transportation impact study

Transcription

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
DAVIS HOTEL - CONFERENCE CENTER
Prepared for:
City of Davis
2990 Lava Ridge Court
Suite 200
Roseville, CA 95661
June 2015
Draft Transportation Impact Study
Davis Hotel/Conference Center
Prepared For:
City of Davis
Submitted By:
Fehr & Peers
2990 Lava Ridge Court
Suite 200
Roseville, CA 95661
June 2015 (Version 3)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. i
Project Description ................................................................................................................................... i
Analysis of Project Impacts ......................................................................................................................ii
CHAPTER 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
Project Description .................................................................................................................................. 1
Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 1
Report Organization ............................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2.
Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................... 4
Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 4
Intersection Level of Service Methodology .................................................................................... 4
Freeway Segment Level of Service Methodology ........................................................................... 5
Local Regulations .................................................................................................................................... 6
City of Davis General Plan ........................................................................................................... 6
Caltrans 8
Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................... 8
Standards of Significance ............................................................................................................. 8
Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Impacts ..................................................................................... 10
Additional Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 3.
Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 11
Existing Roadway Network .................................................................................................................... 11
Existing Conditions Levels of Service .......................................................................................... 11
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................... 15
Existing Transit System.......................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 4.
Existing Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions .................................................... 17
Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 17
Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Existing Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 17
Proposed Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................... 18
Trip Distribution .................................................................................................................................... 20
Existing Plus Hotel/Conference Center Transportation Network .......................................................... 23
Existing Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions Levels of Service ........................................... 23
Parking Supply Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 26
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER 5.
Cumulative Conditions .................................................................................................. 30
Cumulative Roadway Network ............................................................................................................. 30
Cumulative Forecasts ............................................................................................................... 30
Cumulative Conditions Levels of Service ................................................................................. 32
Cumulative Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ....................................................................................... 33
Cumulative Transit System ................................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 6.
Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions .............................................. 34
Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center Transportation Network .................................................... 34
Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center Forecasts .............................................................. 34
Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center Levels of Service .................................................. 36
CHAPTER 7.
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Conditions ........................................................ 40
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects’ Roadway Network .................................................................... 40
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Forecasts ...................................................................... 41
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Conditions Levels of Service ........................................ 43
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .............................................. 44
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Transit System .......................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 8.
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions ..... 45
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Transportation Network ........... 45
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Forecasts ..................... 45
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Levels of Service ......... 47
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Site Plan
Appendix B Proposed Access Control
Appendix C Traffic Data
Appendix D Intersection Level of Service Technical Calculations
Appendix E Freeway Segment Level of Service Technical Calculations
Appendix F Signal Warrant Analyses
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Site Location ....................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations – Existing Conditions ................................. 14
Figure 3: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................... 22
Figure 4: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations – Existing Plus Hotel/Conference Center
Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 5: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations – Cumulative Conditions............................ 31
Figure 6: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations – Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center
Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 7: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations – Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects
Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 8: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations – Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus
Hotel/Conference Center Conditions ................................................................................................... 46
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions ........................................................................................ 5
Table 2-2 Freeway Mainline Level of Service Criteria ..................................................................................... 6
Table 3-1 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Operations ................................................................................ 12
Table 3-2 Existing Midweek Peak Hour Freeway Operations....................................................................... 13
Table 4-1 University Inn & Suites Hotel and Caffé Italia Trip Generation .................................................... 18
Table 4-2 Proposed Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................... 20
Table 4-3 Proposed Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................. 21
Table 4-4 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Operations ............................................................. 24
Table 4-5 Existing Plus Project Queuing Analysis at Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive .................................. 25
Table 4-6 Existing Plus Project Midweek Peak Hour Freeway Operations ................................................... 26
Table 5-1 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Operations .......................................................................... 32
Table 5-2 Cumulative Peak Hour Freeway Operations ................................................................................ 33
Table 6-1 Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center Peak Hour Intersection Operations .......................... 36
Table 6-2 Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center Peak Hour Freeway Operations ................................ 38
Table 7-1 Cumulative Plus Measure R PRojects Peak Hour Intersection Operations ................................... 43
Table 7-2 Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Peak Hour Freeway Operations ......................................... 44
Table 8-1 Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Peak Hour Intersection
Operations ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 8-2 Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Peak Hour Freeway
Operations ........................................................................................................................................... 49
Draft Transportation Impact Report
June 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study summarizes the results of traffic analyses prepared for the hotel/conference center project in
the City of Davis, California. The proposed project would replace the existing University Inn & Suites Hotel
and Caffé Italia restaurant, located on Richards Boulevard just south of Olive Drive, with a new Embassy
Suites hotel containing conference facilities. This analysis examines the traffic impacts expected to result
from the additional traffic generated by the proposed project to existing and future roadway conditions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would replace the existing University Inn & Suites Hotel and Caffé Italia restaurant
in Davis, California with a new Embassy Suites hotel with conference facilities. The hotel site is located at
the southeast corner of the Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive intersection. An on-site restaurant in the new
hotel will serve hotel guests and conference attendees. As proposed, access to the project site will be
provided on both Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive. The project includes access control improvements
on Richards Boulevard that will prevent outbound left-turn movements from the project site onto
Richards Boulevard (inbound left-turn movements will still be permitted).
The existing University Inn & Suites Hotel and Caffé Italia restaurant includes the following uses:
•
Hotel (43 rooms)
•
Restaurant (4,000 square feet)
The proposed project will include the following uses:
•
Embassy Suites hotel (132 rooms)
•
Restaurant for hotel guests and conference attendees
•
Conference center (14,900 square feet)
It is estimated that the proposed project will generate an additional 819 daily trips over the existing
University Inn & Suites Hotel and Caffé Italia; 172 and 175 trips will be generated in the AM and PM peak
hours, respectively. Traffic operations of study intersections and freeway segments were evaluated for the
following scenarios:
•
Existing Conditions
•
Existing Plus Project Conditions
•
Cumulative Conditions
•
Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions
•
Cumulative Conditions Plus Measure R Projects
•
Cumulative Conditions Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions
i
June 2015
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS
Analysis of existing plus project conditions, cumulative plus project conditions, and cumulative plus
Measure R projects plus project conditions shows that the proposed project would not result in any
significant impacts to study intersections, freeway segments, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or transit
facilities.
ii
June 2015
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
This study summarizes the results of traffic analyses prepared for the Hotel/Conference Center project in
the City of Davis, California. The proposed project would replace the existing University Inn & Suites Hotel
and Caffé Italia restaurant, located on Richards Boulevard just east of Olive Drive, with a new Embassy
Suites hotel with conference facilities. This analysis examines the traffic impacts expected to result from
the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project to existing and future roadway conditions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
the southeast corner of the Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive intersection. An on-site restaurant in the new
hotel will serve hotel guests and conference attendees. As proposed, access to the project site will be
provided on both Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive. The project includes access control improvements
on Richards Boulevard that will prevent outbound left-turn movements from the project site onto
Richards Boulevard (inbound left-turn movements will still be permitted). The project site plan is included
in Appendix A. The proposed access control improvements are included in Appendix B.
•
Hotel (43 rooms)
•
•
•
•
Study Area
Due to their proximity to the proposed project, the following locations were analyzed as part of this study.
The project site location is shown on Figure 1.
Intersections
•
1st Street/D Street
•
1st Street/E Street-Richards Boulevard
•
1st Street/F Street
•
Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive
•
Richards Boulevard/Project Driveway
1
June 2015
•
Richards Boulevard/I-80 Westbound (WB) Ramps
•
Richards Boulevard/I-80 Eastbound (EB) Ramps
•
Richards Boulevard-Cowell Boulevard/Research Park Drive
•
Cowell Boulevard/Pole Line Road-Lillard Drive
Freeway Mainline Segments
•
I-80 between Richards Boulevard and Mace Boulevard/Chiles Road
•
I-80 between Richards Boulevard and Old Davis Road
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of this traffic report will be organized into the following chapters:
•
Chapter 2 – Regulatory Setting
•
Chapter 3 – Environmental (Existing) Setting
•
Chapter 4 – Existing Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions
•
Chapter 5 – Cumulative Conditions
•
Chapter 6 – Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions
•
Chapter 7 – Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Conditions
•
Chapter 8 – Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions
2
H Stre et
et
et
eR
ad
o
L illard D r e
iv
Cowell Blvd
Morris Lane
Bar
ony
P lac e
W
Ch
ile
s
Cir
cle
Ro
ad
PROJECT
SITE
So
lan
oP
a rk
in
Te r
Blv
d
eL
Ar bo ret u m
ard
s
80
Drew Avenue
Ric
h
eet
§
¦
¨
Research Park Drive
t
d Stree
e
riv
Pol
D
ive
Ol
rac e
N:\Projects\2015_Projects\0484_Davis_Hotel_Conference_TIS\GIS\MXD (Draft Figures)\MXD\F1_StudyArea_2015.mxd
G Stre
F Stre
tr
First S
Secon
t
E Stre e
et
C Stre
et
D Stre
tree t
Third S
Project
CityLimits
CityLimits
Figure 1
PROJECT SITE LOCATION
June 2015
CHAPTER 2.
REGULATORY SETTING
Existing transportation analysis methodologies, policies, laws, and regulations that would apply to the
proposed project are summarized below. This information provides a context for the impact discussion
related to the project’s consistency with applicable regulatory conditions.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The following discussion summarizes the methods used to analyze the operating conditions of the study
intersections and freeway segments.
Intersection Level of Service Methodology
The operations of roadway facilities are described using the level of service concept. Level of service (LOS)
is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom
to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, or conditions with minimal vehicular congestion, to LOS F,
or conditions with substantial vehicular congestion. LOS E represents “at capacity” operations. When
volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F.
Signalized Intersections
The peak hour operations of the signalized study intersections were evaluated using the methodology in
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board). This methodology determines the
LOS by comparing the average control delay for all vehicles approaching the intersection to the delay
thresholds in Table 2-1. Control delay, reported in seconds per vehicle, includes initial deceleration delay,
queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration.
Unsignalized Intersections
For unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled) intersections, the level of service
calculations were conducted using the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS rating is
based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At all-way stop-controlled
intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced on all approaches. At side-street stopcontrolled intersections, level of service is calculated for the stopped movements and the left-turn
movement from the major street. Typically, the movement (or lane if more than one movement occurs in
a lane) with the worst LOS rating is reported. Table 2-1 shows the LOS thresholds for unsignalized
intersections.
4
June 2015
TABLE 2-1
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
LOS
Description
Signalized Intersections
Average Control Delay
(Seconds per Vehicle)
Unsignalized Intersections
Average Control Delay
(Seconds per Vehicle)
A
Represents free flow. Individual users are virtually
unaffected by others in the traffic stream.
≤ 10.0
< 10.0
B
Stable flow, but the presence of other users in the
traffic stream begins to be noticeable.
10.1 to 20.0
> 10.0 to 15.0
C
Stable flow, but the operation of individual users
becomes significantly affected by interactions
with others in the traffic stream.
20.1 to 35.0
> 15.0 to 25.0
D
Represents high-density, but stable flow.
35.1 to 55.0
> 25.0 to 35.0
E
Represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level.
55.1 to 80.0
> 35.0 to 50.0
F
Represents forced or breakdown flow.
> 80.0
> 50.0
Sources: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010
Freeway Segment Level of Service Methodology
For the freeway mainline analysis, LOS is calculated using HCM methodology. This method considers peak
hour traffic volumes, free-flow speeds, percentage of heavy vehicles, and number of travel lanes. These
factors are used to determine the vehicle density, measured in passenger cars per mile per lane (pcpmpl).
Table 2-2 summarizes the relationship between vehicle density and LOS for mainline freeway segments.
5
June 2015
TABLE 2-2
FREEWAY MAINLINE LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
LOS
Description
Density1
A
Free-flow speeds prevail. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver
within the traffic stream.
< 11
B
Free-flow speeds are maintained. The ability to maneuver with the traffic stream is only slightly
restricted.
> 11 to 18
C
Flow with speeds at or near free-flow speeds. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is
noticeably restricted, and lane changes require more care and vigilance on the part of the driver.
> 18 to 26
D
Speeds decline slightly with increasing flows. Freedom to maneuver with the traffic stream is
more noticeably limited, and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort.
> 26 to 35
E
Operation at capacity. There are virtually no usable gaps within the traffic stream, leaving little
room to maneuver. Any disruption can be expected to produce a breakdown with queuing.
> 35 to 45
F
Represents a breakdown in flow.
Note:
1
*
Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane (pcpmpl).
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010
LOCAL REGULATIONS
City of Davis General Plan
The following are applicable goals and policies from Chapter 2 of the City of Davis General Plan related to
transportation and circulation:
Goal 1
Davis will provide a comprehensive, integrated, connected transportation system
that provides choices between different modes of transportation.
Goal 3
Davis will provide a safe and convenient Complete Streets network that meets the
needs of all users, including children, families, older adults, and people with
disabilities.
Goal 4
Davis will strengthen its status as a premier bicycling community in the nation by
continuing to encourage bicycling as a healthy, affordable, efficient, and lowimpact mode of transportation accessible to riders of all abilities, and by
continuously improving the bicycling infrastructure.
Policy TRANS 1.2
Transportation access, accommodations, and circulation should contribute to
creating a supportive environment for economic development in the downtown
for both residents and visitors.
Policy TRANS 1.3
Encourage higher intensity residential, commercial, and mixed-use development
near existing activity centers and along corridors well served by non-motorized
transportation infrastructure and public transportation.
6
June 2015
Policy TRANS 1.8
Develop and maintain a work trip-reduction program designed to reduce carbon
emissions, criteria pollutants, and local traffic congestion.
Policy TRANS 2.1
Provide Complete Streets to meet the needs of drivers, public transportation
vehicles and riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities in all
transportation planning, programming, design, construction, reconstruction,
retrofit, operations, and maintenance activities and products. The City shall view
all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and
mobility for all travelers in Davis, and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, fixed-route
transit, and demand-response para transit modes as integral elements of the
transportation system along with motor vehicles.
Standards for Policy TRANS 2.1
d. The following Levels of Service (LOS) are acceptable for automobiles for major
intersections (see Glossary for definition of “Major Intersections”):
• ‘D’ during non-peak traffic hours.
• ‘E’ during peak traffic hours.
• ‘F’ during peak traffic hours in the Core Area and Richards
Boulevard/Olive Drive area.
• ‘F’ during peak traffic hours in other areas if approved by City Council.
e. In each direction, Davis streets shall have no more than two through
automobile lanes plus a single left-hand turning lane, even if this requirement
reduces level of service. Additional turning lanes may be added for safety or
design considerations.
f. Existing bike lanes shall not be removed to add through traffic lanes.
g. Class I bike paths and II bicycle lanes shall be provided along all collector and
arterial streets except where physically infeasible.
Policy TRANS 2.2
Implement state-of-the-art street design solutions to improve bicycle/pedestrian
access, comfort, and safety that may include:
• Bicycle boxes at intersections
• Cycletracks
• Shared lane markings (sharrows)
• Contraflow bicycle lanes
• Improved bicycle detection at intersections
• Two-stage turn queue boxes
• Colored bicycle lanes
• Bicycle route wayfinding
Policy TRANS 2.3
Apply best practices in sustainability to new streets and redesigns of existing
streets/corridors.
7
June 2015
Policy TRANS 2.4
As part of the initial project review for any new project, a project specific traffic
study may be required. Studies shall identify impacted transportation modes and
recommend mitigation measures designed to reduce these impacts to acceptable
levels.
Policy TRANS 2.5
Create a network of street and bicycle facilities that provides for multiple routes
between various origins and destinations.
Policy TRANS 2.7
Minimize impacts of vehicle traffic on local streets to maintain or enhance
livability of the neighborhoods. Consider traffic calming measures along collector
and minor arterial streets, where appropriate and feasible, to slow speeds.
Policy TRANS 2.9
Enhance access to downtown, including from south Davis and I-80 by improving
circulation and connectivity for all modes through and across the Richards
Boulevard/First Street corridor.
Caltrans
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for operating and maintaining the
state highway system. In the project vicinity, Interstate 80 (I-80) falls under Caltrans jurisdiction. Caltrans
has published a Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies that lays out the types of development
projects that warrant a traffic study of Caltrans facilities, the general scope of such studies, and
methodologies to be used.
Caltrans establishes a “concept LOS” as the minimum acceptable LOS for its highway facilities. The
concept LOS is presented in a Transportation Corridor Concept Report (TCCR) or Corridor System
Management Plan (CSMP). The Interstate 80 and Capital City Freeway Corridor System Management Plan
(CSMP) establishes LOS F as the concept LOS for I-80 from the Solano-Yolo County Line to US-50.
This study analyzes midweek AM and PM peak hour freeway mainline operations on I-80 from the Old
Davis Road interchange to the Mace Boulevard/Chiles Road interchange.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The standards of significance, methods of analysis, and traffic impacts and mitigation measures are
summarized below for the proposed project alternatives.
Standards of Significance
According to CEQA Guidelines, a project results in a significant impact if it conflicts with applicable plans,
ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation and relative components of the circulation system.
In order to evaluate a broad range of travel characteristics, the following standards of significance apply
to the transportation impacts discussed in this traffic study.
8
June 2015
Traffic Impacts
According to the City of Davis General Plan, automobile intersection and roadway operations at LOS E or
better are acceptable during the AM and PM peak traffic hours; and LOS D or better is acceptable during
non-peak traffic hours. The City of Davis General Plan also allows LOS F conditions during the AM and PM
peak traffic hours in both the Core Area (generally bound by Fifth Street to the north, First Street to the
south, A Street to the west, and the California Northern Railroad to the east) and the Richards
Boulevard/Olive Drive Area. In this study, the following intersections are within the Core Area or the
Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive Area.
•
1st Street/D Street
•
1st Street/E Street/Richards Boulevard
•
1st Street/F Street
•
•
Intersections
For the purposes of this traffic study analysis, significant traffic impacts at all intersections are defined
when the addition of project traffic causes any of the following:
•
The overall operations of a signalized intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E
or better in the AM or PM peak hour) to an unacceptable level (LOS F in the AM or PM peak
hour);
•
The worst-case movement (or average of all movements for all-way stop-controlled intersections)
of an unsignalized intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better in the AM
or PM peak hour) to an unacceptable level (LOS F in the AM or PM peak hour) and meet MUTCD
peak hour signal warrant;
•
For signalized intersections, exacerbate unacceptable (LOS F in the AM or PM peak hour)
operations by increasing an intersection’s average delay by five seconds or more;
•
For Core Area or Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive Area intersections that operate at congested
conditions (LOS F), exacerbate operations by increasing an intersection’s average delay by five
seconds or more;
•
For unsignalized intersections that operate unacceptably (LOS F in the AM or PM peak hour) and
meet MUTCD’s peak hour signal warrant without the project, exacerbate operations by increasing
the overall intersection’s volume by more than one percent;
•
For unsignalized intersections that operate unacceptably, but do not meet MUTCD’s peak hour
signal warrant without the project, add sufficient volume to meet the peak hour signal warrant.
These significance criteria for City of Davis intersections are consistent with those applied in the Cannery
Project EIR (SCH#. 2012032022), Second Street Crossing (Target Store) Project Draft EIR (SCH#
9
June 2015
2005062142), the Covell Village Project Draft Program Level EIR (SCH# 2004062089), and the UC Davis
Hyatt Place Hotel Expansion and Old Davis Road Extension Draft EIR (SCH# 2011032051).
Freeways
For Caltrans facilities (I-80), freeway operations are evaluated based on their mainline volume density.
Freeway segments with peak hour volumes that do not exceed capacity (LOS E) are generally considered
acceptable. For the purposes of this study analysis, significant traffic impacts on freeway segments are
defined when the addition of project traffic causes either of the following:
•
The operating level of a freeway segment to deteriorate from LOS E (or better) to LOS F; or
•
The traffic volume on a freeway segment already operating at LOS F without the project to
increase by more than five percent.
Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Impacts
The proposed project is considered to result in a significant transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian impact if:
•
The project conflicts with existing, planned, or possible future transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian
facilities and services;
•
The project conflicts with public transit services or creates demand for public transit services
above that which is provided, or planned;
•
The path of travel between the project site and transit stops would not meet current California
Title 24 handicap accessibility standards; or
•
The project does not provide connections to bicycle and pedestrian circulation systems of the
surrounding area.
Additional Impacts
The proposed project is considered to result in a significant impact if any of the following conditions
occur:
•
The project does not provide for adequate emergency vehicle access and on-site circulation; or
•
Construction-related traffic causes significant intersection impacts as defined by the traffic system
criteria described above.
10
June 2015
CHAPTER 3.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This chapter discusses the existing transportation system in the study area and presents the level of
service results for the study intersections and freeway segments.
EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
The primary access routes to the proposed project site are Interstate 80 (I-80), Richards Boulevard, and
Olive Drive. Descriptions of these roads are provided.
I-80 is an east-west interstate freeway with three lanes in each direction near the proposed project. The
Richards Boulevard interchange provides the most direct access to the project site.
Richards Boulevard is a two-lane major arterial that provides access from and across I-80 into the Davis
Downtown core. Adjacent to the project site, Richards Boulevard has a two-way left-turn lane, Class II
bicycle lanes and intermittent sidewalks. East of Research Park Drive, Richards Boulevard becomes Cowell
Boulevard.
Olive Drive is a minor arterial that begins at the I-80 westbound Olive Drive off ramp (just west of the Pole
Line Drive overpass) and terminates just west of the project site. East of Richards Boulevard, Olive Drive
serves residential land uses and some businesses. West of Richards Boulevard, Olive Drive serves
businesses.
Existing Conditions Levels of Service
AM (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak period turning movement counts were
collected in October 2014, while local schools and UC Davis were in session. The morning (7:45 to 8:45
AM) and evening (4:30 to 5:30 PM) peak hours were determined from the two-hour traffic counts. Systemwide peak hour factors of 0.95 and 0.94 were measured and used for the AM and PM peak hour analyses,
respectively. Heavy vehicles were assumed to be two percent of the vehicular traffic. Figure 2 displays the
existing peak hour intersection traffic volumes; detailed traffic data is included in Appendix C.
Intersections
VISSIM microsimulation software, which utilizes HCM methodology, was used to analyze peak hour
intersection level of service. Microsimulation is a valuable tool for closely spaced, congested intersections
because it takes into account the effects of adjacent intersections on the operations of other intersections.
The intersection level of service results for existing conditions are shown in Table 3-1. Detailed calculation
sheets are provided in Appendix D.
11
June 2015
TABLE 3-1
EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
AM Peak
Intersection
PM Peak
Control
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
1st Street/D Street
Signal
6.0
A
21.4
C
Signal
16.6
B
22.9
C
Multi-Way Stop
8.2
WBT
A
11.6
SBR
B
Signal
15.4
B
19.8
B
Side-Street Stop
15.5
SBL
C
33.9
SBL
D
Uncontrolled
0.9
SBR
A
1.0
SBR
A
Richards Boulevard/I-80 EB Ramps
Signal
29.3
C
29.2
C
Richards Boulevard/Research Park
Drive/Cowell Boulevard
Signal
22.3
C
26.9
C
Cowell Boulevard/Pole Line
Road/Lillard Drive
Signal
28.4
C
7.5
A
1st Street/F Street
Richards Boulevard/I-80 WB Ramps
Notes: 1Delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection for signalized intersections. Delay is reported in seconds
per vehicle for the worst movement for unsignalized/uncontrolled intersections.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015
As shown in Table 3-1, the study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM
peak hours.
Freeways
Midweek AM and PM peak hour freeway segment volumes were obtained from the Caltrans Freeway
Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data. PeMS is real-time archive data management system (rtADMS). Weekday data from May 2011 was used to correspond with the intersection turning movement
counts at the study intersections. Freeway segment level of service analysis was performed using HCM
methodology. Table 3-2 shows the LOS results for the study segments.
12
June 2015
TABLE 3-2
EXISTING MIDWEEK PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS
AM Peak
Direction
Eastbound
Westbound
PM Peak
Segment
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
Old Davis Road to Richards Boulevard
16.5
B
17.8
B
Richards Boulevard to Mace Boulevard
20.3
C
23.7
C
Mace Boulevard to Richards Boulevard
25.1
C
22.0
C
Richards Boulevard to Old Davis Road
17.4
B
25.0
C
Notes: Delay and LOS is based on HCM methodology.
As shown in Table 3-2, the study freeway segments currently operate at LOS C or better.
13
Olive Dr
acf
122 (170)
22 (13)
62 (127)
STOP
e
Cowell Blvd
Cowell Blvd
163 (151)
420 (602)
156 (46)
21 (26)
1 (8)
51 (65)
18 (38)
506 (595)
52 (34)
ace
113 (107)
21 (7)
13 (44)
ce
98 (165)
590 (726)
aae
57 (155)
5 (19)
31 (43)
250 (325)
350 (401)
I-80 EB Ramps
208 (240)
388 (398)
cf
f
199 (69)
I-80 WB Ramps
387 (322)
ace
72 (120)
3 (13)
ae
Richards Blvd
468 (389)
88 (121)
260 (347)
ae
5 (33)
2 (41)
16 (69)
In-N-Out
13 (2)
0 (0)
39 (30)
F St
E St
12 (31)
91 (162)
1 (6)
D St
12 (19)
14 (36)
28 (92)
6 (9)
0 (0)
5 (10)
d
Caffe Italia
Richards Blvd
8. Research Park Dr/Cowell Blvd
ae
401 (657)
154 (303)
387 (462)
411 (505)
aacc
ace
ccf
d
3 (2)
511 (919)
11 (20)
f
Richards Blvd
STOP
7. I-80 EB Ramps/Richards Blvd/Cowell B
af
bf
Richards Blvd
14 (57)
722 (740)
62 (30)
d
23 (74)
412 (749)
30 (28)
122 (167)
138 (201)
ae
bf
6. I-80 WB Ramps/Richards Blvd
Richards Blvd
25 (69)
673 (653)
43 (29)
ae
5. In-N-Out/Caffe Italia/Richards Blvd
STOP
bf
bf
ae
2 (15)
10 (31)
262 (495)
1st St
4 (11)
57 (105)
b
bf
STOP
1st St
2 (8)
230 (378)
17 (61)
3 (5)
15 (38)
112 (191)
g
53 (70)
420 (301)
22 (74)
4. Olive Dr/Richards Blvd
ae
1st St
3. F St/1st St
Research Park Dr
2. E St/Richards Blvd/1st St
1. D St/1st St
accf
14 (6)
190 (182)
191 (154)
Lillard Dr
acf
111 (170)
44 (141)
137 (189)
acf
acf
114 (183)
149 (198)
187 (157)
Cowell Blvd
166 (155)
79 (100)
12 (3)
9. Cowell Blvd/Lillard Dr
Figure 2
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
and Lane Configurations Existing Conditions
June 2015
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Bicycle facilities include bike paths (Class I), bike lanes (Class II), and bike routes (Class III). Bike paths are
paved trails that are separated from the roadway. Bike lanes are lanes on the roadway designated for use
by bicycles with striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes are roadways that are designated for
bicycle use with signs but do not necessarily include any additional pavement width. Davis has an
extensive bicycle network of Class I and Class II facilities throughout the City.
Adjacent to the project site, Richards Boulevard has Class II bike lanes and intermittent sidewalks. Olive
Drive is a Class III bike route south of Richards Boulevard. North of Richards Boulevard, the street has
Class II bike lanes. Olive Drive connects the Putah Creek Bicycle undercrossing to the Old Highway 40 Bike
Path. Sidewalks are present on a large portion of the street.
EXISTING TRANSIT SYSTEM
Transit services to the project area are provided by Yolobus, a local and inter-city bus system that serves
Yolo County and neighboring areas; and Unitrans, a student-run organization offering local bus service
throughout the City of Davis. Unitrans is jointly funded by the City of Davis and UC Davis. Davis
Community Transit also provides service for registered riders (senior citizens and persons with disabilities)
using a reservation system.
Yolobus
Yolobus is operated by the Yolo County Transportation District, which provides local and inter-city bus
service 365 days a year in Yolo County and neighboring areas. Yolobus serves Davis, West Sacramento,
Winters, Woodland, downtown Sacramento, Sacramento International Airport, Cache Creek Casino,
Esparto, Madison, Dunnigan, and Knights Landing. Fares are $2.00 ($1.00 student/senior) for regular
routes and $3.00 ($1.50 student/senior) for express routes. Three Yolobus routes (43R, 44, and 231) serve
the general project area:
•
Route 43R is an express route from UC Davis to downtown Sacramento. It provides one weekday
morning trip from Sacramento to Davis and one weekday evening trip from Davis to Sacramento.
The nearest stop to the project site is at 1st Street and D Street.
•
Route 44 is a South Davis express route providing three weekday morning eastbound trips from
Davis to Sacramento and three weekday evening westbound trips from Sacramento to Davis. The
nearest stop to the project site is at 1st Street and D Street.
•
Route 231 is the last evening westbound express route from Sacramento to Davis. The route
begins picking up passengers in Sacramento around 6:00 PM and finishes dropping off
passengers in Davis around 7:15 PM, Monday to Friday only. The nearest stops to the project site
are at 1st Street and D Street, and Cowell Boulevard and Research Park Drive.
15
June 2015
Unitrans
Unitrans is a student-run public bus system that serves UC Davis and the City of Davis. Buses run more
frequently during the UC Davis academic year when ridership is higher, and less frequently during the
summer and other academic breaks. Fares are $1.00, and many types of prepaid discounted tickets and
passes are available. One special fare category is for UC Davis undergraduate students, who can show a
valid ID instead of a cash fare, because they pay a portion of their quarterly ASUCD fee to Unitrans.
Seniors (60+) and City employees may also ride free with an ID card.
Two Unitrans routes (M and W) serve the general project area:
•
Route M runs along 5th Street/Russell Boulevard, B Street, 1st Street, Richards Boulevard/Cowell
Boulevard, Research Park Drive, and Drew Avenue on a 25-minute loop route connecting UC
Davis, downtown Davis, and Cowell Boulevard. Buses run from approximately 7:00 AM to 10:30
PM on weekdays only. The nearest stop to the project site is at the Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive
intersection.
•
Route W runs along Hutchison Drive, 1st Street, Richards Boulevard/Cowell Boulevard, Lillard
Drive, and Drummond Avenue on a 30-minute loop route connecting UC Davis, downtown Davis,
and Cowell Boulevard. Buses run from approximately 7:00 AM to 7:30 PM on weekdays. Buses run
from approximately 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM on weekends. The nearest stop to the project site is at
the Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive intersection.
16
June 2015
CHAPTER 4. EXISTING PLUS HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER
CONDITIONS
This chapter discusses the proposed project and existing plus project conditions analysis results at the
study locations. It also presents the project impacts and associated mitigation measures for existing plus
project conditions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
the southeast corner of Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive. An on-site restaurant in the new hotel will
serve hotel guests and conference attendees. As proposed, access to the project site will be provided on
both Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive. The project includes access control improvements on Richards
Boulevard that will prevent outbound left-turn movements from the project site onto Richards Boulevard
(inbound left-turn movements will still be permitted). These access control improvements are included in
Appendix B.
•
Hotel (43 rooms)
•
•
•
•
TRIP GENERATION
Existing Trip Generation
To determine the peak hour trip generation of the existing project site, trip generation counts were
conducted at the project driveways on Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive on May 10, 2011. The counts
were taken during the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic. The AM peak hour counts were collected
from 7:45-8:45 AM and the PM peak hour counts were collected from 4:30-5:30 PM.
Although the existing land uses and proposed land uses are similar, the characteristics of the existing site
and the proposed project are expected to be quite different. The majority of existing trips are generated
by the restaurant (Caffé Italia) rather than the hotel (University Inn & Suites Hotel). The trip generation of
the proposed project will be dominated by the hotel, with an in-house restaurant that is intended
primarily for guests and conference attendees. Therefore, existing count data was used to determine the
trip generation of the existing site, while trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation
17
June 2015
Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition were used to develop trip generation estimates for the
proposed project.
Table 4-1 shows the daily, AM, and PM peak hour automobile trips generated by the existing site. Since
daily trips were not counted at the project driveways, ITE trip generation rates were used to determine
daily trips generated by the site. ITE Land Use 310 (Hotel) accounts for hotel occupancy; the hotel had 13
rooms occupied on the night of May 9, 2011 and 14 rooms occupied on the night of May 10, 2011.
During the AM and PM peak hour count periods, cut-through trips were recorded (i.e. trips that entered
one driveway and immediately exited another driveway, perhaps to avoid the Richards Boulevard/Olive
Drive intersection). These trips were removed from the existing site driveway counts since they are not
trips produced by the existing land uses.
TABLE 4-1
UNIVERSITY INN & SUITES HOTEL AND CAFFÉ ITALIA TRIP GENERATION
Trip Generation
Daily
AM Peak Hour
In
Out
PM Peak Hour
Total
In
Out
Total
Trip Generation Counts
Automobiles
39
15
54
38
23
61
Cut-through automobiles
-3
-3
-6
-6
-6
-12
Total1
36
12
48
32
17
49
48
32
17
49
ITE Trip Generation Rates
Hotel (13/43 AM rooms occupied;
14/43 PM rooms occupied) 2
120
Restaurant (4,000 square feet)3
509
Total
629
Existing Site Trip Generation
Total
Notes:
629
36
12
1
AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates are based on count data collected at the existing site.
2
Based on ITE trip generation rates for Land Use 310 (Hotel)
3
Based on ITE trip generation rates for Land Use 932 (High-Turnover [Sit-Down] Restaurant)
As shown in Table 4-1, the trip generation counts show that the existing site generates 48 AM peak hour
trips and 49 PM peak hour trips. Based on ITE trip generation rates the existing site generates
approximately 630 daily trips.
Proposed Project Trip Generation
Because the proposed project will replace the existing University Inn & Suites Hotel and Caffé Italia
restaurant, the new trips due to the proposed project must be determined as an increment above the
18
June 2015
existing hotel and restaurant trip generation. Table 4-2 shows the estimated trip generation of the
proposed project.
The hotel and restaurant trips were determined based on ITE trip generation rates. ITE does not have trip
generation rates for a conference center; therefore trips were estimated based on 175 conference
attendees coming from outside of the hotel, a 10 percent drop-off rate, and a vehicle occupancy rate of
1.5 attendees per vehicle. It was also assumed that the conference center would generate 80 daily trips for
employees/service vehicles (40 employees/service vehicles times two trips each), with 10 trips occurring
during the AM peak hour, 10 trips occurring during the PM peak hour, and 60 trips occurring during offpeak hours.
A bicycle/pedestrian reduction of 10 percent was applied to the overall trip generation. The count data
collected at the existing site included bicycle and pedestrian counts. The mode split included 19 percent
and 29 percent bicycle/pedestrian trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The
characteristics of the proposed project will be different than the existing uses (i.e. a hotel driven trip
generation) and therefore are likely to generate fewer bicycle/pedestrian trips. A 10 percent reduction
provides a conservative estimate of the vehicle trip generation for the proposed project.
19
June 2015
TABLE 4-2
PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip Generation
Daily
AM Peak Hour
In
Out
PM Peak Hour
Total
In
Out
Total
Existing University Inn & Suites Hotel and Caffé Italia
Automobiles
629
1
36
12
48
32
17
49
Proposed Project
Hotel (132 rooms)
1,177
51
37
88
45
47
92
Conference Center (14,900 square feet) 3
362 4
128
23
151
23
128
151
Total Project Trips
1,539
179
60
239
68
175
243
910
143
48
191
36
158
194
-91
-14
-5
-19
-4
-16
-19
819
129
43
172
32
142
175
2
Net New Project Trips 5
Bicycle/Pedestrian Reduction (10%)
Total New Project Vehicle Trips
6
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates are based on count data collected at the existing site. Daily count data was not collected at the
existing site. The daily trip generation estimate is based on ITE trip generation rates for Land Use 310 (Hotel).
Based on ITE trip generation rates for Land Use 310 (Hotel).
Based on developer estimate of 175 out of an average of 225 conference attendees coming from outside the hotel, a 10% drop-off rate, and an
average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 attendees per vehicle. 10 employee/service vehicle trips (5 in, 5 out) were assumed during the AM and PM
peak hours.
Assumes AM and PM peak hour trip generation plus 60 employee/service vehicle trips traveling to/from the project site during off-peak hours (i.e.
40 employee/service vehicles times two trips each – 20 trips during peak hours, 60 trips during off-peak hours).
Net New Trips = Total Project Trips – Total Existing Trips
Does not apply to conference center drop-off trips.
As shown in Table 4-2, it is estimated that the proposed project will generate an additional 819 daily trips
compared to the existing hotel and restaurant; 172 and 175 trips will be generated in the AM and PM
peak hours, respectively. The estimated trip generation accounts for restaurant patrons that are guests of
the hotel or conference center, and patrons arriving via walking or bicycling.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The distribution of project trips was determined based on knowledge of the project area and analysis of
the project site using the City of Davis Travel Demand Model. Table 4-3 shows the general trip distribution
pattern of project trips. Figure 3 presents a more detailed view of the project trip distribution.
20
June 2015
TABLE 4-3
PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Origin/Destination
Percent of Project Trips
Downtown Davis (via Richards Boulevard)
25%
I-80 Eastbound
30%
I-80 Westbound
33%
South Davis (via Richards Boulevard / Cowell Boulevard)
10%
Olive Drive
2%
21
d
#
((
!
!
5
A r bo r etu m
Te
!
(
6
PROJECT
SITE
(
!
ile
sR
irc
le
Ch
ark
C
W
oP
#
1%
#S
T
8
Morris Lane
B ar
on y
P lac e
#
So
lan
9 L ill ard D r i v e
Cowell Blvd
(
!
2%
S
T
#
!
T
S
#
oa
d
rac e
r
7
(
!
1%
S
T
3%
#
4
T
S
#
#
#
Blv
Research Park Drive
H Street
#
#
#
2%
S
T
ad
1%
o
T
S
(3
2 R !
(
!
ic h
1
!
(
ard
s
1%
S
T
eR
t reet
First S
13%
in
30%
S
T
eL
80
Pol
§
¦
¨
5%
S
T
Drew Avenue
#
e
riv
#
et
G Stre
D
ive
Ol
2%
S
T T
S
t
d St ree
Secon
3%
2%
T
S
et
F Stre
et
et
C Stre
D Stre
t
E Stree
treet
Third S
1%
T
S
33%
S
T
Intersections Distribution % Distribution %
Project
CityLimits
1
1-2
#
4-5
6 - 13
#
6 - 13
#
14 - 33
#
#
2-3
3-5
14 - 27
28 - 33
Figure 3
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
June 2015
EXISTING PLUS HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Existing plus hotel/conference center conditions traffic volumes were developed by adding project
generated traffic volumes to the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections and freeway segments.
In addition, the new median on Richards Boulevard will prevent left turns out of both the hotel exit and
the Shell gas station north of Richards Boulevard, adding trips to Olive Drive. This rerouting was taken into
consideration in the addition of project trips to the existing conditions. No changes to the existing
transportation network were assumed for the existing plus project conditions intersection and freeway
segment level of service analyses.
Existing Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions Levels of Service
The existing plus project volumes were analyzed using the methodologies discussed in Chapter 2.
Intersections
The intersection level of service results are shown in Table 4-4. Detailed calculation sheets are provided in
Appendix D.
23
June 2015
TABLE 4-4
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Existing
Intersection
Control
AM Peak
Existing Plus Project
PM Peak
AM Peak
PM Peak
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
1st Street/D Street
Signal
6.0
A
21.4
C
6.5
A
20.1
C
1st Street/E Street/Richards
Boulevard
Signal
16.6
B
22.9
C
17.5
B
24.6
C
Multi-Way Stop
8.2
WBT
A
11.6
SBR
B
9.4
WBT
A
11.9
WBT
B
Signal
15.4
B
19.8
B
20.3
C
22.6
C
Side-Street Stop
15.5
SBL
C
33.9
SBL
D
A
10.6
NBR
B
Uncontrolled
0.9
SBR
A
1.0
SBR
A
10.7
SBR
A
Signal
29.3
C
29.2
C
32.7
D
30.6
C
Signal
22.3
C
26.9
C
23.0
B
26.1
C
Road/Lillard Drive
Signal
28.4
C
7.5
A
28.4
C
7.5
A
1st Street/F Street
Richards Boulevard/Project
Driveway
6.8
SBR
3.9
SBR
A
Notes: 1 Delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection for signalized intersections. Delay is reported in seconds
As shown in Table 4-4, all study intersections operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak
hours with the addition of project traffic. In general, the addition of project traffic increases delay at study
intersections. However, the additional delay due to the project is less than five seconds at each
intersection and each intersection continues to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic. At
the Richards Boulevard/Project Driveway intersection, side-street delay reduces due to the prohibition of
southbound and northbound left-turns.
In the PM peak hour at the 1st Street/D Street and Richards Boulevard/Research Park Drive/Cowell
Boulevard intersections, delay slightly decreases. This decrease is due to the use of microsimulation, a
stochastic model with random variation in vehicle arrival. Although the existing plus project
microsimulation accounts for additional traffic due to the project, random variation in vehicle arrival can
cause variation between multiple runs. This decrease in delay can be interpreted to suggest that no
measurable increase in congestion will occur at these study intersections due to project traffic.
Further analysis of the Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive and Richards Boulevard/Project Driveway
intersections was completed to ensure that westbound left-turn queues would not interfere with
westbound through traffic on Richards Boulevard. Specifically, access control improvements on Richards
Boulevard that will prevent outbound left-turn movements from the project site onto Richards Boulevard
24
June 2015
will also reduce the length of the westbound left-turn pocket at the Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive
intersection. Table 4-5 shows the results of this queuing analysis
TABLE 4-5
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT QUEUING ANALYSIS AT RICHARDS BOULEVARD/OLIVE DRIVE
Movement
Maximum Storage
Maximum Queue
(AM Peak Hour)
Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive Westbound
Left-Turn
125 feet
290 feet
212 feet
330 feet
333 feet
72 feet
60 feet
N/A
(blocks Richards
Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive Westbound Boulevard/Olive Drive at
Through
150 feet and Richards
Boulevard/Project
Driveway at 330 feet)
Westbound Left-Turn
125 feet
Maximum Queue
(PM Peak Hour)
At the Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive intersection, the maximum westbound left-turn queue during the
peak hours (AM – 290 feet, PM – 212 feet) will exceed the available storage at least once per hour. This is
potentially problematic as queues spilling out of this turn pocket may block the westbound through
movement.
Also at the Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive intersection, the maximum westbound through queue will
extend beyond the westbound left-turn pocket, limiting access to the westbound left-turn pocket. This will
happen multiple times during both the AM and PM peak hours. It comes close to blocking the Richards
Boulevard/Project Driveway westbound left-turn.
At the Richards Boulevard/Project Driveway intersection, the maximum westbound left-turn queue does
not exceed available storage.
25
June 2015
Freeways
Table 4-6 shows the freeway segment level of service results. Detailed calculation sheets are provided in
Appendix E.
TABLE 4-6
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT MIDWEEK PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS
Existing
AM Peak
Direction
Eastbound
Westbound
PM Peak
AM Peak
PM Peak
Segment
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
Old Davis Road to Richards
Boulevard
16.5
B
17.8
B
16.7
B
17.9
B
Richards Boulevard to Mace
Boulevard
20.3
C
23.7
C
20.4
C
24.0
C
Mace Boulevard to Richards
Boulevard
25.1
C
22.0
C
27.5
D
23.0
C
Richards Boulevard to Old Davis
Road
17.4
B
25.0
C
17.5
B
25.0
C
As shown in Table 4-6, most of the study freeway segments will operate at LOS C with and without the
project. In the AM peak hour, the westbound segment between Mace Boulevard and Richards Boulevard
changes from LOS C to LOS D with the addition of the project.
Parking Supply Evaluation
A parking supply and demand analysis was conducted for the project. The project site will provide 172
parking spaces. Assuming 85 percent occupancy of the 132 hotel rooms (112 rooms) and that 10 percent
of guests arrive by non-auto modes, 102 vehicles will be parked on-site for the hotel. At 85 percent hotel
occupancy, 70 parking spaces will remain for off-site conference attendees or employees. Assuming that
employees park off-site or arrive by non-auto modes, a 10 percent drop-off rate, and vehicle occupancy
of 1.5 persons per vehicle, 70 spaces can accommodate approximately 115 off-site attendees. Events that
will generate more than 115 off-site attendees will likely require valet parking to an off-site lot unless
further parking is constructed (in addition to requiring employees to park off-site or arrive by non-auto
modes).
26
Olive Dr
acf
122 (170)
22 (13)
70 (138)
e
Cowell Blvd
Cowell Blvd
164 (155)
422 (609)
157 (49)
45 (64)
2 (11)
57 (86)
18 (38)
513 (597)
52 (34)
ace
117 (108)
21 (7)
13 (44)
ce
98 (165)
603 (729)
aae
59 (155)
5 (19)
31 (43)
263 (367)
354 (415)
I-80 EB Ramps
251 (251)
388 (398)
cf
199 (69)
f
STOP
75 (121)
3 (13)
ae
Richards Blvd
I-80 WB Ramps
426 (331)
ace
64 (112)
Richards Blvd
ae
418 (713)
168 (350)
387 (462)
467 (519)
aacc
ce
Caffe Italia
475 (411)
89 (125)
263 (357)
ae
5 (33)
2 (41)
16 (69)
In-N-Out
STOP
ccf
f
522 (950)
39 (27)
F St
E St
12 (31)
94 (163)
1 (6)
D St
12 (19)
14 (36)
31 (93)
6 (9)
f
Richards Blvd
f
Richards Blvd
af
bf
14 (57)
755 (748)
124 (44)
d
26 (76)
434 (753)
36 (30)
123 (170)
140 (208)
ae
bf
Richards Blvd
25 (69)
660 (651)
76 (37)
ae
STOP
bf
bf
ae
2 (15)
10 (31)
281 (500)
1st St
4 (11)
63 (106)
b
bf
STOP
1st St
2 (8)
246 (382)
17 (61)
3 (5)
15 (38)
121 (193)
g
54 (73)
426 (320)
22 (74)
ae
1st St
3. F St/1st St
Research Park Dr
1. D St/1st St
accf
14 (6)
190 (182)
192 (154)
Lillard Dr
acf
111 (171)
45 (143)
137 (190)
acf
acf
114 (183)
149 (198)
189 (157)
Cowell Blvd
166 (155)
81 (101)
12 (3)
Figure 4
and Lane Configurations Existing Plus Project Conditions
June 2015
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Intersections
The project would increase the amount of traffic on the study intersections over existing conditions.
However, none of the study intersections would degrade to an unacceptable LOS. Additionally queuing
analysis at the Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive intersection and the Richards Boulevard/Project Driveway
intersections showed that access control improvements on Richards Boulevard to prevent outbound leftturn movements from the project site onto Richards Boulevard may cause queuing issues for westbound
left-turn and westbound through traffic on Richards Boulevard. Implementation of the following
mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation
Modify the proposed access control improvements on Richards Boulevard to prevent westbound leftturns at the Richards Boulevard/Project Driveway intersection (the intersection would operate as right-in,
right-out). These access control improvements would maximize westbound left-turn storage at the
Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive intersection, reducing the likelihood of westbound left-turn queues
blocking westbound through traffic and vice versa. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the
Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive intersection will operate at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the
PM peak hour; the Richards Boulevard/Project Driveway intersection will operate at LOS A in the AM peak
hour and LOS B in the PM Peak hour. Implementing access control to prevent westbound left-turns at the
Richards/Boulevard/Project Driveway intersection would likely increase the number of westbound u-turns
at the Richards Boulevard/Olive Driveway intersection. Sufficient space on the south side of Richards
Boulevard should be provided for these u-turns. However, given the expected level of service with the
mitigation measure implemented, the increment of delay caused by increased u-turns will not cause
unacceptable operations at the Richards Boulevard/Olive Driveway intersection. To minimize the amount
of westbound u-turn traffic, the project should implement wayfinding signage near the Richards
Boulevard/Olive Drive intersection that directs hotel/conference center traffic to the rear entrance on
Olive Drive.
Freeway Segments
The project would increase the amount of traffic on the study segments over existing conditions.
However, none of the study segments would degrade to an unacceptable LOS. Therefore this impact is
considered less than significant.
Mitigation
None
28
June 2015
Bicycle Facilities
The project would increase the amount of traffic in the study area over existing conditions and potentially
increase bicycle ridership. However, the project would not interfere with any existing or proposed bicycle
facilities. Therefore this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation
None
Transit
The project would increase the amount of traffic in the study area over existing conditions and potentially
increase transit ridership. However, the project would not interfere with or exacerbate the demand for
existing transit operations. Therefore this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation
None
29
June 2015
CHAPTER 5.
CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
This chapter discusses the cumulative transportation system in the study area and presents the levels of
service at the study locations.
CUMULATIVE ROADWAY NETWORK
Due to increased traffic levels on Richards Boulevard, access control on Richards Boulevard between Olive
Drive and the I-80 westbound ramps will eventually be necessary to maximize corridor safety and
operations. The cumulative conditions transportation system assumes that access control on Richards
Boulevard will be implemented between Olive Drive and the I-80 westbound ramps. Specifically, left-turns
into and out of the driveways on Richards Boulevard (at the hotel and the Shell gas station/In-and-Out)
will be prohibited and these driveways will be converted to right-in, right-out.
Cumulative Forecasts
Cumulative forecasts were developed using the City of Davis Travel Demand Forecasting Model. Versions
of the City of Davis Travel Demand Forecasting Model were developed to reflect a base year of 2008 and
a future year of 2035. The difference method, which adds the growth between the base and future year
models to existing counts, was used to produce forecasts. The land use for these scenarios were
developed using land use inventories and projections from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments
(SACOG) consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy
(MTP/SCS). MTP/SCS land use does not assume the development of any Davis Measure R ballot
proposition projects, projects that require voter approval to be annexed into the City. Three Measure R
projects are currently under environmental review: development of the Nishi property, Mace Ranch, and
the Davis Innovation Center. Figure 5 shows the cumulative conditions peak hour intersection traffic
volumes.
30
Olive Dr
acf
130 (180)
30 (20)
110 (190)
STOP
e
Cowell Blvd
Cowell Blvd
310 (175)
815 (815)
180 (50)
40 (25)
10 (20)
145 (80)
110 (50)
765 (830)
60 (50)
ace
250 (310)
30 (10)
30 (220)
ce
105 (180)
1,000 (1,170)
aae
70 (170)
10 (30)
50 (60)
335 (470)
475 (460)
I-80 EB Ramps
220 (250)
850 (580)
cf
f
230 (80)
I-80 WB Ramps
480 (400)
ce
80 (275)
10 (25)
ae
Richards Blvd
615 (440)
110 (150)
270 (360)
ae
10 (35)
10 (55)
20 (70)
In-N-Out
40 (25)
F St
E St
40 (50)
110 (170)
10 (10)
D St
20 (30)
40 (50)
40 (100)
10 (10)
f
Caffe Italia
Richards Blvd
ae
580 (850)
190 (375)
700 (810)
505 (610)
aacc
ce
ccf
f
730 (1,200)
15 (15)
f
Richards Blvd
STOP
af
bf
Richards Blvd
20 (60)
960 (950)
d
60 (90)
490 (945)
35 (35)
135 (180)
160 (225)
ae
bf
Richards Blvd
50 (90)
825 (730)
100 (140)
ae
STOP
bf
bf
ae
5 (20)
15 (35)
340 (645)
1st St
10 (20)
175 (160)
b
bf
STOP
1st St
10 (10)
300 (525)
20 (65)
10 (20)
110 (165)
135 (250)
g
80 (100)
655 (460)
30 (100)
ae
1st St
3. F St/1st St
Research Park Dr
1. D St/1st St
accf
120 (30)
260 (190)
380 (240)
Lillard Dr
acf
130 (330)
190 (200)
150 (380)
acf
acf
170 (280)
150 (200)
290 (170)
Cowell Blvd
170 (220)
190 (160)
20 (10)
Figure 5
and Lane Configurations Cumulative Conditions
June 2015
Cumulative Conditions Levels of Service
The cumulative forecasts were analyzed using the methodologies discussed in Chapter 2. The intersection
technical calculations sheets are provided in Appendix D and the freeway technical calculations sheets are
provided in Appendix E.
Intersections
The intersection level of service results for cumulative conditions are shown in Table 5-1.
TABLE 5-1
CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
AM Peak
Intersection
PM Peak
Control
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
1st Street/D Street
Signal
15.8
B
83.8
F
Signal
27.6
C
46.2
D
Multi-Way Stop
16.7
WBT
C
109.7
SBR
F
Signal
52.9
D
64.4
E
Side-Street Stop
10.3
SBR
B
14.4
SBR
B
Uncontrolled
1.6
SBR
A
6.0
SBR
A
Signal
73.1
E
77.7
E
Signal
50.9
D
99.8
F
Road/Lillard Drive
Signal
11.3
B
10.1
B
1st Street/F Street
As shown in Table 5-1, all of the study intersections operate at LOS E or better during the AM peak hour.
During the PM peak hour, three intersections operate at LOS F: 1st Street/D Street, 1st Street/F Street, and
Richards Boulevard/Research Park Drive/Cowell Boulevard. LOS F is acceptable in the Core Area; therefore,
the only intersection that operates unacceptably is Richards Boulevard/Research Park Drive/Cowell
Boulevard.
32
June 2015
Freeways
The freeway segment level of service results for cumulative conditions are shown in Table 5-2.
TABLE 5-2
CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS
AM Peak
Direction
Eastbound
Westbound
PM Peak
Segment
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
21.6
C
22.1
C
25.4
C
31.2
D
31.6
D
28.0
D
20.5
C
30.0
D
As shown in Table 5-2 the study freeway segments will operate at LOS D or better under cumulative
conditions.
CUMULATIVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
No improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian network were assumed under cumulative conditions.
CUMULATIVE TRANSIT SYSTEM
No improvements to the transit network were assumed under cumulative conditions.
33
June 2015
CHAPTER 6. CUMULATIVE
CENTER CONDITIONS
PLUS
HOTEL/CONFERENCE
This chapter discusses the cumulative plus hotel/conference center conditions analysis results at the study
locations. It also presents the project impacts and associated mitigation measures for cumulative
hotel/conference center project conditions.
CUMULATIVE PLUS HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
No changes to the cumulative transportation network are assumed under the cumulative plus
hotel/conference center conditions. The analysis results for the study locations with the addition of the
project is shown below.
Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center Forecasts
The cumulative plus hotel/conference center traffic volumes were developed by adding the net new trips
shown in Table 4-2 to the cumulative forecasts using the distribution in Table 4-3. Figure 6 shows the
cumulative plus hotel/conference center peak hour intersection traffic volumes.
34
Olive Dr
acf
130 (180)
30 (20)
113 (191)
STOP
e
Cowell Blvd
Cowell Blvd
311 (179)
817 (822)
181 (53)
51 (61)
11 (23)
151 (101)
110 (50)
772 (832)
60 (50)
ace
254 (311)
30 (10)
30 (220)
ce
105 (180)
1,013 (1,173)
aae
72 (170)
10 (30)
50 (60)
348 (512)
479 (474)
I-80 EB Ramps
263 (261)
850 (580)
cf
f
230 (80)
I-80 WB Ramps
519 (409)
ce
83 (276)
10 (25)
ae
Richards Blvd
622 (462)
111 (154)
273 (370)
ae
10 (35)
10 (55)
20 (70)
In-N-Out
65 (107)
F St
E St
40 (50)
113 (171)
10 (10)
D St
20 (30)
40 (50)
43 (101)
10 (10)
f
Caffe Italia
Richards Blvd
ae
597 (906)
204 (422)
700 (810)
561 (624)
aacc
ce
ccf
f
736 (1,221)
43 (22)
f
Richards Blvd
STOP
af
bf
Richards Blvd
20 (60)
1,055 (973)
d
60 (90)
515 (951)
41 (37)
136 (183)
162 (232)
ae
bf
Richards Blvd
50 (90)
825 (730)
195 (163)
ae
STOP
bf
bf
ae
5 (20)
15 (35)
359 (650)
1st St
10 (20)
181 (161)
b
bf
STOP
1st St
10 (10)
316 (529)
20 (65)
10 (20)
110 (165)
144 (252)
g
81 (103)
661 (479)
30 (100)
ae
1st St
3. F St/1st St
Research Park Dr
1. D St/1st St
accf
120 (30)
260 (190)
381 (240)
Lillard Dr
acf
130 (331)
191 (202)
150 (381)
acf
acf
170 (280)
150 (200)
292 (170)
Cowell Blvd
170 (220)
192 (161)
20 (10)
Figure 6
and Lane Configurations Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
June 2015
Cumulative Plus Hotel/Conference Center Levels of Service
The cumulative forecasts were analyzed using the methodologies discussed in Chapter 2. The intersection
technical calculations sheets are provided in Appendix D and the freeway technical calculations sheets are
provided in Appendix E.
Intersections
The intersection level of service results for cumulative plus hotel/conference center conditions are shown
in Table 6-1.
TABLE 6-1
CUMULATIVE PLUS HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Cumulative Plus
Hotel/Conference Center
Cumulative
Intersection
Control
AM Peak
PM Peak
AM Peak
PM Peak
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
1st Street/D Street
Signal
15.8
B
83.8
F
15.5
B
82.1
F
Boulevard
Signal
27.6
C
46.2
D
29.5
C
45.7
D
Multi-Way Stop
16.7
WBT
C
109.7
SBR
F
17.6
WBT
C
94.7
SBR
F
Signal
52.9
D
64.4
E
57
E
69.8
E
Side-Street Stop
10.3
SBR
B
14.4
SBR
B
12.5
SBR
B
19.3
NBR
C
Uncontrolled
1.6
SBR
A
6.0
SBR
A
26.7
SBR
D
10.0
SBR
B
Signal
73.1
E
77.7
E
68.2
E
77.2
E
Signal
50.9
D
99.8
F
55.4
D
100.9
F
Road/Lillard Drive
Signal
11.3
B
10.1
B
11.4
B
10.1
B
1st Street/F Street
Driveway
As shown in Table 6-1, the addition of project traffic generally increases delay at study intersections.
However, at some intersections delay slightly decreases. This decrease is due to the use of
microsimulation, a stochastic model with random variation in vehicle arrival. Although the existing plus
project microsimulation accounts for additional traffic due to the project, random variation in vehicle
arrival can cause variation between multiple runs. These decreases in delay can be interpreted to suggest
that no measurable increase in congestion will occur at these study intersections due to project traffic.
36
June 2015
During the AM peak hour all intersections will operate at LOS E or better with the addition of project
traffic. The addition of project traffic does not cause any intersections operating at an acceptable LOS to
operate at an unacceptable LOS.
During the PM peak hour, several intersections will continue to operate at LOS F with the addition of
project traffic, including 1st Street/D Street, 1st Street/F Street, and Richards Boulevard/Research Park
Drive/Cowell Boulevard. Criteria related to significant impacts at these intersections are outlined below.
•
1st Street/D Street is a signalized intersection in the Core Area. For the project’s impact to be
significant, the project must exacerbate a “congested condition” by adding five seconds or more
to the intersection’s average delay. Analysis shows a decrease in delay due to random variation in
vehicle arrival between multiple runs, suggesting that no measurable increase in congestion will
occur at this intersection due to the project (i.e. the project adds less than five seconds to the
intersection’s average delay).
•
1st Street/F Street is a multi-way stop intersection in the Core Area. For the project’s impact to be
significant, the intersection would need to meet the peak hour signal warrant and the project
would need to increase the intersection’s overall volume by more than one percent. The
intersection does not meet the MUTCD’s peak hour signal warrant (Appendix F includes signal
warrant calculations); however, the project increases the intersection’s overall volume by six
percent.
•
Richards Boulevard/Research Park Drive/Cowell Boulevard is a signalized intersection outside of
the Core Area. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS, therefore the intersection operates
unacceptably both without and with the project. For the project’s impact to be significant, the
project must add five seconds or more to the intersection’s average delay. The project adds less
than five seconds to the intersection’s average delay.
37
June 2015
Freeways
The freeway segment level of service results for cumulative plus hotel/conference center conditions are
shown in Table 6-2.
TABLE 6-2
CUMULATIVE PLUS HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS
Cumulative Plus
Cumulative
AM Peak
Direction
AM Peak
PM Peak
Segment
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
Boulevard
21.6
C
22.1
C
21.8
C
22.2
C
Boulevard
25.4
C
31.2
D
25.5
C
31.5
D
Boulevard
31.6
D
28.0
D
31.6
D
28
D
Road
20.5
C
30.0
D
20.7
C
30
D
Eastbound
Westbound
PM Peak
As shown in Table 6-2, the study freeway segments will operate at LOS C or LOS D with and without the
project under cumulative conditions. Project traffic does not cause any freeway segments operating
acceptably without the project to operate unacceptably.
Intersections
The project would increase the amount of traffic on the study intersections over cumulative conditions,
including intersections that operate at an unacceptable LOS without the project. However, the analysis of
pertinent significance criteria including delay added, volume added, and the MUTCD’s peak hour signal
warrant show that none of the impacts are significant. Therefore this impact is considered less than
significant.
Mitigation
None
38
June 2015
Freeway Segments
The project would increase the amount of traffic on the study segments over cumulative conditions.
However, none of the study segments would degrade to an unacceptable LOS. Therefore this impact is
considered less than significant.
Mitigation
None
Bicycle Facilities
The project would increase the amount of traffic in the study area over cumulative conditions and
potentially increase bicycle ridership. However, the project would not interfere with any existing or
proposed bicycle facilities. Therefore this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation
None
Transit
The project would increase the amount of traffic in the study area over cumulative conditions and
potentially increase transit ridership. However, the project would not interfere with or exacerbate the
demand for existing transit operations. Therefore this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation
None
39
June 2015
CHAPTER 7. CUMULATIVE PLUS MEASURE R PROJECTS
CONDITIONS
This chapter discusses the cumulative plus Measure R projects’ transportation system in the study area
and presents the levels of service at the study locations. Three Measure R projects are currently under
environmental review: development of the Nishi property, Mace Ranch, and the Davis Innovation Center.
CUMULATIVE PLUS MEASURE R PROJECTS’ ROADWAY NETWORK
Buildout of the three Measure R projects will likely require mitigation measures on roadways within the
study area of the hotel/conference center. Without such mitigation measures it is not reasonably
foreseeable that these projects will be approved and constructed. Therefore, in measuring the
hotel/conference center project’s impact with the Measure R projects, it is reasonable to assume that
these mitigation measures are in place. Preliminary analysis from the Nishi Environmental Impact Report
was used to develop assumed roadway improvements under cumulative plus Measure R projects
conditions:
•
1st Street/F Street – install a traffic signal. In addition to a traffic signal, two alternative mitigation
measures are being considered: constructing an eastbound left-turn lane or prohibiting
eastbound left-turns. Constructing an eastbound left-turn lane requires that the City acquire
additional right-of-way. Prohibiting eastbound left-turns does not require additional right-of-way.
For the purposes of assessing the impact of the hotel/conference center, prohibiting eastbound
left-turns was assumed.
•
Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive – construct a short, eastbound right-turn lane on Richards
Boulevard; construct a second westbound left-turn lane on Richards Boulevard; widen the
northbound approach on Olive Drive to feature a left-turn lane, a shared through/right-turn lane,
and a right-turn lane.
•
Richards Boulevard/Project Driveway – consistent with the cumulative scenarios (without Measure
R projects), prohibit westbound left-turns into the project driveway (the driveway will be right-in,
right-out).
•
Richards Boulevard/I-80 Westbound (WB) Ramps – reconstruct the Richards Boulevard
interchange to move the I-80 westbound ramps further east; remove the free right-turn
movements and install a traffic signal; modify the approaches to feature one southbound left-turn
lane and two southbound right-turn lanes, two eastbound through lanes and one eastbound
right-turn lane, and two westbound left-turn lanes and one westbound through lane.
•
Richards Boulevard/I-80 Eastbound (EB) Ramps – construct a second southbound left-turn lane.
•
Richards Boulevard-Cowell Boulevard/Research Park Drive – construct a second eastbound
through lane on Richards Boulevard.
40
June 2015
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Forecasts
Cumulative plus Measure R projects forecasts were developed using the City of Davis Travel Demand
Forecasting Model. Versions of the City of Davis Travel Demand Forecasting Model were developed to
reflect a base year of 2008 and a future year of 2035. The difference method, which adds the growth
between the base and future year models to existing counts, was used to produce forecasts. The land use
for these scenarios were developed using land use inventories and projections from the Sacramento Area
Council of Governments (SACOG) consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Community Strategy (MTP/SCS). Land use from three Davis Measure R ballot proposition projects
(development of the Nishi property, Mace Ranch, and the Davis Innovation Center) was added in addition
to growth identified by the MTP/SCS. Figure 7 shows the cumulative plus Measure R projects conditions
peak hour intersection traffic volumes.
41
Cowell Blvd
Cowell Blvd
45 (40)
290 (630)
560 (700)
230 (430)
950 (965)
180 (70)
Olive Dr
70 (125)
10 (30)
165 (390)
ace
190 (40)
835 (890)
60 (40)
aae
70 (170)
10 (20)
50 (60)
260 (270)
30 (10)
30 (200)
ce
100 (170)
1,080 (1,200)
ace
575 (1,165)
200 (515)
aacf
e
I-80 EB Ramps
250 (280)
800 (760)
130 (180)
80 (30)
130 (190)
190 (320)
10 (20)
ae
Richards Blvd
I-80 WB Ramps
875 (425)
270 (160)
Cce
aac
Richards Blvd
aacc
ce
Caffe Italia
445 (620)
880 (860)
STOP
ccf
f
645 (410)
120 (130)
430 (470)
ae
10 (40)
20 (60)
20 (80)
In-N-Out
Richards Blvd
725 (1,640)
15 (25)
F St
E St
20 (40)
180 (320)
10 (10)
D St
20 (30)
40 (50)
110 (100)
10 (10)
f
Richards Blvd
20 (60)
1,360 (995)
aff
bf
STOP
aaf
aef
50 (100)
445 (1,085)
155 (120)
460 (515)
c
Richards Blvd
bf
bf
ae
10 (20)
30 (40)
275 (695)
1st St
30 (100)
990 (700)
285 (190)
acf
bf
10 (20)
195 (190)
ae
bf
1st St
20 (20)
185 (580)
20 (70)
20 (10)
160 (210)
205 (290)
g
60 (80)
735 (505)
30 (80)
ae
1st St
3. F St/1st St
Research Park Dr
1. D St/1st St
accf
90 (10)
290 (190)
290 (210)
Lillard Dr
acf
200 (270)
240 (190)
190 (430)
acf
acf
220 (440)
250 (310)
230 (160)
Cowell Blvd
170 (220)
500 (200)
20 (10)
Figure 7
and Lane Configurations Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Conditions
June 2015
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Conditions Levels of Service
The cumulative plus Measure R projects forecasts were analyzed using the methodologies discussed in
Chapter 2. The intersection technical calculations sheets are provided in Appendix D and the freeway
technical calculations sheets are provided in Appendix E.
Intersections
The intersection level of service results for cumulative plus Measure R projects conditions are shown in
Table 7-1.
TABLE 7-1
CUMULATIVE PLUS MEASURE R PROJECTS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
AM Peak
Intersection
PM Peak
Control
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
1st Street/D Street
Signal
18.9
B
91.1
F
Signal
34.7
C
54.3
D
1st Street/F Street
Signal
10.7
B
21.8
C
Signal
52.4
D
38.9
D
Side-Street Stop
31.6
SBR
E
19.9
SBR
C
Signal
70.2
E
24.4
C
Signal
30.5
B
31.8
C
Signal
31.8
C
56.5
E
Road/Lillard Drive
Signal
16.2
B
17.8
B
As shown in Table 7-1, all of the study intersections operate acceptably during both peak hours. During
the AM peak hour, all intersections operate at LOS E or better. During the PM peak hour, the 1st Street/D
Street operates at LOS F; however, LOS F is acceptable in the Core Area.
43
June 2015
Freeways
The freeway segment level of service results for cumulative plus Measure R projects conditions are shown
in Table 7-2.
TABLE 7-2
CUMULATIVE PLUS MEASURE R PROJECTS PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS
AM Peak
Direction
Eastbound
Westbound
PM Peak
Segment
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
22.1
C
26.4
D
25.9
C
39.6
E
43.0
E
29.0
D
28.0
D
41.0
E
As shown in Table 7-2 the study freeway segments will operate at LOS E or better under cumulative plus
Measure R projects conditions.
CUMULATIVE PLUS MEASURE R PROJECTS PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Existing sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes will be reconfigured as a part of the mitigation measures for
the Nishi project. No existing sidewalks, crosswalks, or bike lanes will be removed as a part of the
mitigation measures for the Nishi project.
CUMULATIVE PLUS MEASURE R PROJECTS TRANSIT SYSTEM
No improvements to the transit network were assumed under cumulative plus Measure R projects
conditions.
44
June 2015
CHAPTER 8. CUMULATIVE PLUS MEASURE R PROJECTS
PLUS HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER CONDITIONS
This chapter discusses the cumulative plus Measure R projects plus hotel/conference center conditions
analysis results at the study locations. It also presents the project impacts and associated mitigation
measures for cumulative plus Measure R projects plus hotel/conference center project conditions.
CUMULATIVE PLUS MEASURE R PROJECTS PLUS HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
No additional changes to the cumulative plus Measure R projects’ transportation network (which assumes
mitigation measures for the Nishi project) are assumed under the cumulative plus Measure R projects plus
hotel/conference center conditions. The analysis results for the study locations with the addition of the
project is shown below.
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Forecasts
The cumulative plus Measure R projects plus hotel/conference center traffic volumes were developed by
adding the net new trips shown in Table 4-2 to the cumulative forecasts using the distribution in Table 43. Figure 8 shows the cumulative plus Measure R projects plus hotel/conference center peak hour
intersection traffic volumes.
45
Cowell Blvd
Cowell Blvd
70 (122)
303 (672)
564 (714)
231 (434)
952 (972)
181 (73)
Olive Dr
81 (161)
11 (33)
171 (411)
ace
190 (40)
842 (892)
60 (40)
aae
72 (170)
10 (20)
50 (60)
264 (271)
30 (10)
30 (200)
ce
100 (170)
1,093 (1,203)
ace
592 (1,221)
214 (562)
aacf
e
I-80 EB Ramps
293 (291)
800 (760)
130 (180)
80 (30)
133 (191)
193 (321)
10 (20)
ae
Richards Blvd
I-80 WB Ramps
914 (434)
270 (160)
cce
aac
Richards Blvd
aacc
ce
Caffe Italia
501 (634)
880 (860)
STOP
ccf
f
652 (432)
121 (134)
433 (480)
ae
10 (40)
20 (60)
20 (80)
In-N-Out
Richards Blvd
731 (1,661)
43 (32)
F St
E St
20 (40)
183 (321)
10 (10)
D St
20 (30)
40 (50)
113 (101)
10 (10)
f
Richards Blvd
20 (60)
1,455 (1,018)
aff
bf
STOP
aaf
aef
50 (100)
470 (1,091)
161 (122)
463 (525)
c
Richards Blvd
bf
bf
ae
10 (20)
30 (40)
294 (700)
1st St
30 (100)
990 (700)
380 (213)
acf
bf
10 (20)
201 (191)
ae
bf
1st St
20 (20)
201 (584)
20 (70)
20 (10)
160 (210)
214 (292)
g
61 (83)
741 (524)
30 (80)
ae
1st St
3. F St/1st St
Research Park Dr
1. D St/1st St
accf
90 (10)
290 (190)
291 (210)
Lillard Dr
acf
200 (271)
241 (192)
190 (431)
acf
acf
220 (440)
250 (310)
232 (160)
Cowell Blvd
170 (220)
502 (201)
20 (10)
Figure 8
and Lane Configurations Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Conditions
June 2015
Cumulative Plus Measure R Projects Plus Hotel/Conference Center Levels of Service
The cumulative plus Measure R projects plus hotel/conference center forecasts were analyzed using the
methodologies discussed in Chapter 2. The intersection technical calculations sheets are provided in
Appendix D and the freeway technical calculations sheets are provided in Appendix E.
Intersections
The intersection level of service results for cumulative plus Measure R projects plus hotel/conference
center conditions are shown in Table 8-1.
TABLE 8-1
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection
Control
Cumulative Plus Measure R
Projects
AM Peak
PM Peak
Projects Plus
AM Peak
PM Peak
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
Delay1
LOS
1st Street/D Street
Signal
18.9
B
91.1
F
18.8
B
91.7
F
Boulevard
Signal
34.7
C
54.3
D
34.8
C
54.7
D
1st Street/F Street
Signal
10.7
B
21.8
C
10.9
B
22.0
C
Signal
52.4
D
38.9
D
53.8
D
45.3
D
Side-Street Stop
31.6
SBR
E
19.9
SBR
C
35.5
SBR
E
19.2
SBR
C
Signal
70.2
E
24.4
C
71.6
E
26.1
C
Signal
30.5
C
31.8
C
30.8
C
32.5
C
Signal
31.8
C
56.5
E
31.9
C
57.5
E
Road/Lillard Drive
Signal
16.2
B
17.8
B
16.4
B
17.7
B
Driveway
As shown in Table 8-1, the addition of project traffic generally increases delay at study intersections.
However, at some intersections delay slightly decreases. This decrease is due to the use of
microsimulation, a stochastic model with random variation in vehicle arrival. Although the existing plus
project microsimulation accounts for additional traffic due to the project, random variation in vehicle
arrival can cause variation between multiple runs. These decreases in delay can be interpreted to suggest
that no measurable increase in congestion will occur at these study intersections due to project traffic.
47
June 2015
During the AM peak hour all intersections will operate at LOS E or better with the addition of project
traffic. The addition of project traffic does not cause any intersections operating at an acceptable LOS to
operate at an unacceptable LOS.
During the PM peak hour, all intersections will operate at LOS E or better with the addition of project
traffic with the exception of the 1st Street/D Street intersection. The 1st Street/D Street intersection will
operate at LOS F; LOS F is considered a “congested condition” in the Core Area. For the project’s impact
to be significant, the project must exacerbate a “congested condition” by adding five seconds or more to
the intersection’s average delay. The project adds less than five seconds to the average delay at 1st
Street/D Street.
48
June 2015
Freeways
The freeway segment level of service results for cumulative plus Measure R projects plus hotel/conference
center conditions are shown in Table 8-2.
TABLE 8-2
PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS
Projects
AM Peak
Direction
AM Peak
PM Peak
Segment
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
Density
LOS
Boulevard
22.1
C
26.4
D
22.3
C
26.5
D
Boulevard
25.9
C
39.6
E
26.0
D
40.1
E
Boulevard
43.0
E
29.0
D
43.6
E
29.0
D
Road
28.0
D
41.0
E
28.1
D
41.0
E
Eastbound
Westbound
PM Peak
Projects Plus Hotel/Conference
Center
As shown in Table 8-2, the study freeway segments will operate at LOS E or better with and without the
project under cumulative conditions. Project traffic does not cause any freeway segments operating
acceptably without the project to operate unacceptably.
Intersections
The project would increase the amount of traffic on the study intersections over cumulative plus Measure
R projects conditions, including the 1st Street/D Street intersection that operates at a “congested
condition”. However, the analysis of delay added for the 1st Street/D Street intersection shows that this
impact is not significant. Therefore this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation
None
49
June 2015
Freeway Segments
The project would increase the amount of traffic on the study segments over cumulative plus Measure R
projects conditions. However, none of the study segments would degrade to an unacceptable LOS.
Therefore this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation
None
Bicycle Facilities
The project would increase the amount of traffic in the study area over cumulative plus Measure R
projects conditions and potentially increase bicycle ridership. However, the project would not interfere
with any existing or proposed bicycle facilities. Therefore this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation
None
Transit
The project would increase the amount of traffic in the study area over cumulative plus Measure R
projects conditions and potentially increase transit ridership. However, the project would not interfere
with or exacerbate the demand for existing transit operations. Therefore this impact is considered less
than significant.
Mitigation
None
50
APPENDIX A
PROJECT SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED ACCESS CONTROL
APPENDIX C
TRAFFIC DATA
APPENDIX D
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE TECHNICAL CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX E
FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE TECHNICAL CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX F
SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSES

transportation impact study

Transcription

Similar documents

. {(i]o

70-mile - Tour de Scottsdale

expose - Mallorca Immobilien 24

The Winter Boulevard

Maps to Rinks at the Coast May 1-3

the village at schneithorst`s for lease: site plan

Read More - Property Listings

BURJ AL ARAB

TIME FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY

A000657 . Managers Specials_Dec