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
916 812-7927
Prepared by
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C
P.O. Box 5875
Tahoe City, California 96145
530 583-4053
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.