Coral Mtn Traffic Rpt UXR 2020-03-09
The Wave – Coral Mountain
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PREPARED BY:
John Kain, AICP
jkain@urbanxroads.com
(949) 336‐5990
Marlie Whiteman, P.E.
mwhiteman@urbanxroads.com
(949) 336‐5991
Janette Cachola
jcachola@urbanxroads.com
(949) 336‐5989
MARCH 9, 2020 (REVISED)
NOVEMBER 15, 2019
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... III
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................ VII
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... IX
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. XI
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Description of Proposed Project ................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Study Area and Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Criteria for Determining Significant Impacts ................................................................................ 5
1.5 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 6
2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................ 23
2.1 Location ....................................................................................................................................... 23
2.2 Land Use and Phasing ................................................................................................................. 23
2.3 Site Plan and Project Access ....................................................................................................... 23
3 AREA CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Area Roadway System ................................................................................................................. 25
3.3 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................. 25
3.4 Pedestrian and Alternative Facilities .......................................................................................... 25
3.5 Traffic Volumes and Conditions .................................................................................................. 29
3.6 Level of Service Definitions and Analysis Methodologies ........................................................... 29
3.7 Required Intersection Level of Service ....................................................................................... 34
3.8 Existing Intersection Level of Service .......................................................................................... 35
3.9 Required Roadway Segment Level of Service ............................................................................. 35
3.10 Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service ............................................................................... 36
3.11 Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ...................................................................................... 36
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC ..................................................................................................... 39
4.1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 39
4.2 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 43
4.3 Modal Split .................................................................................................................................. 43
4.4 Trip Assignment .......................................................................................................................... 43
4.5 Cumulative Growth Traffic .......................................................................................................... 52
5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 61
5.1 Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................... 61
5.2 Potentially Significant Traffic Impact Criteria ............................................................................. 62
5.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 64
5.4 Queuing Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 64
5.5 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 65
6 NEAR TERM CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 67
6.1 E+P Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 67
6.2 EAP Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 67
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
iv
6.3 EAPC Phase 1 (2021) Conditions ................................................................................................. 79
6.4 EAPC Phase 2 (2023) Conditions ................................................................................................. 85
6.5 EAPC Project Buildout (2026) Conditions ................................................................................... 91
7 YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 101
7.1 General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) Without Project Conditions ............................................... 101
7.2 General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) With Project Conditions .................................................... 112
8 SPECIAL EVENTS ...................................................................................................................... 115
8.1 Weekend Traffic Volumes and Conditions ................................................................................ 115
8.2 Weekend Special Event Project Land Use and Trip Generation ............................................... 115
8.3 Weekend Special Event Analysis ............................................................................................... 119
8.4 Special Event Traffic Management ........................................................................................... 119
9 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED ...................................................................................................... 129
9.1 Project Design Features ............................................................................................................ 129
9.2 Service Population and VMT Estimates .................................................................................... 130
9.3 VMT Findings ............................................................................................................................. 131
10 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 133
10.1 Project Access ........................................................................................................................... 133
10.2 Potentially Significant Impact Assessment Results ................................................................... 135
10.3 Fair Share Contribution ............................................................................................................. 137
11 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 143
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
v
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 3.3: EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.1: E+P CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.2: E+P CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.3: EA WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.4: EA WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.5: EAC (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
PHASE 1 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.6: EAC (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
PHASE 1 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.7: EAC (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
PHASE 2 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.8: EAC (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
PHASE 2 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.9: EAC (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT PHASE 3 CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND
PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 6.10: EAC (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT BUILDOUT PHASE 3 CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.3: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND
PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.4: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 8.1: EAPC PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND
PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
vi
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
vii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1‐1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN .................................................................................................. 2
EXHIBIT 1‐2: LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................................ 4
EXHIBIT 1‐3: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS BY PHASE .......................................... 12
EXHIBIT 3‐1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS ....................... 26
EXHIBIT 3‐2: CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT .......................................... 27
EXHIBIT 3‐3: CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS‐SECTIONS ................................... 28
EXHIBIT 3‐4: EXISTING (2019) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) ............................................................................... 30
EXHIBIT 3‐5: EXISTING (2019) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
(WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) ............................................................................... 31
EXHIBIT 3‐6: EXISTING (2019) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
(WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) ............................................................................... 32
EXHIBIT 4‐1: PROJECT RESIDENTIAL AND RESORT EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................... 44
EXHIBIT 4‐2: PROJECT SHOPPING CENTER EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................................... 45
EXHIBIT 4‐3: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES ............................... 46
EXHIBIT 4‐4: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .............................. 47
EXHIBIT 4‐5: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ............................... 48
EXHIBIT 4‐6: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES ............................... 49
EXHIBIT 4‐7: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .............................. 50
EXHIBIT 4‐8: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ............................... 51
EXHIBIT 4‐9: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES ........................... 53
EXHIBIT 4‐10: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ......................... 54
EXHIBIT 4‐11: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ......................... 55
EXHIBIT 4‐12: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP ............................................................. 58
EXHIBIT 6‐1: E+P AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES ............................................................... 68
EXHIBIT 6‐2: E+P AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ......................................................................... 69
EXHIBIT 6‐3: E+P PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ......................................................................... 70
EXHIBIT 6‐4: EAP AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES ............................................................... 73
EXHIBIT 6‐5: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ....... 74
EXHIBIT 6‐6: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ....... 75
EXHIBIT 6‐7: EAPC PHASE 1 (2021) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ..................................................... 80
EXHIBIT 6‐8: EAPC PHASE 1 (2021) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................... 81
EXHIBIT 6‐9: EAPC PHASE 1 (2021) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................... 82
EXHIBIT 6‐10: EAPC PHASE 2 (2023) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ................................................... 86
EXHIBIT 6‐11: EAPC PHASE 2 (2023) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................. 87
EXHIBIT 6‐12: EAPC PHASE 2 (2023) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................. 88
EXHIBIT 6‐13: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES .................................. 92
EXHIBIT 6‐14: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................. 93
EXHIBIT 6‐15: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................. 94
EXHIBIT 7‐1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040)
WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ...................................................... 102
EXHIBIT 7‐2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040)
WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................... 103
EXHIBIT 7‐3: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040)
WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................... 104
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
viii
EXHIBIT 7‐4: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) .................................................................................... 105
EXHIBIT 7‐5: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT
AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................. 106
EXHIBIT 7‐6: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................................................................. 107
EXHIBIT 8‐1: EXISTING (2020) WEEKEND PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ............................... 117
EXHIBIT 8‐2: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT, PROJECT ONLY) ........................................................... 120
EXHIBIT 8‐3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
ARRIVAL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (PROJECT ONLY) ................................. 121
EXHIBIT 8‐4: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
DEPARTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (PROJECT ONLY) ............................ 122
EXHIBIT 8‐5: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
ARRIVAL PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ........................................................... 123
EXHIBIT 8‐6: EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
DEPARTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ...................................................... 124
EXHIBIT 8‐7: EVENT OPERATIONS PLANNING SCHEDULE .................................................................. 128
EXHIBIT 10‐1: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 134
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ................................................................................. 3
TABLE 1‐2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ....................................................................... 3
TABLE 1‐3: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS E OR LOS F ............... 5
TABLE 1‐4: SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ........... 7
TABLE 1‐5: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS .......................................................... 8
TABLE 1‐6: SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS .................. 10
TABLE 1‐7: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS ................................................................. 11
TABLE 3‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS ................................................................... 33
TABLE 3‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS ........................................................ 34
TABLE 3‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS ............................................ 37
TABLE 3‐4: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS .................................. 38
TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ................................................... 40
TABLE 4‐2: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ................................................... 41
TABLE 4‐3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ................................................ 42
TABLE 4‐4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY ......................................................... 56
TABLE 5‐1: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS E OR LOS F ............. 63
TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................ 71
TABLE 6‐2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 72
TABLE 6‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................. 77
TABLE 6‐4: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR
EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................. 78
TABLE 6‐5: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
PHASE 1 (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................ 83
TABLE 6‐6: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR
PHASE 1 (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................ 84
TABLE 6‐7: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
PHASE 2 (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................ 89
TABLE 6‐8: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR
PHASE 2 (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................ 90
TABLE 6‐9: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
PHASE 2 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................ 95
TABLE 6‐10: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR
PHASE 2 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................................... 97
TABLE 6‐11: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR EAPC
PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 99
TABLE 7‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ....................... 108
TABLE 7‐2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ....................... 109
TABLE 7‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040)
WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 110
TABLE 7‐4: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040)
WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 111
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
x
TABLE 7‐5: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ....................................... 114
TABLE 8‐1: WEEKEND INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS ................................................................. 115
TABLE 8‐2: EXISTING 2019 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR & 2020 SATURDAY MID‐DAY PEAK HOUR
COMPARISON ................................................................................................................. 116
TABLE 8‐3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ‐ WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT ............................... 118
TABLE 8‐4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS ........................................ 125
TABLE 8‐5: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR
EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS ........................................ 127
TABLE 9‐1: VMT FOR THE WAVE – CORAL MOUNTAIN ...................................................................... 130
TABLE 10‐1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS ............................................................................ 139
TABLE 10‐2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ............................................... 140
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
Av Avenue
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMP Congestion Management Program
CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments
DIF Development Impact Fee
Dr Drive
E+P Existing Plus Project
EAP Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project
EAPC Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative
FAR Floor to Area Ratio
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
Hwy Highway
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project The Wave – Coral Mountain
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
sf Square Feet
St Street
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
V/C Volume‐to‐Capacity
VPH Vehicles per Hour
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
xii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed The Wave –
Coral Mountain (“Project”) located in the City of La Quinta. The Project is generally located on
the southwest corner of re‐aligned Madison Street at 58th Avenue as shown on Exhibit 1‐1.
The purpose of this TIA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may
result from the development of the proposed Project, and recommend improvements to
achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions. As coordinated with City of La
Quinta staff, this TIA has been prepared in accordance with the City of La Quinta’s Traffic Study
Guidelines (Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, dated July 23, 2015) and Engineering Bulletin #10‐01
(dated August 9, 2010). To ensure that this TIA satisfies the City of La Quinta’s traffic study
requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by
City staff prior to the preparation of this report. The Agreement provides an outline of the
Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The Agreement
approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project consists of a master planned themed resort comprised of a recreational pool (wave
pool), a 150‐key hotel, 104 attached dwelling units, 496 detached dwelling units, and 60,000
square feet of retail. The surf pool is a private facility. The preliminary Project land use plan is
presented on Exhibit 1‐1.
The Project is anticipated to be constructed in phases, with Phase 1 (2021) including resort
(wave pool and hotel uses), 104 attached dwelling units, 26 detached dwelling units, and
10,000 square feet of retail. Project Phase 2 (2023) adds 25,000 square feet of retail. Project
Phase 3 (2026) adds 470 detached dwelling units and 25,000 square feet of retail.
The Wave – Coral Mountain Project is proposed to be served by the Project access locations
listed below:
• Madison Street / Main Access (full access)
• South Access / Avenue 60 (full access)
• Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 (full access)
• Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 (right‐in/right‐out access)
• Madison Street / Project Access 3 (right‐in/right‐out access)
In order to meet the City of La Quinta separation standard between driveways along Avenue 58
and adjacent to the Project commercial area, Project Access 1 will need to be shifted easterly
by approximately 40 feet. At this location, Project Access 1 will be located 250 feet east of S.
Valley Lane and approximately 280 feet west of Project Access 2. All other proposed Project
access locations meet City of La Quinta intersection spacing standards.
1
A V E N U E 5 8
Neighborhood
Commercial
Future
Low Density Residential (3)
Future
Low Density Residential (2)Future
Low Density Residential (4)
Low Density Residential (5)
A V E N U E 6 0
Coral Mountain
29.50 Ac.
46.61 Ac.
The Farm
49.21 Ac.
54.50 Ac.
37.66 Ac.
7.77 Ac.
±118 Units
±122 Units
±136 Units
±94 Units
Resort (5)
14.20 Ac.±38 Units
The Hotel
±66 Units
2.53 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
2.48 Du/Ac.
2.24 Du/Ac.
2.68 Du/Ac.
Planning Area III
Resort (4)
Resort (1)
Future
Planning Area I
Planning Area II
Planning Area II
Planning Area II
Planning Area II
PA III
Planning Area III
TheBeach Club
The FarmVillage
3.18 Ac.
15.37 Ac.
8.24 Ac.
4.24 Ac.
6.82 Ac.
IRRI
G
A
T
I
O
N
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
IR
R
IG
A
T
I
O
N
E
A
S
EM
E
N
T
IRRIGATION EASEMENT
IRRIGATION EASEMENT
IRRIGATION EASEMENT
27.01 Ac.
Open SpacePlanning Area IV
128
129
121
120
119
118
114
113
112
111
110
109101
100
99
98
97
96
95 117
92
91
90
89
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
43
42
41
40
39
38
44
45
46 47
4950
51
52
53
54
55
63
64
65
66
67 68
69
70
71
72
73
363534333231
7
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
4837
74
93
OS
Resort (3)
11.06 Ac.
Planning Area III
(Includes "The Farm" and "The Farm Village")
Resort (2)
27.82 Ac.
Planning Area III
The Wave
(Includes "Resort Residential" (Lots 27-92) and "The Beach Club")
(150 Keys)8.57 Ac.
(Resort Residential (Lots 94-131)
The Hotel
3.40 Ac.
130
131
129
128
125
107106105104103102
124
123
116
115
108
94
1 2 3
4
5
6
8
9
142
135
140
146
145
144
147
139
132
133
134
136
137
138
143
148
149
122
OS
OS
OS OS OS
OS
141
150
OS
OSOS
OS
OS
OS
93
The Hotel
OS
OS
OS
10
Low Density Residential (1)
44.09 Ac.±26 Units0.59 Du/Ac.
Planning Area II
88
87
86
Resort (6)
Private Club Hosting Area
Planning Area III MA D I S O N S T R E E T26.55 Ac.
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
THE WAVE - CORAL MOUNTAIN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
26.55 Ac.
8.57 Ac.
27.82 Ac.
27.01 Ac.
44.09 Ac.
46.61 Ac.
37.66 Ac.
N/A
150 Hotel Keys
N/A
N/A
26 Units (Detached Residential)
118 Units (Detached Residential)
94 Units (Detached Residential)
384.55 Ac. 750 Units
Resort (2) - The Wave
Open Space (Recreation)
Low Density Residential (2)
Low Density Residential (3)
Total
14.20 Ac.38 Units (Attached Residential)Resort (5) - Residential
54.50 Ac. 136 Units (Detached Residential)
49.21 Ac. 122 Units (Detached Residential)
29.50 Ac.66 Units (Attached Residential)Resort (4) - Residential
Low Density Residential (4)
Low Density Residential (5)
N/A
17.50 Du/Ac.
N/A
N/A
0.59 Du/Ac.
2.53 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
N/A
2.68 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
2.48 Du/Ac.
2.24 Du/Ac.
232.07 Ac.496 Units (Detached Residential)Low Density Residential Subtotal N/A
PA II
PA III
PA IV
LAND USE LEGEND
Land Use Area Units
Note:1.Planning Areas VII & IX will have a combined allowable retail area of 60,000 sf.2.All planning areas will distribute the overall total unit allowance based on market demand.
Density / AcrePlanningArea
7.77 Ac.N/ANeighborhood Commercial N/APA I
Resort (3) - The Farm
Resort (1) - Hotel
11.06 Ac. N/A N/A
Resort (6) - Hosting Area
Low Density Residential (1)
117.70 Ac.104 Units (Attached Residential)N/AResort Subtotal
R:\2553\ACAD\Planning\Land Use Plan\2553 Proposed Land Use Plan.dwg, 2/25/2020 2:43:13 PM, dgallerani, MSA Consulting, Inc.2
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
3
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 6,994 external trip‐
ends per day on a typical weekday with 447 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the
weekday AM peak hour and 638 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour.
1.3 STUDY AREA AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
1.3.1 INTERSECTIONS
The following 22 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1‐2 and listed in Table 1‐1 were
selected for this TIA based on consultation with City of La Quinta staff.
TABLE 1‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location ID Intersection Location
1 Madison Street at Avenue 58 12 Monroe Street at Avenue 58
2 Madison Street at Avenue 56 13 Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard
3 Madison Street at Avenue 54 14 Monroe Street at Avenue 54
4 Madison Street at Avenue 52 15 Monroe Street at Avenue 52
5 Madison Street at Avenue 50 16 Monroe Street at 50th Avenue
6 Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 17 Jackson Street at 58th Avenue
7 Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 18 South Access at Avenue 60 ‐ (Future Intersection)
8 Jefferson Street at Pomelo 19 Madison Street at Main Access‐ (Future Intersection)
9 Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 20 Project Access 1 at Avenue 58‐ (Future Intersection)
10 Madison Street at Avenue 60 21 Project Access 2 at Avenue 58‐ (Future Intersection)
11 Monroe Street at Avenue 60 22 Madison Street at Project Access 3‐ (Future Intersection)
1.3.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Through consultation with City staff, daily volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) roadway analyses have
been evaluated for the following roadway segments as shown on Table 1‐2:
TABLE 1‐2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
Roadway Segment
1 Avenue 58, west of Madison Street 4 Madison Street, south of Airport Boulevard
2 Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street 5 Avenue 60, west of Monroe Street
3 Avenue 58, west of Jackson Street 6 Monroe Street, south of Airport Boulevard
3
4
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
5
1.3.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
In accordance with the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines and as documented in
Appendix 1.1 of this TIA, this study has analyzed the following scenarios:
Existing (2019)
Existing Plus Project (E+P)
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (EAP)
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects without and with Project for
each of the following phases (EAC and EAPC):
o Project Phase 1 (2021)
o Project Phase 2 (2023)
o Project Buildout (Phase 3, 2026)
o Project Buildout (Phase 3, 2026) – Special Event
General Plan buildout (2040) Without Project Conditions – establishes future year
baseline to evaluate the proposed Project
General Plan buildout (2040) With Project Conditions – represents future year baseline
traffic conditions with the proposed Project
Detailed descriptions of each analysis scenario can be found in Section 5.1 Scenarios of this TIA.
1.4 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Potentially significant Project traffic impacts are divided separately into intersection and
roadway segment traffic impacts. Intersections and roadway segments are evaluated for both
potentially significant Project and cumulative impacts. The potentially significant Project and
cumulative impact criteria described below for both intersection and roadway segments per the
City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines.
1.4.1 INTERSECTIONS
Potentially Significant Project Impacts
Pursuant to the criteria outlined for the analysis of study area intersections using the Highway
Capacity Methodology (HCM), a potentially significant Project impact is defined to occur at any
signalized intersection if the addition of Project trips will result in the level of service (LOS) for
that intersection to exceed the criteria established in Table 1‐3 for E+P traffic conditions.
TABLE 1‐3: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS E OR LOS F
Significant Changes in LOS
LOS E An increase in delay of 2 seconds or more
LOS F An increase in delay of 1 second or more
Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 Table 4.0
5
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
6
A potentially significant Project impact at an unsignalized study area intersection is defined to
occur when an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side street for a two‐way stop control or
LOS E or worse for the intersection an all‐way stop controlled intersection and the addition of
Project traffic results in an addition of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement.
Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts
A potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if
the addition of Project trips will result in the LOS for that intersection to exceed the criteria
established in Table 1‐3 for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative Projects
(EAPC) traffic conditions.
A potentially significant cumulative impact at an unsignalized study area intersection is defined
to occur when, with Project traffic included, an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side
street for a two‐way stop control or LOS E or worse for the intersection an all‐way stop
controlled intersection and the addition of Project traffic results in an addition of 3 seconds or
more of delay for any movement.
1.4.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Potentially Significant Project Impacts
A potentially significant Project impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway segment if
the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F and the volume‐to‐capacity (V/C)
ratio increases by 0.02 or more with the addition of Project traffic for E+P traffic conditions.
Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts
A potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway
segment if the Project would cause the Existing LOS to fall to worse than LOS D for Existing Plus
Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects traffic conditions. A potentially significant
cumulative impact is also defined to occur on any study area roadway segment that is already
operating at LOS E or LOS F, if the Project traffic will increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.02
for EAPC traffic conditions.
1.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results of the potentially significant Project and cumulative impacts for the study area
intersections for E+P and EAPC traffic conditions are summarized in Tables1‐4 and 1‐5. As
shown on Table 1‐4 and discussed in detail on Section 6 Near Term Conditions Traffic Analysis,
the development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a potentially project
specific impact. However, potentially significant cumulative impacts are anticipated at the
following study area intersections, with the addition of the Project traffic as summarized in
Table 1‐5:
#1 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 58
#3 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 54.
#6 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
#7 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 52
#9 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 50
#11 – Monroe Street at Avenue 60
#12 – Monroe Street at Avenue 58
#13 – Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard
#14 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 54
#15 – Monroe Street at Avenue 52
6
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 8.5 9.3 A A 10.0 12.8 A B No
2Madison St. / Airport Blvd.TS 8.8 8.4 A A 8.8 9.9 A A No
3Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS 12.9 15.9 B C 15.2 23.5 C C No
4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 27.9 28.5 C C 29.1 30.0 C C No
5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 28.6 29.4 C C 29.1 29.8 C C No
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS 12.2 16.9 B C 13.2 20.1 B C No
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 RDB 9.4 9.7 A A 10.6 11.2 B B No
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 8.4 14.3 A B 8.8 14.3 A B No
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 46.3 49.4 D D 46.5 49.4 D D No
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 8.2 9.1 A A 8.7 9.5 A A No
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 8.1 8.3 A A 8.5 8.9 A A No
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 8.1 9.4 A A 8.9 11.0 A B No
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.AWS 8.5 9.2 A A 9.0 10.0 A B No
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS 14.3 12.7 B B 16.3 32.9 C D No
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS 14.7 25.3 B D 16.8 34.3 C D No
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 16.6 18.0 B B 16.6 18.5 B B No
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 7.5 8.2 A A 7.7 8.6 A A No
18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 8.9 8.9 A A No
19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 12.7 15.6 B C No
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 9.2 9.8 A A No
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 8.6 9.0 A A No
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 8.9 10.1 A B No
1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
2 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All‐way Stop; RDB = Roundabout; 1 = Improvement
3
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]1‐4
E+P
TABLE 1‐4: SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Delay (secs)1 Level of Service1 Delay (secs)1 Level of Service1
Future Intersection
A potentially significant project traffic impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the intersection is operating at LOS E and the project causes the delay to increase by 2
seconds or more. If the signalized intersection is operating at LOS F, a potentially significant project specific traffic impact is defined to occur if the project causes the delay to increase by 1
second or more. For cross‐street stop controlled intersections, a potentially significant project specific traffic impact is defined to occur if the intersection is operating at LOS F on the side
street and the addition of project traffic results in an increase of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement.
#Intersection
Traffic
Control2
Potentially Significant
Project Specific
Impact3
Existing (2019)
7
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 10.9 14.2 B B 11.4 15.6 B C 11.4 15.9 B C 12.0 18.2 B C 12.7 20.8 B C 17.357.9CF‐ With ImprovementsTS‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐27.4 32.1 C C No2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 8.8 10.2 A B 8.9 10.2 A B 9.0 10.4 A B 9.2 10.4 A B 9.6 10.9 A B 9.6 10.9 A B No3Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS 21.347.6CE22.653.0CF33.9>80DF 36.9 >80 E F 79.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS31.4 31.6 C C 31.5 31.7 C C 34.5 38.5 C D 34.8 38.8 C D 41.2 43.6 D D 41.6 50.3 D D No4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 30.2 30.0 C C 30.5 30.2 C C 30.8 30.8 C C 31.0 31.1 C C 31.6 32.3 C C 32.2 33.1 C C No5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 29.9 31.3 C C 30.0 31.3 C C 30.7 32.1 C C 30.8 32.1 C C 31.9 33.4 C C 32.2 33.6 C C No6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS 18.849.7CE19.352.1CF24.179.4CF25.2>80DF 40.6 >80 E F 54.2 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS36.1 39.9 D D 36.2 40.3 D D 42.7 41.6 D D 43.0 42.3 D D 22.7 22.5 C C 22.9 22.6 C C No7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 RDB42.8 78.7 E F 44.3 >80 E F 59.8 >80 F F 61.7 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F‐ With Improvements RDB 10.2 12.8 B B 10.3 13.0 B B 11.7 16.6 B C 11.8 16.9 B C 15.1 28.3 C D 16.8 34.3 C D No8 Jefferson St. / PomeloTS 9.3 34.4 A C 9.4 34.4 A C 15.6 34.8 B C 15.6 34.8 B C 19.4 35.4 B D 19.5 35.8 B D No9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 52.4 50.6 D D 52.5 50.7 D D 52.3 53.3 D D 52.4 53.4 D D 52.458.8DE53.060.3DE‐ With Improvements‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐51.4 51.0 D D 51.8 51.6 D D No10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 8.8 10.6 A B 8.9 10.8 A B 9.0 11.2 A B 9.2 11.7 A B 9.4 12.8 A B 10.2 14.8 B B No11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 10.4 12.0 B B 10.5 12.3 B B 13.0 18.0 B C 13.3 19.1 B C 25.976.4DF30.9>80DF‐ With Improvements‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐33.3 34.9 C C 34.4 37.7 C D No12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 10.8 23.8 B C 11.0 26.8 B D 15.7>80CF16.4>80CF 52.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐17.3 21.7 B C 18.1 22.9 B C 23.2 33.3 C C 25.9 38.1 C D No13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11.1 13.8 B B 11.3 14.1 B B 15.6 27.7 C D 16.2 29.1 C D47.3 >80 E F 70.4 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐24.0 24.9 C C 24.6 25.8 C C No14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS 31.135.7DE33.035.9DE >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS23.5 23.0 C C 23.7 23.2 C C 24.4 24.0 C C 24.5 24.0 C C 34.7 37.0 C D 35.0 37.7 C D No15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS50.3 >80 F F 53.1 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F‐ With ImprovementsTS13.0 14.7 B B 13.0 14.7 B B 13.9 15.5 B B 13.9 15.5 B B 33.7 41.2 C D 34.1 44.1 C D No16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 16.3 20.4 B C 16.3 20.4 B C 16.6 21.5 B C 16.6 21.5 B C 17.7 25.0 B C 17.9 25.8 B C No17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 8.1 9.8 A A 8.1 9.8 A A 8.5 11.3 A B 8.6 11.5 A B 9.5 16.9 A C 9.9 21.5 A C No18 S. Access / Avenue 60CSS8.6 8.6 A A8.6 8.6 A A8.9 8.9 A A No19 Madison St. / Main AccessCSS11.2 12.6 B B11.5 13.5 B B17.4 24.3 C C No20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58CSS9.9 10.6 A B10.1 10.9 B B10.2 11.1 B B No21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58CSS9.3 9.8 A A9.3 9.9 A A9.4 10.0 A B No22 Madison St. / Project Access 3CSS9.0 9.7 A A9.1 9.9 A A9.6 11.3 A B No1Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).2CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All‐way Stop; RDB = Roundabout; 1 = Improvement3R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]1‐5TABLE 1‐5: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS#IntersectionTrafficControl2Potentially Significant Cumulative Impact3Delay 1Future IntersectionFuture IntersectionDelay 1LOS1Future IntersectionA potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the intersection is operating at LOS E and the project causes the delay to increase by 2 seconds or more. If the signalized intersection is operating at LOS F, a potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is defined to occur if the project causes the delay to increase by 1 second or more. For cross‐street stop controlled intersections, a potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is defined to occur if the intersection is operating at LOS F on the side street and the addition of project traffic results in an increase of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement. Delay 1LOS1Future IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionLOS1Future IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionDelay 1LOS1Future IntersectionFuture IntersectionFuture IntersectionDelay 1LOS1PHASE 3 (2026)Without ProjectWith ProjectWithout Project With ProjectPHASE 1 (2021)PHASE 2 (2023)Without ProjectWith ProjectDelay (secs)1LOS18
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
2
As shown in Table 1‐5, the project’s cumulative impact at the abovementioned intersections
are mitigated to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS “D” or better) with the
implementation of the improvements shown on Exhibit 1‐3 and described in detail in Sections 6
and 10.
Project access improvements, fully funded CIP improvements and added improvements (if
necessary) are shown on Exhibit 1‐3.
The results of the General Plan Buildout (2040) conditions and recommended improvements
are summarized in Table 1‐6.
A summary of roadway segment volume‐to‐capacity analysis is provided on Table 1‐7.
Intersection recommendations to provide acceptable operations for Year 2040 for various
network scenarios are also documented.
1.5.1 EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS
As shown in Table 1‐4, the intersection analysis for Existing conditions indicates that the 17
existing study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak
hours.
As shown on Table 1‐7, all study area roadway segments analyzed are currently operating at
acceptable LOS.
1.5.2 E+P AND EAP CONDITIONS
The 22 (17 existing + 5 Project intersections) study area intersections are anticipated to
operate at acceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic for E+P traffic conditions.
For EAP traffic conditions, the following five study area intersections are anticipated to require
installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS
under EAP conditions:
#3 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 54
#6 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
#12 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 58
#14 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 54
#15 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 52
EAP analysis results indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7)
experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. Jefferson
Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2
circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional
through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS.
All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for E+P and
EAP traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions.
9
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1Madison St. / Avenue 58
‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 40.1 63.2 D E 41.5 70.3 D E
‐ With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 34.5 45.5 C D 35.1 53.0 D D
2Madison St. / Airport Blvd.TS 23.2 28.6 C C 23.7 29.7 C C
3Madison St. / Avenue 54 TS 42.9 49.0 D D 44.2 53.3 D D
4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 38.8 52.0 D D 39.5 53.8 D D
5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 36.7 53.2 D D 37.6 54.8 D D
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 TS 24.0 43.5 C D 24.2 48.4 C D
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 524 RDB 5.8 8.3 A A 5.9 9.1 A A
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 6.3 21.2 A C 6.4 21.4 A C
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 41.5 52.8 D D 42.2 54.6 D D
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 TS 50.9 48.0 D D 49.6 53.1 D D
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60
‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 45.1 98.8 D F 46.1 103.9 D F
‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 36.7 50.3 D D 37.2 53.0 D D
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58
‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 47.8 72.0 D E 50.1 75.9 D E
‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 38.0 48.6 D D 39.5 52.0 D D
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.TS 33.3 44.1 C D 37.8 45.4 D D
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 TS 31.5 52.5 C D 31.6 54.5 C D
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 TS 39.0 52.7 D D 39.0 54.3 D D
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 34.5 53.3 C D 34.1 54.5 C D
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue TS 29.7 36.7 C D 29.7 38.0 C D
18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 0.0 0.0 0 0 34.2 34.8 D D
19 Madison St. / Main Access
‐ With Cross‐Street Stop Control CSS 113.2 91.7 F F
‐ With Traffic Signal TS 7.6 9.0 A A
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 12.9 14.5 B B
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 10.2 10.4 B B
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 13.6 14.4 B B
1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections
with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst
individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
2 CSS = Cross‐street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All‐way Stop; RDB = Roundabout; 1 = Improvement
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]1‐6
Future Intersection
Delay (Secs)1 Level of Service1
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
TABLE 1‐6: SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
#Intersection
Traffic
Control2
Without Project With Project
Delay (Secs)1 Level of Service1
10
ADT3V/C ADT3V/CADT3V/C ADT3V/CADT3V/C ADT3V/CWest of Madison St. Secondary 3 21,000 41,600 0.08 2,300 0.11 No 5,700 0.27 6,300 0.30 No428,000 11,800 0.42 12,500 0.45 West of Monroe St. Secondary 4 28,000 2,300 0.08 4,100 0.15 No 5,900 0.21 7,800 0.28 No 4 28,000 12,100 0.43 14,000 0.50 West of Jackson St. Secondary 2 14,000 41,800 0.13 2,700 0.19 No 4,900 0.35 5,700 0.41 No428,000 18,200 0.65 19,000 0.68 Madison St. South of Airport Bl. Primary 4 42,600 6,700 0.16 9,700 0.23 No 14,300 0.34 17,400 0.41 No 4 42,600 30,900 0.73 34,000 0.80 Avenue 60 West of Monroe St. Secondary 3 21,000 43,200 0.15 4,500 0.21 No 6,900 0.33 8,200 0.39 No428,000 22,700 0.81 24,000 0.86 Monroe St. South of Airport Bl. Primary 3 31,950 53,400 0.11 4,400 0.14 No 12,100 0.38 13,100 0.41 No442,600 24,900 0.58 26,000 0.61 1 These maximum roadway capacities have been extracted from the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (October 2017).R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]1‐77 1 = Existing number of lanes; 1 = City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity.5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity.These roadway capacities are "rule of thumb" estimates for planning purposes. The LOS E service volumes are estimated maximum daily capacity for respective classifications. Capacity is affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian and bicycle traffic.2 A potentially significant project traffic impact is defined to occur on any road segment if the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F with project traffic included and the V/C is increased 3 A potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is defined to occur on any road segment if the project would cause the existing LOS to fall to worse than LOS D for EAPC (2026) With Project volumes. A potentially significant cumulative traffic impact is also defined to occur if the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F with project traffic included and the V/C is increased by 0.02 or more by addition of project traffic. Avenue 58Potentially Significant CumulativeImpact3# of Lanes72040Capacity1Existing (2019) E+PWithout Project With ProjectTABLE 1‐7: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSISRoadway SegmentRoadwayDesignation# of Lanes7Existing Capacity1Potentially Significant Project Specific Impact2PHASE 3 (2026)Without Project With ProjectGPBO (2040) 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
11
1.5.3 EAPC PHASE 1 (2021) CONDITIONS
For EAPC Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions, the following four study area intersections are anticipated to
require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS
under EAPC (2021) conditions:
#3 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 54
#6 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
#14 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 54
#15 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 52
EAPC Phase 1 (2021) analysis results indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at
Avenue 52 (#7) experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project”
conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout
design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively
accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to
provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair
share contribution is appropriate.
All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC
Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions.
1.5.4 EAPC PHASE 2 (2023) CONDITIONS
For EAPC Phase 2(2023) traffic conditions, the following five study area intersections are
anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to
maintain acceptable LOS:
#3 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 54
#6 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
#12 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 58
#14 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 54
#15 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 52
EAPC Phase 2 (2023) analysis results indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at
Avenue 52 (#7) experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project”
conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout
design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively
accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to
provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair
share contribution is appropriate.
All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC
Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions.
18
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
12
1.5.5 EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS
For EAPC Phase 3 (2026) traffic conditions, the following eight study area intersections are
anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable LOS under
EAPC (2026) conditions:
#1 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 58
#3 ‐ Madison Street at Avenue 54
#6 ‐ Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
#11 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 60
#12 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 58
#13 ‐ Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard
#14 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 54
#15 ‐ Monroe Street at Avenue 52
In addition, for Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (#9), a second westbound through lane is
necessary to maintain acceptable level of service. EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively
impacted intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52). Similar to EAPC Phase 2 conditions,
Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7) requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to
incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an
additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable
LOS.
For the intersection of Madison Street at Avenue 58 (#1), addition of Project traffic requires the
installation of the traffic signal. Therefore, the required signal will be installed by the Project,
and reimbursement to the Project developer may be provided for all but the Project’s fair share
by future developments, or CIP, or DIF.
For the remaining deficient study area intersections, the improvements are needed for with or
without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate for these locations.
All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC
Phase 3 (2026) traffic conditions.
1.5.6 EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS
The applicant anticipates the potential occurrence of special events at this location involving
attendance of not‐to‐exceed 2,500 guests per day arriving or departing on Saturdays (up to 4
events per year).
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 8,932 trip‐ends per day on a
Saturday during a special event with 906 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the arrival peak hour
and 884 vph during the departure peak hour.
Improvement recommendations identified in Chapter 8 of this report for weekend special event
conditions are consistent with the improvements identified in Section 1.5.5 above for EAPC
Phase 3 weekday typical operations.
19
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
13
1.5.7 YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS
General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions includes the Travertine project currently under
consideration in the City of La Quinta that proposes to eliminate the connection of Madison
Street as a General Plan roadway south of Avenue 60. Therefore, the General Plan Buildout
(Year 2040) conditions analysis assumes elimination of this connection. Intersection lane
recommendations determined in Chapter 7 of this report and shown on Exhibit 1‐3 provide
acceptable LOS under Year 2040 traffic conditions (i.e., LOS D or better).
1.5.8 SITE ACCESS AND ON‐SITE CIRCULATION
The recommended site access improvements and on‐site circulation for the Project are
described below and illustrated on Exhibit 10‐1. The Wave – Coral Mountain Project is
proposed to be served by the Project access locations listed below:
• Madison Street / Main Access (full access)
• South Access / Avenue 60 (full access)
• Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 (full access)
• Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 (right‐in/right‐out access)
• Madison Street / Project Access 3 (right‐in/right‐out access)
In order to meet the City of La Quinta separation standard between driveways along Avenue 58
and adjacent to the Project commercial area, Project Access 1 will need to be shifted easterly
by approximately 40 feet. At this location, Project Access 1 will be located 250 feet east of S.
Valley Lane and approximately 280 feet west of Project Access 2. All other proposed Project
access locations meet City of La Quinta intersection spacing standards.
For Project Phase 1 conditions, the following improvements are recommended:
Avenue 58 should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the
commercial portion of the Project.
Madison Street should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along
the commercial portion of the Project. Avenue 60 should be constructed as a 2‐lane roadway
along the Project boundary.
For Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 (intersection 20), provide northbound cross‐street stop
control. Construct south leg with one shared northbound left‐right turn lane. Accommodate
westbound left turn lane within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striping.
Northbound cross‐street stop control should be provided for Project Access 2 & Avenue 58
(intersection 21). Construct south leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns should not
be accommodated at this intersection.
For Madison Street & Project Access 3 (intersection 22), provide eastbound cross‐street stop
control. Construct west leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns should not be
accommodated at this intersection.
20
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
14
Eastbound cross‐street stop control should be provided for Madison Street & Main Access
(intersection 19). Construct west leg with one left turn outbound and one right turn outbound
lane. The main Project driveway is located on Madison Street south of Avenue 58. It is a full
access location, serving left and right turns to and from Madison Street. With the Project, the
northbound left turn lane serving the main Project driveway is recommended to provide 150
feet of vehicle queuing.
For South Access & Avenue 60 (intersection 18), provide southbound cross‐street stop control.
Construct north leg with one shared left‐right turn outbound lane. Construct west leg with one
shared left‐through lane. Construct east leg with one shared through‐right lane.
For Project Phase 2 conditions, the same improvements are recommended as for Project
Phase 1 (see above).
For Project Buildout (Phase 3) conditions, the following improvements are recommended:
Avenue 58 should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the
residential / remaining portion of the Project.
Madison Street should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along
the residential / remaining portion of the Project.
Construct traffic signal for the intersection of Madison Street & Main Access when warranted.
On‐site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed
construction plans for the project site.
Sight distance at the project access driveways should be reviewed with respect to City of La
Quinta sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street
improvement plans.
1.5.9 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED
The Project mix of land uses (including hotel, retail, and service‐oriented uses) is anticipated to
encourage trip capture on‐site, resulting in a lower than usual VMT per service population (SP).
The VMT / SP associated with the Project could potentially fall within the range of
approximately 25.0 to 32.0, but the Project location, mix of uses, and effectiveness of the
design features support a conservative estimate of 26.3 VMT / SP. Project VMT is
approximately 75,129 annual vehicle miles traveled for the 674 employees and 2,181 residents
added by the Project, which is less than the City average of 26.4 per SP.
21
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
15
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
22
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
16
2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 LOCATION
The proposed Project is located on the southwest corner of re‐aligned Madison Street at 58th
Avenue in the City of La Quinta.
2.2 LAND USE AND PHASING
The Project consists of a master planned themed resort and comprised of a recreational pool
(wave pool), a 150‐key hotel, 104 attached dwelling units, 496 detached dwelling units, and
60,000 square feet of retail . The surf pool is a private facility.
The Project is anticipated to be constructed in phases, with Phase 1 (2021) including resort
(wave pool and hotel uses), 104 attached dwelling units, 26 detached dwelling units, and
10,000 square feet of retail. Project Phase 2 (2023) adds 25,000 square feet of retail. Project
Phase 3 (2026) adds 470 detached dwelling units and 25,000 square feet of retail.
The current General Plan land use and zoning designated for the site is Low Density Residential,
Open Space Recreation, and General Commercial.
2.3 SITE PLAN AND PROJECT ACCESS
The preliminary Project land use plan was previously presented on Exhibit 1‐1. The Wave –
Coral Mountain Project is proposed to be served by the Project access locations listed below:
• Madison Street / Main Access (full access)
• South Access / Avenue 60 (full access)
• Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 (full access)
• Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 (right‐in/right‐out access)
• Madison Street / Project Access 3 (right‐in/right‐out access)
Both Avenue 58 and Madison Street are classified as Secondary Arterials adjacent to the site.
The separation standards for a Secondary Arterial are 250 feet between driveways, and 600
feet between street intersections (based upon the City of La Quinta Public Works Department
Development Engineering Handbook).
The Project Main Driveway on Madison Street is located approximately 650 feet south of the
Madison Street / Avenue 58 intersection. Both of these intersections (Madison Street / Avenue
58 and Madison Street / Project Main Access) are projected to eventually meet traffic signal
warrants.
A Project commercial driveway (Project Access 3) is proposed to be located approximately 275
feet south of the Madison Street / Avenue 58 intersection. Project Access 3 is limited to right‐
turns in and out only (RIRO). It is located approximately 375 ft. north of the Madison Street /
Project Main Access intersection.
23
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
17
Along Avenue 58, two Project commercial driveways are proposed. Project Access 2 is located
approximately 295 feet west of Madison Street / Avenue 58 intersection, and is limited to right‐
turns in and out only (RIRO). In order to meet the minimum 250 foot spacing standard, Project
Access 1 will need to be shifted easterly by approximately 40 feet. At this location, Project
Access 1 will be located 250 feet east of S. Valley Lane and approximately 280 feet west of
Project Access 2.
24
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
18
3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing study area, the City of La Quinta General Plan
Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations, roadway
segment capacity, and traffic signal warrant analyses.
3.1 STUDY AREA
Pursuant to the agreement with City of La Quinta staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes
22 study area intersections. The locations of these intersections were shown previously on
Exhibit 1‐2.
3.2 AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM
Exhibit 3‐1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and
identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic
controls.
Exhibit 3‐2 shows the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element, and Exhibit 3‐3
illustrates the City of La Quinta General Plan roadway cross‐sections.
3.3 TRANSIT SERVICE
The City of La Quinta is currently served by the SunLine Transit Agency, but current bus services
are not located within the Project study area. Transit service is reviewed and updated by the
SunLine Transit Agency periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand
needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either
enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.
3.4 PEDESTRIAN AND ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES
The study area has existing pedestrian / bicycle paths along sections of Jefferson Street,
Madison Street, Monroe Street, Avenue 50, Avenue 52, Avenue 54, Airport Boulevard, and
Avenue 58.
The City of La Quinta General Plan Update Future Class I golf cart/NEV path is proposed along
Jefferson Street from Avenue 50 to Avenue 54. Jefferson Street south of Avenue 58, along with
sections of Madison Street, Monroe Street, Jackson Street, Avenue 50, Avenue 52, Avenue 54,
Airport Boulevard, Avenue 58, avenue 60, and Avenue 62 are planned to be a Class II Golf
Cart/NEV path and multi‐use path.
25
26
27
28
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
22
3.5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CONDITIONS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour
conditions using traffic count data collected on August 15th, 2017, April 9th, 2019, May, 7th,
2019, and September 10, 2019. Based on discussions with City staff, the following peak hours
were selected for analysis:
Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 6:00 AM and 8:30 AM)
Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 2:30 PM and 5:30 PM)
A 20% increase is applied to counts taken in August, 5% increase is applied to counts taken in
April, and 10% increase is applied to counts taken in May per City of La Quinta’s EB#06‐13. The
raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix
3.1. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic
conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity that would prevent or limit
roadway access and detour routes. The average AM/PM peak hour intersection growth
between 2017 and 2019 counts data at selected study area and nearby intersections is
approximately 2.66%. The additional 2.66% growth rate is applied to the study area
intersections with 2017 counts to reflect 2019 conditions. The raw traffic count data provided
in Appendix 3.1 was adjusted to maintain flow conservation between applicable study area
intersections (i.e., no unexplained loss of vehicles between no or limited access intersections).
Existing traffic volumes with seasonal adjustments are shown on Exhibits 3‐4 through 3‐6.
Existing weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the study
area are shown on Exhibit 3‐4. ADT volumes are estimated using the formula below for each
intersection leg (consistent with 2018 TIA) and compared to the 2017 ADT’s with 2.66% growth
to reflect 2019 conditions, where 2019 counts are unavailable:
Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 10.753 = Leg Volume
For those roadway segments which have 24‐hour tube count data available in close proximity
to the study area, a comparison between the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes indicated
that the peak‐to‐daily relationship of approximately 9.30 percent would sufficiently estimate
average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning‐level analyses. As such, the above equation
utilizing a factor of 10.753 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments
assuming a peak‐to‐daily relationship of approximately 9.30 percent (i.e., 1/0.0930 = 10.753).
3.6 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
3.6.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of La Quinta requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the
methodology described in the HCM. Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s
average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move‐up time,
stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is directly related
to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described in
Table 3‐1.
29
30
31
32
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
26
TABLE 3‐1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Description
Average Control
Delay (Seconds),
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C > 1.0
Operations with very low delay occurring with
favorable progression and/or short cycle length.
0 to 10.00 A F
Operations with low delay occurring with good
progression and/or short cycle lengths.
10.01 to 20.00 B F
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual
cycle failures begin to appear.
20.01 to 35.00 C F
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures
are noticeable.
35.01 to 55.00 D F
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This
is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.01 to 80.00 E F
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or
very long cycle lengths
80.01 and up F F
Source: HCM
Study area intersections have been analyzed using the software package Synchro (Version 9.1).
Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection
capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms
of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to
determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. The level of service and
capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination
of signalized intersections within a network. The LOS analysis for signalized intersections has
been performed using optimized signal timing for existing traffic conditions. Signal timing
optimization has considered pedestrian safety and signal coordination requirements. Appropriate
time for pedestrian crossings has also been considered in the signalized intersection analysis.
Signal timing for study area intersections have been requested and utilized. Where signal timing
was unavailable, the local accepted standards were utilized in lieu of actual signal timing.
The peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15
minute volumes. Common practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15‐minute rate of flow.
However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the relationship
between the peak 15‐minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g. PHF = [Hourly Volume] /
[4 x Peak 15‐minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15‐minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis
as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs have been used for all analysis
scenarios. Per the HCM, PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with
capacity constraints on peak hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater
variability of flow during the peak hour.
33
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
27
3.6.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of La Quinta requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using
the methodology described in the HCM. The LOS rating is based on the weighted average
control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 3‐2).
TABLE 3‐2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS
Description Average Control Delay Per
Vehicle (Seconds)
Level of Service, V/C ≤
1.0
Level of Service,
V/C > 1.0
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A F
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B F
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C F
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D F
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E F
Extreme traffic delays with intersection
capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F F
Source: HCM
At side‐street stop‐controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement
and for left turns from the major street, as well as for the whole intersection. For approaches
served by a single lane, the delay computed is the average for all movements in that lane.
3.7 REQUIRED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Per City of La Quinta traffic study guidelines, the following LOS criteria have been utilized for
the purposes of this analysis.
Intersection Type City of La Quinta LOS Criteria
Signalized Intersection or All‐Way Stop Controlled Intersection LOS D or better
Cross‐Street Stop Controlled Intersection LOS E or better for the side street
For the City of Indio, it was considered that a significant impact would occur (a) if the proposed
Project causes the level of service to degrade to below LOS D, or (b) if the proposed Project
causes the level of service to change from LOS E to LOS F. Additionally, significant impact would
occur at the intersection level if the proposed Project causes an increase in delay of 2 seconds
or more to an intersection already operating at LOS E; or 1 second or more to an intersection
operating at LOS F, as indicated in the table below:
CITY OF INDIO IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS “E” OR LOS “F”
Significant Changes in LOS
LOS “E” An increase in delay of 2 seconds or more
LOS “F” An increase in delay of 1 second or more
34
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
28
3.8 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections
based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 3.6 Level of Service Definitions and
Analysis Methodologies of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are
summarized in Table 3‐3 which indicates that all of the 17 existing study area intersections are
currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The intersection operations
analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TIA.
3.9 REQUIRED ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
The City of La Quinta has established LOS D as the minimum level of service for its roadway
segments. Therefore, any study area roadway segment operating at LOS E or LOS F will be
considered deficient for the purposes of this analysis.
Consistent with City guidelines, the level of service E capacity has been established as the limit
of acceptable capacity threshold for roadway segments. The capacities utilized for this analysis
are consistent with the maximum daily capacity thresholds provided in the City of La Quinta
traffic study guidelines and are summarized in the table below:
ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY THRESHOLDS
Roadway Classification Lane Configuration Capacity (Vehicles per Day)
Local 2‐Lane Undivided 9,000
Collector 2‐Lane Undivided 14,000
Modified Secondary 2‐Lane Divided 19,000
Secondary 4‐Lane Undivided 28,000
Primary 4‐Lane Divided 42,600
It should be noted that although the ADT values are suitable for planning purposes, it is not a
precise measure of capacity. The ultimate capacity of a roadway is based upon a number of
factors. These factors include the relationships between peak hour and daily traffic volumes,
intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway
grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle
mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian bicycle traffic. As such, where the peak hour roadway
segment analysis indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a review of the more detailed peak
hour intersection analysis is undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis
explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. Therefore, roadway segment
widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the
need for additional through lanes.
These roadway capacities are “rule of thumb” estimates for planning purposes and are affected
by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access
control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight
distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian bicycle traffic. As such, where the
35
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
29
ADT volume based roadway segment analysis indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a
review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis and progression analysis are
undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors
that affect roadway capacity. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, roadway widening is
typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for
additional through lanes.
3.10 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are used at the General Plan
level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes)
needed to meet traffic demand. Table 3‐5 provides a summary of the Existing conditions
roadway segment capacity analysis based on the roadway segment capacity thresholds
identified on Table 3‐4. As shown on Table 3‐5, all study area roadway segments analyzed are
currently operating at acceptable LOS.
3.11 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour
intersection turning volumes. Based on the peak hour volume based Warrant #3 of the 2012
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
as amended for use in California, the following 4 unsignalized study area intersections currently
warrant a traffic signal:
Madison Street at Avenue 54
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 52
The traffic signal warrant worksheets for Existing traffic conditions are included in Appendix 3.3
of this TIA.
36
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 12112d1111218.59.3 A A
2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1200001018.88.4 A A
3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS 22112012d12112.9 15.9 B C
4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12127.9 28.5 C C
5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112128.6 29.4 C C
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS0.510.522112011112.2 16.9 B C
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 9.4 9.7 A A
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.518.414.3 A B
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 13123112111146.3 49.4 D D
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500118.29.1 A A
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1101110.50.5101!08.18.3 A A
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.1 9.4 A A
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11012d11101!08.59.2 A A
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS 01!00.50.5111001!014.3 12.7 B B
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS 01!012011112d14.7 25.3 B D
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>16.6 18.0 B B
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 7.5 8.2 A A
18 S. Access / Avenue 60
19 Madison St. / Main Access
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]3‐3
Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
TABLE 3‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane
Intersection Does Not Exist
37
Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 1,600 0.08
West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 2,300 0.08
West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 1,800 0.13
Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 6,700 0.16
Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 3,200 0.15
Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 3,400 0.11
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]3‐4
Avenue 58
1 Existing Number of Through lanes
2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017)
TABLE 3‐4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS
Capacity2
3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity.
5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity.
38
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
32
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as
the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The Project consists of a
master planned themed resort comprised of a recreational pool (wave pool), a 150‐key hotel,
104 attached dwelling units, 496 detached dwelling units, and 60,000 square feet of retail. The
surf pool is a private facility. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Project will
be constructed in three phases, as follows:
Phase 1 (2021) – 12‐acre wave pool facility, a 150‐key hotel, 96 multifamily attached dwelling
units, 26 single family detached dwelling units, and 10,000 square feet of retail
Phase 2 (2023) – additional 25,000 square feet of retail for a total of 12‐acre wave pool facility, a
150‐key hotel, 104 multifamily attached dwelling units, 26 single family detached dwelling units,
and 35,000 square feet of retail
Phase 3 (2026) – additional 25,000 square feet of retail and 470 single family detached dwelling
units for a total of 12‐acre wave pool facility, a 150‐key hotel, 104 multifamily attached dwelling
units, 496 single family detached dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail
The Wave – Coral Mountain Project is proposed to be served by the Project access locations
listed below:
Madison Street / Main Access (full access)
South Access / Avenue 60 (full access)
Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 (full access)
Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 (right‐in/right‐out access)
Madison Street / Project Access 3 (right‐in/right‐out access)
4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a
development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon
forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the
specific land uses being proposed for a given development.
In accordance with the City of La Quinta’s Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, the Project trip
generation rates to be used for the traffic impact analysis will be based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 10th Edition (2017). Trip generation
estimates for the Project have been determined by utilizing the published rates for the peak
hour of the generator rather than for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic, where possible.
Trip generation rates are presented on Tables 4‐1 through 4‐3 for Phase 1 through Project
buildout conditions, respectively. ITE trip generation rates for Single Family Detached
Residential (Code 210), Multifamily Housing (Code 220), Resort Hotel (Code 330), and Shopping
Center (Code 820) are used. The surf pool is a private facility. As indicated in the original
approved TIA scope for this Project, trip generation rates for the Wave Pool Facility from the
San Diego Association of Governments recreational park (developed) rates appropriately
account for this private facility.
39
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 26 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.20 0.27 0.47 7.87
Shopping Center 820 10 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 1.20 0.80 2.00 2.40 1.60 4.00 50.00
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 26 DU 5 14 19 16 10 26 245
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 11 36 47 36 22 58 761
Internal to Retail/Resort (2) (3) (5) (9) (7) (16) (141)
14 47 61 43 25 68 865
Shopping Center 820 10 TSF 6 4 10 18 20 38 378
Pass‐By (25%)(1) (1) (2) (5) (5) (10) (95)
Internal to Residential/Resort (3) (3) (6) (4) (4) (8) (72)
20291120211
Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181
Internal to Residential/Retail (7) (8) (15) (11) (17) (28) (324)
34 7 41192443857
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (8) (6) (14) (16) (12) (28) (306)
6 4 10 13 7 20 294
77 79 156 129 112 241 3,165
Internal Capture Subtotal (20) (20) (40) (40) (40) (80) (843)
Pass‐By (Shopping Center)(1) (1) (2) (5) (5) (10) (95)
56 58 114 84 67 151 2,227
4 Since ITE does not have trip rates for a wave pool facility, similar use based on SANDAG's recreation park (developed) peak hour and daily rates are utilized.
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]Ph1 TG
TABLE 4‐1: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2021) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Daily
Residential External Trips
Trip Generation Results
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Occupied Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 Pass‐By Source: Shops at Coral Mountain TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 2009).
Shopping Center External Trips
Resort Hotel External Trips
Wave Pool Facility External Trips
Project Subtotal
Project Total External Trips
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
40
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 26 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.20 0.27 0.47 7.87
Shopping Center 820 35 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 1.20 0.80 2.00 2.40 1.60 4.00 50.00
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 26 DU 5 14 19 16 10 26 245
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 11 36 47 36 22 58 761
Internal to Retail/Resort (2) (5) (7) (10) (8) (18) (158)
14 45 59 42 24 66 848
Shopping Center 820 35 TSF 20 13 33 64 69 133 1,321
Pass‐By (25%)(4) (4) (8) (16) (16) (32) (330)
Internal to Residential/Resort (5) (4) (9) (8) (8) (16) (144)
11 5 16404585847
Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181
Internal to Residential/Retail (8) (8) (16) (13) (19) (32) (370)
33 7 40172239811
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (9) (7) (16) (17) (13) (30) (328)
5 3 8 12 6 18 272
91 88 179 175 161 336 4,108
Internal Capture Subtotal (24) (24) (48) (48) (48) (96) (1,000)
Pass‐By (Shopping Center)(4) (4) (8) (16) (16) (32) (330)
63 60 123 111 97 208 2,778
4 Since ITE does not have trip rates for a wave pool facility, similar use based on SANDAG's recreation park (developed) peak hour and daily rates are utilized.
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]Ph2 TG
TABLE 4‐2: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2023) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Daily
Residential External Trips
Trip Generation Results
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Occupied Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 Pass‐By Source: Shops at Coral Mountain TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 2009).
Shopping Center External Trips
Resort Hotel External Trips
Wave Pool Facility External Trips
Project Subtotal
Project Total External Trips
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
41
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 496 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.20 0.27 0.47 7.87
Shopping Center 820 60 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 1.20 0.80 2.00 2.40 1.60 4.00 50.00
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 496 DU 94 273 367 308 184 492 4,682
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)220 104 DU 11 36 47 36 22 58 761
Internal to Retail/Resort (10) (20) (30) (40) (29) (69) (595)
95 289 384 304 177 481 4,848
Shopping Center 820 60 TSF 35 22 57 110 119 229 2,265
Pass‐By (25%)(7) (7) (14) (28) (28) (56) (566)
Internal to Residential/Resort (9) (7) (16) (21) (35) (56) (448)
19 8 27 61 56 117 1,251
Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181
Internal to Residential/Retail (14) (10) (24) (15) (21) (36) (416)
27 5 32152035765
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (12) (8) (20) (26) (17) (43) (470)
224325130
195 356 551 513 385 898 9,489
Internal Capture Subtotal (45) (45) (90) (102) (102) (204) (1,929)
Pass‐By (Shopping Center) (7) (7) (14) (28) (28) (56) (566)
143 304 447 383 255 638 6,994
4 Since ITE does not have trip rates for a wave pool facility, similar use based on SANDAG's recreation park (developed) peak hour and daily rates are utilized.
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]Trip Gen
TABLE 4‐3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Residential External Trips
Resort Hotel External Trips
Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Wave Pool Facility External Trips
Shopping Center External Trips
Project Subtotal
Project Total External Trips
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Occupied Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Daily
3 Pass‐By Source: Shops at Coral Mountain TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 2009).
42
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
36
The project area land uses includes a unique mix of commercial retail, resort, recreation and
residential uses, so reasonable assumptions regarding internal/pass‐by interactions between
these uses are included in the trip generation calculations. The wave pool facility will be
utilized by hotel guests, but outside trip generation is also included for things like off‐site lunch,
wave pool employees, etc. Area residents and visitors will use the commercial retail area
facilities (which typically include merchandise, service station and restaurant land uses). The
total internal/pass‐by trip ends have been adjusted in a manner to ensure that no “double‐
counting” occurs before assigning the project trips to the roadway network.
As shown on Table 4‐1, Phase 1 of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of
2,227 external trip‐ends per day on a typical weekday with 114 external vehicles per hour (VPH)
during the weekday AM peak hour and 151 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour.
Table 4‐2 shows trip generation for Phase 2 of the proposed Project, which is anticipated to
generate a net total of 2,778 external trip‐ends per day on a typical weekday with 123 external
vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 208 external VPH during the
weekday PM peak hour.
As shown on Table 4‐3, at Project buildout, the site is anticipated to generate a net total of
6,994 external trip‐ends per day on a typical weekday with 447 external vehicles per hour (VPH)
during the weekday AM peak hour and 638 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour.
4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The trip distribution patterns for the proposed Project residential and resort components are
graphically depicted on Exhibit 4‐1. Exhibit 4‐2 shows the trip distribution patterns for the
proposed Project shopping center components. The trip distributions have been developed
based on RivTAM and local knowledge in the vicinity of the Project site and refined to reflect
the roadway network and the surrounding uses in the vicinity of the proposed Project as they
exist today and are planned for the future.
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
Although the use of public transit, walking, and/or bicycling have the potential to reduce
Project‐related traffic, such reductions have not been taken into considerations in this traffic
study in order to provide a conservative analysis of the Project’s potential to contribute to
circulation system deficiencies.
4.4 TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon
the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system
improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on
the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project Phase 1 ADT and
weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits
4‐3 through 4‐5, respectively. Project Phase 2 ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour
intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4‐6 through 4‐8, respectively.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
45
Exhibits 4‐9 through 4‐11 show Project buildout ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour
intersection turning movement volumes, respectively.
4.5 CUMULATIVE GROWTH TRAFFIC
4.5.1 AMBIENT GROWTH
To account for background growth, an ambient growth rate is estimated for each turning
movement between existing 2019 and each cumulative year (2021 for Project Phase 1, 2023 for
Project Phase 2, and 2026 for Project Buildout) conditions. This background growth is based
upon the relationship between existing traffic volumes and long range projections, interpolated
to reflect the incremental growth calculated from the projections of the RivTAM. This ambient
growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area‐wide growth not reflected
by cumulative development projects.
Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on study area
roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have
been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed
and are under consideration by governing agencies.
4.5.2 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines require that other reasonably
foreseeable development projects which are either approved or being processed concurrently
in the study area also be included as part of a cumulative analysis scenario. A cumulative
project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning
and engineering staff from the City of La Quinta. Table 4‐4 provides a summary of the
cumulative development land uses. Exhibit 4‐12 shows the location of the cumulative
development projects.
If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the
Cumulative forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development
projects are reflected as part of the background traffic.
4.5.3 NEAR‐TERM TRAFFIC FORECASTS
The “buildup” approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth
factor to forecast EAP (2026) traffic conditions. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative
Projects traffic volume forecasts are developed, with and without Project for each of the
following phases:
o Project Phase 1 (2021)
o Project Phase 2 (2023)
o Project Buildout (Phase 3, 2026)
52
53
54
55
Page 1 of 2
# Project/Location Land Use 1 Quantity Units
2
LQ1 Desert Club Apartments Apartments 16 DU
LQ2 La Quinta Penthouses Condo/Townhouse 8 DU
LQ3 Mountain Village Residences Apartments 6 DU
Apartments 104.000 TSF
Medical Office 130.450 TSF
LQ6 Washington Apartments Apartments 26 DU
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 66 DU
Hotel 108 Rooms
Shopping Center 305.000 TSF
LQ8 Codorniz SFDR 142 DU
LQ9 Estate Collection at Coral Mountain SFDR 57 DU
LQ10 Villas at Indian Springs SFDR 15 DU
LQ11 Bellesera SFDR 320 DU
Luxury Hotel 140 Rooms
Condo/Townhouse 29 DU
Lifestyle Hotel 200 Rooms
Condo/Townhouse 66 DU
LQ14 American Tire Depot Automobile Parts 6.720 TSF
LQ15 Estates at Griffin Lake SFDR 78 DU
LQ16 Monterra SFDR 40 DU
LQ17 Andalusia at Coral Mountain SFDR 39 DU
LQ18 Floresta SFDR 82 DU
LQ19 California Desert Museum of Art Museum 18 TSF
LQ20 Walsh Urology Medical Office 1.09 AC
LQ21 Crabpot Restaurant 1.800 TSF
LQ22 Residence Club @ PGA West SFDR 11 DU
LQ23 Signature at PGA West SFDR 230 DU
LQ24 Casa Mendoza Expansion Restaurant 1.053 TSF
LQ25 Pavilion Palms Shopping Center Shopping Center 125.000 TSF
LQ26 Griffin Ranch Amendment SFDR 4 DU
LQ27 Andalusia Village SFDR 71 DU
SFDR 1,200 DU
Hotel 100 Rooms
SFDR 152 DU
Hotel 125 Rooms
LQ31 Silverrock Temporary Clubhouse Recreational Facility 3.886 TSF
LQ32 Canyon Ridge SFDR 74 DU
LQ33 Shops at Coral Mountain Shopping Center 40.7 TSF
LQ34 Coral Canyon SFDR 219 DU
LQ29 Centre at La Quinta
TABLE 4‐4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
City of La Quinta
LQ4 Mayer Villa Capri
LQ7 The Dune Palms Specific Plan
LQ12 SilverRock ‐ Phase I
LQ13 SilverRock ‐ Phase II
LQ28 Travertine
56
Page 2 of 2
# Project/Location Land Use 1 Quantity Units
2
TABLE 4‐4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
SFDR 230 DU
Equestrian Way Station 1.4 AC
IW1 TTM No. 37467 SFDR 18 DU
Condo/Townhouse 70 DU
Hotel 263 Rooms
Quality Restaurant 5.500 TSF
Health Club 38.000 TSF
Shopping Center 15.000 TSF
Restaurant 6.300 TSF
Retail 350.000 TSF
Office 200.000 TSF
Hotel 370 Rooms
Condo/Townhouse 516 DU
I4 La‐Z‐Boy Gallery Retail 15.600 TSF
I5 Polo Community Senior & SFDR 560 DU
1 SFDR = Single Family Detached Residential
2 AC = Acres; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]Cumulatives
I3 Polo Square
City of Indian Wells
IW2 Hotel Development
County of Riverside
RC1 Vista Soleada
City of Indio
I1 Jefferson and Hwy. 111
57
LQ19
I3
I2
IW2
LQ29
I1
LQ28
IW1
LQ17
LQ6
LQ4
LQ7
LQ22
LQ13
LQ25
LQ11
LQ9
LQ31 LQ8
LQ15
LQ12 LQ18
LQ23
LQ27
LQ26
LQ32
LQ10
LQ24
LQ16
I4
LQ2
LQ14
I5
SITE
RC1MONROE STJACKSON STJEFFERSON STMADISONSTIN
D
I
O
BLV
D
50TH AVEWASHI
N
G
T
O
NSTAVENUE 52
AIRPORT BLVD
FRED WARING DR
62ND AVE
HIGHWAY111
AVENUE 46
EISENHOWER DRAVENUE 48
60TH AVE
AVENUE 50
52ND AVE
54TH AVEAVENIDA BERMUDASWASHINGTONSTIN
D
I
O
B
L
V
D
JEFFERSON STMILES AVE
58TH AVE
54TH AVE
RI
VI
E
R
A
62ND AVE MADISON STADAMS ST61ST AVE
60TH AVE
LIGA CLINTON STAVENUE 44
DUNE PALMS RDPGABLVD51ST AVE
REQUA AVE
AVENIDA RUBIO53RD AVE
55TH AVEWINGED
FOOTHJORTH STWARNER TRLO
DLUM D R
IROQUOIS DR BURR STDARBY RD
AVENUE 45
ME RION
H E R M I T A G E
MANDARINA
C A L I FOR N IA DRMI
SSION
D
R
WCLUB DRPARKAVEAVENUE 53
VIA SAV
O
NAAVENUE 49
WEISKOPF
ELLA AVE
FAZIO LNN
VILLA
G
E
D
R
DO CTOR CARREON BLVD
F A Z I O L N S CALHOUN STCREST AVE
CO
A
CHEL L A D R
JEREZA R A CENA
NEW YOR K A V E KINGSTON DR
YOUNGS LNUL R I C HDRA V EN ID A M O N T E Z U MA
ALBION DRQUAILRUNL
NAVENUE 43
FIRESTONECALLE QUITOVIAC A R M E L
GRANT DR
RUSTIC C A N Y O N D R
L
O
M
A
VIS
VIA PE S SARO
BAFFINAV
E
CALLE TEMECULA
GABLE DR
VIA TESORO
YAVAPA
MUIRFIELD DR
PLUM LN
ALMONTEDESERT GROVE DRLAG
O
D
R
VECINO WAY
PEARRY PL
ADAM'S LNLA QUINTA
INDIO
INDIAN WELLS
PALM DESERT
I3
LQ34
IW2
LQ29
I1
LQ33
IW1
LQ17
LQ6
LQ4
LQ7
LQ22
LQ13
LQ25
LQ11
LQ1
LQ9
LQ31 LQ8
LQ15
LQ12
LQ23
LQ18
LQ27
LQ26
LQ20
LQ10
LQ24
LQ16
I4
LQ2
LQ14
LQ3LQ21
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS
User Community
1840 The Wave at Coral Mountain
EXHIBIT 4-12: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAP
_N
12615 - CD.mxd
58
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
52
An ambient growth factor is estimated for each turning movement to be utilized in estimating
the compounded growth between existing and Near Term Year (2021, 2023, and 2026)
conditions, accounting for background (area‐wide) traffic increases that occur over time from
year 2019.
Project traffic is added to assess EAP, EAPC (Phase 1 2021), EAPC (Phase 2 2023), and EAPC
(Project Buildout 2026) traffic conditions. Cumulative development projects traffic volumes are
not included in EAP traffic conditions. The near‐term traffic analysis includes the following
traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
EAP
o Existing 2019 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic for 7 years
o Project Traffic
EAPC (2021)
o Existing 2019 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic
o Cumulative Development traffic
o Project Phase 1 Traffic
EAPC (2023)
o Existing 2019 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic
o Cumulative Development traffic
o Project Phase 2 Traffic
EAPC (2026)
o Existing 2019 volumes
o Ambient growth traffic
o Cumulative Development traffic
o Project Buildout Traffic
E+P, EAP (2026), and EAPC (2021, 2023, and 2026) ADT and peak hour traffic volumes are
presented in Section 6 Near Term Conditions Traffic Analysis of this TIA.
4.5.4 YEAR 2040 TRAFFIC FORECASTS
The Year 2040 forecast volumes are based upon an updated version of the Riverside County
Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) which became available in the CVAG region during
2016. It is consistent with the SCAG draft 2016 RTP for the Transportation Project Prioritization
Study (TPPS) 2040 project.
59
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
53
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
60
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
54
5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
This section discusses the criteria used to determine potentially significant Project impacts and
potentially significant cumulative impacts.
5.1 SCENARIOS
In accordance with the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines and as documented in
Appendix 1.1 of this TIA, this study has analyzed the following scenarios:
Existing (2019)
Existing Plus Project (E+P)
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (E+A+P)
Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project for each of the
following phases:
o Project Phase 1 (2021)
o Project Phase 2 (2023)
o Project Buildout (Phase 3, 2026)
o Project Buildout (Phase 3, 2026) – Special Event
General Plan buildout (2040) Without Project Conditions – establishes future year
baseline to evaluate the proposed Project
General Plan buildout (2040) With Project Conditions – represents future year baseline
traffic conditions with the proposed Project
5.1.1 EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS
Existing physical conditions have been disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as
they existed at the time this report was prepared.
5.1.2 E+P CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Project (E+P) traffic conditions analysis determines circulation system
deficiencies that would occur on the existing roadway system in the scenario of the Project
being placed upon Existing traffic conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the E+P analysis
scenario was utilized to determine potentially significant Project impacts associated solely with
the development of the proposed Project and the corresponding mitigation measures
necessary to mitigate these impacts.
5.1.3 EAP CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions analysis determines the traffic
impacts based on a comparison of the EAP traffic conditions to Existing conditions (i.e., baseline
conditions). To account for background traffic growth, ambient growth from Existing conditions
is included for EAP (2026) traffic conditions. Cumulative development projects are not included
as part of the EAP analysis.
61
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
55
5.1.4 EAPC (2021) CONDITIONS
To account for background traffic, other known cumulative development projects in the study
area were included in addition to ambient growth is included for EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021)
traffic conditions in conjunction with traffic associated with the proposed Project.
The EAPC traffic conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if improvements funded
through local and regional transportation mitigation fee programs such as the Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF)
program, or other approved funding mechanism can accommodate the near‐term cumulative
traffic at the target LOS identified in the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines.
5.1.5 EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS
To account for background traffic, other known cumulative development projects in the study
area were included in addition to ambient growth is included for EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023)
traffic conditions in conjunction with traffic associated with the proposed Project.
The EAPC traffic conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if improvements funded
through local and regional transportation mitigation fee programs such as the Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF)
program, or other approved funding mechanism can accommodate the near‐term cumulative
traffic at the target LOS identified in the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines.
5.1.6 EAPC (2026) CONDITIONS
To account for background traffic, other known cumulative development projects in the study
area were included in addition to ambient growth is included for EAPC Project buildout (2026)
traffic conditions in conjunction with traffic associated with the proposed Project.
The EAPC traffic conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if improvements funded
through local and regional transportation mitigation fee programs such as the Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, City of La Quinta Development Impact Fee (DIF)
program, or other approved funding mechanism can accommodate the near‐term cumulative
traffic at the target LOS identified in the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines.
5.1.7 YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS
The Year 2040 analysis determines if the City of La Quinta Circulation Element is adequate to
accommodate future traffic at the target LOS, or if additional mitigation is necessary. This
section provides recommended intersection and segment lanes to provide acceptable levels of
service for three roadway network scenarios.
5.2 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA
Potentially significant Project traffic impacts are divided separately into intersection and
roadway segment traffic impacts. Intersections and roadway segments are evaluated for both
potentially significant Project and cumulative impacts.
62
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
56
The potentially significant Project and cumulative impact criteria described below for both
intersection and roadway segments per the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines.
5.2.1 INTERSECTIONS
Potentially Significant Project Impacts
Pursuant to the criteria outlined for the analysis of study area intersections using the HCM
methodology, a potentially significant Project impact is defined to occur at any signalized
intersection if the addition of Project trips will result in the LOS for that intersection to exceed
the criteria established in Table 5‐1 for E+P and EAP traffic conditions.
TABLE 5‐1: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS E OR LOS F
Significant Changes in LOS
LOS E An increase in delay of 2 seconds or more
LOS F An increase in delay of 1 second or more
Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 Table 4.0
A potentially significant Project impact at an unsignalized study area intersection is defined to
occur when an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side street for a two‐way stop control or
LOS E or worse for the intersection an all‐way stop controlled intersection and the addition of
Project traffic results in an addition of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement.
Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts
A potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if
the addition of Project trips will result in the LOS for that intersection to exceed the criteria
established in Table 5‐1 for EAPC traffic conditions.
A potentially significant cumulative impact at an unsignalized study area intersection is defined
to occur when, with Project traffic included, an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side
street for a two‐way stop control or LOS E or worse for the intersection an all‐way stop
controlled intersection and the addition of Project traffic results in an addition of 3 seconds or
more of delay for any movement.
5.2.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Potentially Significant Project Impacts
A potentially significant Project impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway segment if
the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F and the V/C ratio increases by 0.02
or more with the addition of Project traffic for E+P and EAP traffic conditions.
Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts
A potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway
segment if the Project would cause the Existing LOS to fall to worse than LOS D for EAPC traffic
conditions. A potentially significant cumulative impact is also defined to occur on any study
63
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
57
area roadway segment that is already operating at LOS E or LOS F, if the Project traffic will
increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.02 for EAPC traffic conditions.
5.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other
public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a
traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TIA uses the signal warrant criteria
presented in the latest edition of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as amended by the MUTCD 2012 California
Supplement, for all study area intersections.
The signal warrant criteria for Existing conditions are based upon several factors, including
volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas.
Both the FHWA’s MUTCD and the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement indicate that the
installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are
met. Specifically, this TIA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume‐based Warrant 3 as the appropriate
representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic conditions. Warrant 3 criteria
are basically identical for both the FHWA’s MUTCD and the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement.
Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TIA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for
intersections with rural characteristics (e.g. located in communities with populations of less
than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets operating above 40 miles per hour). For the
purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural
warrants were used for a given intersection.
Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential
need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the
Caltrans planning level ADT‐based signal warrant analysis worksheets.
It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the
installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not
require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other
traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly
justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An
intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or
operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.
5.4 QUEUING ANALYSIS
For the purpose of this analysis, the 95th percentile queuing of vehicles has been assessed at
Project access locations.
The traffic progression analysis tool and HCM intersection analysis program, Synchro, has been
used to assess the potential deficiencies/needs of the intersections with traffic added from the
proposed Project. Storage (turn‐pocket) length recommendations have been based upon the
95th percentile queue resulting from the Synchro progression analysis. The queue length
reported is for the lane with the highest queue in the lane group.
64
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
58
A vehicle is considered queued whenever it is traveling at less than 10 feet/second. A vehicle
will only become queued when it is either at the stop bar or behind another queued vehicle.
Although only the 95th percentile queue has been reported in the tables, the 50th percentile
queue can be found in the appendix alongside the 95th percentile queue for each ramp location.
The 50th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue on a typical cycle during the
peak hour, while the 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile
traffic volumes during the peak hour. In other words, if traffic were observed for 100 cycles,
the 95th percentile queue would be the queue experienced with the 95th busiest cycle (or 5% of
the time). The 50th percentile or average queue represents the typical queue length for peak
hour traffic conditions, while the 95th percentile queue is derived from the average queue plus
1.65 standard deviations. The 95th percentile queue is not necessarily ever observed, it is
simply based on statistical calculations.
5.5 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
In cases where this TIA identifies that the proposed Project would have a significant cumulative
impact to a roadway facility, the following methodology was applied to determine the fair share
contribution. A project’s fair share contribution at an off‐site study area intersection is
determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to total traffic:
Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic / (EAPC With Project Traffic)
The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented in Section 10.4 Fair Share
Contribution of this TIA.
65
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
59
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
66
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
60
6 NEAR TERM CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
This section discusses the results of the near‐term HCM intersection analysis and roadway
segment capacity analysis. This section also identifies any potentially significant Project and
cumulative traffic impacts to the study area intersections and roadway segments.
6.1 E+P CONDITIONS
E+P ADT, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 6‐1 through
6‐3, respectively.
6.1.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under
E+P traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with those
described in Section 5.1.2 E+P Conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in
Table 6‐1, which indicates that the study area intersections are projected to operate at
acceptable level of service, with existing geometry.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for E+P traffic conditions are included in
Appendix 6.1 of this TIA.
6.1.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the
General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of
through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 6‐2 provides a summary
of the E+P traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta
roadway segment capacity thresholds identified previously. As shown on Table 6‐2, all study
roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for E+P traffic
conditions.
6.1.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area
intersections for E+P traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.2). No additional intersections (beyond
the four that satisfy signal warrants for Existing conditions) are projected to satisfy traffic signal
warrants for E+P conditions.
6.2 EAP CONDITIONS
EAP ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 6‐4 through
6‐6, respectively. The Existing plus Ambient plus Project scenario includes the entire Project
and seven years of background growth.
67
68
69
70
LTRLTRLTRLTRAMPMAMPM
1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 12112d11112110.012.8 A B
2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d1200001018.89.9 A A
3Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS 22112012d12115.223.5 C C
4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12129.130.0 C C
5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112129.129.8 C C
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS0.510.522112011113.220.1 B C
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 10.6 11.2 B B
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.518.814.3 A B
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 13123112111146.549.4 D D
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500118.79.5 A A
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1101110.50.5101!08.58.9 A A
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 0 1!0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.9 11.0 A B
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11012d11101!09.010.0 A B
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS 01!00.50.5111001!016.314.4 C B
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS 01!012011112d16.834.3 C D
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>16.618.5 B B
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 7.7 8.6 A A
18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 08.98.9 A A
19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 0 0 0 12.7 15.6 B C
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*209.29.8 A A
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 0000100208.69.0 A A
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 0 0 0 8.9 10.1 A B
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐1
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
Eastbound Westbound
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane
TABLE 6‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2Northbound Southbound
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1
71
Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 2,300 0.11
West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 4,100 0.15
West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 2,700 0.19
Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 9,700 0.23
Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 4,500 0.21
Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 4,400 0.14
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐2
TABLE 6‐2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Capacity2
Avenue 58
5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity.
1 Existing Number of Through lanes
2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017)
3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity.
72
73
74
75
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
69
6.2.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under
EAP traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with those
described in Section 5.1.3 EAP Conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in
Table 6‐3, which indicates that the following five study area intersections are anticipated to
require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain
acceptable LOS under EAP conditions:
Madison Street at Avenue 54
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 58
Monroe Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 52
EAP analysis results indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 experiences
deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue
52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes
around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the
northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. The intersection operations
analysis worksheets for EAP traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.3 of this TIA.
6.2.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Roadway segment capacity analysis based upon approximate capacities used to assist in
determining the roadway functional classification (number of through lanes) needed to meet
future forecasted traffic demand is summarized on Table 6‐4 for EAP traffic conditions. As
shown on Table 6‐4, study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable
LOS under EAP traffic conditions. The addition of Project traffic is not anticipated to result in
any roadway segment capacity deficiencies.
6.2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area
intersections for EAP traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.4). Additional intersections (beyond the
eight that satisfy signal warrants for Existing or E+P conditions) that are projected to satisfy
traffic signal warrants for EAP conditions are:
Madison Street at Avenue 58
Madison Street at Main Access
Monroe Street at Avenue 58
Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard
76
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 12112d1111219.712.1AB11.919.9B C
2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d12000010110.011.4AB10.011.4AB
3Madison St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 22112012d12141.4 >80 E F 57.7 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 22112012d12135.636.1DD36.938.2DD
4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12130.231.3C C31.032.2C C
5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112131.032.1C C31.332.4C C
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS0.510.522112011118.772.4 C F 22.2 >80 C F
‐ With Improvements TS 0.510.5221120111>24.4 25.0 C C 24.7 25.5 C C
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52
‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 18.5 36.7 C E 21.9 40.4 C E
‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 7.8 8.6 A A 8.3 9.5 A A
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.518.014.0AB10.614.4B B
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 13123112111146.650.4DD46.850.4DD
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500118.911.0AB9.511.9AB
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1101110.50.5101!09.510.9AB10.012.1B B
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58
‐ Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.8 20.1 A C 11.2 39.8 B E
‐ With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 22.1 23.0 C C 24.4 24.5 C C
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11012d11101!010.615.4B C11.518.8B C
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!00.50.5111001!050.7 70.1 F F 66.1 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 01!00.50.5111001!025.425.9C C25.425.9C C
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52
‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!012011112d39.4 >80 E F 50.4 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 01!012011112d12.615.4B B12.916.1B B
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>17.121.8B C17.221.8B C
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.4 11.3 A B 8.8 12.4 A B
18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 08.98.9AA
19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 0 0 0 14.8 19.2 B C
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*2 0 9.3 10.0 A B
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 000010020 8.69.2AA
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 0 0 0 9.3 10.6 A B
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐3
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
TABLE 6‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2Northbound Southbound
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1
EA (2026) Without Project EA (2026) With Project
Eastbound Westbound
77
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio ADT
3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 2,900 0.14 3,500 0.17
West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 3,700 0.13 5,600 0.20
West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 3,900 0.28 4,700 0.34
Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 10,700 0.25 13,700 0.32
Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 6,000 0.29 7,300 0.35
Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 6,000 0.19 7,100 0.22
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐4
Avenue 58
5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity.
1 Existing Number of Through lanes
2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017)
3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity.
TABLE 6‐4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Without Project With Project
Capacity2
Through
Travel
Lanes1
Roadway
DesignationSegmentRoadway
78
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
72
6.3 EAPC PHASE 1 (2021) CONDITIONS
EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are
shown on Exhibits 6‐7 through 6‐9, respectively.
6.3.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under
EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics
consistent with those described in Section 5.1.4 EAPC (2021) Conditions. The intersection
analysis results are summarized in Table 6‐5, which indicates that the following four study area
intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP)
in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC conditions:
Madison Street at Avenue 54
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 52
EAPC analysis results in a cumulatively impacted intersection for Jefferson Street at Avenue 52.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic
conditions are included in Appendix 6.5 of this TIA.
Table 6‐5 also documents conditions with improvements to attain acceptable LOS. Jefferson
Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2
circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional
through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS.
6.3.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the
General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of
through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 6‐6 provides a summary
of the EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based
on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified previously in Table 3‐4.
As shown on Table 6‐6, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at
acceptable LOS under EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions.
6.3.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area
intersections for EAPC Project Phase 1 (2021) traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.6). Three
additional intersections are projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants beyond the four that
satisfy signal warrants for E+P conditions:
Madison Street at Avenue 58
Monroe Street at Avenue 58
Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard
79
80
81
82
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 12112d11112110.914.2B B11.415.6B C
2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d1200001018.810.2AB8.910.2AB
3Madison St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 22112012d12121.347.6 C E 22.6 53.0 C F
‐ With Improvements TS 22112012d12131.431.6C C31.531.7C C
4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12130.230.0C C30.530.2C C
5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112129.931.3C C30.031.3C C
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS0.510.522112011118.849.7 C E 19.3 52.1 C F
‐ With Improvements TS 0.510.522112011136.139.9DD36.240.3DD
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52
‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>>42.8 78.7 E F 44.3 >80 E F
‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 10.2 12.8 B B 10.3 13.0 B B
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.519.334.4AC9.434.4AC
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 13123112111152.450.6DD52.550.7DD
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500118.810.6AB8.910.8AB
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1101110.50.5101!010.412.0B B10.512.3B B
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 10.8 23.8 B C 11.0 26.8 B D
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11012d11101!011.113.8B B11.314.1B B
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!00.50.5111001!031.135.7 D E 33.0 35.9 D E
‐ With Improvements TS 01!00.50.5111001!023.523.0C C23.723.2C C
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52
‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!012011112d50.3 >80 F F 53.1 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 01!012011112d13.014.7B B13.014.7B B
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>16.320.4B C16.320.4B C
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.1 9.8 A A 8.1 9.8 A A
18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 08.68.6AA
19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 0 0 0 11.2 12.6 B B
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*2 0 9.9 10.6 A B
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 000010020 9.39.8AA
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 000 9.09.7AA
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐5
Eastbound Westbound
TABLE 6‐5: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 1 (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2Northbound Southbound
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane
Future Intersection
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1
Without Project
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
With Project
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
83
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio ADT
3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 4,700 0.22 5,100 0.24
West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 4,800 0.17 5,300 0.19
West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 2,700 0.19 2,900 0.21
Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 11,200 0.26 12,100 0.28
Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 4,700 0.22 5,100 0.24
Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 6,600 0.21 6,900 0.22
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐6
Avenue 58
5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity.
1 Existing Number of Through lanes
2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017)
3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity.
TABLE 6‐6: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 1 (2021) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 Capacity2
Without Project With Project
84
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
78
6.4 EAPC PHASE 2 (2023) CONDITIONS
EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are
shown on Exhibits 6‐10 through 6‐12, respectively.
6.4.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under
EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics
consistent with those described in Section 5.1.5 EAPC (2023) Conditions. The intersection
analysis results are summarized in Table 6‐7, which indicates that the following five study area
intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP)
in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC Phase 2 conditions:
Madison Street at Avenue 54
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 58
Monroe Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 52
EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52).
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic
conditions are included in Appendix 6.5 of this TIA.
Table 6‐7 also documents conditions with improvements to attain acceptable LOS. Similar to
EAPC (2021) conditions, Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current
roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively
accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to
provide acceptable LOS.
6.4.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the
General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of
through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 6‐8 provides a summary
of the EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based
on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified previously in Table 3‐4.
As shown on Table 6‐8, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at
acceptable LOS under EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions.
6.4.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area
intersections for EAPC Project Phase 2 (2023) traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.6). One
additional intersection (Monroe Street at Avenue 60) is projected to satisfy traffic signal
warrants beyond the seven that satisfy signal warrants for EAPC (2021) conditions.
85
86
87
88
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 12112d11112111.415.9B C12.018.2B C
2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d1200001019.010.4AB9.210.4AB
3Madison St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 22112012d12133.9>80 D F 36.9 >80 E F
‐ With Improvements TS 22112012d12134.538.5CD34.838.8CD
4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12130.830.8C C31.031.1C C
5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112130.732.1C C30.832.1C C
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS0.510.522112011124.179.4 C F 25.2 >80 D F
‐ With Improvements TS 0.510.522112011142.741.6DD43.042.3DD
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52
‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>>59.8 >80 F F 61.7 >80 F F
‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 11.7 16.6 B C 11.8 16.9 B C
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.5115.634.8B C15.634.8B C
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 13123112111152.353.3DD52.453.4DD
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500119.011.2AB9.211.7AB
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1101110.50.5101!013.018.0B C13.319.1B C
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58
‐ Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 15.7 >80 C F 16.4 >80 C F
‐ With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 17.3 21.7 B C 18.1 22.9 B C
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 11012d11101!015.627.7CD16.229.1CD
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!00.50.5111001!0>80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 01!00.50.5111001!024.424.0C C24.524.0C C
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52
‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!012011112d>80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 01!012011112d13.915.5B B13.915.5B B
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>16.621.5B C16.621.5B C
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.5 11.3 A B 8.6 11.5 A B
18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 08.68.6AA
19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 0 0 0 11.5 13.5 B B
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*2 0 10.1 10.9 B B
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 000010020 9.39.9AA
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 000 9.19.9AA
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐7
TABLE 6‐7: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 2 (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2Northbound Southbound
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1
Without Project With Project
Eastbound Westbound
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane
89
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio ADT
3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 5,100 0.24 5,600 0.27
West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 5,200 0.19 5,800 0.21
West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 3,500 0.25 3,800 0.27
Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 12,300 0.29 13,300 0.31
Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 5,500 0.26 5,900 0.28
Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 9,100 0.28 9,300 0.29
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐8
Avenue 58
5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity.
1 Existing Number of Through lanes
2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017)
3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity.
TABLE 6‐8: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 2 (2023) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 Capacity2
Without Project With Project
90
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
84
6.5 EAPC PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) CONDITIONS
EAPC Project Buildout (2026) ADT, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak hour volumes are
shown on Exhibits 6‐13 through 6‐15, respectively.
6.5.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under
EAPC Project Buildout (2026) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics
consistent with those described in Section 5.1.6 EAPC (2026) Conditions. The intersection
analysis results are summarized in Table 6‐9, which indicates that the following eight study area
intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain
acceptable LOS under EAPC Project Buildout conditions:
Madison Street at Avenue 58
Madison Street at Avenue 54
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 60
Monroe Street at Avenue 58
Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard
Monroe Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 52
In addition, for Jefferson Street at Avenue 50, a second westbound through lane is necessary to
maintain acceptable level of service. EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted
intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52). The intersection operations analysis worksheets
for EAPC Project Buildout traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.5 of this TIA.
Table 6‐8 also documents conditions with improvements to attain acceptable LOS. Similar to
EAPC (2021) and EAPC (2023) conditions, Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction
of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island.
This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound
directions to provide acceptable LOS.
6.5.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the
General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of
through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 6‐10 provides a
summary of the EAPC Project Buildout (2026) traffic conditions roadway segment capacity
analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified
previously in Table 3‐4. As shown on Table 6‐9, all study roadway segments analyzed are
anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under EAPC Project Buildout (2026) traffic conditions.
91
92
93
94
Page 1 of 2
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1Madison St. / Avenue 58
‐ Without Improvements AWS 12112d11112112.7 20.8 B C 17.3 57.9 C F
‐ With Improvements TS 12112d11112127.4 32.0 C C 27.4 32.1 C C
2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d1200001019.6 10.9 A B 9.6 10.9 A B
3Madison St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 22112012d12179.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 22112012d12141.2 43.6 D D 41.6 50.3 D D
4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12131.6 32.3 C C 32.2 33.1 C C
5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112131.9 33.4 C C 32.2 33.6 C C
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 0.510.522112011140.6 >80 E F 54.2 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 0.510.5221120111>22.7 22.5 C C 22.9 22.6 C C
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52
‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>>>80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 15.1 28.3 C D 16.8 34.3 C D
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.5119.4 35.4 B D 19.5 35.8 B D
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50
‐ Without Improvements TS 13123112111152.4 58.8 D E 53.0 60.3 D E
‐ With Improvements TS 13123112112 1 51.4 51.0 D D 51.8 51.6 D D
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.500119.4 12.8 A B 10.2 14.8 B B
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60
‐ Without Improvements AWS 1101110.50.5101!025.9 76.4 D F 30.9 >80 D F
‐ With Improvements TS 1101110.50.5101!033.3 34.9 C C 34.4 37.7 C D
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58
‐ Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 52.2 >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 1 101 101 101 1023.2 33.3 C C 25.9 38.1 C D
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.
‐ Without Improvements AWS 11012d11101!047.3 >80 E F 70.4 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 11012d11101!024.0 24.9 C C 24.6 25.8 C C
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!00.50.5111001!0>80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 1 101 101101 1034.7 37.0 C D 35.0 37.7 C D
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52
‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!012011112d>80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 01!012011112d33.7 41.2 C D 34.1 44.1 C D
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>17.7 25.0 B C 17.9 25.8 B C
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 01!001!001!001!0 9.5 16.9 A C 9.9 21.5 A C
Traffic
Control3Intersection
TABLE 6‐9: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 3 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
Without Project With Project
#
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
Intersection Approach Lanes1
95
Page 2 of 2
L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Traffic
Control3Intersection
TABLE 6‐9: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 3 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
Without Project With Project
#
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
Intersection Approach Lanes1
18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 0 8.9 8.9 A A
19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 000 17.4 24.3 C C
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*20 10.2 11.1 B B
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 000010020 9.4 10.0 A B
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 000 9.6 11.3 A B
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐9
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane
96
ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio ADT
3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 5,700 0.27 6,300 0.30
West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 5,900 0.21 7,800 0.28
West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 4,900 0.35 5,700 0.41
Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 14,300 0.34 17,400 0.41
Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 6,900 0.33 8,200 0.39
Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 3 31,950 5 12,100 0.38 13,100 0.41
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]6‐10
Avenue 58
5 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Primary capacity.
1 Existing Number of Through lanes
2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017)
3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4‐lane Secondary capacity.
TABLE 6‐10: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR PHASE 3 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 Capacity2
Without Project With Project
97
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
91
6.5.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area
intersections for EAPC Project Buildout (2026) traffic conditions (see Appendix 6.6). Two
additional intersections (Jackson Street at Avenue 58 and Madison Street at Main Access) are
projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants beyond the eight that satisfy signal warrants for EAPC
(2023) conditions.
6.5.4 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was performed for With Project Conditions to assess the adequacy of turn
bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Project entries. Queuing analysis findings
are presented in Table 6‐11 for EAPC (2026) traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets
for EAPC (2026) are also provided in Appendix 6.5.
98
AM PM
Peak Hour Volume AM
18 S. Access / Avenue 60
SBL/SBR 72 45 AM 72 >300 56 49
19 Madison St. / Main Access
NBL 19 45 PM 45 150 22 45
EBL 207 150 AM 207 150 101 115
EBR 15 13 AM 15 >150 37 36
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58
NBL/NBR 7 35 PM 35 >50 25 43
WBL 16 27 PM 27 >50 15 21
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58
NBR 3 15 PM 15 >50 20 44
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3
EBR 6 29 PM 29 >50 28 40
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]‐ NOT USED ‐‐
TABLE 6‐11: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS
FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) CONDITIONS
ID Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
EAPC (2026)Storage
Length2
(ft.)
95th Percentile1
Queue Length
PM
1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 Existing Storage Length = 100 ; Proposed Storage Length = 100
99
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
93
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
100
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
94
7 YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
This section discusses the results of the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) HCM intersection
analysis and roadway segment capacity analysis. This analysis will determine if the City of La
Quinta Circulation Element is adequate to accommodate future traffic at the target LOS, or if
additional mitigation is necessary. This section provides recommended intersection and
segment lanes to provide acceptable levels of service for three roadway network scenarios.
7.1 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) ADT, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour volumes are
shown on Exhibits 7‐1 through 7‐3, respectively.
7.1.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout
(Year 2040) conditions are consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan buildout (2035)
intersection configurations (May 2012).
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under
General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are
summarized in Table 7‐1.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic
conditions are included in Appendix 7.1 of this TIA. All intersections are anticipated to
experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions with
improvements.
7.1.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the
General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of
through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 7‐2 provides a
summary of the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions roadway segment capacity
analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified
previously in Table 3‐4.
As shown on Table 7‐2, The study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at
acceptable LOS for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions. However, one roadway
segment along Madison Street, between Avenue 54 and Airport Boulevard (as shown on Exhibit
7‐1) appears to exceed the theoretical daily segment LOS thresholds.
As mentioned previously in Section 3.11, where the peak hour roadway segment analysis
indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection
analysis is undertaken. Further review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis
indicates that the recommended improvements at adjacent study area intersections provide
acceptable level of service. Therefore, roadway segment widening is not anticipated.
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
LTRLTRLTRLTRAMPMAMPM
1Madison St. / Avenue 58
‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 12112d12 0121>40.1 63.2 D E
‐ With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 12112d2 1 0121>34.5 45.5 C D
2Madison St. / Airport Blvd.TS 12d12000010123.228.6 C C
3Madison St. / Avenue 54 TS 221120121>>121>42.9 49.0 D D
4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 221221 1 2 d 1 2 1 38.8 52.0 D D
5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 2 3 1221121121>36.7 53.2 D D
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 221111112>24.0 43.5 C D
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 524 RDB 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 5.8 8.3 A A
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 6.3 21.2 A C
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 1312312 212 2 1 41.5 52.8 D D
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 TS 0 1!0 2 1 1>2 201 2 1 50.9 48.0 D D
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60
‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1 2 012 112 1 1 1 1>45.1 98.8 D F
‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 1 2 012 112 1>1 2 1>36.7 50.3 D D
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58
‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 47.8 72.0 D E
‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 2 2 1>2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 38.0 48.6 D D
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.TS 1 2 012d12 0 1 2 1>33.3 44.1 C D
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 31.5 52.5 C D
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2012 1121 39.0 52.7 D D
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 2 2 1 2 2012 112 1> 34.5 53.3 C D
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 29.7 36.7 C D
18 S. Access / Avenue 60
19 Madison St. / Main Access
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
4 Since roundabout analysis in Synchro is limited to a maximum of 2 lanes per approach, traffix has been utilized at this location (similar to the City of La Quinta
General Plan Buildout TIA worksheets).
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]7‐1
TABLE 7‐1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
Intersection Does Not Exist
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
1 = Improvement per City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012)
108
Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street Secondary 4 28,000 11,800 0.42
West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 12,100 0.43
West of Jackson Street Secondary 4 28,000 18,200 0.65
Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 30,900 0.73
Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 22,700 0.81
Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 24,900 0.58
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]7‐2
Avenue 58
TABLE 7‐2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
Capacity2
1 Existing Number of Through lanes; 1 = City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes
2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017)
3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
109
LTRLTRLTRLTRAMPMAMPM
1Madison St. / Avenue 58
‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 12112d12 0121>41.5 70.3 D E
‐ With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 12112d2 1 0121>35.1 53.0 D D
2Madison St. / Airport Blvd.TS 12d12000010123.729.7 C C
3Madison St. / Avenue 54 TS 221120121>>121>44.2 53.3 D D
4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 221221 1 2 d 1 2 1 39.5 53.8 D D
5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 2 3 1221121121>37.6 54.8 D D
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 221111112>24.2 48.4 C D
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 524 RDB 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 0.5 2.5 1>> 5.9 9.1 A A
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 6.4 21.4 A C
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 1312312 212 2 1 42.2 54.6 D D
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 TS 0 1!0 2 1 1>2 201 2 1 49.6 53.1 D D
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60
‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1 2 012 112 1 1 1 1>46.1 103.9 D F
‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 1 2 012 112 1>1 2 1>37.2 53.0 D D
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58
‐ With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 50.1 75.9 D E
‐ With Added GPCE Improvements TS 2 2 1>2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 39.5 52.0 D D
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.TS 1 2 012d12 0 1 2 1>37.8 45.4 D D
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 31.6 54.5 C D
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2012 1121 39.0 54.3 D D
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 2 2 1 2 2012 112 1> 34.1 54.5 C D
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 29.7 38.0 C D
18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 0 34.2 34.8 D D
19 Madison St. / Main Access
‐ With Cross‐Street Stop Control CSS 1 200201 0 1 000113.2 91.7 F F
‐ With Traffic Signal TS 1 200201 0 1 0007.69.0 A A
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!000002 0 1*2 0 12.9 14.5 B B
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 00002 0 0 2 0 10.2 10.4 B B
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 0 0 0 13.6 14.4 B B
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
4 Since roundabout analysis in Synchro is limited to a maximum of 2 lanes per approach, traffix has been utilized at this location (similar to the City of La Quinta
General Plan Buildout TIA worksheets).
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]7‐3
TABLE 7‐3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
(Secs)
Level of
Service2
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
1 = Improvement per City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012)
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
110
Roadway Segment
Roadway
Designation
Through
Travel
Lanes1 ADT3
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
West of Madison Street Secondary 4 28,000 12,500 0.45
West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 14,000 0.50
West of Jackson Street Secondary 4 28,000 19,000 0.68
Madison Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 34,000 0.80
Avenue 60 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 24,000 0.86
Monroe Street South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 26,000 0.61
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]7‐4
Avenue 58
TABLE 7‐4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Capacity2
1 Existing Number of Through lanes; 1 = City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes
2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (Oct 2017)
3 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day.
111
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
105
7.1.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area
intersections for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions (see Appendix 7.2). One
additional study area intersections are anticipated to warrant a traffic signal beyond those
warranted for EAPC (2026) conditions (Madison at Avenue 60).
7.2 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) ADT, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour volumes are
shown on Exhibits 7‐1 through 7‐3, respectively.
7.2.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout
(Year 2040) conditions are consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan buildout (2035)
intersection configurations (May 2012).
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under
General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are
summarized in Table 7‐3.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic
conditions are included in Appendix 7.3 of this TIA. All intersections are anticipated to
experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions with
improvements.
7.2.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The roadway segment capacities are approximate figures only, and are typically used at the
General Plan level to assist in determining the roadway functional classification (number of
through lanes) needed to meet future forecasted traffic demand. Table 7‐4 provides a summary
of the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with project traffic conditions roadway segment
capacity analysis based on the City of La Quinta roadway segment capacity thresholds identified
previously in Table 3‐4. As shown on Table 7‐4, the study roadway segments analyzed are
anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic
conditions.
7.2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area
intersections for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) traffic conditions (see Appendix 7.4). One
additional study area intersections are anticipated to warrant a traffic signal beyond those
warranted for General plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions (Madison Street at Main Access).
112
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
106
7.2.4 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was performed for With Project Conditions to assess the adequacy of turn
bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Project entries. Queuing analysis findings
are presented in Table 7‐5 for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) With Project traffic conditions.
Queueing analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 7.3.
113
AM PM
Peak Hour Volume AM
18 S. Access / Avenue 60
SBL/SBR 73 46 AM 73 >300 97 232
19 Madison St. / Main Access
NBL 19 45 PM 45 150 43 76
EBL 207 150 AM 207 150 141 130
EBR 15 13 AM 15 >150 93 41
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58
NBL/NBR 7 35 PM 35 >50 22 52
WBL 16 27 PM 27 >50 23 38
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58
NBR 3 15 PM 15 >50 18 52
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3
EBR 6 29 PM 29 >50 32 57
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]‐ NOT USED ‐‐
2 Existing Storage Length = 100 ; Proposed Storage Length = 100
TABLE 7‐5: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS
FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
ID Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
General Plan Buildout (2040) With Project Storage
Length2
(ft.)
95th Percentile1
Queue Length
PM
1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
114
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
108
8 SPECIAL EVENTS
The applicant anticipates the potential occurrence of special events at this location involving
attendance of not‐to‐exceed 2,500 guests per day arriving or departing on Saturdays (up to 4
events per year).
8.1 WEEKEND TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CONDITIONS
The weekend special event intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed
during the weekend peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected on February 22,
2020. Based on discussions with City staff, the Saturday peak hour is selected from this period
between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM.
A sample comparison of the PM weekday data and weekend counts focuses on key locations (4
intersections), as listed in Table 8‐1. The raw manual Saturday peak period turning movement
traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1.
TABLE 8‐1: WEEKEND INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS
ID Intersection Location ID Intersection Location
1 Madison Street at Avenue 58 11 Monroe Street at Avenue 58
5 Madison Street at Avenue 50 13 Monroe Street at Avenue 54
Volume changes at these locations are extrapolated to the remaining study area locations as
identified in the TIA. The average peak hour intersection change between weekday pm peak
hour and weekend peak hour count data at selected study area and nearby intersections is a
decrease of approximately 17.20% (see Table 8‐2). The ‐17.20% rate is applied to the study
area intersections with weekday counts to reflect weekend conditions. Existing weekend peak
hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 8‐1.
8.2 WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT PROJECT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation rates used to estimate weekend Project traffic and a summary of the Project’s
trip generation are shown in Table 8‐3. The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide
weekend trip generation rates for special events at a wave pool facility since the use is very
specific. As such, vehicle trips are calculated based on estimated number of guests anticipated
for these special events and a vehicle occupancy of 2.4.
Table 8‐3 shows the Weekend Project trip generation during a special event based on 2,500
guests per day at the Wave Pool facility and approximately 25% of the guests arriving or
departing during the arrival or departure peak hours. Weekend rates for other on‐site land
uses represent typical Saturday rates. As shown on Table 8‐3, the proposed Project is
anticipated to generate a net total of 8,932 trip‐ends per day on a Saturday during a special
event with 906 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the arrival peak hour and 884 vph during the
departure peak hour.
115
N/S1 E/W2 TOTAL N/S
1 E/W2 TOTAL
1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 432 169 601 365 224 589
5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 577 798 1,375 570 732 1,302
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 285 192 477 160 109 269
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 418 403 821 303 248 551
1,712 1,562 3,274 1,398 1,313 2,711
‐18.34%‐15.94%‐17.20%
1 Northbound and Southbound Approach Volumes
2 Eastbound and Westbound Approach Volumes
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]8‐2 Summary_(Existing Sat Comp)
Weekday
PM Peak Hour
Saturday
Mid‐Day Peak Hour
TOTAL
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
(to be applied to the remaining study intersections
with Weekday PM volumes to reflect Saturday mid‐
day conditions)
TABLE 8‐2: EXISTING 2019 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR & 2020 SATURDAY MID‐DAY PEAK HOUR
COMPARISON
ID Intersection
Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
116
117
In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 0.50 0.43 0.93
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)2206 0.38 0.32 0.70
Resort Hotel 3105 0.40 0.32 0.72
Shopping Center 820 2.34 2.16 4.50
Wave Pool Facility ‐4
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Detached 210 496 DU 248 213 461 248 213 461 4,732
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)2206 104 DU 40 33 73 40 33 73 847
Internal to Retail/Resort (18) (40) (58) (53) (25) (78) (600)
270 206 476 235 221 456 4,979
Shopping Center 820 60 TSF 140 130 270 140 130 270 2,767
Pass‐By (26%)(35) (35) (70) (35) (35) (70) (719)
Internal to Residential/Resort (25) (33) (58) (35) (26) (61) (498)
80 62 142 70 69 139 1,550
Resort Hotel 3105 150 RM 60 48 108 60 48 108 1,229
Internal to Residential/Retail (20) (28) (48) (24) (19) (43) (430)
40 20 60 36 29 65 799
Wave Pool Facility ‐4 2,500 Guests 260 14 274 14 260 274 2,084
Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (42) (4) (46) (4) (46) (50) (480)
218 10 228 10 214 224 1,604
748 438 1,186 502 684 1,186 11,659
Internal Capture Subtotal (105) (105) (210) (116) (116) (232) (2,008)
Pass‐By (Shopping Center)(35) (35) (70) (35) (35) (70) (719)
608 298 906 351 533 884 8,932
4 Vehicle trips are calculated based on estimated number of guests during special events and vehicle occupancy of 2.4.
5 Saturday data for Hotel (ITE Land Use 310) has been utilized.
6 Since Saturday peak hour in/out ratio is not available for ITE Land Use 220, the in/out Saturday split for ITE LU 210 (Single Family Detached Residential) has been utilized.
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]Ph3‐SE
Wave Pool Facility External Trips
Project Subtotal
Project Total External Trips
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
2 DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Room; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 Source: Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017).
Residential External Trips
Shopping Center External Trips
Resort Hotel External Trips
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2
Arrival Peak Hour Departure Peak Hour Weekend
Daily
TSF 46.12
Guests See Below
Trip Generation Results
DU 9.54
DU 8.14
RM 8.19
TABLE 8‐3: PROJECT BUILDOUT (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ‐ WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Units
2
Saturday Mid‐Day Peak Hour
Weekend Daily
118
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
112
The trip distribution patterns for the special event components of the proposed Project is
consistent with the typical weekday operation.
Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project (Special
Event) weekend traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits 8‐2 through 8‐4.
8.3 WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT ANALYSIS
EAPC Project Buildout (2026), weekend special event arrival and departure peak hour
intersection volumes are shown on Exhibits 8‐5 and 8‐6, respectively.
The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 8‐4, which indicates that the following
study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS conditions:
Madison Street at Avenue 58
Madison Street at Avenue 54
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
Jefferson Street at Avenue 52
Monroe Street at Avenue 60
Monroe Street at Avenue 58
Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard
Monroe Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 52
Improvement recommendations identified in Tables 8‐4 are consistent with the improvements
for EAPC Phase 3 weekday typical operations. The intersection operations analysis worksheets
for EAPC Project Buildout (2026) Weekend Special Event traffic conditions are included in
Appendix 8.1 of this TIA.
A queuing analysis was performed for With Project Weekend Special Event Conditions to assess
the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Project entries.
Queuing analysis findings are presented in Table 8‐5 for EAPC (2026) Weekend Special Event
traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets for EAPC (2026) are also provided in Appendix
8.1.
8.4 SPECIAL EVENT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Special events of up to 2,500 guests are anticipated to generate approximately 2,084 daily trips
to and from the wave pool facility alone, of which 1,604 are from outside the Project
residential, retail, and resort hotel. During the arrival and departure peak hours, approximately
624 guests are anticipated to arrive or depart per hour, with an average of 2.4 persons per
vehicle.
119
120
121
122
123
124
Page 1 of 2
LTRLTRLTRLTRArrival Departure Arrival Departure
1Madison St. / Avenue 58
‐ Without Improvements AWS 12112d11112141.6 37.8 E E
‐ With Improvements TS 12112d11112129.9 30.9 C C
2Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 12d12000010110.5 10.8 B B
3Madison St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 22112012d12145.9 39.3 E E
‐ With Improvements TS 22112012d12142.6 41.4 D D
4Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 22122d12d12132.3 32.0 C C
5Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 22122112112132.5 32.5 C C
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 0.510.5221120111 >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 0.510.5221120111>21.9 21.8 C C
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52
‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>>>80 >80 F F
‐ Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1>> 0.5 1.5 1>>0.5 0.5 1>> 0.5 0.5 1>>13.5 13.4 B B
8 Jefferson St. / Pomelo TS 1301300.50.510.50.5129.0 28.9 C C
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50
‐ Without Improvements TS 13123112111148.1 48.1 D D
‐ With Improvements TS 13123112112 1 47.3 47.3 D D
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0001010.50.5001112.7 13.9 B B
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60
‐ Without Improvements AWS 1101110.50.5101!047.0 45.2 E E
‐ With Improvements TS 1101110.50.5101!035.3 35.4 D D
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58
‐ Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 1 101 101 101 1030.2 30.4 C C
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.
‐ Without Improvements AWS 11012d11101!066.3 66.4 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 11012d11101!022.9 22.8 C C
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54
‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!00.50.5111001!0 >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 1 101 101101 1032.6 32.6 C C
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52
‐ Without Improvements AWS 01!012011112d >80 >80 F F
‐ With Improvements TS 01!012011112d34.3 34.3 C C
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 120120111111>20.7 20.7 C C
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 01!001!001!001!0 14.6 14.6 B B
TABLE 8‐4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1
With Project
Delay2
(Secs) Level of Service2
125
Page 2 of 2
LTRLTRLTRLTRArrival Departure Arrival Departure
TABLE 8‐4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
#Intersection
Traffic
Control3
Intersection Approach Lanes1
With Project
Delay2
(Secs) Level of Service2
18 S. Access / Avenue 60 CSS 00001!001 001 0 8.9 8.9 A A
19 Madison St. / Main Access CSS 1 200201 0 1 00030.9 32.2 D D
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 CSS 0 1!00000101*2012.6 12.1 B B
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 CSS 001 000010020 9.9 10.3 A B
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3 CSS 020020001 00011.0 11.1 B B
1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right
turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.
For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software.
BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).
3 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop; AWS = All‐Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]SAT_EAPC
* = Left turn lane accommodated within two‐way left turn lane
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right‐Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free‐Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement
126
AM PM
Peak Hour Volume Arrival
18 S. Access / Avenue 60
SBL/SBR 52 56 PM 56 >300 44 53
19 Madison St. / Main Access
NBL 110 53 AM 110 150 89 61
EBL 175 229 PM 229 150 107 137
EBR 15 27 PM 27 >150 41 42
20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58
NBL/NBR 29 94 PM 94 >50 20 69
WBL 106 39 AM 106 >50 44 37
21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58
NBR 18 51 PM 51 >50 52 44
22 Madison St. / Project Access 3
EBR 34 78 PM 78 >50 43 42
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]‐ NOT USED ‐‐
Departure
1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 Existing Storage Length = 100 ; Proposed Storage Length = 100
TABLE 8‐5: PROJECT ACCESS TURN LANE STORAGE LENGTHS FOR
EAPC PHASE 3 (2026) WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT CONDITIONS
ID Intersection
Turning
Movement
Lane
EAPC (2026)
WEEKEND SPECIAL EVENT Storage
Length2
(ft.)
95th Percentile1
Queue Length
127
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
121
Approximately 260 total inbound trips to the wave pool facility alone are anticipated during the
arrival peak hour (of which 214 are from outside the Project residential, retail, and resort
hotel), with a similar quantity occurring in the outbound direction during the departure peak
hour.
These special event attendee vehicles are anticipated to access the wave pool facility via the
Project Main Entry. For large special event venues, traffic control typically includes special
event flaggers, law enforcement personnel, online or transmitted event information (suggested
routes, parking, etc.), and portable changeable message signs (CMS). In the case studied here,
with appropriate wayfinding signage, these special event traffic control measures are not
currently anticipated to be necessary. However, if at a later date these measures are
determined to be desirable / necessary, the facility management should coordinate with the
City staff to develop a traffic management plan prior to the Special Event. Exhibit 8‐7 shows a
potential generalized schedule of special event operation planning.
EXHIBIT 8‐7: EVENT OPERATIONS PLANNING SCHEDULE
Source: Managing Travel for Planned Special Events Handbook: Executive Summary (June 2007) prepared by Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)
128
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
122
9 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures for determination of
transportation impacts have recently changed to an evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
rather than vehicle delay or level of service, due to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). Vehicle delay and
level of service are still used in La Quinta traffic studies, as presented in sections 2 through 8 of
this traffic study.
VMT is a key measure of effectiveness with regard to various initiatives intended to reduce
emissions, including Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. The California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) publishes a resource for Local Government to Assess Emission
Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. The CAPCOA report recognizes that
land use planning provides the best opportunity to influence GHG emissions through a
reduction in overall VMT. This is accomplished by reducing the distance people travel in
combination with a substantial mix of local opportunities for work, shopping, dining, and
recreation in close proximity to homes and overnight accommodations. In addition to the land
use based VMT reductions, further reductions (while limited) are possible by providing
alternative transportation options.
While the CAPCOA report is primarily focused on the quantification of project‐level mitigation
measures, the VMT estimates for the project have been calculated using the Riverside County
Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) updated in the CVAG region for consistency with the
SCAG draft 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Transportation Project Prioritization
Study (TPPS) 2040. Project VMT estimates take into consideration the relationship between
residential and non‐residential uses, trip balancing effects, internal capture, etc. VMT
estimates also take into account overall Project trip generation, as well as the interaction of
these trips within the Project and between the Project and surrounding areas.
9.1 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The Project incorporates the following strategies to reduce automobile trips and the distance
traveled per service population:
1. Increase diversity of land uses ‐ This strategy focuses on inclusion of mixed uses within
the project and in consideration of the surrounding area to minimize vehicle travel in terms of
both the number of auto trips and the length of those trips. The combination of recreational
wave pool and local commercial in close proximity to residential and hotel uses is expected to
encourage internal interaction. An increase in diversity of suburban development can reduce
VMT within a single development by as much as 12%.
129
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
123
2. Provide pedestrian network improvements ‐ This strategy focuses on creating
pedestrian accommodations within the project and connecting to nearby destinations. An
integrated network of sidewalks and shared‐use local streets conveniently links the resort and
retail parcels to community facilities and residential neighborhoods. The VMT reduction due to
the provision of a compete pedestrian network is up to 5.7%.
3. Provide traffic calming measures and low‐stress bicycle network improvements ‐ This
design approach safely accommodates travel by those using traditional bicycling, as well as e‐
bikes (and e‐scooters) which extend the effective range of travel on the bicycle network and
enhance the effectiveness of this strategy. The provision of inter‐connected low volume local
street connections accommodate bicyclists and could potentially result in a VMT reduction of
1.7%.
9.2 SERVICE POPULATION AND VMT ESTIMATES
Approximately 2,181 residents and 674 employees (including 434 employees associated with
the hotel and recreational wave pool, and 240 employees associated with the retail uses) are
anticipated for buildout of the Project. This amounts to a service population of 2,855 SP.
The mix of land uses (including resort, retail, recreation and residential uses) is anticipated to
encourage trip capture on‐site, resulting in a lower than usual VMT per service population (SP).
The VMT / SP associated with the Project could potentially fall within the range of
approximately 25.0 to 32.0, but the Project location, mix of uses, and effectiveness of the
design features support a conservative estimate of 26.3 VMT / SP.
Table 9‐1 provides a summary of the VMT for land uses without planned integration and
proposed Project conditions. As shown on Table 9‐1, the Project area has a projected total of
approximately 91,276 VMT per day for without planned integration, and approximately 75,129
VMT per day for proposed Project conditions.
TABLE 9‐1: VMT FOR THE WAVE – CORAL MOUNTAIN
Project Scenario Daily VMT
VMT / Service
Population
VMT /
Trip
Land Uses without Planned Integration 91,276 32.0 9.61
Proposed Project 75,129 26.3 7.91
130
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
124
The decrease in average daily VMT for the proposed Project in comparison to without planned
integration VMT is due to the mix of land uses providing trip capture on‐site, along with site
design features that facilitate pedestrian & bike travel.
9.3 VMT FINDINGS
The Project mix of land uses (including hotel, retail, and service‐oriented uses) is anticipated to
encourage trip capture on‐site, resulting in a lower than usual VMT per service population (SP).
The VMT / SP associated with the Project could potentially fall within the range of
approximately 25.0 to 32.0, but the Project location, mix of uses, and effectiveness of the
design features support a conservative estimate of 26.3 VMT / SP. Project VMT is
approximately 75,129 annual vehicle miles traveled for the 674 employees and 2,181 residents
added by the Project, which is less than the City average of 26.4 per SP.
131
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
125
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
132
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
126
10 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 PROJECT ACCESS
The Wave – Coral Mountain Project is proposed to be served by the Project access locations
listed below:
• Madison Street / Main Access (full access)
• South Access / Avenue 60 (full access)
• Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 (full access)
• Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 (right‐in/right‐out access)
• Madison Street / Project Access 3 (right‐in/right‐out access)
In order to meet the City of La Quinta separation standard between driveways along Avenue 58
and adjacent to the Project commercial area, Project Access 1 will need to be shifted easterly
by approximately 40 feet. At this location, Project Access 1 will be located 250 feet east of S.
Valley Lane and approximately 280 feet west of Project Access 2. All other proposed Project
access locations meet City of La Quinta intersection spacing standards.
Exhibit 10‐1 shows Project access and site‐adjacent improvements to be constructed in
conjunction with development.
For Project Phase 1 conditions, the following improvements are recommended:
Avenue 58 should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the
commercial portion of the Project.
Madison Street should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along
the commercial portion of the Project. Avenue 60 should be constructed as a 2‐lane roadway
along the Project boundary.
For Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 (intersection 20), provide northbound cross‐street stop
control. Construct south leg with one shared northbound left‐right turn lane. Accommodate
westbound left turn lane within two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) striping.
Northbound cross‐street stop control should be provided for Project Access 2 & Avenue 58
(intersection 21). Construct south leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns should not
be accommodated at this intersection.
For Madison Street & Project Access 3 (intersection 22), provide eastbound cross‐street stop
control. Construct west leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns should not be
accommodated at this intersection.
Eastbound cross‐street stop control should be provided for Madison Street & Main Access
(intersection 19). Construct west leg with one left turn outbound and one right turn outbound
lane. Construct a northbound left turn inbound lane with a minimum turn bay length of 150’.
133
A V E N U E 5 8
Neighborhood
Commercial
Future
Low Density Residential (3)
Future
Low Density Residential (2)Future
Low Density Residential (4)
Low Density Residential (5)
A V E N U E 6 0
Coral Mountain
29.50 Ac.
46.61 Ac.
The Farm
49.21 Ac.
54.50 Ac.
37.66 Ac.
7.77 Ac.
±118 Units
±122 Units
±136 Units
±94 Units
Resort (5)
14.20 Ac.±38 Units
The Hotel
±66 Units
2.53 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
2.48 Du/Ac.
2.24 Du/Ac.
2.68 Du/Ac.
Planning Area III
Resort (4)
Resort (1)
Future
Planning Area I
Planning Area II
Planning Area II
Planning Area II
Planning Area II
PA III
Planning Area III
TheBeach Club
The Farm
Village
3.18 Ac.
15.37 Ac.
8.24 Ac.
4.24 Ac.
6.82 Ac.
IRRI
G
A
T
I
O
N
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
IR
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
E
A
S
EM
E
N
T
IRRIGATION EASEMENTIRRIGATION EASEMENT
IRRIGATION EASEMENT
27.01 Ac.
Open Space
Planning Area IV
128
129
121
120
119
118
114
113
112
111
110
109101
100
99
98
97
96
95 117
92
91
90
89
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
43
42
41
40
39
38
44
45
46 47
4950
51
52
53
54
55
63
64
65
66
67 68
69
70
71
72
73
363534333231
7
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
4837
74
93
OS
Resort (3)
11.06 Ac.
Planning Area III
(Includes "The Farm" and "The Farm Village")
Resort (2)
27.82 Ac.
Planning Area III
The Wave
(Includes "Resort Residential" (Lots 27-92) and "The Beach Club")
(150 Keys)8.57 Ac.
(Resort Residential (Lots 94-131)
The Hotel
3.40 Ac.
130
131
129
128
125
107106105104103102
124
123
116
115
108
94
1 2 3
4
5
6
8
9
142
135
140
146
145
144
147
139
132
133
134
136 137
138
143
148
149
122
OS
OS
OS OS OS
OS
141
150
OS
OSOS
OS
OS
OS
93
The Hotel
OS
OS
OS
10
Low Density Residential (1)
44.09 Ac.±26 Units
0.59 Du/Ac.
Planning Area II
88
87
86
Resort (6)
Private Club Hosting Area
Planning Area III MA D I S O N S T R E E T26.55 Ac.
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
THE WAVE - CORAL MOUNTAIN34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com
MSA CONSULTING, INC.
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
26.55 Ac.
8.57 Ac.
27.82 Ac.
27.01 Ac.
44.09 Ac.
46.61 Ac.
37.66 Ac.
N/A
150 Hotel Keys
N/A
N/A
26 Units (Detached Residential)
118 Units (Detached Residential)
94 Units (Detached Residential)
384.55 Ac. 750 Units
Resort (2) - The Wave
Open Space (Recreation)
Low Density Residential (2)
Low Density Residential (3)
Total
14.20 Ac.38 Units (Attached Residential)Resort (5) - Residential
54.50 Ac. 136 Units (Detached Residential)
49.21 Ac. 122 Units (Detached Residential)
29.50 Ac.66 Units (Attached Residential)Resort (4) - Residential
Low Density Residential (4)
Low Density Residential (5)
N/A
17.50 Du/Ac.
N/A
N/A
0.59 Du/Ac.
2.53 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
N/A
2.68 Du/Ac.
2.50 Du/Ac.
2.48 Du/Ac.
2.24 Du/Ac.
232.07 Ac.496 Units (Detached Residential)Low Density Residential Subtotal N/A
PA II
PA III
PA IV
LAND USE LEGEND
Land Use Area Units
Note:1.Planning Areas VII & IX will have a combined allowable retail area of 60,000 sf.2.All planning areas will distribute the overall total unit allowance based on market demand.
Density / AcrePlanningArea
7.77 Ac.N/ANeighborhood Commercial N/APA I
Resort (3) - The Farm
Resort (1) - Hotel
11.06 Ac. N/A N/A
Resort (6) - Hosting Area
Low Density Residential (1)
117.70 Ac.104 Units (Attached Residential)N/AResort Subtotal
R:\2553\ACAD\Planning\Land Use Plan\2553 Proposed Land Use Plan.dwg, 2/25/2020 2:43:13 PM, dgallerani, MSA Consulting, Inc.134
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
128
For South Access & Avenue 60 (intersection 18), provide southbound cross‐street stop control.
Construct north leg with one shared left‐right turn outbound lane. Construct west leg with one
shared left‐through lane. Construct east leg with one shared through‐right lane.
For Project Phase 2 conditions, the same improvements are recommended as for Project
Phase 1 (see above).
For Project Buildout (Phase 3) conditions, the following improvements are recommended:
Avenue 58 should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along the
residential / remaining portion of the Project.
Madison Street should be constructed to its ultimate half‐section width as a Secondary along
the residential / remaining portion of the Project.
Construct traffic signal for the intersection of Madison Street & Main Access when warranted.
10.2 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Existing intersection operations were presented in Section 3.10 of this TIA. All of the 17 existing
study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours.
The following 4 unsignalized study area intersections currently warrant a traffic signal:
Madison Street at Avenue 54
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 54
Monroe Street at Avenue 52
10.2.1 E+P CONDITIONS
For Existing + Project conditions, the intersection analysis results were previously presented on
Table 6‐1, which indicates that two study area intersections require installation of a traffic
signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under E+P conditions:
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#15) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
10.2.2 EAP CONDITIONS
EAP intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 6‐3, which indicates that
the following five study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic
signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAP conditions:
Madison Street at Avenue 54 (#3) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (#11) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (#13) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
135
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
129
EAP analysis results indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 experiences
deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue
52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes
around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the
northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS.
10.2.3 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS (2021) CONDITIONS
EAPC intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 6‐5, which indicates that
the following four study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic
signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC Phase 1
conditions:
Madison Street at Avenue 54 (#3) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (#13) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
EAPC analysis results in a cumulatively impacted intersection for Jefferson Street at Avenue 52.
Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to
incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an
additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable
LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is
appropriate.
10.2.4 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS (2023) CONDITIONS
EAPC intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 6‐7, which indicates that
the following five study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic
signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC Phase 2
conditions:
Madison Street at Avenue 54 (#3) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (#12) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (#13) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52).
Similar to EAPC Phase 1 conditions, Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the
current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This
effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound
directions to provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the
Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate.
136
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
130
10.2.5 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS (2026) CONDITIONS
EAPC intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 6‐9, which indicates that
the following eight study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic
signal in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC conditions:
Madison Street at Avenue 58 (#1) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Madison Street at Avenue 54 (#3) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 60 (#11) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (#12) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard (#13) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (#14) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#15) – Install CIP‐funded traffic signal control
In addition, for Jefferson Street at Avenue 50, a second westbound through lane is necessary to
maintain acceptable level of service. EAPC analysis results in one cumulatively impacted
intersection (Jefferson Street at Avenue 52). Similar to EAPC Phase 1 and Phase 2 conditions,
Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to
incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an
additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable
LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is
appropriate.
The main Project driveway is located at on Madison Street south of Avenue 58. It is a full access
location, serving left and right turns to and from Madison Street with traffic signal control.
With the Project, the northbound left turn lane serving the main Project driveway is
recommended to provide 150 feet of vehicle queuing.
10.2.6 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) CONDITIONS
All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan
Buildout (Year 2040), based upon improvements indicated in the City of La Quinta General Plan
Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis.
The main Project driveway is located at on Madison Street south of Avenue 58. It is a full access
location, serving left and right turns to and from Madison Street with traffic signal control.
With the Project, the northbound left turn lane serving the main Project driveway is
recommended to provide 150 feet of vehicle queuing.
10.3 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION
Project mitigation may include a combination of fee payments to established programs,
construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future
improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by
137
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
131
development should be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where
appropriate (to be determined at the City’s discretion).
Table 10‐1 shows the project fair share percentages at cumulatively impacted intersections and
CIP funded locations (for EAPC and 2040 conditions). However, these percentages are an
approximation only as they are intended only for discussion purposes and do not imply any
legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation.
In addition, a summary of study area improvements needed to address intersection operational
deficiencies and corresponding funding sources for near‐term and General Plan Buildout
conditions are summarized in Table 10‐2.
138
Phase 1
(2021)
Phase 2
(2023)
Phase 3
Buildout
(2026)
Phase 1
(2021)
Phase 2
(2023)
Phase 3
(2026)
EAPC
Phase 1
(2021)1
EAPC
Phase 2
(2023)2
EAPC
Phase 3
(2026)3
2040
With
Project4
1Madison St. / Avenue 58
•AM Peak Hour 339 1,455 3,235 23% 10%
•PM Peak Hour 464 2,034 4,690 23% 10%
3Madison St. / Avenue 54
•AM Peak Hour 36 38 182 1,469 1,679 2,165 5,224 2% 2% 8% 3%
•PM Peak Hour 43 52 240 1,845 2,130 2,769 6,689 2% 2% 9% 4%
4Madison St. / Avenue 52
•AM Peak Hour 98 4,330 2%
•PM Peak Hour 129 5,452 2%
5Madison St. / Avenue 50
•AM Peak Hour 58 1,967 4,587 1%
•PM Peak Hour 72 2,594 6,410 1%
6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54
•AM Peak Hour 12 13 61 1,331 1,443 1,669 3,135 1% 1% 4% 2%
•PM Peak Hour 15 17 80 1,604 1,749 2,044 3,871 1% 1% 4% 2%
7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52
•AM Peak Hour 12 12 76 2,792 2,965 3,301 5,035 0.4% 0.4% 2% 2%
•PM Peak Hour 13 13 97 3,233 3,462 3,900 6,097 0.4% 0.4% 2% 2%
9 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50
•AM Peak Hour 77 3,213 3,344 3,622 4,954 2% 2%
•PM Peak Hour 96 3,853 4,054 4,440 6,161 2% 2%
10 Madison St. / Avenue 60
•AM Peak Hour 125 2,875 4%
•PM Peak Hour 169 3,853 4%
11 Monroe St. / Avenue 60
•AM Peak Hour 82 685 941 1,334 3,094 6% 3%
•PM Peak Hour 111 840 1,194 1,733 4,863 6% 2%
12 Monroe St. / Avenue 58
•AM Peak Hour 29 141 695 919 1,320 3,311 3% 11% 4%
•PM Peak Hour 37 185 1,007 1,334 1,914 4,733 3% 10% 4%
13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.
•AM Peak Hour 76 640 854 1,218 3,200 6% 2%
•PM Peak Hour 97 864 1,163 1,654 4,442 6% 2%
14 Monroe St. / Avenue 54
•AM Peak Hour 12 12 76 1,120 1,349 1,738 3,987 1% 1% 4% 2%
•PM Peak Hour 13 13 97 1,250 1,566 2,108 5,384 1% 1% 5% 2%
15 Monroe St. / Avenue 52
•AM Peak Hour 12 12 76 1,589 1,769 2,113 4,174 1% 1% 4% 2%
•PM Peak Hour 13 13 97 1,932 2,190 2,673 5,664 1% 1% 4% 2%
16 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue
•AM Peak Hour 9 9 58 1,561 1,734 2,067 4,319 1% 1% 3% 1%
•PM Peak Hour 10 9 72 2,137 2,378 2,839 6,011 0% 0% 3% 1%
17 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue
•AM Peak Hour 13 13 61 370 464 670 2,594 4% 3% 9% 2%
•PM Peak Hour 13 17 81 559 700 995 3,735 2% 2% 8% 2%
1 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Phase 1 (2021) Traffic" / "EAPC Phase 1 (2021) Peak Hour Traffic")
2 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Phase 2 (2023) Traffic" / "EAPC Phase 2 (2023) Peak Hour Traffic")
3 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Phase 3 Buildout (2026) Traffic" / "EAPC Phase 3 (2026) Peak Hour Traffic")
4 Project Fair Share % = ("Project Only Phase 3 Buildout (2026) Traffic" / "2040 With Project Peak Hour Traffic")
R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]10‐1 Fair Share
N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
TABLE 10‐1: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS
Project Only Traffic EAPC Peak Hour Traffic 2040
With Project
Peak Hour
Traffic
Fair Share (%)
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
ID Intersection
N/A
N/A
N/A
139
(Page 1 of 3)IDJurisdiction Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Without Project With ProjectWithout Project With Project1NoneNoneNoneNoneNone• Install TSDIF / CIP2• Same• Same• 2nd EBL, WBR Ovl • Same3• Install TS • Same• Same• Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• 1 EB free RT • Same• WBR OVL• Same4City of La Quinta/City of IndioNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneDIF / CIP • 1 SBR• Same5NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneDIF / CIP • 3rd NBT• Same• WBR OVL• Same6• Install TS • Same• Same• Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• WBR OVL • Same• Same, 2nd WBR • Same• 1 NBL, 1 NBR • Same7• 2 lane RDB • Same• Same• Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • 3 lane RDB• Same• 2nd NBT • Same• Same• Same• Same• Same• Same, 3rd NBT • Same• 2nd SBT • Same• Same• Same• Same• Same• Same, 3rd SBT • Same• 2nd EBT, 3rd EBT • Same• 2nd WBT, 3rd WBT • Same9NoneNoneNoneNone• 2nd WBT • Same• Same, 2nd WBL • Same• 2nd EBL• Same10NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone‐‐• Install TS• Same• 1 Shared NB L/T/R • Same• 2nd SBL, 1 SBT, • Same SBR OVL• 2 EBL• Same• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT • Same11NoneNoneNoneNone• Install TS • Same• Same• Same• 2nd NBT• Same• 2nd SBT• Same• 1 EBL, 2nd EBT, • Same EBR OVL• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT • Same 1 WBR w/ OVLJefferson St. / Avenue 54Jefferson St. / Avenue 52Phase 1 (2021)1Monroe St. / Avenue 60City of La Quinta/City of IndioTABLE 10‐2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS City of La QuintaCity of La QuintaMadison St. / Avenue 54City of La Quinta/City of IndioJefferson St. / Avenue 50Madison St. / Avenue 60Madison St. / Avenue 50Madison St. / Avenue 52Phase 3 (2026)1Madison St. / Avenue 58Phase 2 (2023)1City of La Quinta/County of RiversideLa Quinta CIPLa Quinta CIPIntersectionFunding Source?2040 Conditions1City of La QuintaCity of La QuintaCity of La Quinta140
(Page 2 of 3)IDJurisdiction Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Without Project With ProjectWithout Project With ProjectPhase 1 (2021)1TABLE 10‐2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Phase 3 (2026)1Phase 2 (2023)1IntersectionFunding Source?2040 Conditions112NoneNone• Install TS • Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• 1 NBL, 1 SBL, • Same• Same• Same• 1 EBL, 1 WBL • Same• Same• Same• 2nd NBL, 2nd NBT, • Same 1 NBR w/ OVL• 2nd SBL, 2nd SBT • Same• 2nd EBT, 2nd EBR • Same• 2nd WBT• Same13NoneNoneNoneNone• Install TS • SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• 2nd NBT• Same• 2nd EBT• Same• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, • Same 1 WBR w/ OVL14• Install TS • Same• Same• Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• 1 NBL, 1 SBL, 1 WBL• Same• Same• Same• 2nd NBT, 1 NBR • Same• 2nd SBT, 1 SBR • Same• 2nd EBL, 2nd EBT, • Same 1 EBR• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, • Same 1 WBR15• Install TS • Same• Same• Same• Same• SameDIF / CIP • Same• Same• 2 NBL, 1NBT, 1 NBR • Same• 2nd SBL• Same• 2nd EBT• Same• 2nd WBR• Same16NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone‐‐• 2nd NBL, 1 NBR • Same• 2nd SBL• Same• 2nd EBT• Same• 2nd WBT• SameMonroe St. / Avenue 54Monroe St. / Avenue 58Monroe St. / Airport Blvd.Monroe St. / Avenue 52Monroe St. / 50th AvenueCity of IndioCity of La Quinta/City of Indio/County of RiversideCity of La Quinta/County of RiversideCity of La Quinta/County of RiversideCity of La Quinta/County of Riverside141
(Page 3 of 3)IDJurisdiction Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Without Project With ProjectWithout Project With ProjectPhase 1 (2021)1TABLE 10‐2: SUMMARY OF PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Phase 3 (2026)1Phase 2 (2023)1IntersectionFunding Source?2040 Conditions117NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone‐‐• Install TS• Same• 1 NBL, 2nd NBT • Same• 1 SBL, 2nd SBT • Same• 1 EBL, 2nd EBT • Same• 1 WBL, 2nd WBT • Same18N/A• Install SB CSS N/A• SameN/A• SameProject N/A• Same• 1 shared SBL/R• Same• Same• Same• 1 shared EBL/T• Same• Same• Same• 1 shared WBT/R• Same• Same• Same19N/A• Install EB CSS N/A• SameN/A• SameProject N/A• Install TS• 1 NBL• Same• Same• Same• 1 EBL & 1 EBR• Same• Same• Same20N/A• Install NB CSS N/A• SameN/A• SameProject N/A• Same• 1 shared NBL/R• Same• Same• Same• 2nd EBT21N/A• Install NB CSS N/A• SameN/A• SameProject N/A• Same• 1 NBR• Same• Same• Same• 2nd EBT1TS = Traffic Signal; RDB = Roundabout; CSS = Cross‐Street Stop Control; OVL = Overlap Phase2The required signal will be installed by the Project, and reimbursement may be provided for all but the Project’s fair share by future developments, or CIP, or DIF.R:\UXRjobs\_12600‐13000\12615\Excel\[12615 ‐ Report.xlsx]10‐2 Imp SummaryProject Access 1 / Avenue 58S. Access / Avenue 60Madison St. / Main AccessJackson St. / 58th AvenueProject Access 2 / Avenue 58City of La QuintaCity of La QuintaCity of La QuintaCity of La QuintaCounty of Riverside142
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
136
11 REFERENCES
1. Iteris. City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis. Prepared for
City of La Quinta, May 14, 2012.
2. City of La Quinta. Engineering Bulletin #06‐13. s.l. : City of La Quinta, July 23, 2015.
3. City of La Quinta. Engineering Bulletin #10‐01 Intersection Sight Distance Guidelines. City of La Quinta
Public Works/Engineering Department, 2010.
4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation. 9th Edition. 2012.
5. Riverside County Transportation Commission. 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management
Program. County of Riverside : RCTC, December 14, 2011.
6. City of La Quinta. City of La Quinta Municipal Code. City of La Quinta. December 1996.
7. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). National Academy of Sciences,
2010.
8. California Department of Transportation. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.
December 2002.
9. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). [book auth.]
California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(CAMUTCD). 2014.
10. Southern California Association of Governments. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy. April 2016.
11. City of La Quinta. Resolution No. 2012‐12: Fiscal Year 2012/2013 through 2016/2017 Capital
Improvement Plan. City of La Quinta, 2012.
12. KOA Corporation. CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study ‐ 2010 Update. Coachella Valley
Association of Governments, 2010.
143
The Wave – Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis
12615‐03 TIA Report.docx
137
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
144