HomeMy Public PortalAboutAB 1600 TIF Program Working GroupFrom:Becky Bucar
To:"Alex Heyman"; "Alexis Ollar (alexis@mapf.org)"; "arosenfeld@TahoeDonner.com"; Bonnie Thompson ; "Dale
Creighton"; Dan Wilkins; "Gordon Shaw"; "jfj@surewest.net"; John McLaughlin; "jrfintel@outlook.com"; Judy
Price ; "leslie@lsctahoe.com"; "Owens, Ted (towens@TFHD.COM)"; "Pat Davison (pat@ca-tt.com)"; Patrick
Flora; "Todd Rivera (trivera@ttusd.org)"; Tony Lashbrook
Subject:AB 1600 TIF Program Working Group
Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2015 3:17:57 PM
Attachments:AB 1600 TIF Draft Fee Memo 12082015.pdf
Draft Truckee Area AB 1600 TIF Report v4 12082015 to Working Group.pdf
Hi All,
For those of you who were able to attend yesterday’s TIF Working Group meeting, thank you for a
productive meeting. For those of you who were not able to attend, we primarily reviewed recent
updates to the fee program as outlined in the attached memo.
Staff plans to present the draft Traffic Impact Fee Program Report to the Town Council at the
January 12, 2016 meeting. If you have clarifying questions about the report, please let me know by
December 23.
We also encourage the Working Group participants to submit letters to include in the staff report to
the Town Council. The letters could present your organization’s position on the draft program
report, as well as identify any concerns you may have. Our staff report is due January 5, 2016, so I
would like have those letters by Monday, January 4, 2016 if at all possible. I will send a link to the
Council staff report once it is published.
I also want to thank all of you in participating in the Working Group. Because of your time and
dedication, we have a well-informed process. We really appreciate your efforts.
Becky
Becky Bucar, Engineering Manager
Town of Truckee
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
530-582-2932
MEETING DATE: December 8, 2015
TO: Traffic Impact Fee Working Group ,
FROM: Becky Bucar, Engineering Manager X13
SUBJECT:
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Program - Draft Report
Attached is the draft Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Report review for the next Traffic Impact
Fee Working Group meeting (Monday, December 14, 2015 at 3:00 PM). There are a few
updates to the analysis that have been made since our last meeting that are worth noting:
1. We have expanded the impact fee area to include portions of unincorporated Nevada
County adjacent to the eastern town boundary (such as the Truckee Tahoe Airport, the
Hirschdale area, and the old Boca townsite). The project list also includes one
improvement project in eastern Nevada County: improvements to Glenshire Drive
between the Truckee town limits and Hirschdale Road.
In order to complete the effort to include a portion of Nevada County into the fee
program, it will be necessary for the Town to modify the existing agreement with Nevada
County regarding the traffic impact mitigation fees collected in the unincorporated portion
of eastern Nevada County. The Town would also need to agree to take the lead on the
widening of Glenshire Drive east of the Town limits.
2. Staff has included the widening of Donner Pass Road between South Shore Drive and
the Town limits in the project list. This section of arterial road is projected to exceed
2,000 ADT in the future, thereby requiring 4 -foot shoulders. Portions of this segment
already contain 4 -foot shoulders and this is reflected in the cost estimate.
There is an updated discussion on percentage of the TIF funding that can be used to
implement projects. Please see page 13.
4. The methodology used to estimate Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUEs) has been revised
as compared to the methodology used in 2007 and the methodology presented to the
working group at the last meeting. Please see 15 of the report for the details. A summary
of the change is provided below:
Town Council Staff Report
Page 1 of 2
a. The previous 2007 methodology used Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) to relate the
impact of various land uses to that of a single family dwelling unit, or to calculate
DUE. VMT is the number of trips generated multiplied by the length of the trip.
The draft Program update report bases the DUE on trip generation alone
(excluding the use of trip length in the equation).
b. The reason for this change was to have the analysis rely primarily on current
industry standard trip rates as published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). The trip lengths that were used in the 2007 study were based on
the Town of Truckee traffic model and a 1991 article published in the ITE Journal.
While trip rates are updated by ITE every 4 to 5 years, trip lengths are not.
Therefore, it is better to rely on the ITE trip rate information.
c. Note that basing the DUEs on trip rates is consistent with the methodology
implemented in the Nevada County Traffic Impact Fee Program and Nevada
County Transportation Commission Regional Impact Fee Program. However, the
Placer County Traffic Impact Fee Program bases DUEs on VMT (trip rate and trip
length).
d. This methodology has resulted in a total growth in DUE estimate of 10,715
(compared to the 11,773 DUE estimate presented at the last working group
meeting).
5. Staff reviewed the project cost estimates prior to the preparation of the draft report and
made a few adjustments that had a net impact of reducing the overall project costs. In
particular, the roundabout construction costs were reduced at some locations and the
Pioneer Trail/Bridge Street Extension cost estimate was reduced. The West River Street
project cost was increased slightly to match the current project budget. However, an
adjustment was made to the total cost of several widening projects to account for the
cost associated with pavement maintenance.
6. The new fee identified in the report is $5,903 per DUE (compared to the $5,702 fee
presented at the last working group meeting).
7. Our current goal for implementing the Fee Program is as follows:
a. January 12 Town Council meeting: Present Draft Traffic Impact Fee Report
b. January 26 Town Council meeting: Present Final Traffic Impact Fee Report for
adoption & first reading of the ordinance to implement the fee.
Town Council Staff Report
Page 2 of 2
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Prepared by
Truckee Area AB 1600
Traffic Impact Fee Study
Prepared for the
Town of Truckee
Truckee Area
AB 1600 Traffic Impact Fee Study
Prepared for the
Town of Truckee
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, California 96161
(530) 582‐7700
Prepared by
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C
P. O. Box 5875
Tahoe City, California 96145
(530) 583‐4053
December 8, 2015
Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Study
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
2 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 3
Land Use Forecasts ....................................................................................................... 3
3 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 5
Traffic Impact Fee Projects ........................................................................................... 5
Allocation of Project Funding Requirements .............................................................. 10
Funding Associated with Truckee – Eastern Placer Cross‐Jurisdictional Impacts ...... 14
Unincorporated Nevada County Considerations ........................................................ 14
Total Truckee TIF Program Funding ............................................................................ 14
Calculation of Dwelling Unit Equivalents .................................................................... 15
Calculation of TIF Fee per DUE .................................................................................... 15
Calculating DUE Figures for Specific Projects ............................................................. 16
APPENDIX A: Intersection Volumes and Level of Service
APPENDIX B: Evaluation of the Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street Extensions
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Land Use and Travel Conditions Summary for Existing and Future Conditions ................. 3
2 TIF Projects, Cost Estimates and Percent Funding Responsibility ...................................... 7
3 Percent Funding Responsibility ......................................................................................... 11
4 Dwelling Unit Equivalent and Fee Calculation .................................................................. 16
5 Dwelling Units Equivalent Factors and Fee Calculations .................................................. 17
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Project Locations ..................................................................... 9
Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Study
Page ii LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
This page left intentionally blank.
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Chapter One
Introduction
Impact fee programs are a common public sector funding mechanism for capital improvements
associated with development, and have become particularly common with regards to traffic
improvements. A Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program can both help a community ensure that
roadway improvements can be funded, and that individual projects are handled in an equitable
and efficient manner. Truckee’s original Truckee TIF fee program began in 1999, and was last
fully updated in 2007. Prior to 1999, a traffic impact fee program was in place that was
implemented by Nevada County before the Town’s incorporation in 1993. The TIF fee has been
updated annually since 2007 to reflect inflation in construction costs.
This report documents a full update of the TIF program. This update differs from the previous
version in that nearby areas of unincorporated Nevada County are included in the program
area, including the Truckee Tahoe Airport and the Hirschdale area.
The first step was to update the Truckee area TransCAD model as described in the Truckee
TransCAD 2014 Traffic Model Report, (LSC October 21, 2015). The reader is encouraged to refer
to this other document for additional information on the land use inventory, land use
forecasting and modeling process.
Next the list of intersection and roadway projects included in the TIF program was updated
based on a Level of Service analysis and other measures of adequacy. As the largest potential
project in the area, the Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street extensions project was analyzed in
depth. Next, the percent of each projects cost that can be allocated to the TIF program was
calculated. Finally, the Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) conversion table was updated and the
resulting fee per DUE was calculated.
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
Page 2 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
This page left intentionally blank.
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 3
Chapter Two
Study Area Overview
The Truckee area sits at a busy crossroads of the Sierra roadway network. In addition to the I‐80
trans‐Sierra corridor, the Town sits at the junction of State Route (SR) 89 South and SR 267
providing regional access south to the Lake Tahoe Basin, and SR 89 North providing access to
Sierra County, Plumas County and beyond. Development in Truckee and the surrounding
region, as well as growth in traffic passing through the region, results in increased traffic levels.
Land Use Forecasts
Table 1 presents a summary of existing and forecast future land use and travel characteristics,
as detailed in the Truckee TransCAD 2014 Traffic Model Report. These future land uses reflect
build‐out of the Town of Truckee General Plan, as well as zoning of the unincorporated Nevada
County areas included in the fee program area. As shown, the number of dwelling units is
forecast to increase by 55 percent, the number of lodging rooms by 98 percent and the total
floor area of commercial, office and industrial land uses by 79 percent. As a result, the Truckee
TransCAD computer transportation model indicates that total Vehicle‐Miles of Travel (VMT)
within the Town will increase by 53 percent by buildout.
Units Existing1 Build Out # %
Land Use
Housing Units DU 12,858 19,990 7,132 55%
Lodging Units Rooms 561 1,113 552 98%
Non-Residential Floor Area2 Square Ft 2,559,000 4,593,000 2,034,000 79%
PM Pk Hr Vehicle Miles of Travel in Truckee 36,985 56,670 19,685 53%
Note 1: Reflects 2014 conditions.
Note 2: Excludes golf courses, schools, parks, RV parks, and churches.2014 Truckee TIF.xlsx
Growth
TABLE 1: Land Use and Travel Conditions Summary for Existing and Future
Conditions
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
Page 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
This page left intentionally blank.
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 5
Chapter Three
Traffic Impact Fee Program
Traffic Impact Fee Projects
To be defensible, projects to be included in a TIF program must be justified through a traffic
study. All intersection and roadways with the potential of having a deficiency were evaluated.
Existing and future traffic volumes were generated based on intersection counts in the summer
of 2014 and traffic growth from the Truckee TransCAD Traffic Model. The resulting volumes are
shown in Appendix A. The Level of Service (LOS) was determined for each intersection and
compared to the Town of Truckee standards (as detailed in the Circulation Element of the
General Plan). Table A‐2 in Appendix A presents all LOS results. All intersections that exceeded
the LOS standard were included in the TIF project list, as shown in Table 2. Detailed mitigations
for these intersections are shown in Table A‐3 in Appendix A.
As the largest project in the area, the Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street extensions project was
analyzed in depth, as reported in Appendix B. In summary, without these projects the LOS on
Donner Pass Road between SR 89 South/Frates Lane and Northwoods Boulevard would fail to
achieve standards. Therefore, these projects were found to be warranted for inclusion in the
TIF program, as the only means of addressing LOS deficiencies along Donner Pass Road that is
consistent with the General Plan. These roadway extensions also avoid the need for a left turn
lane on SR 89 North at Alder Creek Road, and ensure that Alder Creek Road traffic levels will
stay within Town standards.
The resulting list of projects is presented in Table 2, and their locations are indicated in Figure 1.
Note that all of these projects are expected to be required in order to achieve Town and
Nevada County standards by buildout, with one exception. The widening to four lanes of SR 267
between Brockway Road and the Truckee/Placer line is warranted by the Placer County daily
traffic threshold of 25,000 vehicles per day, but not warranted by Truckee volume thresholds.
However, tapering from four lanes to two lanes along the relatively short segment of SR 267
between the county line and the beginning of widening for turn lanes at the Brockway Road
intersection is not feasible. Therefore, widening of SR 267 between the county line and
Brockway Road is included in this program (consistent with the 2007 Truckee TIF program).
Estimated construction costs for each improvement were developed by Town of Truckee
Engineer Division staff. These estimates include project development (engineering,
environmental clearance, and construction management). The resulting costs are “planning
level” estimates for purposes of this impact fee program – a more detailed engineering analysis
would undoubtedly result in differing estimates. As shown in Table 2, preliminary intersection
and roadway improvements are estimated to total $71,350,000 in capital costs.
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
Page 6 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
This page intentionally left blank.
Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Study
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 7
TABLE 2: TIF Projects, Cost Estimates and Percent Funding Responsibility
General Plan Build-out Roadway Improvement Needs
Relevant
LOS
Standard
Existing
Unmitigated
Build-out
Unmitigated
Build-out
Mitigated Capacity Measure
% of Project Cost
Associated with Road
Maintenance (Not AB 1600
Eligible)
Traffic Impact Fee
Funding
% of Project Costs
Eligible for AB 1600
Funding (% Eligible
for Implementation)
Year Project
Entered TIF
Program(2)
Document, Source of
Requirement
Truckee Intersections
Construct 1-Lane Roundabout D FFD $3,500,000 PM Pk-Hr 71%-$2,485,000 100%2007 2015 TIF Update Study
Construct 1-Lane Roundabout F + 4 hrs
delay
F with 3.1 hrs
delay F B $3,500,000 PM Pk-Hr 79%-$2,765,000 100%2007 2015 TIF Update Study
Construct 1-Lane Roundabout F + 4 hrs
delay
F with 3.1 hrs
delay F C $2,500,000 PM Pk-Hr 96%-$2,400,000 96%2007 2015 TIF Update Study
Construct 1-Lane Roundabout or Equivalent
Improvements E FFC $2,500,000 PM Pk-Hr 83%-$2,075,000 100%2007 2015 TIF Update Study
Construct 1-Lane Roundabout or Equivalent
Improvements E FFE $2,500,000 PM Pk-Hr 83%-$2,075,000 100% 1999 or earlier
2015 TIF Update Study
Construct 1-Lane Roundabout D D F C $3,500,000 PM Pk-Hr 99%-$3,465,000 99%2007 2015 TIF Update Study
Convert to 2-Lane Roundabout D A F D $750,000 PM Pk-Hr 99%-$742,500 99%2007 2015 TIF Update Study
Construct 2-Lane Roundabout D C F D $4,000,000 PM Pk-Hr 93%-$3,720,000 100% 1999 or earlier
2015 TIF Update Study
Construct 2-Lane Roundabout D B E D $4,000,000 PM Pk-Hr 89%-$3,560,000 100% 1999 or earlier
2015 TIF Update Study
Construct 3-Lane Roundabout D B F E $4,000,000 PM Pk-Hr 91%-$3,640,000 84%2007 2015 TIF Update Study
Eastbound Left Turn Lane ----$500,000 PM Pk-Hr Advancing
Volume 52%-$260,000 52%2007 2015 TIF Update Study
Southbound Left Turn Lane ----$500,000 PM Pk-Hr Advancing
Volume 91%-$455,000 91%2007 2015 TIF Update Study
Eastbound Left Turn Lane ----$500,000 PM Pk-Hr Advancing
Volume 97%-$485,000 97% 1999 or earlier
2015 TIF Update Study
Donner Pass Road / South Shore Drive Westbound Left Turn Lane ----$500,000 PM Pk-Hr Advancing
Volume 84%-$420,000 100%2014 2015 TIF Update Study
Truckee Roadways
2 Travel Lanes from Pioneer Commerce Center to
Northwoods Blvd. and from Jibboom St. to Pioneer Trail
(1)
DD E D $20,000,000
PM Pk-Hr on Donner Pass
Road: SR 89S to
Northwoods
100%-$20,000,000 100% 1999 or earlier
2015 TIF Update Study
Church Street
Extension Donner Pass Road to Glenshire Drive Extend from DPR to Glenshire Drive to Address
Glenshire/DPR Deficiency
E + 4 hrs
delay E F E $5,500,000
PM Pk-Hr at Glenshire Dr./
DPR 100%-$5,500,000 100% 1999 or earlier
2015 TIF Update Study
SR 267 Brockway to Placer County Line Widen to 4 Lanes E E F D $4,100,000 Average Daily Traffic 80%-$3,280,000 80%2007 Truckee General Plan Traffic
Study
Glenshire Drive Berkshire Circle to Wiltshire Lane Add Shoulders ----$2,650,000 -66%40%$1,049,400 40% 1999 or earlier
Truckee Public Improvement &
Engineering Standards, 2003
Donner Pass Road South Shore Drive to Town Limits Add Shoulders ----$1,300,000 Average Daily Traffic 54%40%$421,200 32%2014 Truckee Public Improvement &
Engineering Standards, 2003
West River Street All Add Shoulders ----$3,250,000 -64%40%$1,248,000 38%2007 Truckee Public Improvement &
Engineering Standards, 2003
Nevada County Roadway
Glenshire Drive
Improvements Truckee Town Limits to Hirschdale Rd Add Shoulders ----$1,800,000 -83%-$1,494,000 72%2014
SUBTOTAL: Truckee and Eastern Nevada County $71,350,000 $61,540,100
Eastern Placer Improvements $7,886,941
Total: Truckee + Eastern Placer Projects $69,427,041
Cumulative AB 1600 Funds in Account as of July 1, 2015 $6,177,315
Additional Funds Not Yet Collected $63,249,726
Projects Removed From 2007 TIF Project List -- No Longer Required to Provide Adequate LOS at Buildout
Intersection Improvements ----$812,684 ----
Construct 2-Lane Roundabout D C C -$4,876,106 ----
Provide Improvement to Bridge Street Crossing or
Eastern Underpass ----$6,000,000 ----
Total $11,688,790
Projects Removed From 2007 TIF Project List -- Completed
Construct bike and pedestrian tunnel ---- $13,925,000 ----
Roadway Construction & Construction of Single Lane
Roundabout at DPR/Pioneer Trail ----$6,500,000 ----
Intersection Improvements ----$500,000 ----
Glenshire Drive Donner Pass Road to Somerset Add Shoulders ----$7,440,000 ----
Donner Pass Road South Shore to Moraine Add Shoulders ----$4,719,942 ----
Total $33,084,942
Note 1: A portion of this project including Comstock Dr and part of Pioneer Trail have been completed.Note 2: Prior to 1999, impact fees were collected through a program implemented by Nevada County prior to Town incorporation.Note 3: See Table 3.12/8/2015
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2014 Truckee TIF.xlsx
SR 267 / I-80 WB Ramps
SR 267 / I-80 EB Ramps
Donner Pass Road / Cold Stream Road / I-80 EB Ramps
Donner Pass Road / I-80 WB Ramps (West Interchange)
Pioneer Trail & Bridge Street Extensions
West River Street / McIver Crossing
Donner Pass Road / Bridge Street
SR 89 North / Rainbow Road
Brockway Road / Reynolds Way
Donner Pass Road / Pioneer Trail
Bridge Street / West River Street
Donner Pass Road / I-80 EB Off Ramp (East Interchange)
SR 267 / Brockway Road
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Road (West)
SR 89 North / Alder Creek Road
Donner Pass Road / SR 89 South
Downtown Rail Crossing Improvements
SR 89 / UPRR Undercrossing (Mousehole)
Comstock Drive and Portion of Pioneer Trail Extension
Glenshire Drive / Olympic Boulevard
Street / Intersection Segment Description of Improvement
Level of Service
Estimated Total Cost
($)
% of Total Funding That is
The Responsibility of
Future Development in TIF
Area(3)
(Bold Indicates Exceedance of Standards)
Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Study
Page 8 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
This page left intentionally blank.
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 9
89
FI
G
U
R
E
1
TR
U
C
K
E
E
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
TRUCKBASE
S
C
A
L
E
0
IN
M
I
L
E
S
1
.
5
ST
R
E
E
T
S
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
NE
W
T
R
A
V
E
L
L
A
N
E
S
RO
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
O
R
E
Q
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
AD
D
P
A
V
E
D
S
H
O
U
L
D
E
R
S
L
E
G
E
N
D
WOL
F
G
A
N
G
R
D
S
K
I
S
L
O
P
E
W
A
Y
I8
0
E
U
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
S
S
H
O
R
E
D
R
AL
D
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
P
R
O
S
S
E
R
D
A
M
R
D
E
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
DO
NN
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
JUNIPE
R
W
A
Y
RIC
H
A
R
D
S
B
L
V
D
EU
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
DE
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
TRUC
K
E
E
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
I
N
D
I
A
N
J
A
C
K
R
D
CO
P
E
N
H
A
G
E
N
D
R
CAR
P
E
N
T
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
C
O
LD
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
WHI
T
H
O
RS
E
R
D
BILLIE
M
A
C
K
R
D
HIL
L
S
I
D
E
D
R
B
R
O
O
K
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
TH
E
S
T
R
A
N
D
TEW
K
S
B
U
R
Y
R
D
F
A
L
C
O
N
P
O
I
N
T
P
L
BE
N
N
E
T
T
F
L
A
T
R
D
I
C
E
L
A
N
D
R
D
B
A
D
E
N
R
D
STO
C
K
H
O
L
M
W
A
Y
F
O
X
B
O
R
O
R
D
DA
V
O
S
D
R
JO
E
R
G
E
R
W
A
Y
TYR
O
LRD
W
R
I
V
E
R
S
T
H
I
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
HANS
E
L
A
V
E
ALDER
D
R
S
N
O
W
S
H
O
E
C
I
R
EV
E
N
S
H
A
M
P
L
DO
NN
I
N
G
T
O
N
L
N
R
E
Y
N
O
L
D
S
W
A
Y
KITZBUHELRD
OL
Y
M
P
I
C
B
L
V
D
ZERM
A
T
T
D
R
NORTH
W
O
O
D
S
B
L
V
D
OSL
O
D
R
GR
E
E
N
P
A
S
T
U
R
E
S
D
R
FLORIST
A
N
R
D
BE
R
K
S
H
I
R
E
C
I
R
NOTH
E
R
W
A
Y
R
O
Y
A
L
W
A
Y
S
W
I
S
S
L
N
REDR
O
C
K
R
D
E
A
L
D
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
B
E
R
N
E
S
E
L
N
D
E
N
T
O
N
A
V
E
RE
D
F
I
R
R
D
G
L
A
C
I
E
R
W
A
Y
CE
I
N
O
S
I
S
C
T
PONDEROS
S
L
A
L
O
M
W
A
Y
HI
G
H
S
T
ST
M
O
R
I
T
Z
L
N
BARNESDR
CHALETRD
NSH
O
R
E
R
D
AR
C
H
E
R
Y
V
I
E
W
SH
A
N
E
V
A
R
D
SH
A
F
F
E
R
W
A
Y
SH
O
R
E
P
I
N
E
R
D
SKYV
I
E
W
L
O
OP
MANCHE
S
T
E
R
D
R
MO
U
N
T
J
U
D
A
H
D
R
PAT
H
W
A
Y
A
V
E
GL
E
N
R
D
CA
N
T
E
R
B
U
R
Y
L
N
SI
T
Z
M
A
R
K
W
A
Y
P
O
I
N
T
D
R
BO LZAN
O
W
A
Y
PANAMINT
R
D
ANDERMATTLN
HE
A
T
H
E
R
R
D
PINEAVE
JOHNSON
L
N
RIVE
R
P
A
R
K
P
L
PA
L
I
S
A
D
E
S
T
DO
N
N
E
R
L
A
K
E
R
D
C
A
V
A
L
I
E
R
R
I
S
E
COLDS
T
R
E
A
M
R
D
RO
L
A
N
D
S
W
A
Y
SIERRA
A
V
E
SCHUS
S
I
N
G
W
A
Y
PA
L
I
S
A
D
E
S
R
D
YORKS
H
I
R
E
L
N
ED
I
N
B
U
R
G
H
D
R
SN
O
W
B
E
R
R
Y
R
D
RO
S
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
SH
E
R
W
O
O
D
D
R
KA
H
O
C
C
T
CEDAR
D
OLYMPIC
D
R
BRI
D
G
E
S
T
Z
U
R
I
C
H
P
L
M
A
R
T
I
S
D
R
RO
C
K
Y
L
N
IR
I
S
R
D
ROBIN
L
N
BR
O
C
K
W
AY
80
26
7
89
80
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
Page 10 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Allocation of Project Funding Requirements
The cost of these improvements can only be funded through a TIF program to the degree that
the need for the improvements are generated by future development within the jurisdiction
instituting the TIF. This “rational nexus” test ensures that future developers are not required to
pay traffic impact fees that are not specifically required to address the impacts generated by
development within the jurisdiction.
There are two parts to defining the proportion of improvement costs that can be assigned to
future growth in the impact fee area: defining the proportion associated with Truckee/Eastern
Nevada County development (versus development in other jurisdictions), and defining the
proportion of responsibility for an improvement that is due to future growth (versus existing
development).
Assigning Funding Responsibility to Truckee Area Development versus Development in Other
Jurisdictions
The “rational nexus” requirements of a traffic impact fee program require that funding
responsibilities reflect the proportion of total future need generated by development within
the impact fee district. The TransCAD model was used to identify the proportion of traffic
volume through each roadway element, requiring improvement that is generated by future
development in the TIF area. As is standard practice in traffic impact fee programs, these
proportions represent those trips with one or both trip‐ends within the TIF Area. As shown in
Table 3 under the column “% of Total Traffic Growth Generated by TIF Area,” these proportions
vary from a low of 79 percent at the Donner Pass Road/I‐80 Westbound Ramps (West
Interchange) to a high of 100 percent at Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street.
Assigning Funding Responsibility to Existing versus Future Development
Defining the proportion of development impacts associated with future growth is
straightforward for those projects that currently attain LOS standards but which will fail by
buildout: all of these costs are assigned to future development (though not only to Truckee
area development, as discussed above). For instance, the Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail
intersection currently attain LOS standards but will fail at buildout, and therefore all costs
needed to attain LOS standards at buildout are the responsibility of future development.
Similarly, conditions along Donner Pass Road between SR 89 South and Northwoods Boulevard
currently meet LOS standards, indicating that the Pioneer Trail extension (identified as the
means to mitigate future LOS deficiencies along this section of Donner Pass Road) are the
responsibility of future growth.
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 11
TA
B
L
E
3
:
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
B
u
i
l
d
-
o
u
t
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
N
e
e
d
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Vo
l
u
m
e
Fu
t
u
r
e
Vo
l
u
m
e
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
1,
0
9
0
1
,
0
3
4
1
,
4
6
0
1
,
3
6
5
8
9
%
8
0
%
7
1
%
1,
0
1
0
9
7
0
1
,
1
2
9
1
,
0
6
4
7
9
%
1
0
0
%
7
9
%
99
0
9
7
0
2
,
1
0
0
2
,
0
3
5
9
6
%
1
0
0
%
9
6
%
1,
4
1
1
1
,
3
8
9
2
,
0
9
1
2
,
0
9
1
1
0
0
%
8
3
%
8
3
%
1,
6
8
6
1
,
6
4
4
2
,
9
5
2
2
,
8
8
7
9
8
%
8
5
%
8
3
%
1,
0
9
6
1
,
0
6
8
1
,
9
8
1
1
,
9
4
6
9
9
%
1
0
0
%
9
9
%
1,
3
0
1
1
,
2
7
3
2
,
4
9
1
2
,
4
5
6
9
9
%
1
0
0
%
9
9
%
1,
4
3
1
1
,
1
1
8
2
,
9
6
2
2
,
5
4
6
9
3
%
1
0
0
%
9
3
%
1,
6
6
1
1
,
1
8
9
3
,
3
5
7
2
,
6
9
2
8
9
%
1
0
0
%
8
9
%
2,
1
6
9
1
,
6
7
6
4
,
5
1
7
3
,
8
1
7
9
1
%
1
0
0
%
9
1
%
81
0
8
1
0
1
,
3
4
8
1
,
3
4
8
1
0
0
%
5
2
%
5
2
%
66
1
5
4
1
8
1
4
6
8
0
9
1
%
1
0
0
%
9
1
%
80
6
7
9
9
1
,
4
2
2
1
,
3
9
9
9
7
%
1
0
0
%
9
7
%
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
S
o
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
4
7
8
4
2
3
7
2
0
6
2
6
8
4
%
1
0
0
%
8
4
%
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
-
-
-
-
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
Ch
u
r
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
t
o
G
l
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
1
,
3
3
4
1
,
3
3
4
1
,
7
8
9
1
,
7
8
9
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
SR
2
6
7
B
r
o
c
k
w
a
y
t
o
P
l
a
c
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
L
i
n
e
1
,
7
9
7
1
,
3
3
6
2
,
8
0
9
2
,
1
4
3
8
0
%
2
1
,
2
3
4
3
4
,
0
3
6
2
5
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
8
0
%
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
B
e
r
k
s
h
i
r
e
C
i
r
c
l
e
t
o
W
i
l
t
s
h
i
r
e
L
a
n
e
3
6
9
3
6
9
7
1
6
7
1
6
1
0
0
%
3
,
8
8
9
7
,
5
4
7
2
,
0
0
0
6
6
%
6
6
%
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
S
o
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
t
o
T
o
w
n
L
i
m
i
t
s
2
9
5
2
3
9
5
1
5
4
2
1
8
3
%
3
,
3
7
8
5
,
8
8
5
2
,
0
0
0
6
5
%
5
4
%
We
s
t
R
i
v
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
l
l
7
1
5
6
9
5
1
,
8
3
4
1
,
7
6
9
9
6
%
8
,
1
8
7
2
0
,
9
9
9
2
,
0
0
0
6
7
%
6
4
%
Ne
v
a
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
T
o
w
n
L
i
m
i
t
s
t
o
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
d
2
5
5
2
5
5
4
7
6
4
7
6
1
0
0
%
2
,
4
7
5
4
,
7
6
0
2
,
0
0
0
8
3
%
8
3
%
No
t
e
1
:
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
L
O
S
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
o
t
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
v
o
l
u
m
e
.
No
t
e
2
:
A
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
L
O
S
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
a
l
l
f
u
t
u
r
e
e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
No
t
e
3
:
A
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
L
O
S
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
a
l
l
f
u
t
u
r
e
e
xc
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
No
t
e
4
:
A
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
D
o
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
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
L
O
S
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
a
l
l
f
u
t
u
r
e
e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
si
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
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
.
20
1
4
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
T
I
F
.
x
l
s
x
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
Th
a
t
i
s
T
h
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
il
i
t
y
o
f
Fu
t
u
r
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
T
I
F
A
r
e
a
Bu
i
l
d
-
O
u
t
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
G
r
o
w
t
h
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
TI
F
A
r
e
a
Se
gme
n
t
St
r
e
e
t
/
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
M
o
d
e
l
P
M
P
e
a
k
-
H
o
u
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
20
1
4
Av
e
r
a
ge
D
a
i
l
y T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
/
R
a
i
n
b
o
w
R
o
a
d
Pi
o
n
e
e
r
T
r
a
i
l
&
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
Br
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
/
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
W
a
y
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
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
(
W
e
s
t
)
SR
2
6
7
/
B
r
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
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
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
(
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
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
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
l
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
(
W
e
s
t
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
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
%
o
f
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ex
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
Fu
t
u
r
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
No
t
e
2
No
t
e
2
No
t
e
1
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Vo
l
u
m
e
s
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
-
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
(
A
t
L
e
a
s
t
On
e
T
r
i
p
E
n
d
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
)
To
t
a
l
P
M
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Vo
l
u
m
e
s
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
-
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
(
A
t
L
e
a
s
t
On
e
T
r
i
p
E
n
d
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
)
No
t
e
1
No
t
e
1
No
t
e
1
No
t
e
2
No
t
e
2
No
t
e
2
No
t
e
2
No
t
e
2
No
t
e
3
No
t
e
4
No
t
e
2
No
t
e
2
No
t
e
2
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
Page 12 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
For those projects that do not attain LOS or design standards at present, the following
methodology was used to identify that proportion of improvement costs that are the
responsibility of future development:
% Responsibility of = (Future Volume ‐ Existing Volume)
Future Development (Future Volume ‐ Existing Capacity)
For example, if the capacity of a roadway element is 1,000 vehicles per hour, the existing
volume is 1,100 vehicles per hour and the future volume is 2,000 vehicles per hour, the
proportion of improvement costs that are the responsibility of future development would be
(2,000 ‐ 1,100)/(2,000 ‐ 1,000), or 90 percent.
The measure of traffic capacity differs between various roadway elements:
• The need for additional turn lanes as an intersection improvement is a function of the main
street “advancing” volume (the through volume approaching in the same direction as the
turning volume), the opposing volume (the through volume approaching in the opposite
direction as the turning volume), and the proportion of turning volumes. As regional growth
in traffic would largely impact the advancing and opposing volume, the growth in those
volumes was evaluated. Existing capacity at each location was determined by identifying the
advancing volume that initially meets warrants (the lowest volume that triggers the need
for the roadway improvement), at existing opposing volume and proportion of turning
volumes.
• The need for shoulder widening is triggered when the daily traffic volume exceeds the
capacity of a collector street (2,000 Average Daily Traffic volume, per Town standards), as
this is the largest roadway classification in the Truckee Public Improvement and Engineering
Standards that does not require a shoulder. ADT volumes were estimated from the peak
hour volume forecasts generated by the Town TransCAD model using ADT/peak hour
factors identified in the General Plan Traffic Study.
The calculation of these proportions (for those elements not wholly the responsibility of future
development) are shown in Table 3, under the column “% of Capacity Exceedance Generated by
Future Development”. In addition, a portion of the costs for shoulder widening improvements
are associated with repaving of the existing roadway. As this is an ongoing maintenance
responsibility (and thus not eligible for AB 1600 funding), these costs are factored down by 40
percent.
Overall Future Truckee Area Funding Development Responsibilities
Multiplying the proportion of funding responsibility assigned to future development for each
project by the proportion of funding responsibility assigned to Truckee area development yields
the overall proportion of funding assignable to future Truckee area development. The “% of
Total Project Funding That is the Responsibility of Future Development in TIF Area” represents
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 13
the percentage of project cost that can be collected (% Eligible for Collection) from new
development through the AB 1600 TIF Program going forward. As the AB 1600 program is
updated, this percentage will generally be equal to or less than what it was in previous AB 1600
programs. This is due to traffic growth that occurs between AB1600 program updates which
causes existing intersection or roadway operations to deteriorate from acceptable levels in
earlier AB1600 studies to unacceptable levels in later AB1600 studies. When an intersection or
roadway reaches an unacceptable LOS, only a portion of the improvement costs of that
intersection or roadway can be collected from the AB1600 program going forward. Multiplying
the result by the estimated cost of each improvement yields the maximum potential funding
responsibility of the Truckee Area TIF program. Summing over all projects yields a total of
$61,540,100, as shown in Table 2.
Proportion of Project Costs Eligible for AB 1600 Funding
Independent of the discussion of total funding that is the responsibility of future traffic growth
in the study area is the question of the proportion of each project’s costs that can be currently
charged to new development through the AB 1600 TIF Program. The figures presented in the
column entitled “% of Project Costs Eligible for AB 1600 Funding (% Eligible for
Implementation)” in Table 2 presents this latter figure for each project, representing the
percentage of AB 1600 TIF funds that can be used to fund a project at the time that it is
constructed.
As an example, the Bridge Street/West River Street intersection has been included in the TIF
Program since 1999. The intersection operated at an adequate LOS at that time. Therefore, the
“% of Total Funding That is the Responsibility of Future Development in the TIF Area” was 100%
in the 1999 TIF Program. Under 2015 conditions, it has been determined that the “% Eligible for
Collection” is only 83% of the project costs going forward because traffic growth that has
occurred between 1999 and 2015 caused the intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable
LOS in 1999 to a substandard LOS in 2015. As the Town has been collecting fees for this
intersection since 1999, and the “% Eligible for Collection” from that time to now has been
100%, it is appropriate that the “% Eligible for Implementation” continue to remain at 100%
even though the “% Eligible for Collection” going forward will be reduced to 83%.
However, in some instances, the % Eligible for Collection in the current fee program is higher
now than it was in previous fee programs. This is due to the fact that 1) the fee program
includes additional areas outside the Town of Truckee limits that were not included in previous
programs (thereby increasing the traffic volume associated with development in the fee area)
and 2) changes in future traffic volume forecasts resulting from the updated traffic model. In
these locations, the % Eligible for Collection is the same as the % Eligible for Implementation for
individual projects.
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
Page 14 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Funding Associated with Truckee – Eastern Placer Cross‐Jurisdictional Impacts
From a circulation perspective, the Truckee area is part of a larger region that also contains the
eastern portion of Placer County (east of the Sierra Crest). As a result, there is a substantial
traffic impacts in one jurisdiction associated with development in the other. The Truckee Area
TIF program is therefore designed to generate funds associated with impacts of Truckee area
development in eastern Placer County, matched with a parallel element of the Placer County
“Tahoe Resorts” benefit district TIF program for impacts on Truckee area transportation
elements associated with development in eastern Placer County.
The cost of $7,886,941 is identified based upon the impact of Truckee area development on
eastern Placer County projects. These funds will be retained by the Town of Truckee for
expenditure on projects within the Truckee TIF area. In exchange, Placer County will collect fees
on eastern Placer County development in consideration of the allocated impact on projects in
Truckee, and will retain these fees for expenditure on projects within eastern Placer County. As
these two allocated cost figures are very close to equal (as discussed in the 2007 Truckee TIF
Update), this mechanism allows fees to be collected that represent the cross‐jurisdictional
impacts between Truckee and Placer County, without incurring the administrative costs and
issues associated with actual transfer of funds between the two jurisdictions. For this reason,
Table 2 does not include funding responsibility of development in eastern Placer County
towards improvements in the Truckee area, as these fees will be collected and retained by
Placer County.
Unincorporated Nevada County Considerations
As discussed above, this fee program encompasses portions of unincorporated Nevada County
adjacent to the eastern town boundary, specifically the Truckee Tahoe Airport, the Hirschdale
area (including the Raley Property) and the old Boca town site. The project list includes one
improvement project in this area, consisting of improvements to Glenshire Drive between the
Truckee town limits and Hirschdale Road to attain current Nevada County roadway standards.
In order to complete the effort to incorporate a portion of Nevada County into the fee program,
it will be necessary for the Town to modify the existing agreement with Nevada County
regarding the traffic impact mitigation fees collected in the unincorporated portion of eastern
Nevada County. Under this agreement Nevada County would agree to (1) adopt the traffic
impact fees and nexus study approved by the Town and apply these fees to the aforementioned
areas of unincorporated Nevada County and (2) transfer traffic impact fees collected for
development in these areas to the Town of Truckee. Also under this agreement, the Town of
Truckee would agree to take the lead on funding and construction of the widening of Glenshire
Drive between the Truckee town limits and Hirschdale Road.
Total Truckee Area TIF Program Funding
As shown in the bottom portion of Table 2, adding the $7,886,941 associated with cross‐
jurisdictional impacts to the $61,540,000 of TIF fees for Truckee area improvements yields a
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 15
total cost to future Truckee area development of $69,427,041. The existing Town TIF program
has a current positive fund balance of $6,177,315. Subtracting these funds, the total net future
funding requirements of the program is $63,249,726.
While there are other funding sources that could potentially fund a portion of the various
improvement projects, none of these other sources are certain. Therefore, no reductions in TIF
funding responsibilities are made to reflect other funding sources.
Calculation of Dwelling Unit Equivalents
For a TIF program, future development is considered in terms of the number of “Dwelling Unit
Equivalents” (DUEs) expected to occur in the jurisdiction. DUEs are the standard measure of
development used in traffic impact fee programs, and represent the level of traffic generated
by one permanently occupied Single‐Family Dwelling Unit (SFDU). As mentioned above, it is
necessary to estimate total growth in DUEs for all forecast future land uses in Town of Truckee
through buildout. For each land use type, the following steps were applied:
As shown in Table 4, trip generation rates are identified, based upon the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition), which is used for consistency
across the various land use types.
The percentage of new trips is identified. This factor reflects the fact that some trips to
many land use types are already on the area’s roadways, and simply “stop by” as part of
longer trips. For instance, a relatively high proportion of trips to and from gas stations are
made as part of longer trips, and a correspondingly small proportion are new trips. Values
are drawn from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook where available as well as “Impact Fees –
Issues, Concepts and Approaches,” Steven A. Tindale, ITE Journal, May 1991.
Multiplying the trip rate times the percentage of new trips’ yields the new vehicle‐trips per
unit of development for each development type. Dividing by the new vehicle‐trips
associated with a SFDU yields the DUE per unit of development for each land use category
As shown in Table 5, multiplying by the quantity of future development for each land use
category and summing over all categories yields an estimated future growth in DUEs of
10,715.
Calculation of TIF Fee per DUE
The total funding responsibility of future Truckee area growth ($63,249,726) can then be
divided by the future growth in DUEs (10,715) to define the fee per DUE of $5,903, as shown in
the bottom portion of Table 5. This fee should be applied to all new development (both private
and public) occurring in the Town of Truckee and adjacent portions of unincorporated Nevada
County within the fee area that results in an increase in traffic volume. The fee level should be
adjusted (on an annual basis) based upon construction cost inflation factors (typically those
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
Page 16 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
prepared by Engineering News Record). The fee level could also be adjusted in the future as
future traffic analyses identify the need for changes in the roadway improvement project list.
Fees for all development projects which require building permits would be paid prior to the
issuance of building permits. Fees for new development projects which do not require building
permits would be paid before any other applicable county approval is made final.
Calculating DUE Figures for Specific Projects
The calculation of equivalent DUEs for specific development projects will be conducted based
upon the rates shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4: Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors
Fee Formula: $5,903 x DUE per Unit x Units (from Project) = fee
Land Use Category Unit
ITE Land Use
Code
PM Peak Hour Trip
Rate Per Unit3
% New
Trips
New
Trips per
Unit
DUE per
Unit
Residential
Single-family 1 DU 210 1.00 100% 1.00 1.00
Multi-family2 DU 220 0.62 100% 0.62 0.62
Mobile Home DU 240 0.59 100% 0.59 0.59
Retirement DU 252 0.25 100% 0.25 0.25
Hotel/Motel Room 310 0.7 100% 0.70 0.70
Office
General Office 1,000 s.f. 710 1.49 100% 1.49 1.49
Medical Office 1,000 s.f. 720 3.57 100% 3.57 3.57
Commercial
General Retail 1,000 s.f. Note 4 6.08 43% 2.64 2.64
Multiplex Movie Theater 1,000 s.f. 445 2.94 100% 2.94 2.94
Restaurant - Quality or High-Turnover 1,000 s.f. 931, 932 8.67 37% 3.23 3.23
Fast Food Restaurant / Coffee Shop 1,000 s.f. 933, 934 29.4 30% 8.78 8.78
Supermarket 1,000 s.f. 850 9.48 34% 3.24 3.24
Convenience Market 1,000 s.f. 851 52.4 24% 12.5 12.5
Bank 1,000 s.f. 912 24.3 27% 6.56 6.56
Gas Station Fueling Position 944 13.87 13% 1.79 1.79
Health Fitness Club 1,000 s.f. 492 3.53 75% 2.65 2.65
Industrial
Light Industrial 1,000 s.f. 110 0.97 100% 0.97 0.97
Warehouse 1,000 s.f. 150 0.32 100% 0.32 0.32
Hospital 1,000 s.f. 610 0.93 77% 0.72 0.72
Public Park Acre 417 0.2 100% 0.2 0.20
School
Elementary School 1,000 s.f. 520 1.21 80% 0.97 0.97
Middle School 1,000 s.f. 522 1.19 80% 0.95 0.95
High School 1,000 s.f. 530 0.97 80% 0.78 0.78
Community College 1,000 s.f. 540 2.54 80% 2.03 2.03
Note 3: PM peak-hour of adjacent street traffic.
Note 4: Trip generation rate based on calibrated Tow n of Truckee Model.
2014 Truckee TIF.xlsx
Note 1: A secondary dwelling w ith a floor area greater than 850 square feet shall be considered a single-family residence for the purpose of this Ordinance.
Any single-family residence in excess of three bedrooms w ill be assessed an additional 0.33 DUE per bedroom in excess of three bedrooms.
Note 2: Multifamily units are any attached units (including duplex). In addition, a secondary dwelling with a floor area of 850 square feet or less shall be
considered a multifamily residence for the purpose of this Ordinance.
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 17
TABLE 5: Dwelling Unit Equivalent Growth and Fee Calculation
Land Use Category Unit
DUE
per
Unit
Growth in
Land Use DUE
Single-family DU 1.00 4,705 4,705
Multi-family DU 0.62 2,264 1,404
Mobile Home DU 0.59 37 22
Retirement DU 0.25 126 32
Hotel/Motel Room 0.70 562 393
Office 1,000 s.f. 1.49 557 830
Medical Office 1,000 s.f. 3.57 9 32
General Retail 1,000 s.f. 2.64 692 1,827
Multiplex Movie Theater 1,000 s.f. 2.94 24 71
Restaurant - Quality or High-Turnover 1,000 s.f. 3.23 30 97
Fast Food Restaurant / Coffee Shop 1,000 s.f. 8.78 17 147
Supermarket 1,000 s.f. 3.24 40 130
Convenience Market 1,000 s.f. 12.53 17 210
Bank 1,000 s.f. 6.56 5 33
Gas Station Fueling Position 1.79 12 21
Health Fitness Club 1,000 s.f. 2.65 25 66
Light Industrial 1,000 s.f. 0.97 658 639
Warehouse 1,000 s.f. 0.32 7 2
Hospital 1,000 s.f. 0.72 3 2
Public Park Acres 0.20 261 52
Total DUE 10,715
Total Funding Responsibility of Future Truckee Growth $63,249,726
Fee per DUE $5,903
Calculation of Traffic Impact Fee per DUE
Truckee Area Traffic Impact Fee Study
Page 18 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
This page left intentionally blank.
Appendix A
Intersection Volumes and Level of Service
TA
B
L
E
A
-
1
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
L
e
f
t
T
h
r
u
R
i
g
h
t
T
o
t
a
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
(
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
0
4
5
4
0
0
2
8
9
0
1
8
2
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
1,
0
4
7
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
1
3
6
4
0
7
2
4
1
3
2
7
3
1
3
6
1
2
0
3
2
1
6
1
8
4
2
1
1,
3
7
1
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
S
R
8
9
N
1
6
0
2
3
8
3
0
0
1
2
6
2
4
1
2
6
4
2
9
2
5
5
2
8
2
5
0
1,
3
9
6
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
/
A
l
d
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
/
P
r
o
s
s
e
r
D
a
m
R
o
a
d
5
2
3
8
3
6
7
1
1
2
6
9
1
5
1
7
0
5
5
4
3
6
1
0
92
8
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
/
R
a
i
n
b
o
w
R
o
a
d
0
2
7
8
1
3
2
2
2
2
0
7
00
0
0
8
8
0
1
2
73
9
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
0
5
8
7
3
1
9
2
0
1
3
3
4
0
9
9
0
2
4
1
0
0
0
1,
7
8
1
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
3
7
6
3
1
0
0
0
3
6
4
4
5
0
0
0
1
7
1
1
1
1
8
1,
3
8
5
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
l
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
4
8
9
2
8
8
1
3
2
7
0
2
8
1
6
6
2
3
5
7
5
9
9
4
1
8
1
3
1
1,
5
8
2
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
(
W
e
s
t
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
1
9
9
0
1
1
9
00
0
0
4
2
3
3
2
1
4
4
9
0
1,
2
2
3
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
d
s
0
0
2
2
8
5
0
1
5
8
1
9
4
2
9
2
0
2
2
8
0
3
0
7
1,
5
2
0
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
S
R
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
F
r
a
t
e
s
2
9
5
1
2
1
1
3
4
5
3
1
5
0
5
4
7
2
3
0
0
3
2
4
1
9
9
3
9
7
6
6
2,
1
6
5
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
5
7
0
1
7
1
0
7
2
1
2
4
3
4
8
1
1
0
2
0
8
1
3
8
1,
0
8
4
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
M
c
I
v
e
r
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
1
6
0
0
1
0
9
00
0
0
6
3
7
2
0
3
4
0
3
4
7
0
1,
4
9
6
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
1
7
6
1
1
1
2
3
7
1
1
7
8
3
0
3
8
1
8
5
2
1
0
1
9
1
9
9
1
4
1,
3
8
0
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
2
8
6
4
0
6
8
2
4
3
6
6
8
9
9
3
9
3
9
3
1
9
6
2
5
1,
7
2
4
SR
2
6
7
/
B
r
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
2
9
8
6
9
0
9
8
3
3
6
6
1
2
6
1
1
1
4
5
2
0
0
8
8
2
1
0
5
2,
1
2
3
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
1
5
5
0
1
4
4
00
0
0
3
2
0
2
5
2
1
9
8
1
9
8
0
1,
2
6
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
R
o
a
d
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
(
W
e
s
t
)
0
0
0
2
8
0
9
7
1
9
5
2
2
7
0
0
1
0
2
3
5
68
4
Br
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
/
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
W
a
y
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
6
1
6
3
5
9
0
0
4
8
6
2
0
91
7
SR
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
1
6
4
4
0
7
0
0
5
6
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
2
0
8
2
1
4
3
1,
5
9
7
SR
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
-
8
0
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
2
2
5
1
9
3
8
7
2
6
3
5
0
5
0
5
2
6
2
9
4
0
0
0
2,
0
4
8
SR
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
D
e
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
D
r
i
v
e
1
3
2
5
8
8
0
3
5
5
3
8
2
5
7
3
0
8
0
3
3
0
0
0
1,
8
9
1
Br
o
c
k
w
a
y
/
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
2
1
2
0
1
2
9
00
0
0
5
0
5
2
7
3
7
9
4
8
8
0
1,
6
8
6
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
/
A
l
d
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
R
o
a
d
7
6
1
7
4
4
0
4
1
0
8
9
8
9
9
1
3
0
7
6
56
2
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
E
a
s
t
)
2
1
8
5
0
0
1
2
7
6
9
7
8
0
2
1
0
0
0
40
1
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
S
o
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
D
r
1
3
0
9
3
00
0
0
7
4
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
7
0
52
1
Fu
t
u
r
e
w
i
t
h
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
(
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
0
8
0
5
0
0
5
9
0
0
3
0
3
0
2
2
5
0
0
0
1,
9
2
3
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
1
4
6
8
0
1
3
1
1
9
5
1
5
3
2
9
3
5
7
6
2
8
3
1
7
6
2
3
2,
5
3
3
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
S
R
8
9
N
4
8
0
3
2
1
1
3
4
2
8
2
2
9
2
6
3
3
3
4
2
2
9
6
1
8
2
2
1
1
2
4
2
7
3,
0
0
8
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
/
A
l
d
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
/
P
r
o
s
s
e
r
D
a
m
R
o
a
d
9
8
4
7
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
5
9
1
5
2
2
2
8
4
7
7
7
1
1
1,
2
7
0
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
/
R
a
i
n
b
o
w
R
o
a
d
0
2
7
4
2
2
9
2
2
2
2
6
00
0
0
1
5
9
0
1
3
92
3
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
0
1
1
8
8
4
7
8
4
3
9
7
8
5
0
9
9
0
4
5
8
0
0
0
3,
4
4
7
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
5
7
7
7
1
0
0
0
9
1
8
1
4
9
0
0
0
3
0
7
1
2
2
5
2,
8
8
7
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
l
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
9
6
1
1
6
1
1
7
1
6
9
7
7
2
1
2
3
8
2
6
8
1
0
2
1
5
2
5
2
9
6
2
1,
9
4
7
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
(
W
e
s
t
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
2
9
5
0
9
6
00
0
0
5
1
9
3
6
1
4
4
7
0
1,
3
9
4
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
d
s
0
0
2
2
7
0
0
1
4
9
2
1
7
3
2
2
0
2
2
8
6
2
6
6
1,
5
1
4
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
S
R
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
F
r
a
t
e
s
2
5
2
1
8
3
1
2
2
8
0
2
2
2
5
2
8
4
2
3
5
3
4
3
2
5
9
3
3
4
1
2
1
2,
2
8
7
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
5
7
0
4
0
4
0
7
6
1
2
9
6
4
8
1
1
0
4
7
0
1
8
2
1,
9
3
2
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
M
c
I
v
e
r
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
2
1
9
0
1
0
0
00
0
0
4
8
7
4
5
6
2
5
3
3
1
0
1,
6
1
8
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
7
8
3
4
0
4
6
6
3
3
1
5
9
3
0
3
8
3
0
6
1
0
7
3
7
8
2
0
7
7
2
2,
2
1
4
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
5
2
6
6
1
7
1
1
1
8
4
0
6
2
1
6
2
3
7
2
5
8
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
1
2,
9
3
4
SR
2
6
7
/
B
r
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
4
4
0
9
5
0
1
4
6
3
4
4
6
6
9
2
3
1
2
4
9
2
3
9
3
2
3
1
2
7
2
9
8
4
6
8
4,
4
8
4
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
-4
6
026
5
0
0
0
0
4
6
4
2
9
5
4
0
4
3
1
5
0
1,
6
9
7
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
R
o
a
d
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
(
W
e
s
t
)
0
0
0
2
8
0
1
4
5
2
5
5
4
3
0
0
0
2
2
3
3
5
1,
1
1
6
Br
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
/
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
W
a
y
0
0
0
5
8
0
1
6
1
6
6
2
8
0
0
7
5
0
8
6
1,
5
5
4
SR
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
2
1
8
4
1
3
0
0
7
0
6
1
1
8
0
0
0
3
3
9
2
1
4
3
1,
9
3
9
SR
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
-
8
0
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
2
2
5
6
7
5
8
9
3
7
3
6
7
0
0
6
1
6
3
5
4
0
0
0
2,
6
4
2
SR
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
D
e
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
D
r
i
v
e
1
7
4
7
7
6
5
4
5
7
2
3
2
8
7
3
4
7
1
5
8
9
1
2
7
2,
4
5
3
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
/
A
l
d
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
R
o
a
d
3
5
1
9
9
5
3
7
1
2
9
8
6
1
3
7
8
6
7
8
1
0
61
3
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
/
D
o
r
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
(
E
a
s
t
)
1
7
1
5
0
0
0
1
9
5
8
6
8
8
0
1
8
0
0
0
55
4
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
S
o
u
t
h
S
h
o
r
e
D
r
2
3
0
1
0
1
00
0
0
1
5
5
2
0
1
2
6
3
3
7
0
76
2
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
T
I
F
I
n
t
x
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
V
o
l
s
V
3
.
x
l
s
x
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
2
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
O
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
W
i
t
h
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
Pi
o
n
e
e
r
T
r
a
i
l
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
De
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
)
(
v
e
h
-
h
r
s
)
L
O
S
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
(
v
e
h
-
h
r
s
)
L
O
S
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
(
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
S
t
o
p
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
2
6
.
9
-
-
D
OV
F
O
V
F
F
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
9
.
2
-
-
A
89
.
6
2
4
.
3
F
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
S
R
8
9
N
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
6
.
0
-
-
A
2
8
.
7
--
D
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
/
A
l
d
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
/
P
r
o
s
s
e
r
D
a
m
R
o
a
d
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
7
.
6
-
-
A
9
.
9
--
A
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
S
i
g
n
a
l
1
4
.
3
-
-
B
92
.
9
-
-
F
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
S
i
g
n
a
l
2
7
.
2
-
-
C
13
2
.
4
-
-
F
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
l
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
A
l
l
-
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
69
.
7
8
.
1
F
7
5
.
0
1
1
.
0
F
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
(
W
e
s
t
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
S
t
o
p
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
5
6
.
3
3
.
1
F
16
6
.
8
1
3
.
7
F
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
d
s
S
i
g
n
a
l
1
7
.
2
-
-
B
1
4
.
0
-
-
B
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
S
R
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
F
r
a
t
e
s
S
i
g
n
a
l
3
1
.
8
-
-
C
3
1
.
3
-
-
C
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
6
5
.
7
3
.
1
F
OV
F
O
V
F
F
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
M
c
I
v
e
r
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
5
.
8
-
-
C
1
7
.
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
3
OVF
O
V
F
F
O
V
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
OVF
O
V
F
F
O
V
F
O
V
F
F
SR
2
6
7
/
B
r
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
S
i
g
n
a
l
1
7
.
7
-
-
B
OV
F
-
-
F
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
4
1
.
1
-
-
E
5
3
.
7
0
.
0
3
F
SR
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
8
.
4
-
-
A
1
2
.
7
-
-
B
SR
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
I
-
8
0
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
0
.
4
-
-
B
1
7
.
8
-
-
C
SR
8
9
S
o
u
t
h
/
D
e
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
D
r
i
v
e
S
i
g
n
a
l
8
.
6
-
-
A
9
.
8
-
-
A
Br
o
c
k
w
a
y
/
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
S
i
g
n
a
l
1
0
.
3
-
-
B
1
4
.
7
-
-
B
SR
8
9
N
o
r
t
h
/
A
l
d
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
R
o
a
d
S
t
o
p
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
1
5
.
4
-
-
C
1
5
.
3
-
-
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
an
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
H
C
M
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
NO
T
E
1
:
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
ec
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
a
n
d
s
t
o
p
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
ed
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
.
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
T
I
F
I
n
t
x
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
V
o
l
s
V
3
.
x
l
s
x
TA
B
L
E
A
-
3
:
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
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
La
n
e
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
l
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
N
B
S
B
E
B
W
B
(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
L
O
S
N
O
T
E
S
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
l
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
n
g
l
e
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
1
1
1
1
8
.
3
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
Si
n
g
l
e
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
1
1
1
1
0
.
2
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
Si
n
g
l
e
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
1
1
1
1
2
.
9
B
FU
T
U
R
E
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
(
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
Si
n
g
l
e
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
1
S
h
a
r
e
d
n
/
a
2
6
.
1
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
Du
a
l
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
2
2
S
h
a
r
e
d
S
h
a
r
e
d
2
9
.
1
D
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Du
a
l
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
2+
R
T
s
l
i
p
2
s
h
a
r
e
d
T
-
L
+
R
T
S
l
i
p
-
-
4
3
.
4
E
N
B
R
T
y
i
e
l
d
l
a
n
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
;
E
B
R
T
y
i
e
l
d
l
a
n
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
SR
2
6
7
/
I
-
8
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Du
a
l
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
2
s
h
a
r
e
d
2
s
h
a
r
e
d
-
-
2
4
7
.
0
E
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
l
d
S
t
r
e
a
m
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
E
B
R
a
m
p
s
Si
n
g
l
e
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
Sh
a
r
e
d
S
h
a
r
e
d
S
h
a
r
e
d
S
h
a
r
e
d
3
3
.
1
D
W
o
r
k
s
w
i
t
h
s
i
n
g
l
e
l
a
n
e
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
a
n
d
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
l
i
p
l
a
n
e
s
Do
n
n
e
r
P
a
s
s
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
0
W
B
R
a
m
p
s
(
W
e
s
t
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
)
Si
n
g
l
e
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
Sh
a
r
e
d
-
-
S
h
a
r
e
d
S
h
a
r
e
d
1
1
.
3
B
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
Si
n
g
l
e
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
1
1
1
1
3
5
.
5
E
W
o
r
k
s
w
i
t
h
s
i
n
g
l
e
l
a
n
e
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
a
n
d
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
l
i
p
l
a
n
e
s
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
Si
n
g
l
e
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
L-
T
;
R
s
l
i
p
S
h
a
r
e
d
S
h
a
r
e
d
S
h
a
r
e
d
2
2
.
9
C
Ne
e
d
s
N
B
R
s
l
i
p
l
a
n
e
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
q
u
e
u
e
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
s
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
Du
a
l
-
L
a
n
e
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
L;
T
-
R
L
-
T
;
R
L
-
T
;
R
S
h
a
r
e
d
4
2
.
1
E
Ca
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
L
O
S
t
o
B
w
i
t
h
E
B
R
f
r
e
e
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
.
W
o
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
w
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
o
n
S
o
u
t
h
l
e
g
.
SR
2
6
7
/
B
r
o
c
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
Si
g
n
a
l
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
2
+
L
T
+
R
T
2
+
L
T
+
R
T
L
+
T
+
R
L
+
T
+
R
4
4
.
4
D
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
T
I
F
I
n
t
x
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
V
o
l
s
V
3
.
x
l
s
x
B ‐ 1
Appendix B
Evaluation of the Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street Extensions
The need for an additional connection to the Tahoe Donner area (beyond the existing
connections via Northwoods Boulevard and Alder Creek Road) has long been a consideration.
The connection would be made by extending Pioneer Trail to meet Northwoods Boulevard and
extending Bridge Street north to meet the extended Pioneer Trail. Previous analyses have
concluded that these new roadways would be necessary to avoid the need to expand Donner
Pass Road west of SR 89 South beyond the size allowed under the General Plan Circulation
Element policies. The new future model provides the opportunity to update this analysis to
currently planned conditions. Existing traffic counts and the model of future conditions were
then used to assess intersection and roadway traffic conditions both with and without the
extensions of Donner Pass Road and Bridge Street.
Existing Traffic Volumes
The existing traffic volumes developed for this analysis are based on the recent intersection
turning movement counts conducted at various intersections in the Town of Truckee by LSC as
part of this project during the summer of 2014. These counts were adjusted by a day factor to
estimate the tenth highest summer peak hour, per Town of Truckee standard. Two of the study
intersections for this analysis were not counted in 2014: SR 89 North /Alder Drive / Prosser Dam
Road and Donner Pass Road / Interstate 80 (I‐80) Eastbound Off‐Ramp (eastern interchange).
The most recent count data from 2009 were used as the basis for these intersection volumes. A
growth factor was applied to the 2009 counts to estimate 2014 traffic volumes.
Intersections in the vicinity of the SR 267/I‐80 interchange and Pioneer Trail are spaced with no
mid‐block driveways or other access points; therefore, these intersections’ volumes must be
balanced, such that the traffic volume departing on one intersection departure leg must equal
the traffic volume on approach leg of the adjacent intersection. Traffic volumes at the following
intersections were adjusted to balance with adjacent intersections:
SR 89 North / Alder Drive / Prosser Dam Road
SR 89 North / Donner Pass Road / Henness Road
SR 267 / SR 89 North / Interstate 80 Westbound Ramps
SR 267 / Interstate 80 Eastbound Ramps
SR 267 / Brockway Road / Soaring Way
Donner Pass Road / Pioneer trail
Donner Pass Road / Interstate 80 Westbound On‐ramp (eastern interchange)
Donner Pass Road / Interstate 80 Eastbound Off‐ramp (eastern interchange)
Donner Pass Road / Glenshire Drive
Generally, the conservative approach to balancing intersection traffic volumes is applied, such
that all adjustments are positive, resulting in a net increase in traffic volumes. In this case,
B ‐ 2
however, the new traffic count at the intersection of SR 89 North / Donner Pass Road / Henness
Road was determined to be unreasonably high when compared with previous counts and
estimations. Additionally, the new traffic count at the Donner Pass Road / Glenshire Drive
intersection indicated a decrease in traffic volumes. As there are few access points between the
intersections along Donner Pass Road between Glenshire Drive and SR 89 North, the traffic
volumes through this corridor must balance. The intersection volumes were generally
decreased in order to balance with the volumes derived from the summer 2014 count at
Donner Pass Road / Glenshire Drive.
The intersection layout of Truckee also necessitates that the traffic volumes along SR 267 be
balanced with the traffic volumes at the Donner Pass Road / SR 89 North intersection. New
traffic counts conducted during the summer of 2014 at the SR 267 / Interstate 80 interchange
were consistent with the previous patterns and growth trends in the area. Therefore, only small
adjustments were made to balance the interchange intersection volumes with the Donner Pass
Road / SR 89 North intersection to the north. Some of the turning movement counts at the SR
267 / I‐80 ramps showed a decrease in traffic from the existing design volumes used in the PC‐3
traffic analysis. The volume at these movements was adjusted to match the volume used in the
PC‐3 analysis where doing so would solve the imbalance. Lastly, traffic volumes on the
southbound approach to the SR 267 / Brockway Road intersection were increased to balance
with the traffic volume arriving from the north. The existing balanced 2014 design volumes are
provided at the top of Table B‐1.
Future Volumes
Using the Future Buildout Model, volumes were forecast for the following study intersections:
Donner Pass Road/Northwoods Boulevard
Donner Pass Road/SR 89 South/Frates Lane
Donner Pass Road/Pioneer Trail
Donner Pass Road/I‐80 Eastbound Off‐Ramps (eastern interchange)
Donner Pass Road/Bridge Street
Bridge Street/West River Street
Donner Pass Road/SR 89 North
SR 89 North/Alder Drive/Prosser Dam Road
SR 89 North/Alder Creek Road
SR 89 South/I‐80 Westbound Ramps
SR 89 South/I‐80 Eastbound Ramps
Two sets of volumes were generated: one with the roadway extensions and one without.
Consistent with previous use of the Truckee Model, existing model volumes were subtracted
from the future model volumes to obtain the growth in traffic. This growth was then added to
the most recent counts from the summer of 2014 to obtain future buildout volumes, as shown
in Table B‐1.
B ‐ 3
Town of Truckee Level of Service Standards
The existing Town of Truckee policy on Level Of Service (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.”
Intersection Level of Service Analysis
Intersection LOS for the study intersections was evaluated using the methodologies
documented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), as applied in the Synchro 8.0
software package developed by Trafficware, LLC. LOS for signalized intersections is primarily
measured in terms of average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. Signalized
intersection LOS is based upon the assessment of volume‐to‐capacity ratios and control delay.
Individual LOS outputs are provided, attached. The results of the analysis for the following
three scenarios are provided in the Table B‐2:
• Existing conditions, based on summer 2014 traffic counts
• Future General Plan buildout conditions without the proposed Pioneer Trail and Bridge
Street Extensions
• Future General Plan buildout conditions with the proposed Pioneer Trail and Bridge
Street Extensions
The level of service analysis was performed assuming no changes to existing intersection
geometric configuration or traffic signal phasing; however, signal timings were optimized using
the Synchro optimization feature.
Gateway Area Study Intersections LOS
As presented in Table B‐2, both of the Gateway Area study intersections (Donner Pass
Road/Northwoods Boulevard and Donner Pass Road / SR 89 South / Frates Lane) are calculated
to operate at an acceptable LOS under existing and both future scenarios. As expected, LOS at
both of the study intersections would degrade under future traffic volumes without the Bridge
B ‐ 4
Street and Pioneer Trail extensions. However, both are still shown to operate within the Town
standard. Therefore, it can be concluded that these extensions are not required to attain
General Plan standards for intersection LOS, through buildout of the General Plan land uses.
LOS at both of these intersections would be improved in the future scenario with the roadway
extensions versus existing conditions due to the diversion of current traffic onto the new
roadway proposed under this scenario.
Bridge Street and Pioneer Trail Area Study Intersections LOS
The existing and projected future intersection LOS for these intersections is provided in Table B‐
2. As shown, the three roundabout intersections in northeast Truckee are shown to operate at
LOS A under existing conditions. The I‐80 Eastbound Off‐Ramp at Donner Pass Road is also
shown to operate at an acceptable LOS D. Consistent with the conclusion of previous studies,
the two stop‐controlled intersections along Bridge Street are shown to operate at LOS F.
In the future, with buildout of the general plan, with or without the Bridge Street and Pioneer
Trail extensions, the roundabouts at SR 89 North / Donner Pass Road and SR 89 North / Alder
Drive / Prosser Dam Road would still operate at acceptable LOS. The roundabout at Donner
Pass Road / Pioneer Trail would degrade to unacceptable LOS F under both future scenarios.
The intersection LOS of Donner Pass Road / I‐80 Eastbound Off‐Ramp would also degrade to
LOS F under both future scenarios.
In general, intersection delays are lower under the future scenario with the Bridge Street and
Pioneer Trail extensions versus without the extensions.
SR 89 North / Alder Creek Road Intersection
Without the roadway extensions, northbound left turning traffic volumes at the SR 89 North /
Alder Creek Road intersection would warrant a separate left‐turn lane. The impact of the
roadway extensions would be to reduce this volume below the minimum warrant level,
avoiding the need for this roadway improvement.
Roadway Level Of Service
Donner Pass Road Gateway Area Roadway LOS
This section discusses the roadway capacity and LOS analysis for Donner Pass Road from the
intersection of Northwoods Boulevard to SR 89 South/Frates Lane. The length of this segment is
0.58‐mile. This section of roadway has one travel lane in each direction with a center two‐way
left‐turn lane. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. There are 34 access points (driveways and
unsignalized intersections) along this segment, resulting in an access point density of 59 access
points per mile.
B ‐ 5
Overview of Available Analysis Procedures
Highway Capacity Manual
The Highway Capacity Manual (Federal Highways Administration, 2010) is the standard
reference for roadway and intersection capacity analysis in the US. The analysis procedures
have been used to create the Highway Capacity Software package. Roadway facility analysis
procedures have been developed for various classifications of facilities. These procedures, and
potential application to Donner Pass Road, are discussed below for each facility type.
• The Two Lane Roadway methodology was developed to assess the Level Of Service (LOS)
of rural roadways. Key input parameters are traffic volume, lane and shoulder width,
percent trucks and recreational vehicles, percent no‐passing zones, and access point
density. The quantitative measure on which LOS is based is the “percent time
following” – the proportion of total travel time that an individual motorist can be
expected to be following another vehicle. Importantly for this particular application, the
methodology does not allow consideration of a Two‐Way Left Turn Lane (TWLTL) as is
present along Donner Pass Road. Given this lack, and that Donner Pass Road is in an
urban developed setting without passing, this is not an appropriate methodology.
• The Urban Street methodology focuses on the operation of the signalized intersections
along a corridor. While it includes the ability to enter the presence of a TWLTL (and
associated volumes), this information is only used to identify how traffic queues would
arrive at the signalized intersections – it does not assess the impact of the unsignalized
intersections and driveways on the flow along the roadway between the signalized
intersections. As a result, LOS is only a measure of delays associated with the signalized
intersections, which is not the key roadway‐related issue on Donner Pass Road away
from the signalized intersections. It is therefore not a valid tool to consider roadway
LOS.
• The Multilane methodology is designed to evaluate 4 or 6 lane urban arterials. As
Donner Pass Road has only a single lane in each travel direction, this procedure does not
apply.
In short, none of the available Highway Capacity Manual methodologies apply to the question
of Donner Pass Road roadway capacity or level of service.
Florida Department of Transportation HIGHPLAN Methodology
Based on the conclusion that the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) rural roadway methodology
is not appropriate for more developed rural areas, the Florida DOT developed the LOSPLAN
software. Reflecting its acceptance by the traffic engineering profession as a whole, this
software is included in the 2010 Highway Capacity Software package. HIGHPLAN, a module of
the LOSPLAN software, uses the HCM 2010 analysis technique and new capacity values but is
B ‐ 6
based on the premise that the most relevant service measure for motorists on two‐lane
highways in developed areas is to maintain a “reasonable” speed, instead of the HCM 2000's
primary service measure of “percent time spent following” (the percent of a driver’s trip spent
following another car). Drivers in developed areas primarily base their LOS on how close they
are going relative to their free flow speeds and not so much based on the ability to set their
own travel speed or to pass. In other words, as it is not the typical driver's expectation to be
able to make a passing maneuver while driving through developed areas, it is not appropriate
to consider LOS based upon the ability to pass. This methodology also specifically includes a
factor reflecting the presence of a TWLTL. Applied carefully, it can provide a reasonable
planning evaluation of LOS.
HIGHPLAN Analysis
As the only methodology that can be applied with current data, an analysis of LOS was
conducted using the HIGHPLAN methodology. One consideration is that the HIGHPLAN method
does not directly account for the main factor that contributes to capacity reduction on this
segment of Donner Pass Road, specifically access point density. However, as discussed below,
it does allow a “Local Adjustment Factor” that can reflect the impact of the high density of
access points.
The HIGHPLAN analysis begins with selecting the “Area Type”. “Transitioning/Urban” was
selected for Truckee. This land use type is applicable to “an area over 5,000 in population.” The
analysis parameters include the following roadway variables:
Terrain (level or rolling)
Free‐Flow Speed (40 – 70 mph)
Left‐Turn/Blockage Impact (yes or no)
Median (yes or no)
Passing Lanes (yes or no), and
Percent No Passing Zones
The analysis is also based on the following traffic data variables:
Peak Direction Hourly Volumes
Off‐Peak Direction Hourly Volumes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Vehicles, and
Local Adjustment Factor
Of these, the Local Adjustment Factor is the only subjective variable. FDOT staff indicates that
this factor is intended to reflect local driver behavior. The software allows for a range of values
from 0.80 to 1.00, which is applied directly to the base capacity (0.80 would be most
conservative, resulting in a 20 percent decrease in the base capacity). The software provides a
B ‐ 7
default value 0.91 and otherwise no guidance on how to set this factor. Given that some of the
drivers along Donner Pass Road are visitors not familiar with the roadway, a factor of 0.90 is
applied.
Results
Table B‐3 displays the HIGHPLAN LOS thresholds for Donner Pass Road after applying all of the
analysis factors discussed above. As shown, the maximum peak hour, peak direction traffic
volumes to achieve LOS D is 800. (HIGHPLAN outputs are provided, attached.) This table also
displays the LOS results for all scenarios. As shown, under existing conditions, Donner Pass
Road operates at LOS D, achieving the Town of Truckee’s LOS D standard. In the future without
the roadway extensions, Donner Pass Road would operate at LOS E, exceeding the Town
standard. If the roadways are extended, Donner Pass Road would operate at an acceptable
LOS. Based on this methodology, future growth in traffic will cause Donner Pass Road to “fail” in
peak summer periods.
Alder Creek Road Roadway LOS
The Town of Truckee’s General Plan defines a maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume on
collector streets of 2,000. Without the extension of Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street, the ADT on
Alder Creek Road would be 2,724, while with the extensions the ADT would be 1,295. This
indicates that the roadway extensions would allow Alder Creek Road to conform to Town
standards.
Conclusions
The results of this analysis can be summarized as following:
• At present, the key intersections along Donner Pass Road in the Gateway area achieve
LOS standards and the roadway segment between 89 South/Frates and Northwoods
Boulevard attains LOS standards.
• Absent the roadway extensions, traffic volumes on Donner Pass Road between 89
South/Frates Lane and Northwoods Boulevard will increase by 16 percent. While the
signalized intersections along this stretch would remain within LOS standards, this traffic
growth would cause an LOS deficiency on the roadway segment.
• Extending Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street would reduce future traffic volumes by 23
percent, to a level 11 percent below current volumes. This would allow the key
roadway segment along Donner Pass Road to attain LOS standards.
• The roadway extensions would avoid the need to construct a northbound left turn lane
on SR 89 North at Alder Creek Road, and would also allow traffic levels on Alder Creek
Road to stay within adopted Town of Truckee standards.