Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutAppendix D1_Traffic Impact Analysis ReportLSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. DeNovo Planning Group Report Prepared for Prepared by PC-3 Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis PC-3 Joerger Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared for DeNovo Planning Group 4630 Brand Way Sacramento, California 95819 916 Œ 812-7927 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P.O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145 530 Œ 583-4053 September 4, 2013 LSC #097340 PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... ES1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ ES1 Findings ............................................................................................................................ ES1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ ES3 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Scope of Study ................................................................................................................ 1 2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 3 Existing Setting ................................................................................................................ 3 3 Proposed Conditions ......................................................................................................... 11 Trip Generation .............................................................................................................. 11 Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................................................. 17 4 Level of Service and Roadway Capacity .......................................................................... 27 Description ...................................................................................................................... 27 Level of Service Standards ............................................................................................. 27 Analysis Methodology .................................................................................................... 29 Intersection Level of Service Analysis ............................................................................ 30 Intersection Queuing Analysis ........................................................................................ 32 Roadway Capacity ......................................................................................................... 32 5 Future Cumulative Conditions ......................................................................................... 37 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 37 Future 2032 Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 37 Future Intersection Level of Service Analysis ................................................................ 40 Future Intersection Queuing Analysis ............................................................................ 43 Future Roadway Capacity .............................................................................................. 43 6 Traffic Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................................................... 49 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) ................................................................................ 49 Intersection Queuing ....................................................................................................... 59 Roadway LOS ................................................................................................................ 59 Turn Lane Warrants at Site Access Points .................................................................... 60 Adequacy of Roadway Geometry ................................................................................... 61 Vehicle Miles of Travel ................................................................................................... 62 Construction Traffic Impacts .......................................................................................... 62 Transit Impacts .............................................................................................................. 64 Project Impact on Trails and Bikeways .......................................................................... 65 Appendix A PC-3 Site Plan B Level of Service Criteria C 2012 Intersection Level of Service D 2032 Intersection Level of Service E Intersection Level of Service – Mitigated F Conceptual Layout for Left-Turn Lane on Donner Pass Road at Glenshire Drive LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page ii Traffic Impact Analysis LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 2012 Winter Intersection Turning Movement Volumes without Project .................................. 8 2 PC-3 Joerger Ranch – Land Use Quantities ....................................................................... 12 3 PC-3 Joerger Ranch – Trip Generation Analysis .................................................................. 14 4 PC-3 Joerger Ranch External Trip Generation .................................................................... 16 5 PC-3 Joerger Ranch External Trip Distribution – Summer PM ............................................ 18 6 PC-3 Existing 2012 Trip Assignment – SR 267 Bypass versus Brockway Road ................. 19 7 PC-3 Future 2032 Trip Assignment – SR 267 Bypass versus Brockway Road..................... 19 8 PC-3 Project Net Impact on 2012 Winter PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................................................................................................. 24 9 PC-3 Project Net Impact on 2032 Winter PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................................................................................................. 24 10 Winter 2012 AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes with PC-3 ................. 24 11 PC-3 Joerger Ranch – Comparison of Current Project, General Plan, and Truckee Model ..................................................................................................................... 26 12 PC-3 2012 Intersection LOS Summary ................................................................................ 31 13 PC-3 Roadway LOS Analysis – 2012 without Project .......................................................... 33 14 PC-3 Roadway LOS Analysis – 2012 with Project ............................................................... 34 15 Traffic Performance on SR 267 Bypass in 2012 ................................................................... 36 16 2032 Winter Intersection PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes without Project ........ 40 17 2032 Winter PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes with PC-3 ................ 42 18 PC-3 2032 Intersection LOS Summary ................................................................................ 42 19 PC-3 Roadway LOS Analysis – 2012 without Project .......................................................... 44 20 PC-3 Roadway LOS Analysis – 2032 with Project ............................................................... 45 21 Traffic Performance on SR 267 Bypass in 2032 ................................................................... 47 22 PC-3 2012 PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Mitigation Summary ....................................... 51 23 PC-3 3032 PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Mitigation Summary ....................................... 52 24 Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection LOS with Center Turn Lane ...................... 54 25 PC-3 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ...................................................................................... 63 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 PC-3 Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ............................................... 4 2 2012 Summer PM Peak Hour Volumes without Project ................................................... 7 3 PC-3 Project Net Impact During 2012 Summer PM Peak Hour ...................................... 22 4 PC-3 Project Net Impact During 2032 Summer PM Peak Hour ...................................... 23 5 2012 Summer PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Project ........................................... 25 6 2032 Summer PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes without Project ...................................... 39 7 2032 Summer PM Peak House Traffic Volumes with Project ........................................ 41 PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis ES 1 Executive Summary PURPOSE This report presents the transportation impacts associated with the development of the proposed PC-3 Joerger Ranch Project in Truckee, California. The proposed 66.7-acre project site would consist of retail, commercial, manufacturing/industrial, and business innovation uses, as well as approximately 42 multi-family residential dwelling units, with the remainder of the site used for recreation and open space. Analysis is conducted for both 2012 and 2032 conditions. FINDINGS The findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis are as follows: 1. The project is expected to generate up to 1,992 one-way vehicle-trips (908 inbound and 1,084 outbound) at the site access points during the PM peak hour, and approximately 23,271 one-way trips over the course of a weekday. These are not all “new” trips to the area. Approximately 1,065 new PM peak-hour trips (454 inbound and 611 outbound) would be generated on roadways external to the project site under 2012 conditions, and about 1,061 new external PM peak-hour trips (452 inbound and 609 outbound) are expected to be generated under future 2032 conditions. 2. All of the study intersections except the following eight operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) during the summer PM peak-hour in 2012 with the PC-3 project: – Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive – Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street – West River Street/Bridge Street – West River Street/McIver Crossing – State Route (SR) 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way – Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access – Brockway Road/Martis Drive (Site Access) – Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access The three study intersections within Placer County were also analyzed for winter PM conditions, and no LOS deficiencies were identified in 2012. 3. Under future 2032 conditions, all of the study intersections listed above are expected to continue to exceed the LOS thresholds during the PM peak hour with the PC-3 project, with the exception of the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection. This intersection would improve to an acceptable LOS in 2032, due to the assumed completion of the Donner Pass Road Extension as a part of the Railyard project. However, the following six additional intersections would exceed the LOS threshold in 2032 with the PC-3 project: – SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road – SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps – SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch ES 2 Traffic Impact Analysis – Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp – Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail – SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road (summer and winter) 4. Without intersection capacity improvements, traffic queues are generally expected to interfere with adjacent roadways and driveways in most locations where the LOS is unacceptable. However, with implementation of the recommended intersection LOS mitigation measures, the resulting traffic queue lengths are not expected to exceed the storage capacity at any of the study intersections during any of the analysis periods. 5. Roadway LOS is acceptable on all study roadway segments under 2012 conditions, except the segment of SR 267 within the Tahoe Basin. This segment currently exceeds the LOS threshold during peak summer and winter days, with or without the project. In 2032, the portion of SR 267 between the Town Limit and Brockway Summit in Placer County would also exceed the LOS threshold during the summer, with or without the PC-3 project. The relatively short segment of SR 267 between the Town Limit and Airport Road is expected to exceed the LOS threshold during 2032 winter conditions as well. 6. Based on the simulations performed with the proposed project, it can be concluded that the merge points along the SR 267 Bypass would not cause excessive delays and that the merge point would not affect traffic operations at either the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way or SR 267/I-80 Interchange Ramps intersections. Furthermore, traffic conditions on the Truckee River Bridge are expected to be good, with average travel speeds ranging from 48 to 51 miles per hour. Overall, it can be concluded that existing conditions and future cumulative conditions including both PC-3 as currently proposed and buildout of other Town of Truckee General Plan and Martis Valley Community Plan land uses can be adequately accommodated with the existing two-lane configuration of the Truckee Bypass over the Truckee River Bridge. 7. Without intersection LOS improvements, new eastbound left-turn lanes are warranted at all of the site access points along Brockway Road, as well as on Soaring Way at its intersection with Joerger Drive in 2012 and 2032 with the project. In addition, westbound right-turn lanes are warranted on Brockway Road at both site access points in 2012 and 2032 with the project, as well as an eastbound right-turn lane on Soaring Way at the Joerger Drive/Site Access intersection. In 2032, an eastbound right-turn lane is also warranted on Brockway Road at Hope Court. The peak-hour volume warrant is not met for new turn lanes at any of the remaining access points in 2012 or 2032. 8. The proposed roadway configuration for Soaring Way is considered to be adequate, as it meets the Town standards for an Arterial Road. However, the proposed roadway configuration for Joerger Drive does not meet the Town standards for an Arterial Road, which requires 5-foot shoulders. 9. The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of approximately 5,647 “new” Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the region during the summer PM peak hour. 10. All study roadway segments are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the project construction phases. However, project construction traffic could potentially cause some of the site access intersections to temporarily exceed the LOS threshold. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis ES 3 11. The proposed project is expected to generate about 16 transit passenger trips during peak- hour periods. There is no potential for the project to exceed the capacity of the existing bus system during the non-peak season. While the PC-3 project could potentially require some standees along the SR 267 route on peak runs on peak days during the winter, additional public transit service would not be required. 12. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian plans are generally consistent with the Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, current plans for the Legacy Trail and Truckee-Northstar trail connections, as well as related goals and policies in the Circulation Element of the Truckee General Plan. However, the presence of a crosswalk on Brockway Road at the Hope Court intersection is problematic. In addition, removing three of the four existing crosswalks at the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection would reduce existing pedestrian access. 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 2012 without PC-3. Almost all (approximately 97 percent) of the PC-3 development could be implemented in 2012 while maintaining an acceptable LOS. Although this intersection is calculated to marginally exceed the Town’s LOS standard with full buildout of the PC-3 project (by approximately 0.12 vehicle-hours of delay on the worst movement, which equates to an average of approximately 2.3 seconds of delay per vehicle over the course of an hour), 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 PC-3 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 Donner Pass Road Extension is included in the Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Program, although it is not currently funded. 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 4 Project (such as PC-3) encounters an existing unacceptable Level of Service on an arterial or collector road that development is allowed if both of the following are true: • Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5; AND LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch ES 4 Traffic Impact Analysis • If project generates traffic volumes greater than identified in General Plan traffic model, project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as necessary to achieve acceptable LOS for buildout traffic volumes. The proposed PC-3 project has a lower level of trip generation at its site access points than that assumed in the General Plan. It follows that the PC-3 development would meet the criteria set forth in Table CIR-6 for an allowable development if the project applicant constructs improvements to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5 (which indicates construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension). It should be noted that the General Plan Circulation Element (Policy P2.3) also allows flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards for three specific intersections, one of which is the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. The project applicant shall construct a center turn lane on Donner Pass Road to allow two- stage left-turn movements to be made from Glenshire Drive. Given that future traffic conditions with PC-3 full development and provision of the center left-turn acceleration lane are improved over current traffic conditions, and that Circulation Element Policy 2.3 provides flexibility for LOS standards at this intersection, this is considered to be an adequate mitigation measure for this intersection. 2. Installation of a traffic signal at the Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road intersection is included in the Town’s Traffic Impact Fee Program. According to Circulation Element Policy 2.3, exceptions to the LOS standards may be allowed in cases where the Town finds that improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS should be deferred in order to better coordinate with the planning and implementation of other projects including the Railyard. Payment of traffic impact fees is considered to be an adequate mitigation measure for this intersection. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee traffic impact fees contributing to this improvement. 3. Installation of a traffic signal at the Bridge Street/West River Street intersection is included in the Town’s Traffic Impact Fee Program. According to Circulation Element Policy 2.3, exceptions to the LOS standards may be allowed in cases where the Town finds that improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS should be deferred in order to better coordinate with the planning and implementation of other projects including the Railyard. Payment of traffic impact fees is considered to be an adequate mitigation measure for this intersection. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee traffic impact fees contributing to this improvement. 4. Re-striping the existing westbound left-turn lane on West River Street at its intersection with McIver Crossing as a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) would improve the LOS to an acceptable level (LOS E or better) in 2012, as it would allow two-stage left-turn movements from McIver Crossing to West River Street eastbound. Even with the two-way left-turn lane, this intersection would exceed the LOS standard in 2032, with or without the PC-3 project. Provision of a single-lane roundabout at this intersection is included in the Town’s Traffic Impact Fee Program. The 2012 impact of the project is mitigated by restriping the existing pavement to provide a TWLTL on West River Street east of McIver Crossing. In 2032, considering that the PC-3 project would only increase total peak-hour traffic volume through the intersection by 1.3 percent, and it would slightly reduce the critical southbound left-turn impact, the payment of traffic impact fees is considered to be adequate mitigation. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis ES 5 5. Removal of the existing traffic signal at the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection and construction of a multi-lane roundabout would improve the LOS to an acceptable level. Specifically, a dual-lane roundabout with right-turn bypass lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches would provide an acceptable LOS with the PC-3 project in 2012. A three-lane roundabout with an eastbound right-turn slip lane and a westbound right-turn bypass lane is expected to be needed in 2032. A roundabout at this intersection is included in the Town’s traffic impact fee program. Note that while provision of capacity-enhancing improvements to the existing signalized intersection would also improve the LOS to an acceptable level, this would not be consistent with Town policy (Truckee General Plan Policy P7.1), which strives to replace existing traffic signals with roundabouts, including traffic signals on State Highways. According to Table CIR-6 in the Truckee General Plan Circulation Element, when a Category 4 Project (such as PC-3) encounters an existing acceptable Level of Service on an arterial or collector road, that development is allowed if the following are true: • Project traffic does not degrade LOS to unacceptable LOS; OR • Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as identified in Table CIR-5 to maintain acceptable LOS; AND • If project generates traffic volumes greater than identified in General Plan traffic model, project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as necessary to achieve acceptable LOS for buildout traffic volumes. Given that the proposed PC-3 project has a lower level of trip generation at its site access points than that assumed in the General Plan, the PC-3 development would meet the criteria set forth in Table CIR-6 for an allowable development if the project proponent constructs improvements to the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5 (which indicates construction of a roundabout or additional through and turning lanes). 6. Implementation of a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches at the Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access intersection would provide an acceptable LOS C under all scenarios with the proposed project. As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5, improvements to this intersection to provide acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project. 7. Extending the existing central two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) along Brockway Road to the east of the Brockway Road/Martis Drive (Site Access) intersection would provide an acceptable LOS at the Brockway Road/Martis Drive intersection in 2012. In addition, the provision of separate left- and right-turn lanes on the southbound Martis Drive approach would be needed in 2032. As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5, improvements to this intersection to provide acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project. 8. Implementation of a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches at the Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access intersection would provide an acceptable LOS under all scenarios with the proposed project. As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5, improvements to this intersection to provide acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch ES 6 Traffic Impact Analysis 9. No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road intersection in 2012 with the project. Expanding the existing roundabout to include three circulating lanes (to accommodate three entering lanes on the northbound approach), an eastbound right-turn slip lane, and a southbound right-turn slip lane would provide an acceptable LOS in 2032 with PC-3. As improvements to this intersection are included in Table CIR-5 to maintain acceptable LOS, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. 10. No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp intersection in 2012 with the project. Provision of a dual- lane roundabout with two northbound and eastbound approach lanes and a single lane on the southbound approach would provide an acceptable LOS in 2032 with PC-3. As a single- lane roundabout is included in the Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. 11. No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail intersection in 2012 with the project. Expanding the existing roundabout to provide two circulating lanes, as well as two lanes on the Donner Pass Road approaches and the Pioneer Trail approach would provide an acceptable LOS in 2032 with PC-3. As improvements at this intersection are included in Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. 12. No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection in 2012 with the project. Provision of two through lanes on the SR 267 approaches, as well as separate left, through, and right-turn lanes on the minor approaches would improve the LOS to an acceptable level under all scenarios. The Placer County traffic impact fee program includes “SR 267: County line to south of Northstar Drive – Widen to four lanes/intersections improvements”, which can be considered to address the improvements at the SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection. According to the Placer/Truckee Regional Traffic Impact Fee Agreement, payment of appropriate fees under the Truckee impact fee program is considered to mitigate impacts on roadway improvements included in the improvements list for Placer County’s Tahoe Resorts Benefit District impact fee program. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee impact fees contributing to this improvement. 13. No intersection LOS improvements are needed at the SR 267/I-80 Interchange Ramps intersections in 2012 with the project. Widening the SR 267 and SR 89 approaches to provide two through travel lanes in each direction (in addition to the existing turn lanes) would provide an acceptable LOS at these intersections in 2032. Dual-lane roundabouts are included in the Town’s traffic impact fee program. However, widening the roadways to provide two through travel lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches would be necessary, with or without roundabouts. As improvements to these intersections are included in Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. 14. The Placer County Tahoe Resorts Benefit District traffic impact fee program includes widening SR 267 to four travel lanes from the Town Limit to south of Northstar Drive, extending the southbound truck climbing lane to Brockway Summit, and constructing a northbound passing lane at Brockway Summit. According to the Placer/Truckee Regional Traffic Impact Fee Agreement, payment of appropriate fees under the Truckee impact fee PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis ES 7 program is considered to mitigate impacts on roadway improvements included in the improvements list for Placer County’s Tahoe Resorts Benefit District impact fee program. Note that widening of SR 267 to four travel lanes between Brockway Road/Soaring Way and the Town Limit is included in Truckee’s traffic impact fee program. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee impact fees contributing to these roadway improvements. No additional mitigation measures are needed with regards to roadway capacity and LOS. 15. At the Brockway Road/Martis Drive intersection, with the recommended extension of the center turn lane along Brockway Road through this intersection, a left-turn lane for eastbound left turns from Brockway Road to Martis Drive will be included. As roundabouts are recommended to be constructed at the Brockway Road/Hope Court and Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersections, new left-turn pockets are not necessary at these locations. 16. It is recommended that a new westbound right-turn lane be provided on Brockway Road at Martis Drive with implementation of the proposed project in 2012. As roundabouts are recommended to be constructed at the Brockway Road/Hope Court and Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersections, new right-turn lanes are not necessary at these locations. 17. Given the relatively high level of truck traffic on Joerger Drive (associated with the existing water treatment plant and quarry), it is recommended that 5-foot bike lanes/shoulders be provided along Joerger Drive adjacent to the project site, consistent with the Town standards for an Arterial Road. 18. In order to ensure that temporary project construction activities do not result in short-term traffic operational impacts, the project proponent should prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan for review and approval by Town staff, prior to construction. 19. Either the proposed crosswalk at the Brockway Road/Hope Court intersection should be relocated to a mid-block location, or a roundabout should be provided. Note that a roundabout is the recommended LOS mitigation measure at this intersection. The roundabout is assumed to be designed to safely accommodate bicycle and pedestrian crossings. In addition, sidewalks either should be provided along the north side of Brockway Road and Soaring Way, with connectivity through the SR 267 intersection, or the project proponent should demonstrate how pedestrians will be accommodated without unduly affecting site access. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch ES 8 Traffic Impact Analysis This page left intentionally blank. PC-3 Joerger Ranch 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 Planned Community 3 (PC-3) Joerger Ranch Project, proposed to be located on all four corners of the State Route 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection near the Truckee Tahoe Airport in the Town 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 Code, as well as Nevada County and Placer County standards. This project is planned to be constructed in several phases. However, the study examines the PC-3 site-generated traffic volumes for build out only. This study also provides the technical basis for the PC-3 Joerger Ranch 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, Placer 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: • SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road • SR 89 North/SR 267/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 89 North/SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Truckee Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road (Placer County) • SR 267/Northstar Drive (Placer County) • SR 267/SR 28 (Placer County) • Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Westbound On-Ramp • Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive • Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street • West River Street/Bridge Street • West River Street/McIver Crossing • Brockway Road/Palisades Drive • Brockway Road/Martis Valley Road • Brockway Road/Martis Drive (Site Access) • Brockway Road/Hope Court/Proposed Site Access • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Proposed Site Access • Site Access/Joerger Drive (Proposed Intersection) LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 2 Traffic Impact Analysis The following roadway segments were identified for analysis: • Bridge Street, Across Railroad Tracks • Donner Pass Road, South of SR 89 North • Donner Pass Road, South of I-80 Eastern Interchange • Donner Pass Road, East of Bridge Street • Donner Pass Road, West of Bridge Street • SR 89, North of I-80 • SR 267, Between I-80 and Brockway Road • SR 267, Between Brockway Road and Town Limit • SR 267, Between Town Limit and Airport Road • SR 267, Between Airport Road and Northstar Drive • SR 267, Between Northstar Drive and Brockway Summit • SR 267, North of SR 28 • Brockway Road, Between SR 267 and Project Access • Brockway Road, Between Project Access and Martis Valley Road • Brockway Road, Between Martis Valley Road and Palisades Drive • Brockway Road, Between Palisades Drive and West River Street This analysis considers the following four scenarios: 1. Existing (2012) without Project 2. Existing (2012) with Project 3. Future (2032) Full Buildout of General Plan without Project 4. Future (2032) Full Buildout of General Plan with Project The results of this traffic study are used to develop recommendations to mitigate project traffic impacts. PC-3 Joerger Ranch 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 Joerger Ranch site, providing a foundation for comparison to proposed conditions and future cumulative 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 The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of an existing winery accessed via Martis Drive. The Truckee-Tahoe Airport and other aviation-related uses are located northeast of the project site. To the north, west, and south of the project site is a mix of low and medium density residential, commercial, and recreational uses including the Ponderosa Golf Course to the west and the Riverview Sports Park to the north. The site is also located near the Town of Truckee municipal offices and various commercial uses near the airport. Existing Roadways The roadways within the vicinity of the project site 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 two closest interchanges to Joerger Ranch Development are SR 267 and Donner Pass Road (Eastern). State Route 267 State Route (SR) 267 is a two-lane highway running in a general northwest-southeast alignment between the Interstate-80/SR 89 North/SR 267 interchange in Truckee and SR 28 in Kings Beach. SR 267 is of local and regional significance, providing access to residential, industrial, commercial and recreational land uses. It serves as the major route between the I-80 corridor in the Town of Truckee and the North Lake Tahoe communities of Kings Beach and Incline Village, Nevada. It also serves as the sole existing access to the Northstar California Resort and adjacent residential neighborhoods. Brockway Road Brockway Road is a 1.5 miles long roadway, which runs in a generally east-west orientation between SR 267 and South River Street in Downtown Truckee. On its west end Brockway Road LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis 19 89 TR U C K E E 80 26 7 T R A I L P I O N E E R W E S T R I V E R S T . M C I V E R PALLISADES DR. BR O C K W A Y R D . V A L L E Y R . D MA R T I S A I R P O R T R . D S O A R I N G W Y . S C H A F F E R M I L L R . D TO T A H O E & NO R T H S T A R 8 10 12 4 6 5 1 2 3 11 13 14 9 PC - 3 I N T E R S E C T I O N L A 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 H O P E C T . 18 17 ST R E E T S PR O P O S E D S T R E E T S HI G H W A Y S CO U N T Y B O U N D A R Y WA T E R / L A K E ST U D Y I N T E R S E C T I O N 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 RO U N D A B O U T (U M I T I G A T E D C O N D I T I O N ) TR A F F I C S I G N A L (U N M I T I G A T E D C O N D I T I O N ) L E G E N D 1 11 9 1 SR 8 9 N / D O N N E R P A S S RD / H E N N E S S R D 5 3 7 11 8 6 10 2 SR 2 6 7 / S R 8 9 N / I- 8 0 W B R A M P DO N N E R P A S S R D . / PI O N E E R T R A I L WE S T R I V E R S T . / MC I V E R C R O S S I N G DO N N E R P A S S R D / BR I D G E S T . 4 DO N N E R P A S S R D I - 8 0 E. I N T E R C H A N G E WB O N - R A M P 12 BR O C K W A Y R D . / PA L I S A D E S D R . BR I D G E S T . / WE S T R I V E R S T . DO N N E R P A S S R D . / I- 8 0 E . I N T E R C H A N G E EB O F F R A M P SR 2 6 7 / I - 8 0 E B R A M P S DO N N E R P A S S R D . / GL E N S H I R E D R . BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S V A L L E Y R D . Tr u c k e e & M a r t i s V a l l e y 7 26 7 NO R T H S T A R LA K E T A H O E 28 KI N G S BE A C H KI N G S BE A C H N O R T H S T A R D R . TA H O E & N O R T H S T A R 15 16 S C A L E 0 IN M I L E S .5 1 2 0 JO E R G E R D R . / CO M M E R C I A L A C C E S S 13 14 SR 2 6 7 / B R O C K W A Y R D . /S O A R I N G W A Y SR 2 6 7 / A I R P O R T R D . / SC H A F F E R M I L L R D . 1 9 SO A R I N G W A Y / JO E R G E R D R . / S I T E A C C E S S FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S 15 SR 2 6 7 / N O R T H S T A R D R . 16 SR 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 1817 BR O C K W A Y R D . / HO P E C T . / S I T E A C C E S S BR O C K W A Y R D . / M A R T I S D R . 20 2- L A N E R O U N D A B O U T SIT E FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 5 turns into Bridge Street which continues through downtown Truckee. It provides access to many residential, commercial, and recreational land uses. Throughout its length, Brockway Road is a 2 lane road way with left turn lanes at major intersection and driveways. The speed limit varies from 45 mph on the east side to 35 mph on its west side. Soaring Way Soaring Way is an arterial roadway that provides access to the proposed project site. Soaring Way runs approximately two-thirds mile between SR 267 on the west and Airport Road on the east. The posted speed limit along Soaring Way is 40 miles per hour. The project site is located near the western end of the roadway. The eastern end of Soaring way provides access to the commercial land uses and the Truckee Tahoe Airport. Joerger Drive Joerger Drive is a two-lane roadway providing access from Soaring Way to the Riverview Sports Park, the Truckee Sanitation District, and a quarry. Joerger Drive has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. 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, the 30th-highest winter PM peak hour was analyzed for intersections within Placer County. The winter peak hour is technically defined as the 30th-highest hour of travel demand during the ski season (Placer County, 2003). The 30th-highest winter PM peak hour generally corresponds to a busy (but not the busiest) weekend day during ski season during the hour that ski areas are closing and skiers departing ski areas mix with local and inter-regional traffic. Existing Summer Traffic Volumes Year 2012 summer peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes were estimated at the study intersections as described below. PM peak-hour traffic counts were conducted at the following study intersections as a part of the Truckee 2009 Traffic Count Program: • SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road • SR 89 North/SR 267/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 89 North/SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastbound Off Ramp (Eastern Intersection) • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Westbound On Ramp (Eastern Intersection) • Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive • Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street • West River Street/McIver Crossing • Brockway Road/Martis Valley Road • Brockway Road/Palisades Drive • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 6 Traffic Impact Analysis In addition, PM peak-hour traffic counts were conducted for this study during the summer of 2009 at the following intersections: • SR 267/Truckee Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road (Placer County) • SR 267/Northstar Drive (Placer County) • Brockway Road/Hope Court • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive All counts were adjusted to reflect 10th-highest summer weekday PM peak hour, based upon hourly directional traffic volumes collected along Donner Pass Road for the entire summer as a part of the 2009 Truckee summer count program. These data were used to determine the appropriate adjustment factor for each intersection count. Next, it is necessary to adjust the 2009 traffic volumes to reflect Year 2012 conditions. Based upon a review of historical annual count data provided by Caltrans for SR 267 at various locations through the study area, the average annual growth rate from 2009-2011 (the most recent years for which data is available) was approximately 3.2 percent. This growth rate was applied to the 2009 intersection volumes, in order to convert them to 2012 conditions. PM peak-hour traffic volumes at the following two intersections were counted during the summer of 2012: • West River Street/Bridge Street • Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail These counts were adjusted to reflect 10th-highest summer weekday PM peak-hour traffic levels, based upon the hourly directional traffic volumes on Donner Pass Road in 2009. Finally, an intersection turning movement count was conducted at the SR 267/SR 28 intersection in Kings Beach on a peak summer day in August of 2010. According to Caltrans traffic count data along SR 28 and SR 267 in Kings Beach, traffic volumes between 2010 and 2012 have actually declined slightly. Therefore, the 2010 traffic counts are considered to be a reasonable estimate of 2012 traffic volumes. The intersection volumes were finally adjusted so that entering and exiting traffic balances between adjacent intersections. The resulting 2012 summer intersection turning movement volumes without the PC-3 project are displayed in Figure 2. Existing Winter Traffic Volumes Year 2012 winter peak hour turning movement volumes without PC-3 were estimated for the following three study intersections in Placer County: • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road • SR 267/Northstar Drive • SR 267/SR 28 Traffic counts were conducted at these three intersections during March of 2010 as a part of this study. In addition, a more recent count was conducted at the SR 267/Northstar Drive intersection during the busy Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend in January of 2011. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 7 13 19 14 5 39 8 12 4 30 2 78 12 0 3 18 9 16 0 5 89 TR U C K E E 80 26 7 T R A I L PI O N E E R W E S T R I V E R S T . M C I V E R PALLISADES DR. BR O C K W A Y R D . V A L L E Y R . D MA R T I S A I R P O R T R . D S O A R I N G W Y . S C H A F F E R M I L L R . D TO T A H O E & NO R T H S T A R 8 10 12 4 6 5 1 2 3 11 13 14 9 20 1 2 S U M M E R P M P E A K H O U R 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 H O P E C T . 18 17 ST R E E T S PR O P O S E D S T R E E T S HI G H W A Y S CO U N T Y B O U N D A R Y WA T E R / L A K E ST U D Y I N T E R S E C T I O N 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 RO U N D A B O U T (U M I T I G A T E D C O N D I T I O N ) TR A F F I C S I G N A L (U N M I T I G A T E D C O N D I T I O N ) L E G E N D 1 11 9 1 SR 8 9 N / D O N N E R P A S S RD / H E N N E S S R D 5 3 7 11 8 6 10 2 SR 2 6 7 / S R 8 9 N / I- 8 0 W B R A M P DO N N E R P A S S R D . / PI O N E E R T R A I L WE S T R I V E R S T . / MC I V E R C R O S S I N G DO N N E R P A S S R D / BR I D G E S T . 4 DO N N E R P A S S R D / I - 8 0 E. I N T E R C H A N G E WB O N - R A M P 12 BR O C K W A Y R D . / PA L I S A D E S D R . BR I D G E S T . / WE S T R I V E R S T . DO N N E R P A S S R D . / I- 8 0 E . I N T E R C H A N G E EB O F F R A M P SR 2 6 7 / I - 8 0 E B R A M P S DO N N E R P A S S R D . / GL E N S H I R E D R . BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S V A L L E Y R D . Tr u c k e e & M a r t i s V a l l e y 7 26 7 NO R T H S T A R LA K E T A H O E 28 KI N G S BE A C H KI N G S BE A C H N O R T H S T A R D R . TA H O E & N O R T H S T A R 15 16 S C A L E 0 IN M I L E S .5 1 2 0 JO E R G E R D R . / CO M M E R C I A L A C C E S S 13 14 SR 2 6 7 / B R O C K W A Y R D . /S O A R I N G W A Y SR 2 6 7 / A I R P O R T R D . / SC H A F F E R M I L L R D . 1 9 SO A R I N G W A Y / J O E R G E R DR . / S I T E A C C E S S FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S 15 SR 2 6 7 / N O R T H S T A R D R . 16 SR 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 1817 BR O C K W A Y R D . / HO P E C T . / S I T E A C C E S S SIT E 30 2 32 2 31 3 45 14 4 3 11 1 53 3 23 3 28 4 17 3 91 0 24 1 68 55 5 5 5 5 32 9 17 8 44 1 32 9 18 2 14 6 17 5 12 5 37 0 37 5 24 0 26 1 16 5 92 24 0 18 84 62 48 38 1 28 8 20 8 12 4 19 22 5 36 8 19 25 47 9 76 91 13 50 6 12 9 30 25 6 62 10 1 35 4 18 7 12 5 16 1 12 9 60 4 32 7 7943 7 28 7 55 5 4 35 36 4 12 6 11 9 41 28 0 392 92 22 58 9 24 36 56 5 46 10 16 8 64 31 6 44 71 41 2 55 2 11 7 17 9 95 0 2 0 41 2 24 7 27 0 68 6 2 065 7 37 5 10 2 43 8 1 49 5 7 84 31 49 1 10 3 8 12 4 25 9 30 0 12 0 23 5 27 6 37 21 0 2825 15 11 3 7 10 8 10 1 8 4 32 1 43 9837 5 23 43 9 49 6 0 FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S 49 91 39 FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S 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 . FU T U R E SI T E A C C E S S 20 BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S D R . LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 8 Traffic Impact Analysis All counts were adjusted to represent the 30th-highest hour of traffic during the winter, based on Caltrans hourly traffic counts at a point on SR 267 between Brockway Road and Airport Road (the only location on SR 267 for which hourly count data is available). The Caltrans data indicates that there was no significant traffic growth on SR 267 in Martis Valley between 2011 and 2012. Therefore, the SR 267/Northstar Drive intersection count is assumed to reflect 2012 conditions. The SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection count was then increased to balance with SR 267/Northstar Drive intersection volumes. Based upon a review of Caltrans historical traffic count data at a point on SR 267 north of SR 28 in Kings Beach, an average annual growth rate of approximately 2 percent was applied to the SR 28/SR 267 intersection counts, in order to adjust them to 2012 conditions. The resulting 2012 winter peak-hour intersection turning movements without PC-3 are presented in Table 1. Existing Transit Service Both the Town of Truckee and Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) transit services operate within the vicinity of the project site. Truckee Transit The Town of Truckee offers both fixed route and Dial-A-Ride service in the Truckee area. The fixed route service varies by season. During the winter season (mid-December through the end of March) a free fixed route/ski shuttle service is offered 7 days per week throughout Truckee and the Donner Summit area from approximately 6:00 AM to Noon and 2:45 PM to 6:15 PM. This shuttle passes the PC-3 site as it travels south over the SR 267 Bypass and west on Brockway Road. The closest stop to PC-3 is at the intersection of Brockway Road and Martis Valley Road. The shuttle passes this stop 4 times eastbound each day. During the non-winter season (April through mid-December) buses serve the Truckee and Donner Lake areas on a fixed hourly schedule from 9:00 AM to 1:10 PM and from 2:10 PM to 5:00 PM, every day except Sunday. The westbound bus travels south over the SR 267 Bypass, east on Soaring Way to the airport, then north on SR 267 and west on Brockway Road. The closest existing stops to PC-3 are at the airport and at the intersection of Brockway Road and Martis Valley Road. The shuttle passes these stops 7 times each day. The Truckee Dial-A-Ride service is offered year-round to the general public with priority service for seniors and persons with disabilities. This paratransit service is available for trips within the Town limits, over the same hours and days as the fixed route service. Reservations must be made at least 24 hours in advance to schedule a Dial-A-Ride trip. TABLE 1: 2012 Winter Intersection PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes without Project Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total SR 267 / Airport Road / Schaffer Mill Road 19 1123 15 8 560 21 42 1 9 5 2 18 1,823 SR 267 / Northstar Drive 89 303 -- -- 385 189 854 -- 513 -- -- -- 2,333 SR 267 / SR 28 0 0 0 452 0 451 240 574 0 1 445 264 2,427 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC-3 land use.xlsx PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 9 TART Placer County’s Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) fixed route buses serve the north and west shores of Lake Tahoe and the Truckee area. This service also varies by season. During the winter season (mid-December through mid-April), the SR 267 route between Truckee and Crystal Bay operates 7 days a week from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. This bus passes near the PC-3 area as it travels along SR 267 and Brockway Road, with stops at the Truckee Airport, the Hampton Inn on SR 267, and at the intersection of Brockway Road/Martis Valley Road. The bus passes these stops 11 times each day in each direction. During the non-winter months (mid-April through mid-December), no service is provided along SR 267, although service is provided between Tahoe City and Truckee (with a connection provided at the Truckee Depot where passengers can transfer to the Town of Truckee Bus serving the SR 267 Bypass and Brockway Road near the PC-3 site). Existing Trail and Bikeway System Truckee’s existing trail and bikeway system includes recreational trails/Class I (separated) bike paths that are in place through the Truckee River Regional Park between Brockway Road and SR 267, east of SR 267 to the Riverview Sports Park, and in short sections north of the Pioneer Commerce Center, Gray’s Crossing and Old Greenwood developments, along Brockway Road, and along Deerfield Drive. Class II bike lanes are also provided along Donner Pass Road through the Gateway area. A Class I bike path is provided adjacent to The Rock retail center along the north side of Brockway Road, and additional trails/Class I bike paths will be built in conjunction with smaller development projects in the Brockway Road area. Several other facilities are proposed in the 2002 Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, which describes a comprehensive system of bikeways located along Truckee’s existing and future roadways, as well as a dedicated network of trails and pathways for use by pedestrians, equestrians, cyclists and cross-country skiers. The facilities proposed in the Master Plan include a major East-West Recreational Trail, Multi-User Recreational Trails, Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, and Class III Bike Routes. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 10 Traffic Impact Analysis This page left intentionally blank. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 11 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. The PC-3 Joerger Ranch Development Project includes planning areas located on 14 parcels in the four quadrants of the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. The proposed development consists of residential, retail commercial and non-retail commercial uses. A potential grocery store (about 50,000 square feet) is included in the retail commercial area. The specific elements of each planning area of the proposed development are summarized in Table 2, and the proposed site plan is included in Appendix A. TRIP GENERATION “Trip generation analysis” is the process by which transportation analysts identify the number of vehicle-trips that a specific proposed land use plan will add to the surrounding roadway network. For a simple proposal such as a single land use, this can be a relatively straightforward process of applying trip generation rates (the number of trips per unit of land use) observed at similar existing developments, and then potentially adjusting for specific local characteristics. For the PC-3 Project, however, the variety of mixed uses proposed to be constructed, the need to estimate traffic volumes on internal roadways, and the effects of pass-by and intercepted trips require a more complex trip generation analysis. The need to evaluate traffic conditions at intersections both external to the site as well as internal to the site also complicates this analysis. First, it is necessary to identify a number of planning assumptions for this analysis: • All residential units are assumed to be 100 percent occupied during the period of analysis. • A public parking lot with about 12 parking spaces is proposed to be provided in the southwest area of the PC-3 site (accessed via Hope Court). This lot could potentially be used as either a park n ride lot or trailhead parking for the existing and future Class I trail network on the south side of State Route (SR) 267. Approximately 21 one-way vehicle trips (10 entering and 11 exiting) are assumed to be made to/from this parking lot during the PM peak hour, based on the traffic volumes projected for the potential trailhead parking lot at the northern terminus of the Martis Valley Trail (reference the Martis Valley Trail Parking Alternative Access Intersections Analysis, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., March 13, 2012). In addition, about 40 percent of the total daily trail use is estimated to occur during the peak hour on a typical busy summer day (reference the Martis Valley Trail Use Forecasts, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2011). This assumption is applied in estimating the daily trip generation of the potential public parking lot in PC-3. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 12 Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 2: PC-3 Joerger Ranch - Land Use Quantities 10/18/12 Parcel Zone FAR Quantity Units 1 & 2 BIZ BUSINESS INNOVATION ZONE 13.97 0.2 121.71 KSF 760 Research & Development Center 50% 60.86 KSF 770 Business Park 50% 60.85 KSF 3 RM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 3.48 12 42 DU 220 Apartment 100% 42 DU 4 & 5 CL LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL 7.59 0.2 66.12 KSF 814 Specialty Retail 100% 66.12 KSF 6 CL LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL 7.59 0.2 66.12 KSF 814 Specialty Retail 70% 46.28 KSF 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 30% 19.84 KSF 7 OS OPEN SPACE 2.73 n/a -- Park n Ride Lot/Trailhead Parking 12 Spaces 8 M1 MANUFACTURING / INDUSTRIAL 5.56 0.2 48.44 KSF 130 Industrial Park 70% 33.91 KSF 760 Research & Development Center 30% 14.53 KSF 9 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 1.62 0.2 14.11 KSF 814 Specialty Retail 70% 9.88 KSF 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 30% 4.23 KSF 10 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 1.20 0.2 10.45 KSF 814 Specialty Retail 100% 10.45 KSF 11 & 12 M1 MANUFACTURING / INDUSTRIAL 3.93 0.2 34.24 KSF 130 Industrial Park 70% 23.97 KSF 760 Research & Development Center 30% 10.27 KSF 13 M1 MANUFACTURING / INDUSTRIAL 4.08 0.2 35.54 KSF 130 Industrial Park 70% 24.88 KSF 760 Research & Development Center 30% 10.66 KSF 14 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 3.25 0.2 28.31 KSF 814 Specialty Retail 70% 19.82 KSF 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 20% 5.66 KSF 946 Gas/Service Station with Conv. Market & Car Wash 10% 8 VFP CR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL 11.69 0.4 203.69 KSF 820 Shopping Center 75% 153.69 KSF 850 Supermarket 25% 50.00 KSF Note: FAR = Floor Area Ratio, KSF = 1,000 square feet of floor area, DU = dwelling unit, VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions. PC-3 land use.xls Description / ITE Land Use Code / ITE Land Use Parcel Size (Acres) Assumed Mix PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 13 Base Trip Generation Prior to Application of Reductions The trip generation analysis summarized in Table 3. This analysis is conducted by first identifying appropriate “base” trip generation rates, multiplying these rates by the proposed land use quantities associated with the PC-3 development proposal, and then applying a series of adjustment factors to reflect the specific characteristics of the project and its location. The traffic engineering profession developed an extensive database regarding the traffic generated by common land use types, as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition manual (ITE, 2012). This document is typically used as the basis for traffic analyses in the Town of Truckee. The trip generation associated with the PC-3 Project is primarily based upon the ITE trip rates, modified as discussed below to reflect various factors that tend to reduce the traffic generation of the project. Standard ITE trip generation rates are applied to all of the land use quantities to estimate daily and PM peak hour trip generation, with the exception of the shopping center and the research and development center uses. For these land uses, regression equations are applied rather than average trip rates, in accordance with the “Recommended Procedure for Selecting between Trip Generation Average Rates and Equations” methodology presented in the Trip Generation Handbook, 9th Edition (ITE, 2012). Reductions for Non-Auto Trips The trip generation rates presented in the ITE Trip Generation manual reflect a negligible level of transit use and the modest level of pedestrian/bicycle travel found in typical suburban settings. For the purposes of this analysis, no reductions are applied for trips made via transit, as the transit service currently provided in the Town of Truckee is relatively limited in scope and frequency. Portions of project-generated trips are expected to be made by pedestrians or bicyclists, especially some of the internal trips made within the shopping center/grocery store parcel (Parcel 14). However, in order to remain conservative in this analysis, no additional reduction is applied for trips made via non-auto modes, as the number of non-auto trips that would impact external roadways is expected to be minimal. Reductions for Internal Trips Made Within Each PC-3 Zone As is typical of mixed-use developments, a portion of the total trips generated are expected to be comprised of trips remaining within the site. For example, some trips generated by the retail uses can be expected to be made from one retail use to another retail use within the same parcel (such as Parcel 14). It is appropriate to apply a reduction for these internal retail-to-retail trips, as they would not affect the parcel driveways. The internal trip generation of the proposed retail parcels is estimated based upon the internal capture rates for trip origins and destinations within a multi-use development presented in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The estimated portion of the trip generation that would be internal to each retail parcel is shown in the middle column of Table 3. Although Parcel 14 has multiple driveways, it is assumed that trips can be made from one point to another point within the parcel without leaving the parcel. As indicated, the overall reduction for trips made internal within each project zone equates to about 17 percent. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 14 Traffic Impact Analysis Resulting Total Trip Generation – At Site Driveways Applying the reductions for internal trips made within each zone from the total trip generation yields the number of trips generated at the site driveways. As indicated in the lower portion of the table, an estimated 23,271 daily one-way vehicle trips and 1,992 PM peak-hour trips (908 entering and 1,084 exiting) would occur at the site driveways. Note that not all of these trips would be “new” trips to the area. Reductions for Internal Trips Made Between PC-3 Zones Some of the project trips can be expected to be made from one PC-3 zone to another PC-3 zone. For instance, some trips generated by the shopping center on Parcel 14 can be expected TABLE 3: PC-3 Joerger Ranch - Trip Generation Analysis Project Generated Vehicle Trips at Site Access 2 PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Parcel Zone Quantity Units Daily In Out Total Daily In Out Total 1 & 2 BIZ BUSINESS INNOVATION ZONE 121.71 KSF 760 Research & Development Center 50% 60.86 KSF 8.11 Equation 3 0% 494 12 69 81 770 Business Park 50% 60.85 KSF 12.44 0.33 0.93 1.26 0% 757 20 57 77 Subtotal Zone 121.71 KSF 1,251 32 126 158 3 RM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 42 DU 220 Apartment 100% 42 DU 6.65 0.40 0.22 0.62 0% 279 17 9 26 4 & 5 CL LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL 66.12 KSF 826 Specialty Retail Center 100% 66.12 KSF 44.32 1.19 1.52 2.71 0% 2,930 79 100 179 6 CL LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL 66.12 KSF 826 Specialty Retail Center 70% 46.28 KSF 44.32 1.19 1.52 2.71 20% 1,641 44 56 100 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 30% 19.84 KSF 127.15 5.91 3.94 9.85 13% 2,195 102 68 170 Subtotal Zone 66.12 KSF 3,836 146 124 270 7 OS OPEN SPACE -- Park n Ride Lot/Trailhead Parking 12 Spaces N/A 4 0% 55 11 11 22 8 M1 MANUFACTURING / INDUSTRIAL 48.44 KSF 130 Industrial Park 70% 33.91 KSF 6.83 0.18 0.67 0.85 0% 232 6 23 29 760 Research & Development Center 30% 14.53 KSF 8.11 Equation 3 0% 118 3 16 19 Subtotal Zone 48.44 KSF 350 9 39 48 9 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 14.11 KSF 826 Specialty Retail Center 70% 9.88 KSF 44.32 1.19 1.52 2.71 19% 355 10 12 22 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 30% 4.23 KSF 127.15 5.91 3.94 9.85 12% 473 22 15 37 Subtotal Zone 14.11 KSF 828 32 27 59 10 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 10.45 KSF 826 Specialty Retail Center 100% 10.45 KSF 44.32 1.19 1.52 2.71 0% 463 12 16 28 11 & 12 M1 MANUFACTURING / INDUSTRIAL 34.24 KSF 130 Industrial Park 70% 23.97 KSF 6.83 0.18 0.67 0.85 0% 164 4 16 20 760 Research & Development Center 30% 10.27 KSF 8.11 Equation 3 0% 83 2 12 14 Subtotal Zone 34.24 KSF 247 6 28 34 13 M1 MANUFACTURING / INDUSTRIAL 35.54 KSF 130 Industrial Park 70% 24.88 KSF 6.83 0.18 0.67 0.85 0% 170 4 17 21 760 Research & Development Center 30% 10.66 KSF 8.11 Equation 3 0% 86 2 12 14 Subtotal Zone 35.54 KSF 256 6 29 35 14 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 28.31 KSF 826 Specialty Retail Center 70% 19.82 KSF 44.32 1.19 1.52 2.71 40% 527 14 18 32 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 20% 5.66 KSF 127.15 5.91 3.94 9.85 40% 432 20 14 34 946 Gas/Service Station with Conv. Market and Car Wash 10% 8 VFP 152.84 7.07 6.79 13.86 40% 734 34 33 67 CR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL 203.69 KSF 820 Shopping Center 75% 153.69 KSF EQ 5 Equation 6 17% 7,453 318 345 663 850 Supermarket 25% 50.00 KSF 102.24 4.83 4.65 9.48 29% 3,630 172 165 337 Subtotal Zone 432.86 KSF 12,776 558 575 1,133 TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 17% 23,271 908 1,084 1,992 NOTE: FAR = Floor Area Ratio, KSF = 1,000 square feet of floor area, DU = dwelling unit, VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions. NOTE 1: Trip generation rates are based on Trip Generation, 9th Edition (ITE, 2012), unless noted otherwise. NOTE 2: The trips at the site driveways are not all new trips on the adjacent roadway network. NOTE 3: Peak hour trip generation for ITE land use 760 is estimated using the equation: Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(x) + 1.06. NOTE 4: Trips are estimated based on Martis Valley Trail use Forecasts. Trip rate per space is not applicable. NOTE 5: Daily trip generation for ITE land use 820 is estimated using the equation: Ln(T) = 0.65 Ln(x) + 5.83. NOTE 6: Peak hour trip generation for ITE land use 820 is estimated using the equation: Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(x) + 3.31. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC-3 land use.xls Description / ITE Land Use Code / ITE Land Use Assumed Mix Reduction for Internal Trips within Each Parcel Trip Generation Rates1 PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 15 to be made to the retail uses on Parcel 6, and vice versa. Though considered a single project, the separate planning areas of PC-3 Joerger Ranch create a situation where the typical internal trips generated do not necessarily remain internal with regards to accessing public roadways. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the internal trips which require the use of public roadways. The number of project trips that would affect the site driveways, but would remain internal to the PC-3 site was estimated as follows: 1. The internal trip generation of multi-use sites is directly related to the mix of on-site land uses, which are usually combinations of shopping centers/retail, office, and residential. The methodologies contained within the ITE Trip Generation Handbook were used to estimate the number of PM peak-hour trips that would occur between the residential, retail and office (non-retail commercial) uses. For the purposes of calculating internal trips, all land uses were categorized within the residential, retail or office uses. The internal trips were analyzed for the entire project as a whole, rather than for each planning area separately. Internal trips made between the supermarket/shopping center parcel and other PC-3 retail zones (retail- to-retail trips) were also estimated. The resulting reductions for trips made from one PC-3 zone to another PC-3 zone are shown in Table 4. 2. Next, the calculated internal trips were subtracted from the total trips generated by the entire project. 3. The internal trips were redistributed back to each individual planning area based on the proportion of land use quantities in each area. As shown in the table, about 5 percent to 25 percent of trips associated with each planning area are assumed to remain internal to the entire project site. Overall, the calculated portion of internal trips made between PC-3 zones is about 14 percent. The number of internal trips per planning area was subtracted from the total trips generated, in order to determine the number of external trips generated per planning area. A total of approximately 19,669 daily external one-way trips, with 1,706 (773 entering and 933 exiting) are associated with the project, as a whole, during the PM peak hour. Note that these trips are not all new to the adjacent roadway network. 4. Finally, internal trips which use public roadways were then inserted back into the model and assigned to the intersections they would affect. Reductions for Pass-By Trips A portion of trips associated with the proposed land uses are expected to be “pass-by” trips, or trips attracted from traffic passing the site on SR 267 or Brockway Road. Pass-by trips generate traffic on the access driveways, but do not add new traffic on regional roadways (as they are made by vehicles already passing by the site that will divert to the new land use as part of a longer trip). As an example, a Northstar resident commuting to work in downtown Truckee passing by the site along SR 267 might stop at the site, thereby generating new trips on the site access driveway but not generating new trips along SR 267. The portion of pass-by trips generated by the proposed retail uses is estimated based upon a review of average pass-by trip percentages provided in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook for various retail land use types. As shown in Table 4, the estimated pass-by trip percentages for each land use type range from 34 percent to 56 percent. No pass-by trips are assumed to be associated with the non-retail uses. Overall, about 30 percent of project-generated external trips are estimated to consist of pass-by traffic. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 16 Traffic Impact Analysis Some of the trips that are currently made between the area and other areas will be “intercepted” by the proposed development, reflecting existing trips past the site to a more remote destination that instead will terminate at a site land use (such as a grocery store). These reductions are discussed after the project trips are assigned to the various study roadways. TABLE 4: PC-3 Joerger Ranch - External Trip Generation Project Generated Vehicle Trips at Site Access 1 Project Generated Vehicle Trips External to PC-3 Project Impact on External Roadways PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Parcel Zone Daily In Out Total Daily In Out Total Daily In Out Total 1 & 2 BIZ BUSINESS INNOVATION ZONE 760 Research & Development Center 494 12 69 81 9% 450 11 63 74 0% 450 11 63 74 770 Business Park 757 20 57 77 9% 689 18 52 70 0% 689 18 52 70 Subtotal Zone 1,251 32 126 158 1,139 29 115 144 1,139 29 115 144 3 RM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 220 Apartment 279 17 9 26 25% 209 13 7 20 0% 209 13 7 20 4 & 5 CL LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL 826 Specialty Retail Center 2,930 79 100 179 24% 2,227 60 76 136 34% 1,470 40 50 90 6 CL LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL 826 Specialty Retail Center 1,641 44 56 100 24% 1,247 33 43 76 34% 823 22 28 50 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 2,195 102 68 170 24% 1,668 78 51 129 43% 958 45 29 74 Subtotal Zone 3,836 146 124 270 2,915 111 94 205 1,781 67 57 124 7 OS OPEN SPACE -- Park n Ride Lot/Trailhead Parking 55 11 11 22 5% 52 10 11 21 0% 52 10 11 21 8 M1 MANUFACTURING / INDUSTRIAL 130 Industrial Park 232 6 23 29 9% 211 5 21 26 0% 211 5 21 26 760 Research & Development Center 118 3 16 19 9% 107 3 14 17 0% 107 3 14 17 Subtotal Zone 350 9 39 48 318 8 35 43 318 8 35 43 9 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 826 Specialty Retail Center 355 10 12 22 24% 270 8 9 17 34% 178 5 6 11 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 473 22 15 37 24% 359 17 11 28 43% 206 10 6 16 Subtotal Zone 828 32 27 59 629 25 20 45 384 15 12 27 10 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 826 Specialty Retail Center 463 12 16 28 24% 352 9 12 21 34% 232 6 8 14 11 & 12 M1 MANUFACTURING / INDUSTRIAL 130 Industrial Park 164 4 16 20 9% 149 4 14 18 0% 149 4 14 18 760 Research & Development Center 83 2 12 14 9% 76 2 11 13 0% 76 2 11 13 Subtotal Zone 247 6 28 34 225 6 25 31 225 6 25 31 13 M1 MANUFACTURING / INDUSTRIAL 130 Industrial Park 170 4 17 21 9% 155 4 15 19 0% 155 4 15 19 760 Research & Development Center 86 2 12 14 9% 78 2 11 13 0% 78 2 11 13 Subtotal Zone 256 6 29 35 233 6 26 32 233 6 26 32 14 CRS REGIONAL SUPPORT COMMERCIAL 826 Specialty Retail Center 527 14 18 32 11% 469 12 16 28 34% 310 8 10 18 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 432 20 14 34 11% 384 18 12 30 43% 220 10 7 17 946 Gas/Service Station with Conv. Market and Car Wash 734 34 33 67 11% 653 30 30 60 56% 284 13 13 26 CR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL 820 Shopping Center 7,453 318 345 663 11% 6,633 283 307 590 34% 4,347 185 202 387 850 Supermarket 3,630 172 165 337 11% 3,231 153 147 300 36% 2,068 98 94 192 Subtotal Zone 12,776 558 575 1,133 11,370 496 512 1,008 7,229 314 326 640 TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 23,271 908 1,084 1,992 14% 19,669 773 933 1,706 30% 13,272 514 672 1,186 Additional Reductions in 2012 Intercepted Trips To/From South (Martis Valley/Northstar Areas) -55 -56 -111 Intercepted Trips To/From West (Brockway Road area) -5 -5 -10 Subtotal Intercepted Trips in 2012 -60 -61 -121 2012 PROJECT NET IMPACT ON EXTERNAL ROADWAYS 454 611 1,065 Additional Reductions in Future 2032 Intercepted Trips To/From South (Martis Valley/Northstar Areas) -53 -54 -107 Intercepted Trips To/From West (Brockway Road area) -9 -9 -18 Subtotal Intercepted Trips in 2032 -62 -63 -125 2032 PROJECT NET IMPACT ON EXTERNAL ROADWAYS 452 609 1,061 NOTE 1: Reference Trip Generation Table 3. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC-3 land use.xls Reduction for Pass-By TripsDescription / ITE Land Use Code / ITE Land Use Reduction for Trips Made Between PC-3 Zones PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 17 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of project-generated traffic was developed using the Truckee TransCAD traffic model. A “Select Zone Analysis” was performed to identify the proportion of trips generated by the site to and from each distribution area/gate in the study area. Adjustments were made to reflect the types of trips generated by the proposed project land uses, the site’s location with respect to inter-regional access (access to Central Valley/Bay Area, SR 89 and SR 267 to the south, and Truckee/Reno to the east) as well as local access (access to other commercial, recreational, and residential areas within Truckee). Trips made by PC-3 residents would have different distribution patterns than trips made by PC-3 commercial customers and employees. The distribution pattern for the PC-3 commercial non-retail uses was estimated based upon a review of the residence locations for Truckee employees (as provided in the Town of Truckee Mobility Needs Assessment, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., June, 2012). Distribution zones were categorized into the origin/destination locations shown in Table 5. As indicated in the table, the project-generated trips are widely distributed, with the heaviest distribution of PC-3 residential trips (16 percent) to the Gateway area, the heaviest distribution of PC-3 retail trips (9 percent) to points along nearby Martis Valley Road, and the heaviest distribution of PC-3 commercial non-retail trips (15 percent) to points along I-80 to the east. Travel Time and Trip Assignment A key step in this analysis is to estimate the assignment of site-generated trips to the various travel paths. The total travel times between the project site and the various origin/destination locations were calculated using the actual travel distance, estimated travel speeds, and estimated average intersection delays. A key question is whether PC-3 drivers would use the Bypass or Brockway Road for trips made to/from locations in Truckee to the west of the site, such as the Crossroad/Save Mart shopping area. The estimated traffic assignment between the Bypass and Brockway Road routes are shown in the right-hand columns of Tables 6 and 7 for existing and future cumulative year conditions, respectively. The following assumptions and methodologies are used in the estimation of the route choice: 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. However, the trip assignment assumptions reflect that drivers inherently have a range of preferences that affect route choice, and thus do not all choose to use a single route unless that route has a clear and consistently shorter travel time. • 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 travel time “penalty” to routes that include merging onto the interstate. After these adjustments are made, the results indicate that a substantial portion of project trips using Brockway Road under existing conditions would instead use the Bypass under future cumulative conditions to access the areas listed above, with the exception of trips made to/from LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 18 Traffic Impact Analysis TA B L E 5 : P C - 3 J o e r g e r R a n c h E x t e r n a l T r i p D i s t r i b u t i o n - S u m m e r P M Ex i s t i n g Y e a r 2 0 1 2 F u t u r e Y e a r 2 0 3 2 O r i g i n / D e s t i n a t i o n Re s i d e n t i a l Co m m e r c i a l Re t a i l C o m m e r c i a l No n - R e t a i l R e s i d e n t i a l C o m m e r c i a l Re t a i l C o m m e r c i a l No n - R e t a i l SR 8 9 N o r t h o f T r u c k e e 1 % 1 % 3 % 1 % 1 % 3 % SR 2 8 W e s t o f S R 2 6 7 4 % 4 % 5 % 4 % 4 % 5 % SR 2 8 E a s t o f S R 2 6 7 7 % 3 % 1 2 % 7 % 3 % 1 2 % SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n N o r t h s t a r D r i v e a n d S R 2 8 ( K i n g s B e a c h ) 2 % 3 % 5 % 2 % 3 % 5 % I- 8 0 , W e s t o f T r u c k e e 2 % 3 % 3 % 2 % 3 % 3 % I- 8 0 E a s t 4 % 3 % 1 5 % 0 % 3 % 1 5 % W e s t R i v e r S t r e e t 5 % 1 % 1 % 3 % 1 % 1 % SR 8 9 S o u t h o f T r u c k e e 4 % 3 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 4 % Ga t e w a y A r e a & D o n n e r L a k e 1 6 % 7 % 5 % 1 4 % 7 % 5 % Cr o s s r o a d s / S a v e M a r t A r e a 4 % 2 % 2 % 3 % 2 % 2 % Ta h o e D o n n e r 1 % 5 % 6 % 1 % 3 % 6 % Do w n t o w n T r u c k e e 1 2 % 4 % 2 % 1 1 % 5 % 2 % Ra i l y a r d ( f u t u r e ) - - - - - - 8 % 8 % 2 % Gl e n s h i r e D r i v e 2 % 7 % 1 2 % 2 % 6 % 1 2 % Pa l i s a d e s D r i v e 4 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 3 % 3 % Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n P a l i s a d e s D r i v e a n d M a r t i s V a l l e y R 4% 6 % 3 % 3 % 5 % 3 % Ma r t i s V a l l e y R o a d 4 % 9 % 8 % 4 % 7 % 7 % Pi o n e e r T r a i l 1 1 % 8 % 1 % 1 1 % 6 % 1 % SR 8 9 N o r t h , b e t w e e n D o n n e r P a s s R o a d a n d A l d e r C r e e k 3 % 6 % 5 % 5 % 6 % 5 % No r t h s t a r D r i v e 3 % 8 % 2 % 2 % 7 % 2 % Sc h a f f e r M i l l R o a d 2 % 8 % 1 % 3 % 8 % 1 % Ho p e C o u r t 0 % 1 % 1 % 0 % 1 % 1 % Jo e r g e r D r i v e ( N o r t h o f P C - 3 ) 2 % 1 % 0 % 3 % 1 % 0 % Tr u c k e e A i r p o r t R o a d 3 % 3 % 0 % 3 % 3 % 0 % T o t a l 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 0 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 . PC - 3 L a n d u s e . x l s PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 19 points along West River Street west of McIver Crossing (for which Brockway Road would serve all drivers). This reflects the increase in traffic delays that are forecast in Downtown Truckee with future development and provision of traffic signals on Bridge Street at West River Street and Donner Pass Road. Finally, for trips made between the shopping center (Parcel 14 including the proposed supermarket) and points along SR 267 to the south of the site, approximately 75 percent of the Assumed Traffic Assignment Location Brockway Road SR 267 Bypass West River Street West of McIver Crossing 100% 0% SR 89 South of Truckee 95% 5% Gateway/Donner Lake 5% 95% Crossroads/Save Mart area 55% 45% Tahoe Donner 50% 50% Downtown Truckee (north of rail tracks) 90% 10% Glenshire Drive 30% 70% Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC3 Traffic Assignment.xls Existing Year 2012 TABLE 6: PC-3 Existing 2012 Trip Assignment – SR 267 Bypass versus Brockway Road Assumed Traffic Assignment Location Brockway Road SR 267 Bypass West River Street West of McIver Crossing 100% 0% SR 89 South of Truckee 45% 55% Gateway/Donner Lake 0% 100% Crossroads/Save Mart area 5% 95% Tahoe Donner 0% 100% Downtown Truckee (north of rail tracks) 20% 80% Railyard 10% 90% Glenshire Drive 0% 1 100% Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC3 Traffic Assignment.xls Future Year 2032 Note 1: All inbound trips from Glenshire Drive are assumed to use bypass. About 35 percent of outbound trips from PC-3 west side (on Brockway) to Glenshire Drive are assumed to use the Brockway Road route. TABLE 7: PC-3 Future 2032 Trip Assignment – SR 267 Bypass Versus Brockway Road LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 20 Traffic Impact Analysis outbound trips are assumed to access the site via the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection, and the remaining 25 percent of the outbound trips are assumed to use Airport Road. All of the inbound trips to the shopping center from points to the south on SR 267 are assumed to access the site via the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. Based upon the distribution patterns and the route choice assumptions, the assignment of project-generated traffic is established. The reductions for pass-by trips were allocated to the various roadways based on the distribution of the “no project” turning movement volumes. Reductions for Intercepted Trips The project would provide a new “intervening trip opportunity” for persons currently driving from points along SR 267 to the south of the site (Martis Valley, Northstar, Kings Beach) to Truckee or Reno (or elsewhere) to accomplish their trip purpose. For instance, a resident of Martis Valley who currently shops at one of the existing two supermarkets in Truckee (in Gateway Center and Crossroads Center) may choose to patronize a supermarket in PC-3, thereby intercepting an existing trip. As a result, some of the trips that are currently made between the area and other areas will be “intercepted” by the proposed development, resulting in reduced traffic volumes on the Bypass and other select off-site intersections and roadways. About 30 percent of PC-3 retail trips made to/from the south on SR 267 are expected to be intercepted trips. This estimate was developed based upon a review of the origin-destination tables from the Truckee TransCAD traffic model, adjusted to reflect the fact that the current PC-3 project includes more retail floor area than the PC-3 development assumed in the TransCAD model. Under existing year conditions, this equates to approximately 111 summer PM peak-hour intercepted trips (55 inbound and 56 outbound) made to/from the south (Martis Valley/Northstar areas). Similarly, under future cumulative year conditions, approximately 107 summer PM peak- hour trips (53 inbound and 54 outbound) made between PC-3 retail uses and points to the south are intercepted. These reductions are shown in the lower right corner of Table 4. Under existing and future winter conditions, approximately 119 PM peak-hour (59 inbound and 60 outbound) made between PC-3 retail uses and points to the south are expected to be intercepted trips. Similarly, the project would provide new opportunities for those making trips to/from the neighborhoods along Brockway Road, particularly under future cumulative conditions when the route through downtown Truckee is expected to have substantial travel delays. Based on origin- destination data from the TransCAD model, the fact that the current PC-3 project proposes more retail floor area than the PC-3 development in the TransCAD model, and the relative travel times via the downtown routes versus the Bypass, approximately 14 percent of PC-3 retail trips made to/from the neighborhoods along Brockway Road would shift from another shopping destination, resulting in reduced traffic volumes at select off-site intersections and roadways. Of these trips, about 10 summer PM peak-hour trips (5 inbound and 5 outbound) are expected to be intercepted trips under existing year conditions, and 18 summer PM peak-hour trips (9 inbound and 9 outbound) would be intercepted under future cumulative conditions. These reductions are also shown in the lower right corner of Table 4. Note that it is not necessary to estimate intercepted trips to/from Brockway Road in the winter, as the winter analysis does not include intersections and roadways within the Town of Truckee Limits. All other PC-3 land uses are assumed to have no intercepted trips, as these non-retail land uses are assumed to be a primary origin/destination of a vehicle-trip. Overall, about 10 percent of external trips generated by the site are estimated to be intercepted trips. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 21 Resulting Project Impact – On External Roadways Subtracting the number of pass-by and intercepted trips from the total external trips yields the number of new trips generated on external roadways (such as the Bypass). As indicated in the lower right corner of Table 4, an estimated 1,065 new PM peak-hour trips (454 inbound and 611 outbound) would be generated on the external roadway network with the proposed project under 2012 summer conditions. Similarly, an estimated 1,061 new PM peak-hour trips (452 inbound and 609 outbound) would be generated on the external roadway network with the proposed project under future cumulative 2032 summer conditions. The 2012 and 2032 project net impact on summer PM peak-hour turning-movement volumes through the study intersections are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. In addition, the project net impact on winter PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the three study intersections located in Placer County in 2012 and 2032 are shown in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. Adding the 2012 “no project” volumes to the “project net impact” volumes yields the “2012 with project” volumes shown in Figure 5 (summer). The “2012 with project” volumes through the Placer County intersections in the winter are shown in Table 10. Note that the future cumulative volumes with the project are discussed in Chapter 5. Finally, the project is estimated to result in a net increase of approximately 426 PM peak-hour trips (231 northbound and 195 southbound) on the SR 267 Bypass under 2012 summer conditions. Similarly, the net increase under 2032 summer conditions is estimated to be approximately 579 total two-way PM peak-hour trips (319 northbound and 260 southbound). Note that the project impact on Bypass volumes under winter conditions is not included in this study, given that winter conditions are only evaluated at intersections and roadways located within Placer County. Comparison between Proposed PC-3 Project and Assumptions in General Plan The proposed PC-3 project has been compared to the assumed PC-3 project in the General Plan. The PC-3 land use assumptions in the current Truckee TransCAD model were revised several times subsequent to adoption of the General Plan. The PC-3 land use assumptions in the 2025 General Plan, in the current Truckee TransCAD model, and in the proposed project are listed in Table 11. As indicated, the proposed project has fewer multi-family units, more commercial floor area, and less light industrial use than previously assumed. The total PM peak-hour trip generation at the site access points was reviewed under all three models. As shown in the table, the proposed project has a lower level of trip generation than that assumed in the General Plan. However, the proposed project generates more trips at the site access points than that assumed in the current Truckee TransCAD model. Note that these figures include internal trips made from one PC-3 zone to another PC-3 zone, and they do not reflect reductions for pass-by and intercepted trips. Finally, the external trip generation of the proposed PC-3 project can be compared to that assumed in the current TransCAD model. As indicated in Table 4 above, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,706 PM peak-hour trips on external roadways, not including reductions for pass-by and intercepted trips. After reductions for pass-by and intercepted trips, the proposed project generates a net increase of approximately 1,061 PM peak-hour trips on the external roadway network. In comparison, a review of the intersection PM peak-hour turning movements in the current TransCAD model indicates that about 1,300 external trips are generated by the PC-3 project. However, the TransCAD model does not LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 22 Traffic Impact Analysis 0 18 0 0 33 50 51 0 0 0 0 0 89 TR U C K E E 80 26 7 T R A I L P I O N E E R W E S T R I V E R S T . PALLISADES DR. BR O C K W A Y R D . V A L L E Y R . D MA R T I S A I R P O R T R . D S O A R I N G W Y . S C H A F F E R M I L L R . D 8 10 12 4 6 5 1 2 3 11 13 14 9 PC - 3 P R O J E C T N E T I M P A C T D U R I N G 2 0 1 2 S U M M E R P M P E A K H O U R FI G U R E 3 H O P E C T . 18 17 ST R E E T S HI G H W A Y S CO U N T Y B O U N D A R Y WA T E R / L A K E ST U D Y I N T E R S E C T I O N 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 LE G E N D 1 11 9 1 SR 8 9 N / D O N N E R P A S S RD / H E N N E S S R D 5 3 7 11 8 6 10 2 SR 2 6 7 / S R 8 9 N / I- 8 0 W B R A M P DO N N E R P A S S R D . / PI O N E E R T R A I L WE S T R I V E R S T . / MC I V E R C R O S S I N G DO N N E R P A S S R D / BR I D G E S T . 4 DO N N E R P A S S R D / I - 8 0 E. I N T E R C H A N G E WB O N - R A M P 12 BR O C K W A Y R D . / PA L I S A D E S D R . BR I D G E S T . / WE S T R I V E R S T . DO N N E R P A S S R D . / I- 8 0 E . I N T E R C H A N G E EB O F F R A M P SR 2 6 7 / I - 8 0 E B R A M P S DO N N E R P A S S R D . / GL E N S H I R E D R . BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S V A L L E Y R D . Tr u c k e e & M a r t i s V a l l e y 7 26 7 NO R T H S T A R LA K E T A H O E 28 KI N G S BE A C H KI N G S BE A C H N O R T H S T A R D R . TA H O E & N O R T H S T A R 15 16 S C A L E 0 IN M I L E S .5 1 13 14 SR 2 6 7 / B R O C K W A Y R D . / SO A R I N G W A Y SR 2 6 7 / A I R P O R T R D . / SC H A F F E R M I L L R D . 1 9 SO A R I N G W A Y / JO E R G E R D R . / S I T E A C C E S S 15 SR 2 6 7 / N O R T H S T A R D R . 16 SR 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 18 BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S D R . SIT E 14 6 63 12 8 0 17 00 20 9 22 14 5 0 0 0 50 0 18 33 0 18 33 0 0 16 40 -2 1 27 48-1 5 -1 2 -3 14 0 -3 0 0 -3 -1 1 10 -2 0 62 -1 0 0 -4 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 -4 23 46 -4 2965 -2 -1 0 1 14 0 21 5 -7 5 55 85 22 5 18 8924 2 24 7 0 21 0 4 36 -8 -1 13 0 3140 4 0 14 57 10 7 0 0 0 0 8 16 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 75 46 13 20 1 83 65 -2 0 61 0 0 0 69 -2 00 -5 0 50 -1 0 0 -2 -2 12 5 -5 6515 7 -1 5 0 2 0 JO E R G E R D R . / CO M M E R C I A L A C C E S S 64 0 17 BR O C K W A Y R D . / HO P E C T . / S I T E A C C E S S 12 12 23 3 7 18 0 5 1 83 1 38 44 10 3 15 8 75 39 12 6 13 2 91 48 3 0 14 12 52 1 3 41 7 13 0 7 0 0 0 170 19 20 NO T E : N e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e f l e c t r e d u c t i o n s d u e t o p a s s b y a n d i n t e r c e p t e d t r i p s . 4 0 0 53 67 6 PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 23 19 0 92 0 0 10 7 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 89 TR U C K E E 80 26 7 T R A I L P I O N E E R W E S T R I V E R S T . PALLISADES DR. BR O C K W A Y R D . V A L L E Y R . D MA R T I S A I R P O R T R . D S O A R I N G W Y . S C H A F F E R M I L L R . D 8 10 12 4 6 5 1 2 3 11 13 14 9 PC - 3 P R O J E C T N E T I M P A C T D U R I N G 2 0 3 2 S U M M E R P M P E A K H O U R FI G U R E 4 H O P E C T . 18 17 ST R E E T S HI G H W A Y S CO U N T Y B O U N D A R Y WA T E R / L A K E ST U D Y I N T E R S E C T I O N 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 11 9 1 SR 8 9 N / D O N N E R P A S S RD / H E N N E S S R D 5 3 7 11 8 6 10 2 SR 2 6 7 / S R 8 9 N / I- 8 0 W B R A M P DO N N E R P A S S R D . / PI O N E E R T R A I L WE S T R I V E R S T . / MC I V E R C R O S S I N G DO N N E R P A S S R D / BR I D G E S T . 4 DO N N E R P A S S R D / I - 8 0 E. I N T E R C H A N G E WB O N - R A M P 12 BR O C K W A Y R D . / PA L I S A D E S D R . BR I D G E S T . / WE S T R I V E R S T . DO N N E R P A S S R D . / I- 8 0 E . I N T E R C H A N G E EB O F F R A M P SR 2 6 7 / I - 8 0 E B R A M P S DO N N E R P A S S R D . / GL E N S H I R E D R . BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S V A L L E Y R D . Tr u c k e e & M a r t i s V a l l e y 7 26 7 NO R T H S T A R LA K E T A H O E 28 KI N G S BE A C H KI N G S BE A C H N O R T H S T A R D R . TA H O E & N O R T H S T A R 15 16 S C A L E 0 IN M I L E S .5 1 13 14 SR 2 6 7 / B R O C K W A Y R D . /S O A R I N G W A Y SR 2 6 7 / A I R P O R T R D . / SC H A F F E R M I L L R D . 1 9 SO A R I N G W A Y / JO E R G E R D R . / S I T E A C C E S S 15 SR 2 6 7 / N O R T H S T A R D R . 16 SR 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 18 BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S D R . 20 SIT E 20 5 79 17 8 0 18 00 28 4 35 19 6 0 0 0 63 0 92 10 7 0 92 10 7 0 0 -2 4 49 43 8 5948 -2 -3 5 0 -6 0 0 -6 -7 4 -6 0 15 -1 0 0 -8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 -3 18 1 -3 23 17 19 -1 2 5 13 4 27 0 -1 0 3 92 13 2 17 0 36 8418 7 31 2 0 18 0 6 27 -1 6 -1 4 0 2940 6 0 20 48 9 0 0 0 0 2 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 75 46 12 28 1 15 7 51 -3 0 48 0 0 0 14 2 -1 2 0 0 0 0 38 -9 0 -1 -1 57 0 49 83 -1 1 0 2 0 JO E R G E R D R . / CO M M E R C I A L A C C E S S 64 0 17 BR O C K W A Y R D . / HO P E C T . / S I T E A C C E S S . 14 14 22 6 16 1 3 1 98 23 24 12 3 18 9 44 20 66 77 11 0 48 0 0 14 12 51 6 3 41 7 13 0 7 0 0 0 170 51 NO T E : N e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e f l e c t r e d u c t i o n s d u e t o p a s s b y a n d i n t e r c e p t e d t r i p s . 0 -3 0 0 11 19 -2 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 24 Traffic Impact Analysis 19 14 5 41 6 12 4 33 5 12 8 17 1 3 18 9 16 0 5 89 TR U C K E E 80 26 7 T R A I L PI O N E E R W E S T R I V E R S T . M C I V E R PALLISADES DR. BR O C K W A Y R D . V A L L E Y R . D MA R T I S A I R P O R T R . D S O A R I N G W Y . S C H A F F E R M I L L R . D TO T A H O E & NO R T H S T A R 8 10 12 4 6 5 1 2 3 11 13 14 9 20 1 2 S U M M E R P M P E A K H O U R 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 5 H O P E C T . 18 17 ST R E E T S PR O P O S E D S T R E E T S HI G H W A Y S CO U N T Y B O U N D A R Y WA T E R / L A K E ST U D Y I N T E R S E C T I O N 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 RO U N D A B O U T (U M I T I G A T E D C O N D I T I O N ) TR A F F I C S I G N A L (U N M I T I G A T E D C O N D I T I O N ) L E G E N D 1 11 9 1 SR 8 9 N / D O N N E R P A S S RD / H E N N E S S R D 5 3 7 11 8 6 10 2 SR 2 6 7 / S R 8 9 N / I- 8 0 W B R A M P DO N N E R P A S S R D . / PI O N E E R T R A I L WE S T R I V E R S T . / MC I V E R C R O S S I N G DO N N E R P A S S R D / BR I D G E S T . 4 DO N N E R P A S S R D / I - 8 0 E. I N T E R C H A N G E WB O N - R A M P 12 BR O C K W A Y R D . / PA L I S A D E S D R . BR I D G E S T . / WE S T R I V E R S T . DO N N E R P A S S R D . / I- 8 0 E . I N T E R C H A N G E EB O F F R A M P SR 2 6 7 / I - 8 0 E B R A M P S DO N N E R P A S S R D . / GL E N S H I R E D R . BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S V A L L E Y R D . Tr u c k e e & M a r t i s V a l l e y 7 26 7 NO R T H S T A R LA K E T A H O E 28 KI N G S BE A C H KI N G S BE A C H N O R T H S T A R D R . TA H O E & N O R T H S T A R 15 16 S C A L E 0 IN M I L E S .5 1 2 0 JO E R G E R D R . / CO M M E R C I A L A C C E S S 13 14 SR 2 6 7 / B R O C K W A Y R D . /S O A R I N G W A Y SR 2 6 7 / A I R P O R T R D . / SC H A F F E R M I L L R D . 1 9 SO A R I N G W A Y / J O E R G E R DR . / SI T E A C C E S S 15 SR 2 6 7 / N O R T H S T A R D R . 16 SR 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 1817 BR O C K W A Y R D . / HO P E C T . / S I T E A C C E S S BR O C K W A Y R D . / M A R T I S D R . 20 SIT E 44 8 38 5 44 1 45 16 1 3 11 1 74 2 25 5 17 3 42 9 91 0 29 1 68 57 3 36 2 17 8 45 9 36 2 18 2 14 6 19 1 16 5 34 9 40 2 24 6 28 8 15 3 89 25 4 18 81 62 48 37 8 27 7 21 8 12 2 19 28 7 36 7 19 25 47 5 76 91 13 55 2 12 9 30 15 7 15 2 65 0 32 3 10 8 50 2 28 5 45 4 14 4 25 0 28 9 18 1 20 4 26 6 29 8 9233 4 33 9 22 61 0 24 40 60 1 38 918 1 64 6246 48 71 42 6 60 9 12 7 18 6 95 41 46 13 27 7 68 6 2 37 5 65 7 0 22 14 67 1 8 67 5 8 15 9 77 62 6 12 3 9 20 7 32 4 28 0 18 1 23 5 27 6 37 27 9 2625 15 10 8 7 15 8 0 1 6 2 44 6 38 16 3 53 2 8 56 5 62 8 98 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 . 26 0 62 10 1 40 7 25 4 13 1 1 38 83 1 44 10 3 67 1 8 44 75 15 8 39 91 48 3 14 12 52 1 3 64 17 2 0 0 42 0 26 3 0 0 PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 25 TABLE 8: PC-3 Project Net Impact on 2012 Winter Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total SR 267 / Airport Road / Schaffer Mill Road 0 10 2 4 71 2 8 0 0 32 12 4 145 SR 267 / Northstar Drive 0 9 -- -- 30 73 3 -- 0 -- -- -- 115 S R 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 000 1 40 8400000 2 6 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC-3 land use.xlsx TABLE 9: PC-3 Project Net Impact on 2032 Winter Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total SR 267 / Airport Road / Schaffer Mill Road 0 21 2 4 67 6 11 0 0 29 24 4 168 S R 2 6 7 / N o r t h s t a r D r i v e 0 1 7 003 75 9600000 1 1 9 S R 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 000 1 80 1 1800004 4 1 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC-3 land use.xlsx TABLE 11: PC-3 Joerger Ranch - Comparison of Current Project, General Plan, and Truckee Model Source General Plan 355 360 140 2,310 NA Current Truckee TransCAD Model 47 161 243 1,725 1,300 Current Project 2 42 549 83 1,992 1,061 Difference (Current Project Minus General Plan) -313 189 -57 -318 NA Difference (Current Project Minus Truckee Model) -5 388 -160 267 -239 Note: TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zone, DU = dwelling unit, KSF = 1,000 square feet of floor area (rounded to the nearest 1,000), NA = Not Available. Note 1: Includes internal trips made from one PC-3 zone to another PC-3 zone. Does not reflect reductions for pass-by or intercepted trips. Note 2: Potential trailhead parking lot on Parcel 7 is not reflected in this table. Proposed gas station on Parcel 14 is assumed to be roughly 3 KSF. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC-3 land use.xls Net Increase in PM Peak-Hour Trips on External Roadways Total PM Peak-Hour Trip Generation at Site Access Points 1 60, 61, and 62 Truckee Model TAZs PC-3 Project Land Use Assumptions Light Industrial (KSF) Multi-Family (DU) Commercial (KSF) TABLE 10: Winter 2012 PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes with PC-3 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total SR 267 / Airport Road / Schaffer Mill Road 19 1,133 17 12 631 23 50 1 9 37 14 22 1,968 SR 267 / Northstar Drive 89 312 -- -- 415 262 857 -- 513 -- -- -- 2,448 SR 267 / SR 28 0 0 0 466 0 459 244 574 0 1 445 264 2,453 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC-3 land use.xlsx LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 26 Traffic Impact Analysis reflect reductions for pass-by and intercepted trips. Consequently, the proposed project is estimated to result in a smaller increase in external roadway volumes than the PC-3 project assumed in the TransCAD model. Note that an analysis of the PC-3 project impact on external roadways based on the General Plan model is above and beyond the scope of this study. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 27 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, Transportation Research Board, 2010). 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 B. 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. Roundabout LOS is based upon the theory of gap acceptance for the traffic entering the roundabout, and an assessment of the conflicting circulating flow. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 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.” Placer County Placer County defines its LOS standard as “D” for locations within one-half mile of a state highway, and “C” for other locations in the study area. Roadway LOS is measured according to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) per travel lane, based on the ADT thresholds provided in the Placer County General Plan EIR. For the study area, Placer County requires evaluation of summer or winter ADT, whichever is higher. According to County policy, the County’s LOS standards for the state highway system shall be no worse than those adopted in the Placer County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The LOS standard in the CMP for roadways and signalized intersections located along state highways is LOS E. If worst movement LOS at an unsignalized intersection in Placer County exceeds LOS standards, a “Peak-Hour” signal warrant analysis, consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), is required. If the intersection attains minimum signal warrant volumes, mitigation is required. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 28 Traffic Impact Analysis Placer County may allow exceptions to its LOS standards where it finds that the improvements or other measures required to achieve the LOS standards are unacceptable based on established criteria. In allowing any exceptions to established LOS standards, the County shall consider the following factors: • The number of hours per day that the intersection or roadway segment would operate at the conditions worse than the standard • The ability of the required improvement to significantly reduce peak-hour delay and improve traffic operations • The right-of-way needs and the physical impacts on surrounding properties • The visual aesthetics of the required improvement and its impact on community identity and character • Environmental impacts including air quality and noise impacts • Construction and right-of-way acquisition costs • The impacts on general safety • The impacts of the required construction phasing and traffic maintenance • The impacts on quality of life as perceived by residents • Consideration of other environmental, social or economic factors on which the County may base findings to allow exceedance of the standards Exceptions to the standards will only be allowed after all feasible measures and options are explored, including alternative forms of transportation. Martis Valley Community Plan The adopted Martis Valley Community Plan (Placer County, 2003) specifies that the County shall develop and manage its roadway system to maintain the following minimum levels of service (LOS): • LOS “C” on rural roadways, except within one-half mile of state highways where the standard shall be LOS “D.” • LOS”C” on urban/suburban roadways except within one-half mile of state highways where the standards shall be LOS “D.” It also states that the County’s LOS standard for SR 267 shall be no worse than LOS “E.” Caltrans The concept LOS defined in the State Route 267 Transportation Concept Report for Segment 2 (Nevada/Placer County Line to Brockway Summit is LOS “E”. According to Caltrans standards, this threshold should be applied to state highways unless a local jurisdiction has adopted a higher standard for identification of significant impacts for any improvement project requiring an encroachment permit from Caltrans. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 29 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency The LOS standards for the Lake Tahoe Basin, established by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), require that the following LOS not be exceeded during peak-period traffic flow: • LOS C on rural scenic/recreational roads • LOS D in rural developed areas • LOS D on urban roads • LOS D for signalized intersections – LOS E may be acceptable during peak periods not to exceed 4 hours per day The TRPA does not have a specific adopted standard for unsignalized intersections. Consistent with the approach used in other traffic analyses conducted for projects in the Tahoe Region, an approach or movement of an unsignalized intersection operating at LOS F would be identified as a concern. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY A microscopic traffic simulation was created for the SR 267 corridor using the SimTraffic software package (Version 8, TrafficWare). The simulation model includes four of the study intersections along SR 267. Listed from north to south, the following intersections are evaluated in the simulation: • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Eastbound Ramps • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road The intersection Level of Service (LOS) at the four intersections above is based on the results of the simulation. Intersection (LOS) for the remaining study intersections is largely evaluated using the methodologies documented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), as applied in the Synchro 8.0 Software package developed by TrafficWare. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2010) is utilized for the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, in order to be consistent with other recent studies of this intersection, and to reflect the calibrated driver behavior discussed below. As the HCM 2010 methodology is not applicable for roundabouts with more than two circulating lanes, the SIDRA software (Version 4) is used to analyze LOS for three-lane roundabouts. Computer output of detailed LOS calculations for all intersections is provided in the appendix of this report. Model Calibration The default parameters in Synchro’s application of the HCM 2010 methodologies were modified to calibrate the model where necessary. The following adjustments to HCM 2010 default parameters were made to calibrate the model: • 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 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 30 Traffic Impact Analysis 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 indicate critical gaps of approximately 5.8 seconds and 6.2 seconds for the left-turn and right-turn movements, respectively. This indicates that drivers turning left from Glenshire Drive tend to be more aggressive than the HCM default values would indicate. • A review of data collected at existing roundabouts in the U.S. indicates that the critical headway and follow-up headway times are generally lower than the HCM 2010 default values. In other words, drivers at roundabouts in the U.S. tend to be more aggressive than the HCM 2010 default values indicate. Specifically, the HCM default critical headway is 5.2 seconds for a roundabout with one conflicting lane, or 4.3 (left lane) and 4.1 (right lane) seconds with two conflicting lanes. The adjusted critical headway values based on existing roundabouts in the U.S. are 4.2 seconds with one conflicting lane and 4.0 seconds with two conflicting lanes. Similarly, the HCM default follow-up headway is 3.2 seconds, regardless of the number of conflicting lanes, and the adjusted follow-up headway is 2.8 seconds. At locations where dual-lane roundabouts with bypass lanes do not provide adequate capacity for buildout conditions, the Sidra software was calibrated to match the HCM results for the dual-lane analysis scenarios, and then Sidra was used to evaluate the capacity of those locations assuming addition of a third circulating roadway. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS All study intersections were evaluated to determine existing operational conditions for the 2012 summer PM peak hour. The three study intersections located in Placer County (SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road, SR 267/Northstar Drive, SR 28/SR 267) were also evaluated for the winter PM peak hour. 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 C contains the output from the LOS calculations for each study intersection for 2012 traffic conditions. Table 12 summarizes the results for existing 2012 conditions without the project. As indicated, the following study intersections currently exceed level of service standards: • Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive • Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street • Bridge Street/West River Street • West River Street/McIver Crossing The remaining study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels during the summer (and winter for applicable intersections) PM peak hour periods without the proposed project. As shown in the far right columns of Table 12, implementation of the proposed project would result in similar or increased delays at all study intersections during the PM peak hour, and the PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 31 LOS would degrade at some intersections. The following additional intersections would exceed the applicable LOS standard in 2012 with the project: • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access • Brockway Road/Martis Drive • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access TA B L E 1 2 : P C - 3 2 0 1 2 I n t e r s e c t i o n L O S S u m m a r y Pl u s P r o j ec t De l a y D e l a y In t e r s e c t i o n Co n t r o l T y p e 1, 2 LO S T h r e s h o l d ( s e c / v e h ) L O S ( s e c / v e h ) L O S S u m m e r L O S SR 8 9 N o r t h / D o n n e r P a s s R o a d R o u n d a b o u t D 6 . 1 A 7 . 0 A SR 2 6 7 / S R 8 9 N o r t h / I - 8 0 W e s t b o u n d R a m p s 3 Si g n a l D 1 8 . 4 B 1 8 . 4 B SR 2 6 7 / I - 8 0 E a s t b o u n d R a m p s 3 Si g n a l D 1 2 . 2 B 1 2 . 5 B Do n n e r P a s s R o a d / I - 8 0 W e s t b o u n d O n - r a m p U n c o n t r o l l e d D 8 . 8 A 9 . 0 A Do n n e r P a s s R o a d / I - 8 0 E a s t b o u n d O f f - r a m p S t o p C o n t r o l l e d D 2 8 . 9 D 3 3 . 3 D Do n n e r P a s s R o a d / P i o n e e r T r a i l R o u n d a b o u t D 9 . 3 A 1 0 . 4 B Do n n e r P a s s R o a d / G l e n s h i r e D r i v e S t o p C o n t r o l l e d E OV F F O V F F Do n n e r P a s s R o a d / B r i d g e S t r e e t Un c o n v e n t i o n a l 4 E OV F F O V F F Br i d g e S t r e e t / W e s t R i v e r S t r e e t S t o p C o n t r o l l e d E OV F F O V F F W e s t R i v e r S t r e e t / M c I v e r C r o s s i n g S t o p C o n t r o l l e d E 71 . 9 F 1 4 1 . 5 F Br o c k w a y R o a d / M a r t i s V a l l e y R o a d R o u n d a b o u t D 8 . 1 A 1 1 . 9 B Br o c k w a y R o a d / P a l i s a d e s D r i v e S i g n a l E 6 . 1 A 6 . 7 A SR 2 6 7 / B r o c k w a y R o a d / S o a r i n g W a y 3 Si g n a l D 2 1 . 2 C 10 0 . 9 F SR 2 6 7 / A i r p o r t R o a d / S c h a f f e r M i l l R o a d 3 Si g n a l E 1 6 . 7 B 1 6 . 8 B SR 2 6 7 / N o r t h s t a r D r i v e S i g n a l E 9 . 8 A 1 0 . 1 B SR 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 S i g n a l D / E 5 30 . 7 C 3 2 . 2 C Br o c k w a y R o a d / H o p e C o u r t S t o p C o n t r o l l e d D 1 3 . 3 B OV F F Br o c k w a y R o a d / M a r t i s D r i v e S t o p C o n t r o l l e d D N / A OV F F So a r i n g W a y / J o e r g e r D r / S i t e A c c e s s S t o p C o n t r o l l e d D 9 . 4 A OV F F Jo e r g e r D r / P C - 3 C o m m e r c i a l A c c e s s S t o p C o n t r o l l e d D N / A 1 1 . 2 B Wi n t e r L O S SR 2 6 7 / A i r p o r t R o a d / S c h a f f e r M i l l R o a d S i g n a l E 1 7 . 4 B 1 8 . 7 B SR 2 6 7 / N o r t h s t a r D r i v e S i g n a l E 1 5 . 3 B 1 5 . 9 B SR 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 S i g n a l D / E 5 37 . 1 D 3 9 . 3 D BO L D t e x t i n d i c a t e s t h a t L O S s t a n d a r d h a s b e e n e x c e e d e d . 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 CM m e t h o d o l o g y . NO T E 1 : L e v e l o f s e r v i c e f o r s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s i s r e p o r t e d f o r t h e t o t a l i n t e r s e c t i o n . NO T E 2 : L e v e l o f s e r v i c e f o r r o u n d a b o u t s a n d o t h e r u n s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s i s r e p o r t e d f o r t h e w o r s t m o v e m e n t . NO T E 3 : L e v e l o f s e r v i c e a t t h e s e i n t e r s e c t i o n s i s b a s e d o n S i m T r a f f i c s i m u l a t i o n . NO T E 5 : L O S E i s a c c e p t a b l e a t t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n f o r n o m o r e t h a n 4 h o u r s d u r i n g t h e d e s i g n d a y , p e r T R P A L O S s t a n d a r d 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 . PC 3 L O S . x l s No P r o j ec t NO T E 4 : T h e D o n n e r P a s s R o a d / B r i d g e S t r e e t i n t e r s e c t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d w i t h s t o p s i g n s o n t h r e e a p p r o a c h e s , w i t h t h e n o r t h b o u nd B r i d g e S t r e e t ap p r o a c h u n c o n t r o l l e d . LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 32 Traffic Impact Analysis 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 traffic queue lengths were reviewed at locations where queuing could potentially cause traffic problems. In 2012 with the PC-3 project, the 95th-percentile traffic queue on the eastbound approach to the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection would interfere with traffic entering and exiting Hope Court. Similarly, the 95th-percentile traffic queue on the westbound approach would affect traffic entering and exiting Joerger Drive. In addition, traffic queues at the Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street and West River Street/Bridge Street intersections generally interfere with the adjacent roadways and driveways, as a result of the unacceptable intersection delays in 2012, with or without the PC-3 project. Traffic queues resulting after intersection and roadway mitigation measures are implemented are discussed in Chapter 7. No traffic queuing concerns are identified at the remaining study locations in 2012. 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 Placer County roadway volume criteria are based upon daily traffic volumes. The maximum allowable traffic volumes to obtain the LOS thresholds applicable to the study roadway segments are shown in Table 13. Note that the roadway conditions along the segments of SR 267 within the Town of Truckee are evaluated based upon the results of the micro-simulation, as discussed below. Table 13 also presents a comparison of 2012 traffic volumes with the pertinent LOS standard. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes along the study roadway segments in Placer County are estimated by applying an ADT-to-peak hour volume factor to the peak-hour volumes. This factor is calculated based upon a review of traffic data collected at the permanent Caltrans traffic trend count station located at a point along SR 267 to the south of its intersection with Brockway Road/Soaring Way. The estimated ADT-to-peak hour volume factors along SR 267 are approximately 11.19 for summer traffic and 10.19 for winter traffic. As shown in the table, all study roadway segments currently operate within the allowable traffic volume threshold for 2012 traffic conditions without the proposed PC-3 project, except the segment of SR 267 within the Tahoe Basin. This segment currently exceeds the TRPA’s LOS “D” standard on peak days during the summer and winter. The roadway LOS analysis with project-generated traffic volumes is presented in Table 14. As shown, implementation of the proposed project would not cause any additional roadway segments to exceed the allowable traffic volume thresholds in 2012. Traffic Operations on SR 267 Bypass in 2012 Traffic impacts on the SR 267 Bypass are evaluated, with and without the proposed project. The Synchro/SimTraffic software package was utilized to create a micro-simulation of the SR 267 corridor between Airport Road and I-80 under 2012 traffic conditions with the project. First, the roadway network is described. Next, the simulation methodology is provided. Finally, the results of the simulation are presented. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 33 TA B L E 1 3 : P C - 3 R o a d w a y L O S A n a l y s i s - 2 0 1 2 w i t h o u t P r o j e c t 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 Ma x i m u m Al l o w a b l e P e a k - Ho u r V o l u m e p e r La n e t o O b t a i n LO S T h r e s h o l d Pe a k - Ho u r Tw o - Wa y Vo l u m e Pe a k - Ho u r Pe a k - Di r e c t i o n Vo l u m e AD T Fa c t o r Av e r a g e Da i l y Tr a f f i c 1 LO S Th r e s h o l d Ex c e e d e d ? SU M M E R Br i d g e S t r e e t , a c r o s s r a i l r o a d t r a c k s 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 1 , 0 7 7 5 8 0 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , S o u t h o f S R 8 9 N o r t h 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 0 7 5 2 3 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , S o u t h o f I - 8 0 E a s t e r n I n t e r c h a n g 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 9 1 6 4 7 5 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , E a s t o f B r i d g e S t r e e t ( C o m m e r c i a l R o w ) 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 E 1 , 2 0 0 9 9 0 6 3 9 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , W e s t o f B r i d g e S t r e e t ( C o m m e r c i a l R o w ) 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 E 1 , 2 0 0 1 , 0 6 8 7 1 7 N/ A N / A No SR 8 9 , N o r t h o f I - 8 0 T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 77 1 4 1 3 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n I - 8 0 a n d B r o c k w a y R o a d T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 1, 2 9 1 7 6 6 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n B r o c k w a y R o a d a n d T o w n L i m i t T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 1, 4 9 3 8 4 6 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n T o w n L i m i t a n d A i r p o r t R o a d P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 4 4 8 8 0 1 11 . 1 9 1 6 , 2 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n A i r p o r t R o a d a n d N o r t h s t a r D r i v e P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 2 9 5 6 6 9 11 . 1 9 1 4 , 4 9 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n N o r t h s t a r D r i v e a n d B r o c k w a y S u m m i t P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 1 , 0 0 0 1 , 1 3 0 6 4 7 11 . 1 9 1 2 , 6 4 0 No SR 2 6 7 , B r o c k w a y S u m m i t t o S R 2 8 T R P A / P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D 1 1 , 4 0 0 1 , 3 0 6 6 5 9 11 . 1 9 1 4 , 6 1 0 YE S Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n S R 2 6 7 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 M i n o r A r t e r i a l D 1 , 4 2 0 9 4 5 5 0 5 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n p r o j e c t a c c e s s a n d M a r t i s V a l l e y 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 9 3 5 4 9 6 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n M a r t i s V a l l e y R o a d a n d P a l i s a d e s D r i v e To 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 , 2 4 9 7 3 3 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n P a l i s a d e s D r i v e a n d W e s t R i v e r S t r e e 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 1 , 6 0 9 9 9 7 N/ A N / A No WI N T E R SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n T o w n L i m i t a n d A i r p o r t R o a d P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 7 7 2 1 , 1 8 3 10 . 1 9 1 8 , 1 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n A i r p o r t R o a d a n d N o r t h s t a r D r i v e P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 7 3 1 1 , 1 5 7 10 . 1 9 1 7 , 6 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n N o r t h s t a r D r i v e a n d B r o c k w a y S u m m i t P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 1 , 0 0 0 1 , 2 9 0 8 9 8 10 . 1 9 1 3 , 1 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , B r o c k w a y S u m m i t t o S R 2 8 T R P A / P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D 1 1 , 4 0 0 1 , 4 0 7 9 0 3 10 . 1 9 1 4 , 3 0 0 YE S NO T E 1 : T h r e s h o l d V o l u m e i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e s e r o a d w a y s e g m e n t s , a s t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s o n t h e s e s e g m e n t s w e r e e v a l u a t e d u si n g a S i m T r a f f i c m i c r o s i m u l 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 . P C 3 L O S . x l s LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 34 Traffic Impact Analysis TA B L E 1 4 : P C - 3 R o a d w a y L O S A n a l y s i s - 2 0 1 2 w i t h P r o j e c t 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 Ma x i m u m Al l o w a b l e P e a k - Ho u r V o l u m e p e r La n e t o O b t a i n LO S T h r e s h o l d Pe a k - Ho u r Tw o - Wa y Vo l u m e Pe a k - Ho u r Pe a k - Di r e c t i o n Vo l u m e AD T Fa c t o r Av e r a g e Da i l y Tr a f f i c 1 LO S Th r e s h o l d Ex c e e d e d ? SU M M E R Br i d g e S t r e e t , a c r o s s r a i l r o a d t r a c k s 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 1 , 0 7 2 5 7 6 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , S o u t h o f S R 8 9 N o r t h 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 5 9 5 9 2 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , S o u t h o f I - 8 0 E a s t e r n I n t e r c h a n g 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 9 6 7 5 0 8 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , E a s t o f B r i d g e S t r e e t ( C o m m e r c i a l R o w ) 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 E 1 , 2 0 0 1 , 0 0 9 6 5 0 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , W e s t o f B r i d g e S t r e e t ( C o m m e r c i a l R o w ) 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 E 1 , 2 0 0 1 , 0 4 0 7 0 3 N/ A N / A No SR 8 9 , N o r t h o f I - 8 0 T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 1, 0 4 5 5 5 9 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n I - 8 0 a n d B r o c k w a y R o a d T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 1, 7 1 7 9 9 7 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n B r o c k w a y R o a d a n d T o w n L i m i t T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 1, 5 6 2 8 8 3 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n T o w n L i m i t a n d A i r p o r t R o a d P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 5 1 8 8 3 9 11 . 1 9 1 6 , 9 9 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n A i r p o r t R o a d a n d N o r t h s t a r D r i v e P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 3 8 3 7 3 6 11 . 1 9 1 5 , 4 8 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n N o r t h s t a r D r i v e a n d B r o c k w a y S u m m i t P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 1 , 0 0 0 1 , 2 0 1 7 0 4 11 . 1 9 1 3 , 4 4 0 No SR 2 6 7 , B r o c k w a y S u m m i t t o S R 2 8 T R P A / P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D 1 1 , 4 0 0 1 , 3 3 7 6 8 3 11 . 1 9 1 4 , 9 6 0 YE S Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n S R 2 6 7 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 M i n o r A r t e r i a l D 1 , 4 2 0 1 , 5 6 8 8 0 0 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n p r o j e c t a c c e s s a n d M a r t i s V a l l e y 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 1 , 3 0 7 7 0 3 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n M a r t i s V a l l e y R o a d a n d P a l i s a d e s D r i v e To 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 , 4 1 2 8 0 2 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n P a l i s a d e s D r i v e a n d W e s t R i v e r S t r e e 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 1 , 7 1 2 1 , 0 3 9 N/ A N / A No WI N T E R SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n T o w n L i m i t a n d A i r p o r t R o a d P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 8 7 1 1 , 2 0 5 10 . 1 9 1 9 , 1 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n A i r p o r t R o a d a n d N o r t h s t a r D r i v e P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 , 8 4 6 1 , 1 6 9 10 . 1 9 1 8 , 8 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n N o r t h s t a r D r i v e a n d B r o c k w a y S u m m i t P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 1 , 0 0 0 1 , 3 2 9 9 2 8 10 . 1 9 1 3 , 5 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , B r o c k w a y S u m m i t t o S R 2 8 T R P A / P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D 1 1 , 4 0 0 1 , 4 3 3 9 2 5 10 . 1 9 1 4 , 6 0 0 YE S NO T E 1 : T h r e s h o l d V o l u m e i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e s e r o a d w a y s e g m e n t s , a s t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s o n t h e s e s e g m e n t s w e r e e v a l u a t e d u si n g a S i m T r a f f i c m i c r o s i m u l 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 . PC 3 L O S . x l s PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 35 Roadway Network The results of this analysis are based on SimTraffic traffic simulation models of the SR 267 corridor. The model includes the following study intersections: • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road Traffic signal timings used in the simulation are based on the actual signal timing parameters provided by Caltrans District 3. Traffic signal cycle lengths and splits were optimized using Synchro with “plus project” traffic volumes. As the 2012 traffic volumes with the PC-3 project would cause the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection (in its existing configurations) to exceed capacity in traffic simulation, intersection capacity improvements are assumed at this intersection. Note that these improvements were assumed, in order to avoid any potential capacity constraints and thus provide a worst-case scenario with regards to volumes on the Truckee River Bridge. Specifically, in the “2012 with PC-3” scenario, SR 267 is assumed to be widened to two through lanes for the northbound direction of travel from Brockway Road to a point south of the beginning of the grade separation for the Truckee River Bridge. This creates a merge point where the two northbound lanes narrow to one lane before the Bridge. Simulation Methodology SimTraffic reports traffic performance at each node (intersection or “bend node”) within the model.1 For the purpose of the Bypass capacity, the node located at the south end of the Truckee River Bridge (where the two northbound through lanes on SR 267 merge back to one northbound lane to cross the Truckee River Bridge) is considered to be a point of concern. SimTraffic reports a variety of different performance metrics, which are computed directionally over the length of the roadway link upstream of the node for which they are reported. This analysis considers the average delay approaching the merge point, and the average travel speed along the link upstream of the merge point as the best representation of the traffic conditions along the Bypass. Average delays and travel speeds are also reported for both directions of travel along the Truckee River Bridge and for southbound traffic approaching the merge point north of the bridge. Simulations were prepared for 2012 conditions without and with PC-3. SimTraffic produces a random simulation based on the input parameters. Therefore, two simulations with the same inputs may produce different results. In accordance with standard practice, the results of this analysis are based on an average of five runs of the simulation for each scenario. Each run of the simulation represents a one-hour period for the summer PM peak hour. No changes were made from the base values in driver parameters or the length of merging activity. 1 In Synchro/SimTraffic, a bend node is an intersection with only two links. These are used at merge/ diverge locations and roadway curves. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 36 Traffic Impact Analysis Simulation Results The quantitative results of the traffic simulation analysis of the SR 267 Bypass are provided in Table 15. As shown in the table, the greatest traffic impacts at the Bypass with the PC-3 project occur at the northbound merge point where the two northbound travel lanes merge to one before traversing the Truckee River Bridge. The average delay to traffic approaching the merge is approximately 7 seconds per vehicle. A similar delay at an unsignalized intersection would correspond to Level of Service (LOS) A. The average travel speed for vehicles approaching the merge point is 41 miles per hour. The qualitative results of this analysis are based on visual observations of the simulations. Consistent with the model outputs provided in Table 15, northbound traffic approaching the merge point is observed to flow nearly unimpeded. It is important to note that traffic is not observed to stop at the merge point. Although SimTraffic does not report queuing data for bend nodes, no traffic queues are observed at the merge point. In addition, no traffic queues are observed to interact with the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the merge points along the SR 267 Bypass would not cause excessive delays and that the merge points would not affect traffic operations at either the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way or SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps intersections in 2012. Furthermore, traffic conditions on the Truckee River Bridge are good, with average travel speeds of 49 to 51 miles per hour. Overall, it can be concluded that existing conditions including the PC-3 project as currently proposed can be adequately accommodated with the existing two-lane configuration of the Truckee Bypass over the Truckee River Bridge. TABLE 15: Traffic Performance on SR 267 Bypass in 2012 SR 267 Roadway Segment Link Length (feet) Direction Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Average Travel Speed (mph) Average Delay (Sec/vehicle) 2012 Without PC-3 I-80 Eastbound Ramp to Merge North of Truckee River Bridge 1,164 Southbound 525 37 4.3 Truckee River Bridge (2-Lane Section) 3,142 Southbound 525 51 2.2 Truckee River Bridge (2-Lane Section) 3,142 Northbound 766 50 3.8 Brockway Road to Merge South of Truckee River Bridge 2,862 Northbound 766 45 5.6 2012 With PC-3 I-80 Eastbound Ramp to Merge North of Truckee River Bridge 1,164 Southbound 720 35 5.4 Truckee River Bridge (2-Lane Section) 3,142 Southbound 720 50 2.9 Truckee River Bridge (2-Lane Section) 3,142 Northbound 997 49 4.6 Brockway Road to Merge South of Truckee River Bridge 2,862 Northbound 997 41 7.2 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC3 LOS.xls PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 37 Section 5 Future Cumulative Conditions The potential transportation impacts of the PC-3 Project under future cumulative conditions are evaluated. First, Year 2032 traffic volumes are estimated without the project. Next, 2032 volumes with the project are estimated. Finally, intersection LOS and roadway capacity are 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 full 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 2032. Future Roadway Assumptions The 2032 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 the eastern portion of Downtown Truckee through the Railyard development and form a new T-intersection with Glenshire Drive to the east of its intersection with Donner Pass Road. The new Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass 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. FUTURE 2032 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2032 Traffic Volumes Without Project Future 2032 Summer Traffic Volumes 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 PC-3 development zones (which are located in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) 60, 62, and portions of 61 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 PC-3 at the study intersections. These turning movement volumes were then subtracted from the future buildout intersection volumes produced by the model. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 38 Traffic Impact Analysis 2. Traffic volumes from the Town of Truckee TransCAD model of the existing 2009 land uses were subtracted from the resulting future traffic volumes without modeled PC-3 traffic as described above. The result of this calculation indicates the traffic volume growth assumed to occur between the existing analysis year (2012) and future analysis year (2032). 3. The intersection traffic growth calculated above is added to the 2012 traffic volumes (from Figure 2). 4. The traffic volumes were balanced between adjacent intersections. Generally, the adjustments necessary to balance were minimal. 5. 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. Finally, a detailed micro-simulation of the Bridge Street corridor across the railroad tracks in Downtown Truckee was performed as a part of the Railyard EIR. The results indicated excessive delays in the future with the implementation of two new traffic signals at the Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street and West River Street/Bridge Street intersections. In the recently updated Truckee TransCAD model, a 5-second turning movement delay was added to all turning movements at these two intersections, in order to simulate the effect of the two new signals. These delays reduced the volumes in this area to the maximum volumes identified in the Railyard EIR. However, as a part of this study, it is necessary to adjust the traffic volumes along Donner Pass Road between Commercial Row and the I-80/Donner Pass Road Eastern Interchange and along West River Street to reflect the capacity constraints in the Downtown area, as the delays along these roadway segments resulting from the two closely-spaced signals are not reflected in the updated Truckee TransCAD model. The resulting 2032 summer weekday PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes without PC-3 are presented in Figure 6. Future 2032 Winter Traffic Volumes Future Year 2032 winter traffic volumes at the SR 267/Northstar Drive intersection and along SR 267 were recently developed by LSC as a part of the Northstar Mountain Master Plan Project. Specifically, the future cumulative winter traffic volumes provided in The Northside EIR (‘future plus project’ scenario) were used as the basis for developing the long-term future cumulative winter volumes, and they were updated to reflect recent changes made to the approved land uses in Martis Valley. Future winter traffic volumes at the SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection were developed based on the future roadway segment volumes along SR 267 from the Northstar Mountain Master Plan study, and the minor approaches were grown based on the growth in summer volumes on these approaches. Future 2032 winter traffic volumes at the SR 28/SR 267 intersection in Kings Beach are estimated by applying a growth rate to the existing winter volumes, based on the traffic growth predicted by the TRPA TransCAD model for each leg of the intersection. Traffic volumes on SR 267 in Kings Beach are forecast to grow by a total of approximately 11 percent between 2012 and 2032. The resulting 2032 winter PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes without PC-3 are shown in Table 16. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 39 19 15 5 93 0 38 17 86 7 28 1 32 3 8 26 2 32 3 15 89 TR U C K E E 80 26 7 T R A I L PI O N E E R W E S T R I V E R S T . M C I V E R PALLISADES DR. BR O C K W A Y R D . V A L L E Y R . D MA R T I S A I R P O R T R . D S O A R I N G W Y . S C H A F F E R M I L L R . D TO T A H O E & NO R T H S T A R 8 10 12 4 6 5 1 2 3 11 13 14 9 20 3 2 S U M M E R P M P E A K H O U R 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 6 H O P E C T . 18 17 ST R E E T S PR O P O S E D S T R E E T S HI G H W A Y S CO U N T Y B O U N D A R Y WA T E R / L A K E ST U D Y I N T E R S E C T I O N 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 RO U N D A B O U T (U M I T I G A T E D C O N D I T I O N ) TR A F F I C S I G N A L (U N M I T I G A T E D C O N D I T I O N ) L E G E N D 1 11 9 1 SR 8 9 N / D O N N E R P A S S RD / H E N N E S S R D 5 3 7 11 8 6 10 2 SR 2 6 7 / S R 8 9 N / I- 8 0 W B R A M P DO N N E R P A S S R D . / PI O N E E R T R A I L WE S T R I V E R S T . / MC I V E R C R O S S I N G DO N N E R P A S S R D / BR I D G E S T . 4 DO N N E R P A S S R D / I - 8 0 E. I N T E R C H A N G E WB O N - R A M P 12 BR O C K W A Y R D . / PA L I S A D E S D R . BR I D G E S T . / WE S T R I V E R S T . DO N N E R P A S S R D . / I- 8 0 E . I N T E R C H A N G E EB O F F R A M P SR 2 6 7 / I - 8 0 E B R A M P S DO N N E R P A S S R D . / GL E N S H I R E D R . BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S V A L L E Y R D . Tr u c k e e & M a r t i s V a l l e y 7 26 7 NO R T H S T A R LA K E T A H O E 28 KI N G S BE A C H KI N G S BE A C H N O R T H S T A R D R . TA H O E & N O R T H S T A R 15 S C A L E 0 IN M I L E S .5 1 2 0 JO E G E R D R . / CO M M E R C I A L A C C E S S 13 14 SR 2 6 7 / B R O C K W A Y R D . /S O A R I N G W A Y SR 2 6 7 / A I R P O R T R D . / SC H A F F E R M I L L R D . 1 9 SO A R I N G W A Y / J O E R G E R DR . / S I T E A C C E S S 15 SR 2 6 7 / N O R T H S T A R D R . 16 SR 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 1817 BR O C K W A Y R D . / HO P E C T . / S I T E A C C E S S BR O C K W A Y R D . / M A R T I S D R . 20 SIT E 74 7 44 1 79 1 45 19 7 3 20 8 1, 0 9 7 23 3 23 2 75 6 91 0 29 0 21 7 11 2 3 37 5 78 6 49 0 37 5 85 0 29 6 74 31 5 17 8 46 3 46 7 17 7 69 22 9 55 5 90 27 6 62 48 66 28 8 26 9 19 7 71 39 8 56 3 19 30 62 5 17 5 25 3 13 61 5 12 23 30 25 6 17 4 24 8 62 3 33 0 26 9 22 4 13 8 84 9 39 3 8663 9 45 6 1, 0 9 2 19 84 79 0 17 2 12 1 72 48 8 2492 11 7 52 1, 0 3 0 45 53 1, 0 4 3 20 3 2832 6 99 5221 17 7 10 8 88 1 11 0 1 14 5 20 4 14 7 0 2 0 47 1 28 2 31 2 79 3 2 43 8 76 7 0 36 21 66 0 22 68 4 8 15 1 95 80 41 9 48 2 54 25 25 4 54 5 81 3 99 35 6 22 620 1 40 11 3 13 10 8 67 6 58 51 50 7 43 9851 6 86 68 2 70 0 0 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 . 10 3 FU T U R E SI T E AC C E S S FU T U R E SI T E AC C E S S FU T U R E SI T E AC C E S S FU T U R E SI T E AC C E S S LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 40 Traffic Impact Analysis 2032 Traffic Volumes with Project Adding the 2032 project-generated turning movement volumes to the “2032 without project” intersection volumes yields the “summer 2032 with project” volumes shown in Figure 7, and the “winter 2032 with project” volumes shown in Table 17. FUTURE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Study intersections are evaluated to determine operational conditions under 2032 traffic conditions. Appendix D contains the output from the LOS calculations for each study intersection for 2032 traffic conditions. Table 18 summarizes the results for future 2032 conditions without the project. In comparison with existing 2012 conditions, the LOS is expected to degrade from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level at the following intersections in the future without the PC-3 project, due to growth in background traffic: • SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp • Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road (summer and winter) The results for future 2032 conditions with the proposed PC-3 project are shown in the far right columns of Table 18. The following additional intersections are expected to exceed the LOS thresholds due to implementation of the project in 2032: • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps • Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access • Brockway Road/Martis Drive • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access TABLE 16: 2032 Winter PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes without Project Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total SR 267 / Airport Road / Schaffer Mill Road 45 1,301 28 27 852 209 169 3 14 8 7 150 2,812 SR 267 / Northstar Drive 145 447 -- -- 569 305 927 -- 557 -- -- -- 2,950 SR 267 / SR 28 0 0 0 516 0 515 277 664 0 1 519 308 2,801 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC-3 land use.xlsx PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 41 19 15 5 1, 0 2 2 38 17 97 4 33 1 37 3 8 26 2 32 3 15 89 TR U C K E E 80 26 7 T R A I L P I O N E E R W E S T R I V E R S T . M C I V E R PALLISADES DR. BR O C K W A Y R D . V A L L E Y R . D MA R T I S A I R P O R T R . D S O A R I N G W Y . S C H A F F E R M I L L R . D TO T A H O E & NO R T H S T A R 12 6 5 1 2 3 11 13 14 20 3 2 S U M M E R P M P E A K H O U R 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 7 H O P E C T . 18 17 ST R E E T S PR O P O S E D S T R E E T S HI G H W A Y S CO U N T Y B O U N D A R Y WA T E R / L A K E ST U D Y I N T E R S E C T I O N 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 RO U N D A B O U T (U M I T I G A T E D C O N D I T I O N ) TR A F F I C S I G N A L (U N M I T I G A T E D C O N D I T I O N ) L E G E N D 1 11 9 7 11 8 10 2 SR 2 6 7 / S R 8 9 N / I- 8 0 W B R A M P DO N N E R P A S S R D . / PI O N E E R T R A I L WE S T R I V E R S T . / MC I V E R C R O S S I N G DO N N E R P A S S R D / BR I D G E S T . 12 BR O C K W A Y R D . / PA L I S A D E S D R . BR I D G E S T . / WE S T R I V E R S T . DO N N E R P A S S R D . / I- 8 0 E . I N T E R C H A N G E EB O F F R A M P SR 2 6 7 / I - 8 0 E B R A M P S DO N N E R P A S S R D . / GL E N S H I R E D R . BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S V A L L E Y R D . Tr u c k e e & M a r t i s V a l l e y 7 26 7 NO R T H S T A R LA K E T A H O E 28 KI N G S BE A C H KI N G S BE A C H N O R T H S T A R D R . TA H O E & N O R T H S T A R 15 16 S C A L E 0 IN M I L E S .5 1 2 0 JO E R G E R D R . / CO M M E R C I A L A C C E S S 13 14 SR 2 6 7 / B R O C K W A Y R D . /S O A R I N G W A Y SR 2 6 7 / A I R P O R T R D . / SC H A F F E R M I L L R D . 1 9 SO A R I N G W A Y / J O E R G E R DR . / S I T E A C C E S S 15 SR 2 6 7 / N O R T H S T A R D R . 16 SR 2 6 7 / S R 2 8 1817 BR O C K W A Y R D . / HO P E C T . / S I T E A C C E S S BR O C K W A Y R D . / MA R T I S D R . 20 SIT E 95 2 52 0 96 9 45 21 5 3 20 8 1, 3 8 1 26 8 23 2 95 2 91 0 35 3 21 7 12 1 5 48 2 78 6 58 2 48 2 85 0 29 6 50 36 4 22 1 47 1 52 6 22 5 67 22 6 56 0 90 27 0 62 48 60 28 1 27 3 19 1 71 41 3 56 2 19 30 61 7 17 5 25 3 13 62 3 12 2 3 30 22 1 15 6 85 0 39 0 10 965 6 47 5 96 7 15 3 35 4 68 7 26 4 25 3 24 2 52 4 10 827 9 42 9 52 1, 0 4 8 45 59 1, 0 7 0 18 7 2733 0 99 8161 18 3 10 8 90 1 11 4 9 47 3 20 4 14 7 41 11 0 13 31 6 79 3 2 43 8 76 7 0 50 35 27 84 5 9 22 6 14 1 92 19 11 0 9 11 3 13 14 6 58 6 57 50 56 4 43 14 7 59 9 75 74 8 77 7 16 6 25 3 17 4 24 8 63 4 34 9 26 7 1 23 98 1 12 3 88 6 24 44 18 9 20 11 0 48 0 14 12 51 6 3 64 17 2 29 5 0 0 15 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 42 Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 17: 2032 Winter Intersection PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes with PC-3 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total SR 267 / Airport Road / Schaffer Mill Road 45 1,322 30 31 919 215 180 3 14 37 31 154 2,980 SR 267 / Northstar Drive 145 464 606 364 933 557 3,069 SR 267 / SR 28 0 0 0 534 0 526 285 664 0 1 519 312 2,842 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC-3 land use.xlsx TABLE 18: PC-3 2032 Intersection LOS Summary Plus Project Delay Delay Intersection Control Type 1,2 LOS Threshold (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Summer LOS SR 89 North / Donner Pass Road Roundabout D OVF F OVF F SR 267 / SR 89 North / I-80 Westbound Ramps 3 Signal D 35.4 D 81.1 F SR 267 / I-80 Eastbound Ramps 3 Signal D 19.6 B 59.4 E Donner Pass Road / I-80 Westbound On-ramp Uncontrolled D 15.5 C 17.4 C Donner Pass Road / I-80 Eastbound Off-ramp Stop Controlled D OVF F OVF F Donner Pass Road / Pioneer Trail Roundabout D 139.5 F OVF F Donner Pass Road / Glenshire Drive 4 Stop Controlled E 3.90 Veh-Hrs 4,5 3.95 Veh-Hrs 4,5 Donner Pass Road / Bridge Street Unconventional 6 E OVF F OVF F Bridge Street / West River Street Stop Controlled E OVF F OVF F West River Street / McIver Crossing Stop Controlled E OVF F OVF F Brockway Road / Martis Valley Road Roundabout D 13.4 B 18.7 C Brockway Road / Palisades Drive Signal E 9.7 A 12.8 B SR 267 / Brockway Road / Soaring Way 3 Signal D 141.8 F OVF F SR 267 / Airport Road / Schaffer Mill Road 3 Signal E 170.1 F OVF F SR 267 / Northstar Drive Signal E 26.2 C 31.4 C SR 267 / SR 28 Signal D/E 7 52.3 D 53.0 D Brockway Road / Hope Court Stop Controlled D 24.6 C OVF F Brockway Road / Martis Drive Stop Controlled D N/A OVF F Soaring Way / Joerger Drive / Village South Access Stop Controlled D 9.7 A OVF F Joerger Drive / PC-3 Commercial Access Stop Controlled D N/A 13.4 B Winter LOS SR 267 / Airport Road / Schaffer Mill Road Signal E 122.7 F 138.7 F SR 267 / Northstar Drive Signal E 27.1 C 26.7 C 8 SR 267 / SR 28 Signal D/E 7 55.4 E 9 60.2 E 9 BOLD text indicates that LOS standard has been exceeded. NOTE 4: The Donner Pass Road Extension is assumed to be complete under 2032 conditions. NOTE 7: LOS E is acceptable at this intersection for no more than 4 hours during the design day, per TRPA LOS standards. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC3 LOS.xls No Project NOTE 5: This location with LOS F does not exceed the Town of Truckee standard for unsignalized approaches; worst movement has less than 4 vehicle-hours of delay. NOTE 6: The Donner Pass Road / Bridge Street intersection is controlled with stop signs on three approaches, with the northbound Bridge Street approach uncontrolled. NOTE 9: This intersection is estimated to operate at LOS E for less than four hours on the design day and therefore does not exceed TRPA LOS standards. OVF = Overflow. Overflow indicates a delay greater than 200 seconds per vehicle, which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology. NOTE 8: The addition of PC-3 trips to the southbound right-turn overlap phase causes the overall average delay at the intersec tion to decrease slightly. NOTE 1: Level of service for signalized intersections is reported for the total intersection. NOTE 2: Level of service for roundabouts and other unsignalized intersections is reported for the worst movement. NOTE 3: Level of service at these intersections is based on SimTraffic simulation. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 43 FUTURE INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS The 95th-percentile traffic queue length was reviewed at locations where queuing could potentially cause traffic problems in 2032. Without intersection improvements, traffic queues are generally expected to interfere with adjacent roadways and driveways in most locations where the LOS is unacceptable. Traffic queues resulting after intersection and roadway mitigation measures are implemented are discussed in Chapter 7. FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY Table 19 presents a comparison of 2032 roadway volumes with the pertinent standards. The ADT volumes for 2032 conditions were estimated using the same methodology as the 2012 volumes. As shown, the following study roadway segments are expected to exceed the allowable traffic volume threshold in 2032 without the PC-3 project: • SR 267, between Town Limit and Airport Road (summer and winter) • SR 267, between Airport Road and Brockway Summit (summer only) • SR 267, between Brockway Summit and SR 28 (summer and winter) All remaining study roadway segments are expected to operate within the allowable traffic volume thresholds in 2032, without implementation of the proposed project. Table 20 summarizes the roadway LOS analysis for “2032 with project” conditions. As shown, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to cause any additional roadway segments to exceed the allowable volume thresholds in 2032. Future Traffic Operations on SR 267 Bypass Future cumulative traffic impacts on the SR 267 Bypass are evaluated, with and without the proposed project. The Synchro/SimTraffic software package was utilized to create a micro- simulation of the SR 267 corridor between Airport Road and I-80 under future 2032 cumulative traffic conditions with the project, using the same methodology as the 2012 simulation. Roadway Network The results of this analysis are based on SimTraffic traffic simulation models of the SR 267 corridor. The model includes the following study intersections: • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road Traffic signal cycle lengths and splits were optimized using Synchro for future traffic volumes and future intersection capacity improvements. The 2032 traffic volumes both with and without the PC-3 project would cause the intersections (in their existing configurations) along this corridor to exceed capacity in traffic simulation. Therefore, roadway and intersection capacity improvements are assumed along SR 267 both north and south of the Truckee River Bridge. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 44 Traffic Impact Analysis TA B L E 1 9 : P C - 3 R o a d w a y L O S A n a l y s i s - 2 0 3 2 w i t h o u t P r o j e c t 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 Ma x i m u m Al l o w a b l e P e a k - Ho u r V o l u m e p e r La n e t o O b t a i n LO S T h r e s h o l d Pe a k - Ho u r Tw o - Wa y Vo l u m e Pe a k - Ho u r Pe a k - Di r e c t i o n Vo l u m e AD T Fa c t o r Av e r a g e Da i l y Tr a f f i c 1 LO S Th r e s h o l d Ex c e e d e d ? SU M M E R Br i d g e S t r e e t , a c r o s s r a i l r o a d t r a c k s 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 1 , 6 8 6 8 5 3 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , S o u t h o f S R 8 9 N o r t h 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 , 4 3 3 1 , 2 6 8 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , S o u t h o f I - 8 0 E a s t e r n I n t e r c h a n g 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 1 , 1 6 1 6 7 1 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , E a s t o f B r i d g e S t r e e t ( C o m m e r c i a l R o w ) 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 E 1 , 2 0 0 1 , 2 4 8 7 1 1 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , W e s t o f B r i d g e S t r e e t ( C o m m e r c i a l R o w ) 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 E 1 , 2 0 0 7 3 0 4 0 2 N/ A N / A No SR 8 9 , N o r t h o f I - 8 0 T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 1, 7 9 1 9 5 5 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n I - 8 0 a n d B r o c k w a y R o a d T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 2, 3 7 6 1 , 3 3 0 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n B r o c k w a y R o a d a n d T o w n L i m i t T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 2, 8 6 9 1 , 5 6 7 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n T o w n L i m i t a n d A i r p o r t R o a d P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 , 8 3 2 1 , 5 3 3 11 . 1 9 3 1 , 6 9 0 YE S SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n A i r p o r t R o a d a n d N o r t h s t a r D r i v e P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 , 3 3 1 1 , 2 4 6 11 . 1 9 2 6 , 0 8 0 YE S SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n N o r t h s t a r D r i v e a n d B r o c k w a y S u m m i t P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 1 , 0 0 0 2 , 2 3 7 1 , 2 4 8 11 . 1 9 2 5 , 0 3 0 YE S SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n B r o c k w a y S u m m i t a n d S R 2 8 T R P A / P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D 1 1 , 4 0 0 1 , 5 0 5 7 5 3 11 . 1 9 1 6 , 8 4 0 YE S Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n S R 2 6 7 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 M i n o r A r t e r i a l D 1 , 4 2 0 1 , 4 0 1 7 2 0 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n p r o j e c t a c c e s s a n d M a r t i s V a l l e y 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 1 , 3 8 2 7 0 0 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n M a r t i s V a l l e y R o a d a n d P a l i s a d e s 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 1 , 7 1 2 9 8 7 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n P a l i s a d e s D r i v e a n d W e s t R i v e r S t r e e 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 2 , 2 3 2 1 , 2 5 2 N/ A N / A No WI N T E R SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n T o w n L i m i t a n d A i r p o r t R o a d P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 , 7 0 7 1 , 6 2 0 10 . 1 9 2 7 , 6 0 0 YE S SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n A i r p o r t R o a d a n d N o r t h s t a r D r i v e P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 , 2 4 9 1 , 3 7 4 10 . 1 9 2 2 , 9 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n N o r t h s t a r D r i v e a n d B r o c k w a y S u m m i t P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 1 , 0 0 0 1 , 7 1 8 1 , 1 2 6 10 . 1 9 1 7 , 5 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n B r o c k w a y S u m m i t a n d S R 2 8 T R P A / P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D 1 1 , 4 0 0 1 , 6 1 7 1 , 0 3 1 10 . 1 9 1 6 , 5 0 0 YE S NO T E 1 : T h r e s h o l d V o l u m e i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e s e r o a d w a y s e g m e n t s , a s t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s o n t h e s e s e g m e n t s w e r e e v a l u a t e d u s i n g a S i m T r a f f i c m i c r o s i m u l a t i o n . S o 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 . PC 3 L O S . x l s PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 45 TA B L E 2 0 : P C - 3 R o a d w a y L O S A n a l y s i s - 2 0 3 2 w i t h P r o j e c t 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 Ma x i m u m Al l o w a b l e P e a k - Ho u r V o l u m e p e r La n e t o O b t a i n LO S T h r e s h o l d Pe a k - Ho u r Tw o - Wa y Vo l u m e Pe a k - Ho u r Pe a k - Di r e c t i o n Vo l u m e AD T Fa c t o r Av e r a g e Da i l y Tr a f f i c 1 LO S Th r e s h o l d Ex c e e d e d ? SU M M E R Br i d g e S t r e e t , a c r o s s r a i l r o a d t r a c k s 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 1 , 6 7 7 8 5 3 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , S o u t h o f S R 8 9 N o r t h 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 , 7 3 2 1 , 4 1 0 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , S o u t h o f I - 8 0 E a s t e r n I n t e r c h a n g 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 1 , 3 6 0 7 7 8 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , E a s t o f B r i d g e S t r e e t ( C o m m e r c i a l R o w ) 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 E 1 , 2 0 0 1 , 2 4 5 7 1 0 N/ A N / A No Do n n e r P a s s R o a d , W e s t o f B r i d g e S t r e e t ( C o m m e r c i a l R o w ) 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 E 1 , 2 0 0 7 0 9 3 8 9 N/ A N / A No SR 8 9 , N o r t h o f I - 8 0 T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 2, 1 7 4 1 , 1 6 0 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n I - 8 0 a n d B r o c k w a y R o a d T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 2, 9 5 4 1 , 6 4 9 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n B r o c k w a y R o a d a n d T o w n L i m i t T o w n o f T r u c k e e / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D N / A 1 2, 9 1 4 1 , 5 9 5 N/ A N / A No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n T o w n L i m i t a n d A i r p o r t R o a d P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 , 8 7 7 1 , 5 6 1 11 . 1 9 3 2 , 1 9 0 YE S SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n A i r p o r t R o a d a n d N o r t h s t a r D r i v e P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 , 4 0 8 1 , 3 0 3 11 . 1 9 2 6 , 9 5 0 YE S SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n N o r t h s t a r D r i v e a n d B r o c k w a y S u m m i t P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 1 , 0 0 0 2 , 3 0 5 1 , 2 9 6 11 . 1 9 2 5 , 7 9 0 YE S SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n B r o c k w a y S u m m i t a n d S R 2 8 T R P A / P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D 1 1 , 4 0 0 1 , 5 2 4 7 6 8 11 . 1 9 1 7 , 0 5 0 YE S Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n S R 2 6 7 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 M i n o r A r t e r i a l D 1 , 4 2 0 2 , 0 3 7 1 , 0 1 9 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n p r o j e c t a c c e s s a n d M a r t i s V a l l e y 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 1 , 5 8 9 8 2 1 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n M a r t i s V a l l e y R o a d a n d P a l i s a d e s 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 1 , 7 7 1 1 , 0 0 6 N/ A N / A No Br o c k w a y R o a d , b e t w e e n P a l i s a d e s D r i v e a n d W e s t R i v e r S t r e e 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 E 1 , 6 0 0 2 , 2 4 6 1 , 2 5 2 N/ A N / A No WI N T E R SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n T o w n L i m i t a n d A i r p o r t R o a d P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 , 8 2 0 1 , 6 5 6 10 . 1 9 2 8 , 7 0 0 YE S SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n A i r p o r t R o a d a n d N o r t h s t a r D r i v e P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 , 3 6 8 1 , 3 9 7 10 . 1 9 2 4 , 1 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n N o r t h s t a r D r i v e a n d B r o c k w a y S u m m i t P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y E 2 1 , 0 0 0 1 , 7 7 2 1 , 1 6 3 10 . 1 9 1 8 , 1 0 0 No SR 2 6 7 , b e t w e e n B r o c k w a y S u m m i t a n d S R 2 8 T R P A / P l a c e r C o u n t y / C a l t r a n s H i g h w a y D 1 1 , 4 0 0 1 , 6 5 8 1 , 0 6 0 10 . 1 9 1 6 , 9 0 0 YE S NO T E 1 : T h r e s h o l d V o l u m e i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e s e r o a d w a y s e g m e n t s , a s t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s o n t h e s e s e g m e n t s w e r e e v a l u a t e d u s i n g a S i m T r a f f i c m i c r o s i m u l 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 . PC 3 L O S . x l s LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 46 Traffic Impact Analysis As the purpose of this analysis is to determine traffic operations with the existing two-lane bypass, no improvements are assumed for the Truckee River Bridge. Consistent with roadway capacity deficiencies identified in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, SR 267 is assumed to be widened to two through lanes for each direction of travel from Northstar Drive to a point north of the intersection with Brockway Road/Soaring Way and south of the beginning of the grade separation for the Truckee River Bridge. SR 267 is also assumed to be widened to two through lanes in each direction from a point north of the grade separation for the Truckee River Bridge to the SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road roundabout (not included in the simulation). Note that these configurations were assumed, along with capacity improvements at the intersections along the corridor, in order to avoid any potential capacity constraints and thus provide a worst- case scenario with regards to volumes on the Truckee River Bridge. Although the roadway and intersection improvements assumed in the simulation may differ from the recommended improvements in the final chapter of this study, this would not affect the findings of the capacity analysis on the Bridge. Simulation Results The quantitative results of the traffic simulation analysis of the SR 267 Bypass are provided in Table 21. As shown in the table, the greatest traffic impacts at the Bypass in 2032 with the PC-3 project occur at the northbound merge point where the two northbound travel lanes merge to one before traversing the Truckee River Bridge. The average delay to traffic approaching the merge is approximately 33 seconds per vehicle. A similar delay at an unsignalized intersection would correspond to Level of Service (LOS) D. The average travel speed for vehicles approaching the merge point is 27 miles per hour. The qualitative results of this analysis are based on visual observations of the simulations. Consistent with the model outputs provided in Table 21, northbound traffic approaching the merge point is observed to slow. It is important to note that traffic is not observed to stop at the merge point. Although SimTraffic does not report queuing data for “bend nodes,” no significant traffic queues are observed at the merge point. In addition, no traffic queues are observed to interact with the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the merge points along the SR 267 Bypass would not cause excessive delays and that the merge points would not affect traffic operations at either the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way or SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps intersections. Furthermore, traffic conditions on the Truckee River Bridge are good, with average travel speeds of 48 to 50 miles per hour. Overall, it can be concluded that future cumulative conditions including both PC-3 as currently proposed and buildout of other Town of Truckee General Plan and Martis Valley Community Plan land uses can be adequately accommodated with the existing two-lane configuration of the Truckee Bypass over the Truckee River Bridge. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 47 TABLE 21: Traffic Performance on SR 267 Bypass in 2032 SR 267 Roadway Segment Link Length (feet) Direction Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Average Travel Speed (mph) Average Delay (Sec/vehicle) 2032 Without PC-3 I-80 Eastbound Ramp to Merge North of Truckee River Bridge 1,164 Southbound 1,046 33 7.2 Truckee River Bridge (2-Lane Section) 3,142 Southbound 1,046 50 3.8 Truckee River Bridge (2-Lane Section) 3,142 Northbound 1,330 48 5.3 Brockway Road to Merge South of Truckee River Bridge 2,862 Northbound 1,330 36 16.9 2032 With PC-3 I-80 Eastbound Ramp to Merge North of Truckee River Bridge 1,164 Southbound 1,305 28 11.5 Truckee River Bridge (2-Lane Section) 3,142 Southbound 1,305 48 5.1 Truckee River Bridge (2-Lane Section) 3,142 Northbound 1,649 40 14.0 Brockway Road to Merge South of Truckee River Bridge 2,862 Northbound 1,649 27 33.0 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.PC3 LOS.xls LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 48 Traffic Impact Analysis This page left intentionally blank. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 49 Section 6 Traffic Impacts and Mitigation The following potential areas of transportation impacts are considered in this section: • Intersection Level of Service • Intersection Queuing • Roadway Level of Service • Turn Lane Warrants • Adequacy of Roadway Geometry Along Soaring Way and Joerger Drive • Vehicle Miles of Travel • Construction Traffic Impacts • Transit Impacts • Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) As indicated in Sections 5 and 6 and Tables 12 and 18, the following intersections are forecasted to exceed the LOS threshold during the summer PM peak hour. ‘No Project’ Conditions 2012 Analysis Year • Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive • Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street • West River Street/Bridge Street • West River Street/McIver Crossing 2032 Analysis Year • SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road • Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp • Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail • Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street • West River Street/Bridge Street • West River Street/McIver Crossing • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road (summer and winter) The SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection in Placer County is also forecast to exceed the LOS threshold during the winter PM peak hour. ‘Plus Project’ Conditions The following additional intersections would exceed the LOS thresholds with implementation of the PC-3 project. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 50 Traffic Impact Analysis 2012 Analysis Year • SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way • Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access • Brockway Road/Martis Drive (Site Access) • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access 2032 Analysis Year • SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps • SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps • Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access • Brockway Road/Martis Drive (Site Access) • Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access All other study intersections are forecast to operate within the applicable LOS thresholds under all scenarios. Intersection LOS Mitigation Measures Potential intersection LOS mitigation measures are evaluated for the study intersections exceeding the LOS thresholds. All of the intersections exceeding the LOS threshold in 2012 are discussed first. The intersection LOS mitigation summaries for 2012 and 2032 conditions are presented in Tables 22 and 23, respectively. The LOS calculations with intersection mitigation measures are contained in Appendix E. Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection First, potential intersection improvements at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection are considered. Next, the Donner Pass Road Extension is discussed and conclusions are made. Potential Intersection Improvements Potential intersection LOS mitigation measures are considered for the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, as it exceeds the LOS thresholds in the 2012 summer PM peak hour, with or without the proposed project. Specifically, the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive is expected to operate at LOS F with more than 4 vehicle-hours of delay, with or without the PC-3 project. 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. The following potential alternatives to improve LOS are considered: • The construction of a roundabout or traffic signal at this location is not feasible due to the existing steep grades. The transition in and out of either improvement would create unsafe traffic conditions, particularly in inclement weather. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 51 TA B L E 2 2 : P C - 3 2 0 1 2 P M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n L O S M i t i g a t i o n S u m m a r y Un m i t i g a t e d L O S M i t i g a t e d L O S No P r o j e c t P l u s P r o j e c t N o P r o j e c t P l u s P r o j e c t Un m i t i g a t e d D e l a y D e l a y D e l a y D e l a y In t e r s e c t i o n Co n t r o l T y p e 1, 2 (s e c / v e h ) L O S ( s e c / v e h ) L O S M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e ( s e c / v e h ) L O S ( s e c / v e h ) L O S Su m m e r L O S Do n n e r P a s s R o a d / G l e n s h i r e D r i v e S t o p C o n t r o l l e d OV F F O V F F Ad d C e n t e r L a n e f o r T w o - S t a g e L e f t - T u r n s 4 8 . 0 E 4. 1 2 Ve h - H r s 4 Do n n e r P a s s R o a d / B r i d g e S t r e e t No n - S t a n d a r d 3 OV F F O V F F Si g n a l i z e . U s e C o o r d i n a t e d S i g n a l T i m i n g 5 11 . 2 B 1 3 . 3 B Br i d g e S t r e e t / W e s t R i v e r S t r e e t S t o p C o n t r o l l e d OV F F O V F F Si g n a l i z e . U s e C o o r d i n a t e d S i g n a l T i m i n g 5 6. 0 A 5 . 9 A We s t R i v e r S t r e e t / M c I v e r C r o s s i n g S t o p C o n t r o l l e d 71 . 9 F 1 4 1 . 5 F Mo d i f y C e n t e r L a n e f o r T w o - S t a g e L e f t - T u r n s 3 2 . 9 D 4 4 . 6 E SR 2 6 7 / B r o c k w a y R o a d / S o a r i n g W a y S i g n a l 2 1 . 2 C 10 0 . 9 F Co n s t r u c t D u a l - L a n e R o u n d a b o u t w i t h R i g h t - Tu r n B y p a s s e s f o r E a s t b o u n d a n d W e s t b o u n d Tr a f f i c N/ A 3 1 . 5 D Br o c k w a y R o a d / H o p e C o u r t S t o p C o n t r o l l e d 1 3 . 3 B OV F F Co n s t r u c t S i n g l e - L a n e R o u n d a b o u t w i t h S i n g l e - La n e A p p r o a c h e s N/ A 1 2 . 4 B Br o c k w a y R o a d / M a r t i s D r i v e S t o p C o n t r o l l e d N / A OV F F Pr o v i d e T W L T L f o r T w o - S t a g e S B L e f t - T u r n N / A 4 5 . 2 E So a r i n g W a y / J o e r g e r D r / S i t e A c c e s s S t o p C o n t r o l l e d 9 . 4 A OV F F Co n s t r u c t S i n g l e - L a n e R o u n d a b o u t w i t h S i n g l e - La n e A p p r o a c h e s N/ A 9 . 3 A BO L D t e x t i n d i c a t e s t h a t L O S s t a n d a r d h a s b e e n e x c e e d e d . 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 . NO T E 1 : L e v e l o f s e r v i c e f o r s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s i s r e p o r t e d f o r t h e t o t a l i n t e r s e c t i o n . NO T E 2 : L e v e l o f s e r v i c e f o r r o u n d a b o u t s a n d o t h e r u n s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s i s r e p o r t e d f o r t h e w o r s t m o v e m e n t . NO T E 3 : T h e D o n n e r P a s s R o a d / B r i d g e S t r e e t i n t e r s e c t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d w i t h s t o p s i g n s o n t h r e e a p p r o a c h e s , w i t h t h e n o r t h b o u nd B r i d g e S t r e e t a p p r o a c h u n c o n t r o l l e d . NO T E 4 : T h e w o r s t m o v e m e n t a t t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n i s r e p o r t e d a s L O S F w i t h g r e a t e r t h a n 4 v e h i c l e - h o u r s o f d e l a y . NO T E 5 : A d d i n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l s t o t h e t h e s e t w o i n t e r s e c t i o n s o n b o t h s i d e s o f t h e r a i l r o a d t r a c k s h a s b e e n s h o w n i n b y t h e T r uc k e e R a i l y a r d E I R t o c a u s e e x c e s s i v e t r a f f i c q u e u i n g . T h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n L O S a n a l y s i s d o n o t a c c o u n t f o r t h e c l o s e s p a c i n g b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o i n t e r s e c t i o n 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 . PC 3 L O S . x l s LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 52 Traffic Impact Analysis TA B L E 2 3 : P C - 3 2 0 3 2 P M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n L O S M i t i g a t i o n S u m m a r y Un m i t i g a t e d L O S Mi t i g a t e d L O S No P r o j e c t P l u s P r o j e c t N o P r o j e c t P l u s P r o j e c t Un m i t i g a t e d D e l a y D e l a y De l a y D e l a y In t e r s e c t i o n Co n t r o l T y p e 1, 2 (s e c / v e h ) L O S ( s e c / v e h ) L O S M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e ( s e c / v e h ) L O S ( s e c / v e h ) L O S Su m m e r L O S SR 8 9 N o r t h / D o n n e r P a s s R o a d R o u n d a b o u t OV F F O V F F Th r e e - L a n e R o u n d a b o u t w / S B a n d E B R i g h t - T u r n S l i p L a n e s N / A 4 4 . 9 E SR 2 6 7 / S R 8 9 N o r t h / I - 8 0 W e s t b o u n d Ra m p s Si g n a l 3 5 . 4 D 81 . 1 F Im p r o v e T r a f f i c S i g n a l C a p a c i t y b y W i d e n i n g S R 2 6 7 t o T w o T h r u - T r a f f i c La n e s i n B o t h D i r e c t i o n s . 3 N/ A 3 0 . 4 C SR 2 6 7 / I - 8 0 E a s t b o u n d R a m p s S i g n a l 1 9 . 6 B 59 . 4 E Im p r o v e T r a f f i c S i g n a l C a p a c i t y b y W i d e n i n g S R 2 6 7 t o T w o T h r u - T r a f f i c La n e s i n B o t h D i r e c t i o n s . 3 N/ A 1 6 . 0 B Do n n e r P a s s R o a d / I - 8 0 E a s t b o u n d O f f - Ra m p St o p C o n t r o l l e d OV F F O V F F Du a l - L a n e R o u n d a b o u t w i t h T w o N o r t h b o u n d a n d E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h La n e s a n d O n e S o u t h b o u n d A p p r o a c h L a n e . 14 . 9 B 1 8 . 5 C Do n n e r P a s s R o a d / P i o n e e r T r a i l R o u n d a b o u t 13 9 . 5 F O V F F Ex p a n d R o u n d a b o u t t o T w o C i r c u l a t i n g L a n e s , E x p a n d N o r t h b o u n d , So u t h b o u n d , a n d E a s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h e s t o T w o L a n e s 15 . 8 C 1 9 . 6 C Do n n e r P a s s R o a d / B r i d g e S t r e e t Un c o n v e n t i o n a l 4 OV F F O V F F Si g n a l 6 38 . 1 D 3 7 . 9 D Br i d g e S t r e e t / W e s t R i v e r S t r e e t S t o p C o n t r o l l e d OV F F O V F F Si g n a l 6 57 . 2 E 5 8 . 5 E We s t R i v e r S t r e e t / M c I v e r C r o s s i n g S t o p C o n t r o l l e d OV F F O V F F Co n s t r u c t S i n g l e - L a n e R o u n d a b o u t w i t h S i n g l e - L a n e A p p r o a c h e s 2 8 . 6 D 3 1 . 9 D SR 2 6 7 / B r o c k w a y R o a d / S o a r i n g W a y S i g n a l 14 1 . 8 F O V F F Th r e e - L a n e R o u n d a b o u t w / W B R i g h t - T u r n B y p a s s a n d E B R i g h t - T u r n S l i p La n e N/ A 5 2 . 6 F 5 SR 2 6 7 / A i r p o r t R o a d / S c h a f f e r M il l R o a d S i g n a l 17 0 . 1 F O V F F Im p r o v e T r a f f i c S i g n a l C a p a c i t y b y W i d e n i n g S R 2 6 7 t o T w o T h r u - T r a f f i c La n e s i n B o t h D i r e c t i o n s . P r o v i d e S e p a r a t e L e f t - T u r n , R i g h t - T u r n , a n d T h r u - Tr a f f i c L a n e s o n B o t h E a s t b o u n d a n d W e s t b o u n d A p p r o a c h e s . 3 19 . 3 B 2 2 . 5 C Br o c k w a y R o a d / H o p e C o u r t S t o p C o n t r o l l e d 2 4 . 6 C OV F F Co n s t r u c t S i n g l e - L a n e R o u n d a b o u t w i t h S i n g l e - L a n e A p p r o a c h e s N / A 2 3 . 3 C Br o c k w a y R o a d / M a r t i s D r i v e S t o p C o n t r o l l e d N / A OV F F Pr o v i d e S e p a r a t e S o u t h b o u n d L e f t - a n d R i g h t - T u r n L a n e s a n d T W L T L o n Br o c k w a y R o a d f o r T w o - S t a g e S B L e f t - T u r n . N/ A 7 1 . 3 F 5 So a r i n g W a y / J o e r g e r D r / V i l l a g e S o u t h ac c e s s St o p C o n t r o l l e d 9 . 7 A OV F F Co n s t r u c t S i n g l e - L a n e R o u n d a b o u t w i t h S i n g l e - L a n e A p p r o a c h e s . N / A 1 1 . 1 B Wi n t e r L O S SR 2 6 7 / A i r p o r t R o a d / S c h a f f e r M il l R o a d 7 Si g n a l 12 2 . 7 F 1 3 8 . 7 F Mi n i m u m I m p r o v e m e n t s f o r W i n t e r O n l y : W i d e n S R 2 6 7 t o T w o T h r u - T r a f f i c La n e s i n B o t h D i r e c t i o n s ; R e c o n f i g u r e E B A p p r o a c h t o L e f t - T u r n L a n e a n d Sh a r e d T h r u - R i g h t L a n e . 28 . 9 C 3 3 . 0 C BO L D t e x t i n d i c a t e s t h a t L O S s t a n d a r d h a s b e e n e x c e e d e d . 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 . NO T E 1 : L e v e l o f s e r v i c e f o r s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s i s r e p o r t e d f o r t h e t o t a l i n t e r s e c t i o n . NO T E 2 : L e v e l o f s e r v i c e f o r r o u n d a b o u t s a n d o t h e r u n s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s i s r e p o r t e d f o r t h e w o r s t m o v e m e n t . NO T E 3 : L e v e l o f s e r v i c e a t t h e s e m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s i s b a s e d o n S i m T r a f f i c s i m u l a t i o n . NO T E 4 : T h e D o n n e r P a s s R o a d / B r i d g e S t r e e t i n t e r s e c t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d w i t h s t o p s i g n s o n t h r e e a p p r o a c h e s , w i t h t h e n o r t h b o u nd B r i d g e S t r e e t a p p r o a c h u n c o n t r o l l e d . NO T E 5 : T h i s l o c a t i o n w i t h L O S F d o e s n o t e x c e e d t h e T o w n o f T r u c k e e 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 o r s t m o v e m e n t h a s le s s t h a n 4 v e h i c l e - h o u r s o f d e l a y . NO T E 6 : L O S r e s u l t s a r e b a s e d o n H C M 2 0 1 0 m e t h o d o l o g i e s , w h i c h d o n o t a c c o u n t f o r t h e e f f e c t o f t h e t r a f f i c q u e u e s f r o m t h e s e cl o s e l y s p a c e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h e a c h o t h e r . L O S r e s u l t s a r e b a s e d o n t h e m i n i m u m n u m b e r o f p h a s e s w i t h c o o r d i n a t e d c y c l e s a n d o f f s e t s . NO T E 7 : W i n t e r a n a l y s i s o f S R 2 6 7 / A i r p o r t R o a d / S c h a f f e r M i l l R o a d i s c o n d u c t e d u s i n g H C M 2 0 1 0 m e t h o d o l o g i e 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 . PC 3 L O S . x l s PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 53 • One option would be to provide a Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (TWLTL) 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 westbound through traffic and accelerate in the through lane, rather than accelerating in the median lane. A driver is prohibited by law from traveling more than 200 feet in a TWLTL. Again, there would be a 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 would be to provide a left-turn acceleration lane (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 contained in Appendix F. The center lane would not be permitted for drivers turning left from Keiser Avenue. The pavement markings associated with the left-turn lane would 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. Table 24 summarizes the LOS and delay on the worst movement (the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive) under 2012 conditions with the new center turn lane. The presence of the center lane would improve LOS to an acceptable level (LOS E on the worst movement) in 2012 without the PC-3 project. With the new center turn lane, most of the PC-3 development (approximately 97 percent) could occur before the LOS threshold is exceeded. With full buildout of the PC-3 development, the LOS for drivers turning left from Glenshire Drive is calculated to be LOS F with approximately 4.12 vehicle-hours of delay, which marginally exceeds the Town’s standard of 4 vehicle-hours by approximately 0.12 vehicle- hours of delay (or approximately 2.3 seconds of delay per vehicle, on average). Note that the PC-3 project is estimated to add about 16 vehicles to this left-turn movement during the PM peak hour. If 4 of those vehicles turned right instead and used the Bypass to access PC- 3, the LOS would meet the Town’s threshold. The addition of the left-turn lane would improve existing conditions to an acceptable LOS and would significantly improve LOS with buildout of the PC-3 project (4.12 total vehicle-hours of delay under PM peak-hour conditions compared to about 52 total vehicle-hours of delay). Donner Pass Road Extension In addition to the potential mitigation measures discussed above, the impacts of the implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension to be constructed east of Bridge Street tying into a new T-intersection on Glenshire Drive (which is part of the approved Railyard Master Plan Project) were considered. This roadway extension would substantially reduce the left- turning traffic volume from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road, as drivers faced with long delays for making left-turn movements from Glenshire Drive can be expected to shift their travel patterns to instead use the Donner Pass Road Extension. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 54 Traffic Impact Analysis 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 4 Project (such as PC-3) encounters an existing unacceptable Level of Service on an arterial or collector road that development is allowed if both of the following are true: • Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5; AND • If project generates traffic volumes greater than identified in General Plan traffic model, project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as necessary to achieve acceptable LOS for buildout traffic volumes. As discussed in Chapter 3, the proposed PC-3 project has a lower level of trip generation at its site access points than that assumed in the General Plan. It follows that the PC-3 development would meet the criteria set forth in Table CIR-6 for an allowable development if the project applicant constructs improvements to the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5 (which indicates construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension). It should be noted that the General Plan Circulation Element (Policy P2.3) also allows flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards for three specific intersections, one of which is the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. Conclusion In conclusion, implementation of any phase of the PC-3 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 a center lane at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection would provide an acceptable Assumes a Two-Stage Left-Turn Operation from Glenshire Drive with One-Car Storage in Median. Delay on Worst Movement Delay Delay Scenario (sec/veh) (Veh-Hrs) LOS 2012 PM No Project - Existing Conditions (without Center Lane) 1 OVF 52 F 2012 PM - without PC-3 48.0 N/A E 2012 PM - with PC-3 Project 77.6 4.12 F Note 1: The Existing Condition assumes a one-stage left-turn with adjusted gap acceptance times. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC3 LOS.xls TABLE 24: Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection LOS with Center Turn Lane 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. OVF = Overflow. Overflow indicates a delay greater than 200 seconds per vehicle, which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 55 LOS under 2012 conditions, even with most (97 percent) of the PC-3 development. Although this intersection is calculated to marginally exceed the Town’s LOS standard with full implementation of the PC-3 project (by approximately 0.12 vehicle-hours of delay on the worst movement), traffic conditions with PC-3 and the center lane would be improved over existing conditions. There are no other feasible short-term improvements that can be implemented to improve the LOS to an acceptable level before the Donner Pass Road Extension is constructed. The Donner Pass Road Extension is included in the Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Program, although it is not currently funded. The project applicant shall construct a center turn lane on Donner Pass Road to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Glenshire Drive. Although the traffic conditions with full development of the PC-3 project and provision of the center left-turn acceleration lane are estimated to marginally exceed the LOS threshold, traffic conditions would be improved over current conditions, and Circulation Element Policy 2.3 provides flexibility for LOS standards at this intersection. Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road Intersection The Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road intersection exceeds the LOS thresholds in the 2012 and 2032 summer PM peak hours, with or without the proposed project. Implementation of the PC-3 project is expected to result in a reduction in the total PM peak-hour traffic volume through this intersection in 2012 and 2032, although it would increase the volumes on the northbound right- turn and westbound left-turn movements. Installation of a traffic signal and associated lane improvements at this intersection are included in the Town’s Traffic Impact Fee Program. Based on the HCM 2010 methodology, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS with a signal, under all scenarios. However, this method does not account for the interaction between this intersection and the closely-spaced Bridge Street/West River Street intersection. According to the results of the simulation performed in 2008 as a part of the Railyard EIR, the addition of traffic signals at these two intersections would result in excessive traffic queuing, and providing an acceptable LOS E or better condition would require additional travel lanes along Donner Pass Road and Bridge Street. This level of improvement was identified by Town staff as infeasible, due to factors such as right-of-way requirements and impact on historic structures. The General Plan Circulation Element (Policy P2.3) allows flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards for the Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road intersection in cases where improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS should be deferred in order to better coordinate with the planning and implementation of other projects including the Railyard. As such, payment of traffic impact fees is considered to be an adequate mitigation measure for this intersection. Bridge Street/West River Street Intersection The Bridge Street / West River Street intersection exceeds the LOS thresholds in the 2012 and 2032 summer PM peak hours, with or without the proposed project. Implementation of the PC-3 project is expected to reduce the traffic volumes on the through movements, although it would increase the volumes on the northbound left-turn and eastbound right-turn movements. Installation of a traffic signal at this intersection is included in the Town’s Traffic Impact Fee Program. Based on the HCM 2010 methodology, this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS with a signal, under all scenarios. However, this method does not account for the interaction between this intersection and the closely-spaced Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road intersection. According to the results of the simulation performed in 2008 as a part of the LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 56 Traffic Impact Analysis Railyard EIR, the addition of traffic signals at these two intersections would result in excessive traffic queuing, and providing an acceptable LOS E or better condition would require additional travel lanes along Donner Pass Road and Bridge Street. This level of improvement was identified by Town staff as infeasible, due to factors such as right-of-way requirements and impact on historic structures. The General Plan Circulation Element (Policy P2.3) allows flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards for the Bridge Street/West River Street intersection in cases where improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS should be deferred in order to better coordinate with the planning and implementation of other projects including the Railyard. As such, payment of traffic impact fees is considered to be an adequate mitigation measure for this intersection. McIver Crossing/West River Street Intersection The McIver Crossing/West River Street intersection exceeds the LOS thresholds in the 2012 and 2032 summer PM peak hours, with or without the proposed project. Implementation of the PC-3 project would exacerbate an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection, as it would result in increased vehicular delays during the PM peak hour. Re-striping the existing westbound left- turn lane as a two-way left-turn lane would improve the LOS to an acceptable level (LOS E or better) in 2012, as it would allow two-stage left-turn movements from McIver Crossing to West River Street eastbound. This strategy is appropriate given the low posted speed limit (25 miles per hour) and the relatively low westbound left-turn volume. Even with the two-way left-turn lane, this intersection would exceed the LOS standard in 2032, with or without the PC-3 project. Provision of a single-lane roundabout at this intersection is included in the Town’s Traffic Impact Fee Program. With a roundabout, the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. According to Table CIR-6 in the Truckee General Plan Circulation Element, when a Category 4 Project (such as PC-3) encounters an existing unacceptable Level of Service on an arterial or collector road, that development is allowed if both of the following are true: • Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5; AND • If project generates traffic volumes greater than identified in General Plan traffic model, project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as necessary to achieve acceptable LOS for buildout traffic volumes. As discussed in Chapter 3, the proposed PC-3 project has a lower level of trip generation at its site access points than that assumed in the General Plan. It follows that the PC-3 development would meet the criteria set forth in Table CIR-6 for an allowable development if the project applicant constructs improvements to the McIver Crossing/West River Street intersection as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5 (which indicates construction of a single-lane roundabout). The 2012 impact of the project is mitigated by restriping the existing pavement to provide a TWLTL on West River Street east of McIver Crossing. While the 2032 impact exceeds the standard as identified in Table CIR-6, the project will only increase total peak-hour traffic volume through the intersection by 1.3 percent, and will slightly reduce the critical southbound left-turn PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 57 impact. Given these small impacts, the payment of traffic impact fees is considered to be adequate mitigation for the future cumulative scenario. SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way Implementation of the PC-3 project would cause the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection to exceed the LOS threshold in 2012. Removal of the existing traffic signal and construction of a multi-lane roundabout would improve the LOS to an acceptable level. Specifically, a dual-lane roundabout with right-turn bypass lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches would provide an acceptable LOS (LOS D) with the PC-3 project in 2012. A three-lane roundabout with an eastbound right-turn slip lane and a westbound right-turn bypass lane is expected to be needed in 2032. A roundabout at this intersection is included in the Town’s traffic impact fee program. Note that while provision of capacity-enhancing improvements2 to the existing signalized intersection would also improve the LOS to an acceptable level, this would not be consistent with the Town’s policy (Truckee General Plan Policy P7.1), which strives to replace existing traffic signals with roundabouts, including traffic signals on State Highways. According to Table CIR-6 in the Truckee General Plan Circulation Element, when a Category 4 Project (such as PC-3) encounters an existing acceptable Level of Service on an arterial or collector road, that development is allowed if the following are true: • Project traffic does not degrade LOS to unacceptable LOS; OR • Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as identified in Table CIR-5 to maintain acceptable LOS; AND • If project generates traffic volumes greater than identified in General Plan traffic model, project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as necessary to achieve acceptable LOS for buildout traffic volumes. As discussed in Chapter 3, the proposed PC-3 project has a lower level of trip generation at its site access points than that assumed in the General Plan. It follows that the PC-3 development would meet the criteria set forth in Table CIR-6 for an allowable development if the project applicant constructs improvements to the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection as identified in General Plan Table CIR-5 (which indicates construction of a roundabout or equivalent improvements). Brockway Road/Hope Court/Site Access Implementation of the PC-3 project would cause the Brockway Road/Hope Court intersection to exceed the LOS threshold in 2012 and 2032. Implementation of a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches would provide an acceptable LOS C under all scenarios with the proposed project. As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5, improvements to this intersection to provide acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project. 2 Specifically, the following improvements would be needed to the existing intersection to provide adequate LOS with a traffic signal: provision of dual left-turn lanes, a through lane, and a right-turn lane on the eastbound approach and separate left- and right-turn lanes on the westbound approach in 2012, and in addition to these improvements provide dual left-turn lanes and two through lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches in 2032. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 58 Traffic Impact Analysis Brockway Road/Martis Drive (Site Access) The Brockway Road/Martis Drive intersection would exceed the LOS threshold in 2012 and 2032 with the PC-3 project. Extending the existing central two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) along Brockway Road to the east of this intersection to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Martis Drive onto Brockway Road would provide an acceptable LOS E in 2012. In addition, the provision of separate left- and right-turn lanes on the southbound Martis Drive approach would be needed in 2032. As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5, improvements to this intersection to provide acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project Soaring Way/Joerger Drive/Site Access Implementation of the PC-3 project would cause the Soaring Way / Joerger Drive intersection to exceed the LOS threshold in 2012 and 2032. Implementation of a single-lane roundabout with single-lane approaches would provide a good LOS (LOS B or better) under all scenarios with the proposed project. As this intersection is not identified in General Plan Table CIR-5, responsibility to mitigate this intersection to acceptable LOS are a responsibility of the project. SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road The SR 89 North/Donner Pass Road intersection would exceed the LOS threshold in 2032, with or without the PC-3 project. Expanding the existing roundabout to include three circulating lanes (to accommodate three entering lanes on the northbound approach), an eastbound right-turn slip lane, and a southbound right-turn slip lane would provide an acceptable LOS in 2032 with PC-3. As improvements to this intersection are included in Table CIR-5 to maintain acceptable LOS, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp The Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastern Interchange Eastbound Off-Ramp intersection would exceed the LOS threshold in 2032, with or without the PC-3 project. Provision of a dual-lane roundabout with two northbound and eastbound approach lanes and a single lane on the southbound approach would provide an acceptable LOS C in 2032 with PC-3. As a single-lane roundabout is included in the Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail The Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail intersection would exceed the LOS threshold in 2032, with or without the PC-3 project. Expanding the existing roundabout to provide two circulating lanes, as well as two lanes on the Donner Pass Road approaches and the Pioneer Trail approach would provide an acceptable LOS C in 2032 with PC-3. As improvements at this intersection are included in Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road The SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection would exceed the LOS threshold under 2032 summer and winter conditions, with or without the PC-3 project. Provision of two through lanes on the SR 267 approaches, as well as separate left, through, and right-turn lanes on the minor approaches would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS C or better under all PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 59 scenarios. The Placer County traffic impact fee program includes “SR 267: County line to south of Northstar Drive – Widen to four lanes/intersections improvements,” which can be considered to address the improvements at the SR 267/Airport Road/Schaffer Mill Road intersection. According to the Placer/Truckee Regional Traffic Impact Fee Agreement, payment of appropriate fees under the Truckee impact fee program is considered to mitigate impacts on roadway improvements included in the improvements list for Placer County’s Tahoe Resorts Benefit District impact fee program. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee impact fees contributing to this improvement. SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps Implementation of the PC-3 project would cause the SR 267/SR 89 North/I-80 Westbound Ramps intersection to exceed the LOS threshold in 2032. Based on the results of the simulation, widening the SR 267 and SR 89 approaches to provide two through travel lanes (in addition to the existing turn lanes) would provide an acceptable LOS C at this intersection. A dual-lane roundabout is included in the Town’s traffic impact fee program. The roundabout would provide an acceptable LOS D. However, widening the roadways to provide two through travel lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches to this intersection would be necessary, with or without a roundabout. As improvements to this intersection are included in Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps Implementation of the PC-3 project would cause the SR 267/I-80 Eastbound Ramps intersection to exceed the LOS threshold in 2032. Based on the results of the simulation, widening the SR 267 approaches to provide two through travel lanes in each direction (in addition to the existing turn lanes) would provide a good LOS B at this intersection. A dual-lane roundabout is included in the Town’s traffic impact fee program. The roundabout would provide an acceptable LOS E. However, widening the roadways to provide two through travel lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches to this intersection would be necessary, with or without a roundabout. As improvements to this intersection are included in Table CIR-5, payment of Town traffic impact fees would address this project impact. INTERSECTION QUEUING Without intersection capacity improvements, traffic queues are generally expected to interfere with adjacent roadways and driveways in most locations where the LOS is unacceptable. However, with implementation of the intersection LOS mitigation measures included in Tables 22 and 23, the resulting traffic queue lengths are not expected to exceed the storage capacity at any of the study intersections during any of the analysis periods. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. ROADWAY LOS Roadway LOS is expected to be acceptable on all study roadway segments under 2012 conditions, except the segment of SR 267 within the Tahoe Basin. This segment currently exceeds the LOS thresholds during peak summer and winter days. . Under future cumulative 2032 conditions, SR 267 from the Town Limit to Brockway Summit in Placer County would also exceed the LOS threshold during the summer, with or without the PC-3 project. The relatively short segment of SR 267 between the Town Limit and Airport Road is expected to exceed the LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 60 Traffic Impact Analysis LOS threshold during winter conditions as well. The Placer County Tahoe Resorts Benefit District traffic impact fee program includes widening SR 267 to four travel lanes from the Town Limit to south of Northstar Drive, extending the southbound truck climbing lane to Brockway Summit, and constructing a northbound passing lane at Brockway Summit. According to the Placer/Truckee Regional Traffic Impact Fee Agreement, payment of appropriate fees under the Truckee impact fee program is considered to mitigate impacts on roadway improvements included in the improvements list for Placer County’s Tahoe Resorts Benefit District impact fee program. Note that widening of SR 267 to four travel lanes between Brockway Road/Soaring Way and the Town Limit is included in Truckee’s traffic impact program. The project proponent shall pay Town of Truckee impact fees contributing to these improvements. All other study roadway segments are forecast to operate within the applicable LOS threshold under all scenarios in 2032. Impact on SR 267 Bypass Based on the simulation performed for 2012 conditions with the proposed project, it can be concluded that the merge point along the SR 267 Bypass would not cause excessive delays and that the merge point would not affect traffic operations at the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way or SR 267/I-80 Interchange Ramps intersection. Furthermore, traffic conditions on the Truckee River Bridge are good, with average travel speeds of 49 to 51 miles per hour. Overall, it can be concluded that existing conditions including the PC-3 project as currently proposed can be adequately accommodated with the existing two-lane configuration of the Truckee Bypass over the Truckee River Bridge Similarly, based on the simulation performed for future 2032 conditions, it can be concluded that the merge points along the SR 267 Bypass would not cause excessive delays and that the merge points would not affect traffic operations at either the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way or SR 267/I-80 Interchange Ramps intersections. Furthermore, traffic conditions on the Truckee River Bridge are expected to be good, with average travel speeds of 48 to 50 miles per hour. Overall, it can be concluded that future cumulative conditions including both PC-3 as currently proposed and buildout of other Town of Truckee General Plan and Martis Valley Community Plan land uses can be adequately accommodated with the existing two-lane configuration of the Truckee Bypass over the Truckee River Bridge. TURN LANE WARRANTS AT SITE ACCESS POINTS The need for new turn lanes at the site access points was evaluated. 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. Left-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis The need for new left-turn lanes at the site access points along Brockway Road, Soaring Way, and Joerger Drive was evaluated. Eastbound left-turn lanes are warranted at all of the site access points along Brockway Road, as well as on Soaring Way at its intersection with Joerger PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 61 Drive in 2012 and 2032 with the project. At the Brockway Road/Martis Drive intersection, extension of the center turn lane along Brockway Road through this intersection is recommended in order to provide adequate LOS for left turns made from Martis Drive onto eastbound Brockway Road. This improvement will provide a left-turn lane for eastbound left turns from Brockway Road to Martis Drive. As roundabouts are recommended to be constructed at the Brockway Road/Hope Court and Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersections, left-turn pockets are not necessary at these locations. Conversely, the traffic volumes at the potential grocery store access point(s) on Soaring Way east of Joerger Drive do not meet the warrant for a new westbound left-turn lane along Soaring Way under existing or future conditions. Also, traffic volumes at the site access points along Joerger Drive do not meet the left-turn lane warrant. Therefore, left-turn lanes are not necessary along Soaring Way east of Joerger Drive, or along Joerger Drive. Right-Turn Lane Warrant Analysis The need for new right-turn lanes at the site access points along Brockway Road, Soaring Way, and Joerger Drive was evaluated. Westbound right-turn lanes are warranted on Brockway Road at both site access points in 2012 and 2032 with the project. In addition, an eastbound right-turn lane is warranted on Soaring Way at the Joerger Drive/PC-3 Commercial Access intersection in 2012 and 2032. In 2032, an eastbound right-turn lane is also warranted on Brockway Road at Hope Court. It is therefore recommended that a westbound right-turn lane be provided on Brockway Road at Martis Drive with implementation of the proposed project in 2012. As roundabouts are recommended to be constructed at the Brockway Road/Hope Court and Soaring Way/Joerger Drive intersections, right-turn lanes are not necessary at these locations. Conversely, the traffic volumes at the potential grocery store access point(s) on Soaring Way east of Joerger Drive do not meet the warrant for a new eastbound right-turn lane along Soaring Way under existing or future conditions. The right-turn lane warrant is also not met at the site access points along Joerger Drive. Therefore, right-turn lanes along Soaring Way east of Joerger Drive or along Joerger Drive are not necessary. ADEQUACY OF ROADWAY GEOMETRY The adequacy of the roadway geometry along Soaring Way and Joerger Drive is evaluated as a part of this study. Soaring Way Soaring Way is classified as a Minor Arterial Road, according to the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. The segment of Soaring Way between SR 267 and Joerger Drive is proposed to include two 11-foot travel lanes, an 11-foot turn pocket/transitional striping, 5-foot bicycle lanes in each direction, and a 5-foot sidewalk with curb and gutter along the south side. The segment east of Joerger Drive is proposed to include two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot bicycle lanes in each direction, curb and gutter, and 5-foot sidewalks along both sides separated by a 5- to 10- foot planter/snow storage area. The proposed roadway configuration for Soaring Way meets the standards set forth for arterial roads in the Town of Truckee Public Improvement and Engineering Standards. Therefore, the proposed roadway geometry is considered to be adequate. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 62 Traffic Impact Analysis Joerger Drive Joerger Drive is proposed to include two 11-foot travel lanes, 4-foot bike lanes in both directions, and a 5-foot sidewalk with curb and gutter on the west side. Joerger Drive is not specifically classified in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. According to Section 4.01 of the Town’s Public Improvement and Engineering Standards, any road with an ADT between 500 and 2,000 will be classified as a Collector Road and 2,001 or greater will be classified as an Arterial Road. The ADT on Joerger Drive immediately north of Soaring Way is estimated to be about 3,130 vehicles per day in 2012 and 4,600 vehicles per day in 2032.3 The ADT drops to the north on Joerger Drive but remains above 2,000. According to the Town engineering standards, Joerger Drive would fall under the definition of an Arterial Road. The Arterial standards call for 5-foot shoulders. Given the relatively high level of truck traffic on Joerger Drive (associated with the existing water treatment plant and quarry), it is recommended that 5- foot bike lanes/shoulders be provided along Joerger Drive adjacent to the project site, consistent with the standards for an Arterial Road. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED 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 7 of the Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program. This table does not include a land use similar to the potential Park n Ride/Trailhead Parking area. Therefore, the VMT for this land use was estimated based on the trip generation rate assumed in this study (Table 3), and the trip length and percent new trips from the “Health Fitness Club” land use in the TIF Program Table. Note the VMT per unit rate accounts for trips already on the roadway based on the “percent new trips” column. This shows that while all residential trips are new trips, a large portion of retail and supermarket trips are already on the existing roadway network. This takes into account the fact that some project trips are “pass-by” or diverted trips, as discussed in the trip generation analysis. The VMT analysis is summarized in Table 25. As indicated, the proposed project is estimated to generate a total of approximately 5,647 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. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACTS The construction schedule for the proposed project will be dependent upon market demands. The project would be constructed over a number of phases, and the construction-related traffic would be distributed over time. All study roadway segments are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the construction phases, considering that they currently have substantial additional available capacity. However, project construction traffic could potentially cause some of the site access intersections to temporarily exceed the LOS threshold. In order to ensure that 3 These estimates were developed by applying a daily-to peak-hour volume factor to the PM peak hour volumes with the project. Specifically, a daily-to-peak-hour factor of 11.2 was applied, based upon the project’s total daily trip generation divided by the PM peak hour trip generation. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 63 TA B L E 2 5 : P C - 3 V e h i c l e M i l e s T r a v e l e d IT E Co d e P r o p o s e d L a n d U s e La n d U s e ( T a b l e 7 f r o m T I F P r o g r a m ) Q u a n t i t y U n i t s Av e r a g e T r i p Le n g t h (m i l e s ) Pe r c e n t Ne w Tr i p s PM P e a k H o u r VM T p e r U n i t VM T 13 0 I n d u s t r i a l P a r k L i g h t I n d u s t r i a l 82 . 7 6 KS F 3 . 7 9 2 % 3 . 3 4 2 7 6 22 0 A p a r t m e n t M u l t i f a m i l y 4 2 D U 4 . 3 1 0 0 % 2 . 6 7 1 1 2 76 0 R e s e a r c h a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C e n t e r O f f i c e 9 6 . 3 2 K S F 3 . 7 8 7 % 5 . 4 4 5 2 4 77 0 B u s i n e s s P a r k O f f i c e 6 0 . 8 5 K S F 3 . 7 8 7 % 5 . 4 4 3 3 1 82 0 S h o p p i n g C e n t e r G e n e r a l R e t a i l 1 5 3 . 6 9 K S F 3 . 8 4 9 % 1 1 . 3 2 1 , 7 4 0 82 6 S p e c i a l t y R e t a i l C e n t e r G e n e r a l R e t a i l 1 5 2 . 5 5 K S F 3 . 8 4 9 % 1 1 . 3 2 1 , 7 2 7 85 0 S u p e r m a r k e t S u p e r m a r k e t 5 0 K S F 2 . 6 3 4 % 9 . 2 4 4 6 2 93 2 H i g h - T u r n o v e r ( S i t - D o w n ) R e s t a u r a n t R e s t a u r a n t - Q u a l i t y o r H i g h - T u r n o v e r 2 9 . 7 3 K S F 3 . 4 3 8 % 1 1 . 9 3 5 4 94 6 G a s S t a t i o n w i t h C o n v . M a r k e t G a s S t a t i o n 8 V F P 2 . 9 1 4 % 5 . 6 3 4 5 -- P a r k a n n R i d e L o t / T r a i l h e a d P a r k i n g H e a l t h F i t n e s s C l u b 1 12 Sp a c e s 4 . 6 7 5 % 6 . 3 1 7 6 To t a l 5 , 6 4 7 KS F = 1 , 0 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t DU = D w e l l i n g U n i t VF P = V e h i c l e F u e l i n g P o s i t i o n TI F = T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e No t e 1 : A s s u m e d a P M P e a k H o u r t r i p g e n e r a t i o n r a t e o f 1 . 8 3 b a s e d o n t h e t r i p g e n e r a t i o n t a b l e , d i d n o t u s e t h e t r i p g e n e r a t i o n r a t e f r o m T a b l e 7 f r o m t h e T I F p r o g r a m . 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 . PC 3 V M T . x l s LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 64 Traffic Impact Analysis temporary construction activities do not result in short-term traffic operational impacts, the project proponent should prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan for review and approval by Town staff, prior to construction. TRANSIT IMPACTS This section presents an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed project on transit services. First, the potential transit passenger-trip generation associated with the PC-3 project is evaluated. Next, the ability of existing services to accommodate the increased ridership is identified. Finally, the adequacy of the proposed transit facilities is assessed. Transit Trip Generation A methodology to evaluate potential transit ridership, based upon observed ridership in the Truckee/Martis Valley area, is presented in Martis Valley Transit Plan Technical Memorandum (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., April 2, 2013). Considering the employment generated by the PC-3 commercial and industrial uses and the new population associated with the proposed multi-family homes in PC-3, the proposed project is expected to generate 16 transit passenger trips during peak hour periods (11 inbound and 5 outbound). Project Impact on Existing Transit Capacity The project vicinity is served by the Truckee Transit program (operated under contract with the Town of Truckee) year-round, and by the Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) service operated by Placer County in the winter season. There is more than adequate capacity on Truckee Transit fixed-route services in the non-winter seasons. During the busiest month of the non- winter seasons (October), the Truckee fixed-route services serve a total of about 650 passengers, and a maximum of approximately 32 passengers per day. There are generally no more than 5 passengers per hour riding the Truckee fixed-route buses at any time of day. A small bus with 32 passenger seating capacity is typically used on this route. It can be concluded that there is no potential for the PC-3 project to exceed the capacity of the existing bus system during the non-peak season. In addition, the Truckee Trolley route serving the Henness Flat, PC-3 site, Downtown area, and Donner Summit once an hour has available capacity in the winter season. TART carried approximately 502 passengers over the course of the busiest day during the current 2012/2013 ski season (based on ridership data through February 28, 2013). Based on ridership samples taken during the 2010/2011 ski season, the highest ridership of the southbound (Truckee to Crystal Bay) runs was 15 passengers at a time (this occurred during the 3:00 PM runs on both January 11 and January 15, 2011). As each bus provides 35 seats, there is currently available capacity, except for infrequent peak runs on peak days (personal conversation, Will Garner, Placer County Public Works, 2013). While northbound service (operating from Crystal Bay to Truckee) had up to 30 passengers on peak runs, all of these passengers de-boarded at the Sawmill employee housing stop at Northstar. The provision of retail in PC-3, moreover, would shift some shopping trips generated by Northstar residents from Kings Beach to the project site, which could alleviate peak loads over Brockway Summit. While the PC-3 project could potentially require some standees along the SR 267 route on peak runs on peak days, additional public transit service would not be required. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 65 Proposed Transit Improvements The project proposes to provide a new transit stop at a point on Brockway Road west of Hope Court, and a new stop on Soaring Way adjacent to the potential supermarket parcel. New bus shelters are proposed to be provided at the stops on Brockway Road and Soaring Way. The locations of the proposed bus stops appear to be adequate, given that they provide bus stops within a quarter-mile walking distance of all major activity centers on the site. As transit stops are proposed to be provided within a reasonable walk distance of commercial and recreation centers, and stops along Brockway Road are located where adequate pedestrian crossing conditions can be provided, the proposed transit facilities are considered to be adequate. PROJECT IMPACT ON TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS The project proposes to provide a Class I bike path through the project site that would connect to the future Truckee Trail System as well as the proposed Martis Valley Regional Trail. Specifically, a Class I trail is proposed to be constructed from a point of future connection to the Truckee trail system on the northwest corner of the project site south to Brockway Road (another point of future connection to the Truckee Class I trail system to the west), along the north side of Brockway Road to a point opposite Hope Court, and along the northerly side of Hope Court to the Town Boundary (a point of future connection with the proposed Martis Valley Regional Trail). A primary at-grade crossing is proposed to be provided on the eastern leg of the Brockway Road/Hope Court intersection, accompanied by pedestrian crossing signs with solar-powered pedestrian-activated flashing beacons, as well as recessed in-pavement flashing lights. At- grade crossings would also be provided on the two site access drives along the north side of Brockway Road. The presence of a crosswalk across three lanes of traffic at an unsignalized intersection (the Brockway Road/Hope Court intersection) is problematic. For instance, when the first car stops at the crosswalk, the driver of the “second car” in another lane may not see the person using the crosswalk because the first car is blocking the line of sight. It is recommended that either the crosswalk be relocated to a mid-block location or a roundabout be provided at the Brockway Road/Hope Court intersection. Note that a roundabout is the recommended LOS mitigation measure at this intersection. It is assumed that the roundabout would be designed to safely accommodate bicycle and pedestrian crossings. In addition, Class II bicycle lanes are proposed to be provided adjacent to the project areas along Brockway Road, Soaring Way, and Joerger Drive (in both directions). The Class II bike lane along the west side of Joerger Drive would connect to the future Truckee Trail System’s Class I trail. Sidewalks and pedestrian paths are proposed internally within all the PC-3 plan areas, with additional sidewalks provided along the south side of Brockway Road between Hope Court and SR 267, along the south side of Soaring Way between SR 267 and Joerger Drive, along both sides of Soaring Way east of Joerger Drive, along the west side of Joerger Drive, as well as along Martis Drive (internal project roadway). The proposed plans for the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection indicate removal of three of the four existing crosswalks, with only one crosswalk remaining (on the south leg of the intersection). This would reduce existing pedestrian access. Also, no sidewalks are proposed along the north side of Brockway Road and Soaring Way between Hope Court and Joerger Drive. It is recommended that either sidewalks be provided along these missing links, with connectively at the SR 267 intersection, or the project proponent should demonstrate how the site design will accommodate pedestrians without unduly affecting site access. Note that a roundabout is the recommended LOS LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PC-3 Joerger Ranch Page 66 Traffic Impact Analysis mitigation measure at the SR 267/Brockway Road/Soaring Way intersection. It is assumed that the roundabout would be designed to safely accommodate bicycle and pedestrian crossings. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities appear to meet current Caltrans and Town of Truckee design standards. Assuming any roundabouts or signalized intersection improvements will be designed to safely accommodate bicycle and pedestrian crossings, the proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities are considered to be adequate. Consistency With Adopted Documents and Current Plans The proposed bicycle and pedestrian plans were compared against the Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, current plans for the Legacy Trail and Truckee-Northstar trail connections, as well as related goals and policies in the Circulation Element of the Truckee General Plan. No inconsistencies were identified. PC-3 Joerger Ranch LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 67 This page left intentionally blank.