0
5
4
1
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
15
7
8
6
3
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
69/130
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
I-
8
0
E
B
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
13
8
/
64
1
1
/
6
6
9
/
1
3
0
1
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
D
O
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
GLE
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
14 G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
R
.
D
SOM
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1,
3
6
5
,6
9
3
38
/
16
2
4/
4
2,
3
5
2
/
1,
7
5
5
69
/
13
0
40
4
/
44
9
32
/
68
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
WHITEHORSE
GLE
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
HIR
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
HIRSCHDALERD.
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
MARTISPEAKRD.
I-80WB
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
JACKSVALLEYRD.
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
3
DORCHESTERDR.
FU
T
U
R
E
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
CsCONFIG
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
ST
O
P
S
I
G
N
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
La
n
e
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
FI
G
U
R
E
1
89
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
80
26
7
SI
T
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 5
access to the Glenshire area both to Truckee to the west and (with Hirschdale Road) to I-80 and
Reno to the east. This roadway also provides primary access to the Olympic Heights
subdivision west of Glenshire. The terrain along this roadway is rolling, with a 6 percent grade
near Donner Pass Road and near the west entrance to Glenshire, an 11 percent grade near
Wiltshire Lane, and a 9 percent grade on the stretch between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale
Road to the east. The posted speed limit on this roadway is 45 miles per hour from Donner
Pass Road to the western entrance to the Glenshire neighborhood. From the Glenshire
entrance to a point east of Somerset Drive, the posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. The
speed limit is 25 miles per hour on the remaining segment of Glenshire Drive to the east until it
passes Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road (and enters Nevada County), after which the speed
limit is not posted.
Dorchester Drive
Dorchester Drive is a collector street serving the northern portion of Glenshire, extending about
1.4 miles between its two intersections with Glenshire Drive. It provides access to an
elementary school, fire station, general store, other small commercial uses, as well as the
residential area in the northern portion of Glenshire. The speed limit on Dorchester Drive is 25
miles per hour east of Rolands Way and 30 miles per hour west of Rolands Way.
Somerset Drive/Courtenay Lane/Regency Circle/Edinburgh Drive
These local roadways provide access to the residences in the southeastern portion of
Glenshire. The pavement width on these streets is approximately 26 feet, and the speed limit is
25 miles per hour.
Martis Peak Road
Martis Peak Road is a local roadway providing access from Glenshire Drive south to the gated
Martis Peak Homeowners Association residential area. The pavement width ranges from about
20 feet to 23 feet. The gate is located approximately one-quarter mile south of the Glenshire
Drive intersection.
Hirschdale Road
Hirschdale Road provides a connection from Glenshire to I-80. It also serves residences to the
east of the Glenshire area. Hirschdale Road is a two-lane roadway with a pavement width of
about 22 feet. The speed limit is not posted in the study area.
Existing Traffic Volumes
For this study and consistent with Town of Truckee policy, impacts on study roadways are
determined by measuring the effect that site-generated traffic has on traffic operations at key
intersections and along roadways during the 10th-highest summer weekday PM peak hour. In
addition, an analysis of AM peak-hour conditions is included for the Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road intersection. Although the total intersection volumes are the highest in the summer
tourism months, the volumes on the minor approaches within Glenshire are generally higher
during school peak hours. Therefore, in addition to the commuter PM peak hour, the AM and
PM peak hours of school-related traffic activity are analyzed for the following three study
intersections within Glenshire:
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 6 Traffic Impact Analysis
• Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (west)
• Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
• Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
As the traffic volumes on Glenshire Drive at the outskirts of the Glenshire neighborhoods are
higher during the AM and PM commuter hours, there is no need to analyze the school peak
hours at intersections outside the Glenshire community.
Existing Summer Traffic Volumes
Year 2011 peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes were estimated at the study
intersections as described below.
Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive, Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive, and Glenshire
Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersections
LSC conducted summer PM peak-hour traffic counts during the summer of 2009 at the following
study intersections as a part of the Truckee 2009 Traffic Count Program:
• Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
• Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (west)
• Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
As a part of the Truckee 2009 Summer Count Program Memorandum (LSC Transportation
Consultants, 2009), the count data was adjusted to represent the 10th-highest summer weekday
PM peak hour in 2009. As determined during the Town of Truckee TransCAD model update
process in 2011, the growth in dwelling units in the Glenshire area increased at an annual rate
of approximately 2 percent between 2004 and 2009. Therefore the 2009 traffic volumes were
increased by a 2-percent annual growth rate in order to estimate 2011 traffic conditions.
Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive Intersection – AM
AM peak-hour traffic counts were conducted by LSC at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
intersection in July of 2004. The count data is presented in Appendix A. The 2004 traffic
volumes were adjusted upward in order to be consistent with the 2009 volumes at adjacent
intersections. Next, the 2009 traffic volumes were increased by a 2-percent annual growth rate
in order to estimate 2011 traffic conditions.
Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive and Glenshire Drive/Hirschdale Road Intersections
PM peak-hour traffic counts were conducted by LSC at the Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive and
Glenshire Drive/Hirschdale Road intersections in March of 2004. In addition, pneumatic road
tube counts were conducted on Glenshire Drive immediately west of Highland Avenue, east of
Highland Avenue, and on Glenshire Drive immediately west of Hirschdale Road. The results of
these counts are summarized in Appendix A. It is necessary to adjust the count data to reflect
summer conditions. The road tube counts conducted in March were compared to the road tube
counts conducted by LSC during the summer of 2003 at the same locations. The ratio of
summer-to-March PM peak-hour volumes along Glenshire Drive ranged from 1.35 near
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 7
Highland Avenue to 1.07 near Hirschdale Road. These factors were applied to the March PM
peak-hour counts at the Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive and Glenshire Drive/Hirschdale Road
intersections, in order to adjust them to summer conditions. Next, the traffic volumes were
adjusted upward in order to be consistent with the 2009 volumes at adjacent intersections.
Finally, the 2009 traffic volumes were increased by a 2-percent annual growth rate in order to
estimate 2011 traffic conditions.
I-80/Hirschdale Interchange Ramp Intersections
Traffic counts were conducted at the Hirschdale Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps and Hirschdale
Road/I-80 Westbound Ramps intersections on Friday July 8, 2011 from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
The count data is provided in Appendix A. During the count periods, Boca Dam Reservoir Road
was closed. This road provides the primary access to recreational uses on the west side of
Boca Reservoir, but these uses can also be accessed from State Route 89 North. It is
necessary to ensure that the 2011 traffic volumes reflect peak summer conditions. Caltrans
hourly traffic volumes at the I-80/Hirschdale interchange ramps from the summer of 2007 were
reviewed, and they were found to be higher than the 2011 counts. Therefore, in order to remain
conservative in this analysis, the count data was factored up to match the 2007 volumes, and
then it was adjusted to balance with the traffic volumes at the adjacent study intersections.
The resulting 2011 summer PM peak-hour traffic volumes without the Canyon Springs Project
are shown in Figure 2. These volumes are considered to be conservative, given that a
comparison of the 2006 to 2009 PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the Donner Pass Road /
Glenshire Drive intersection indicates no growth in the total intersection volume.
Existing School Season Traffic Volumes
School season intersection counts were conducted at the Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive
(West), Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive, and Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak
Road intersections during the 2010-2011 school year. The morning counts were conducted from
7:30 AM to 9:30 AM, and the afternoon counts were conducted from 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM, in
order to capture the busiest periods of school-related traffic activity. The count data is contained
in Appendix A, and the resulting morning and afternoon peak-hour volumes are shown in Table
1.
A review of the traffic volumes indicates that the volumes along Glenshire Drive are generally
highest during the summer season, whereas the volumes along Dorchester Drive (the roadway
providing access to the Glenshire Elementary School) are highest during the school season.
SAFETY ANALYSIS
A safety analysis was conducted in the study area, including a review of historical accident data
and existing driver sight distance.
Historical Accident Data
Historical accident data was analyzed at the following seven places:
• Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection
• Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 8 Traffic Impact Analysis
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
0
0
5
4
1
7
8
6
3
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
15
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
14
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
40
4
/
44
9
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
3
FU
T
U
R
E
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
24
7
22
7
12
3
16
5
36
8
35
5
75 24
6
34
10
5
87
0
0
2
8
9
5
7
2 2
12
15
3
14
5
94
27
74
71
66
49
35
28
97
19
5
22
7
10
2
41
78
52
33
60
69
21
13
0
4
21
12
5
9
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
M
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
FI
G
U
R
E
2
8
89
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
80
26
7
SI
T
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
Csvol
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 9
TA
B
L
E
1
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
D
u
r
i
n
g
A
M
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
M
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
We
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
To
t
a
l
AM Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
3
2
0
-
-
1
7
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
9
0
9
4
5
7
2
2
5
-
-
1
,
0
6
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
7
-
-
1
9
3
1
1
5
5
9
-
-
-
-
1
4
8
5
7
6
1
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
32
-
-
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
8
1
3
6
4
7
-
-
1
3
8
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
5
1
7
1
3
0
1
1
5
8
7
1
1
6
3
8
6
1
9
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
8
-
-
1
2
7
1
5
6
1
3
3
-
-
-
-
9
0
2
7
5
8
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
15
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
7
2
8
5
4
3
-
-
1
4
2
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
40
6
6
1
8
9
6
1
8
5
8
1
1
7
2
0
6
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 10 Traffic Impact Analysis
• Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road/Whitehorse Road Intersection
• Glenshire Drive between West Residential Entrance (Old Hwy 40) and Martis Peak Road
• Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road
• Hirschdale Road between Glenshire Drive and I-80
• The roadway segment along Somerset Drive/Courtenay Lane/Regency Circle/Edinburgh
Drive
The accident analysis is based on traffic collision data obtained from the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS), which is managed by the California Highway Patrol (CHP)
and contains a comprehensive list of all reported collisions in the State of California. Local
jurisdictions do not maintain any accident records exclusive from SWITRS. Accident records
were obtained for the intersections and roadway segments listed above for the 5-year period
from 2006 through 2010. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 2 and are
summarized as follows:
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection.
The annual average accident rate for this intersection is estimated to be 0.52 accidents per
Million Vehicles (MV), while the Statewide average for the same type of intersection is lower at
0.20 accidents per MV. However, more than half (58 percent) of the accidents resulted in
property damage only, and no fatalities were reported. In addition, only one accident occurred
during icy/snowy conditions.
Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive Intersection
The annual average accident rate for this intersection is estimated to be 0.38 accidents per
Million Vehicles (MV), while the Statewide average for the same type of intersection is lower at
0.20 accidents per MV. However, all of the accidents resulted in property damage only, and no
injuries or fatalities were reported. In addition, no accidents occurred during icy/snowy road
conditions. Furthermore, the accident data does not decipher between the two Glenshire
Drive/Dorchester Drive intersection locations. Therefore, the calculated accident rates are
conservatively high, as some of the accidents could have occurred at the eastern intersection,
and some could have occurred at the western intersection.
Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road/Whitehorse Road Intersection
No accidents were reported at this intersection during the 5-year period. (The accident nearest
to the intersection occurred at a location 380 feet to the east and it had nothing to do with the
intersection.)
Glenshire Drive through Residential Subdivision
Accident data were collected from SWITRS for the segment of Glenshire Drive between the
West Residential Entrance (Old Highway 40) and Martis Peak Road. Over the five-year period
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 11
TA
B
L
E
2
:
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
D
a
t
a
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
A
r
e
a
(
2
0
0
6
-
2
0
1
0
)
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
(
5
y
e
a
r
s
)
V
i
c
t
i
m
s
An
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
R
a
t
e
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ty
p
e
M
V
M
T
o
t
a
l
P
D
O
I
n
j
u
r
y
F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y
I
n
j
u
r
e
d
K
i
l
l
e
d
Acc
i
d
e
n
t
s
/
MV
M
F
+
I
/
M
V
M
Fa
t
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
/
10
0
M
V
M
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
St
o
p
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
T
-
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
o
n
4.
6
5
1
2
75
0
8
0
0.
5
2
0
.
2
2
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
1
St
o
p
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
T
-
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
o
n
2.
1
1
44
0
0
0
0
0.
3
8
0
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
/
W
h
i
t
e
h
o
r
s
e
R
o
a
d
St
o
p
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
4
-
Wa
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
0.
9
8
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
2-
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
2.
8
9
1
6
1
0
60
9
0
1.
1
1
0
.
4
2
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
2
-
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
0.
9
1
96
3
0
3
0
1.
9
8
0
.
6
6
0
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
2-
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
0.
4
6
65
1
0
1
0
2.
6
1
0
.
4
3
0
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
/
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
/
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
2
-
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
0.
2
6
22
0
0
0
0
1.
5
4
0
0
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
2
0
0
9
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
D
a
t
a
o
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
t
a
t
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
s
3
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
Ru
r
a
l
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
C
i
t
y
)
2
&
3
L
a
n
e
11
,
5
0
9
1
1
,
1
3
3
5
,
9
6
6
4
,
8
9
5
2
7
2
7
,
4
3
9
3
0
4
0
.
9
7
0
.
4
5
2
.
6
4
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
2
&
3
L
a
n
e
14
,
6
1
0
1
5
,
3
4
2
8
,
4
4
1
6
,
5
8
4
3
1
7
9
,
9
2
8
3
5
2
1
.
0
5
0
.
4
7
2
.
4
1
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
T
o
t
a
l
17
6
,
4
6
1
1
4
2
,
2
2
1
9
3
,
3
8
9
4
7
,
6
7
3
1
,
1
5
9
6
9
,
9
6
4
1
,
3
0
3
0
.
8
1
0
.
2
8
0
.
7
4
St
o
p
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
T
-
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
u
r
a
l
)
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
.
2
0
-
-
-
-
St
o
p
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
4
-
W
a
y
-
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
u
r
a
l
)
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
.
2
5
-
-
-
-
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
Ru
r
a
l
(
O
u
t
s
i
d
e
C
i
t
y
)
2
&
3
L
a
n
e
16
8
1
7
5
8
9
8
3
3
1
1
5
3
1
.
0
4
0
.
5
1
1
.
7
9
Co
u
n
t
y
w
i
d
e
T
o
t
a
l
65
5
6
0
9
3
9
4
2
0
7
8
3
2
7
9
0
.
9
3
0
.
3
3
1
.
3
7
MV
M
=
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
M
i
l
e
s
f
o
r
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
;
P
D
O
=
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
D
a
m
a
g
e
O
n
l
y
;
F
+
I
=
F
a
t
a
l
i
t
y
p
l
u
s
I
n
j
u
r
y
a
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
No
t
e
1
:
T
h
e
a
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
d
a
t
a
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
y
a
t
w
h
i
c
h
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
o
r
t
h
e
e
a
t
e
r
n
s
i
d
e
)
t
h
e
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
.
T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
t
h
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
a
t
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
h
i
g
h
f
o
r
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
No
t
e
2
:
T
h
i
s
i
s
t
h
e
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
o
f
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
O
l
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
4
0
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
.
No
t
e
3
:
S
o
u
r
c
e
o
f
D
a
t
a
:
"
2
0
0
9
C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
D
a
t
a
o
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
t
a
t
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
s
(
r
o
a
d
m
i
l
e
s
,
t
r
a
v
e
l
,
c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
,
c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
)
"
,
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
,
2
0
1
1
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 12 Traffic Impact Analysis
from 2006 to 2010 there was an annual average accident rate of approximately 1.11 accidents
per Million Vehicle Miles (MVM). As shown in the table, this is above the average accident rates
on similar facilities for the State and County. However, the injury and fatal accident rate for this
roadway segment is below State and County averages for this roadway type. Almost two-thirds
(about 63 percent) of all accidents resulted in property damage only, and no fatalities were
reported.
Glenshire Drive East of Martis Peak Road
Accident data was collected from SWITRS for the segment of Glenshire Drive between Martis
Peak Road and Hirschdale Road. A total of 9 accidents were reported during the five-year
period from 2006 to 2010, with an annual average accident rate of approximately 1.98 accidents
per MVM. This rate is roughly two times the State and County average rates for similar facilities.
In addition, the injury and fatal accident rate for this roadway segment is higher than the State
and County average rates for similar facilities. No fatalities were reported on this segment. Two-
thirds of the accidents resulted in property damage only. Three (3) of the 9 accidents occurred
under icy/snowy road conditions, and these were all single-vehicle accidents with no injuries. Of
the remaining 6 accidents that occurred under dry road conditions, almost all of them (5) were
single-vehicle accidents.
This roadway segment is curvy and has a steep grade of about 9 percent. The existing
pavement width accommodates 11-foot travel lanes with no shoulder in some locations. Both
Nevada County and Town of Truckee roadway design standards call for 12-foot lanes with 4-
foot shoulders, and a maximum grade of 8 percent. As this segment of Glenshire Drive does not
meet this criteria, this is considered to be an existing geometric deficiency.
Hirschdale Road
Accident data was collected from SWITRS for the segment of Hirschdale Road between
Glenshire Drive and I-80. A total of 6 accidents were reported during the five-year period from
2006 to 2010, with an annual average accident rate of approximately 2.61 accidents per MVM.
This rate is about 2.7 times the State average rate and 2.5 times the County average rate for
similar facilities. However, the injury and fatal accident rate for this roadway segment is lower
than the State and County average rates for similar facilities. No fatalities were reported on this
segment. Almost all of the accidents (5 of 6) resulted in property damage only. Two accidents
occurred during snowy/icy road conditions, but no injuries were associated with these accidents.
Somerset Drive/Courtenay Lane/Regency Circle/Edinburgh Drive.
Over the five-year period from 2006 to 2010, only two accidents occurred on this roadway
segment, and both resulted in property damage only. The annual average accident rate equates
to approximately 1.54 accidents per MVM, which is above the average rate for State and County
2-lane roadways. However, no injuries or fatalities were reported.
Driver Sight Distance
A detailed evaluation of the driver sight distance at the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis
Peak Road intersection was performed as a part of this study. Traffic engineers consider driver
sight distance by two parameters:
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 13
• Stopping sight distance requirements are meant to ensure that a driver on the
approaching uncontrolled roadway has adequate time to perceive and react to the presence
of an obstruction in the roadway, and come to a stop in a safe manner.
• Corner sight distance requirements are meant to ensure that adequate time is provided for
the waiting vehicle at an unsignalized intersection to either cross all lanes of through traffic,
cross the near lanes and turn left, or turn right without requiring through traffic to radically
alter their speed. Corner sight distance requirements are based upon major street roadway
design speeds and are identified in Standard Drawing Number 28 in the Town of Truckee
Public Improvement and Engineering Standards. The corner sight distance requirements are
meant to provide 7-1/2 seconds for the driver on the crossroad to complete the necessary
maneuver, while the approaching vehicle travels at the assumed design speed of the major
roadway.
A speed study was conducted by LSC staff on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 from 3:20 PM to 5:20
PM at a point on Glenshire Drive immediately east of Martis Peak Road. There is currently a
sign in both directions of this segment advising a travel speed of 25 miles per hour. A total of
203 vehicles were observed on Glenshire Drive during the study period. According to the results
of the study, the 85th-percentile speed is estimated to be 30 miles per hour in each direction.
The detailed results of the speed study are provided in Appendix B. According to Town
standards, the applicable corner sight distance (measured at a 10-foot setback from the edge of
the travel lane) at 30 miles per hour is 330 feet.
The driver sight distance at the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection
was surveyed by LSC staff. The corner sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the
west along Glenshire Drive exceeds 330 feet, and is therefore adequate. The corner sight
distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the east along Glenshire Drive is roughly 425 feet,
which exceeds the requirement. Therefore, no driver sight distance deficiencies are identified on
the Martis Peak Road approach.
Driver Sight Distance to the West of Whitehorse Road
The existing corner sight distance at the Whitehorse Road approach is illustrated in Figure 3. As
shown, the corner sight distance from Whitehorse Road looking to the west along Glenshire
Drive is roughly 195 feet, which does not meet the Town’s 330-foot requirement. The corner
sight distance at this location is limited by the existing embankment and vegetation on the
northwest corner of the intersection, as well as by the horizontal and vertical curvature along
Glenshire Drive. The corner sight distance improves as the driver on Whitehorse Road
approaches the edge of the travel lane on Glenshire Drive. Measured 10 feet back from the
edge of the traveled way, the corner sight distance is approximately 195 feet, while this distance
measured from a 5-foot setback increases to approximately 255 feet. However, these values
still do not achieve the corner sight distance standard.
The corner sight distance at this location could be improved by modifying the existing
embankment on the northwest corner of the intersection. However, such an improvement would
likely require the acquisition of right-of-way from the single-family parcel located on this corner.
Town standards indicate that “where restrictive conditions do not allow compliance with the
specified sight distance requirements, the Engineer may approve a reduction of the corner sight
distance to the minimum stopping sight distance as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design
Manual.” According to Caltrans standards, at a 30 mile per hour design speed, the minimum
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 14 Traffic Impact Analysis
10
0
f
e
e
t
FI
G
U
R
E
3
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
r
i
v
e
r
S
i
g
h
t
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
a
t
W
h
i
t
e
h
o
r
s
e
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Si
g
h
t
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
r
s
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
-
bo
u
n
d
o
n
W
h
i
t
e
h
o
r
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
no
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
o
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
=
1
7
0
f
e
e
t
.
Co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
b
o
x
a
n
d
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Si
g
h
t
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
r
s
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
-
bo
u
n
d
o
n
W
h
i
t
e
h
o
r
s
e
D
r
i
v
e
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
so
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
o
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
=
1
9
5
fe
e
t
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
c
u
r
v
a
t
u
r
e
o
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 15
stopping sight distance is 200 feet. Measured stopping sight distance for drivers approaching
along Glenshire Drive from the west is 210 feet measured to an object 6 inches in height, and at
least 255 feet to a vehicle turning into the westbound through lane. Therefore, adequate
stopping sight distance is provided for eastbound drivers along Glenshire Drive to see and react
to a driver pulling out from Whitehorse Road. Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this
intersection during the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010.
Driver Sight Distance to the East of Whitehorse Road
The corner sight distance from Whitehorse Road looking to the east along Glenshire Drive is
roughly 170 feet, which does not meet the Town’s 330-foot corner sight distance requirement.
To the east of the study intersection Glenshire Drive curves to the north and then back to the
south. When looking east from Whitehorse Road, a driver can see a portion of the road, but as it
turns to the north it disappears from sight and reappears into the driver’s sight as it curves back
to the south. The corner sight distance at this location is limited by an existing utility box in the
northeast quadrant of the intersection, as well as by existing vegetation. If the existing utility box
and vegetation were removed, then the corner sight distance to the east would be improved to
roughly 580 feet, thereby meeting minimum corner sight distance requirements. However, the
stopping sight distance along Glenshire Drive east of Whitehorse Drive (measured along the
travel lane) is over 500 feet, as the existing utility box does not block the driver sight line along
the traveled way. Therefore, adequate stopping sight distance is provided. If a driver makes a
right turn from Whitehorse Road without an adequate gap, a vehicle traveling on Glenshire
Drive westbound would have adequate stopping sight distance to react and come to a stop.
Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this intersection during the 5-year period from 2006
to 2010.
Summary
In summary, drivers exiting Martis Peak Drive onto Glenshire Drive have adequate sight
distance to judge an acceptable gap in both directions. However, drivers exiting Whitehorse
Road onto Glenshire Drive do not have adequate corner sight distance to judge acceptable
gaps looking either to the east or west. In both directions, however, oncoming drivers along
Glenshire Drive have adequate stopping sight distance to react to the presence of a vehicle
turning onto the roadway.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 16 Traffic Impact Analysis
This page left intentionally blank.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 17
Section 3
Proposed Conditions
The project location, the size of the project, and the time of the project completion are all
important elements that need to be considered to determine the safety and capacity impacts of
the development. It is also important to examine how the project will operate with the existing
transportation system, estimate how much new traffic it will generate, identify how it would
impact existing traffic patterns, and identify how traffic generated by the project site will be
distributed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Canyon Springs Project is proposed to be located on an approximately 284-acre site in the
eastern portion of the Glenshire Area, within the Town of Truckee. The project site is bound to
the west by an existing residential neighborhood. The site is bound to the east and south by the
Martis Peak Homeowners Association neighborhood. The project site is bound to the north by
open space, the proposed north access roadway, and the gated portion of Martis Peak Road.
The project proposes to construct up to 177 single-family market-rate residences and
approximately 26 affordable housing units. The project will be developed in several phases.
However, this traffic analysis is scoped to focus on the full development of the proposed project.
ACCESS
Properly located access points are essential to allow for the safe and orderly movement of traffic
in and out of the site. In recognition of this, the Town of Truckee has enacted ordinances to
assure their proper placement (See Town of Truckee Development Code, Section 18.48.080).
The project proposes to create a single connection from the development to the north,
connecting with Martis Peak Road at a point about 690 feet south of its intersection with
Glenshire Drive. A gated access point would be provided at the end of Edinburgh Drive for
emergency access only. An optional access alternative would allow the Edinburgh connection to
be open for general traffic. This alternative is evaluated in Section 6.
TRIP GENERATION
The first step in the analysis of future traffic impacts is to prepare an estimate of the number of
trips generated by the proposed project. Trip generation is the evaluation of the number of
vehicle-trips that would either have an origin or destination at the project site. The trip
generation of the proposed project is estimated based upon the following conservative
assumptions:
• It is assumed that all of the proposed dwelling units are full-time residences (rather than
vacation homes). Some of the residential units could potentially be used as vacation homes,
which tend to generate fewer trips than primary residences. The American Community
Survey Five-Year Estimates for 2005-2009 indicates that 22 percent of dwelling units in
eastern Truckee (Glenshire, Sierra Meadows, Downtown, Prosser) are second homes or
vacant. However, in order to remain conservative in this analysis, no use as vacation homes
is assumed.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 18 Traffic Impact Analysis
• All residential units are assumed to be 100 percent occupied during the period of analysis.
• The affordable housing units are assumed to be a combination of triplex and four-plex units,
which are assumed to have the trip generation characteristics of apartments.
• According to existing traffic volumes on various residential streets (Somerset Drive,
Whitehorse Road, and Martis Peak Road), Glenshire residences tend to generate about the
same or less traffic during the school PM peak hour than that during the commuter PM peak
hour. Therefore, the trip generation of the Canyon Springs residences during the PM peak
hour of school-related traffic activity is assumed to be the same as that during the commuter
PM peak hour, conservatively.
• Half of the proposed residences are assumed to contain secondary units (granny units).
This is a conservative estimate, considering that only 3 of every 1,000 new single-family
units built from 2003 to 2009 had a legal second unit built with them, according to a review
of Town of Truckee building records. In addition, although it is likely that many of the
proposed secondary units will only be used seasonally or when the owner has guests, they
are assumed to be occupied on a full-time basis.
• Due to the site location and lack of scheduled public transit service to the area, no
reductions are applied to reflect travel by transit, bicycle, or pedestrian modes.
• A new multi-use public recreational area is proposed to be centrally located within the site
and linked to the proposed public trail system. It is assumed that any increase in traffic due
to the new recreational opportunities would be offset by the reduction in the number of
residents leaving the site for recreational opportunities elsewhere. Consequently, no
adjustments to the trip generation analysis are required due to the proposed recreational
areas.
The estimated weekday trip generation analysis is summarized in Table 3. The daily and peak-
hour trip generation of the proposed single-family residences are based on regression equations
provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition manual
(ITE, 2008). Regression equations are applied for all trip generation calculations rather than
average trip rates, in accordance with the “Recommended Procedure for Selecting Between
Trip Generation Average Rates and Equations” (ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Second
Edition, 2004). As indicated, the proposed Canyon Springs development would generate up to
approximately 2,578 one-way daily vehicle trips, of which 194 (46 inbound and 148 outbound)
would occur during the AM peak hour and 257 (164 inbound and 93 outbound) would occur
during the PM peak hour.
This analysis should be considered to be extremely conservative, in view of the fact that the
Truckee Transportation Model indicates (based on calibration with observed traffic counts) that
the trip generation rates for full-time residences in Glenshire are approximately 42 percent lower
than the ITE rates. Furthermore, the ITE rates do not consider the relatively high proportion of
“trip chaining” (making multiple stops as part of a single external round-trip from the residential
area) due to the relatively long travel distance from Glenshire to the rest of the Truckee
community.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 19
TA
B
L
E
3
:
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
s
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
T
r
i
p
s
a
t
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
IT
E
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
IT
E
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Co
d
e
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
U
n
i
t
Da
i
l
y
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Da
i
l
y
In
O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
Ma
r
k
e
t
R
a
t
e
H
o
u
s
e
s
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
21
0
1
7
7
D
U
Eq
u
a
t
i
o
n
2
Eq
u
a
t
i
o
n
3
Eq
u
a
t
i
o
n
4
1,
7
5
8
3
4
1
0
0
1
3
4
1
1
1
6
5
1
7
6
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
U
n
i
t
s
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
22
0
8
9
D
U
Equa
t
i
o
n
5
Equa
t
i
o
n
6
Equa
t
i
o
n
7
635
9
3
7
4
6
4
1
2
2
6
3
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
22
0
2
6
D
U
Equa
t
i
o
n
5
Equa
t
i
o
n
6
Equa
t
i
o
n
7
18
5
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
6
1
8
To
t
a
l
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
29
2
DU
2,
5
7
8
46
14
8
19
4
16
4
93
25
7
NO
T
E
:
D
U
=
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
No
t
e
1
:
T
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
8
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
(
I
T
E
,
2
0
0
8
)
,
u
n
l
e
s
s
N
o
t
e
d
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
.
No
t
e
2
:
T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
L
n
(
T
)
=
0
.
9
2
*
L
n
(
#
D
U
)
+
2
.
7
1
.
No
t
e
3
:
T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
=
0
.
7
0
(
#
D
U
)
+
9
.
7
4
;
2
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
,
7
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
No
t
e
4
:
T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
L
n
(
T
)
=
0
.
9
0
*
L
n
(
#
D
U
)
+
0
.
5
1
;
6
3
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
,
3
7
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
No
t
e
5
:
T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
=
6
.
0
6
(
#
D
U
)
+
1
2
3
.
5
6
.
No
t
e
6
:
T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
=
0
.
4
9
(
#
D
U
)
+
3
.
7
3
;
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
,
8
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
No
t
e
7
:
T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
,
T
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
T
=
0
.
5
5
(
#
D
U
)
+
1
7
.
6
5
;
6
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
,
3
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
i
p
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 20 Traffic Impact Analysis
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The distribution of traffic arriving and departing the project site is estimated based on the
following:
• Existing traffic patterns in the Glenshire area;
• Expected trip purposes of Canyon Springs residents and visitors;
• The location of the site relative to major employment, commercial, and recreational activity
centers; and
• The distribution generated by the Town’s traffic model for the Canyon Springs site.
The resulting distribution pattern for project-generated trips under the existing and future
commuter and school PM peak hours is summarized in Table 4. As shown, more than one-
quarter of trips generated by the proposed development in 2011 are expected to travel to/from
the Gateway area (near the SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road intersection). In addition, existing
traffic volumes indicate about 25 percent of Glenshire traffic travels to/from I-80 to the east of
Hirschdale Road. Under future 2031 conditions, the trip distribution to these key locations is
expected to be lower, considering the new commercial development assumed to occur in other
areas of Truckee (such as the Railyard Development).
TABLE 4: Canyon Springs Trip Distribution
Existing 2011Future 2031
Origin / Destination
School
PM
Commuter
PM
School
PM
Commuter
PM
Downtown Study Area14%16%8%10%
Gateway27%27%22%20%
89N/Prosser Lakeview/Pioneer Trail9%5%16%12%
Donner Lake1%2%2%3%
I-80 to the West of Truckee2%2%3%3%
Tahoe Donner1%1%1%1%
I-80 to the East25%25%18%18%
Kings Beach/ Tahoe Basin1%2%1%2%
Martis Valley2%3%2%4%
Palisades/PC-3/Brockway Road6%8%6%9%
Stampede Meadows Road1%1%1%1%
Hirschdale Mini-Mart1%1%1%1%
Raley Property (Future)--3%3%
Dorchester Drive10%7%10%7%
Railyard (Future)--6%6%
Total100%100%100%100%
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Canyon Springs 2011.xls
TRAVEL TIME, TRAVEL DISTANCE AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The proposed project assumes full access to the site via Martis Peak Road. The Edinburgh
Drive access point would be gated and accessible for emergency use only. A key step in this
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 21
analysis is to estimate the assignment of site-generated trips to the various travel paths. As a
basis for this evaluation, an extensive travel time analysis was performed by LSC on Tuesday
through Thursday, May 3-5, 2011 from about 2:30 PM to 6:00 PM to determine relative travel
times provided by various routes. Note that public schools were in session during this survey
period, and weather conditions did not impact travel speeds. A minimum of five runs were made
in each direction for each route. Travel speed was chosen by the drivers to reflect average
travel speeds observed along each corridor by drivers of other passenger cars.
Next, the total travel times between the project site and the various origin/destination locations
were calculated using the actual travel times on existing roadways as well as estimated travel
times on proposed roadways. A key question is whether Canyon Springs drivers would use
Glenshire Drive or I-80 via Hirschdale Road (the “I-80/Hirschdale” route) for trips made to/from
locations in Truckee to the west of Glenshire, such as the Gateway area. A comparison of the
relative travel times and travel distances for these two routes, assuming access to the site is
provided at a point on Martis Peak Road only, is provided in Table 5. As shown, Glenshire Drive
generally provides a shorter route, while the I-80/Hirschdale route is generally faster for most
origins/destinations to the west of Glenshire. A notable exception to this is Downtown Truckee,
for which Glenshire Drive provides both the shortest and fastest route for trips to/from the
project site.
The estimated traffic assignment between the Glenshire Drive and I-80/Hirschdale routes are
shown in the right-hand columns of Table 5. The following assumptions and methodologies are
used in the estimation of the route choice:
• Consistent with the findings of other traffic studies in the Truckee area, Truckee drivers (all
other things being equal) tend to choose a route that remains on local roadways and avoids
the stress of entering and merging with I-80 traffic. Consequently, the results of the travel
time analysis are adjusted to provide a 60 second “penalty” to routes that include merging
onto the interstate. For the westbound movement from Donner Pass Road east of downtown
to Donner Pass Road just east of Gateway via I-80 (where drivers need not merge with
through traffic due to the presence of an auxiliary lane), a 30-second penalty is applied.
• Although the travel time obtained from the survey includes the actual time lost due to
slowing and stopping at the California Agricultural Inspection Station, an additional 30
seconds of travel time is added, assuming that drivers would spend up to 30 additional
seconds on an alternate route in order to avoid the inconvenience of passing through this
check point, as well as to reflect additional delays at the Ag Station during peak travel
periods.
• Drivers generally tend to consider travel time to be more important than travel distance when
choosing a travel route. In the consideration of routes with faster travel times as opposed to
routes with shorter mileage, transportation modelers have generally found that travel time
has ten times more “weight” in route decisions than travel distance.
After these adjustments are made, the results continue to indicate that the majority of project-
generated traffic would use Hirschdale Road/I-80 to access the areas listed above, with the
exception of Downtown Truckee (for which Glenshire Road would serve all drivers). A minority
of drivers with a particular aversion to out-of-direction or freeway travel (such as the elderly) is
expected to continue to use Glenshire Drive, particularly for trips where the Hirschdale/I-80
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 22 Traffic Impact Analysis
TA
B
L
E
5
:
T
r
i
p
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
R
o
u
t
e
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
R
o
u
t
e
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
T
r
a
v
e
l
T
i
m
e
1
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
T
r
a
v
e
l
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
2
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I-
8
0
3,
4
,
5
Tr
i
p
s
F
r
o
m
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
o
:
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
1
.
2
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
1
.
6
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
1
0
0
%
0
%
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
I-
8
0
i
s
1
.
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
1
.
4
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
3
5
%
6
5
%
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
I-
8
0
i
s
1
.
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e
i
s
e
q
u
a
l
25
%
7
5
%
Do
n
n
e
r
S
u
m
m
i
t
I-
8
0
i
s
2
.
2
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
0
.
4
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
1
5
%
8
5
%
SR
2
6
7
I-
8
0
i
s
2
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
0
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
1
0
%
9
0
%
Pa
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
/
B
r
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
I-
8
0
i
s
0
.
2
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
1
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
4
5
%
5
5
%
Tr
i
p
s
T
o
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
F
r
o
m
:
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
2
.
2
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
1
.
7
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
1
0
0
%
0
%
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
I-
8
0
i
s
3
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
1
.
6
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
3
5
%
6
5
%
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
I-
8
0
i
s
2
.
7
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
0
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
3
0
%
7
0
%
Do
n
n
e
r
S
u
m
m
i
t
I-
8
0
i
s
3
.
2
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
0
.
4
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
1
0
%
9
0
%
SR
2
6
7
I-
8
0
i
s
4
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
I-
8
0
i
s
0
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
5%
9
5
%
Pa
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
/
B
r
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
I-
8
0
i
s
2
.
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
i
s
1
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
3
0
%
7
0
%
No
t
e
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
No
t
e
1
:
T
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
L
S
C
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
5
r
u
n
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
r
o
u
t
e
a
n
d
i
n
e
a
c
h
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
No
t
e
2
:
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
r
o
u
t
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
I
-
8
0
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
(
e
a
s
t
)
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
No
t
e
3
:
I
-
8
0
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
6
0
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
o
n
g
e
r
o
n
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
r
o
u
t
e
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
No
t
e
5
:
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
i
s
c
o
l
u
m
n
r
e
f
e
r
o
n
l
y
t
o
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
I
-
8
0
a
t
t
h
e
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
No
t
e
4
:
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
I
-
8
0
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
s
a
l
s
o
a
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
3
0
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
,
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
o
n
g
e
r
o
n
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
r
o
u
t
e
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 23
travel route does not provide a large travel time savings. Table 6 presents the detailed results of
the travel time analysis, as well as the trip assignment assumptions for all trip origin/destination
locations.
Assignment of Project-Generated Traffic
Based upon the distribution patterns shown in Table 4 and the route choice assumptions shown
in Tables 5 and 6, the assignment of project-generated traffic is established. The 2011 project-
generated PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the study intersections are illustrated in Figure
4, and the future 2031 project-generated traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5. The 2011 and
2031 project-generated intersection turning-movement volumes during the AM peak hour and
the PM peak hour of school-related traffic activity are shown in Table 7, respectively.
These results are compared to existing traffic volume patterns. According to 2009 traffic counts,
existing Glenshire drivers generate approximately 702 vehicle-trips (total two-way) on Glenshire
Drive west of Glenshire versus 254 vehicle-trips on Glenshire Drive east of Glenshire
(immediately west of Hirschdale Road). This indicates a split of roughly 70 percent to the west
and 30 percent to the east. In comparison, the calculated split of Canyon Springs site-generated
trips external to Glenshire is roughly 30 percent to the west on Glenshire Drive and 70 percent
to the east on Glenshire Drive. Excluding trips between Canyon Springs and Reno/Sparks,
Glenshire or Stampede Meadows Road, 45 percent of Canyons Springs traffic to/from the west
would use Glenshire Drive and the remaining 55 percent would use Hirschdale Road/I-80.
Given the location of the Canyon Springs access point in the easternmost portion of Glenshire
(2 miles east of the Glenshire General Store), this distribution proportion is consistent with the
observed traffic patterns.
Adding the 2011 project-generated traffic volumes to the “2011 without project” volumes yields
the “2011 with project” intersection volumes shown in Figure 6 and Table 8.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 24 Traffic Impact Analysis
TA
B
L
E
6
:
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
T
r
i
p
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Al
l
t
i
m
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
.
Ou
t
b
o
u
n
d
P
M
T
r
i
p
s
In
b
o
u
n
d
P
M
T
r
i
p
s
Or
i
g
i
n
/
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
R
o
u
t
e
Ra
w
Ti
m
e
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Adj
u
s
t
e
d
Ti
m
e
Tr
i
p
As
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
R
o
u
t
e
Ra
w
Ti
m
e
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Adj
u
s
t
e
d
Ti
m
e
Tr
i
p
As
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
74
4
--
74
4
1
0
0
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
72
6
--
72
6
1
0
0
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
-
2
6
7
73
5
90
82
5
0
%
2
6
7
-
I
-
8
0
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
80
2
60
86
2
0
%
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
A
r
e
a
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
-
v
i
a
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
9
3
7
--
93
7
2
0
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
9
0
8
--
90
8
2
0
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
-
I
-
8
0
89
1
60
95
1
I-
8
0
-
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
85
9
60
91
9
1
5
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
/
I
-
8
0
/
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
E
x
i
t
91
1
30
94
1
N/
A
--
--
--
-
-
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
75
8
90
84
8
6
5
%
I
-
8
0
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
67
1
60
73
1
6
5
%
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
77
5
--
77
5
2
5
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
77
6
--
77
6
3
0
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
60
1
90
69
1
7
5
%
I
-
8
0
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
55
1
60
61
1
7
0
%
I-
8
0
W
e
s
t
1
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
-
I
-
8
0
79
7
--
79
7
1
5
%
I
-
8
0
-
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
76
9
--
76
9
1
0
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
63
5
30
66
5
8
5
%
I
-
8
0
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
57
9
--
57
9
9
0
%
I-
8
0
E
a
s
t
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
--
--
1
0
0
%
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
--
--
--
1
0
0
%
SR
2
6
7
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
-
8
9
N
75
6
--
75
6
1
0
%
8
9
N
-
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
76
4
--
76
4
5
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
-
2
6
7
55
0
90
64
0
9
0
%
2
6
7
-
I
-
8
0
/
H
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
46
7
60
52
7
9
5
%
Pa
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
/
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
-
v
i
a
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
8
4
8
--
84
8
4
5
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
-
v
i
a
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
8
3
0
--
83
0
3
0
%
Br
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
d
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
/
2
6
7
74
5
90
83
5
5
5
%
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
62
2
60
68
2
7
0
%
St
a
m
p
e
d
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
R
o
a
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
--
--
1
0
0
%
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
--
--
--
1
0
0
%
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
M
i
n
i
-
m
a
r
t
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
--
--
1
0
0
%
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
--
--
1
0
0
%
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
--
--
1
0
0
%
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
--
--
1
0
0
%
Do
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
24
9
--
24
9
5
0
%
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
24
9
--
24
9
5
0
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
w
e
s
t
)
25
0
--
25
0
5
0
%
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
w
e
s
t
)
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
25
2
--
25
2
5
0
%
Ra
i
l
y
a
r
d
(
f
u
t
u
r
e
)
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
--
--
--
1
0
0
%
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
--
--
--
1
0
0
%
No
t
e
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
No
t
e
:
A
M
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
s
u
s
e
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
t
r
i
p
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
a
s
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
.
7
5
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
a
r
e
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
f
o
r
A
M
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
s
.
No
t
e
1
:
T
r
i
p
s
t
o
/
f
r
o
m
T
a
h
o
e
D
o
n
n
e
r
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
2
-
3
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
)
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
/
f
r
o
m
I
-
8
0
t
o
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
,
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
T
r
a
n
s
C
A
D
m
o
d
e
l
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
15
%
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 25
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
0
0
5
4
1
7
8
6
3
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
15
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
14
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
40
4
/
44
9
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
3
FU
T
U
R
E
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
0 10
6
23
0
39
32 0
0
0
55
0
0
0
36
57
0
0
0
0 0
0
10
3
57
43
0
33
59
1
32
3
6
0
0
49
29
0
23
2
0
0
41
0
0 61
0
0
10
3
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
20
1
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
P
M
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
FI
G
U
R
E
4
8
89
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
80
26
7
SI
T
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
CsproGEN
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 26 Traffic Impact Analysis
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
0
0
5
4
1
7
8
6
3
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
15
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
14
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
40
4
/
44
9
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
3 DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
0 12
7
-3
0
12
32 0
0
0
56
0
0
0
36
57
0
0
0
5 3
0
98
54
32
0
37
65
1
36
3
6
0
0
50
29
0
17
2
0
0
30
0
0 61
0
0
10
3
24
0
0
26
25
4
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
Ye
a
r
2
0
3
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
P
M
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
FI
G
U
R
E
5
8
89
SI
T
E
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
80
80
26
7
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
Cs2031proGEN
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 27
TA
B
L
E
7
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
D
u
r
i
n
g
A
M
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
M
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
We
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
To
t
a
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
AM Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
33
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
1
0
3
0
-
-
5
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
0
0
1
3
-
-
-
-
4
4
3
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
4
0
0
4
7
-
-
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
57
0
9
1
0
00
0
0
1
7
2
9
0
0
1
9
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
0
0
4
7
-
-
-
-
2
7
2
7
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
0
0
0
2
9
-
-
7
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
36
0
5
7
0
00
0
0
6
2
1
0
2
0
0
2
5
7
Fu
t
u
r
e
2
0
3
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
AM Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
0
-
-
1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
3
4
0
-
-
2
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
0
0
1
3
-
-
-
-
4
4
3
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
4
0
0
4
7
-
-
6
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
58
0
9
0
0
00
0
0
1
8
2
8
0
0
1
9
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
0
0
4
8
-
-
-
-
2
7
2
8
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
1
0
0
2
9
-
-
8
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
37
0
5
6
0
00
0
0
6
4
1
0
0
0
0
2
5
7
NO
T
E
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 28 Traffic Impact Analysis
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
0
0
5
4
1
7
8
6
3
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
3
FU
T
U
R
E
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
24
7
23
7
12
9
18
8
36
8
39
4
38
34
97
19
5
27
6
13
1
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
15
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
14
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
40
4
/
44
9
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
10
7
24
6
34
16
0
87
0
0
38
65
9
5
7
2 2
12
25
6
20
2
13
7
27
10
7
13
0
67
81
41
10
1
54
33
60
11
0
21
13
0
65
21
12
5
11
2
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
20
1
1
P
M
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
FI
G
U
R
E
6
8
89
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
80
26
7
SI
T
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
CsplusPRO
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 29
TA
B
L
E
8
:
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
D
u
r
i
n
g
A
M
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
M
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Westbound
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Left ThruRightTotal
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
AM Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
3
5
3
-
-
1
8
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
9
0
1
0
4
6
0
2
2
5
-
-
1
,
1
1
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
8
-
-
1
9
3
1
1
5
7
2
-
-
-
-
1
9
2
6
0
6
8
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
32
-
-
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
42
1
3
6
9
4
199
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
62
1
9
8
1
3
0
1
1
5
8
7
2
8
3
5
3
8
6
3
8
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
1
-
-
1
2
7
1
5
6
1
8
0
-
-
-
-
1
1
7
2
9
6
6
0
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
15
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
7
2
8
5
7
2
221
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
40
0
6
3
6
1
8
9
6
1
7
0
1
0
7
8
1
1
7
4
6
3
NO
T
E
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 30 Traffic Impact Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 31
Section 4
Level of Service and Roadway Capacity
DESCRIPTION
Traffic operations at the study intersections are assessed in terms of Level of Service (LOS) and
delay. LOS is a concept that was developed by transportation engineers to quantify the level of
operation of intersections and roadways (Highway Capacity Manual, TRB, 2000). LOS
measures are classified in grades "A" through "F," indicating the range of operation. LOS "A"
signifies the best level of operation, while "F" represents the worst. A detailed description of
LOS criteria is provided in Appendix C.
For signalized intersections, LOS is primarily measured in terms of average delay per vehicle
entering the intersection. LOS at unsignalized intersections is quantified in terms of delay per
vehicle for each movement. Unsignalized intersection LOS is based upon the theory of gap
acceptance for side-street stop sign-controlled approaches, while signalized intersection LOS is
based upon the assessment of volume-to-capacity ratios and control delay.
LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS
The LOS thresholds applicable to the study area are discussed below.
Town of Truckee
The existing Town of Truckee policy on LOS is applied in this Traffic Impact Analysis. As stated
in the Truckee 2025 General Plan, the Town’s LOS standards are as follows:
“Policy P2.1 – Establish and maintain a Level of Service D or better on road segments and for
total intersection movements in portions of the Town outside of the Downtown Study Area”.
Establish and maintain a Level of Service E or better on arterial and collector road segments
and for total intersection movements within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Throughout the
Town, individual turning movements at unsignalized intersections shall not be allowed to reach
LOS F and to exceed a cumulative vehicle delay of four vehicle hours. Both of these conditions
shall be met for traffic operations to be considered unacceptable.”
The intersections of Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
Extension (future intersection) are located within the Downtown Specific Plan Area, and
therefore, the LOS E standard shall apply. The remaining study intersections are outside the
downtown Truckee area; therefore the LOS D standard is applied.
Nevada County
The Nevada County General Plan (Nevada County, 2010) requires that rural intersections and
roadways maintain Level of Service (LOS) C, except where the existing LOS is less than C. In
those situations, the LOS shall not be allowed to drop below the existing LOS. In other words,
LOS on an intersection or roadway already below LOS C should not be allowed to degrade
below its existing condition. LOS shall be based on the typical highest peak hour of weekday
traffic.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 32 Traffic Impact Analysis
Caltrans
In general, Caltrans tries to maintain LOS D or better, although exceptions are made in specific
cases.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Intersection Level Of Service (LOS) for the study intersections was largely evaluated using the
methodologies documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000), as applied in
the Traffix 8.0 Software package developed by Dowling Associates. The 2010 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) was released subsequent to commencement of this traffic
analysis. The HCM 2010 methodology was used in the evaluation of the Donner Pass
Road/Glenshire Drive intersection, as applied in the Highway Capacity Software 2010 (HCS
2010) software package developed by McTrans Center at the University of Florida. The updated
method was used at this intersection due to an error in the HCM 2000 method regarding
intersection approaches with a significant grade (such as the Glenshire Drive approach to
Donner Pass Road). As the other study intersections do not contain approaches with significant
grades, the HCM 2000 method is considered to be adequate.
Computer output of detailed LOS calculations for all intersections is provided in Appendix D of
this report. The Glenshire Drive approach on the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
intersection has separate left and right turn lanes. According to the HCM, the critical gap, which
is the minimum time interval that allows intersection entry to one minor-stream vehicle, is 7.1
seconds for a left-turn movement and 6.2 seconds for a right-turn movement from a minor
street. The HCM also indicates that more accurate capacity estimates will be produced if field
measurements of the critical gap can be made. In order to estimate a critical gap that reflects
conditions specific to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, delay counts were
performed by LSC during the PM peak hour on Friday, August 5, 2011. Based upon the results
of these measurements, the LOS calculations for the minor approach on the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection use critical gaps of 5.8 seconds and 6.2 seconds for the
left-turn and right-turn movements, respectively.
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
All study intersections were evaluated to determine existing operational conditions for the 2011
summer PM peak hour. The Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection is also evaluated
for the AM peak hour. In addition, the intersections of Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (West),
Glenshire Drive/ Somerset Drive, and Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road are evaluated for the
morning and afternoon peak periods of school-related traffic activity. Using the traffic volumes
presented as part of this study, it is possible to evaluate the LOS provided during peak periods
at the intersections serving the study area. Appendix D presents the actual output from each of
the LOS calculations for the study intersections. Table 9 summarizes the results for existing
2011 conditions without the project. As indicated, all study intersections currently operate at
acceptable levels during all periods without the proposed project, with the exception of the
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. During the PM peak hour, the worst movement
on this intersection (the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive to Donner Pass Road)
operates at LOS F, with a total of about 16.7 vehicle-hours of delay. This exceeds the Town’s
standard of LOS F and a maximum of 4 vehicle-hours of delay.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 33
TA
B
L
E
9
:
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
1
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
O
S
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
With Project
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
De
l
a
y
De
l
a
y
Delay
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Ty
p
e
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
3
.
4
E
OV
F
F
68
.
3
F
OVFF
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
P
R
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
.
5
A
1
2
.
3
B
4
.
4
A
1
3
.
8
B
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
Al
l
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
9
A
8
.
0
A
8
.
4
A
8
.
6
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
4
A
1
0
.
6
B
4
.
3
A
1
4
.
1
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
2
A
1
0
.
2
B
5
.
2
A
1
1
.
4
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
.
6
A
1
0
.
5
B
5
.
1
A
1
1
.
5
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
1
A
1
0
.
2
B
6
.
0
A
1
0
.
7
B
AM
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
5
.
3
C
4
2
.
9
E
2
1
.
3
C
59.9F
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
6
.
6
A
1
3
.
2
B
6
.
5
A
1
4
.
4
B
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
Al
l
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
3
A
7
.
4
A
7
.
5
A
7
.
7
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
2
.
2
A
9
.
3
A
6
.
0
A
1
0
.
8
B
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Fu
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fu
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
7
A
1
2
.
0
B
5
.
3
A
1
2
.
9
B
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
Al
l
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
2
A
7
.
3
A
7
.
5
A
7
.
6
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
6
A
9
.
3
A
4
.
8
A
1
1
.
3
B
OV
F
=
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
.
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
a
d
e
l
a
y
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
2
0
0
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
p
e
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
H
C
M
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Canyon Springs 2011.xls
BO
L
D
t
e
x
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
O
S
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
n
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
L
O
S
F
w
i
t
h
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
4
t
o
t
a
l
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
ho
u
r
s
o
f
d
e
l
a
y
i
s
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 34 Traffic Impact Analysis
Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased delays at all study
intersections, and the LOS would degrade by one level at some intersections. However, no
additional intersections would exceed the Town standard in 2011 with the project. At the
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, the total intersection LOS would degrade from
LOS E to LOS F during the PM peak hour, while the worst movement would continue to operate
at LOS F with more than 4 vehicle-hours of delay. Implementation of the proposed project would
exacerbate an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection, as it would result in increased
vehicular delays during the PM peak hour. In addition, implementation of the project would
cause the intersection to exceed the LOS threshold during the AM peak hour, with a total of
approximately 5.9 vehicle-hours of delay on the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive.
INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS
Traffic queues at specific intersections that exceed the storage capacity of turn lanes or ramps,
or that block turn movements at important nearby intersections or driveways, can cause
operational problems beyond those identified in the LOS analysis. The 95th-percentile traffic
queue length was reviewed at locations where queuing could potentially cause traffic problems.
The longest traffic queue occurs at the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive onto Donner
Pass Road during the summer PM peak hour. The 95th-percentile queue length for this turning
movement is calculated to be up to 18 vehicles, including traffic from the proposed project.
Assuming a length of about 25 feet per vehicle, this equates to a total queue length of about 450
feet, which would not affect any nearby intersections or driveways.
The longest traffic queue length for drivers stopped on Dorchester Drive (West) waiting to turn
onto Glenshire Drive occurs during the AM peak hour. The 95th-percentile queue length on this
approach is approximately 2 vehicles (or about 50 feet), with or without the proposed project. As
the nearest driveway on Dorchester Drive is located about 180 feet from the intersection, no
operational problems are identified. In summary, intersection traffic queuing is not expected to
cause any traffic concerns at any of the study intersections under Year 2011 conditions, with or
without the proposed project.
ROADWAY CAPACITY
Roadway capacity is evaluated in order to determine whether a specific roadway segment
should be widened to accommodate existing or future traffic volumes. Different methodologies
can be employed to determine capacity, but generally, the calculation will incorporate a series of
factors including roadway facility type, evaluation period, and level of service thresholds. The
Town of Truckee roadway capacity standards are based upon hourly traffic volumes, and the
Nevada County roadway volume criteria are based upon daily traffic volumes. According to the
Nevada County General Plan, a LOS C can be maintained on a two-lane major collector with an
ADT of 8,800 or less and on a two-lane minor collector with an ADT of 7,600 or less. The
maximum allowable traffic volumes to obtain the LOS thresholds applicable to the study
roadway segments are shown in Table 10.
Table 10 also presents a comparison of 2011 traffic volumes with the pertinent LOS standard.
The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume along each study roadway segment is estimated by
applying an ADT-to-peak hour volume factor calculated from the traffic counts, except for
several local roadway segments. The volume factors range from approximately 9.5 to 10.6. The
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 35
TA
B
L
E
1
0
:
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
1
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
O
S
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
A
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
to
O
b
t
a
i
n
L
O
S
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
PM
P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r
P
e
a
k
-
LO
S
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
1,
2
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ex
c
e
e
d
e
d
?
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
87
0
5
8
2
9
,
2
2
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
6
2
1
4
2
2
6,
4
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
3
9
2
2
5
5
4,
0
8
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
2
8
7
1
5
5
2,
9
9
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
3
0
2
1
5
5
3,
0
1
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
d
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
3
1
7
1
6
5
3,
1
6
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
R
o
a
d
N/
A
4
N/
A
4
N/
A
4
23
13
22
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
1
5
1
1
1
1
1,
4
3
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
56
41
53
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
54
40
51
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
14
10
13
0
N
o
Wi
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
94
8
6
3
1
1
0
,
0
5
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
6
9
9
4
7
1
7,
2
8
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
4
7
9
3
1
0
4,
9
9
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
3
8
4
2
1
6
4,
0
0
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
4
6
2
2
5
8
4,
6
1
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
d
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
4
7
7
2
6
8
4,
7
6
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
6
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
6
D
89
0
--
2
8
0
1
7
7
2,
6
5
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Lo
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
1
5
1
1
1
1
1,
4
3
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Lo
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
56
41
53
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Lo
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
54
40
51
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
5
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Lo
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
14
10
13
0
N
o
No
t
e
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
No
t
e
:
A
D
T
=
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
No
t
e
1
:
A
D
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
A
D
T
-
t
o
-
p
e
a
k
-
h
o
u
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
No
t
e
2
:
L
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
A
D
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
o
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
I
T
E
t
r
i
p
r
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
No
t
e
3
:
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
L
O
S
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,
t
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
No
t
e
4
:
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
v
o
l
u
m
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
s
.
No
t
e
5
:
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
No
t
e
6
:
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
T
o
w
n
l
i
m
i
t
s
,
t
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
T
o
w
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
a
s
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 36 Traffic Impact Analysis
traffic volumes along the local roadway segments of Edinburgh Drive, Regency Circle, and
Courtenay Lane were estimated by applying standard ITE trip generation rates to the number of
dwelling units served. As shown in the table, all study roadway segments currently operate
within the allowable traffic volume threshold. The roadway LOS analysis with project-generated
traffic volumes is presented in the lower portion of the table. As shown, all study roadway
segments are within the allowable traffic volume threshold with implementation of the proposed
project.
IMPACT ON LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY
According to the Town 2025 General Plan Circulation Element Policy P2.2, the proposed project
would meet the adopted standard for impact on a local residential roadway if the project does
not increase traffic on a local road by more than 1,000 ADT or if the project increases traffic on
a local road by more than 1,000 ADT but the increase in ADT is less than 50 percent, and the
provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4 can be met. Policy P2.4 states, “Improve
connectivity throughout the Town’s roadway network, through roadway improvements, while
minimizing environmental, circulation, and residential neighborhood impacts…”
The increase in traffic on the local roadways from Somerset Drive to Edinburgh Drive as a result
of the proposed project was evaluated. The proposed project is not expected to impact the
traffic volumes on these local roadway segments, given that the Edinburgh access point would
be gated for emergency access only. Therefore, the proposed project meets the adopted
standard for impacts to local residential roadways.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 37
Section 5
Future Cumulative Conditions
The potential transportation impacts of the Canyon Springs Project under future cumulative
conditions are evaluated. First, Year 2031 traffic volumes are estimated without the project.
Next, 2031 volumes with the project were estimated. Finally, intersection LOS and roadway
capacity were analyzed with and without the project.
METHODOLOGY
The cumulative setting associated with the traffic analysis is based on the Town of Truckee’s
TransCAD traffic model, which provides forecasts of traffic conditions throughout the Town as
well as the Martis Valley portion of Placer County. The model reflects buildout of the Town’s
General Plan, buildout of the allowed land uses in the Martis Valley areas, and growth in traffic
passing through the area. As some of the development projects in the Martis Valley area have
recently been approved for development levels less than those originally allowed under the
Martis Valley Community Plan, the land uses in the model were adjusted downward to reflect
the approved Martis Valley projects. In the Truckee TransCAD traffic model, build-out of the
Truckee General Plan is conservatively assumed to occur by 2025. No further growth in traffic is
assumed between 2025 and 2031.
The following developments within the vicinity of the project site are assumed to be complete
under cumulative conditions:
• Development of the Raley property, which is accessed via Hirschdale Road south of
Glenshire Drive. This development consists of 275 residential units and 87,100 square feet
of light industrial uses, and it is included in the Truckee TransCAD traffic model.
• The Railyard Master Plan site, which is located on the south side of Glenshire Drive
between Donner Pass Road and Bridge Street. The Railyard Master Plan site includes
residential, office, and commercial uses. This development project is included in the Truckee
TransCAD traffic model.
• Teichert’s Boca Quarry Expansion Project, which is located north of I-80 and accessed via
Stampede Meadows Road and the Hirschdale interchange ramps. This potential project is
not included in the Truckee TransCAD model. However, the quarry project-generated traffic
volumes are provided in the Teichert Boca Quarry Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis (LSC
Transportation Consultants, Inc., September 7, 2011), and these volumes are provided in
Appendix E. These volumes are conservatively high, as they reflect maximum potential
production levels at the quarry.
Roadway Assumptions
The 2031 roadway assumptions are based on the TransCAD model. It is assumed that the
“Donner Pass Road Extension” will be completed with construction of the Truckee Railyard
Master Plan Project. This new roadway will extend east from eastern portion of Downtown
Truckee through the Railyard development and form a new T-intersection with Glenshire Drive
to the east of the intersection with Donner Pass Road. The new Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 38 Traffic Impact Analysis
Road Extension intersection would include exclusive turn lanes on each approach. Additionally,
the Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street Extensions, which would provide a connection between
Downtown Truckee, Tahoe Donner, and Pioneer Trail, are assumed to be complete. Finally,
Nevada County is considering the removal of the two bridges on Hirschdale Road (crossing the
Truckee River and crossing the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks). A potential new route from the
north side of the river over to Stampede Meadows Road could provide access to the parcels
that are served by the bridges. The change in traffic patterns associated with the bridge removal
is expected to be minimal, given that there are only a few parcels served by that route.
FUTURE 2031 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
2031 Traffic Volumes Without Project
The basis for the forecasts of future traffic volumes in the study area is the Town of Truckee’s
TransCAD traffic model. The TransCAD model was used to evaluate traffic conditions assuming
no development of the project site, which is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 93 in the
model, in the following steps:
1. The TransCAD future model was run. A “select zone analysis” was performed to determine
the amount of traffic generated by the assumed land uses in Canyon Springs (TAZ 93) at
the study intersections. These turning movement volumes were then subtracted from the
future intersection volumes. The resulting volumes are used directly as the “2031 without
project” traffic volumes at the I-80/Hirschdale Road Interchange Ramp intersections and at
the Glenshire Drive/Hirschdale Road intersection.
2. Future year traffic volumes provided in the approved Railyard EIR (“plus project” condition)
were used at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road Extension intersections. These volumes include the diversion of traffic away from
Downtown Truckee due to congestion delays and delays generated by factors such as
queues blocking travel lanes. In addition, with completion of the Donner Pass Road
Extension, the left-turning traffic volume from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road would
be reduced, as when faced with long delays for making left-turn movements from Glenshire
Drive, drivers can be expected to shift their travel patterns to instead use the Donner Pass
Road Extension. Traffic volumes associated with model land uses in Traffic Analysis Zone
(TAZ) 93 were subtracted from these turning movement volumes, in order to establish
“without Canyon Springs” volumes.
3. Due to the fact that the TransCAD model network is not refined for the intersections within
Glenshire, the 2031 traffic volumes at the Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive and Glenshire
Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersections were estimated based on the growth
in traffic volumes expected along Glenshire Drive from 2011 to 2031. Specifically, the
growth along Glenshire Drive was calculated at a point near the western end (east of the
Donner Pass Road Extension and west of Olympic Boulevard), and at another point
immediately west of Hirschdale Road. Growth rates were applied separately for eastbound
and westbound traffic along Glenshire Drive.
4. According to production and attraction data in the TransCAD model, growth in land uses
along Dorchester Drive will generate approximately 140 additional PM peak-hour trips along
Dorchester Drive. The portion of this growth allocated to the western end of Dorchester
Drive based on existing traffic volume splits was added to the 2011 volumes into and out of
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 39
Dorchester Drive, in order to determine 2031 volumes on Dorchester Drive.
5. The future AM peak-hour traffic volumes at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
intersection were estimated by applying the proportionate increase in PM volumes to the
existing AM volumes.
6. Similarly, future morning and afternoon school peak hour traffic volumes at the applicable
intersections were estimated by applying the proportionate increase in PM volumes to the
corresponding existing volumes.
7. The weekday PM peak-hour turning-movement volumes estimated to be generated by the
potential Boca Quarry Expansion Project were added to the study intersections.
The resulting 2031 summer weekday PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes
without Canyon Springs are shown in Figure 7, and the 2031 AM and school PM traffic volumes
without the project are shown in Table 11.
2031 Traffic Volumes With Project
Adding the 2031 project-generated turning movement volumes to the “2031 without project”
intersection volumes yields the “2031 with project” volumes shown in Figure 8 and Table 12.
FUTURE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Study intersections are evaluated to determine operational conditions under 2031 traffic
volumes. Appendix F presents the actual output from each of the LOS calculations for the study
intersections. Table 13 summarizes the results for future 2031 conditions without the project. In
comparison with existing 2011 conditions, the LOS is expected to degrade by one level at some
intersections in the future, due to growth in background traffic. As indicated, the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection is expected to improve to an acceptable LOS during the
PM peak hour, due to implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension.
The results for future 2031 conditions with the proposed Canyon Springs project are also shown
in Table 13. The LOS is expected to degrade by one level at a couple of locations with
implementation of the project. However, all study intersections would operate at acceptable
levels.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 40 Traffic Impact Analysis
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
0
0
5
4
1
7
8
6
3
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
3 DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
20
3
51
0
32
7
49
35
1
17
6
47
42
12
0
26
4
31
8
15
3
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
15
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
14
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
40
4
/
44
9
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
11
3
36
8
51
14
7
12
2
0
0
3
8
9
8
11
2
35
12
14
4
12
0
13
7
12
0
27
10
6
14
4
53
10
4
51
16
2
30
84
24
11
7
29
13
2
6
21
12
5
9
65
4
32
35
13
3
91
34
1
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
Csfuture
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
20
3
1
P
M
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
FI
G
U
R
E
7
8
89
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
80
26
7
SI
T
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 41
TA
B
L
E
1
1
:
F
u
t
u
r
e
2
0
3
1
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
D
u
r
i
n
g
A
M
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
M
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
We
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
To
t
a
l
AM Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
1
5
1
-
-
4
6
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
8
1
4
7
1
2
8
1
8
5
-
-
1
,
1
5
5
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
1
-
-
2
3
9
1
5
6
8
3
-
-
-
-
2
2
2
7
7
8
4
8
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
48
-
-
1
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
9
1
8
9
7
1
-
-
2
0
1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
8
0
7
1
3
0
1
8
7
8
9
1
7
6
3
8
6
2
0
9
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
2
-
-
1
5
7
2
1
1
1
8
6
-
-
-
-
1
3
5
3
6
7
9
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
23
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
6
3
9
8
6
5
-
-
2
0
6
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
60
6
6
0
1
3
1
2
6
2
1
2
5
8
1
1
7
2
2
0
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 42 Traffic Impact Analysis
0
0
5
4
1
7
8
6
3
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
3 DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
20
3
52
2
33
4
46
35
1
18
8
50
48
12
0
26
4
36
8
18
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
15
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
14
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
40
4
/
44
9
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
14
5
36
8
51
20
3
12
2
0
0
39
65
9
8
11
2
40
15
14
4
21
8
19
1
15
2
27
14
3
20
9
54
104
51
17
9
32
84
24
14
7
29
13
2
67
21
12
5
11
2
67
8
32
35
15
9
11
6
24
5
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
20
3
1
P
M
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
FI
G
U
R
E
8
8
89
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
80
26
7
SI
T
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
Csfuturepp
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 43
T
TA
B
L
E
1
2
:
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
D
u
r
i
n
g
A
M
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
M
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
We
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
Le
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
To
t
a
l
Fu
t
u
r
e
2
0
3
1
W
i
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
AM Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
1
5
1
-
-
4
7
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
8
1
5
0
1
3
2
1
8
5
-
-
1
,
1
7
5
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
2
-
-
2
3
9
1
5
6
9
6
-
-
-
-
2
6
6
8
0
9
0
9
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
48
-
-
1
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
3
1
8
9
1
1
8
-
-
2
6
2
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
66
0
9
7
1
3
0
1
8
7
8
9
3
5
3
4
3
8
6
4
0
3
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
5
-
-
1
5
7
2
1
1
2
3
4
-
-
-
-
1
6
2
3
8
8
7
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
23
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
7
3
9
8
9
4
-
-
2
8
6
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
43
0
6
2
6
0
1
3
1
2
6
2
7
6
1
0
5
8
1
1
7
4
7
7
NO
T
E
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 44 Traffic Impact Analysis
TA
B
L
E
1
3
:
F
u
t
u
r
e
Y
e
a
r
2
0
3
1
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
O
S
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Wi
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
De
l
a
y
De
l
a
y
Delay
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Ty
p
e
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
6
.
8
C
O
V
F
F
2
17
.
1
C
O
V
F
F 2
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
P
R
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
3
.
2
A
3
0
.
2
D
3
.
8
A
3
5
.
3
E
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
3
A
1
7
.
2
C
5
.
5
A
2
0
.
8
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
Al
l
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
8
.
5
A
8
.
7
A
9
.
2
A
9
.
5
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
6
A
1
0
.
3
B
4
.
4
A
1
3
.
0
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
9
.
2
A
1
7
.
2
C
1
0
.
5
B
2
3
.
4
C
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
6
.
0
A
1
2
.
2
B
6
.
6
A
1
3
.
7
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
3
A
9
.
8
A
5
.
8
A
1
0
.
1
B
AM Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
1
.
0
B
2
3
.
0
C
1
1
.
4
B
2
3
.
5
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
7
.
8
A
1
7
.
2
C
8
.
1
A
1
9
.
4
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
Al
l
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
5
A
7
.
6
A
7
.
7
A
7
.
9
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
2
.
5
A
9
.
4
A
5
.
8
A
1
0
.
6
B
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
6
.
8
A
1
6
.
3
C
6
.
8
A
1
8
.
5
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
Al
l
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
4
A
7
.
5
A
7
.
7
A
7
.
8
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
1
.
9
A
9
.
3
A
4
.
8
A
1
1
.
3
B
No
t
e
1
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Canyon Springs 2011.xls
No
t
e
2
:
T
h
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
O
S
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
n
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
L
O
S
F
w
i
t
h
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
4
t
o
t
a
l
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
d
e
l
a
y
i
s
un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
A
s
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
d
e
l
a
y
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
4
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
h
o
u
r
s
,
t
h
e
L
O
S
i
s
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 45
FUTURE INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS
The 95th-percentile traffic queue length was reviewed at locations where queuing could
potentially cause traffic problems in 2031. The traffic queue lengths for the left-turn movement
from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road during the summer PM peak hour are expected to
decrease in the future, due to the implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension. The 95th-
percentile traffic queue length on this turning movement is calculated to be up to approximately
5 vehicles, with or without the Canyon Springs project. Assuming a length of about 25 feet per
vehicle, this equates to a total queue length of about 125 feet, which is 325 feet shorter than the
estimated queue length in 2011.
The longest traffic queue length for vehicles stopped on Dorchester Drive (West) waiting to turn
onto Glenshire Drive occurs during the AM peak hour. The 95th-percentile queue length on this
approach is approximately 3 vehicles in 2031 without the proposed project. With the project, the
95th-percentile queue length could increase by 1 vehicle, for a total queue of about 4 vehicles.
Assuming 25 feet per vehicle, this equates to a total queue length of about 100 feet. As the
nearest driveway on Dorchester Drive is located about 180 feet from the intersection, no
operational problems are identified.
In summary, intersection traffic queuing is not expected to cause any traffic concerns at any of
the study intersections under Year 2031 conditions, with or without the proposed project.
FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY
Table 14 presents a comparison of 2031 roadway volumes with the pertinent standards. The
ADT volumes for 2031 conditions were estimated using the same methodology as the 2011
volumes. As shown, all study roadway segments are expected to operate within the allowable
traffic volume threshold, with or without implementation of the proposed project.
FUTURE IMPACT ON LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ROADWAYS
The increase in traffic on the local roadways from Somerset Drive to Edinburgh Drive as a result
of the proposed project is evaluated under 2031 conditions. The proposed project is not
expected to impact the traffic volumes on these local roadway segments, given that the
Edinburgh access point would be gated for emergency access only. Therefore, the proposed
project meets the adopted standard for impacts to local residential roadways.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 46 Traffic Impact Analysis
TA
B
L
E
1
4
:
Y
e
a
r
2
0
3
1
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
O
S
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
A
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
to
O
b
t
a
i
n
L
O
S
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
PM
P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r
P
e
a
k
-
LO
S
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
1,
2
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ex
c
e
e
d
e
d
?
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
1,
0
9
1
6
8
6
1
1
,
5
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
8
5
5
5
8
2
8,
9
0
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
5
6
0
3
6
0
5,
8
3
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
3
0
4
1
6
7
3,
1
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
3
0
4
1
5
5
3,
0
3
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
d
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
5
3
2
2
6
8
5,
3
0
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
R
o
a
d
N/
A
4
N/
A
4
N/
A
4
26
15
25
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
2
1
7
1
5
8
2,
0
6
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
62
45
59
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
60
44
57
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
16
12
15
0
N
o
Wi
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
1,
1
2
2
7
1
0
1
1
,
8
9
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
9
3
4
6
3
2
9,
7
2
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
6
4
8
4
1
6
6,
7
5
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
4
0
0
2
2
8
4,
1
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
4
6
4
2
5
8
4,
6
3
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
d
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
6
8
3
3
6
2
6,
8
1
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
6
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
6
D
89
0
--
2
8
3
1
7
9
2,
6
8
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
2
1
7
1
5
8
2,
0
6
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
62
45
59
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
60
44
57
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
16
12
15
0
N
o
No
t
e
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
v
i
a
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
o
n
l
y
.
No
t
e
:
A
D
T
=
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
No
t
e
1
:
A
D
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
A
D
T
-
t
o
-
p
e
a
k
-
h
o
u
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
No
t
e
2
:
L
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
A
D
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
o
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
I
T
E
t
r
i
p
r
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
No
t
e
3
:
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
L
O
S
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,
t
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
No
t
e
4
:
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
v
o
l
u
m
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
s
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
No
t
e
5
:
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
No
t
e
6
:
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
T
o
w
n
l
i
m
i
t
s
,
t
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
T
o
w
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
a
s
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 47
Section 6
Edinburgh Access Alternative
The transportation impacts associated with the Edinburgh access alternative are evaluated
under the same analysis periods as the proposed alternative. Under this access alternative, the
Canyon Springs land uses are identical to that under the proposed project scenario. However,
the Edinburgh Drive connection would be open to general traffic. That is, full access to the
project site would be provided via Martis Peak Road and Edinburgh Drive.
As the land use assumptions under this alternative are the same as the proposed alternative,
the trip generation and trip distribution patterns are identical. However, the travel times, travel
distance, and trip assignment assumptions are different from the proposed (single-access)
alternative, considering that some project trips would access the site via Edinburgh Drive.
TRAVEL TIME, TRAVEL DISTANCE, AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
This access alternative would present many additional possible route choices for Canyon
Springs trips made to/from locations to the west. From the centroid of the proposed
development, routes to the west using Edinburgh Drive would shorten the travel time by
approximately 2 minutes versus routes using Martis Peak Road. From the centroid of the
proposed Canyon Springs development, routes to the west via Edinburgh Drive are
approximately 1.2 miles shorter than routes to the west using Martis Peak Road. Based on the
results of the travel time survey and proposed roadway lengths and travel speeds within the
project site, it was determined that for almost all of the proposed Canyon Springs residences
(for all but 3 lots), travel to the west on surface streets would be faster via Edinburgh Drive than
via Martis Peak Road. As discussed in Section 3, project trips to/from locations to the west of
Glenshire are generally faster using Hirschdale Road and I-80 than using Martis Peak Road/
Glenshire Drive. The addition of the Edinburgh Drive route lessens the travel time advantage of
using the Hirschdale Road/I-80 route for trips to/from the west. Therefore, with the Edinburgh
access open, more project trips would tend to use surface streets to access locations to the
west.
Access Routes between Glenshire Drive and Edinburgh Drive
The travel time analysis indicates that all Canyon Springs trips generated to/from Hirschdale
Road would use the Martis Peak Road access, rather than Edinburgh Drive. The quickest route
between Glenshire Drive to the west of the site and Edinburgh Drive is via Somerset
Drive/Courtenay Lane/Regency Circle. For trips made between Edinburgh Drive and the
elementary school (via Rolands Way or the eastern end of Dorchester Drive), alternate routes
via Wellington Way, Oxford Circle, Canterbury Lane, or Wiltshire Lane may provide a shorter
travel distance than the Somerset Drive route. However, these alternate routes are estimated to
require at least 8 seconds more for inbound trips and about 30 seconds more for outbound trips.
In addition, only 0.5 percent of all Canyon Springs peak-hour trips are assumed to use
Edinburgh Drive to access the school. This equates to only 1 to 2 trips during the school peak
hour. These trips are assigned to the Edinburgh/Somerset route, given that drivers generally
tend to consider travel time to be more important than travel distance when choosing a travel
route.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 48 Traffic Impact Analysis
Postal Cluster Boxes
Site access patterns would be affected by the location of the postal cluster boxes, as Canyon
Springs residents would plan some of their trips to pass by their box. The mailbox cluster area is
proposed to be located at the north access road near its intersection with Martis Peak Road. To
evaluate the traffic impacts of the mailbox location, it is necessary to consider the extent to
which the location of the mailboxes would promote the use of the Martis Peak Road access
point. According to postal box usage data presented in the U.S. Postal Service Tahoe Regional
Master Plan (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2000), personal post office box users in the
Tahoe Region check their boxes at an average rate of approximately 0.68 times per weekday
per box. The number of box visits per day per Canyon Springs box is expected to be higher, due
to the convenient location of the proposed mailbox cluster area.
Considering the number of daily trips, the assumption that each household will not check their
box more than once a day, and the fact that many residences will check their box at a time other
than the PM peak hour, about 25 percent of project-generated trips made during the PM peak
hour are assumed to include a mailbox visit. In view of the fact that mail is usually delivered
sometime between the AM and PM peak hours, the number of Canyon Springs residents
visiting their mailbox during the AM peak hour is expected to be lower than that during the PM
peak hour. It is estimated that 10 percent of all project-generated AM peak-hour trips include a
mailbox visit.
The assumptions about which site access point will be used for trips made to/from the mailbox
clusters are developed based upon the results of travel time analysis. The travel time between
the mailbox cluster area and the Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive intersection via Martis Peak
Road is faster than the travel time via Edinburgh Drive. Therefore, it is assumed that all trips
including a mailbox visit will use the Martis Peak Road access point, and no mailbox trips will
backtrack to the Edinburgh Drive access point.
Changes to Travel Time and Travel Distance with Edinburgh Access Open
Travel times based on the travel time survey (and estimated travel times for internal roadways)
were compared to determine which site access point would provide a more efficient route for
trips to the west (for trips not including a mailbox stop). A comparison of travel times from the
centroid of development within Canyon Springs to the intersection of Glenshire Drive/Somerset
Drive via the Edinburgh Drive route and the Martis Peak Road route indicates that on average,
trips from Canyon Springs to the west are approximately 1.43 minutes faster using Edinburgh
Drive. Based on the layout of the development, it is assumed that 85 percent of trips made
to/from points west of Glenshire would use the Edinburgh Drive access, and the remaining 15
percent of these trips would use Martis Peak Road. Additionally, the availability of the Edinburgh
access point would decrease the travel times to points to the west via Glenshire Drive relative to
the travel time for Hirschdale/I-80 routes. Therefore, a greater percentage of Canyon Springs
trips would choose the Edinburgh Drive/Glenshire Drive route over the Hirschdale/I-80 west
route. It is necessary to note that trips including a stop at the mailbox cluster that would have
used the Edinburgh access point (and thus surface streets) to access a location to the west may
divert to the Hirschdale/I-80 route.
The general assumptions and methodologies used in estimation of the route choice for the
proposed alternative are also applied to this alternative. Table 15 presents a comparison of the
relative travel times and travel distances between the Edinburgh Drive/Glenshire Drive route
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 49
TA
B
L
E
1
5
:
T
r
i
p
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
-
W
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
R
o
u
t
e
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
R
o
u
t
e
PM
AM
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
T
r
a
v
e
l
T
i
m
e
2
Di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
T
r
a
v
e
l
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
3,
4
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I-
8
0
5,
6
,
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
Dr
i
v
e
3,
4
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I-
8
0
5,
6
,
7
Tr
i
p
s
F
r
o
m
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
T
o
:
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
3
.
2
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
2
.
8
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
10
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
0
.
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
2
.
6
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
87
%
1
3
%
9
4
%
6
%
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
0
.
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
1
.
2
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
80
%
2
0
%
9
0
%
1
0
%
Do
n
n
e
r
S
u
m
m
i
t
I-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
0
.
2
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
1
.
6
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
20
%
8
0
%
2
2
%
7
8
%
SR
2
6
7
Tr
a
v
e
l
T
i
m
e
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
e
q
u
a
l
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
1
.
3
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
70
%
3
0
%
8
1
%
1
9
%
Pa
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
/
B
r
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
1
.
7
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
2
.
3
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
85
%
1
5
%
9
4
%
6
%
Tr
i
p
s
T
o
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
F
r
o
m
:
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
4
.
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
2
.
9
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
10
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
0
%
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
I-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
0
.
7
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
2
.
8
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
38
%
6
2
%
4
2
%
5
8
%
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
I-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
0
.
7
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
1
.
3
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
25
%
7
5
%
3
1
%
6
9
%
Do
n
n
e
r
S
u
m
m
i
t
I-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
1
m
i
n
u
t
e
f
a
s
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
1
.
6
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
10
%
9
0
%
1
3
%
8
7
%
SR
2
6
7
I-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
1
.
7
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
1
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
4%
9
6
%
5
%
9
5
%
Pa
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
/
B
r
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
I-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
0
.
2
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
a
s
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
r
o
u
t
e
i
s
2
.
3
m
i
l
e
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
th
a
n
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
35
%
6
5
%
4
5
%
5
5
%
No
t
e
:
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
s
o
p
e
n
.
No
t
e
1
:
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
m
a
i
l
b
o
x
c
l
u
s
t
e
r
s
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
n
e
a
r
i
t
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
.
No
t
e
2
:
T
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
L
S
C
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
5
r
u
n
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
r
o
u
t
e
a
n
d
i
n
e
a
c
h
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
No
t
e
3
:
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
r
i
p
s
f
r
o
m
b
o
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
.
No
t
e
4
:
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
.
r
o
u
t
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
I
-
8
0
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
(
e
a
s
t
)
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
No
t
e
5
:
I
-
8
0
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
6
0
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
o
n
g
e
r
o
n
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
r
o
u
t
e
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
No
t
e
6
:
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
I
-
8
0
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
a
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
3
0
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
,
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
l
o
n
g
e
r
o
n
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
r
o
u
t
e
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
No
t
e
7
:
I
-
8
0
r
o
u
t
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
i
s
c
o
l
u
m
n
r
e
f
e
r
o
n
l
y
t
o
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
I
-
8
0
a
t
t
h
e
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
As
s
u
m
e
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
1
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 50 Traffic Impact Analysis
and the Hirschdale Road/I-80 route, and the assumed assignment of Canyon Springs trips
between these two major route choices. Table 16 presents a detailed analysis of the travel
times, travel time adjustments, and traffic assignment assumptions for all possible route choices
for each trip distribution location. A key difference between this alternative and the proposed
alternative is that the majority (60 percent) of project-generated traffic would use the Edinburgh
Drive/Glenshire Drive route instead of the Hirschdale Road/I-80 route for trips made to/from
points west of the Glenshire area.
Shift in Existing Traffic Patterns With Edinburgh Open
According to the relative travel times provided by the proposed internal roadways versus
existing roadways, drivers bound to and from about 14 existing homes (and a potential 16
homes in 2031) along Edinburgh Drive and Belford Place are expected to use the proposed
project internal roadways to and from Hirschdale Road (thus diverting from their existing routes).
These 14 homes are estimated to generate approximately 139 existing daily trips, 14 existing
PM peak-hour trips (9 entering and 5 exiting), and 11 existing AM peak-hour trips (3 entering
and 8 exiting). Traffic generated by these homes to/from areas to the east is assumed to “shift”
to Canyon Springs internal roadways to access Hirschdale Road.
Assignment of Project-Generated Traffic
Based upon the distribution patterns shown in Table 4 (in Section 4) and the traffic assignment
assumptions shown in Tables 15 and 16, the assignment of project trips is established. Adding
the project-generated intersection turning movement volumes to the shift in existing traffic
volumes yields the “project net impact” on PM peak-hour traffic volumes in 2011 and 2031, as
illustrated in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. The 2011 and 2031 project net impact on
intersection volumes during the morning peak hour and the afternoon peak hour of school-
related traffic activity are shown in Table 17.
These results are compared to existing traffic volume patterns. According to 2009 traffic counts,
existing Glenshire drivers generate approximately 702 vehicle-trips (total two-way) on Glenshire
Drive west of Glenshire versus 254 vehicle-trips on Glenshire Drive east of Glenshire
(immediately west of Hirschdale Road). This indicates a split of roughly 70 percent to the west
and 30 percent to the east. The calculated split of Canyon Springs site-generated trips external
to Glenshire is about 43 percent to the west on Glenshire Drive and 57 percent to the east on
Glenshire Drive. Excluding trips between Canyon Springs and Reno/Sparks, Glenshire or
Stampede Meadows Road, 60 percent of Canyons Springs traffic to/from the west are expected
to use Glenshire Drive and the remaining 40 percent would use Hirschdale Road/I-80. Given the
location of the Canyon Springs access point in the easternmost portion of Glenshire (2 miles
east of the Glenshire General Store), this distribution proportion is consistent with the observed
traffic patterns.
Adding the project net impact on traffic volumes to the “without project” volumes yields the
“2011 with project with Edinburgh access” volumes shown in Figure 11 and Table 18, and the
“2031 with project with Edinburgh access” volumes shown in Figure 12 and Table 18.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 51
TA
B
L
E
1
6
:
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
R
o
u
t
e
S
p
l
i
t
-
W
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ou
t
b
o
u
n
d
T
r
a
v
e
l
T
i
m
e
a
n
d
T
r
i
p
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
b
y
R
o
u
t
e
In
b
o
u
n
d
T
r
a
v
e
l
T
i
m
e
a
n
d
T
r
i
p
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
b
y
R
o
u
t
e
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ro
u
t
e
Tr
a
v
e
l
T
i
m
e
wi
t
h
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
(s
e
c
)
PM
T
r
i
p
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
by
R
o
u
t
e
AM
T
r
i
p
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
by
R
o
u
t
e
Ro
u
t
e
Tr
a
v
e
l
T
i
m
e
wi
t
h
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
(s
e
c
)
PM
T
r
i
p
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
by
R
o
u
t
e
AM
T
r
i
p
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
by
R
o
u
t
e
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
88
8
3
5
%
2
3
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
87
0
3
5
%
1
9
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
-
2
6
7
96
9
0
%
0
%
2
6
7
-
I
-
8
0
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
10
0
6
0
%
0
%
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
77
0
6
5
%
7
7
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
74
3
6
5
%
8
1
%
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
A
r
e
a
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
v
i
a
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
10
8
1
1
5
%
1
2
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
1
0
5
2
4
%
3
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
I
-
8
0
10
9
5
I-
8
0
-
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
10
6
3
4
%
3
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
I
-
8
0
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
10
8
5
N/
A
--
--
--
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
99
2
1
3
%
6
%
I
-
8
0
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
87
5
6
2
%
5
8
%
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
v
i
a
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
96
4
3
4
%
4
0
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
9
2
5
1
7
%
2
1
%
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
I
-
8
0
97
8
3
0
%
3
6
%
I
-
8
0
-
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
93
6
1
3
%
1
5
%
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
91
9
0
%
0
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
92
0
0
%
0
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
83
5
2
0
%
1
0
%
I
-
8
0
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
75
5
7
5
%
6
9
%
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
80
2
8
0
%
9
0
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
79
2
2
5
%
3
1
%
I-
8
0
W
e
s
t
1
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
I
-
8
0
94
1
0
%
0
%
I
-
8
0
-
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
91
3
0
%
0
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
80
9
8
0
%
7
8
%
I
-
8
0
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
72
3
9
0
%
8
7
%
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
I
-
8
0
82
3
2
0
%
2
2
%
I
-
8
0
-
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
78
6
1
0
%
1
3
%
I-
8
0
E
a
s
t
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
--
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
SR
2
6
7
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
8
9
N
90
0
0
%
0
%
8
9
N
-
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
90
8
0
%
0
%
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
-
2
6
7
78
4
3
0
%
1
9
%
2
6
7
-
I
-
8
0
/
H
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
67
1
9
6
%
9
5
%
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
8
9
N
78
3
7
0
%
8
1
%
8
9
N
-
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
78
1
4
%
5
%
Pa
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
v
i
a
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
99
2
1
0
%
4
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
v
i
a
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
97
4
0
%
0
%
Br
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
I
-
8
0
/
2
6
7
97
9
1
5
%
6
%
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
82
6
6
5
%
5
5
%
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
v
i
a
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
87
4
7
5
%
9
0
%
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
d
.
-
v
i
a
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
84
7
3
5
%
4
5
%
St
a
m
p
e
d
e
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
R
d
.
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
--
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
M
i
n
i
-
m
a
r
t
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
--
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
Do
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
39
3
1
0
%
-
-
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
39
3
1
0
%
-
-
PM
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
p
e
a
k
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
w
e
s
t
)
39
4
3
0
%
-
-
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
w
e
s
t
)
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
39
6
3
0
%
-
-
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
50
2
0
%
-
-
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
50
1
0
%
-
-
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
w
e
s
t
)
27
7
6
0
%
-
-
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
w
e
s
t
)
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
26
9
6
0
%
-
-
Do
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
28
0
9
0
%
9
0
%
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
28
0
9
0
%
9
0
%
AM
a
n
d
P
M
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
w
e
s
t
)
50
7
0
%
0
%
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
w
e
s
t
)
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
50
9
0
%
0
%
sc
h
o
o
l
p
e
a
k
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
38
9
5
%
5
%
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
e
a
s
t
)
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
38
8
5
%
5
%
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
w
e
s
t
)
39
0
5
%
5
%
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
w
e
s
t
)
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
38
2
5
%
5
%
Ra
i
l
y
a
r
d
(
f
u
t
u
r
e
)
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
0
40
%
2
5
%
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
0
40
%
2
5
%
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
0
60
%
7
5
%
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
/
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
0
60
%
7
5
%
No
t
e
1
:
T
r
i
p
s
t
o
/
f
r
o
m
T
a
h
o
e
D
o
n
n
e
r
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
2
-
3
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
i
p
s
)
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
/
f
r
o
m
I
-
8
0
t
o
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
.
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
Tr
a
n
s
C
A
D
m
o
d
e
l
n
o
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
t
r
i
p
s
a
r
e
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
/
f
r
o
m
T
a
h
o
e
D
o
n
n
e
r
v
i
a
S
R
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
8%
6
%
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 52 Traffic Impact Analysis
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
0
0
5
4
1
7
8
6
3
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
15
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
14
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
40
4
/
44
9
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
3
FU
T
U
R
E
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
0
17
34
0
41
14 -2
-1
43
0
46
0
0
0
14
37
0
0
0
0 0
0
10
1
36
43
0
12
57
1
11
6
10
0
0
52
51
0
23
2
0
0
41
0
-1
17
0
-2
10
3
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
20
1
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
e
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
P
M
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
w
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
FI
G
U
R
E
9
8
89
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
80
26
7
SI
T
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
CsproGEN
11
NO
T
E
:
Ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
t
h
e
s
h
i
f
t
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
tr
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
u
s
e
t
h
e
n
e
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 53
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
0
0
5
4
1
7
8
6
3
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
15
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
14
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
40
4
/
44
9
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
3 DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
0 12
21
-3
0
12
13 -2
-1
46
16
45
0
0
13
35
0
0
0
5 3
0
97
31
32
0
14
64
1
13
7
11
0
0
50
52
0
17
2
0
0
30
0
-1
17
0
-2
10
4
24
0
0
26
34
18
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
20
3
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
e
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
P
M
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
w
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
FI
G
U
R
E
1
0
8
89
SI
T
E
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
80
80
26
7
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
Cs2031proGEN
Ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
t
h
e
s
h
i
f
t
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
tr
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
u
s
e
t
h
e
n
e
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
NO
T
E
:
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 54 Traffic Impact Analysis
TABLE 17: Project Impact on Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM with Edinburgh Access
NorthboundSouthboundEastboundWestbound
IntersectionLeft ThruRightLeft ThruRightLeft ThruRightLeft ThruRightTotal
Existing 2011 Project Net Impact
AM
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road50--34--------01140--99
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west)------0--0015----841100
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive72---2--------213-113--97
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road250530000-2628-10109
School PM
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west)------1--0052----530106
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive45---1--------746-28--103
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road150340000-12199-20166
Future 2031 Project Net Impact
AM
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road0--41--------0350--49
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west)------0--0015----861102
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive76---2--------213-111--99
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road250490000-2628-10105
School PM
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west)------1--0052----550108
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive48---1--------746-27--105
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road150310000-12397-20163
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
TABLE 18: Existing and Future With Project Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM with
Edinburgh Access
NorthboundSouthboundEastboundWestbound
IntersectionLeft ThruRightLeft ThruRightLeft ThruRightLeft ThruRightTotal
Existing 2011 With Project
AM
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road370--208--------19010561225--1,159
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west)------47--19311574----23258719
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive104--10------3026560235
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road30160130115851734376299
School PM
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west)------49--127156185----14327687
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive60--3--------5474351245
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road19040618960291047917372
Future 2031 With Project
AM
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road151--504--------18150133185--1,204
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west)------71--23915698----30878950
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive124--14--------4131882--300
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road33056130187872334376314
School PM
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west)------73--157211238----19036905
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive71--4--------7385672--311
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road2103760131261351027917383
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 55
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
0
0
5
4
1
7
8
6
3
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
3
FU
T
U
R
E
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
24
7
23
8
14
0
19
9
36
8
39
6
41
38
97
19
5
27
9
15
3
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
15
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
14
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
40
4
/
44
9
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
89 22
5
77
12
1
13
3
0
0
16
45
9
5
7
2 2
12
25
4
18
1
13
7
27
86
12
8
67
60
41
10
1
54
33
60
11
0
21
12
9
21
21
12
3
11
2
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
20
1
1
P
M
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
W
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
FI
G
U
R
E
1
1
8
89
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
80
26
7
SI
T
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
CsplusPRO
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 56 Traffic Impact Analysis
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
0
0
5
4
1
7
8
6
3
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
2
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
3 DO
N
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
20
3
52
2
34
8
46
35
1
18
8
54
53
12
0
26
4
36
8
20
5
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
D
.
R
6
15
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
8
U.
S
.
3
9
5
/
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
/
I-
8
0
E
A
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
7
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
14
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
40
4
/
44
9
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
/
M
A
R
T
I
S
PE
A
K
R
D
.
/
W
H
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
R
D
.
12
6
34
7
97
16
3
16
7
0
0
16
43
9
8
11
2
40
15
14
4
21
7
16
8
15
2
27
12
0
20
8
54
11
7
51
17
9
32
84
24
14
7
29
13
1
23
21
12
3
11
3
67
8
32
35
15
9
12
5
35
9
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
ST
R
E
E
T
S
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
LA
K
E
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
TR
A
F
F
I
C
V
O
L
U
M
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1
IN
M
I
L
E
S
S
C
A
L
E 0.
5
20
3
1
P
M
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
w
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
FI
G
U
R
E
1
2
8
89
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TR
U
C
K
E
E
80
80
26
7
SI
T
E
E
D
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
Csfuturepp
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 57
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
The intersection Level Of Service (LOS) at the study intersections serving was evaluated under
the Edinburgh access alternative, based on the same methodology as the proposed project
alternative. The LOS calculations are included in Appendix G.
2011 With Project With Edinburgh Access
Intersection LOS for the analysis year 2011 with implementation of the project and an additional
access point at Edinburgh Drive is summarized in Table 19. As shown and consistent with the
proposed (single access) alternative, all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels
under all peak hour periods without the project, with the exception of the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. During the PM peak hour, the total intersection LOS
would degrade from LOS E to LOS F, while the worst movement would continue to operate at
LOS F with more than 4 vehicle-hours of delay. This intersection would also degrade to an
unacceptable level during the AM peak hour. On average, the Edinburgh access alternative
would result in higher delays at this intersection than the proposed access scenario, given that
more Canyon Springs trips would use Glenshire Drive with the Edinburgh access open.
2031 With Project With Edinburgh Access
Table 19 also summarizes the intersection LOS results for future 2031 conditions with the
Edinburgh access alternative. The results are generally the same as with the proposed
alternative. As indicated, all intersections would operate within the applicable LOS thresholds.
INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS
Year 2011 Intersection Queuing
As more project trips would use Glenshire Drive under the Edinburgh access alternative than
under the proposed project alternative, the traffic queues at intersections along Glenshire Drive
would generally be longer under the Edinburgh access alternative. The longest traffic queue in
2011 occurs at the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road during the
summer PM peak hour. The 95th-percentile queue length for this turning movement is calculated
to be approximately 19 vehicles with implementation of the Edinburgh access alternative.
Assuming a length of about 25 feet per vehicle, this equates to a total queue length of about 475
feet, which would not affect any nearby intersections or driveways. The longest traffic queue
length for vehicles stopped on Dorchester Drive (west) waiting to turn onto Glenshire Drive
occurs during the AM peak hour. The 95th-percentile queue length on this approach is
approximately 2 vehicles (or about 50 feet), with or without the Edinburgh access alternative. As
the nearest driveway on Dorchester Drive is located about 180 feet from the intersection, no
operational problems are identified.
2031 Intersection Queuing
In the Year 2031, the traffic queues on the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive onto Donner
Pass Road would generally decrease, due to implementation of the Donner Pass Road
Extension. The 95th-percentile queue length for this turning movement is up to 125 feet in the
summer PM peak hour with the Edinburgh access alternative. This is the same queue length as
with the proposed (single-access) alternative. The 95th-percentile queue length for drivers
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 58 Traffic Impact Analysis
TA
B
L
E
1
9
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
O
S
W
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
20
1
1
w
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
0
3
1
w
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
s
t
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
l
a
y
De
l
a
y
De
l
a
y
Delay
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Ty
p
e
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
Su
m
m
e
r
P
M
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
79
.
1
F
O
V
F
F
17
.
4
C
O
V
F
F 1
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
P
R
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
Si
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
Fu
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
4.
0
A
3
7
.
4
E
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
.
5
A
1
4
.
8
B
5
.
9
A
2
3
.
1
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
Al
l
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
8
.
5
A
8
.
7
A
9
.
3
A
9
.
7
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
3
.
8
A
1
3
.
4
B
3
.
8
A
1
2
.
5
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
.
8
A
1
1
.
2
B
9
.
6
A
2
1
.
4
C
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
2
A
1
1
.
4
B
6
.
7
A
1
3
.
5
B
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
8
A
1
0
.
4
B
5
.
7
A
1
0
.
0
A
AM
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
2
5
.
2
D
71
.
0
F
12
.
3
B
2
3
.
6
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
6
.
4
A
1
5
.
3
C
8
.
4
A
2
1
.
4
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
Al
l
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
8
A
8
.
1
A
8
.
0
A
8
.
3
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
.
8
A
1
0
.
0
A
4
.
6
A
9
.
8
A
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
M
Sc
h
o
o
l
PM
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
)
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
5
.
2
A
1
3
.
2
B
6
.
8
A
1
9
.
3
C
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
Al
l
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
7
.
5
A
7
.
8
A
7
.
8
A
8
.
0
A
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
o
p
4
.
3
A
1
0
.
7
B
4
.
3
A
1
0
.
4
B
OV
F
=
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
.
O
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
a
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
H
C
M
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
No
t
e
1
:
T
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
d
e
l
a
y
o
n
t
h
i
s
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
4
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
-
h
o
u
r
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
L
S
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
I
n
c
.
Canyon Springs 2011.xls
No
t
e
:
BO
L
D
t
e
x
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
O
S
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
n
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
L
O
S
F
w
i
t
h
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
4
t
o
t
a
l
ve
h
i
c
l
e
-
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
d
e
l
a
y
i
s
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 59
stopped on Dorchester Drive waiting to turn onto Glenshire Drive is about 100 feet in the AM
peak hour with the Edinburgh alternative, which is the same as under the proposed (single-
access) alternative. As the nearest driveway to the intersection is located approximately 180
feet from the intersection, no operational concerns were identified at this location.
In summary, intersection traffic queuing is not expected to cause any traffic concerns at any of
the study intersections under 2011 or 2031 conditions, with or without the Edinburgh alternative.
ROADWAY CAPACITY
The 2011 and 2031 roadway LOS analyses with project generated traffic volumes are presented
in Table 20. As shown, all study roadway segments including the local roadways used to access
the proposed project site at Edinburgh Drive are within the allowable traffic volume thresholds
with project traffic. Therefore, no roadway LOS mitigation measures are required.
IMPACT ON LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ROADWAYS
The increase in traffic on the local roadways from Somerset Drive to Edinburgh Drive with
implementation of the Edinburgh access alternative is shown in Table 21. With the Edinburgh
Drive connection open to general traffic, the Canyon Springs project is expected to result in an
increase of up to approximately 89 PM peak-hour one-way trips and 840 ADT in 2011, and 91
PM peak-hour trips and 860 ADT in 2031 on these local roadway segments. As this increase is
less than 1,000 ADT, the development would meet the Town’s adopted standard for impact on
local residential roadways, so long as the provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4 can be
met.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 60 Traffic Impact Analysis
TA
B
L
E
2
0
:
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
O
S
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
-
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
A
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
to
O
b
t
a
i
n
L
O
S
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Pe
a
k
H
o
u
r
Pe
r
L
a
n
e
A
D
T
Tw
o
-
W
a
y
Vo
l
u
m
e
Pea
k
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
D
T
1,
2
LO
S
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Ex
c
e
e
d
e
d
?
20
1
1
W
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
97
3
6
3
4
1
0
,
3
1
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
7
2
4
4
7
4
7,
5
4
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
5
1
1
3
1
7
5,
3
2
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
3
1
5
1
7
1
3,
2
8
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
4
3
9
2
5
6
4,
3
8
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
d
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
4
5
4
2
6
6
4,
5
3
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
4
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
4
D
89
0
--
1
9
4
1
3
3
1,
8
4
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
2
3
7
1
5
5
2,
2
7
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
1
4
5
8
7
1,
3
7
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
1
4
3
8
6
1,
3
5
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
1
0
3
5
6
97
0
N
o
20
3
1
W
i
t
h
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
1,
1
3
6
7
1
0
1
2
,
0
4
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
9
5
7
6
3
2
9,
9
6
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
W
e
s
t
)
a
n
d
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
6
8
0
4
2
1
7,
0
8
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
D
1
,
4
2
0
--
3
3
0
1
8
3
3,
4
4
0
N
o
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
4
4
0
2
5
7
4,
3
9
0
N
o
3
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
d
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
a
m
p
s
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
i
n
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
C
--
7,
6
0
0
6
5
9
3
6
1
6,
5
7
0
N
o
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
4
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
4
D
89
0
--
1
9
5
1
3
6
1,
8
5
0
N
o
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
3
0
5
2
0
1
2,
9
2
0
N
o
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
1
5
3
9
1
1,
4
5
0
N
o
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
1
5
1
9
0
1,
4
3
0
N
o
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
5
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
50
0
--
1
0
7
5
8
1,
0
1
0
N
o
No
t
e
:
A
D
T
=
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
No
t
e
1
:
A
D
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
A
D
T
-
t
o
-
p
e
a
k
-
h
o
u
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
.
No
t
e
2
:
L
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
A
D
T
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
t
o
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
I
T
E
t
r
i
p
r
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
No
t
e
3
:
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
L
O
S
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,
t
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
h
a
s
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
No
t
e
4
:
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
T
o
w
n
l
i
m
i
t
s
,
t
h
i
s
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
T
o
w
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
a
s
t
h
e
T
o
w
n
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
No
t
e
5
:
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 61
TA
B
L
E
2
1
:
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
-
E
d
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Wi
t
h
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Yea
r
2
0
1
1
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
1
,
4
3
0
8
4
0
2
,
2
7
0
No
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
5
3
0
8
4
0
1
,
3
7
0
No
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
5
1
0
8
4
0
1
,
3
5
0
No
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
1
3
0
8
4
0
9
7
0
No
Yea
r
2
0
3
1
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
2
,
0
6
0
8
6
0
2
,
9
2
0
No
Co
u
r
t
e
n
a
y
L
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
5
9
0
8
6
0
1
,
4
5
0
No
Re
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
c
l
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
5
7
0
8
6
0
1
,
4
3
0
No
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
o
f
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
1
5
0
8
6
0
1
,
0
1
0
No
NO
T
E
:
A
D
T
=
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
NO
T
E
1
:
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
T
a
b
l
e
C
I
R
-
6
,
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
f
o
r
L
o
c
a
l
R
o
a
d
s
.
Ca
n
y
o
n
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
AD
T
Ex
c
e
e
d
s
T
o
w
n
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
Al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
A
D
T
?
1
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 62 Traffic Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 63
Section 7
Traffic Impacts and Mitigation
The following potential areas of transportation impacts are considered in this section:
• Intersection LOS
• Intersection Queuing
• Roadway LOS
• Local Road Impacts
• Impact on Martis Peak Road
• Turn Lane Warrants
• Traffic Safety and Driver Sight Distance Impacts
• Vehicle Miles of Travel
• Construction Traffic Impacts
• Impact of Edinburgh Access Alternative
INTERSECTION LOS
As indicated in Sections 4 and 5, all study intersections are expected to operate within the
applicable LOS thresholds under existing and future conditions, with or without the proposed
project, with one exception. The Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection is estimated to
exceed the Town standard under 2011 summer PM peak-hour conditions, with or without the
proposed project, as the delay on the worst movement (left-turn movement from Glenshire
Drive) is expected to exceed 4 vehicle-hours. Implementation of the project would cause the
intersection to exceed the LOS threshold during the AM peak hour in 2011. However, under
future 2031 conditions, this intersection would operate at an acceptable level, due to
implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension. All movements on all other study
intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or better under all scenarios.
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection
Implementation of full buildout of the project would increase the total intersection traffic volume
through the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection by approximately 57 vehicles (or
5.4 percent) during the AM peak hour and 78 vehicles (or 5.3 percent) during the PM peak hour
in 2011. The project would add about 33 vehicles to the left-turn movement from Glenshire
Drive during the AM peak hour and 23 vehicles during the PM peak hour. The resulting total
vehicle-hours of delay on this movement during the AM peak hour is calculated to be
approximately 5.9, which would exceed the 4 vehicle-hour threshold. The total delay on this
movement during the PM peak hour would increase by approximately 11.6 vehicle-hours,
thereby exacerbating an existing LOS deficiency. It is therefore necessary to evaluate potential
measures to improve the intersection LOS.
Potential Intersection Improvements
Potential intersection LOS mitigation measures are considered for the Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road intersection, as it is expected to exceed the LOS threshold in 2011, with or without
the proposed project. The construction of a roundabout or traffic signal at this location is not
feasible due to the existing grades. Therefore, other alternatives to improve LOS are
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 64 Traffic Impact Analysis
considered. One option would be to provide a central Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (TWLTL) along
Donner Pass Road between Glenshire Drive and Keiser Avenue. With a TWLTL, drivers are
expected to make a left turn into the center lane and then move into a gap in the through traffic
and accelerate in the through lane, rather than accelerating in the median lane. The presence of
Keiser Avenue on the north side of Donner Pass Road approximately 225 feet west of Glenshire
Drive would create the potential for conflicts between drivers turning left from both Glenshire
Drive and Keiser Avenue. Drivers in both directions would also need to accurately judge
acceptable gaps in oncoming traffic by looking in their rear view mirrors. As the speed limit
along this portion of Glenshire Drive is 45 miles per hour, this would create an unacceptable
potential for accidents. For this reason, TWLTLs are typically not provided along roadways with
speeds exceeding 35 miles per hour.
Another option is to provide a center lane along Donner Pass Road west of Glenshire Drive,
which would allow drivers turning left from Glenshire Drive to make a “two-stage” left-turn
movement, first using a gap in the eastbound traffic to turn into the center lane before using a
gap in the westbound traffic to merge to the right into the westbound through lane. A
conceptual layout for this improvement is included in Appendix H. The center lane is not
intended to be used by drivers turning left from Keiser Avenue. The pavement markings
associated with the center lane should be designed to discourage drivers making left turns from
Keiser Avenue onto Donner Pass Road from pulling into the painted median area, in order to
minimize the potential for traffic accidents. The presence of the center lane would improve LOS
for drivers turning left from Glenshire Drive.
Table 22 summarizes the LOS and delay on the worst movement (the left-turn movement from
Glenshire Drive) under 2011 conditions with the new center lane. Implementation of this
improvement would improve the LOS to an acceptable level under 2011 conditions without
Canyon Springs, with a total of approximately 2.7 vehicle-hours of delay on the worst
movement. However, with full buildout of Canyon Springs, the LOS would degrade to an
unacceptable level, with approximately 4.8 to 5.9 total vehicle-hours of delay on the worst
movement, depending on which site access alternative is selected. Note that the intersection
delays would be shorter with implementation of the center lane and full development of Canyon
Springs than under existing conditions with no lane improvements and no development.
With the new center turn lane, some level of development could occur before the LOS threshold
is exceeded. It is estimated that Phases 1 through 5 of the Canyon Springs development
(including about 102 single-family lots plus the 8 affordable housing lots) could be constructed
before the threshold is exceeded. This would generate about 15 left turns from Glenshire Drive
onto Donner Pass Road. With the Edinburgh access alternative, only Phases 1 through 4 could
be implemented (adding about 17 left turns from Glenshire Drive). Or, developments in other
areas of Truckee could occur that result in an increase in through traffic volumes on Donner
Pass Road of about 25 percent (without Canyon Springs).
Donner Pass Road Extension
With implementation of the approved Railyard Master Plan Project, the Donner Pass Road
Extension would be constructed east of Bridge Street, tying into a new T-intersection on
Glenshire Drive. This would substantially reduce the left-turning traffic volume from Glenshire
Drive onto Donner Pass Road, as when faced with long delays for making left-turn movements
from Glenshire Drive, drivers can be expected to shift their travel patterns to instead use the
Donner Pass Road Extension. As a result, the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 65
is shown to operate within the LOS thresholds with implementation of the Donner Pass Road
Extension. Note that the LOS at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension intersection
would continue to be acceptable with these additional left turns.
Assumes a Two-Stage Left-Turn Operation from Glenshire Drive with One-Car Storage in Median.
HCM 2010 Method - Adjusted Gap Times
DelayDelay
Scenario(sec/veh)(Veh-Hrs)LOS
2011 PM No Project - Existing Conditions 1 363.316.7F
PM Peak Hour
2011 PM - No Project59.12.7F
2011 PM - With Single Access Alternative 90.94.8F
2011 PM - With Edinburgh Access Alternative 106.95.9F
AM Peak Hour
2011 AM - No Project25.1N/AD
2011 AM - With Single Access Alternative30.4N/AD
2011 AM - With Edinburgh Access Alternative34.0N/AD
Note 1: The Existing Condition assumes a one-stage left-turn with adjusted gap acceptance times.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. DPR_Glen TWLTL LOS June2012.xls
Delay on Worst Movement
BOLD text indicates exceedance of the Town of Truckee LOS standard for unsignalized approaches, which states that an
unsignalized movement at LOS F with greater than 4 total vehicle-hours of delay is unacceptable.
TABLE 22: Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection LOS With
Center Turn Lane
The Railyard Master Plan Project is a planned project and is included in the Town of Truckee
Traffic Fee Program, which requires entities initiating new development within the Town to pay
traffic impact fees.
Conclusion
In conclusion, implementation of any phase of the Canyon Springs Project before construction
of the Donner Pass Road Extension would result in increased delays at the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, thereby exacerbating an existing LOS deficiency.
Implementation of the center turn lane on Donner Pass Road would improve the LOS to an
acceptable level before the Donner Pass Road Extension is constructed. The first five phases of
the Canyon Springs Project could be completed (along with the new center turn lane) while
maintaining an acceptable LOS at this intersection. However, construction of Phase 6 would
trigger the LOS impact in 2011.
The Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection is shown to operate within the LOS
thresholds with implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension as well as full buildout of
Canyon Springs. The Donner Pass Road Extension is included in the Town of Truckee Traffic
Impact Fee Program. The project applicant would be required to pay the current traffic impact
fee. However, according to Table CIR-6 in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Circulation
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 66 Traffic Impact Analysis
Element, when a Category 3 Project (such as Canyon Springs) encounters an existing
unacceptable Level of Service on an arterial or collector road, that development is allowed if
either of the following are true:
• Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as identified in Table
CIR-5; or
• Improvements to impacted roads and intersections are identified in the CIP, fully funded,
and scheduled for completion within three years.
The Donner Pass Road Extension is included in the CIP; however it is not fully funded nor is it
scheduled for completion within three years. Therefore, the proposed Canyon Springs Project
(at 100 percent of development) would not meet the criteria set forth in the General Plan
Circulation Element for an allowable development.
INTERSECTION QUEUING
A traffic queue length analysis was conducted for pertinent intersections to identify the potential
for operational problems, as presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Queue lengths are not forecasted
to exceed the existing storage capacity at any of the study intersections during any of the
analysis periods. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
ROADWAY LOS
Roadway LOS is expected to be acceptable on all study roadway segments under existing and
future conditions, with or without the Canyon Springs project for all analysis periods. Therefore,
no roadway LOS mitigation measures are necessary.
LOCAL ROAD IMPACTS
The increase in traffic on the local roadways from Somerset Drive to Edinburgh Drive as a result
of the proposed project was evaluated under existing and future conditions. The proposed
project is not expected to increase in traffic volumes on these local roadway segments, given
that the Edinburgh access point would be gated for emergency access only. Therefore, the
proposed project meets the adopted standard for impacts to local residential roadways, and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
IMPACT ON MARTIS PEAK ROAD
Martis Peak Road is a privately-maintained road outside the Town of Truckee Limits. However,
the relatively short segment of Martis Peak Road that provides access to the project site is
required to be designed according to Town standards, given that the Town is processing the
project application. This roadway segment has a total pavement width ranging from 20 to 23
feet. In 2011 and 2031 with the project, Martis Peak Road would have an Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) volume exceeding 2,000 vehicles, and it would function as a Collector roadway.
According to Town standards, a Collector roadway provides 12-foot travel lanes with 2-foot
shoulders. As the existing pavement width along Martis Peak Road does not accommodate 12-
foot travel lanes, the segment of Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and the proposed
Canyon Springs access point would not meet Town standards with the project. It is therefore
recommended that this roadway segment be widened to meet the design standard for a
Collector as a part of the proposed development.
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 67
TURN LANE WARRANTS
Guidelines for adding turn lanes are provided in the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Report 457 – Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study
Guide (Transportation Research Board, 2001), as well as in the Guidelines for Reconstruction of
Intersections (Caltrans, 1985). Left-turn lane volume warrants are defined by volume thresholds
of opposing traffic versus advancing traffic, as well as the percentage of left-turns on the
advancing approach. Right-turn lane warrants are based on a graphical curve of right-turning
volumes versus total traffic in the travel lane. The warrant charts are included in Appendix I.
Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
The need for left-turn lanes along Glenshire Drive at the western end of Dorchester Drive and at
the Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection was evaluated. Based upon the 2011 AM
and PM peak-hour traffic volumes, an eastbound left-turn lane is warranted along Glenshire
Drive at its intersection with Dorchester Drive (West), with or without the Canyon Springs
project. This warrant is also met under future 2031 conditions, with or without the project. The
calculated 95th-percentile traffic queue length on the eastbound left-turn movement is less than
one vehicle. It is recommended that a left-turn pocket be installed at this location. The turn
pocket should provide approximately 50 feet of storage length.
Conversely, the traffic volumes at the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
intersection do not warrant a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive under existing or future
conditions, with or without the project. Therefore, a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive is not
necessary at this location.
Right-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
The need for right-turn lanes along Glenshire Drive at Dorchester Drive (West) and at the
Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection was evaluated. The right-turn lane warrant is
not met at either location under exiting or future conditions, with or without the project.
Therefore, the addition of new right-turn lanes is not necessary.
TRAFFIC SAFETY AND DRIVER SIGHT DISTANCE IMPACTS
Glenshire Drive East of Martis Peak Road
This roadway segment has an average accident rate (from 2006 to 2010) about two times the
State and County average rates for similar facilities. The injury and fatal accident rate is also
higher than the State and County average rates for similar facilities. However, the severity of the
accidents is relatively minor overall, given that no fatalities were reported, and two-thirds of the
accidents resulted in property damage only (no injuries). One-third of the accidents occurred
under icy/snowy road conditions. Each of these accidents involved a single vehicle, and there
were no injuries.
This curve segment of Glenshire Drive has a steep grade of about 9 percent. The existing
pavement width accommodates 11-foot travel lanes with no shoulder in some locations. Both
Nevada County and Town of Truckee roadway design standards call for 12-foot lanes with 4-
foot shoulders, and maximum grade of 8 percent. As this segment of Glenshire Drive does not
meet the design standards, it is considered to have an existing geometric deficiency.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 68 Traffic Impact Analysis
The proposed project would result in an increase of up to 1,600 daily one-way trips, including
160 peak-hour trips, on this roadway segment. Compared to existing conditions, this equates to
about a 50-percent increase in the total peak-hour traffic volume. The County recently added
roughly 200 feet of guardrail along the south side of this roadway. No additional improvements
are planned for this roadway segment. Note that drivers who do not wish to use this segment
during icy/snowy road conditions are provided with an alternate route via Glenshire Drive to the
west. However, it is recommended that the project applicant contribute up to $50,000 to fund a
safety study as well as implementation of safety improvements along this roadway segment.
The scope and cost of the study should be reviewed and approved by the Town. Examples of
potential safety improvements are improved warning signage, provision of delineator posts with
reflectors, recessed reflectors in the center line, provision of chevron signs, and installation of a
warning flasher for eastbound traffic entering the roadway segment.
Driver Sight Distance
The findings of the driver sight distance evaluation in Section 2 indicate that drivers exiting
Whitehorse Road onto Glenshire Drive do not have adequate corner sight distance to judge
acceptable gaps looking either to the east or to the west. In both directions, however, oncoming
drivers along Glenshire Drive have adequate stopping sight distance to react to the presence of
a vehicle entering the roadway. In addition, no traffic accidents were reported at this intersection
during the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010.
The proposed project is not expected to add traffic to Whitehorse Road, although it would add
up to 2,578 daily one-way trips and 257 peak-hour trips through the Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak
Road/Whitehorse Road intersection. The addition of this traffic would result in shorter gaps
available for drivers exiting Whitehorse Road. In this situation, drivers typically tend to get
frustrated and become willing to accept shorter gaps. The additional traffic through the
intersection would consist of vehicles only going about 20 miles per hour, as they would either
be turning from Martis Peak Road or decelerating along Glenshire Drive and turning into Martis
Peak Road (not using the Whitehorse Road leg of the intersection that has the driver sight
distance deficiency). Given this, the proposed project would not exacerbate the existing corner
sight distance deficiency on the Whitehorse Road approach. As adequate corner sight distance
is provided on the Martis Peak Road approach, and adequate stopping sight distance is
provided along Glenshire Drive, the proposed project is not considered to have a significant
impact on driver sight distance.
It should be ensured that the final landscaping plans for the proposed project provide adequate
driver sight distance along the proposed project roadways.
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
The PM peak hour Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) generated by the project was estimated based
upon the PM peak hour trip rates and percent new trips shown in Table 5 of the Town of
Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Program. For the purposes of this analysis, all secondary units are
assumed to be less than 850 square feet (consistent with Town standards for parcels less than
one acre) and are therefore treated as multi-family units. An average trip length of 4.3 miles is
specified in Table 5 of the Truckee TIF Program. However, trips made to/from Glenshire are
typically longer than other trips made in the Truckee area, due to the relatively long travel
distance between Glenshire and the rest of the Truckee community. Therefore, a more accurate
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 69
length for trips made to/from Canyon Springs was estimated based upon the assumptions in the
Town TransCAD model for the Canyon Springs Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). The weighted
average trip length for all trips made to/from the Canyon Springs TAZ is estimated to be
approximately 8.3 miles.
As Table 23 indicates, the proposed project is estimated to generate a total of approximately
2,076 new VMT in the region during the summer PM peak hour. For the purposes of this
analysis, the “region” is assumed to be the area included in the Town of Truckee TransCAD
model. This region is bound by the I-80/Donner Lake Road interchange on the west, the SR
89/West River Street intersection on the southwest, Brockway Summit on the south, the I-
80/Floriston interchange on the east, and the Truckee Town Limits to the north.
TABLE 23: Canyon Springs VMT Calculations
DescriptionQuantityUnit
PM Peak
Hour Trip
Rate 1
Average
Trip Length
(miles) 2
Percent
New Trips 1
VMT per
Unit
Total PM
Peak Hour
VMT
Single Family Residential177DU1.018.3100%8.381,484
Affordable Housing26DU0.628.3100%5.15134
Secondary Units 2 89DU0.628.3100%5.15458
TOTAL292DU--------2,076
VMT = Vehiles Miles Traveled; DU = Dwelling Unit
NOTE: Site access is assumed via Martis Peak Road only.
NOTE 2: Average trip length is based upon trip lengths associated with the Canyon Springs Traffic Analysis Zone in the Town TransCAD model.
Canyon Springs 2011.xls
NOTE 1: PM peak hour rate and percent new trips values are taken from Table 5 of the Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Program. Note that for the purposes
of this analysis that PM peak hour trip rate may differ from those stated in the trip generation analysis (Table 3).
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The project is proposed to be constructed in eight phases. The construction schedule for the
new residences is dependent upon market demand, and full buildout of the project is anticipated
to take at least 20 years. Phase 1 is expected to generate the greatest amount of construction
traffic, as it is the phase with the largest number of lots (37) and the longest length of roadway
(approximately 1.36 miles) to be constructed. Table 24 provides an analysis of the construction-
related traffic that is expected to be generated over the course of a peak day during Phase I
activities. The analysis is based upon the following assumptions, which were conservatively
developed to represent worst case conditions:
• The number of truck hauling trips made to/from the site during the earthwork phase(s) is
expected to be minimal, as the cut and fill material is anticipated to balance on the project
site.
• About 12 employees associated with roadway construction are assumed to report to the site
over the course of a busy day.
• About 16 grading/excavation employees are assumed to work on site over the course of a
busy day.
• A maximum of about 25 units are assumed to be constructed at one time, with
approximately 5 employees per home per day.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 70 Traffic Impact Analysis
• Based on data from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (U.S. Census data) for the
Truckee area, the average vehicle occupancy rate for work trips is approximately 1.2
employees per vehicle. Dividing the number of employees by the average vehicle
occupancy rate yields the number of vehicles associated with employees, as shown in Table
24.
TABLE 24: Construction Trip Generation
Description EquipmentEmployeesEquipment
Home
Construction
Employees
Other
Employees Total
Employees Per Day--12--6516--
Employee Vehicle Occupancy--1.2--1.21.2--
Vehicles per Day6108541391
One-Way Trips Per Day - Per Vehicle22.522.52.5--
One-Way Trips Per Day - Total12251613533221
Passenger Car Equivalents per Vehicle2.512.511--
Passenger Car Equivalent Trips per Day30254013533263
Percentage of Trips Exiting in PM Peak Hour10%28%10%28%28%--
Number of PM Peak-Hour Exiting Trips37438961
NOTE: The 28 percent of employee vehicle trips exiting during the PM peak hour is calculated based on the total number of one-w ay vehicle-trips per day and the assump
that 70 percent of employees depart the site during the PM peak hour.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.Canyon Springs 2011.xls
Roadways
Phase 1 Construction
Lots
• Each employee is assumed to make a round-trip commuting to/from work, and one-quarter
of the employees are assumed to make an additional round-trip off site during the work day
for lunch, errands, etc.
• About 70 percent of the employees are assumed to leave the site during the PM peak hour.
• About 10 percent of the truck and equipment trips are assumed to exit during the PM peak
hour.
• A truck has a “passenger car equivalent” (in terms of traffic impact) of 2.5 (Highway Capacity
Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000, Exhibit 20-9).
As the table indicates, Phase 1 of the construction phase is expected to generate approximately
388 one-way passenger-car-equivalent trips over the course of a busy construction day, with
about 96 exiting trips occurring during the PM peak hour of commuter traffic. In comparison with
the proposed development traffic, the number of inbound trips during the PM peak hour would
be less during construction, but a similar amount of exiting traffic would occur (the proposed
development would generate about 93 exiting trips, compared to about 96 during construction).
Consequently, the traffic impacts during the construction phase are similar to that under full
buildout of the proposed project.
All study intersections and roadway segments are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS
during the construction phases, except the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. If
any Canyon Springs construction traffic accesses the site to/from the west via the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection before implementation of either the recommended center
lane improvement or the Donner Pass Road Extension, this would exacerbate an existing LOS
deficiency. With implementation of the center turn lane, the maximum number of homes that
Canyon Springs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis Page 71
could be under construction at one time during Phase 1 without exceeding the LOS threshold is
estimated to be 13 homes (resulting in a total of about 60 trips exiting the Canyon Springs site
during the PM peak hour). Note that if all project construction traffic is prohibited from using the
Glenshire Drive route for trips made to/from the west, this impact would be avoided. However,
this measure may not be feasible.
The eastbound left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with the western end of
Dorchester Drive would be warranted with the construction traffic. However, the construction
traffic would not have an impact at this location if all project construction traffic is prohibited from
using this route along Glenshire Drive.
Finally, it is recommended that the safety improvements along Glenshire Drive east of Martis
Peak Road (as discussed above) be implemented before the start of Canyon Springs
construction.
IMPACT OF EDINBURGH ACCESS ALTERNATIVE
The transportation impacts of the Edinburgh access alternative are compared to those of the
proposed project alternative. With the Edinburgh access open, the project would generate the
same number of trips as the proposed access alternative, but an additional 15 percent of trips
made to/from points west of Glenshire would use the Glenshire Drive route instead of the
Hirschdale Road/I-80 route. The Edinburgh access alternative would result in differing traffic
volume impacts, but generally not affect the findings of the intersection and roadway LOS
analyses. With the Edinburgh access open, there would be no operational concerns related to
traffic queuing, although the traffic queues at intersections along Glenshire Drive would
generally be longer than under the proposed alternative.
The following are additional conclusions under the Edinburgh access alternative:
• With the Edinburgh access open, the project would increase the traffic volumes along the
local roadways from Edinburgh Drive to Somerset Drive by up to about 90 PM peak-hour
one-way trips and 860 Average Daily one-way Trips (ADT). However, as the increase in
traffic is less than 1,000 ADT, the development would meet the Town’s adopted standard for
impact on local residential roadways, so long as the provisions of Circulation Element Policy
P2.4 can be met. In comparison, the proposed alternative has no impact on the local
roadway volumes.
• With the Edinburgh access open, the segment of Martis Peak Road that provides access to
the project site would have an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of up to 1,850. The
recommended geometric improvements along this segment of Martis Peak Road would not
be affected.
• The recommendations regarding new turn lanes are not affected under the Edinburgh
access alternative.
• The increase in traffic on the segment of Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and
Hirschdale Road during PM peak periods would be slightly less (45 percent) than that under
the proposed alternative (50 percent). However, this does not affect the recommended
safety mitigation measures at this location.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Canyon Springs
Page 72 Traffic Impact Analysis
• Although implementation of the Edinburgh access alternative would result in a slightly lower
level of project traffic using the Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road/Whitehorse Road
intersection, it would not affect the conclusions regarding driver sight distance.
• With the Edinburgh access open, the construction-related traffic impacts and conclusions
are the same as with the proposed (single-access) alternative. If construction traffic is
actually prohibited from using the Glenshire Drive route, this would minimize construction
traffic impacts along the local roadways in the Edinburgh Drive neighborhood, given that
Martis Peak Road provides faster access to the site for trips made via the Hirschdale/I-80
route.
Vehicle Miles of Travel with Edinburgh Access
With the Edinburgh access open, approximately 60 percent of project trips made to/from the
west would use Glenshire Drive (rather than the Hirschdale/I-80 route). In comparison, under
the proposed project alternative, only 45 percent of project trips made to/from the west would
use the Glenshire Drive route. That is, under the Edinburgh access alternative, an additional 15
percent of trips made to/from the west would use the Glenshire Drive route compared to that
under proposed project alternative. This equates to about 19 trips that would “shift” to the
Glenshire Drive route with the Edinburgh access open. On average, the Glenshire Drive route is
about 1.8 miles shorter than the Hirschdale/I-80 route for trips made to/from the west.
Multiplying 19 trips by 1.8 miles saved per trip yields a total of about 34 VMT saved under the
Edinburgh access alternative, in comparison with the proposed project alternative. Subtracting
34 miles from the VMT under the proposed project alternative (2,076) yields a total of about
2,042 VMT associated with the Edinburgh access alternative during the summer PM peak hour.
Appendix A
Count Data
Appendix B
Speed Study Results
Appendix C
LOS Criteria
Appendix D
2011 LOS Calculations
Appendix E
Teichert Boca Quarry Expansion Traffic Volumes
Appendix H
Turn Lane Conceptual Layouts
Appendix I
Turn Lane Warrant Charts