Laserfiche WebLink
<br />THAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Santa Clara School Site Hedevelopment <br /> <br />PAGE 20 OF 36 <br /> <br />r-_.mmm--m h........m_......__.m. 'h.m'__'" --h....~h..... ....__m ........ <br />! TABLE 38: p~ Peak Hour Trip Generation - _.' i <br />: (P d O' .. t~) , <br />i ,,' ropose eslgna Ions., ..' ". :", ......:->..';~,<.~...,.-:': <br /> <br />Zone Land Use Rate Per Number Trips Entering Trips Leaving Total <br />Unit of Units # % # % Trips <br /> .. <br />R-2 Apartment 0.62 37 15 65% 8 35% 23 <br />(lTE Land use 220) <br /> ... <br />C-2 Shopping Center 3.75 90 162 48<l1, 176 52'Yo 3:H <br />I' (ITE Land use 820) <br />LT~S - -- 177 - 184 -- 361 <br />-.. ... .. u.__n. _ u_n. -- -. -.--. - -_':-_.,,".~~ <br /> <br />Trip Distribution <br />The site generated traffic was distributed to the adjacent road system based on land uses, existing <br />operational characteristics in the project vicinity, and observed origin/destination tendencies at nearby <br />representative developments. These observations where compared to available Lcog models, and with <br />OOaT conCUlTence were considered more reliable than modeled projections. <br /> <br />.-- <br /> <br />Table 3 summmizes the resulting tlip distribution. <br /> <br /> ___hn,__u_. .~,;. ~I'.y:,,:~;:.};;m.-:-~-,.< "-'.~' .~~..~:;....,.~~=~~~~/".>..,: 'j. , ~"l <br /> ; TABLE :4t;.Jrlp D~strJ,6~tl.tl~1'~ <:::>-;: '.., <br /> ~ \ " .:"G-' " ..... \ .....;l.y _. '.' , :. _... .Sol.-' <br /> , <br /> Trip Origin I Destination Percentage of Site Generated Traffic I <br /> ... : <br /> - I <br /> -North 25".'(', i <br />~. _. n__ <br />i East 20"/0 <br />" - nn___ <br />': <br />'I South 45~."~ <br />j. <br />I .. h.. <br /> West 10<;-0 ., <br /> Ii <br /> Total 100% ......~=_.Jj <br /> -. --------------:_-.-----...-."""'.-~ ._________u._nu... -_....:-.-----.;..---:_._-_....._~ <br /> _.._.__.___n_.__..__.h. <br /> <br />Traffic Assignment <br />Based on the above trip distribution assumptions, site generated traffic was assigned to specific <br />intersection tuming movements at each of the relevant imersections..P.rojected traffic volumes in the <br />year 2022 scenm10s were rounded to the nearest 5. <br /> <br />Figures 8, 9 and 10 ilJustratethe assignment site generated traffic and years 2008 and 2022 'build' <br />traft1c volumes under the existing desiimation scenario. Figures 11, L? and 13 shO\v the assiznment of <br />_. ~. ~.. ~ <br /> <br />site generated traffk and years 2007 and 2022 'build' traffic volumes f(.)j' the proposed designation, <br />respecti\1ely. <br /> <br />;@________._____.:LJ~.2tl~,~:rin.~ ' <br /> <br />AUgllst28,2007 <br />