traffic impact study

Transcription

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
LOVE’S TRAVEL CENTER
CITY OF HESPERIA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
August 5, 2013 (Revised October 2014)
CITY OF HESPERIA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
John A. Ramirez
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781-9310
LSA Project No. RUT1201
August 5, 2013 (Revised October 2014)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 3 Study Area Determination ............................................................................................................... 3 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................. 7 Development of Opening Year Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 8 Development of Future Build-Out Year Traffic Volumes ............................................................... 8 Level of Service Definitions and Procedures ................................................................................. 13 Heavy Vehicle Factor in LOS Calculations ................................................................................... 15 Level of Service Standards ............................................................................................................ 15 Determination of Impact ................................................................................................................ 16 Project Trip Generation.................................................................................................................. 16 Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................ 18 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. 28 Existing Traffic Conditions............................................................................................................ 28 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................... 28 OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 35 Opening Year without Project Traffic Conditions ......................................................................... 35 Opening Year (2014) Plus Project Conditions ............................................................................... 35 Year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) Traffic Conditions ..................................................... 41 Year 2035 Plus Project (without Muscatel Interchange) Traffic Conditions ................................. 45 Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Traffic Conditions .......................................................... 50 Year 2035 Plus Project (with Muscatel Interchange) Traffic Conditions ...................................... 56 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................. 67 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ON JOSHUA STREET ........................................................ 81 Proposed Project Improvements on Joshua Street ......................................................................... 81 Proposed Caltrans Improvements on Joshua Street ....................................................................... 92 ON-SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 96 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 96 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX B: VOLUME DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX C: KIMLEY-HORN LOVE’S TRUCK STOP TRIP GENERATION DATA
APPENDIX D: LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX E: COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\October 2014\Traffic Study October 2014.docx (11/04/14)
i
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location ................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Study Area Intersections ......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 5: Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 11 Figure 6: Total Primary Peak Hour Passenger Vehicle Trip Distribution ............................................ 19 Figure 7: Total Primary Truck Trip Distribution.................................................................................. 20 Figure 8: Total Primary Peak Hour Passenger Vehicle Trips............................................................... 21 Figure 9: Total Primary Peak Hour Truck Trips .................................................................................. 22 Figure 10: Diverted Linked Trip Distribution (Passenger Vehicles).................................................... 23 Figure 11: Diverted Linked Trip Distribution (Trucks) ....................................................................... 24 Figure 12: Diverted Linked Peak Hour Trips (Passenger Vehicles) .................................................... 25 Figure 13: Diverted Linked Peak Hour Trips (Trucks) ........................................................................ 26 Figure 14: Total Primary and Diverted Peak Hour Trips ..................................................................... 27 Figure 15: Existing (2012) Intersection Geometrics and Stop Control ................................................ 29 Figure 16: Existing (2012) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 30 Figure 17: Existing (2012) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................. 34 Figure 18: Opening Year (2014) Without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................... 36 Figure 19: Opening Year (2014) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................... 40 Figure 20: Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Intersection Geometrics and Stop Control .... 42 Figure 21: Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Without Project Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes ......................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 22: Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 48 Figure 23: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Intersection Geometrics and Stop Control ......... 51 Figure 24: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..... 52 Figure 25: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Total Primary Peak Hour Passenger Vehicle
Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................ 57 Figure 26: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Total Primary Truck Trip Distribution ............... 58 Figure 27: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Total Primary Peak Hour Pasenger Vehicle
Trips ............................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 28: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Total Primary Peak Hour Truck Trips................ 60 Figure 29: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Diverted Linked Trip Distribution (Passenger
Vehicles) ........................................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 30: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Diverted Linked Trip Distribution (Trucks)....... 62 Figure 31: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Diverted Linked Peak Hour Trips (Passenger
Vehicles) ........................................................................................................................................ 63 Figure 32: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Diverted Linked Peak Hour Trips (Trucks) ....... 64 Figure 33: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Total Primary and Diverted Peak Hour Trips .... 65 Figure 34: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........... 66 Figure 35: Existing (2012) Plus Project With Improvements Intersection Geometrics and Stop
Control ........................................................................................................................................... 77 R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\October 2014\Traffic Study October 2014.docx (11/04/14)
ii
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
Figure 36: Opening Year (2014) Plus Project With Improvements Intersection Geometrics and
Stop Control ................................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 37: Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Plus Project With Improvements
Intersection Geometrics and Stop Control ..................................................................................... 79 Figure 38: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Plus Project With Improvements Intersection
Geometrics and Stop Control ......................................................................................................... 80 Figure 39: Existing Plus Project Striping Plan at US-395 & Joshua Street.......................................... 88 Figure 40: Opening Year With Project Striping Plan at US-395 & Joshua Street ............................... 89 Figure 41: Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) With Project at US-395 & Joshua Street ....... 90 Figure 42: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) With Project at US-395 & Joshua Street ............ 91 Figure 43: Roundabout Option C ......................................................................................................... 93 Figure 44: Project Driveway Geometrics and Stop Control ................................................................. 97 Figure 45: Signing Plan at Outpost Road and Joshua Street ................................................................ 98 Figure 46: Project Driveway Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................... 99 TABLES
Table A: Cumulative Projects Trip Generation .................................................................................... 10 Table B: Level of Service Definitions .................................................................................................. 14 Table C: Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections .................................................................... 14 Table D: Level of Service for Signalized Intersections ........................................................................ 14 Table E: Roadway Segment LOS Standard.......................................................................................... 15 Table F: Project Trip Generation .......................................................................................................... 17 Table G: Existing Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................. 31 Table H: Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service ...................................................... 32 Table I: Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ........................................................ 33 Table J: Opening Year (2014) Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................. 37 Table K: Opening Year (2014) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service ................................. 38 Table L: Opening Year (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary .................................. 39 Table M: Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Intersection Levels of Service ......................... 44 Table N: Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of
Service ........................................................................................................................................... 46 Table O: Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Roadway Segment Level of Service
Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 47 Table P: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Intersection Levels of Service ............................... 53 Table Q: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service ... 54 Table R: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary..... 55 Table S: Existing Plus Project Circulation Improvements ................................................................... 69 Table T: Opening Year (2014) Plus Project Circulation Improvements .............................................. 70 Table U: Year 2035 Plus Project (Without Muscatel Interchange) Circulation Improvements ........... 71 Table V: Year 2035 Plus Project (With Muscatel Interchange) Circulation Improvements ................ 72 Table W: Existing (2012) With Improvements Intersection Levels of Service ................................... 73 Table X: Opening Year (2014) With Improvements Intersection Levels of Service ........................... 74 Table Y: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) With Improvements Intersection Levels of
Service ........................................................................................................................................... 75 Table Z: Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) With Improvements Intersection Levels of
Service ........................................................................................................................................... 76 R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\October 2014\Traffic Study October 2014.docx (11/04/14)
iii
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
Table AA: Existing With Improvements Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ................... 82 Table AB: Opening Year (2014) With Improvements Roadway Segment Level of Service
Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 83 Table AC: Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) With Improvements Roadway Segment
Level of Service Summary............................................................................................................. 84 Table AD: Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) With Improvements Roadway Segment Level
of Service Summary....................................................................................................................... 85 Table AE: Queuing Analysis Without Improvements .......................................................................... 86 Table AF: Queuing Analysis With Improvements ............................................................................... 87 Table AG: Caltrans Recommended Improvements/Mitigation Intersection Levels of Service ........... 94 Table AH: Queuing Analysis With Recommended Caltrans Improvements ....................................... 95 Table AI: Project Driveway Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................... 100 R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\October 2014\Traffic Study October 2014.docx (11/04/14)
iv
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
INTRODUCTION
This traffic study was originally prepared in August 2013 to assess the potential circulation impacts
associated with the proposed development of a 10.6-acre Love’s Travel Stop located at the southeast
corner of Outpost Road and Joshua Street in the City of Hesperia, San Bernardino County. During
public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project, comments were received on
the traffic study. This revised study incorporates additional analyses requested in the comments and
includes correction of minor errors pointed out by the commenter. The comments received on the
traffic study along with response to each comment are provided in Appendix E. Figure 1 illustrates
the regional and project location.
The traffic analysis examines the following eight scenarios:

Existing traffic conditions;

Existing plus project traffic conditions;

Opening year without project traffic conditions;

Opening year with project traffic conditions;

Year 2035 (with Muscatel Street/I-15 Interchange) without project traffic conditions;

Year 2035 (with Muscatel Street/I-15 Interchange) with project traffic conditions;

Year 2035 (without Muscatel Street/I-15 Interchange) without project traffic conditions; and

Year 2035 (without Muscatel Street/I-15 Interchange) project traffic conditions.
The analysis provides an assessment of traffic impacts and makes a determination of traffic mitigation
as required for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. This traffic study has been
prepared in accordance with the City of Hesperia traffic impact study requirements and the scope of
work was approved by the City prior to preparation of the analysis.
For each scenario, traffic operations at study intersections are evaluated for the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours. The a.m. peak hour is defined as the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between
7:00 and 9:00 a.m. The p.m. peak hour is defined as the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring
between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.
Project Description
The project proposes a travel center encompassing 12,271 square feet of building area on
approximately 10.6 gross acres at the southeast corner of Outpost Road and Joshua Street. The major
development components of the travel center are (i) a convenience store of 6,756 square feet that sells
snack food items, beverages, toiletries, and other travel products; (ii) vehicle service center and fuel
islands for passenger vehicles and semi-trucks with a total area of 1,200 square feet; and (iii) two fastfood restaurants (McDonald’s and Subway) with a total of 4,315 square feet of building area. It is
anticipated that the proposed travel center will be constructed in a single phase.
The proposed travel center will function as a “one-stop shop” travel center and provide minor vehicle
repairs such as tire repair/sales, battery, and light bulb replacement. Based on known operations from
1
£
¤
BELLFLOWER STREET
395
§
¦
¨
15
GRANDVIEW ROAD
THREE FLA G
JOSHUA STRE
ET
SR
OA
D
ProjectLocation
Location
Project
Regional Location
Ï
$
a
"
!
ä
A
Project Area
Los Angeles County
San Bernardino County
$
a
"
!
(
g
&
%
!
$̀
"
(
o
&
%
$
^
"
!
q
?
$̀
"
!
RANCHERO ROAD
$
a
"
!
(
h
&
%
Riverside County
l
?
»
A
Orange County
»
A
S
N
!
0
q
?
10
20
Miles
FIGURE 1
S
N
!
!
0
1,000
2,000
Feet
SOURCE: Bing Aerial, 2010; Thomas Bros., 2009
I:\RUT1201\Reports\Traffic\fig1_reg_loc.mxd (07/27/12)
Love's Travel Center
Regional and Project Location
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
other Love’s Travel Centers, tire sales are not expected to exceed five tires per day. It will also
provide a scale to weigh semi-trucks and trailers. The convenience store will sell food, gifts, clothing,
and other travel merchandise, as well as retail sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption. The
convenience center will also provide five showers primarily for the use by truck drivers. The project
will operate 24 hours per day and 365 days per year, and is expected to employ 35–40 full-time
employees. The travel center will have 8 diesel fuel islands for trucks and 16 stations (2 stations per
island) for light-duty and passenger vehicles that will dispense both gasoline and diesel fuel.
Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual site plan for the proposed project. As shown in the site plan, the
project site will have three driveways to access Outpost Road.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The scope of the study was determined based on consultation with City staff and Caltrans, and was
developed with the intent of conservatively disclosing all potential project traffic impacts.
Study Area Determination
The study area was determined through analysis of the project trip generation and distribution of
project trips to the existing and future roadway network. The study area includes all intersections
where the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips and includes the following intersections:
1. Caliente Road/Joshua Street;
2. US-395/Phelan Road-Main Street;
3. US-395/Poplar Street;
4. US-395/Three Flags Road;
5. US-395/Joshua Street;
6. Outpost Road/Joshua Street;
7. Interstate 15 (I-15) Southbound Off-Ramp/Joshua Street (intersection does not exist under Year
2035 with Muscatel Street Interchange scenario);
8. I-15 Northbound On-Ramp/Joshua Street (intersection does not exist under Year 2035 with
Muscatel Street Interchange scenario);
9. Mariposa Road/Joshua Street;
10. Mesa Linda Street/Main Street;
11. Mesa Linda Street/Poplar Street (intersection does not exist under Year 2035 with Muscatel
Street Interchange scenario);
12. Outpost Road/Driveway 1;
3
FIGURE 2
N
!
!
0
S
65
130
Feet
SOURCE: Conceptual Design & Planning Company, 2012
I:\RUT1201\Reports\Traffic\fig2_SitePlan.mxd (11/27/2012)
Conceptual Site Plan
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
15. Three Flags Avenue-Lassen Road/Poplar Street;
16. I-15 Southbound Ramps/Muscatel Street (Year 2035 with Muscatel Street Interchange scenario
only);
17. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Muscatel Street (Year 2035 with Muscatel Street Interchange scenario only);
18. Key Pointe Drive/Main Street;
19. I-15 Southbound Ramps/Main Street;
20. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Main Street;
21. Mariposa Road/Main Street;
22. Escondido Avenue/Main Street;
23. Topaz Avenue/Main Street; and
24. Cataba Road/Main Street.
Figure 3 illustrates the locations of study area intersections.
To satisfy the traffic study requirements of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), a
freeway merge-diverge analysis has been included in the analysis for all scenarios for the I-15 at the
ramps on US-395, Joshua Street, and Muscatel Street (a possible future interchange).
The analysis now also includes the following roadway segments:



US-395:
o
North of Main Street;
o
Main Street to Poplar Street;
o
Poplar Street to Three Flags Road;
o
Three Flags Road to Joshua Street; and
o
South of Joshua Street.
Joshua Street:
o
Caliente Road to US-395;
o
US-395 to Outpost Road;
o
Outpost Road to I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp;
o
I-15 Southbound Ramp Off-Ramp to I-15 Northbound On-Ramp; and
o
I-15 Northbound On-Ramp to Mariposa Road.
Poplar Street:
o
US-395 to Three Flags Avenue-Lassen Road;
o
Three Flags Avenue-Lassen Road to Mesa Linda Street;
o
Three Flags Avenue-Lassen Road to I-15 Southbound Ramps;
5
D
OA
AR
MESA LINDA
18 !
19
24
!
!
395
£
¤
15
§
¦
¨
SULTANA STREET
SULTANA
STREET
POPLAR
!3
STREET
15
!
20 21
!!
23
!
22
!
TOPAZ STREET
10
!
ESCONDIDO AVENUE
MARIPOS
STREET
MAIN STREET
!2
0
!5
11
!
!6
175
350
Feet
CALIENTE ROAD
BELLFLOWER STREET
!7
MUSCATEL STREET
MUSCATEL STREET
12
!
(Unpaved Road)
THREE 4 FLAGS ROA
D
!
13
!
(Unpaved Road)
14
!
RI
PO
SA
CEDAR STREET
MA
OUTPOST
ROAD
RO
AD
!1 JOSHUA!!!STRE
ET
See Inset !
!
!8!9
!
Inset
FIGURE 3
Project Location
N
!
!
0
S
1,000
2,000
! Study Area Intersection
Feet
SOURCE: Thomas Bros, 2009
I:\RUT1201\Reports\Traffic\fig3_Intersections.mxd (11/27/2012)
Study Area Intersections
OCTOBER 2014

o
I-15 Southbound Ramps to I-15 Northbound Ramps; and
o
East of I-15 Northbound Ramps
CITY OF HESPERIA
Main Street:
o
West of US-395;
o
US-395 to Mesa Linda Street;
o
Mesa Linda Street to Cataba Road;
o
Cataba Road to Key Pointe Drive;
o
Key Pointe Drive to I-15 Southbound Ramps;
o
I-15 Southbound Ramps to I-15 Northbound Ramps;
o
I-15 Northbound Ramps to Mariposa Road;
o
Mariposa Road to Escondido Avenue;
o
Escondido Avenue to Topaz Street; and
o
East of Topaz Street.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volumes at study intersections are based on peak hour intersection turn movement
counts collected by National Data and Surveying Services in August and September 2012 and by
Newport Traffic Studies in April 2011. Count sheets are contained in Appendix A. Vehicle
classification counts were conducted for nine study area intersections on major arterials. Separate
Passenger Vehicle and Truck volumes were developed at each of these intersections and
corresponding truck percentages were calculated for each turning movement. The percentage of
trucks at the remaining study intersections without classification counts was determined from
classification counts at nearby intersections.
Existing freeway segment volumes are based on bidirectional peak hour traffic counts published by
Caltrans in 2011. A 2 percent per annum growth rate was applied to the Caltrans count data to
develop existing 2012 volumes. Total peak hour volumes were divided into passenger vehicles and
truck volumes using truck percentage published by Caltrans in 2010. The directional split of traffic
volumes was computed using the k-factor (percentage of daily vehicles in the peak hour) and dfactors (directional split of peak hour traffic) reported by Caltrans.
Consistent with the methodology contained in the Hesperia General Plan Update, the existing daily
roadway segment volumes are derived through multiplication of the peak hour intersection approach
and departure volumes by a factor of 10.
Detailed volume development worksheets are included in Appendix B.
7
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
Development of Opening Year Traffic Volumes
The project was originally anticipated to open in 2014. Opening year base traffic volumes at study
intersections and ramp influence areas were developed by applying a 2 percent annual growth rate (2%
total) to the existing traffic volumes and then adding traffic from approved and pending projects
(cumulative projects) within the project vicinity. Figure 4 illustrates the locations of cumulative
projects.
The trip generation for other proposed projects within the project area was calculated based on the
rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition, the
Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study or was taken from traffic studies prepared for individual
cumulative projects. Table A summarizes the total cumulative project trip generation and shows the
cumulative projects are expected to generate 41,111 new daily trips, with 1,675 trips occurring in the
a.m. peak hour and 2,838 trips occurring in the p.m. peak hour.
Trip distribution patterns were estimated by examining the locations of the cumulative projects in
relation to the regional roadway network and adjoining uses, or by utilizing the trip distribution from
traffic studies prepared for individual cumulative projects. Figure 5 illustrates the total a.m. and p.m.
peak hour cumulative project trips at each of the study area intersections. Detailed trip distribution
worksheets for cumulative projects are included in Appendix B.
Traffic volumes for opening year plus project were developed by adding project trips to the opening
year plus traffic volumes. Detailed volume development worksheets are included in Appendix B.
Development of Future Build-Out Year Traffic Volumes
Year 2035 traffic volumes were developed using the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Model. There is a local traffic model that is used
to analyze traffic impacts in the Victor Valley area. This model is known as the VVATS (Victor
Valley Area Transportation Study) model. LSA has examined both the SCAG CTP model and the
VVATS model to determine which model would be most appropriate to utilize for the project. The
data in both models were compared to the more recent San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model
(SBTAM). The forecast freeway volumes in the CTP model were similar to the SBTAM while the
freeway volume was much higher in the VVATS model. Both models have similar circulation
systems (street network) within the City of Hesperia; however, the CTP model data were closest to
the updated regional modeling tool (SBTAM). Based on this assessment, it was determined that the
CTP model would provide an analysis that is most consistent with the latest regional forecasts.
It is anticipated that the Muscatel Street/I-15 Interchange Project may be completed by year 2035 and
the Joshua Street/I-15 Ramps may be removed. As such, the CTP model was modified to include the
Muscatel Street/I-15 Interchange Project. This scenario is referred to as “with Muscatel Street/I-15
Interchange.” A second alternative is also included in the analysis where the Joshua Street/I-15
Ramps remain in operation and the Muscatel Street/I-15 Interchange Project is not completed by
2035. This scenario is referred to as “without Muscatel Street/I-15 Interchange.” It should be noted
that a Project Study Report is currently being prepared for the Muscatel Street/I-15 Interchange
Project. As such, a preferred alternative for the interchange project has not been selected. City of
Hesperia staff has indicated that a partial cloverleaf configuration is likely to be considered as the
8
MESA STREET
3
MOJAVE STREET
SULTANA STREET
POPLAR STREET
§
¦
¨
15
MUSCATEL STREET
(Unpaved Road)
THREE FLAGS ROA
D
AD
RO
2
CEDAR STREET
(Unpaved Road)
SA
1
ET
MA
RI
PO
CEDAR STREET
OUTPOST
ROAD
JOSHUA STR
E
CALIENTE ROAD
BELLFLOWER STREET
5
4
ESCONDIDO AVENUE
£
¤
395
TOPAZ STREET
MESA LINDA STREET
MAIN STREET
SULTANA STREET
MARI P
OS
A
RO
AD
SMOKE TREE ROAD
FIGURE 4
S
Project Location
N
!
!
0
# Cumulative Projects
1,600
3,200
Feet
SOURCE: Thomas Bros, 2009
I:\RUT1201\Reports\Traffic\fig4_CumProjects.mxd (6/6/2013)
Cumulative Projects
Table A - Cumulative Projects Trip Generation
Proj.
No.
1
2
A.M. Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
P.M. Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
Daily
288
143
430
96
66
161
384
207
591
101
75
176
269
132
400
369
208
577
4,259
2,431
6,690
0.60
143
0
143
0.36
88
0
88
0.96
231
0
231
1.78
427
(151)
276
1.93
463
(151)
312
3.71
890
(303)
587
42.70
10,248
(303)
9,945
0.95
122
0.37
47
1.32
169
0.47
60
0.95
122
1.42
182
12.94
1,656
1.89
189
0.50
50
2.39
239
1.00
100
2.57
257
3.57
357
36.13
3,613
0.60
23
0
23
0.36
14
0
14
0.96
37
0
37
1.78
68
(24)
44
1.93
74
(24)
50
3.71
142
(48)
94
42.70
1,641
(48)
1,593
0.60
253
0
253
0.36
155
0
155
0.96
408
0
408
1.78
757
(268)
489
1.93
820
(268)
552
3.71
1,577
(536)
1,041
42.70
18,149
(536)
17,613
Gross Trip Generation 1,160
Pass-By Trips
0
515
0
1,675
0
1,588
(444)
2,136
(444)
3,725
(887)
41,998
(887)
Net Trip Generation 1,160
515
1,675
1,144
1,693
2,838
41,111
Units
Land Use
1
Hesperia Commerce Center
Trips (Autos)
Trips (Truck PCE)
Total Trips
1,772.9 TSF
Shopping Center2
240 TSF
Trips/Unit
Trip Generation
Pass By Trips3
Net Trip Generation
3
Medical Center 4
128.0 Beds
Trips/Unit
Trip Generation
Medical Office Building5
Trips/Unit
Trip Generation
4
5
100.0 TSF
Target Shopping Center (Retail Pad) 2
Trips/Unit
Trip Generation
Pass By Trips3
Net Trip Generation
38 TSF
Walmart Shopping Center (Retail Pad) 2
Trips/Unit
Trip Generation
Pass By Trips3
Net Trip Generation
425 TSF
Notes: TSF = thousand square feet
1
Rates based on Land Use 152 - "High-Cube Warehousing" and Land Use 770 - "Business Park from ITE Trip Generation , 9th Edition.
For High-Cube Warehousing, all trip generation rates converted to car and truck trips using vehicle mix and enter/exit splits
from Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study. Truck trips converted to PCEs based on the SANBAG PCE values. For Business Park,
Auto and Truck Split obtained from Hesperia Commerce Center TIA, May 2013. Truck trips converted to PCE using HCM overall truck PCE
conversion factor of 2.0. Based on discussion with City staff, only 50% of project was assumed to be constructed by opening year.
2
3
Rates based on Land Use 820 - "Shopping Center" from ITE Trip Generation , 9th Edition. Please note the Target and Walmart stores are built and in
operation, however, there are vacant shopping center pads at each location.
Pass-by rates based on rates for Land Use 820 - "Shopping Center" from ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Because there are no data available on a.m. and
daily pass-by trips, no reductions have been taken for the a.m. trips, and only the p.m. peak hour pass-by trips have been subtracted from the daily trip
generation.
4
Rates based on Land Use 610 - "Hospital" from ITE Trip Generation , 9th Edition.
5
Rates based on Land Use 720 - "Medical Office Building" from ITE Trip Generation , 9th Edition.
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Cumulative Projects_New\Trip Gen (9/12/2014)
50 / 142
50 / 142
20 I-15 NB Ramps/Main St
21 Mariposa Rd/Main St
22 Escondido Ave/Main St
23 Topaz Ave/Main St
31 / 38
70 / 249
25 / 49
33 / 20


  
37 / 49  
1/2 
3 / 11
18 / 65
2/4
 
1/5
31 / 36
  301 / 330
9 / 30  
137 / 473 
14 / 52 
19 I-15 SB Ramps/Main St
0/1
18 Key Pointe Dr/Main St
14 / 26
 237 / 163
 127 / 244
90 / 300   
108 / 221 
47 / 166
13 / 24
1/2
8 / 28
315 / 351
8 / 28

17 I-15 NB Ramps/Muscatel St
81 / 234


 
177 / 486  
1/2 
13 / 24
 16 / 55
 300 / 297
103 / 297   
11 / 43 
75 / 191
16 I-15 SB Ramps/Muscatel St
67 / 41
15 Three Flags Ave-Lassen Rd/Poplar St
 132 / 145
   236 / 193
87 / 290 
22 / 86 
1/2
Future Intersection
233 / 120
18 / 59
18 / 34

5 / 10


  
16 / 8  
26 / 54 
1/2 
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
1/1
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
1/2
Future Intersection
 
9 / 31  
79 / 281
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
73 / 284
11 Mesa Linda Rd/Poplar St
5 / 19
10 Mesa Linda Rd/Main St
14 / 28
 
9 / 31  

9 Mariposa Rd/Joshua St
114 / 221
8 I-15 NB On-Ramp/Joshua St
11 / 38


15 / 52  
14 / 41 
28 / 31
148 / 396 
28 / 93 
14 / 28
 17 / 64
 30 / 46
 28 / 23
129 / 248
7 I-15 SB Off-Ramp/Joshua St
143 / 276
6 Outpost Rd./Joshua St

4 US-395/Three Flags Rd
16 / 57
317 / 262
48 / 171
   28 / 23
159 / 431 
88 / 312
34 / 49 
40 / 140
29 / 55
29 / 55
64 / 26
87 / 35
5 US-395/Joshua St
 267 / 133
 79 / 152
111 / 260   
64 / 124 
5 / 11
12 / 36
85 / 67
116 / 90


3 US-395/Poplar St
18 / 62
271 / 149
18 / 62

37 / 107
156 / 386
8 / 20



  
32 / 80  
118 / 274 
24 / 60 
5 / 18
10 / 34
3 / 12
 
2 US-395/Phelan Rd-Main St
116 / 90
1 Caliente Rd/Joshua St


  
21 / 23  
28 / 23 
9 / 16
19 / 28
21 / 9
 11 / 36
   411 / 173
 
24 Cataba Rd/Main St
FIGURE 5
XXXX / YYYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
Traffic Impact Study
Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\May 2013\g30-Cumul Pr Trips (8/4/2013)
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
preferred alternative. As a result, the interchange is evaluated as a partial cloverleaf. However, it is
likely that the interchange geometrics assumed in this analysis will not be the same as the final design
of the interchange.
The following describes the methodology used to post-process model volumes to develop the peak
hour intersection volumes for the year 2035 background (without project) conditions. Volume
development worksheets are included in Appendix B. The methodology used is consistent with San
Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) procedures for post-processing of modeled traffic
volumes. The base year for both passenger vehicle and truck models is 2005 and the forecast year is
2030. The following describes in detail the methodology employed for passenger vehicles and trucks
to determine the a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection turn movements for year 2035 without project
conditions:
1. The difference between the modeled 2005 and 2030 peak period directional arterial traffic
volumes (for each intersection approach and departure) was identified from loaded network plots.
This difference defines growth in traffic over the 25-year period.
2. The incremental growth in peak period approach and departure volumes between 2005 and 2030
was factored to develop the incremental change in peak hour volumes. The CTP models use a
three-hour a.m. peak period and a four-hour p.m. peak period. SCAG has established that the a.m.
peak hour comprises 38 percent of the peak period and the p.m. peak hour comprises 28 percent
of the peak period. Therefore, the incremental changes in peak period volumes were multiplied by
the appropriate factors to develop incremental changes in peak hour volumes.
3. The incremental growth in approach and departure volumes between 2005 and 2030 was factored
to reflect the forecast growth between the year of the ground counts (2012) and build-out (2035).
For this purpose, linear growth between the 2005 base condition and the forecast 2030 condition
was assumed. Since the increment between existing (2012) and build-out (2035) is 23 years of the
25-year time span, a factor of 0.92 (i.e., 23/25) was used.
4. The forecast growth in approach and departure volumes through build-out year (2035) conditions
was added to the 2012 ground counts, resulting in “post-processed” build-out year (2035) link
volumes.
5. Forecast year 2035 turn volumes were developed using opening year (2014) passenger vehicle
without project turn volumes (which includes all the approved and pending project volumes) and
the future approach and departure volumes, based on the methodologies contained in National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report (NCHRP) 255: Highway Traffic Data for
Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design (Transportation Research Board, December 1982).
Year 2009 traffic volumes were used to better reflect turning volumes entering and exiting
currently undeveloped areas.
Some of the study intersections being analyzed in the study were observed to currently have very low
traffic volumes, which were inadequate to be used for post-processing and develop forecast year
volumes. In those cases, opening year volumes were instead used, which included traffic volumes
from cumulative projects as well as background growth, thereby better representing traffic flow at
that location, and hence adequately assisting in development of forecast traffic volumes.
12
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
For intersections that have one of the legs missing in the CTP model but have existing counts, a
growth factor was used from the opposite leg, which was then applied to the existing approach/
departure volumes (from existing traffic counts) at the missing leg to generate the post-processed year
2035 traffic volumes. For intersections that have one of the legs missing and do not have existing
counts for that leg, the approach/departure volumes from adjacent intersections were used for the
missing legs. For intersections that have missing existing counts but have model volumes, the growth
from the opposite leg was applied to the raw volumes from the model to calculate year 2035 postprocessed traffic volumes.
It was observed that future year turn-movement volumes decrease for certain movements at some of
the study intersections. This could be due to differences in production and attraction factors. These
turning-movement volumes were adjusted by using the applicable turning movements from the
opening year base plus other proposed projects plus project conditions.
For development of the with Muscatel Street interchange scenario traffic volumes, existing traffic
volumes were readjusted based on traffic distribution observed in the CTP model. Additionally, the
cumulative project trips were reassigned for the modified network. The above-detailed methodology
was then applied to develop post-processed traffic volumes for the year 2035 with Muscatel Street
interchange scenario.
Year 2035 freeway volumes were developed by post-processing freeway traffic volumes based on the
CTP traffic model and maintaining conservation of flow through the freeway mainline.
Year 2035 daily roadway segment volumes were developed using the same methodology as used for
the existing roadway segment volumes.
Detailed volume development worksheets are included in Appendix B.
Level of Service Definitions and Procedures
Roadway operations and the relationship between capacity and traffic volumes are generally
expressed in terms of levels of service (which are defined using the letter grades A through F). These
levels recognize that, while an absolute limit exists as to the amount of traffic traveling through a
given intersection (the absolute capacity), the conditions that motorists experience rapidly deteriorate
as traffic approaches the absolute capacity. Under such conditions, congestion is experienced. There
is general instability in the traffic flow, which means that relatively small incidents (e.g., momentary
engine stall) can cause considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays. This near-capacity situation is
labeled Level of Service (LOS) E. Beyond LOS E, capacity has been exceeded, and arriving traffic
will exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it. Upstream queues will then form and
continue to expand in length until the demand volume again declines.
A complete description of the meaning of level of service can be found in the Transportation
Research Board Special Report 209, Highway Capacity Manual. The Manual establishes levels of
service A through F. Table B provides brief descriptions of the six levels of service, as abstracted
from the Manual.
13
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
Table B: Level of Service Definitions
LOS
A
Description
No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically,
the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.
B
This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a
substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles.
C
This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more
than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so.
D
This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to
approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles
with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive
backups.
E
Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular
intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter
how great the demand.
F
This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions
usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced
substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In the extreme
case, both speed and volume can drop to zero.
Tables C and D show the relationship between delay and level of service for unsignalized and
signalized intersections.
Table C: Level of Service for Unsignalized
Intersections
Table D: Level of Service for Signalized
Intersections
Level of Service
A
Average Delay per Vehicle
(sec.)
< 10
Level of Service
A
Average Delay per Vehicle
(sec.)
< 10
B
> 10 and < 15
B
> 10 and < 20
C
> 15 and < 25
C
> 20 and < 35
D
> 25 and < 35
D
> 35 and < 55
E
> 35 and < 50
E
> 55 and < 80
F
> 50
F
> 80
For all study area intersections, the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) analysis
methodologies were used to determine intersection levels of service. Levels of service at all
intersections were calculated using the Synchro version 7 software, which uses the HCM 2000
methodologies. Saturation flow rates consistent with SANBAG CMP Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
guidelines for existing, opening year, and future build-out were used in the calculations of
intersection capacity. In accord with CMP guidelines, any intersection at which the volume-tocapacity ratio is greater than 1.0 is considered to be operating at LOS F, regardless of delay.
Table E shows the level of service capacities for roadway segments for LOS D and E.
14
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
Table E: Roadway Segment LOS Standard
Segment
2/Undivided
2/Divided
4/Undivided
4/Divided
6/Undivided
6/Divided
8/Divided
LOS D Capacity (Vehicles/Day)
14,500
17,400
24,480
30,600
36,880
46,100
60,100
LOS E Capacity on US-395 (Vehicles/Day)
15,300
18,360
25,760
32,200
38,720
48,400
63,098
LOS D Capacities are from Hesperia General Plan Update, September 2009. LOS E Capacities from Florida Department of Transportation
Table 4-2 “Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes.”
Heavy Vehicle Factor in LOS Calculations
Heavy vehicles, such as trucks and recreational vehicles, utilize more capacity on the roadway
network than passenger cars due to factors such as their larger size, slower start-up times, and reduced
maneuverability. The additional capacity utilized by heavy vehicles can be accounted for in two
ways. One of these methods is calculation of the passenger car equivalent (PCE) traffic volume. The
PCE volume is determined through application of a PCE factor to heavy vehicles. The PCE factor is a
multiplier that is applied to the number of trucks and can vary depending on the size of the truck.
Typical PCE factors are 2 for 2-axle trucks or 2.5 for 3-axle trucks. The other method is to utilize the
heavy vehicle factor in the HCM 2000 methodology. The heavy vehicle factor is calculated using the
percentage of heavy vehicles and adjusts the saturation flow rate of the roadway. The saturation flow
rate is the number of vehicles that can pass a particular point during one hour. Typically HCM 2000
utilizes a saturation flow rate of 1,900 vehicles per hour per lane. However, this is reduced based on a
number of factors such as lane width, adjacent parking maneuvers, and grade. One of the adjustments
factors for saturation flow rate is heavy vehicles.
LSA examined the PCE and heavy vehicle factor methods to determine which method would result in
the most conservative analysis of impacts. It was determined that utilization of the heavy vehicle
factor would result in the most conservative analysis of intersection operations; therefore, this method
was utilized in the analysis.
Level of Service Standards
The City of Hesperia General Plan Circulation Element Implementation Policy CI-2.1 sets forth the
City’s LOS standard, which is D or better on most roadway segments and intersections. This
Implementation Policy also states that LOS E is acceptable during peak hours at freeway interchanges
and on Bear Valley Road, Main Street/Phelan Road, and US-395. This is consistent with the CMP
level of service standard of LOS E. Also, Caltrans has assigned LOS E as the concept LOS for I-15
and US 395 in the Route Concept Fact Sheets for I-15 and US-395. All ramp terminus intersections
and State highways are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Caltrans endeavors to maintain a level of
service between C and D at all intersections under its jurisdiction; when conducting traffic impact
analyses, this has been interpreted to mean that a maximum average delay at a Caltrans intersection
exceeding 45 seconds is considered an impact. At freeway segments, E is the minimum LOS.
15
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
Determination of Impact
The project would have a significant impact at a study area intersection, roadway segment, or freeway
facility if it causes the level of service to deteriorate from satisfactory LOS to unsatisfactory LOS. If a
facility is already operating at unsatisfactory LOS and the project causes an increase in delay, it will
be considered a significant cumulative impact. Mitigation will be identified for all significant impacts.
It should be noted that the project would not be responsible for the full cost of mitigating cumulative
impacts, as these locations are already deficient in the no project condition. The project may,
however, be responsible to participate in mitigation through payment of the City’s Development
Impact Fee (DIF) or through the additional payment of fair-share fees.
Project Trip Generation
Vehicle trips are generally determined using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition). The 8th Edition of Trip Generation does not have a category for
truck stop uses. The most similar land uses to the project for which trip generates are provided in the
8th Edition is Land Use 945 “Gasoline Service Station With Convenience Market,” Land Use 934
“Fast-Food Restaurant With Drive-Through Window,” and Land Use 933 “Fast-Food Restaurant
Without Drive-Through Window.” The recently released Trip Generation (9th Edition) added trip
rates for “Truck Stop” land use; however, these rates are based on only three samples from the State
of Florida and are lower than empirical trip generation rates collected at truck stops in California. The
other method for determining a project’s trip generation is to collect vehicle trip generation data from
a similar land use. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) recently prepared a traffic analysis in
August 2012 for a proposed Love’s Travel Stop in Flag City, California. As part of this study, KHA
collected trip generation surveys at three Love’s Travel Stops in California (Ripon, Lost Hills, and
Coachella). The data from the Kimley-Horn study are provided in Appendix C.
The highest trip generation rate per thousand square feet or per fuel pump was observed at the Love’s
Travel Stop in Ripon, California. To ensure that the trips generated by the proposed Love’s Travel
Stop in Hesperia are not underestimated, the highest observed rates from the Ripon location will be
applied to the proposed project. This results in a highly conservative traffic report that will likely
overestimate the traffic impacts of this project.
The trip generation was split into passenger cars and trucks using observed vehicle splits at the Ripon
Love’s Travel Stop. As shown in Table F, the project would generate 3,383 net new daily trips with
201 net new trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 281 net new trips occurring during the p.m.
peak hour.
As noted above, the trip generation rates used in the TIA are based on the highest observed trip rates
at a Love’s Travel Stop in California. These rates are higher than any available ITE trip rate. As a
result, the trip generation represents a “worst-case” approach and very likely overestimates the
impacts of the proposed project. As a result, the effect of the project would most likely be less than
what is indicated in the following analysis.
16
Table F - Project Trip Generation
Land Use
Units
Love's Travel Stop (With Ripon Site TSF Rates)
Truck Stop
Trips/Unit 1
Trip Generation
Auto Trip Generation 2
Truck Trip Generation 3
Diverted Linked Trips4
Diverted Linked Trips Autos
Diverted Linked Trips Trucks
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily5
23.65
290
216
74
19.35
237
193
44
43.00
528
409
119
26.52
325
232
93
25.48
313
215
98
52.00
638
447
191
627
7,688
5,386
2,302
(183)
(116)
(67)
(144)
(104)
(41)
(327)
(220)
(107)
(180)
(96)
(84)
(177)
(89)
(88)
(357)
(185)
(172)
(4,305)
(2,234)
(2,071)
100
7
107
89
4
93
189
12
201
136
9
145
126
10
136
262
19
281
3,153
230
3,383
12.27 TSF
62%/56%
Primary Trips Autos
Primary Trips Trucks
Total Primary Trips
TSF = Thousand Square Feet, VFP=Vehicle Fueling Positions
1
Trips rates based on a survey of a Love's Travel Stop with Drive-through in Ripon, California.
2
Passenger Vehicle percentages were obtained from a survey of a Love's Travel Stop with Drive-through in Ripon California. Based on the
survey, 75%/81% of the inbound/outbound traffic in the a.m. peak hour and 71%/69% of the inbound/outbound traffic in the p.m. peak
hour were passenger vehicles.
Truck percentages were obtained from a survey of a Love's Travel Stop with Drive-through in Ripon California. Based on the survey,
25%/19% of the inbound/outbound traffic in the a.m. peak hour and 29%/31% of the inbound/outbound traffic in the p.m. peak hour were
trucks.
Diverted Linked Trips are based on Pass-by rates for Land Use 945 - "Gasoline Service Station With Convenience Market" from ITE Trip Generation
Handbook (2nd Edition). Diverted link trips were assumed to be 90% of truck trips and remaining trips are passenger vehicles.
3
4
5
Daily trip rates based on ratio of P.M. Peak hour to Daily rates for Land Use 945 "Gasoline Service Station with Convenience Market" from ITE Trip
Generation 9 th Edition.
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Trip Gen\Trip Gen (12/12/2013)
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
Project Trip Distribution
New trips that are generated by the proposed project are referred to as Primary trips. These trips
would mostly be within the City of Hesperia and would be a direct result of the construction and
operation of the project. The trip distribution for Primary passenger car trips and Primary truck trips is
shown in Figures 6 and 7. Primary trips for passenger cars and trucks are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
Many of the trips generated by a truck stop would not be new trips, but instead would be trips already
traveling on the surrounding roadway network that are diverted to the project. These trips are referred
to as diverted linked trips. Diverted linked trips would be vehicles already traveling on I-15 or US395 that exit the freeway to get gas or food at the project, then continue back onto the freeway. These
trips are already on the freeway; however, they would represent new trips on the City’s roadways and
intersections. Similarly, some existing trips within the City of Hesperia are expected to be diverted to
the project. Diverted linked trips would be new trips on the diverted route that travelers use to travel
to and from the project from their primary route. However, diverted linked trips would already be
present on the primary route and therefore would not be added to the traveler’s primary route.
Diverted linked trip data are not available for truck stop land uses. The KHA study utilized a diverted
linked trip percentage of 75 of the total trips generated by the project. This percentage seems logical
given that truck stops are a traveler-serving land use and do not necessarily generate a great deal of
new vehicle trips. However, in order to be conservative and likely overstate project impacts, LSA
applied the diverted linked trip percentage for “Gasoline Service Station with Convenience Market”
from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (2nd Edition). This is a similar land use that would have a
lower, diverted linked trip percentage than a truck stop. As a result, this rate is a conservative (i.e.,
low) estimate of diverted linked trips. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the diverted linked trip distribution
percentages for passenger vehicles and trucks at the study intersections. Figures 12 and 13 illustrate
the resulting diverted linked project passenger vehicle and truck trips at the study intersections. Figure
14 shows the total primary and diverted linked project trips at study area intersections.
The diverted linked trip percentage (62% in the a.m. peak hour and 56% in the p.m. peak hour) was
applied to the total project trip generation to calculate the total number of diverted linked trips. It was
determined that there would be 327 total diverted linked trips during the a.m. peak hour and 357 total
diverted linked trips during the p.m. peak hour. It was then necessary to split the diverted linked trips
between trucks and passenger cars. It was assumed that 90 percent of the total truck traffic generated
by the project would be traveling on I-15 or US-395 and would therefore represent diverted linked
trips. The remaining diverted linked trips were then applied to the passenger vehicle trips. It is
estimated that diverted linked passenger vehicle trips would be work to home (or home to work) trips
within Hesperia that are diverted to the project for gas or food.
As noted above, the diverted linked trip percentages used in this analysis are based on the ITE
diverted linked trip percentages for a Gasoline Service Station with Convenience Market.
Representatives from Love’s have provided information stating that actual diverted linked trips are
closer to 75 percent at their Travel Stops. Because the analysis in this report is prepared using a lower
percentage of diverted linked trips than estimated by Love’s, the analysis provides a “worst-case”
approach and very likely over estimates project trips on the City’s circulation network due to diverted
linked trips.
18
(1%)
 30%
10%
20%

(20%)  
(10%) 
10%
(40%) 
(30%) 

13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
5%
100%

(5%) 
  (100%)
(5%)
 4%
 5%
(4%)  
  30%
(70%) 
(70%)
 70%
30%   
(30%)
10%
5 US-395/Joshua St
40%
3 US-395/Poplar St
 (10%)
  (20%)
20% 

(5%)
(5%)
  5%
 
(10%)
5%
(4%)
 4%
1%   
5%
15%
 (15%)
  (5%)

 21%
(21%)  
(15%) 
  8%
(5%)  
(8%) 
(8%) 
 40%
 6%
(6%) 
3%
  36%
(5%)  
(36%) 
(5%) 
(6%) 
 6%
5%
5%
5%
(40%)
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
15 Three Flags Ave-Lassen Rd/Poplar St 16 I-15 SB Ramps/Muscatel St
 46%
(6%)  
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
8%
(5%) 
 5%
15%
  6%
(3%) 
(6%) 
FIGURE 6
XX% (YY%)
Inbound (Outbound) Trip Distribution
Total Primary Peak Hour Passenger Vehicle Trip Distribution
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-dist_OY_Primary_Auto (12/12/2013)
(5%)
10%



(10%)

(10%)
10%


12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Future Intersection
 58%
 38%
(38%)  
(20%) 
20%
(58%) 
(55%)
 58%
(3%)  
Future Intersection
20%
(20%)  
  (50%)

100%
  (50%)
(50%)
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
(3%) 
 3%
 28%
(28%)  
(10%) 
10%
 20%
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
 55%
 3%
(3%) 
2%
 5%
100%
100%
(55%) 
(20%) 
(100%)
(5%) 
  20%
(75%) 
(75%)
 75%
25%   
(25%)
10%
5 US-395/Joshua St
55%
3 US-395/Poplar St
 (10%)
  (15%)
15% 
(5%)
 5%
5%   
15%
 (15%)

  3%
(2%) 
(3%) 
FIGURE 7
XX% (YY%)
Total Primary Truck Trip Distribution
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-dist_OY_Primary_Trucks (12/12/2013)
5/7
1/1
 4/5
1/1   
10 / 14
20 / 27
40 / 54
 30 / 41
36 / 50 
27 / 38 

18 / 25  
9 / 13 

4/6 
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
  89 / 126
4/6
 4/5
 5/7
4/5  
100 / 136
5/7
5 US-395/Joshua St
  30 / 41
62 / 88 

10 / 14
27 / 38
 70 / 95
30 / 41   
62 / 88
10 / 14
3 US-395/Poplar St
 9 / 13
  18 / 25
20 / 27 

4/6
4/6
  5/7
 
9 / 13
5/7
4/5
15 / 20
 13 / 19
  4/6

 21 / 29
19 / 26  
13 / 19 
5/8 
 6/8
  8 / 11
4/6  
7 / 10 
7 / 10 
 40 / 54
 6/8
5/8 
3/4
  36 / 49
4/6  
32 / 45 
4/6 
5/7
36 / 50
 46 / 63
5/8  
5/7
Future Intersection
5/7
Future Intersection
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
8 / 11
4/6 
 5/7
15 / 20
  6/8
3/4 
5/8 
FIGURE 8
XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Total Primary Peak Hour Passenger Vehicle Trips
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- trips_OY_Primary_Auto (12/12/2013)
1/1
 1/1




0/1



  2/5

Future Intersection
 4/5
 3/4
1/4  
1/2 
  2/5
2/5
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
 4/5
Future Intersection
1/2
2/6 
2/5
 4/5

12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
 2/3
1/3  
0/1 
1/1
1/2  
1/2
4 / 10
 1/2
2/5 
1/2 
7/9
7/9
7/9
5 US-395/Joshua St
  1/2
3/7 
3/7
 6/7
2/2   
1/2
1/1
 0/1
  1/1
1/1 
4/5
3 US-395/Poplar St
0/1
1/1
1/1
FIGURE 9
XXX / YYY
Total Primary Peak Hour Truck Trips
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- trips_OY_Primary_Trucks (12/12/2013)
57% (29%)
3 US-395/Poplar St

28% (53%) 
28% (53%) 
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
100% (100%)
5 US-395/Joshua St
28% (53%)
34% (63%)
-6% (-10%)
 57% (29%)
43% (71%)   
72% (47%)
9% (8%)
-9% (-8%)
 6% (10%)
   66% (37%)
 
  100% (100%)
Future Intersection
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Future Intersection
FIGURE 10
AM% (PM%)
Trip Distribution
Diverted Linked Trip Distribution (Passenger Vehicles)
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-dist_OY_Diverted_Auto (12/12/2013)
3 US-395/Poplar St
57% (29%)

28% (53%) 
28% (53%) 
100% (100%)
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Future Intersection
  50% (50%)

  50% (50%)
50% (50%)

100% (100%

100% (100%)
100% (100%)
28% (53%)
34% (63%)
-6% (-10%)
5 US-395/Joshua St
 57% (29%)
43% (71%)   
72% (47%)
9% (8%)
-9% (-8%)
 6% (10%)
   66% (37%)
 
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Future Intersection
FIGURE 11
AM% (PM%)
Diverted Linked Trip Distribution (Trucks)
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-dist_OY_Diverted_Trucks (12/12/2013)
3 US-395/Poplar St
66 / 28

29 / 47 
29 / 47 
29 / 47
39 / 61
-7 / -10
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
116 / 96
5 US-395/Joshua St
 66 / 28
50 / 68   
75 / 42
10 / 8
-10 / -8
 6/9
   68 / 33
 
  104 / 89
Future Intersection
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Future Intersection
FIGURE 12
XXX / YYY
Diverted Linked Peak Hour Trips (Passenger Vehicles)
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- trips_OY_Diverted_Auto (12/12/2013)
3 US-395/Poplar St
38 / 24

11 / 47 
11 / 47 
41 / 88

Future Intersection
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
67 / 84
  20 / 44

  20 / 44
20 / 44

67 / 84
67 / 84
11 / 47
23 / 53
6/7
-4 / -8
5 US-395/Joshua St
 38 / 24
29 / 59   
29 / 41
-6 / -7
 2/9
   27 / 33
 
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Future Intersection
FIGURE 13
XXX / YYY
Diverted Linked Peak Hour Trips (Trucks)
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- trips_OY_Diverted_Trucks (12/12/2013)
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Future Intersection
 24 / 33
20 / 30  
14 / 21 
1/1
9 / 14
20 / 27
11 / 16

18 / 25  
10 / 15 
74 / 93
74 / 93
22 / 49
  22 / 49
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
5/8 
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
 6/8
  10 / 14
4/6  
8 / 13 
7 / 11 
5/8 
 44 / 59
 6/8
3/4
5/7
  40 / 54
4/6  
34 / 51 
4/6 
5/7
38 / 55
  22 / 49

5/7
Future Intersection
 50 / 68
5/8  
45 / 98
 31 / 43
78 / 149 
28 / 40 

9 / 12
4/6 
 5/7
148 / 111
   193 / 215

16 / 22
216 / 232

4/6 
4/6
 4/5
 5/7
4/5  
74 / 93
5/7
5 US-395/Joshua St
  31 / 43
105 / 189 
105 / 189
 180 / 154
111 / 171   
132 / 123
27 / 29
-11 / -18
18 / 32
19 / 26
95 / 66

62 / 113
-16 / -14
3 US-395/Poplar St


  
21 / 28  

4/6
4/7
  5/7
 
11 / 15
6/8
4/5
15 / 20
 4/5
1/1   
6/8
 13 / 19
  5/7

  6/8
3/4 
5/8 
FIGURE 14
XXX / YYY
Total Primary and Diverted Peak Hour Trips
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- trips_OY_Total_Primary and Diverted (12/12/2013)
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section discusses existing traffic conditions with and without the proposed project. Existing
traffic volumes were developed using the approach discussed in the Analysis Methodology section.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Existing intersection geometrics and traffic controls are illustrated in Figure 15. Existing a.m. and
p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections are illustrated in Figure 16. A level of
service analysis was conducted to evaluate existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic operations at study
area intersections. As shown in Table G, all study intersections are currently operating at an
acceptable level of service.
Detailed level of service worksheets are included in Appendix D.
Table H provides a freeway merge-diverge analysis for existing conditions.
Table I provides a roadway segment analysis for existing conditions. As shown in Table I, the
following roadway segments operate at unsatisfactory LOS:

US-395: North of Main Street (LOS F);

Main Street: Escondido Avenue to Topaz Street (LOS F); and

Main Street: East of Topaz Street.
Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
The existing plus project condition considers the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project
to the existing conditions. This scenario is not required per City and County guidelines, but is
required by CEQA. Existing plus project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at study area
intersections are illustrated in Figure 17. A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate
existing with project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic operations at study area intersections.
As shown in Table G, all study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service
with the exception of Outpost Road/Joshua Street. This intersection operates at acceptable LOS B
during both peak hours in the existing condition and the project would cause the intersection to
deteriorate to LOS F during both peak hours. As a result, the project has a direct significant impact at
the intersection of Outpost Road/Joshua Street.
Freeway merge-diverge analysis for existing plus project conditions is provided in Table H.
Roadway segment analysis for existing plus project conditions is provided in Table I. As shown in
Table I, the following roadway segments are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS:



28






f
f





d

d






14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3









f
Future Intersection


13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
d
Future Intersection
FutureIntersection


12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Future Intersection







d




Future
 Intersection




d

5 US-395/Joshua St









3 US-395/Poplar St













FIGURE 15
Legend
Signal
Stop Sign
d de-facto right turn
f free right-turn
Existing (2012) Intersection Geometrics and Stop Control
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- Geo_Exist 12/12/2013
7 / 27
36 / 146
3 / 21
36 / 63
20 / 76

240 / 439
114 / 237
 789 / 462
   560 / 1176
788 / 932 
95 / 121 
57 / 6
4 / 14
454 / 726
13 / 31
 
11 / 29
35 / 35
36 / 10


   
59 / 69  
628 / 683 
26 / 42 
9 / 86
60 / 35
100 / 58
1158 / 1427
29 / 83
 
29 / 73
15 / 58
104 / 284
473 / 750
97 / 379
 
55 / 104
108 / 61


   
64 / 53  
974 / 1391 
62 / 233 
53 / 44
381 / 875
119 / 142
13 / 14
20 / 45
12 / 61
79 / 62

Future Intersection
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
172 / 180
405 / 268
 1183 / 1327
 320 / 323
741 / 1446   
317 / 574 
383 / 911
713 / 474
98 / 67
4/7
115 / 205


   
47 / 81  
733 / 702 
5 / 15 
79 / 46
567 / 426
35 / 70
1487 / 1505
55 / 60
 
36 / 73
60 / 83
26 / 42


   
71 / 216  
951 / 1854 
98 / 114 
28 / 70
133 / 148
 
22 / 84   
31 / 118 
4/7

13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
Future Intersection
13 / 19
1/8
68 / 58
 
7 / 11

Future Intersection
5 / 39
Future Intersection
94 / 159
1/1
312 / 965
 396 / 360
 1318 / 1452
809 / 1219    
219 / 152 
31 / 186
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
14 / 36
2 / 11
8 / 19
 6 / 12
 40 / 20
9 / 27   
13 / 7 
71 / 93 
56 / 199 
4/7

22 / 23
32 / 134
41 / 49
9 / 20
408 / 1007

Future Intersection
 49 / 33
 75 / 70
7 / 11
7 / 11

22 / 76 
76 / 227
137 / 515
2 / 11
 
18 / 66
19 / 71
70 / 125
27 / 63
1/1
 244 / 769
 36 / 33
523 / 536  
1/1 
   73 / 69
111 / 226 
0/3
0/2
104 / 115
66 / 96
75 / 105
1/5
 
38 / 38
5 US-395/Joshua St
4/2
38 / 96
74 / 65
12 / 26
6 / 48
373 / 894
795 / 456
3 US-395/Poplar St


   
68 / 102  
92 / 150 
5/5 


   
14 / 48  
3/7 
107 / 63 
46 / 39
836 / 519
 2 / 18
   3/4
 
68 / 114
28 / 37
91 / 79
 


   
30 / 31  
410 / 372 
120 / 43 
27 / 10


   
9 / 63  
57 / 102 
11 / 5 
721 / 484
5/5
1/3
3/3
 1 / 12
   28 / 55
 
FIGURE 16
XXXX / YYYY
Traffic Impact Study
Existing (2012) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-Vol-Exist (12/12/2013)
Table G - Existing Intersection Levels of Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Intersection
Control
Caliente Rd/Joshua St
US-395/Phelan Rd-Main St
US-395/Poplar St
US-395/Three Flags Rd
US-395/Joshua St
Outpost Rd./Joshua St
I-15 SB Off-Ramp/Joshua St
I-15 NB On-Ramp/Joshua St
Mariposa Rd/Joshua St
Mesa Linda Rd/Main St
Mesa Linda Rd/Poplar St
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Three Flags Ave-Lassen Rd/Poplar St
I-15 SB Ramps/Muscatel St
I-15 NB Ramps/Muscatel St
Key Pointe Dr/Main St
I-15 SB Ramps/Main St
I-15 NB Ramps/Main St
Mariposa Rd/Main St
Escondido Ave/Main St
Topaz Ave/Main St
Cataba Rd/Main St
TWSC
Signal
TWSC
Signal
Signal
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Existing Without Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
Existing With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
0.43
0.42
0.42
-
0.43
0.42
0.54
-
9.0
15.8
34.4
7.6
10.6
14.7
9.3
4.8
9.4
9.7
A
B
D
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
No Conflicting Movement
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
8.8
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.36
8.6
A
0.56
2.5
A
0.32
3.9
A
0.44
15.4
B
0.59
27.1
C
0.72
22.9
C
0.26
13.1
B
0.60
0.39
0.44
-
A
B
C
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
8.8
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.64
14.2
B
0.40
3.4
A
0.69
9.0
A
0.66
20.4
C
0.58
32.3
C
0.71
24.0
C
0.33
14.2
B
Notes:
TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control
V/C = Volume/capacity ratio
Delay = Average control delay in seconds. At TWSC intersections, worst-case approach is reported.
LOS = Level of Service
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\LOS\Exist (9/12/2014)
9.0
18.8
20.3
10.1
13.7
14.6
10.3
2.9
10.2
9.9
9.2
15.8
38.4
6.8
15.2
>100
10.5
5.8
9.8
9.7
A
B
E
A
B
F
B
A
A
A
9.4
A
9.5
A
9.3
A
8.6
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.36
8.6
A
0.59
2.5
A
0.33
4.2
A
0.45
15.6
B
0.61
27.5
C
0.74
23.2
C
0.27
13.2
B
*
0.60
0.40
0.56
-
9.3
19.0
28.1
11.1
17.1
>100
11.9
5.5
10.8
9.9
A
B
D
B
B
F
B
A
B
A
10.1
B
9.9
A
9.5
A
8.8
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.64
14.5
B
0.41
3.3
A
0.73
9.6
A
0.69
21.1
C
0.59
30.9
C
0.73
23.9
C
0.33
14.4
B
*
Table H - Existing Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service
Without Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Speed Density
Speed Density
Segment/Ramp
Type
With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Speed Density
Speed Density
(m/hr) (pc/m/ln) LOS (m/hr) (pc/m/ln) LOS (m/hr) (pc/m/ln) LOS (m/hr) (pc/m/ln) LOS
I-15 Northbound
South of US-395 Off-Ramp
US-395 Off-Ramp
US-395 Off-Ramp to Joshua Street On-Ramp A
US-395 Off-Ramp to Joshua Street On-Ramp B
Joshua Street On-Ramp
Joshua Street On-Ramp to Main Street Off-Ramp
Main Street Off-Ramp
Main Street Off-Ramp to Main Street Loop On-Ramp
Main Street Loop On-Ramp
Main Street Loop On-Ramp to Main Street Slip On-Ramp
Main Street Slip On-Ramp
North of Main Street On-Ramp
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
70.0
56.9
70.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
57.1
70.0
61.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
10.8
14.8
9.2
12.2
16.9
12.9
17.7
11.2
15.7
12.3
17.2
14.2
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
69.8
55.3
70.0
69.1
59.0
68.8
55.0
70.0
60.0
70.0
60.0
69.8
21.7
26.8
17.7
24.0
27.8
24.7
27.4
18.6
22.4
19.4
23.8
21.2
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
70.0
56.7
70.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
57.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
10.8
14.9
9.0
12.0
17.3
13.0
17.7
11.1
15.6
12.1
17.1
14.1
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
69.8
55.0
70.0
69.4
59.0
68.6
54.9
70.0
60.0
70.0
60.0
69.8
21.7
26.9
17.3
23.3
28.5
25.1
27.5
18.6
22.3
19.3
23.8
21.2
C
C
B
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
I-15 Southbound
North of Main Street Off-Ramp
Main Street On-Ramp to Joshua Street Off-Ramp
Joshua Street Off-Ramp
Joshua Street Off-Ramp to US-395 On-Ramp
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
69.1
57.1
69.6
58.0
67.7
59.0
67.3
57.8
67.7
24.1
29.3
22.2
31.1
26.8
27.7
27.5
32.3
26.9
C
D
C
D
D
C
D
D
D
70.0
56.3
70.0
61.0
70.0
62.0
70.0
57.5
70.0
14.0
18.1
10.7
17.7
13.0
15.3
13.6
19.0
12.6
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
69.1
57.1
69.6
58.0
67.5
59.0
67.1
57.3
68.2
24.1
29.3
22.2
31.4
27.1
27.9
27.8
31.9
26.0
C
D
C
D
D
C
D
D
C
70.0
56.3
70.0
61.0
70.0
62.0
70.0
57.1
70.0
14.0
18.1
10.7
18.2
13.3
15.6
13.9
18.9
12.2
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
23
C
70.0
11.6
B
69.5
22.9
C
70.0
11.6
B
US-395 On-Ramp
South of US-395 On-Ramp
Lane Addition1
Basic
69.4
* Exceeds level of service standard
m/hr = miles per hour
pc/m/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane
1 As stated in the HCM 2000,where a single-lane on-ramp results in a lane addition, the capacity of the ramp is governed by the ramp geometry itself, and not by the ramp-freeway junction. The downstream segment is
simply considered is to be a basic freeway segment with an additional lane as shown.
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\freeway LOS\Exist LOS (12/18/2013)
Table I - Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary
Roadway Segment
Segments on US-395
. North of Main Street
. Main Street to Poplar Street
. Poplar Street to Three Flags Road
. Three Flags Road to Joshua Street
. South of Joshua Street
Segments on Joshua Street
. Caliente Road to US-395
. US-395 to Outpost Road
. Outpost Road to I-15 SB Off-Ramp
. I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp to I-15 Northbound On-Ramp
. I-15 Northbound On-Ramp to Mariposa Road
Segments on Poplar Street
. US-395 to Three Flags Avenue-Lassen Road
. Three Flags Avenue-Lassen Road to Mesa Linda Street
Segments on Main Street
. West of US-395
. US-395 to Mesa Linda Street
. Mesa Linda Street to Cataba Road
. Cataba Road to Key Pointe Drive
. Key Pointe Drive to I-15 Southbound Ramps
. I-15 Southbound Ramps to I-15 Northbound Ramps
. I-15 Northbound Ramps to Mariposa Road
. Mariposa Road to Escondido Avenue
. Escondido Avenue to Topaz Street
. East of Topaz Street
Segments on Outpost Road
. Joshua Road to Driveway 1
. Driveway 1 to Driveway 2
. South of Driveway 3
Existing Conditions
Daily
Volume V/C LOS
Existing + Project
Daily
Volume V/C LOS
Functional Classification
Capacity
(LOS)
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
3 Lane Undivided (2 NB/1 SB)
2 Lane Divided
15,300
15,300
22,950
32,200
18,360
15,655
14,205
14,030
14,745
14,460
1.023
0.928
0.611
0.458
0.788
F
D
C
C
D
15,655
14,315
14,265
14,975
15,845
1.023
0.936
0.622
0.465
0.863
F
D
C
C
D
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
2,020
4,245
3,415
2,820
2,415
0.139
0.293
0.236
0.194
0.167
C
C
C
C
C
2,490
6,930
6,555
4,665
3,125
0.172
0.478
0.452
0.322
0.216
C
C
C
C
C
3 Lane Undivided (2 WB/1 EB)
2 Lane Undivided
21,750
14,500
490
915
0.023
0.063
C
C
605
1,025
0.028
0.071
C
C
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
8 Lane Divided
7 Lane Divided (4 WB/3 EB)
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
24,480
24,480
36,880
46,100
46,100
46,100
60,100
53,783
24,480
24,480
9,345
10,370
14,420
14,385
20,120
26,930
34,155
32,905
30,065
27,740
0.382
0.424
0.391
0.312
0.436
0.584
0.568
0.612
1.228
1.133
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
9,365
10,460
14,625
14,520
20,255
27,585
35,275
33,805
30,600
27,965
0.383
0.427
0.397
0.315
0.439
0.598
0.587
0.629
1.250
1.142
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
145
145
145
145
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
C
B
C
C
5,975
1,695
1,335
145
0.412
0.117
0.092
0.010
C
B
C
C
Capacity based on City of Hesperia's Roadway Segment LOS Standards and Florida Department of Transportation Class II State Two-way Arterial Peak Hour Table
V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Exceeds LOS standard
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Roadway LOS\Existing P Pr (9/12/2014)
33 / 135
7 / 26
119 / 142
721 / 484
36 / 63
13 / 14
20 / 45
392 / 925
724 / 489
98 / 67
12 / 61
20 / 76
90 / 78
74 / 93
7 / 11
4/7
7 / 27
36 / 146
240 / 439
114 / 237
104 / 284
479 / 758
97 / 379
 
 833 / 521
   566 / 1184
793 / 940 
95 / 121 
11 / 29
4 / 14
460 / 734
13 / 31
 
57 / 6
35 / 35
36 / 10
32 / 77


   
62 / 73  
633 / 691 
26 / 42 
9 / 86
60 / 35
100 / 58
1168 / 1441
29 / 83
 
55 / 104
108 / 61
53 / 44


   
68 / 59  
982 / 1404 
69 / 244 
181 / 192
405 / 268
 1207 / 1360
 320 / 323
761 / 1476   
331 / 595 
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
84 / 53
583 / 448
   22 / 49

26 / 56
15 / 58


   
47 / 81  
738 / 710 
5 / 15 
5 / 39
36 / 73
35 / 70
1527 / 1559
55 / 60
 
28 / 70
99 / 166
60 / 83
26 / 42


   
75 / 222  
985 / 1905 
102 / 120 
81 / 104
115 / 205
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
Future Intersection
381 / 875
47 / 57
13 / 26
412 / 1014
350 / 1020
1/1
 396 / 360
 1368 / 1520
814 / 1227    
219 / 152 
 
40 / 109   
41 / 133 
  22 / 49

8 / 19
Future Intersection
138 / 155
2 / 12
31 / 186
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
14 / 36
 11 / 19
 40 / 20
13 / 33   
13 / 7 
18 / 66
   193 / 215

 49 / 33
 106 / 113
49 / 105

26 / 82 
23 / 77
218 / 236
81 / 104
13 / 19
1/8
68 / 59
 
149 / 242 
84 / 239 
216 / 232
0/2
27 / 63
1/1
 248 / 774
 41 / 40
527 / 541  
1/1 
   104 / 112
216 / 415 
105 / 192
104 / 115
66 / 96
75 / 105
181 / 159
 
43 / 45
5 US-395/Joshua St
136 / 125
100 / 210
101 / 95
12 / 26
6 / 48
362 / 876
779 / 441
3 US-395/Poplar St


   
68 / 102  
92 / 150 
116 / 175 


   
14 / 48  
3/7 
107 / 63 
66 / 66
842 / 527
 2 / 18
   8 / 11
 
85 / 146
47 / 63
186 / 145
 
76 / 227
137 / 515
6 / 16
 
27 / 10


   
9 / 63  
78 / 130 
11 / 5 


   
30 / 31  
410 / 372 
121 / 44 
22 / 23
20 / 25
1/3
3/3
 14 / 31
   33 / 62
 
FIGURE 17
XXXX / YYYY
Existing (2012) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-Vol-Exist P (12/12/2013)
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
The project does not create the operational deficiencies at these roadway segments, nor does it create a
significant direct project impact since the roadway segments are already operating at an unsatisfactory
LOS. However, these locations would be considered cumulatively affected by the project.
Detailed levels of service worksheets are included in Appendix D.
OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS
This section discusses opening year traffic conditions without and with the proposed project. Opening
year traffic volumes were developed using the approach discussed in the Analysis Methodology section.
Opening Year without Project Traffic Conditions
Opening year (2014) without project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at study area
intersections are illustrated in Figure 18. A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate
opening year without project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic operations at study area intersections. As
shown in Table J, all study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service in the
Opening Year (2014) without project condition with the exception of the following:

Caliente Road/Joshua Street (LOS F during the a.m. hour);

US-395/Poplar Street (LOS F during the a.m. peak hour); and

Outpost Road Joshua Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours).
Table K provides a freeway merge-diverge analysis for opening year (2014) conditions.
Table L provides a roadway segment analysis for opening year (2014) conditions and shows that the
following roadway segments are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS:


US-395: Main Street to Poplar Street (LOS F);


Main Street: East of Topaz Street (LOS F).
Detailed level of service worksheets are included in Appendix D.
Opening Year (2014) Plus Project Conditions
The opening year (2014) plus project condition considers the addition of traffic generated by the
proposed project to the opening year (2014) conditions. Figure 19 illustrates opening year (2014) plus
project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections. A level of service analysis
was conducted to evaluate opening year (2014) plus project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic operations
at study area intersections. As shown in Table J, the following intersections that were forecast to
operate at unsatisfactory LOS in the Opening Year (2014) conditions would continue to operate at
unsatisfactory LOS with the addition of the project.
35
8 / 33
37 / 65
21 / 79
74 / 256
274 / 505
 952 / 626
   819 / 1416
906 / 1259 
121 / 211 
59 / 7
7 / 26
490 / 820
16 / 36
 
12 / 35
41 / 46
38 / 11
30 / 76


   
61 / 72  
690 / 759 
28 / 46 
10 / 91
62 / 36
104 / 60
1505 / 1814
30 / 86
 
57 / 108
112 / 63
55 / 46
433 / 1017
133 / 164
14 / 15
12 / 63
110 / 95
121 / 232
14 / 28
151 / 266
341 / 415
510 / 839
119 / 428
 
7 / 28
16 / 60
6 / 43


   
76 / 85  
1150 / 1920 
78 / 294 
210 / 223
469 / 445
 1467 / 1543
 459 / 580
861 / 1804   
437 / 818 
449 / 1090
858 / 582
79 / 79
 
38 / 139   
46 / 164 
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
96 / 74
13 / 20
1/8
71 / 61
 
 
9 / 31  
48 / 190
193 / 497


   
65 / 92  
789 / 784 
6 / 18 
13 / 39
102 / 70
21 / 47
9 / 21
475 / 1190
 
9 / 31  
92 / 319
Future Intersection
670 / 677
44 / 101
1861 / 1916
65 / 90
 
29 / 73
27 / 44


   
74 / 225  
1166 / 2414 
103 / 121 
50 / 100
75 / 110
138 / 154
99 / 167
1/1
400 / 1195
 428 / 429
 1671 / 1807
945 / 1564    
239 / 201 
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
15 / 37
2 / 11
99 / 234
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Future Intersection


   
15 / 50  
3/7 
111 / 66 
83 / 288

 6 / 12
 41 / 21
9 / 28   
13 / 7 
35 / 126

Future Intersection
 81 / 80
 106 / 96
136 / 259

23 / 79 
20 / 74
390 / 392
150 / 287
84 / 254
152 / 569
5 / 23
 
222 / 492 
86 / 300 
14 / 28
0/2
28 / 65
1/1
 270 / 863
 37 / 34
578 / 606  
1/1 
   104 / 95
274 / 666 
48 / 174
109 / 119
68 / 100
345 / 242
80 / 157
 
39 / 39
5 US-395/Joshua St
44 / 142
68 / 155
99 / 62
70 / 76
387 / 930
106 / 122
826 / 475
3 US-395/Poplar St


   
71 / 106  
207 / 416 
69 / 129 
23 / 24
45 / 175
199 / 437
9 / 23
985 / 630
 2 / 19
   3/4
 
89 / 181
300 / 187
113 / 144
 


   
31 / 32  
447 / 410 
153 / 68 
28 / 10


   
41 / 145  
177 / 380 
35 / 65 
835 / 570
24 / 33
24 / 12
 12 / 48
   440 / 230
 
FIGURE 18
XXXX / YYYY
Opening Year (2014) Without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-Vol-OY (12/12/2013)
Table J - Opening Year (2014) Intersection Levels of Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Intersection
Control
US-395/Poplar St
US-395/Joshua St
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Mariposa Rd/Main St
Topaz Ave/Main St
Cataba Rd/Main St
TWSC
Signal
TWSC
Signal
Signal
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Year (2014) Without Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
Year (2014) With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
0.50
0.49
0.62
-
0.50
0.49
0.69
-
55.2
16.5
50.1
7.8
19.5
37.2
12.3
7.0
10.0
9.8
F
B
F
A
B
E
B
A
A
A
Future Intersection
9.8
A
9.7
A
8.6
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.45
13.5
B
0.69
2.9
A
0.45
4.4
A
0.53
14.3
B
0.73
30.9
C
0.93
28.2
C
0.29
10.2
B
*
*
*
0.67
0.47
0.85
-
C
C
D
A
C
F
C
A
B
B
Future Intersection
13.2
B
12.5
B
8.8
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.97
32.8
C
0.50
3.9
A
0.87
14.2
B
0.76
22.6
C
0.83
25.1
C
0.92
23.7
C
0.37
11.1
B
Notes:
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\LOS\OY (9/12/2014)
17.1
22.1
27.4
10.0
33.0
>100
15.8
8.4
10.8
10.1
*
90.0
16.7
57.0
7.7
24.2
>100
16.7
7.8
10.5
9.9
F
B
F
A
C
F
C
A
B
A
10.1
B
11.3
B
12.0
B
8.6
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.45
13.4
B
0.72
3.0
A
0.48
4.8
A
0.54
14.6
B
0.74
31.7
C
0.96
30.3
C
0.30
10.4
B
*
*
*
0.67
0.47
1.00
-
20.2
22.7
42.1
10.3
35.9
>100
23.4
11.8
12.4
10.2
C
C
E
B
D
F
C
B
B
B
14.1
B
19.6
C
20.5
C
8.8
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.97
32.8
C
0.53
3.9
A
0.91
15.7
B
0.79
23.4
C
0.85
26.9
C
0.95
25.3
C
0.37
11.2
B
*
Table K - Opening Year (2014) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service
Without Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Speed Density
Speed Density
Segment/Ramp
Type
With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Speed Density
Speed Density
I-15 Northbound
US-395 Off-Ramp
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
70.0
56.6
70.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
56.7
70.0
61.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
11.7
15.8
9.6
12.8
19.0
14.5
18.9
12
16.6
13.2
18.3
15.3
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
68.9
54.9
70.0
67.4
56.0
63.8
54.3
69.6
60.0
69.3
59.0
68.1
24.5
29.6
19.7
27.3
33.9
32.1
31.4
22.4
26.3
23.4
28.1
26.1
C
D
C
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
D
D
70.0
56.4
70.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
56.6
70.0
61.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
11.7
15.9
9.4
12.6
19.4
14.6
19.0
11.9
16.6
13.1
18.2
15.2
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
68.9
54.6
70.0
67.8
56.0
63.4
54.1
69.6
60.0
69.3
59.0
68.1
24.5
29.7
19.4
26.7
34.8
32.6
31.6
22.4
26.2
23.4
28.1
26.1
C
D
C
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
D
D
I-15 Southbound
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
66.2
56.9
68.1
55.0
62.6
57.0
61.4
56.8
65.1
29.1
32.4
26.1
35.5
33.7
31.9
35.0
34.8
30.5
D
D
D
E
D
D
E
D
D
70.0
56.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
56.6
70.0
15.9
19.9
12.1
20.3
15.2
18.1
16.2
20.7
13.5
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
B
66.2
56.9
68.1
55.0
62.2
57.0
61.0
56.4
65.8
29.1
32.4
26.1
35.8
34.2
32.2
35.5
34.6
29.7
D
D
D
E
D
D
E
D
D
70.0
56.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
61.0
70.0
56.2
70.0
15.9
19.9
12.1
20.8
15.5
18.4
16.6
20.7
13.2
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
B
Lane Addition1
Basic
68.3
25.7
C
70.0
12.8
B
68.4
25.6
C
70.0
12.8
B
US-395 On-Ramp
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\freeway LOS\OY LOS (12/18/2013)
Table L - Opening Year (2014) Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary
Roadway Segment
Segments on US-395
. West of US-395
Opening Year Without
Project Conditions
Opening Year + Project
Daily
Daily
Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS
Capacity
(LOS)
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Divided
15,300
15,300
22,950
32,200
18,360
18,000
16,880
16,585
17,315
16,720
1.176
1.103
0.723
0.538
0.911
F
F
D
C
D
18,000
16,990
16,820
17,554
18,102
1.176
1.110
0.733
0.545
0.986
F
F
D
C
E
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
8,185
10,110
9,650
6,510
3,750
0.564
0.697
0.666
0.449
0.259
C
C
C
C
C
8,655
12,792
12,793
8,357
4,460
0.597
0.882
0.882
0.576
0.308
C
D
D
C
C
2 Lane Undivided
21,750
14,500
500
945
0.023
0.065
C
C
610
1,055
0.028
0.073
C
C
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
8 Lane Divided
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
24,480
24,480
36,880
46,100
46,100
46,100
60,100
53,783
24,480
24,480
10,645
11,595
15,865
16,020
25,765
33,800
42,205
41,385
38,330
35,045
0.435
0.474
0.430
0.348
0.559
0.733
0.702
0.769
1.566
1.432
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
10,665
11,685
16,070
16,155
25,900
34,455
43,325
42,285
38,865
35,270
0.436
0.477
0.436
0.350
0.562
0.747
0.721
0.786
1.588
1.441
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
4,240
4,240
3,830
3,415
0.292
0.292
0.264
0.236
C
C
C
C
10,070
5,785
5,018
3,415
0.694
0.399
0.346
0.236
C
C
C
C
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Roadway LOS\OY (9/12/2014)
46 / 176
12 / 63
21 / 79
121 / 111
74 / 93
    22 / 49
9 / 31  
74 / 256
7 / 28
48 / 190
274 / 505
151 / 266
341 / 415
516 / 847
119 / 428
 
 996 / 685
   825 / 1424
911 / 1267 
121 / 211 
12 / 35
7 / 26
496 / 828
16 / 36
 
59 / 7
41 / 46
38 / 11
33 / 80


   
64 / 76  
695 / 767 
28 / 46 
10 / 91
62 / 36
104 / 60
1515 / 1828
30 / 86
 
57 / 108
112 / 63
55 / 46


   
80 / 91  
1158 / 1933 
85 / 305 
101 / 81
37 / 65
21 / 47
14 / 15
102 / 70
14 / 28
121 / 232
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
219 / 235
469 / 445
 1491 / 1576
 459 / 580
881 / 1834   
451 / 839 
12 / 38
133 / 164
835 / 570
869 / 597
99 / 106
 
56 / 164   
56 / 179 
105 / 337
193 / 497
16 / 60


   
65 / 92  
794 / 792 
6 / 18 
6 / 43
13 / 20
1/8
71 / 61
 
458 / 1104
13 / 27
479 / 1197
14 / 28
   22 / 49
9 / 31  
13 / 39
Future Intersection
686 / 699
44 / 101
1901 / 1970
65 / 90
 
29 / 73
75 / 110
27 / 44


   
78 / 231  
1200 / 2465 
107 / 127 
50 / 100
143 / 161
104 / 174
1/1
438 / 1250
 428 / 429
 1721 / 1875
950 / 1572    
239 / 201 
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
15 / 37
2 / 11
99 / 234
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Future Intersection
 81 / 80
 137 / 139
300 / 641 
114 / 340 
137 / 417
 11 / 19
 41 / 21
13 / 34   
13 / 7 
35 / 126
   193 / 215



   
15 / 50  
3/7 
111 / 66 
210 / 352

27 / 85 
24 / 80
538 / 503
224 / 380
216 / 232
0/2
28 / 65
1/1
 274 / 868
 42 / 41
582 / 611  
1/1 
   135 / 138
379 / 855 
153 / 363
109 / 119
68 / 100
345 / 242
260 / 311
 
44 / 46
5 US-395/Joshua St
176 / 265
130 / 268
99 / 62
70 / 76
376 / 912
133 / 151
810 / 461
3 US-395/Poplar St


   
71 / 106  
207 / 416 
180 / 300 
433 / 1017
205 / 445
9 / 23
991 / 638
 2 / 19
   8 / 11
 
107 / 213
319 / 213
208 / 210
 
84 / 254
152 / 569
9 / 28
 
28 / 10


   
41 / 145  
198 / 408 
35 / 65 


   
31 / 32  
447 / 410 
154 / 69 
23 / 24
39 / 53
24 / 12
 25 / 67
   445 / 237
 
FIGURE 19
XXXX / YYYY
Opening Year (2014) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-Vol-OY P (12/12/2013)
OCTOBER 2014

Caliente Road/Joshua Street (LOS F during the a.m. peak hour);

US-395/Poplar Street (LOS F during the a.m. peak hour); and

Outpost Road/Joshua Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours).
CITY OF HESPERIA
The project does not create the operational deficiencies at these intersections, nor does it create a
significant direct project impact since the intersections are already operating at an unsatisfactory
Freeway merge-diverge analysis for opening year plus project conditions is provided in previously
referenced Table K.
Roadway segment analysis for opening year plus project conditions is provided in previously
referenced Table L, which shows the following roadway segments are forecast to operate at
unsatisfactory LOS:




The project does not create the operational deficiencies at these roadway segments, nor does it create a
significant direct project impact since the roadway segments are already operating at an unsatisfactory
Year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) Traffic Conditions
Year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) intersection geometrics and traffic controls are illustrated
in Figure 20. Figure 21 illustrates year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) without project traffic
conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections. A level of service
analysis was conducted to evaluate year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) without project a.m.
and p.m. peak hour traffic operations at study area intersections. As shown in Table M, the following
study intersections are forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service:

Caliente Road/Joshua Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);

US-395/Phelan Road-Main Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);

US-395/Poplar Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);

US-395/Three Flags Road (LOS F during the a.m. peak hour);

US-395/Joshua Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);

Outpost Road/Joshua Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);

I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp/Joshua Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);

Mariposa Road/Joshua Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);
41










d

f
f

d







14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3










f
Future Intersection



d
Future Intersection

13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2

12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1









d











d

5 US-395/Joshua St








3 US-395/Poplar St















FIGURE 20
Legend
Signal
Stop Sign
f free right-turn
Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Intersection Geometrics and Stop Control
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- Geo_2035 12/12/2013
343 / 305
72 / 103
24 / 64
39 / 32
13 / 44
31 / 115
104 / 173
3 / 11
124 / 233
76 / 259
14 / 105
278 / 506
388 / 318
7 / 74
716 / 1834
16 / 78
 
27 / 60
80 / 29


   
123 / 95  
2103 / 939 
45 / 47 
93 / 16
166 / 148
86 / 195
146 / 75
1586 / 1913
37 / 134
 
16 / 145
210 / 245
 1141 / 901
   700 / 2397
946 / 1423 
1650 / 235 
99 / 71
151 / 82


   
93 / 85  
1158 / 2023 
83 / 328 
99 / 86
63 / 56
2784 / 1488
401 / 165
113 / 40
183 / 133
3149 / 1792
74 / 83
14 / 28
138 / 261
312 / 437
660 / 1651
116 / 627
 
114 / 74
47 / 262
1536 / 1633
459 / 580
 
469 / 445
748 / 683
56 / 82


   
17 / 337  
901 / 1910 
439 / 820 
110 / 491
112 / 110
328 / 231
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
122 / 230
39 / 133


   
140 / 180  
2262 / 945 
38 / 50 
10 / 17
460 / 256
72 / 59
 
85 / 290
Future Intersection
212 / 483
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
25 / 279
55 / 134
61 / 107
1936 / 1963
89 / 92
 
45 / 128
100 / 152
182 / 181


   
106 / 348  
1292 / 2995 
144 / 181 
107 / 190
1/1
590 / 1946
 488 / 432
 1738 / 1902
951 / 1578    
273 / 351 


   
40 / 151  
185 / 618 
80 / 160 
 
9 / 31  
59 / 186
Future Intersection
50 / 77
 
9 / 31  
22 / 105
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
1308 / 2464
104 / 71
1283 / 2586
45 / 149
389 / 485
152 / 289

 81 / 80
 560 / 426
14 / 28
0/2
48 / 175
1/1
28 / 65

Future Intersection
25 / 61
 251 / 117
 69 / 34
102 / 237   
23 / 12 
3 / 18

91 / 361 
103 / 1396
27 / 36
1/9
112 / 102
 
281 / 429 
304 / 929 
94 / 321
13 / 9
2 / 47
363 / 1776
220 / 132
 
   560 / 426
540 / 1209 
84 / 216
11 / 151
45 / 11
64 / 1
122 / 122


   
7 / 15  
1829 / 670 
127 / 18 
3/5
74 / 102
787 / 649
88 / 160
 
365 / 146
5 US-395/Joshua St


   
73 / 106  
464 / 969 
72 / 130 
54 / 147
70 / 267
150 / 166
1071 / 2040
289 / 377
2119 / 1447
873 / 155
3 US-395/Poplar St
232 / 366
618 / 304
113 / 249
 


   
26 / 86  
3/8 
187 / 109 
77 / 78
3237 / 1874
 67 / 116
   69 / 78
 


   
138 / 284  
250 / 562 
40 / 65 
84 / 663
220 / 1136
38 / 118
 
166 / 71


   
48 / 125  
1519 / 441 
585 / 340 
928 / 2304
24 / 51
52 / 89
376 / 236
1162 / 211
 
179 / 444
53 / 87
9 / 14
43 / 39


  
166 / 266  
13 / 7 
FIGURE 21
XXXX / YYYY
Year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) Without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-Vol-2035 (12/12/2013)
Table M - Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Intersection Levels of Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Intersection
Control
US-395/Poplar St
US-395/Joshua St
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Mariposa Rd/Main St
Topaz Ave/Main St
Cataba Rd/Main St
TWSC
Signal
TWSC
Signal
Signal
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Year 2035 Without Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
1.70
1.27
1.54
-
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
40.0
8.3
>100
>100
F
F
F
F
F
F
E
A
F
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Future Intersection
9.9
A
9.7
A
9.4
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.73
12.4
B
1.12
40.4
F *
0.56
7.6
A
0.58
24.1
C
1.05
55.9
F *
0.90
32.9
C
0.67
15.1
B
1.42
0.96
1.97
-
F
F
F
C
F
F
F
B
F
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Future Intersection
13.2
B
12.5
B
10.7
B
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
1.03
39.4
F
0.75
10.4
B
1.65
>100
F
0.93
19.3
B
1.23
>100
F
1.08
97.6
F
0.69
17.3
B
Notes:
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\LOS\2035 (9/12/2014)
>100
>100
>100
25.9
>100
>100
>100
11.8
>100
>100
Year 2035 With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
1.71
1.27
1.56
-
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
10.6
>100
>100
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
B
F
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
10.1
B
11.4
B
12.1
B
9.4
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.73
12.4
B
1.12
40.3
F *
0.58
8.0
A
0.60
24.0
C
1.06
58.7
F *
0.92
35.3
D
0.67
15.2
B
1.43
0.96
2.69
-
>100
>100
>100
26.8
>100
>100
>100
16.3
>100
>100
F
F
F
C
F
F
F
C
F
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
14.1
B
19.8
C
20.7
C
10.8
B
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
1.03
39.9
F
0.74
10.3
B
1.68
>100
F
0.96
20.5
C
1.25
>100
F
1.10
>100
F
0.69
17.5
B
*
*
*
*
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA

Mesa Linda Street/Main Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);

Key Pointe Drive/Main Street (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour);

I-15 Southbound Ramps/Main Street (LOS F during the a.m. peak hour);

I-15 Northbound Ramps/Main Street (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour);

Escondido Avenue/Main Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours); and

Topaz Avenue/Main Street (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour).
Table N provides a freeway merge-diverge analysis for year 2035 without Muscatel Interchange
conditions.
Table O provides a roadway segment analysis for year 2035 without Muscatel Interchange conditions.
As shown in Table O, the following roadway segments are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS:



US-395: Poplar Street to Three Flags Road (LOS F);

US-395: Three Flags Road to Joshua Street (LOS F);

US-395: South of Joshua Street (LOS F);

Joshua Street: Caliente Road to US-395 (LOS F);

Joshua Street: US-395 to Outpost Road (LOS F);

Joshua Street: Outpost Road to I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp (LOS F);

Joshua Street: I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp to I-15 Northbound On-Ramp (LOS F);

Main Street: West of US-395 (LOS F);

Main Street: US-395 to Mesa Linda Street (LOS F);


Year 2035 Plus Project (without Muscatel Interchange) Traffic Conditions
Figure 22 illustrates year 2035 plus project (without Muscatel Interchange) traffic conditions a.m. and
p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections. A level of service analysis was conducted
to evaluate year 2035 plus project (without Muscatel Interchange) a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic
operations at study area intersections. As shown in previously referenced Table M, the project would
not cause any intersections to deteriorate from satisfactory to unsatisfactory LOS. However, the
project would add traffic to the following deficient intersections, which were all forecast to operate at
unsatisfactory LOS in the no project condition:

45
Table N - Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service
Without Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Speed Density
Speed Density
Segment/Ramp
Type
I-15 Northbound
US-395 Off-Ramp
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
69.9
54.5
70.0
69.8
59.0
69.2
56.1
70.0
60.0
69.8
59.0
69.1
21.1
26.6
16.1
21.5
27.7
23.6
27.6
19.8
24.4
21.2
26.5
23.9
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
I-15 Southbound
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
56.2
-
43.9
-
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Lane Addition1
Basic
-
-
US-395 On-Ramp
With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Speed Density
Speed Density
51.4
49.0
39.0
30.0
-
58.7
49.8
44.8
46.4
-
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
66.3
55.9
69.3
56.0
65.5
57.0
63.8
56.3
67.7
29.0
31.2
23.5
33.5
30.0
30.9
32.2
33.1
26.9
F *
67.4
27.2
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
69.9
54.3
70.0
69.8
59.0
69.2
56.0
70.0
60.0
69.9
60.0
69.2
21.1
26.7
15.9
21.2
28.0
23.8
27.6
19.7
24.4
21.1
26.5
23.7
C
C
B
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
51.1
48.9
39.0
30.0
-
58.8
50.0
44.8
46.4
-
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
56.2
2.0
56.4
-
43.9
52.4
48.9
-
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
66.3
55.9
69.3
56.0
65.1
57.0
63.3
55.9
67.9
29.0
31.2
23.5
33.9
30.5
31.2
32.8
33.1
26.5
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
-
-
F *
67.4
27.2
D
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\freeway LOS\2035 LOS (12/18/2013)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Table O - Year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary
Roadway Segment
Segments on US-395
. West of US-395
Year 2035 Without
Project Conditions
Daily
Volume V/C LOS
Volume
Year 2035 + Project
Daily
V/C LOS
Capacity
(LOS)
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Divided
15,300
15,300
22,950
32,200
18,360
45,715
47,000
46,705
47,605
38,985
2.988
3.072
2.035
1.478
2.123
F
F
F
F
F
45,715
47,125
46,945
47,850
40,370
2.988
3.080
2.046
1.486
2.199
F
F
F
F
F
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
18,025
18,485
18,045
14,645
11,912
1.243
1.275
1.244
1.010
0.822
F
F
F
E
D
18,495
21,180
21,185
16,490
12,620
1.276
1.461
1.461
1.137
0.870
F
F
F
F
D
2 Lane Undivided
21,750
14,500
3,948
4,815
0.181
0.332
C
C
4,060
4,925
0.187
0.340
C
C
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
8 Lane Divided
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
24,480
24,480
36,880
46,100
46,100
46,100
60,100
53,783
24,480
24,480
26,075
24,875
31,720
31,785
40,285
41,460
48,129
45,810
42,320
37,751
1.065
1.016
0.860
0.689
0.874
0.899
0.801
0.852
1.729
1.542
F
E
D
C
D
D
C
D
F
F
26,095
24,965
31,925
31,920
40,420
42,115
49,245
46,710
42,855
37,975
1.066
1.020
0.866
0.692
0.877
0.914
0.819
0.868
1.751
1.551
F
E
D
C
D
D
C
D
F
F
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
4,390
4,280
3,870
3,460
0.303
0.295
0.267
0.239
C
C
C
C
10,210
5,830
5,060
3,460
0.704
0.402
0.349
0.239
C
C
C
C
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Roadway LOS\2035 (9/12/2014)
344 / 306
72 / 103
24 / 64
39 / 32
13 / 44
31 / 115
115 / 189
3 / 11
74 / 93
    22 / 49
9 / 31  
76 / 259
14 / 105
122 / 230
278 / 506
388 / 318
312 / 437
666 / 1659
116 / 627
 
 1185 / 960
   706 / 2405
951 / 1431 
1650 / 235 
27 / 60
7 / 74
722 / 1842
16 / 78
 
93 / 16
166 / 148
80 / 29


   
126 / 99  
2108 / 947 
45 / 47 
16 / 145
99 / 71
146 / 75
1596 / 1927
37 / 134
 
89 / 199
59 / 186
151 / 82
99 / 86
67 / 61
2784 / 1488
401 / 165
113 / 40
183 / 133
3160 / 1807
74 / 83
97 / 105
107 / 339


   
97 / 91  
1166 / 2036 
90 / 339 
10 / 17
460 / 256
72 / 59
 
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
219 / 257
469 / 445
764 / 705
47 / 262
1560 / 1666
459 / 580
 
110 / 491
112 / 110
328 / 231


   
17 / 337  
921 / 1940 
453 / 841 


   
58 / 176  
185 / 618 
90 / 175 
124 / 233
212 / 354


   
140 / 180  
2267 / 953 
38 / 50 
25 / 279
56 / 82
61 / 107
1976 / 2017
89 / 92
 
55 / 134
50 / 77


   
110 / 354  
1326 / 3046 
148 / 187 
45 / 128
100 / 152
187 / 188
112 / 197
628 / 2001
1/1
 488 / 432
 1788 / 1970
956 / 1586    
273 / 351 
212 / 483
22 / 105
Future Intersection
39 / 133
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
25 / 61
   22 / 49
9 / 31  
139 / 419
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Future Intersection
 81 / 80
 591 / 469
14 / 28
   193 / 215

1317 / 2478
108 / 77
1287 / 2593
45 / 149
537 / 596
226 / 382
216 / 232
0/2
153 / 364
28 / 65
1/1

95 / 367 
 256 / 124
 69 / 34
106 / 243   
23 / 12 
3 / 18
27 / 36
1/9
112 / 102
 
359 / 578 
332 / 969 
119 / 81
103 / 1396
   591 / 469
645 / 1398 
88 / 222
2 / 47
367 / 1781
225 / 139
 
13 / 9
11 / 151
45 / 11
3/5
122 / 122


   
7 / 15  
1833 / 675 
127 / 18 
64 / 1
74 / 102
787 / 649
268 / 314
 
370 / 153
5 US-395/Joshua St


   
73 / 106  
464 / 969 
183 / 300 
186 / 270
132 / 381
150 / 166
1060 / 2022
2103 / 1432
316 / 407
873 / 155
3 US-395/Poplar St
249 / 398
637 / 330
208 / 315
 


   
26 / 86  
3/8 
187 / 109 
14 / 28
3243 / 1882
 67 / 116
   74 / 85
 


   
138 / 284  
271 / 590 
40 / 65 
84 / 663
220 / 1136
42 / 123
 
166 / 71


   
48 / 125  
1519 / 441 
586 / 341 
928 / 2304
24 / 51
65 / 108
376 / 236
1167 / 218
 
185 / 452
68 / 107
9 / 14
43 / 39


  
166 / 266  
13 / 7 
FIGURE 22
XXXX / YYYY
Year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-Vol-2035 P (12/12/2013)
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA






I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp/Joshua Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);


Mesa Linda Street/Main Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);

Key Pointe Drive/Main Street (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour);

I-15 Southbound Ramps/Main Street (LOS F during the a.m. peak hour);



The project does not create the direct operational deficiencies at these intersections, nor does it create
a significant direct project impact since the segments are already operating at an unsatisfactory LOS.
However, these locations would be considered cumulatively affected by the project.
Freeway merge-diverge analysis for year 2035 plus project (without Muscatel Interchange) conditions
is provided in previously referenced Table N.
Roadway segment analysis for year 2035 plus project (without Muscatel Interchange) conditions is
provided in previously referenced Table O, which shows that the following roadway segments are
forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS:






Joshua Street: Caliente Road to US-395 (LOS F);


Joshua Street: Outpost Road to I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp (LOS F);

Joshua Street: I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp to I-15 Northbound On-Ramp (LOS F);


Main Street: US-395 to Mesa Linda Street (LOS F);
49
OCTOBER 2014


CITY OF HESPERIA
The project does not create the operational deficiencies at these roadway segments, nor does it create
a significant direct project impact since the roadway segments are already operating at an
unsatisfactory LOS. However, these locations would be considered cumulatively affected by the
project.
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Traffic Conditions
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) intersection geometrics and traffic controls are illustrated in
Figure 23. Figure 24 illustrates year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) without project traffic
conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections. A level of service
analysis was conducted to evaluate year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) without project a.m. and
p.m. peak hour traffic operations at study area intersections. As shown in Table P, the following study
intersections are forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service:








Mesa Linda Road/Main Street (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour);

Three Flags Avenue/Lassen Road-Poplar Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);

I-15 Northbound Ramps/Muscatel Street (exceeds 45 seconds during the p.m. peak hour);



Table Q provides a freeway merge-diverge analysis for year 2035 with Muscatel Interchange
conditions.
Table R provides a roadway segment analysis for year 2035 with Muscatel Interchange conditions,
which shows that the following roadway segments are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS:



50












d

f
f

d



14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3







f






f








d


13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2

12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1










d





Intersection

Does Not
Exist

Intersection
Does Not
Exist



d

5 US-395/Joshua St

Intersection

Does Not
Exist






3 US-395/Poplar St















FIGURE 23
Legend
Signal
Stop Sign
f free right-turn
Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Intersection Geometrics and Stop Control
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- Geo_2035Alt 12/20/2013
42 / 52
7 / 24
21 / 79
278 / 525
14 / 86
489 / 1429
16 / 59
 
21 / 39
14 / 150
78 / 24


   
126 / 106  
1351 / 736 
36 / 55 
94 / 12
159 / 99
89 / 216
148 / 77
1597 / 1945
37 / 138
 
99 / 71
210 / 249
 1136 / 928
   688 / 2053
911 / 1325 
1013 / 192 
58 / 182
149 / 81


   
91 / 85  
1157 / 2034 
81 / 323 
324 / 267
352 / 409
525 / 1329
134 / 582
 
16 / 105
33 / 269
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
115 / 246
217 / 495
42 / 133
29 / 99
57 / 100
53 / 33
17 / 84
70 / 130
124 / 233
 
9 / 31  
99 / 87
579 / 2123
2517 / 1937
85 / 290


   
126 / 193  
1592 / 777 
32 / 55 
53 / 37
404 / 218
64 / 42
 
76 / 259
 
9 / 31  
115 / 74
130 / 482
469 / 447
100 / 351
49 / 193
1536 / 1669
467 / 582
 
969 / 2679
205 / 164
2670 / 1539
87 / 49
174 / 194


   
95 / 197  
165 / 473 
89 / 137 
14 / 28
138 / 261
14 / 28
152 / 289
Intersection
 109 / 97
Does
51 / 175
 Not
Exist
94 / 321
792 / 1083
104 / 124


   
23 / 212  
877 / 1910 
440 / 821 
738 / 684
53 / 124
44 / 129
25 / 33
1 / 12
116 / 101
 
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
 92 / 113
 3 / 36
219 / 509   
36 / 136 
62 / 94
0/2
8 / 31
1/1
35 / 126
61 / 116
1942 / 1994
88 / 98
 

192 / 135
21 / 60
214 / 388
656 / 2466


   
104 / 320  
1273 / 2731 
132 / 147 
98 / 177
559 / 1619
84 / 1055
 483 / 433
 1740 / 1926
950 / 1579   
239 / 271 
99 / 143

Future Intersection
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
 7 / 17
   796 / 1098
219 / 509 
786 / 117 
50 / 77
8 / 20
19 / 18
817 / 730
114 / 37
 
422 / 402
28 / 89
4 / 23
10 / 37


   
16 / 61  
829 / 796 
25 / 15 
Intersection
 107 / 96
Does
Not
53 / 175

Exist
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
183 / 189
5/1
10 / 37
3 / 36
17 / 8
6/0
6/8
1 / 15
345 / 1669
19 / 22
 
22 / 11
141 / 191


   
16 / 12  
1301 / 667 
20 / 8 
19 / 30
19 / 0
612 / 512
16 / 31
 
326 / 255
5 US-395/Joshua St


  
149 / 214  
341 / 776 
159 / 276 
90 / 301
68 / 271
74 / 205
292 / 1663
402 / 692
1819 / 1341
616 / 221
3 US-395/Poplar St
309 / 555
250 / 146
285 / 303
 


   
21 / 83  
5 / 11 
191 / 109 
71 / 119
2481 / 1748
 748 / 959
   373 / 544
 


   
140 / 358  
179 / 303 
86 / 79 
84 / 361
219 / 1219
29 / 92
 
938 / 212


   
50 / 86  
1090 / 441 
789 / 388 
374 / 694
20 / 33
31 / 56
363 / 226
498 / 208
 
176 / 312
33 / 50
13 / 15
26 / 32


  
166 / 265  
13 / 10 
FIGURE 24
XXXX / YYYY
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-Vol-2035 Alt (12/12/2013)
Table P - Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Intersection Levels of Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Intersection
Control
US-395/Poplar St
US-395/Joshua St
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Mariposa Rd/Main St
Topaz Ave/Main St
Cataba Rd/Main St
TWSC
Signal
TWSC
Signal
Signal
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Year 2035 Without Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
1.68
1.07
1.06
-
>100
>100
>100
52.7
40.1
>100
0.0
0.0
>100
36.7
F
F
F
F
F
F
A
A
F
E
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Future Intersection
9.9
A
9.7
A
>100
F *
0.63
9.8
A
0.63
25.2
C
0.60
13.1
B
0.84
4.5
A
0.55
6.9
A
0.56
10.0
A
1.08
77.6
F *
0.92
30.5
C
0.51
22.3
C
1.46
0.87
1.60
-
F
F
F
B
F
F
A
A
F
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Future Intersection
13.2
B
12.5
B
>100
F
0.66
13.9
B
0.88
49.5
D
0.98
34.6
C
0.72
3.2
A
1.33
77.4
F
0.87
17.2
B
1.23
>100
F
1.08
>100
F
0.56
18.3
B
Notes:
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\LOS\2035 Alt (9/12/2014)
>100
>100
>100
14.7
>100
>100
0.0
0.0
>100
>100
Year 2035 With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
1.68
1.13
1.26
-
>100
>100
>100
74.1
59.8
>100
0.0
0.0
>100
38.8
F
F
F
F
F
F
A
A
F
E
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.72
0.65
0.59
0.87
0.56
0.59
1.06
0.93
0.49
10.1
11.4
12.1
>100
13.9
26.7
14.2
5.6
7.4
15.6
56.8
31.8
24.6
B
B
B
F
B
C
B
A
A
B
F
C
C
1.46
0.93
1.99
-
>100
>100
>100
16.2
>100
>100
0.0
0.0
>100
>100
F
F
F
B
F
F
A
A
F
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.76
0.94
0.98
0.77
1.35
0.91
1.25
1.10
0.58
14.1
19.7
20.6
>100
18.3
83.7
36.4
2.8
86.1
29.6
>100
>100
16.8
B
C
C
F
B
F
D
A
F
C
F
F
B
*
*
*
*
*
Table Q - Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service
Without Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Speed Density
Speed Density
Segment/Ramp
Type
I-15 Northbound
US-395 Off-Ramp
US-395 Off-Ramp to Muscatel Street Off-Ramp A
US-395 Off-Ramp to Muscatel Street Off-Ramp B
Muscatel Street Off-Ramp
Muscatel Street Off-Ramp to Muscatel Street On-Ramp
Muscatel Street On-Ramp
Muscatel Street On-Ramp to Main Street Off-Ramp
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
69.8
56.8
70.0
67.5
55.5
69.8
59.0
69.4
56.3
70.0
60.0
69.9
60.0
69.3
21.4
25.8
19.6
27.1
29.1
21.4
27.2
23.2
27.4
19.7
24.0
20.9
26.2
23.6
C
C
C
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
I-15 Southbound
Main Street On-Ramp to Muscatel Street Off-Ramp
Muscatel Street Off-Ramp
Muscatel Street Off-Ramp to Muscatel Street Loop On-Ramp
Muscatel Street Loop On-Ramp
Muscatel Street Loop On-Ramp to Muscatel Street Slip On-Ramp
Muscatel Street Slip On-Ramp
Muscatel Street Slip On-Ramp to US-395 On-Ramp
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane Off
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
1 Lane On
Basic
56.5
2.0
56.7
13.0
-
44.1
52.5
47.4
51.7
-
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Lane Addition1
Basic
-
-
US-395 On-Ramp
With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Speed Density
Speed Density
52.3
53.9
50.8
43.0
34.0
-
59.4
48.7
47.3
43.4
45.3
-
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
67.4
56.0
69.6
57.0
66.4
58.0
65.1
56.5
68.0
59.0
68.0
59.0
* 67.6
27.2
30.2
22.4
32.9
28.8
29.9
30.5
32.0
26.2
28.7
26.3
29.5
27
F * 67.4
27.2
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
69.8
56.7
70.0
67.7
55.5
69.9
59.0
69.3
56.2
70.0
60.0
69.9
60.0
69.3
21.4
25.9
19.4
26.7
28.9
21.2
27.6
23.4
27.4
19.7
24.0
20.9
26.2
23.5
C
C
C
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
52.0
53.9
50.6
43.0
34.0
-
59.6
48.5
47.4
43.4
45.3
-
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
56.5
56.3
16.0
-
44.1
47.3
51.2
-
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
67.4
56.0
69.6
56.0
66.0
58.0
64.7
56.2
68.2
59.0
68.3
59.0
* 67.8
27.2
30.2
22.4
33.5
29.3
30.2
31.0
31.9
25.9
28.3
25.8
29.2
26.6
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
C
D
D
D
-
-
F * 67.4
27.2
D
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
As stated in the HCM 2000,where a single-lane on-ramp results in a lane addition, the capacity of the ramp is governed by the ramp geometry itself, and not by the ramp-freeway junction. The downstream segment is simply
considered is to be a basic freeway segment with an additional lane as shown.
1
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\freeway LOS\2035 ALT LOS (12/18/2013)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Table R - Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary
Roadway Segment
Segments on US-395
. Outpost Road to Mariposa Road
. Three Flags Avenue-Lassen Road to I-15 Southbound Ramps
. East of I-15 Northbound Ramps
. West of US-395
Year 2035 Without
Project Conditions
Daily
Volume V/C LOS
Volume
Year 2035 + Project
Daily
V/C LOS
Capacity
(LOS)
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Divided
15,300
15,300
22,950
32,200
18,360
44,715
51,585
44,350
42,042
32,432
2.923
3.372
1.932
1.306
1.766
F
F
F
F
F
44,715
51,805
47,025
44,715
33,820
2.923
3.386
2.049
1.389
1.842
F
F
F
F
F
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
13,285
18,815
11,733
0.916
1.298
0.809
D
F
D
13,755
23,940
12,445
0.949
1.651
0.858
D
F
D
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
21,750
24,480
24,480
24,480
21,880
21,744
14,105
5,140
1.006
0.888
0.576
0.210
E
D
C
C
24,310
24,175
15,240
5,140
1.118
0.988
0.623
0.210
F
D
C
C
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
8 Lane Divided
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
24,480
24,480
36,880
46,100
46,100
46,100
60,100
53,783
24,480
24,480
27,430
20,455
23,983
25,293
33,868
39,224
46,453
45,330
42,135
38,016
1.121
0.836
0.650
0.549
0.735
0.851
0.773
0.843
1.721
1.553
F
D
C
C
C
D
C
D
F
F
27,450
20,655
24,185
25,425
34,000
39,875
47,570
46,230
42,670
38,240
1.121
0.844
0.656
0.552
0.738
0.865
0.792
0.860
1.743
1.562
F
D
C
C
C
D
C
D
F
F
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
4,580
4,280
3,870
3,460
0.316
0.295
0.267
0.239
C
C
C
C
10,410
5,830
5,060
3,460
0.718
0.402
0.349
0.239
C
C
C
C
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Roadway LOS\2035 Alt (9/12/2014)
OCTOBER 2014




Poplar Street: US-395 to Three Flags Avenue-Lassen Road;



CITY OF HESPERIA
Year 2035 Plus Project (with Muscatel Interchange) Traffic Conditions
The year 2035 plus project (with Muscatel Interchange) trip distributions for Primary passenger car trips
and Primary truck trips are shown in Figures 25 and 26. Primary trips for passenger cars and trucks are
shown in Figures 27 and 28. Figures 29 and 30 illustrate the diverted linked trip distribution percentages
for passenger vehicles and trucks at the study intersections. Figures 31 and 32 illustrate the resulting
diverted linked project passenger vehicle and truck trips at the study intersections. Figure 33 shows the
total primary and diverted linked project trips at study area intersections.
Figure 34 illustrates year 2035 plus project (with Muscatel Interchange) traffic conditions a.m. and
p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections. A level of service analysis was conducted
to evaluate year 2035 plus project (with Muscatel Interchange) a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic
operations at study area intersections. As shown in previously referenced Table P, the project would
not cause any intersections to deteriorate from satisfactory to unsatisfactory LOS. However, the
project would add traffic to the following deficient intersections, which were all forecast to operate at
unsatisfactory LOS in the no project condition:








Mesa Linda Road/Main Street (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour);

Three Flags Avenue/Lassen Road-Poplar Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours);

I-15 Northbound Ramps/Muscatel Street (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour);



56
(40%) 
(6%) 
5%
  36%
(5%)  
(36%) 
(5%) 
(1%)
(50%)
20%
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
 21%
(21%)  
(15%) 
 6%
  8%
(5%)  
(8%) 
(8%) 
(6%) 
 40%
 6%
3%
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
5%
(40%)
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
  (100%)

(40%) 
 46%
(6%)  
5%
(40%) 
 40%
8%
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
15%
 9%

(20%)  
(10%) 
100%
Intersection
30%
Does 
Not
(30%) 
Exist
40%
(9%) 
(30%)
(70%)
50%
5 US-395/Joshua St
Intersection
30%
Does 
Not
(30%) 
Exist
 30%
70%   

10%
3 US-395/Poplar St
 (50%)
  (20%)
20% 

(40%)
(10%)
  40%
 
50%
10%
(9%)
 9%
1%   
5%
15%
 (15%)
  (5%)

  6%
(3%) 
(6%) 
FIGURE 25
XX% (YY%)
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Total Primary Peak Hour Passenger Vehicle Trip Distribution
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-dist_2035_Primary_Auto (12/12/2013)
(5%)
100%
(55%) 
  (50%)

 58%
 38%
(38%)  
(20%) 
20%
(58%) 
65%
20%
  (50%)
(50%)
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
 3%
(3%) 
(55%)

12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1

(55%) 
 58%
(3%)  

(20%)  
 28%
(28%)  
(10%) 
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
(3%) 
 55%
 3%
2%
(55%) 
 55%
10%
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
Intersection
20%
Does 
Not
(20%) 
Exist
(100%)
 5%
100%
55%
(5%) 
(20%)
(80%)
65%
5 US-395/Joshua St
Intersection
 20%
Does Not
(20%) 
Exist
 20%
80%   

100%
3 US-395/Poplar St
 (65%)
  (15%)
15% 

(55%)
(10%)
  55%
 
(65%)
10%
(5%)
 5%
5%   
15%
 (15%)

  3%
(2%) 
(3%) 
FIGURE 26
XX% (YY%)
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Total Primary Truck Trip Distribution
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-dist_2035_Primary_Trucks (12/12/2013)

36 / 50 
5/7
  36 / 49
4/6  
32 / 45 
4/6 
5/7
36 / 50
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
36 / 50 
 46 / 63
5/8  
1/1
50 / 68
20 / 27
10 / 14
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
  89 / 126
5/8 
 21 / 29
19 / 26  
13 / 19 
 6/8
  8 / 11
4/6  
7 / 10 
7 / 10 
5/8 
 40 / 54
 6/8
3/4
36 / 50 
 40 / 54
5/7
Intersection
Does Not
Exist

18 / 25  
9 / 13 
8 / 11
 9 / 12
15 / 20
8 / 11 
Intersection
30 / 41
Does Not
27 / 38 
Exist
40 / 54
5 US-395/Joshua St
Intersection
 30 / 41
Does Not
27 / 38 
Exist

100 / 136
62 / 88
 30 / 41
70 / 95   
27 / 38
50 / 68
3 US-395/Poplar St
 45 / 63
  18 / 25
20 / 27 

36 / 50
9 / 13
  40 / 54
 
45 / 63
10 / 14
8 / 11
15 / 20
 9 / 12
1/1   
5/7
 13 / 19
  4/6

  6/8
3/4 
5/8 
FIGURE 27
XXX / YYY
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Total Primary Peak Hour Passenger Vehicle Trips
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- trips_2035_Primary_Auto (12/12/2013)
1/1
 1/1

 4/5

2/5 
7/9
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
  2/5

 4/5
5/6
1/2
  2/5
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
 4/5
 3/4
1/4  
1/2 
1/2
2/6 
2/5

2/5 
 4/5


1/2  
 2/3
1/3  
0/1 
1/1
2/5 
4/5
2/5
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
Intersection
 1/2
1 Does
/ 2  Not
Exist
7/9
Intersection
1/2
Does Not
1/2 
Exist
4 / 10
5 US-395/Joshua St
1/2
3/8
5/6
 1/2
6/7   

7/9
3 US-395/Poplar St
 2/6
  1/1
1/1 

2/5
0/1
  4/5
 
2/6
1/1
FIGURE 28
XXX / YYY
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Total Primary Peak Hour Truck Trips
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- trips_2035_Primary_Trucks (12/12/2013)
28% (53%)
5 US-395/Joshua St
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
28% (53%) 
 57% (29%)

Intersection
Does Not
Exist
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
  100% (100%)
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
57% (29%)
Intersection
Does Not
Exist

100% (100%)
100% (100%)  
34% (63%)
-6% (-10%)
 34% (63%)
   66% (37%)
 
100% (100%
-9% (-8%)
66% (37%)
3 US-395/Poplar St
57% (29%)
 57% (29%)

28% (53%)

28% (53%) 
28% (53%) 
FIGURE 29
AM% (PM%)
Trip Distribution
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Diverted Linked Trip Distribution (Passenger Vehicles)
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-dist_2035_Diverted_Auto (12/12/2013)
57% (29%)

28% (53%)
 57% (29%)

28% (53%) 
 57% (29%)

100% (100%

12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
  50% (50%)

  50% (50%)
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
57% (29%)
100% (100%)
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
100% (100%)
100% (100%
100% (100%)
5 US-395/Joshua St
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
100% (100%)  
34% (63%)
-6% (-10%)
 34% (63%)
   66% (37%)
 
50% (50%)
66% (37%)
-9% (-8%)
3 US-395/Poplar St

28% (53%)

28% (53%) 
28% (53%) 
FIGURE 30
AM% (PM%)
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Diverted Linked Trip Distribution (Trucks)
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-dist_2035_Diverted_Trucks (12/12/2013)
29 / 47
104 / 89
116 / 96  
39 / 61
-7 / -10
 35 / 56
   68 / 33
 
5 US-395/Joshua St
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
29 / 47 
 66 / 28

Intersection
Does Not
Exist
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
  104 / 89
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
66 / 28
Intersection
Does Not
Exist

116 / 96
77 / 36
-10 / -8
3 US-395/Poplar St
66 / 28
 66 / 28

29 / 47

29 / 47 
29 / 47 
FIGURE 31
XXX / YYY
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Diverted Linked Peak Hour Trips (Passenger Vehicles)
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- trips_2035_Diverted_Auto (12/12/2013)
38 / 24

11 / 47
 38 / 24

11 / 47 
 38 / 24


12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
  20 / 44

67 / 84
  20 / 44
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
38 / 24
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
67 / 84
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
20 / 44
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
67 / 84
5 US-395/Joshua St
41 / 88
67 / 84  
23 / 53
-4 / -8
 14 / 56
   27 / 33
 
41 / 88
44 / 31
-6 / -7
3 US-395/Poplar St

11 / 47

11 / 47 
11 / 47 
FIGURE 32
XXX / YYY
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Diverted Linked Peak Hour Trips (Trucks)
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- trips_2035_Diverted_Trucks (12/12/2013)
6/8
1/1
 9 / 12
1/1   
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
5/8 
 24 / 33
20 / 30  
14 / 21 
159 / 126
20 / 27
11 / 16
74 / 93
74 / 93
  22 / 49


18 / 25  
10 / 15 
  22 / 49
22 / 49
216 / 232
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
 6/8
5/7
5/7
  40 / 54
4/6  
34 / 51 
4/6 
5/7
38 / 55
Intersection
 31 / 43
Does Not
28 / 40 
Exist
45 / 98
78 / 149 
  10 / 14
4/6  
8 / 13 
7 / 11 
9 / 12

78 / 149 
 50 / 68
5/8  
12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1

5/8 
 44 / 59
 6/8
3/4
   193 / 215

16 / 22
 148 / 111
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
74 / 93
 9 / 12
78 / 149 
28 / 40
Intersection
31 / 43
Does Not
28 / 40 
Exist
148 / 111
5 US-395/Joshua St
8 / 11 
 31 / 43
259 / 282   
209 / 273
-11 / -18
96 / 181
19 / 26
95 / 66

62 / 113
176 / 141
-16 / -14
3 US-395/Poplar St


  
21 / 28  

78 / 149
9 / 14
  148 / 111
 
87 / 163
11 / 15
8 / 11
15 / 20
 13 / 19
  5/7

  6/8
3/4 
5/8 
FIGURE 33
XXX / YYY
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Total Primary and Diverted Peak Hour Trips
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- trips_2035_Total_Primary and Diverted (12/12/2013)
375 / 695
7 / 24
21 / 79
81 / 146
278 / 525
324 / 267
 1180 / 987
   694 / 2061
916 / 1333 
1013 / 192 
21 / 39
14 / 86
495 / 1437
16 / 59
 
94 / 12
159 / 99
78 / 24
92 / 220


   
129 / 110  
1356 / 743 
36 / 55 
14 / 150
99 / 71
148 / 77
1607 / 1959
37 / 138
 
58 / 182
219 / 261
149 / 81
99 / 87
120 / 81
57 / 100
21 / 60
53 / 33
17 / 84
74 / 93
76 / 259
16 / 105
352 / 409
531 / 1337
134 / 582
 
115 / 246
217 / 495
33 / 269
130 / 482


   
95 / 91  
1165 / 2047 
88 / 334 
469 / 447
100 / 351
50 / 63
2670 / 1539
205 / 164
87 / 49
192 / 135
2676 / 2063
71 / 119
194 / 221
    22 / 49
9 / 31  
14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
49 / 193
1560 / 1702
467 / 582
 
42 / 133
29 / 99


   
126 / 193  
1597 / 784 
32 / 55 
53 / 37
404 / 218
64 / 42
 
107 / 339
139 / 419
792 / 1083
754 / 706


   
113 / 222  
165 / 473 
99 / 152 
124 / 233
212 / 354
14 / 28
216 / 232
226 / 382


   
23 / 212  
897 / 1940 
454 / 842 
666 / 2286
292 / 537
665 / 2480
53 / 124
61 / 116
1982 / 2048
88 / 98
 
44 / 129
99 / 143


   
108 / 326  
1307 / 2782 
136 / 153 
   22 / 49
9 / 31  
13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
104 / 124
0/2
36 / 71
1/1
35 / 126
570 / 513
188 / 196
 92 / 113
 3 / 36
297 / 658   
36 / 136 
25 / 33
1 / 12
116 / 101
 
Intersection
140 / 140
Does Not
79 / 215 
Exist
   193 / 215

12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
 7 / 17
   796 / 1098
297 / 658 
786 / 117 
103 / 184
84 / 1055
 483 / 433
 1790 / 1994
955 / 1587   
239 / 271 
597 / 1674
Intersection
Does Not
Exist
50 / 77
28 / 89
19 / 18
965 / 841
114 / 37
 
8 / 20
4 / 23
9 / 37


   
16 / 61  
907 / 945 
25 / 15 
Intersection
138 / 139
Does 
Not
81 / 215 
Exist
326 / 255
9 / 37
5/1
3 / 36
17 / 8
6/8
6/0
1 / 15
354 / 1681
19 / 22
 
22 / 11
141 / 191


   
16 / 12  
1309 / 678 
20 / 8 
19 / 30
19 / 0
612 / 512
47 / 74
 
62 / 94
5 US-395/Joshua St


  
149 / 214  
341 / 776 
418 / 558 
300 / 574
130 / 385
74 / 205
282 / 1645
1803 / 1326
578 / 833
616 / 221
3 US-395/Poplar St
405 / 736
269 / 172
380 / 369
 


   
21 / 83  
5 / 11 
191 / 109 
14 / 28
2492 / 1763
 748 / 959
   521 / 655
 


   
140 / 358  
200 / 331 
86 / 79 
84 / 361
219 / 1219
38 / 104
 
938 / 212


   
50 / 86  
1090 / 441 
790 / 389 
969 / 2679
20 / 33
44 / 75
363 / 226
503 / 215
 
182 / 320
48 / 70
13 / 15
26 / 32


  
166 / 265  
13 / 10 
FIGURE 34
XXXX / YYYY
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30-Vol-2035 P Alt (12/12/2013)
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
The project does not create the direct operational deficiencies at these intersections, nor does it create
a significant direct project impact since the segments are already operating at an unsatisfactory LOS.
However, these locations would be considered cumulatively affected by the project.
Freeway merge-diverge analysis for year 2035 plus project (with Muscatel Interchange) conditions is
provided in previously referenced Table Q.
Roadway segment analysis for year 2035 plus project (with Muscatel Interchange) conditions is
provided in previously referenced Table R. As shown in Table R, the following roadway segments are
forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS.







Poplar Street: US-395 to Three Flags Avenue-Lassen Road;



The project does not create the operational deficiencies at these roadway segments, nor does it create
a significant direct project impact since the roadway segments are already operating at an
unsatisfactory LOS. However, these locations would be considered cumulatively affected by the
project.
CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
Recommendations for circulation improvements have been made for all intersections operating at an
unsatisfactory LOS. However, the project is not required to implement 100 percent of the circulation
improvements at intersections where the project does not create a direct significant impact (i.e.,
causes an intersection to deteriorate from satisfactory to unsatisfactory LOS). If the project
contributes cumulative traffic at locations that are already operating at unsatisfactory LOS, then this is
considered a cumulative impact. At locations where the project has a cumulative impact, the project’s
share of traffic at that location has been identified.
At some locations, payment of the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) would constitute mitigation
of cumulative impacts. The City’s DIF program was adopted in 2001 and updated in 2005. The DIF
provides a funding mechanism for the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), which was
adopted by the City on May 2, 2001, by Resolution No 2001-15. The MPAH identifies the network of
arterial highways needed to serve the City at build-out and is the basis for the development of the
current DIF. As noted in the Development Impact Fee Update Study dated February 2005, the road
67
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
improvement costs included in the DIF include widening of existing arterial highways from the
current lane configuration to the ultimate lane configuration including right-of-way acquisition, new
through-lane and turn-lane construction, and construction of concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk along
the ultimate right-of-way. As required by City Code, all development projects are required to pay the
DIF as a condition of development.
Circulation improvements to mitigate unsatisfactory conditions with the project in the existing,
opening year (2014), year 2035 without Muscatel Interchange, and year 2035 with Muscatel
Interchange scenarios are shown in Tables S, T, U, and V, respectively. The project has a direct
impact at Outpost Road/Joshua Street. Implementation of project design features at this intersection
as described in Table S will mitigate the direct project impact. Additionally, the project will also
implement improvements at US-395/Joshua Street, although this intersection operates satisfactorily
under existing with project conditions without improvements. The levels of service with
implementation of the recommended circulation improvements in the existing, opening year (2014),
year 2035 without Muscatel Interchange, and year 2035 with Muscatel Interchange scenarios are
shown in Tables W, X, Y, and Z, respectively. Figures 35, 36, 37, and 38 illustrate the intersection
geometrics and stop control with the proposed circulation improvements for each of the scenarios.
The construction of improvements at Outpost Road/Joshua Street will be 100 percent funded and
implemented by the project. These improvements have been reviewed by Caltrans and an
encroachment permit application has been submitted to Caltrans. In addition to the LOS analysis, an
evaluation of queuing at the intersections along Joshua Street was prepared to ensure that the 95th
percentile queue would be accommodated within the proposed intersection improvements in the
existing and opening year conditions. The queues would exceed the available storage only 5 percent
of the time. The queuing analysis is summarized in the following section, which discusses the traffic
operations on Joshua Street.
In discussions with Caltrans, Caltrans staff stated that an eastbound left-turn lane may be required for
opening year (2014) and year 2035 without Muscatel Interchange with project conditions at the
intersection of I-15 Northbound Ramps/Joshua Street. Under opening year (2014) with project
conditions, the intersection operates at LOS A in the a.m. peak hour and LOS B in the p.m. peak hour.
Also, the conflicting westbound through volume is 137 in the a.m. peak hour and 139 in the p.m. peak
hour. Therefore, an exclusive left-turn lane is not warranted for opening year (2014) with project
conditions. Under year 2035 without Muscatel Interchange with project conditions, the intersection
operates at LOS B in the a.m. peak hour and LOS C in the p.m. peak hour. The conflicting westbound
through volume is 591 in the a.m. peak hour and 469 in the p.m. peak hour. Based on the Synchro
analysis, the eastbound approach would have minimal queuing and therefore the eastbound left-turn
lane is also not warranted in the 2035 without Muscatel Interchange with project conditions.
Additionally, the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and the DIF program both include
widening of Joshua Street interchange from 2 to 4 lanes as well as improvement to the Joshua Street
interchange. The final design, including potential provision of an eastbound left-turn lane, has not
been completed. The project will be constructing improvements on Joshua Street between US-395
and I-15 Southbound Ramps/Joshua Street as described in this report and is paying into the City’s
DIF program, which includes improvements at the northbound ramps.
Roadway segment improvements, levels of service, and improvement implementation to mitigate
unsatisfactory conditions with the project in the existing, opening year (2014), year 2035 without
68
Table S - Existing Plus Project Circulation Improvements
Intersection
Recommended Circulation Improvements
Comments
Project Fair Share
5 . US-395/Joshua St
Add a northbound through lane, a southbound left-turn lane, and a westbound left-turn lane.
Required due to direct project impact.
East Leg - Project
Improvements to be implemented by project.
Design Feature. West
East Leg of Joshua Street from US-395 to I-15
Leg - Hesperia
SB Off-Ramp will be widened by the project to Commerce Center.
ultimate right-of-way with curb and gutter as
Cost of Improvements
required under year 2035 conditions. The
on US-395 will be
project will also implement traffic signal
shared by the project
coordination between the signals at USand Hesperia
395/Three Flags Rd, US-395/Joshua Street and Commerce Center.
Outpost Road/Joshua Street with the US395/Joshua Street set up as the master signal.
6 . Outpost Rd./Joshua St
Install a traffic signal. Add a northbound left-turn lane, a northbound right-turn lane with
overlap phasing, an eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane, an eastbound rightturn lane, two westbound left-turn lanes, a westbound through lane, and a westbound rightturn lane.
Required due to direct project impact.
Project Design Feature
Joshua Street from US-395 to I-15 SB OffRamp will be widened by the project to
ultimate right-of-way with curb and gutter as
required under year 2035 conditions. The
project will also implement traffic signal
coordination between the signals at US395/Three Flags Rd, US-395/Joshua Street and
Notes:
Joshua Street from US-395 to I-15 SB Off-Ramp will be widened by the project to ultimate right-of-way with curb and gutter as required under year 2035 conditions. The project will also implement traffic signal coordination between the signals at US-395/Three Flags
Rd, US-395/Joshua Street and Outpost Road/Joshua Street with the US-395/Joshua Street set up as the master signal.
As noted in the Development Impact Fee Update Study dated February 2005, the road improvement costs included in the DIF include widening of existing arterial highways from the current lane configuration to the ultimate lane configuration including right-of-way
acquisition, new through-lane and turn-lane construction, and construction of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk along the ultimate right-of-way.
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Mitigations\Exist (9/12/2014)
Table T - Opening Year (2014) Plus Project Circulation Improvements
Intersection
Comments
The improvements identified for this intersection
are project specific mitigations for the proposed
Hesperia Commerce Center.
According to the City, there is a planned Caltrans
Safety Project at this location. However, the
project details and funding of this project are not
known. The project would be responsible to pay a
fair share of the improvement.
Project Fair Share
1 . Caliente Rd/Joshua St
Convert from a Two Way Stop Control to All Way Stop Control. Add a westbound left-turn lane. Restripe the westbound left-through-right turn-lane to a through-right turn lane.
3 . US-395/Poplar St
Install a traffic signal.
Add a northbound through lane, a southbound left-turn lane, a westbound left-turn lane and a
westbound through lane.
Westbound through lane required due to
cumulative project impact. Improvements to be
implemented by project. East Leg of Joshua Street
from US-395 to I-15 SB Off-Ramp will be widened
by the project to ultimate right-of-way with curb
and gutter as required under year 2035 conditions.
The project will also implement traffic signal
coordination between the signals at US-395/Three
Flags Rd, US-395/Joshua Street and Outpost
Road/Joshua Street with the US-395/Joshua Street
set up as the master signal.
East Leg - Project Design
Feature. West Leg Hesperia Commerce Center.
Cost of Improvements on
US-395 will be shared by
the project and Hesperia
Commerce Center.
Install a traffic signal. Add a northbound left-turn lane, a northbound right-turn lane with overlap
phasing, an eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane, an eastbound right-turn lane, two
westbound left-turn lanes, a westbound through lane, and a westbound right-turn lane.
Joshua Street from US-395 to I-15 SB Off-Ramp
will be widened by the project to ultimate right-ofway with curb and gutter as required under year
2035 conditions. The project will also implement
traffic signal coordination between the signals at
US-395/Three Flags Rd, US-395/Joshua Street and
6.73
Notes:
Joshua Street from US-395 to I-15 SB Off-Ramp will be widened by the project to ultimate right-of-way with curb and gutter as required under year 2035 conditions. The project will also implement traffic signal coordination between the signals at US-395/Three Flags Rd, US-395/Joshua Street and Outpost
Road/Joshua Street with the US-395/Joshua Street set up as the master signal.
As noted in the Development Impact Fee Update Study dated February 2005, the road improvement costs included in the DIF include widening of existing arterial highways from the current lane configuration to the ultimate lane configuration including right-of-way acquisition, new through-lane and turn-lane
construction, and construction of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk along the ultimate right-of-way.
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Mitigations\OY (9/12/2014)
Table U - Year 2035 Plus Project (Without Muscatel Interchange) Circulation Improvements
Intersection
Comments
The improvements identified for this intersection are project specific
mitigations for the proposed Hesperia Commerce Center.
According to the City, there is a planned Caltrans Safety Project at this
location. However, the project details and funding of this project are not
known. The project would be responsible to pay a fair share of the
improvement.
Project Fair Share
Install a traffic signal. Add two westbound left-turn lanes. Re-stripe the westbound leftthrough-right turn-lane to a through-right turn lane.
Add a northbound left-turn lane, a northbound through lane, a northbound right-turn
lane, a southbound left-turn lane, a soutbhound through lane, a southbound right-turn
lane with overlap phasing, a eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane,
convert the eastbound right-turn lane to an free-right turn lane, a westbound left-turn
lane and a westbound through lane.
Install a traffic signal. Add two southbound through lanes.
4 . US-395/Three Flags Rd
Add a southbound through lane.
Add a northbound through lane, a southbound left-turn lane , a southbound through
lane, add overlap phasing to the southbound right-turn lane, an eastbound left-turn
lane, an eastbound through lane, an eastbound right-turn lane with overlap phasing, a
westbound left-turn lane, and a westbound through lane , and a westbound right-turn
lane with overlap phasing.
Improvements in bold/italic will be implemented by the project in the opening
year. Remaining improvement are required due to significant cumulative
impact. West Leg (eastbound) improvements will be constructed by Hesperia
Commerce Center project. There is a planned Caltrans Safety Project at this
location. However, the peroject details and funding are not known.
Therefore, the project would be responsible to pay a fair share of the following
improvements: Southbound through lane, Overlap phasing for the
southbound right-turn lane, and Westbound right-turn lane with overlap
phasing.
Install a traffic signal. Add a northbound left-turn lane, a northbound right-turn lane
with overlap phasing, an eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane, an
eastbound right-turn lane, two westbound left-turn lanes, a westbound through lane,
and a westbound right turn lane.
All improvements will be implemented by the project.
7 . I-15 SB Off-Ramp/Joshua St
Install a traffic signal, 2nd EBT, and 2nd SBR. Eastbound through lanes drop from 2 to Construction of Joshua Street (from Caliente Road to Escondido Avenue) as 4lane Arterial Highways included in the City's Development Impact Fee
1 just east of intersection. Widening of bridge not required.
Program.
Payment of DIF
Install a traffic signal. Add an eastbound right-turn lane.
Construction of Joshua Street (from Caliente Road to Escondido Avenue) and
Mariposa Road (from Joshua Street to Ranchero Road) as 4-lane Arterial
Highways included in the City's Development Impact Fee Program.
Payment of DIF
10 . Mesa Linda Rd/Main St
Payment of DIF
18 . Key Pointe Dr/Main St
19 . I-15 SB Ramps/Main St
Add a westbound left-turn lane.
Add a second receiving lane to the southbound on ramp
Construction of Mesa Linda Street (from Main Street to I-15) and Main Street
(from Highway 395 to Mesa Linda) as Arterial Highways included in the
City's Development Impact Fee Program.
Consistent with Major Arterial Highway designation for Main Street.
Required due to significant cumulative impact. Implementation can not be
assured because improvement is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Therefore
impact is significant and unavoidable.
20 . I-15 NB Ramps/Main St
Restripe the left-turn lane to a shared left-through lane, restripe the shared throughright turn lane to a dedicated right-turn lane.
Add a northbound through lane, a southbound through lane, eastbound left-turn lane, a
westbound through lane, and a westbound right-turn lane with overlap phasing, add
overlap phasing to northbound right-turn lanes, and overlap phasing to eastbound rightturn lane.
Add a westbound through lane and an eastbound through lane.
2 . US-395/Phelan Rd-Main St
8 . I-15 NB On-Ramp/Joshua St
9 . Mariposa Rd/Joshua St
22 . Escondido Ave/Main St
23 . Topaz Ave/Main St
improvement.
According to the City, there are Caltrans Safety and Signal projects planned at
this location. However, the project details and funding of these projects are
not known. The project would be responsible to pay a fair share of the
improvement.
0.28%
0.86%
0.91%
East Leg - Project Design
Feature. West Leg Improvements recommended
under opening year are covered
by Hesperia Commerce
Center. Improvements beyond
the opening year will be
shared by Love's and Hesperia
Commerce Center. 5.74%.
Payment of DIF
3.01%
Payment of DIF
Construction of Main Street (from I-15 to Rock Springs Road) as a 6-lane
Major Arterial and construction of Escondido Avenue (Mariposa Road to
Mesquite Street) as a 4-lane Arterial included in the City's Development
Impact Fee Program
Major Arterial included in the City's Development Impact Fee Program
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Notes:
Joshua Street from US-395 to I-15 SB Off-Ramp will be widened by the project to ultimate right-of-way with curb and gutter as required under year 2035 conditions. The project will also implement traffic signal coordination between the signals at US-395/Three Flags Rd, US-395/Joshua Street and Outpost Road/Joshua Street
with the US-395/Joshua Street set up as the master signal.
As noted in the Development Impact Fee Update Study dated February 2005, the road improvement costs included in the DIF include widening of existing arterial highways from the current lane configuration to the ultimate lane configuration including right-of-way acquisition, new through-lane and turn-lane construction, and
construction of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk along the ultimate right-of-way.
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Mitigations\2035 (9/12/2014)
Table V - Year 2035 Plus Project (With Muscatel Interchange) Circulation Improvements
Intersection
Comments
Convert from a Two Way Stop Control to All Way Stop Control. Add a westbound left-turn
lane. Re-stripe the westbound left-through-right turn-lane to a through-right turn lane.
The improvements identified for this intersection are project
specific mitigations for the proposed Hesperia Commerce Center.
2 . US-395/Phelan Rd-Main St
Add a northbound left-turn lane, a northbound through lane, a northbound right-turn lane, a
southbound left-turn lane, a southbound through lane, a southbound right-turn lane, an
eastbound through lane, convert the eastbound right-turn lane to a free right-turn lane, and a
westbound through lane.
Install a traffic signal. Add northbound through lane, a northbound right-turn lane, two
southbound through lanes, a westbound left-turn lane, and a westbound right-turn lane.
According to the City, there is a planned Caltrans Safety Project
at this location. However, the project details and funding of this
project are not known. The project would be responsible to pay a
According to the City, there is a planned Caltrans Safety Project
at this location. However, the project details and funding of this
project are not known. The project would be responsible to pay a
According to the City, there are Caltrans Safety and Signal
projects planned at this location. However, the project details and
funding of these projects are not known. The project would be
responsible to pay a fair share of the improvement.
4 . US-395/Three Flags Rd
Add a southbound through lane.
Add a northbound through lane, a southbound left-turn lane , a southbound through lane,
add overlap phasing to the southbound right-turn lane, an eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound
through lane, an eastbound right-turn lane with overlap phasing, a westbound left-turn lane,
and a westbound through lane , and a westbound right-turn lane with overlap phasing.
Install a traffic signal. Add a northbound left-turn lane, a northbound right-turn lane with
All improvements will be implemented by project.
overlap phasing, an eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane, an eastbound right-turn
lane, two westbound left-turn lanes, a westbound through lane, and a westbound through-right
turn lane.
9 . Mariposa Rd/Joshua St
Install a traffic signal. Add an eastbound right-turn lane.
10 . Mesa Linda Rd/Main St
15 . Three Flags Ave-Lassen Rd/Poplar St
16 . I-15 SB Ramps/Muscatel St
17 . I-15 NB Ramps/Muscatel St
Add a northbound left-turn lane.
22 . Escondido Ave/Main St
20 . I-15 NB Ramps/Main St
Restripe the left-turn lane to a shared left-through lane, restripe the shared through-right turn
lane to a dedicated right-turn lane.
Add a northbound through lane, a southbound through lane, eastbound left-turn lane, a
westbound through lane, and a westbound right-turn lane with overlap phasing, add overlap
phasing to northbound right-turn lanes, and overlap phasing to eastbound right-turn lane.
23 . Topaz Ave/Main St
Add a westbound through lane and an eastbound through lane.
Project Fair Share
0.51%
5.75%
8.90%
Improvements in bold/italic will be implemented by the project in East Leg - Project Design Feature.
the opening year. Remaining improvement are required due to
West Leg - Improvements
significant cumulative impact. West Leg (eastbound)
recommended under opening year
improvements will be constructed by Hesperia Commerce Center
are covered by Hesperia
project. There is a planned Caltrans Safety Project at this location. Commerce Center. Improvements
However, the peroject details and funding are not known.
beyond the opening year will be
Therefore, the project would be responsible to pay a fair share of
shared by Love's and Hesperia
the following improvements: Southbound through lane, Overlap
Commerce Center. 12.98%.
phasing for the southbound right-turn lane, and Westbound rightturn lane with overlap phasing.
Construction of Joshua Street (from Caliente Road to Escondido
Avenue) and Mariposa Road (from Joshua Street to Ranchero
Road) as 4-lane Arterial Highways included in the City's
Development Impact Fee Program.
Construction of Mesa Linda Street (from Main Street to I-15) and
Main Street (from Highway 395 to Mesa Linda) as Arterial
Highways included in the City's Development Impact Fee
Program.
Construction of Poplar street as a 4-lane Secondary Arterial
Highway from US-395 to Mesa Linda Road included in the City's
Development Impact Fee Program.
Payment of DIF
I-15/Muscatel Street Interchange included in the City's
Development Impact Fee Program
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Construction of Main Street (from I-15 to Rock Springs Road) as
a 6-lane Major Arterial and construction of Escondido Avenue
(Mariposa Road to Mesquite Street) as a 4-lane Arterial included
in the City's Development Impact Fee Program
Payment of DIF
Construction of Main Street (from I-15 to Rock Springs Road) as
a 6-lane Major Arterial included in the City's Development
Impact Fee Program
Payment of DIF
Notes:
Joshua Street from US-395 to I-15 SB Off-Ramp will be widened by the project to ultimate right-of-way with curb and gutter as required under year 2035 conditions. The project will also implement traffic signal coordination between the signals at US-395/Three Flags Rd, US-395/Joshua Street and Outpost Road/Joshua
Street with the US-395/Joshua Street set up as the master signal.
As noted in the Development Impact Fee Update Study dated February 2005, the road improvement costs included in the DIF include widening of existing arterial highways from the current lane configuration to the ultimate lane configuration including right-of-way acquisition, new through-lane and turn-lane construction,
and construction of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk along the ultimate right-of-way.
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Mitigations\2035 Alt (9/12/2014)
Table W - Existing (2012) With Improvements/Mitigation Intersection Levels of Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Intersection
Control
US-395/Poplar St
US-395/Joshua St
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Mariposa Rd/Main St
Topaz Ave/Main St
Cataba Rd/Main St
TWSC
Signal
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
With Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
0.43
0.42
0.54
-
0.43
0.42
0.45
0.22
-
9.2
15.8
38.4
6.8
15.2
>100
10.5
5.8
9.8
9.7
A
B
E
A
B
F
B
A
A
A
9.4
A
9.5
A
9.3
A
8.6
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.36
8.6
A
0.59
2.5
A
0.33
4.2
A
0.45
15.6
B
0.61
27.5
C
0.74
23.2
C
0.27
13.2
B
*
0.60
0.40
0.56
-
A
B
D
B
B
F
B
A
B
A
10.1
B
9.9
A
9.5
A
8.8
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.64
14.5
B
0.41
3.3
A
0.73
9.6
A
0.69
21.1
C
0.59
30.9
C
0.73
23.9
C
0.33
14.4
B
Notes:
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\LOS\Exist MIT (9/12/2014)
9.3
19.0
28.1
11.1
17.1
>100
11.9
5.5
10.8
9.9
*
9.2
15.8
38.4
6.8
15.5
20.3
10.5
5.8
9.8
9.7
A
B
E
A
B
C
B
A
A
A
9.4
A
9.5
A
9.3
A
8.6
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.36
8.6
A
0.59
2.5
A
0.33
4.2
A
0.45
15.6
B
0.61
27.5
C
0.74
23.2
C
0.27
13.2
B
0.60
0.40
0.41
0.26
-
9.3
19.0
28.1
11.1
18.7
19.8
11.9
5.5
10.8
9.9
A
B
D
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
10.1
B
9.9
A
9.5
A
8.8
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.64
14.5
B
0.41
3.3
A
0.73
9.6
A
0.69
21.1
C
0.59
30.9
C
0.73
23.9
C
0.33
14.4
B
Table X - Opening Year (2014) With Improvements/Mitigation Intersection Levels of Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Intersection
Control
US-395/Poplar St
US-395/Joshua St
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Mariposa Rd/Main St
Topaz Ave/Main St
Cataba Rd/Main St
AWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
0.50
0.49
0.69
-
0.50
0.73
0.49
0.69
0.35
-
90.0
16.7
57.0
7.7
24.2
>100
16.7
7.8
10.5
9.9
F
B
F
A
C
F
C
A
B
A
10.1
B
11.3
B
12.0
B
8.6
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.45
13.4
B
0.72
3.0
A
0.48
4.8
A
0.54
14.6
B
0.74
31.7
C
0.96
30.3
C
0.30
10.4
B
*
*
*
0.67
0.47
1.00
-
C
C
E
B
D
F
C
B
B
B
14.1
B
19.6
C
20.5
C
8.8
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.97
32.8
C
0.53
3.9
A
0.91
15.7
B
0.79
23.4
C
0.85
26.9
C
0.95
25.3
C
0.37
11.2
B
Notes:
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\LOS\OY MIT (9/12/2014)
20.2
22.7
42.1
10.3
35.9
>100
23.4
11.8
12.4
10.2
*
19.8
16.7
6.5
7.7
23.8
24.3
16.7
7.8
10.5
9.9
B
B
A
A
C
C
C
A
B
A
10.1
B
11.3
B
12.0
B
8.6
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.45
13.4
B
0.72
3.0
A
0.48
4.8
A
0.54
14.6
B
0.74
31.7
C
0.96
30.3
C
0.30
10.4
B
0.67
0.45
0.47
0.71
0.45
-
15.5
22.7
3.4
10.3
37.8
20.9
23.4
11.8
12.4
10.2
B
C
A
B
D
C
C
B
B
B
14.1
B
19.6
C
20.5
C
8.8
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.97
32.8
C
0.53
3.9
A
0.91
15.7
B
0.79
23.4
C
0.85
26.9
C
0.95
25.3
C
0.37
11.2
B
Table Y - Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) With Improvements/Mitigation Intersection Levels of Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Intersection
Control
US-395/Poplar St
US-395/Joshua St
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Mariposa Rd/Main St
Topaz Ave/Main St
Cataba Rd/Main St
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
TWSC
Signal
Signal
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
1.68
1.13
1.26
-
>100
>100
>100
74.10
59.80
>100
0.00
0.00
>100
38.80
F
F
F
F
F
F
A
A
F
E
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.72
0.65
0.59
0.87
0.56
0.59
1.06
0.93
0.49
10.10
11.40
12.10
>100
13.90
26.70
14.20
5.60
7.40
15.60
56.80
31.80
24.60
B
B
B
F
B
C
B
A
A
B
F
C
C
1.46
0.93
1.99
-
F
F
F
B
F
F
A
A
F
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.76
0.94
0.98
0.77
1.35
0.91
1.25
1.10
0.58
Notes:
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\LOS\2035 Alt MIT (9/12/2014)
>100
>100
>100
16.20
>100
>100
0.00
0.00
>100
>100
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
14.10
19.70
20.60
>100
18.30
83.70
36.40
2.80
86.10
29.60
>100
>100
16.80
B
C
C
F
B
F
D
A
F
C
F
F
B
0.98
0.97
0.84
0.75
0.45
0.48
0.32
30.4
50.6
28.5
14.6
26.8
26.8
0.0
0.0
14.8
24.3
D
D
C
B
C
C
A
A
B
C
*
*
*
*
*
0.73
0.72
0.41
0.59
0.87
0.60
0.60
0.76
0.73
0.49
10.1
11.4
12.1
17.2
13.9
27.6
14.1
5.6
18.9
21.0
47.6
19.7
24.6
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
A
B
C
D
B
C
0.98
0.98
0.92
0.92
0.64
0.89
0.58
18.6
49.8
32.7
14.0
44.8
38.0
0.0
0.0
32.1
23.0
C
D
C
B
D
D
A
A
C
C
0.69
0.76
0.62
0.98
0.77
1.18
0.91
0.99
0.84
0.58
14.1
19.7
20.6
17.4
18.3
26.7
36.6
2.8
75.9
26.1
79.2
28.7
16.8
B
C
C
B
B
C
D
A
F
C
E
C
B
*
Table Z - Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) With Improvements/Mitigation Intersection Levels of Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Intersection
Control
US-395/Poplar St
US-395/Joshua St
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Mariposa Rd/Main St
Topaz Ave/Main St
Cataba Rd/Main St
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
TWSC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
With Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
1.71
1.27
1.56
-
0.66
1.00
0.77
0.95
0.97
0.53
0.53
0.48
0.67
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
10.6
>100
>100
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
B
F
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
10.1
B
11.4
B
12.1
B
9.4
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.73
12.4
B
1.12
40.3
F *
0.58
8.0
A
0.60
24.0
C
1.06
58.7
F *
0.92
35.3
D
0.67
15.2
B
>100
F
*
1.43
>100
F
*
>100
F
*
0.96
26.8
C
2.69
>100
F
*
>100
F
*
>100
F
*
16.3
C
>100
F
*
>100
F
*
14.1
B
19.8
C
20.7
C
10.8
B
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
1.03
39.9
F
*
0.74
10.3
B
1.68
>100
F
*
0.96
20.5
C
1.25
>100
F
*
1.10
>100
F
*
0.69
17.5
B
Notes:
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\LOS\2035 MIT (9/12/2014)
22.2
60.0
8.4
17.9
34.2
25.7
24.3
10.6
25.3
7.8
C
E
A
B
C
C
C
B
C
A
10.1
B
11.4
B
12.1
B
9.4
A
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.71
10.8
B
0.86
6.1
A
0.61
17.3
B
0.60
21.0
C
0.79
40.0
D
0.71
21.3
C
0.67
15.2
B
0.65
1.00
0.97
0.96
0.90
0.70
0.61
0.89
0.87
38.5
42.1
25.3
26.1
42.8
32.2
30.8
16.3
29.5
20.1
D
D
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
14.1
B
19.8
C
20.7
C
10.8
B
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
0.90
25.4
C
0.74
10.1
B
1.35
>100
F
0.96
26.6
C
1.00
79.9
E
0.86
21.9
C
0.69
17.5
B
*









f
f

d





d



14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3


Future Intersection





13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2

12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1





f
Future Intersection











d
d




o


d




5 US-395/Joshua St







3 US-395/Poplar St













FIGURE 35
Legend
Signal
Stop Sign
f free right-turn
Existing (2012) Plus Project With Improvements
Intersection Geometrics and Stop Control
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- Geo_ExistMIT 9/18/2014




d
d













3 US-395/Poplar St













o


f


f







d






d










f
Future Intersection

14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3

13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
d
Future Intersection


12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1













5 US-395/Joshua St
FIGURE 36
Legend
Signal
Stop Sign
f free right-turn
Opening Year (2014) Plus Project With Improvements
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- Geo_OYMIT 9/18/2014

13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
o

14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3

d

f

o


o

f

d

















f
Intersection does
not exist


Intersection does
not exist


12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1




d














o





d




5 US-395/Joshua St


o




o

o

3 US-395/Poplar St









f




o
FIGURE 37
Legend
Signal
Stop Sign
o Overlap Phasing
Year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) Plus Project With Improvements
f free right-turn
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- Geo_2035MIT 9/18/2014





f
o

o


d



f





d

o

14 Outpost Rd/Dwy 3












f

13 Outpost Rd/Dwy 2



f



12 Outpost Rd/Dwy 1





d






Intersection
does

not exist





o


Intersection does
not exist




d

5 US-395/Joshua St
Intersection
does

not exist




o



o

o

3 US-395/Poplar St









f





FIGURE 38
Legend
Signal
Stop Sign
o Overlap Phasing
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) Plus Project With Improvements
f free right-turn
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\g30- Geo_2035MITAlt 9/18/2014
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
Muscatel Interchange, and year 2035 with Muscatel Interchange scenarios are shown in Tables AA,
AB, AC, and AD, respectively.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ON JOSHUA STREET
Proposed Project Improvements on Joshua Street
The TIA presents the proposed geometric plans, and recommended traffic mitigations for the
proposed intersection improvements. The access to and from Joshua Street and the project site, and
the surrounding properties, is constrained to the existing Outpost Road street alignment, which is
located opposite the existing driveway for the Pilot Travel Center. Other options to provide access to
Joshua Street were examined during the review meetings between LSA, Hall & Foreman, and
Caltrans. This included an option of aligning Outpost Road to the existing I-15 Southbound off-ramp
intersection and constructing a roundabout at this intersection. This would allow for greater spacing
between Outpost Road and US-395 intersections. This alternative is discussed in detail in the next
section of this report.
A detailed Traffic Operations Analysis (TOA) has been prepared by Hall & Foreman for Joshua
Street that will be used for a separate encroachment permit approval process through the City and
Caltrans. The TOA, prepared using Synchro software, included a signal timing plan and time-space
diagrams to demonstrate the operating conditions of the two traffic signals on Joshua Street at US-395
and Outpost Road. The TOA will be used to achieve construction and encroachment permit approval
of the design of the intersection improvements on Joshua Street at US-395 and Outpost Road.
The signal at the intersection of Outpost Road/Joshua Street was synchronized with the signal at the
intersection of US-395/Joshua Street to minimize queuing between US-395 and Outpost Road. An
offset of 3 seconds between the signal at Outpost Road and the signal at US-395 was used to allow for
cars crossing the intersection at a yellow to clear the intersections and to account for the close spacing
of the two intersections. A peak hour queue length analysis was conducted for existing, opening year,
and 2035 conditions with proposed improvements to demonstrate the adequacy of the traffic signal
design to provide satisfactory operations on Joshua Street. Tables AE and AF summarize the queuing
analysis under without and with improvement conditions, respectively. Figures 39, 40, 41, and 42
illustrate the existing, opening year (2014), year 2035 without Muscatel Interchange, and year 2035
with Muscatel Interchange striping plans. As shown in the Table AE, the queuing will be fully
accommodated by the proposed design in the existing and opening year conditions. These conditions
represent the direct impact of the project, which, as shown in the table, will be fully mitigated by the
proposed intersection designs. In 2035, both with and without the Muscatel Interchange, the queue
length will exceed the available storage for some of the movements as shown in Table AE. In these
scenarios, however, the LOS would operate within the City’s prescribed LOS threshold with the
implementation of improvements, as shown in previously referenced Tables Y and Z. It should be
noted, however, that the queues in the 2035 condition are due to traffic generated by other
developments (cumulative impact) and would be considered a cumulative, significant, and
unavoidable impact.
In discussions with Caltrans, it was noted the storage length of the southbound left-turn lane at US395/Joshua Street would not be sufficient to accommodate the southbound left-turn queue for the year
2035 with Muscatel Interchange scenario. As noted earlier, the project mitigates the direct project
81
Table AA - Existing With Improvements Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary
Roadway Segment
Existing + Project
Daily
Volume V/C LOS
Capacity
(LOS)
2 Lane Divided
18,360
15,655
0.853
D
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Divided
15,300
22,950
32,200
18,360
14,315
14,265
14,975
15,845
0.936
0.622
0.465
0.863
D
C
C
D
2 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Divided
4 Lane Divided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
30,600
30,600
14,500
14,500
2,490
6,930
6,555
4,665
3,125
0.172
0.226
0.214
0.322
0.216
C
C
C
C
C
2 Lane Undivided
21,750
14,500
605
1,025
0.028
0.071
C
C
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
8 Lane Divided
24,480
24,480
36,880
46,100
46,100
46,100
60,100
53,783
9,365
10,460
14,625
14,520
20,255
27,585
35,275
33,805
0.383
0.427
0.397
0.315
0.439
0.598
0.587
0.629
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
6 Lane Divided
46,100
30,600
0.664
C
Improvements
Comments
Fair Share
2-Lane Undivided to 2-Lane Divided
improvement.
0%
Major Arterial included in the City's DIF Program.
Segments on US-395
North of Main Street
.
.
.
.
.
Main Street to Poplar Street
Poplar Street to Three Flags Road
Three Flags Road to Joshua Street
South of Joshua Street
. West of US-395
4 Lane Divided
30,600
27,965
0.914
D
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
5,975
1,695
1,335
145
0.412
0.117
0.092
0.010
C
B
C
C
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Roadway LOS\Existing P Pr MIT (9/18/2014)
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Table AB - Opening Year (2014) With Improvements Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary
Opening Year + Project
Daily
Volume V/C LOS
Comments
Capacity
(LOS)
4 Lane Divided
32,200
18,000
0.559
C
2 Lane Divided
18,360
16,990
0.925
D
4 Lane Divided
22,950
32,200
18,360
16,820
17,554
18,102
0.733
0.545
0.986
D
C
C
2 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Divided
4 Lane Divided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
30,600
30,600
14,500
14,500
8,655
12,792
12,793
8,357
4,460
0.597
0.418
0.418
0.576
0.308
C
C
C
C
C
2 Lane Undivided
21,750
14,500
610
1,055
0.028
0.073
C
C
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
8 Lane Divided
24,480
24,480
36,880
46,100
46,100
46,100
60,100
53,783
10,665
11,685
16,070
16,155
25,900
34,455
43,325
42,285
0.436
0.477
0.436
0.350
0.562
0.747
0.721
0.786
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
6 Lane Divided
46,100
38,865
0.843
D
Roadway Segment
Fair Share
Improvement Funding
Segments on US-395
. West of US-395
4Lane Undivided to 6-Lane Divided
4Lane Undivided to 6-Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
46,100
35,270
0.765
C
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
10,070
5,785
5,018
3,415
0.694
0.399
0.346
0.236
C
C
C
C
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Roadway LOS\OY MIT (9/18/2014)
improvement.
improvement.
0%
3.95%
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Table AC - Year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) With Improvements Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary
Year 2035 + Project
Daily
V/C LOS
Capacity
(LOS)
Volume
6 Lane Divided
48,400
45,715
0.945
D
6 Lane Divided
48,400
47,125
0.974
E
6 Lane Divided
48,400
46,945
0.970
E
6 Lane Divided
48,400
47,850
0.989
E
6 Lane Divided
48,400
40,370
0.834
D
Roadway Segment
Comments
Fair Share
improvement.
improvement.
improvement.
Project along with Hesperia Commerce Center project will widen the
intersection and turn lanes at US-395/Joshua Street. According to the City,
there is a planned Caltrans Safety Project at this location. However, the project
details and funding of this project are not known.
Project along with Hesperia Commerce Center project will widen the
intersection and turn lanes at US-395/Joshua Street. According to the City,
there is a planned Caltrans Safety Project at this location. However, the project
details and funding of this project are not known.
0.00%
Improvement
Segments on US-395
0.38%
0.73%
0.74%
5.35%
4 Lane Divided
4 Lane Divided
4 Lane Divided
30,600
30,600
30,600
18,495
21,180
21,185
0.604
0.692
0.692
C
C
C
4 Lane Divided
2 Lane Undivided
30,600
14,500
16,490
12,620
0.539
0.870
C
D
2 Lane Undivided
21,750
14,500
4,060
4,925
0.187
0.340
C
C
4 Lane Divided
30,600
26,095
0.853
D
4 Lane Divided
6 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
8 Lane Divided
30,600
36,880
46,100
46,100
46,100
60,100
53,783
24,965
31,925
31,920
40,420
42,115
49,245
46,710
0.816
0.866
0.692
0.877
0.914
0.819
0.868
D
D
C
D
D
C
D
6 Lane Divided
46,100
42,855
0.930
D
6 Lane Divided
46,100
37,975
0.824
C
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
10,210
5,830
5,060
3,460
0.704
0.402
0.349
0.239
C
C
C
C
. West of US-395
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
US-395 to Mesa Linda Street
Mesa Linda Street to Cataba Road
Cataba Road to Key Pointe Drive
Key Pointe Drive to I-15 Southbound Ramps
I-15 Southbound Ramps to I-15 Northbound Ramps
I-15 Northbound Ramps to Mariposa Road
Mariposa Road to Escondido Avenue
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Roadway LOS\2035 MIT (9/18/2014)
Construction of Joshua Street (from Caliente Road to Mariposa Road) as a 4lane Arterial included in the City's DIF Program.
Construction of Joshua Street (from Caliente Road to Mariposa Road) as a 4lane Arterial included in the City's DIF Program.
Construction of Main Street as a 4-lane divided Major Arterial included in the
City's DIF Program.
Construction of Main Street as a 4-lane divided Major Arterial included in the
City's DIF Program.
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Table AD - Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) With Improvements Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary
Year 2035 + Project
Daily
V/C LOS
Capacity
(LOS)
Volume
6 Lane Divided
48,400
44,715
0.924
D
6 Lane Divided
48,400
51,805
1.070
F
6 Lane Divided
48,400
47,025
0.972
E
6 Lane Divided
48,400
44,715
0.924
D
Roadway Segment
Comments
Fair Share
fair share of the improvements.
0%
0.59%
8.11%
Improvement
Segments on US-395
Project along with Hesperia Commerce Cetner
project will widen the intersection and turn lanes at
US-395/Joshua Street. According to the City, there
is a planned Caltrans Safety Project at this location.
However, the project details and funding of this
project are not known.
8.92%
6 Lane Divided
48,400
33,820
0.699
C
2-Lane Divided to 6-Lane Divided
Project along with Hesperia Commerce Cetner
project will widen the intersection and turn lanes at
US-395/Joshua Street. According to the City, there
is a planned Caltrans Safety Project at this location.
However, the project details and funding of this
project are not known.
7.17%
. Outpost Road to Mariposa Road
2 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Divided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
30,600
14,500
13,755
23,940
12,445
0.949
0.782
0.858
D
C
D
Construction of Poplar Street as a 4-lane divided
Major Arterial is part of the proposed Muscatel
Interchange project and is included in the City's
DIF Program.
Payment of DIF
Construction of Main Street as a 4-lane divided
Payment of DIF
. Three Flags Avenue-Lassen Road to I-15 Southbound Ramps
. East of I-15 Northbound Ramps
4 Lane Divided
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
4 Lane Undivided
30,600
24,480
24,480
24,480
24,310
24,175
15,240
5,140
0.794
0.988
0.623
0.210
C
D
C
C
4 Lane Divided
4 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Undivided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
6 Lane Divided
8 Lane Divided
30,600
24,480
36,880
46,100
46,100
46,100
60,100
53,783
27,450
20,655
24,185
25,425
34,000
39,875
47,570
46,230
0.897
0.844
0.656
0.552
0.738
0.865
0.792
0.860
D
D
C
C
C
D
C
D
6 Lane Divided
46,100
42,670
0.926
D
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
West of US-395
US-395 to Mesa Linda Street
Mesa Linda Street to Cataba Road
Cataba Road to Key Pointe Drive
Key Pointe Drive to I-15 Southbound Ramps
I-15 Southbound Ramps to I-15 Northbound Ramps
I-15 Northbound Ramps to Mariposa Road
Mariposa Road to Escondido Avenue
6 Lane Divided
46,100
38,240
0.830
D
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
2 Lane Undivided
14,500
14,500
14,500
14,500
10,410
5,830
5,060
3,460
0.718
0.402
0.349
0.239
C
C
C
C
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Roadway LOS\2035 Alt MIT (9/18/2014)
Construction of Main Street (from I-15 to Rock
Springs Road) as a 6-lane Major Arterial included
in the City's DIF Program.
Construction of Main Street (from I-15 to Rock
Springs Road) as a 6-lane Major Arterial included
in the City's DIF Program.
Payment of DIF
Payment of DIF
Table AE - Queuing Analysis Without Improvements
Movement
Storage
Length
(ft/ln)
US-395/Joshua Street
NBL
NBT
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBTR
WBL
WBT
WBR
225
375
200
200
100
65
65
65
Outpost Road/Joshua Street
NBL
NBLT
NBR
SBLT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBL
WBT
WBT
WBR
Intersection
Exist
Exist Plus
Project
OY
Without
Project
OY Plus
Project
2035
Without
Project
2035 Plus
Project
95th %
Queue
95th %
Queue
95th %
Queue
95th %
Queue
95th %
Queue
95th %
Queue
AM PM AM PM AM PM
15
94
94
16
78
74
74
1
16
57
85
32
31
54
197
197
20
65
140
140
22
59
86
75
38
40
15
121
121
34
104
132
132
3
12
57
138
37
27
57
241
241
38
95
149
149
23
51
90
123
49
38
103
111
111
24
107
164
164
23
48
153
106
260
31
88
262
262
32
75
169
169
36
123
400
207
129
42
2035
Without
Project
(Muscatel)
95th %
Queue
AM
PM
AM PM AM PM AM
112
136
136
42
129
260
260
49
36
133
202
204
27
88
292
292
48
143
164
164
35
107
374
274
129
40
220
393
393
24
367
954
954
758
181
177
89
519
80
Notes:
OY= Opening Year
Bold = Queue exceeds available storage.
All queues reported are 95th percentile queues.
N/A= Not available
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Intersection Queue\Queue Analysis No MIT (12/17/2013)
N/A
239
990
990
95
482
619
619
44
277
493
306
170
160
220
387
387
33
404
945
945
762
181
191
226
541
90
239
975
975
199
521
610
610
43
288
527
426
186
186
2035 Plus
Project
(Muscatel)
95th %
Queue
PM
AM
PM
151 359
142 1214
142 1214
37 120
212 1164
596 749
596 749
46
42
179 549
214 379
419 577
212 142
59 214
151
137
137
50
351
452
452
43
188
236
605
228
68
359
1196
1196
270
1379
735
735
36
567
415
614
165
622
Table AF - Queuing Analysis With Improvements
Exist Plus
Project
OY Plus
Project
95th %
Queue
95th %
Queue
Movement
Storage
Length
(ft/ln)
US-395/Joshua Street
NBL
NBT
NBT
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBL
SBT
SBT
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBL
EBT
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBL
WBT
WBT
WBR
WBR
400
375
450
450
215
110
87
87
92
92
92
92
15
65
65
65
29
54
54
87
87
87
2
17
17
81
81
67
67
55
55
23
23
57
158
158
158
41
48
48
58
58
58
4
59
59
109
109
50
50
50
50
11
11
112
78
78
78
37
63
63
154
154
154
11
45
45
230
230
70
70
59
59
16
16
108
197
197
197
55
65
65
87
87
87
9
108
108
465
465
73
73
55
55
59
59
Outpost Road/Joshua Street
NBL
NBLT
NBR
SBLT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBL
WBT
WBT
WBR
170
82
92
92
92
180
180
180
180
180
60
61
20
36
42
26
17
17
0
73
73
35
35
14
58
57
29
66
44
77
40
40
0
65
65
47
47
16
88
88
26
37
43
33
57
57
0
93
93
127
127
29
122
125
45
68
44
45
86
86
2
115
115
94
94
39
Intersection
AM PM AM PM
2035 Plus
Project
Storage
Length
(ft/ln)
95th %
Queue
2035 Plus
Project
(Muscatel)
95th %
Queue
AM PM
AM
PM
400
375
450
450
400
150
150
150
87
87
92
92
92
92
245
253
253
253
37
108
108
603
603
603
653
54
54
98
98
13
89
89
347
347
35
35
211
621
621
621
54
242
242
355
355
355
15
121
121
333
333
42
94
94
73
73
85
85
105
69
69
69
43
244
244
473
473
473
138
56
56
75
75
49
100
100
55
55
13
13
237
606
606
606
164
480
480
328
328
328
47
223
223
187
187
49
217
217
76
76
248
248
170
82
92
92
92
180
180
525
525
180
109
109
30
44
52
17
45
45
0
87
87
313
313
5
154
157
146
81
51
30
132
132
7
140
140
355
355
35
133
133
15
5
48
20
22
22
1
20
20
252
252
10
389
391
27
6
70
84
159
159
40
33
33
301
301
-
Notes:
OY= Opening Year
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\November 2013\Intersection Queue\Queue Analysis MIT (12/20/2013)
127
FIGURE 39
SOURCE: SOURCE: Traffic Operations Report, Hall and Foreman, December 2013
I:\RUT1201\Reports\Traffic\fig39_ExistingPlusProj_striping_395-Joshua.ai (12/18/13)
Existing Plus Project Striping Plan at US-395 & Joshua Street
FIGURE 40
SOURCE: SOURCE: Traffic Operations Report, Hall and Foreman, December 2013
I:\RUT1201\Reports\Traffic\fig40_OpenYrPlusProj_striping_395-Joshua.ai (12/18/13)
Opening Year with Project Striping Plan at US-395 & Joshua Street
50
scale
0
50
1"= 50'
100
feet
FIGURE 41
SOURCE: Traffic Operations Report, Hall and Foreman, December 2013
I:\RUT1201\Reports\Traffic\fig41_Yr2035_PlusProjNoMuscatel_striping_395-Joshua.ai (12/18/13)
Year 2035 (without Muscatel Interchange) with Project at US-395 & Joshua Street
50
0
scale
50
1"= 50'
100
feet
FIGURE 42
I:\RUT1201\Reports\Traffic\fig42_Yr2035_PlusProjwithMuscatel_395-Joshua.ai (12/18/13)
Year 2035 (with Muscatel Interchange) with Project at US-395 & Joshua Street
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
impacts that are identified under existing and opening year (cumulative) conditions. The insufficiency
of the southbound left-turn lane in the 2035 scenario is not due to project traffic; rather it is due to the
traffic generated by other land uses in the City’s General Plan. Year 2035 traffic conditions are
evaluated using build-out traffic volumes from the traffic model, which are based on the land uses
from the General Plan and, as a result, are somewhat speculative in nature. The TIS evaluates
intersection LOS for all study intersections and suggests mitigation measures for those locations
where improvements are required. Specific improvements to mitigate queues are therefore speculative
and not feasible at this time. Additionally, the proposed High Desert corridor is expected to divert
significant through traffic away from this section of US-395, thereby reducing queues and improving
traffic operations. Since, at the time this TIS was prepared, the San Bernardino Traffic Analysis
Model (SBTAM) was not yet released (which includes the High Desert Corridor), year 2035 traffic
volumes developed from the traffic model do not reflect this diversion and are generally higher than
expected compared to conditions where the proposed Corridor is built. For example, the forecast year
2030 p.m. peak hour model PCE volumes (approach and departure) on US-395, south of Joshua
Street is 14,617 in the SCAG CTP model, while the same for SBTAM year 2035 model is 12,684.
That is approximately 13 percent lower than the CTP model, even though the SBTAM future model
year is 5 years further out than the CTP model (2035 compared to 2030). It is likely that the actual
difference will be even higher and that the queuing impacts identified in previously referenced Tables
AE and AF will not occur.
Proposed Caltrans Improvements on Joshua Street
In 2013, Caltrans issued Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02, Intersection Control Evaluation
(ICE TOPD). This directive emphasizes the need to consider yield-controlled roundabouts whenever
signal or multi-way stop control are contemplated at State highway intersections. Based on this
directive, additional circulation improvements on Joshua Street were evaluated to determine the
feasibility of a yield controlled four-legged roundabout at the intersection of I-15 Southbound OffRamp/Joshua Street. Additional improvements on Joshua Street include the realignment of Outpost
Road with the south leg of the roundabout at I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp/Joshua Street, and adding a
raised median on Joshua Street to restrict the Pilot Travel Center Driveway to right-in/right-out access
only. Figure 43 illustrates the additional improvements on Joshua Street.
Table AG shows the levels of service with implementation of the proposed Caltrans improvements on
Joshua Street in the existing with project, opening year (2014) with project, and year 2035 without
Muscatel Interchange with project scenarios. With the implementation of the Caltrans improvements,
the intersections on Joshua Street are projected to operate satisfactorily with the exception of the
roundabout at I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp/Joshua Street under year 2035 without Muscatel
Interchange with project scenario during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
A peak hour queue length analysis was conducted for existing, opening year (2014), and year 2035
without Muscatel Interchange conditions with the proposed Caltrans improvements on Joshua Road.
Table AH summarizes the queuing analysis with Caltrans improvements and shows the queue length
will exceed the available storage for some of the movements under opening year (2014) and year 2035
without Muscatel Interchange with project conditions.
With the implementation of a roundabout at the intersection of I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp/Joshua
Street, the levels of service are not met during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the year 2035 without
92
FIGURE 43
S
Project Boundary
N
!
!
0
62
124
(Hall & Foreman Option 4)
Feet
SOURCE: Figure 4, Hall and Foreman ICE Report, May 2014
I:\RUT1201\Reports\Traffic\fig43_OptionC.mxd (11/4/2014)
Roundabout Option C
Table AG - Caltrans Recommended Improvements/Mitigation Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection
Control
Existing With Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
Opening Year With Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
Year 2035 With Project With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
5 . US-395/Joshua St1
Signal
0.44
15.0
B
0.41
17.5
B
0.69
24.7
C
0.72
29.0
C
0.98
44.2
D
0.91
42.9
D
6 . Outpost Rd./Joshua St 1
TWSC
-
9.90
A
-
10.10
B
-
11.9
B
-
11.9
B
-
16.0
C
-
16.1
C
Roundabout
0.22
6.3
A
0.34
7.2
A
0.57
7.5
A
0.79
13.6
B
1.14
30.6
F
1.35
67.6
F
7 . I-15 SB Off-Ramp/Joshua St 2
Notes:
1
LOS from Synchro Software
2
LOS from Sidra Software
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\October 2014\LOS\Exist MIT Round (11/4/2014)
*
*
Table AH - Queuing Analysis With Recommended Caltrans Improvements
Exist Plus
Project
OY Plus
Project
95th %
Queue
95th %
Queue
2035 Plus
Project
95th %
Queue
Movement
Storage
Length
(ft/ln)
US-395/Joshua Street1
NBL
NBT
NBT
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBL
SBT
SBT
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBL
EBT
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBL
WBT
WBT
WBR
WBR
400
375
450
450
215
110
200
200
340
340
92
92
15
66
66
66
29
53
53
144
144
144
6
17
17
81
81
75
75
50
50
23
23
57
162
162
162
42
48
48
48
48
48
3
59
59
109
109
59
59
62
62
27
27
103
82
82
82
39
62
62
230
230
230
15
45
45
230
230
80
80
125
125
19
19
107
228
228
228
61
80
80
85
85
85
7
97
97
414
414
77
77
81
81
29
29
400
375
450
450
400
150
150
150
200
200
340
340
92
92
245
258
258
258
38
152
152
644
644
644
756
69
69
128
128
17
99
99
364
364
21
21
211
621
621
621
54
242
242
355
355
355
29
131
131
338
338
30
146
146
155
155
120
120
Outpost Road/Joshua Street1
SBR
50
15
20
22
28
50
35
44
SB I-15 Off-Ramp/Joshua
Street2
NBL
450
22
36
31
129
450
48
987
NBR
SBLT
SBR
EBLT
WBLT
450
180
200
350
800
14
62
19
23
30
48
82
40
43
38
23
110
126
53
46
206
352
133
225
66
450
180
200
350
800
33
346
878
138
606
620
404
719
501
360
Intersection
AM PM AM PM
Storage
Length
(ft/ln)
AM PM
Notes:
OY= Opening Year
1
Queue length from Synchro Software
2
Queue length from Sidra Software
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\October 2014\Intersection Queue\Queue Analysis MIT Round (11/4/2014)
127
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
Muscatel Interchange scenario. In addition, the queue length will exceed the available storage for some
of the movements under opening year (2014) and year 2035 without Muscatel Interchange with project
conditions. The roundabout at the intersection of I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp/Joshua Street would also
require extensive right-of-way acquisition, restriction of left-turn movements at the Pilot Travel Center
driveway, and reduce the proposed project site significantly. Therefore, a roundabout at I-15
Southbound Off-Ramp/Joshua Street is deemed infeasible.
ON-SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
Site access is provided by three project driveways on Outpost Road. Outpost Road/Driveway 1 is a
left-in/right-out access driveway for passenger vehicles only. Outpost Road/Driveway 2 and Outpost
Road/Driveway 3 are for truck access only. Outpost Road/Driveway 2 is restricted to right-out truck
traffic only and Outpost Road/Driveway 3 is restricted to left-in/right-out access for trucks only. To
facilitate appropriate use of each of the project driveways, the project will install the directional
signage on Outpost Road.
Project driveway geometrics and traffic controls are illustrated in Figure 44. A signing plan for
Outpost Road/Joshua Street and US-395/Joshua Street to reduce lane changes is illustrated in Figure
45. Traffic volumes at the project driveways for all with project scenarios are illustrated in Figure 46.
A level of service analysis was conducted at the project driveways for all with project scenarios and is
shown in Table AI.
CONCLUSIONS
The project proposes a travel center encompassing 12,271 square feet of building area on
approximately 10.6 gross acres at the southeast corner of Outpost Road and Joshua Street. The major
development components of the travel center are (i) a convenience store of 6,756 square feet that sells
snack food items, beverages, toiletries, and other travel products; (ii) vehicle service center and fuel
islands for passenger vehicles and semi-trucks with a total area of 1,200 square feet; and (iii) two fastfood restaurants (McDonald’s and Subway) with a total of 4,315 square feet of building area. It is
anticipated that the proposed travel center will be constructed in a single phase.
As shown in previously referenced Table F, the project would generate 6,834 net new daily trips with
376 net new trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 567 net new trips occurring during the p.m.
peak hour.
Under existing plus project conditions, one intersection operates at an unsatisfactory LOS. The
project has a direct impact at Outpost Road/Joshua Street. Implementation of project design features
at this intersection as described in previously referenced Table S will mitigate the direct project
impact. Additionally, the project will also implement improvements at US-395/Joshua Street although
this intersection operates satisfactorily under existing with project conditions without improvements.
Three roadway segments operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under both existing and existing plus
project conditions. The project would not cause any of these segments to worsen from satisfactory to
unsatisfactory LOS.
96

1
Outpost Road/Driveway 1

2







3
2







1



3


2







1



3

Opening Year (2014) With Project

2







1



3

Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) With Project

Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) With Project
FIGURE 44
Legend
Signal
Stop Sign
Project Driveway Geometrics and Stop Control
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\October 2014\z12 -geo_Site Access (11/4/2014)
HIGHWAY 395
SEE CALTRANS SET
JOSHUA STREET
JO
SH
UA
P
AM
FR
5 F
I-1B O
S
ST
RE
OUTPOS
SEE CITY T ROAD
PLAN SET
ET
JO
S
SEHUA
E A ST
BO RE
VE ET
OUTPOST ROAD
FIGURE 45
1988
I:\RUT1201\Reports\Traffic\fig44_SigningPlan_OutpostRd-Joshua.ai (12/18/13)
Signing Plan at Outpost Road & Joshua Street
1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1


26 / 56
2
 22 / 49

4/7
 22 / 49

74 / 93

7 / 11
 193 / 215

49 / 105

81 / 104
216 / 232
81 / 104

Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
3
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
 
9 / 31 
105 / 337
2
 22 / 49

74 / 256

74 / 93
 22 / 49

121 / 232
 
9 / 31 
14 / 28
 193 / 215

210 / 352
14 / 28

137 / 417

216 / 232
224 / 380
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
3
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
 
9 / 31 
107 / 339
2
 22 / 49

76 / 259

74 / 93
 22 / 49

124 / 233
 
9 / 31 
14 / 28
14 / 28
 193 / 215

212 / 354

139 / 419

216 / 232
226 / 382
Opening Year (2014) With Project
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
3
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
1
Outpost Rd/Dwy 1
 
9 / 31 
2
 22 / 49

76 / 259

74 / 93
 22 / 49

124 / 233
14 / 28
 
9 / 31 
107 / 339
 193 / 215

212 / 354
14 / 28

139 / 419

216 / 232
226 / 382
Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) With Project
Outpost Rd/Dwy 2
3
Outpost Rd/Dwy 3
Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) With Project
FIGURE 46
XX / YY
Traffic Study
Project Driveway Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\October 2014\z12 - Vol_Site Access 11/4/2014
Table AI - Project Driveway Intersection Levels of Service
Analysis Scenario
Existing Plus Project
Opening Year (2014) Plus Project
Year 2035 (Without Muscatel Interchange) Plus Project
Year 2035 (With Muscatel Interchange) Plus Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
-
9.4
10.1
10.1
10.1
A
B
B
B
-
Notes:
R:\RUT1201_Hesperia Truck Stop EIR\Traffic\October 2014\LOS\Site Access LOS (11/3/2014)
10.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
B
B
B
B
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
-
9.5
11.3
11.4
11.4
A
B
B
B
-
9.9
19.6
19.8
19.7
A
C
C
C
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C Delay LOS
V/C Delay LOS
-
9.3
12.0
12.1
12.1
A
B
B
B
-
9.5
20.5
20.7
20.6
A
C
C
C
OCTOBER 2014
CITY OF HESPERIA
Under opening year (2014) plus project conditions, three intersections operate at an unsatisfactory
LOS. The project would not cause any of these intersections to worsen from satisfactory to
unsatisfactory LOS. Therefore, the three intersections would be considered cumulative impacts.
Implementation of project design feature and payment of DIF. Implementation of proposed
improvements as described in previously referenced Table T would mitigate all cumulative impacts.
Four roadway segments operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under both opening year without and with
project conditions. The project would not cause any of these segments to worsen from satisfactory to
unsatisfactory LOS.
Under the 2035 without Muscatel Interchange conditions (no project and plus project conditions), 14
intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS. The project would not cause any of these
intersections to worsen from satisfactory to unsatisfactory LOS. Therefore, the 14 intersections would
be considered cumulative impacts. Thirteen roadway segments operate at an unsatisfactory LOS
under both year 2035 without Muscatel Interchange without and with project conditions. The project
would not cause any of these segments to worsen from satisfactory to unsatisfactory LOS.
Under the 2035 with Muscatel Interchange conditions (no project and plus project conditions), 13
intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS. The project would not cause any of these
intersections to worsen from satisfactory to unsatisfactory LOS. Therefore, the 13 intersections would
be considered cumulative impacts. Ten roadway segments operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under
both year 2035 with Muscatel Interchange without and with project conditions. The project would not
cause any of these segments to worsen from satisfactory to unsatisfactory LOS.
Project improvements have been identified that would improve the operation of each intersection or
roadway segment operating at unsatisfactory LOS. In some cases, the intersection or roadway
segment cannot be mitigated to acceptable LOS due to physical constraints or without exceeding the
number of lanes identified in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element or not in the Cities DIF
program.
101

traffic impact study

Transcription

Similar documents

Event Poster

Devour - Roto Grip

// liVE it loUD liVE it loUD \\

ACTA2015_77-85

Fulking - Travel Log Lewes

8th Grade and Older Adventure Flyer

map - SET

4th of July Community Festival and Fireworks Show

FOR SALE 5 Acres - Southern Warren County