The URL can be used to link to this page

Appendix M.1 - Traffic Impact AnalysisAppendix M.1 Traffic Impact Analysis Urban Crossroads, 2021 Travertine SPA Draft EIR SCH# 201811023 Technical Appendices October 2023 ��► URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan 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 SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 APRIL 14, 2021 NOVEMBER 5, 2020 MAY 13, 2020 12184-04 TIA Report.docx Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 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 EXISTING CONDITIONS 25 2.1 Traffic Volumes and Conditions 25 2.2 Existing Intersection Level of Service 26 2.3 Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service 26 2.4 Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 32 3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 33 3.1 Operations Analysis 33 3.2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 33 4 PROJECT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 39 4.1 Project Land Use and Trip Generation 39 4.2 Project Trip Distribution 39 4.3 MODAL SPLIT 42 4.4 Traffic Volume Assignment 42 4.5 Operations Analysis 42 4.6 Phase 1 Site Access Improvements 50 4.7 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 54 5 PROJECT PHASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 55 5.1 Project Phase 2 Land Use and Trip Generation 55 5.2 Project Trip Distribution 55 5.3 Traffic Volume Assignment 55 5.4 Operations Analysis 61 5.5 Phase 2 Site Access Improvements 62 5.6 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 73 6 PROJECT PHASE 3 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 75 6.1 Project Phase 3 Land Use and Trip Generation 75 6.2 Project Trip Distribution 75 6.3 Traffic Volume Assignment 75 6.4 Operations Analysis 84 6.5 Phase 3 Site Access Improvements 90 12184-04 TIA Report.docx e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 7 YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 91 7.1 General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with Madison Street Extension Conditions 91 7.2 General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension (GPA Option 1) Conditions 97 7.3 General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension and with Project Entry Gates (GPA Option 2) Conditions 103 7.4 Evacuation and Access Considerations with Flood Events 110 8 PROJECT INTERNAL CIRCULATION 113 8.1 Project Intersection Controls and Street Cross -Sections 113 8.2 Pedestrian / Bicycle Accommodations 116 8.3 Roundabout Design Features 116 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 129 9.1 Project Traffic 129 9.2 Project Access 129 9.3 Off -Site Project Phase Impacts and Cumulative Needs 130 9.4 Fair Share Contribution 139 9.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled 139 10 REFERENCES 141 12184-04 TIA Report.docx Iv Ck URBAN cROssROA0s Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis APPENDIX 1.1: APPENDIX 2.1: APPENDIX 2.2: APPENDIX 2.3: APPENDIX 3.1: APPENDIX 3.2: APPENDIX 4.1: APPENDIX 4.2: APPENDIX 5.1: APPENDIX 5.2: APPENDIX 5.3: APPENDIX 6.1: APPENDIX 7.1: APPENDIX 7.2: APPENDIX 7.3: APPENDIX 7.4: APPENDICES APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS PHASE 2 (2029) WITH PROJECT OPTION 2 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS PHASE 3 (2031) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 12184-04 TIA Report.docx V ��► URBAN CFLOSS Rpan5 Travertine specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 12184-04 TIA Report.docx VI il, URBAN CRQSSROAOS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1-1: PROJECT PHASING PLAN 2 EXHIBIT 1-2: TRAFFIC STUDY AREA 4 EXHIBIT 1-3: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 9 EXHIBIT 1-4: ON-SITE ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS 16 EXHIBIT 2-1: EXISTING (2019) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) 27 EXHIBIT 2-2: EXISTING (2019) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) 28 EXHIBIT 2-3: EXISTING (2019) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) 29 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES 34 EXHIBIT 3-2: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 35 EXHIBIT 3-3: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 36 EXHIBIT 4-1: PHASE 1 (2026) EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 41 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT PHASE 1 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES 43 EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 44 EXHIBIT 4-4: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 45 EXHIBIT 4-5: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 1 PROJECT (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES 46 EXHIBIT 4-6: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 1 PROJECT (2026) AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 47 EXHIBIT 4-7: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 1 PROJECT (2026) PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 48 EXHIBIT 4-8: PHASE 1 (2026) RECOMMENDED ACCESS FEATURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 51 EXHIBIT 4-9: PHASE 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 52 EXHIBIT 5-1: PHASE 2 (2029) EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 57 EXHIBIT 5-2: PROJECT PHASE 2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES 58 EXHIBIT 5-3: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2029) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 59 EXHIBIT 5-4: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2029) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 60 EXHIBIT 5-5: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES 63 EXHIBIT 5-6: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 64 EXHIBIT 5-7: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 65 EXHIBIT 5-8: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) OPTION 2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES 66 EXHIBIT 5-9: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) OPTION 2 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 67 EXHIBIT 5-10: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) OPTION 2 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 68 EXHIBIT 5-11: PHASE 2 (2029) RECOMMENDED ACCESS FEATURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 70 EXHIBIT 5-12: PHASE 2 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 71 EXHIBIT 6-1: PHASE 3 (2031) EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 77 EXHIBIT 6-2: PROJECT PHASE 3 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES 78 EXHIBIT 6-3: PROJECT PHASE 3 (2031) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 79 EXHIBIT 6-4: PROJECT PHASE 3 (2031) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 80 12184-04 TIA Report.docx VII (�► URBAN CROSS ROan5 Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 6-5: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 3 PROJECT (2031) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES 81 EXHIBIT 6-6: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 3 PROJECT (2031) AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 82 EXHIBIT 6-7: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 3 PROJECT (2031) PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 83 EXHIBIT 6-8: PHASE 3 (2031) RECOMMENDED ACCESS FEATURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 85 EXHIBIT 6-9: PHASE 3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 86 EXHIBIT 7-1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 92 EXHIBIT 7-2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 93 EXHIBIT 7-3: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 94 EXHIBIT 7-4: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 98 EXHIBIT 7-5: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 99 EXHIBIT 7-6: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 100 EXHIBIT 7-7: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 105 EXHIBIT 7-8: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 106 EXHIBIT 7-9: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 107 EXHIBIT 8-1: ON-SITE RECOMMENDED LANE IMPROVEMENTS 114 EXHIBIT 8-2: ON-SITE ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS 115 EXHIBIT 8-3: PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE ROUTES 117 EXHIBIT 8-4: JEFFERSON STREET AT NORTH LOOP CONCEPTUAL ROUNDABOUT LAYOUT 118 EXHIBIT 8-5: JEFFERSON STREET AT NORTH LOOP ROUNDABOUT DESIGN FEATURES 119 EXHIBIT 8-6: JEFFERSON STREET AT NORTH LOOP WB -50 TRUCK PATH OVERLAY 120 EXHIBIT 8-7: JEFFERSON STREET AT NORTH LOOP FHWA FASTEST VEHICLE PATHS 121 EXHIBIT 8-8: JEFFERSON STREET AT SOUTH LOOP CONCEPTUAL ROUNDABOUT LAYOUT 122 EXHIBIT 8-9: JEFFERSON STREET AT SOUTH LOOP ROUNDABOUT DESIGN FEATURES 123 EXHIBIT 8-10: JEFFERSON STREET AT SOUTH LOOP WB -67 TRUCK PATH OVERLAY 124 EXHIBIT 8-11: JEFFERSON STREET AT SOUTH LOOP FHWA FASTEST VEHICLE PATHS 125 12184-04 TIA Report.docx VIII URBAN CROSS ROaEIS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS 5 TABLE 1-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS 5 TABLE 1-3: IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS ALREADY OPERATING AT LOS E OR LOS F 6 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 17 TABLE 1-7: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS 18 TABLE 2-1: 2019 INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS 25 TABLE 2-2: 2019 ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNT LOCATIONS 25 TABLE 2-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS 30 TABLE 2-4: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS 31 TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS 37 TABLE 3-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2031) CONDITIONS 38 TABLE 4-1: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 40 TABLE 4-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 1 (2026) CONDITIONS 49 TABLE 4-3: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 1 (2026) CONDITIONS 53 TABLE 5-1: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2029) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 56 TABLE 5-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 2 (2029) CONDITIONS 69 TABLE 5-3: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 2 (2029) CONDITIONS 72 TABLE 6-1: PROJECT PHASE 3 (2031) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 76 TABLE 6-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 3 (2031) CONDITIONS 87 TABLE 6-3: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EAPC PHASE 3 (2031) CONDITIONS 89 TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION CONDITIONS 95 TABLE 7-2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION CONDITIONS 96 TABLE 7-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) CONDITIONS 101 TABLE 7-4: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) CONDITIONS 102 TABLE 7-5: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) CONDITIONS 108 TABLE 7-6: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) CONDITIONS 109 TABLE 8-1: SPEED PERFORMANCE CHECK FOR TRAVERTINE ROUNDABOUTS THROUGH MOVEMENTS 126 TABLE 8-2: SPEED PERFORMANCE CHECK FOR TRAVERTINE ROUNDABOUTS RIGHT TURN MOVEMENTS 127 TABLE 9-1: SUMMARY OF E+P AND PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 131 TABLE 9-2: SUMMARY OF 2040 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 133 12184-04 TIA Report.docx ix ��► URBAN CFLOSS Rpan5 Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 12184-04 TIA Report.docx X URBAN CRQSSROAOS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 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 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 PHF Peak Hour Factor Project Travertine Specific Plan 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 12184-04 TIA Report.docx xi I�1 URBAN CROSS ROaEIS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 12184-04 TIA Report.docx XII URBAN CRQSSROAOS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Travertine Specific Plan ("Project") located in the City of La Quinta. The Project is generally located south of the hypothetical westerly extension of Avenue 60 and west of the hypothetical southerly extension of Madison Street 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 directed by 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 proposed mixed use Project consists of approximately 758 single family detached residential homes, 442 duplex residential units, a 100 -room resort hotel, and other resort/golf facilities located in Planning Area 11 (PA 11). PA 11 consists of 46.2 acres and includes the following land uses: • Golf Practice (4 -Holes) & Driving Range: 23.9 Acres (up to 1,000 sf of clubhouse area) • Golf Academy: 4.7 Acres (up to 5,500 sf of indoor floor area) • Banquet Facility & Restaurant: 4.6 Acres (up to 10,000 sf of indoor floor area) • Slopes: 13.0 Acres (passive outdoor use) The Travertine Project is proposed to be served by two access points: 1) the southerly extension of South Jefferson as a Modified Secondary, south of Avenue 58, and 2) the westerly extension of Avenue 62 as a Modified Secondary, west of Monroe Street. An emergency vehicle access (EVA) is provided via Madison Street, from the northerly boundary of the Project's Planning Area 18 to Avenue 60. In accordance with the City of La Quinta's Engineering Bulletin #06-13, trips generated by the Project's proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 11,321 trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 812 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 1,057 VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 1 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Phasing Analysis EXHIBIT 1-1: PROJECT PHASING PLAN Coral Mountain PHASE 1-A Co naiuelion/Sa les PA Load Use Arm1kns11i Hamm Target oeaxin- Target twits V{qax 10 I.ow Density Residential 35.6 1.54.5 dwac 2.9 75 38.3 11 Kasai/ (loll' 462 Pelta �'fllax 4 12 Low Iknaitp Rex+dprtiol 522 1.5-45 dWac 2.0 107 27 13 Low Deg5iry Residmtiol 26.7 1.54.5 dWac 1-8 48 4 5.8.5 lilac 14 tow Density Residential 399 1.3-4.5 duke 1.7 65 Lon Ik sin Residential 1.5-A Low tensity Residential 20.9 I3 -4S dols. 2.1 s-1 19 Open Space Rccrealion 23.1 80,1 3.11 20 Open 0paoc Natural. 301.2 Phase 1-A Tolala 534.9 0.6 339 PHASE I.6 Con8lu cliunitia le. - PA Land Use Am. Uetu{ry Range Tarxrt Dean{ty Txtgel 1'n{ta _ NIlW - Low Density Residential 15.2 15-4.5 &An 1.9 31 7 Low Density Residerdia1 10.7 13-4.5 dAne 13 61 3 Low Density Rcsidemiel 14.9 154.5 dine. 43 73 9 Medium Density Residential 14.8 45-85 dulac 3.0 74 15-0 Law Dmairy Renidensial 12.4 1.5-43 dWae 2.1 26 18 Open Spore Recreation 14.7 Phaxe 1-R Toth 9.17 2,8 765 Coral Mountain I PHASE 2 Cousin eIion/Sales P.3 Land Arm Ao Benain Range Tame! Target V Villas! Resort 13pa 38.3 Benito Pelta �'fllax 4 Lon 130005 Rrsid(7rtial 9.6 1.54.5 due. 2.5 27 0 Medium Densly Reaidcnlinl 20.1 4 5.8.5 lilac 0.1 163 16 Lon Ik sin Residential 50.4 1.5-4.3 dune 2.3 110 Phase 2 Totak 80,1 3.11 306 100 I PHASE 3 ConsluclionfSo les PA Lead Use Act., 1}rm{gy Raugc Target Penalty Target t'nita V Villas! Resort 13pa 38.3 100 2 Medium Density Residential 25.9 4.5.8.5 dobe 7.9 205 3 Ism Density Rnidentid 29.4 1.545 therm 2.9 85 17 Own Space Recreation 181 Phos 3 Talak 111.7 2.6 290 100 Dike4 it AVENUE S0 L MA= ON Sr EVA PA -3 PA -5 WATER TAN( Martinez Rock 5l ide AVENUE52 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 2 11::!PW° CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 1.3 STUDY AREA AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS 1.3.1 INTERSECTIONS The following 21 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 Airport Boulevard 2 Madison Street at Airport BI. 13 Monroe Street at Avenue 54 3 Madison Street at Avenue 54 14 Monroe Street at Avenue 52 4 Madison Street at Avenue 52 15 Monroe Street at 50th Avenue 5 Madison Street at Avenue 50 16 Jackson Street at 62nd Avenue 6 Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 17 Jackson Street at 60th Avenue 7 Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 18 Jackson Street at 58th Avenue 8 Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 19 Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard 9 Monroe Street at Avenue 62 20 Jefferson St. & N. Loop - (Future Intersection) 10 Monroe Street at Avenue 60 21 Jefferson St. & S. Loop - (Future Intersection) 11 Monroe Street at Avenue 58 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 The TIA included Existing (2017) conditions, but in response to City comments, the previous 2017 traffic counts has been adjusted to represent 2019 baseline conditions. A sample comparison of the 2017 data and new 2019 counts focuses on key locations (5 intersections and 5 roadway segments), documented in Section 2 of this report. Volume changes at these locations are extrapolated to the remaining existing study area locations as identified in the TIA. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 3 �1 URBAN CROSS ROaEIS Roadway Segment 1 Avenue 58, west of Madison Street 7 Avenue 62, west of Jackson Street 2 Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street 8 Monroe Street, south of Avenue 60 3 Avenue 58, west of Jackson Street 9 Monroe Street, south of Avenue 58 4 Madison Street south of Avenue 56 10 Monroe Street, south of Avenue 56 5 Avenue 60, west of Jackson Street 11 Jackson Street, south of Airport BI. 6 Avenue 62, west of Monroe Street The TIA included Existing (2017) conditions, but in response to City comments, the previous 2017 traffic counts has been adjusted to represent 2019 baseline conditions. A sample comparison of the 2017 data and new 2019 counts focuses on key locations (5 intersections and 5 roadway segments), documented in Section 2 of this report. Volume changes at these locations are extrapolated to the remaining existing study area locations as identified in the TIA. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 3 �1 URBAN CROSS ROaEIS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Phasing Analysis AVENUE 50 0 EXHIBIT 1-2: TRAFFIC STUDY AREA 50T V. 9 AVENUE 52 AVENUE 54 I I I III I _/ CITY OF LA QUINTA AIRPORT BL. LEGEND: m = EXISTING ANALYSIS LOCATION (2 = FUTURE ANALYSIS LOCATION – — — – = FUTURE ROADWAY / DIRT N 0 CC0 AVENUE 58 58TH AV. 60TH AV. 0 AVENUE 62 62ND AV. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 4 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis The adjusted existing 2019 volumes are then utilized to estimate future project phasing scenarios (2026, 2029, and 2031). 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) Conditions • Existing Plus Project (E+P) Conditions • Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects with and without Project for each of the following phases: o Project Phase 1 o Project Phase 2 (With Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58) o Project Phase 2 Option 2 (Without Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58) o Project buildout (Phase 3, With Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58) • Year 2040 Conditions with Madison Street extension and with Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58 • Year 2040 Conditions without Madison Street extension and with Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58 (GPA Option 1) • Year 2040 Conditions without Madison Street extension and without Jefferson Street / Avenue 62 extensions (GPA Option 2) Detailed descriptions of each analysis scenario can be found in Sections 4 through 8 of this TIA. 1.4 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Potentially significant cumulative traffic impacts are divided separately into intersection and roadway segment traffic impacts per the City of La Quinta's traffic study guidelines. 1.4.1 INTERSECTIONS Per Engineering Bulletin #06-13, the following LOS criteria will be utilized for study area intersections: Intersection Type LOS Criteria Signalized Intersection LOS "D" or better All -way Stop Controlled Intersection LOS "D" or better for all critical movements Cross -Street Stop Controlled Intersection LOS "E" or better for the side street The City of La Quinta has established LOS "D" as the minimum level of service for its street segments. 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 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 5 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis established in Table 1-3 for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects 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 406-13 Table 4.0 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 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 Opening Year Cumulative With Project 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 Opening Year Cumulative traffic conditions are summarized in Tables 1-4 and 1-5 . As shown on Table 1-4, the development of the proposed Project is anticipated to result in a potentially significant project impact at the intersection of Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14). Potentially significant cumulative impacts are anticipated at the following study area intersections, with the addition of Project traffic summarized in Table 1-5: ID Intersection Location ID Intersection Location 1 Madison Street at Avenue 58 11 Monroe Street at Avenue 58 3 Madison Street at Avenue 54 12 Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard 6 Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 13 Monroe Street at Avenue 54 7 Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 14 Monroe Street at Avenue 52 8 Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 17 Jackson Street at 60th Avenue 9 Monroe Street at Avenue 62 18 Jackson Street at 58th Avenue 10 Monroe Street at Avenue 60 19 Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 6 �i► URBAN CR DSSR DAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 1-4: SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS # Intersection° Traffic Control' Existing (2019) Existing + Project Potentially Significant Project Specific Impact3 Delay' (Secs) Level of Service' Delay' (Secs) Level of Service' AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 8.5 9.3 A A 11.0 13.9 B B No 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 9.9 8.4 A A 8.3 6.7 A A No 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS 12.9 15.9 B C 16.3 27.9 C D No 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 27.9 28.5 C C 29.9 30.7 C C No 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 28.6 29.4 C C 29.5 30.0 C C No 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS 12.2 16.9 B C 17.1 21.6 C C No 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 RDB 9.4 9.7 A A 11.3 12.5 B B No 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 46.3 49.4 D D 47.7 49.2 D D No 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 AWS 7.5 8.0 A A 9.6 12.1 A B No 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 8.1 8.3 A A 10.2 11.1 B B No 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 8.1 9.4 A A 9.9 17.4 A C No 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 8.5 9.2 A A 10.3 11.9 B B No 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS 14.3 12.7 B B 17.8 18.0 C C No 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 - With Project Improvements/Reimbursable AWS TS- 15.4 27.1 - C - D - 22.8 34.2 50.4 30.3 C C F C No 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 16.6 18.0 B B 16.2 17.4 B B No 16 Jackson St. / Avenue 62 AWS 7.4 7.6 A A 8.3 8.6 A A No 17 Jackson St. / Avenue 60 AWS 7.3 7.7 A A 7.6 8.2 A A No 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 7.5 8.2 A A 8.0 9.2 A A No 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 8.1 8.6 A A 8.6 9.7 A A No 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop RDB Future Intersection 4.0 4.7 A A No 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop RDB Future Intersection 4.1 4.8 A A No • 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). • CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All -way Stop; RDB = Roundabout; 1= Improvement; 1 = Improvement per City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012) 3 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. o It should be noted that emergency vehicle access (EVA) is provided via Madison Street, from the northerly boundary of the Project's Planning Area 18 to Avenue 60. Therefore, the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60 is not included in the analysis. F:\UXRjobsL12100-125001121841Excell(12184 - Repl t.xlsxJ1-4 7 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 1-5: SUMMARY OF NEAR TERM INTERSECTION OPERATIONS tt Intersection Traffic Control' Phase 1 (2026) Conditions Phase 2 (2029) Conditions Phase 3 (2031) Conditions Potentially Significant Cumulative Impact° Without Project With Project Without Project With Project With Project (Option 2)4 Without Project With Project De ay' (Secs) Level of Service' De ay' (Secs) Level of Service' De ay' (Secs) Level of Service' De ay' (Secs) Level of Service' De ay' (Secs) Level of Service' De ay' (Secs) Level of Service' De ay' (Secs) Level of Service' AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 17.2 57.2 C F 17.2 57.2 C F 21.9 >80 C F 37.8 >80 E F 21.9 >80 C F 28.2 >80 D F 72.4 >80 F F - With Cumulative Improvements TS 26.5 32.6 C C 26.5 32.6 C C 26.7 35.3 C D 32.4 39.4 C D 26.7 35.3 C D 27.8 38.5 C D 34.8 43.9 C D No 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 9.6 8.5 A A 9.6 8.5 A A 10.3 9.4 B A 10.3 9.4 B A 10.3 9.4 B A 11.0 10.5 B B 11.1 10.5 B B No 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Cumulative Improvements TS 41.0 48.6 D D 41.2 49.0 D D 36.1 36.7 D D 35.6 37.0 D D 37.5 39.1 D D 37.3 38.7 D D 38.9 39.8 D D No 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 32.2 32.9 C C 32.3 33.1 C C 33.1 34.6 C C 33.8 35.7 C D 33.4 34.9 C C 33.9 36.0 C D 34.7 37.4 C D No 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 31.9 33.4 C C 32.2 33.6 C C 33.0 35.0 C C 33.3 35.2 C D 33.3 35.2 C D 34.1 36.5 C D 34.5 36.8 C D No 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Cumulative Improvements TS 32.6 32.4 C C 32.8 33.4 C C 36.2 25.2 D C 36.4 27.5 D C 36.4 27.5 D C 36.9 34.5 D C 37.6 41.4 D D No 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 RDB >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Cumulative Improvements RDB 15.3 28.4 C D 16.8 32.6 C D 13.2 25.3 B D 14.6 31.5 B D 14.6 31.5 B D 3.7 4.7 A A 3.7 5.2 A A No 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 55.5 71.8 E E 55.7 71.8 E E 55.7 73.5 E E 56.1 73.7 E E 56.1 73.7 E E 56.3 75.2 E E 56.9 76.2 E E - With Cumulative Improvements TS 50.5 45.2 D D 50.5 45.5 D D 51.5 47.9 D D 51.7 48.6 D D 51.7 48.6 D D 52.9 50.5 D D 53.2 51.8 D D No 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 AWS 8.7 10.8 A B 11.3 19.4 B C 9.0 12.5 A B 10.8 20.8 B C 18.7 77.6 C F 9.7 16.6 A C 13.3 53.5 B F - With Project Improvements/Reimbursable TS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.3 22.4 B C - - - - 39.2 42.4 D D No 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 15.4 21.0 C C 44.7 >80 E F 22.5 49.6 C E 38.7 >80 E F >80 >80 F F 36.7 >80 E F 70.8 >80 F F - With Project Improvements/Reimbursable TS - - - - 12.7 13.0 B B 13 14.2 B B 13.4 14.5 B B 13.6 16.4 B B 13.5 14.9 B B 13.8 18.3 B B No 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 AWS 15.5 >80 C F 54.1 >80 F F 25.0 >80 C F 76.5 >80 F F >80 >80 F F 55.9 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Cumulative Improvements TS 26.1 33.1 C C 26.3 37.7 C D 28.8 34.1 C C 29.0 39.6 C D 29.1 46.1 C D 29.0 38.7 C D 29.4 54.6 C D No 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 18.4 50.7 C F 70.1 >80 F F 35.1 >80 E F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F 59.9 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Cumulative Improvements TS 10.1 10.8 B B 10.1 11.3 B B 11.0 12.4 B B 11.2 14.1 B B 11.8 15.5 B B 11.7 15.1 B B 12.5 22.7 B C No 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Cumulative Improvements TS 31.9 33.3 C C 34.5 37.7 C D 31.5 38.0 C D 31.9 40.2 C D 44.3 54.0 D D 29.5 33.8 C C 29.3 34.5 C C No 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Cumulative Improvements TS 33.6 41.0 C D 35.6 50.2 D D 42.0 44.5 D D 42.5 46.1 D D 42.7 47.8 D D 39.6 43.7 D D 40.1 45.7 D D No 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 17.9 24.1 B C 18.1 24.9 B C 19.7 33.8 B C 20.4 36.4 C D 20.4 36.4 C D 22.1 49.2 C D 23.3 54.9 C D No 16 Jackson St. / Avenue 62 AWS 8.3 8.9 A A 8.7 9.7 A A 9.6 12.3 A B 11.1 21.5 B C 11.1 21.5 B C 10.9 17.8 B C 13.9 46.8 B E - With Project Improvements/Reimbursable TS - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26 27.7 C C No 17 Jackson St. / Avenue 60 AWS 9.0 11.3 A B 9.2 12.0 A B 9.9 16.0 A C 10.5 20.1 B C 10.5 20.1 B C 11.3 37.1 B E 12.4 72.7 B F - With Cumulative Improvements TS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29.1 26.7 C C 15.3 27.3 B C No 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 9.5 16.5 A C 10.0 21.3 A C 11.2 56.9 B F 12.5 >80 B F 12.5 >80 B F 13.7 >80 B F 17.3 >80 C F - With Cumulative Improvements TS - - - - - - - - 12.3 24.8 B C 12.5 26.1 B C 12.5 26.1 B C 12.3 26.7 B C 12.7 29.4 B C No 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 10.2 15.4 B C 10.9 18.8 B C 12.1 39.2 B E 13.7 76.0 B F 13.7 76.0 B F 14.9 >80 B F 19.3 >80 C F - With Cumulative Improvements TS - - - - - - - - 23.9 13.6 C B 24.2 13.6 C B 24.2 13.6 C B 23.2 14 C B 23.7 27.3 C C No 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop RDB Future Intersection 2.8 2.8 A A Future Intersection 3.7 4.4 A A 3.2 3.4 A A Future Intersection 4.0 4.7 A A No 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop RDB Future Intersection 3.5 4.1 A A Future Intersection 3.8 4.3 A A 3.9 4.7 A A Future Intersection 4.1 4.8 A A No Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall aver ge 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. BOLO= L05 does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable L05). 1 CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS =Traffic Signal; AWS = All -way Stop; RDB= Roundabout;1=Improvement; = Improvement per City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012) A 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. ° Phase 2 With Project Ootion 2: Without Jefferson Street connection from Project Site to Avenue 58. cIUXRjobsL12000.12500\1218°1& 11(1218°-wport.4s41-5 8 URBAN CROSS ROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 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 4 through 6. Project access improvements, fully funded CIP improvements and added improvements (if necessary) are shown on Exhibit 1-3. Roadway cross-sections for Project facilities are shown on Exhibit 1-4. The results of the General Plan Buildout (2040) conditions, including GPA Option 1 and GPA Option 2 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 19 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 CONDITIONS The 21 (19 existing + 2 Project intersections) study area intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic for E+P traffic conditions. As shown in Table 1-4, 18 of the 19 existing study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic for E+P traffic conditions. The study area intersection of Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14), require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under E+P conditions. As shown on Table 1-7, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for E+P and Opening Year traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. 1.5.3 PHASE 1 (2026) CONDITIONS For Phase 1 (2026) traffic conditions, the following eight 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 Phase 1 (2026) without and with Project conditions: 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 9 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 1-3 (1 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 1 MADISON ST. & AVENUE 58 2 MADISON ST. & AIRPORT BLVD. 3 MADISON ST. & AVENUE 54 4 MADISON ST. & AVENUE 52 5 MADISON ST. & AVENUE 50 6 JEFFERSON ST. & AVENUE 54 7 JEFFERSON ST. & AVENUE 52 8 JEFFERSON ST. & AVENUE 50 o J11L .- t— 11L 4� 1. o J11LL,,,*— J11w s— .1111O .1,-1- f- Jlllw, t— WITHOUT PROJECT EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS OJ �f} DEF O }} DEF �ff —71}} NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT C .I 11 -1 L F4 No IMPROVEMENTS 1-771 L IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS 11 ►'t RTO �,+fi -11111J-� L WITHOUT PROJECT PHASE 1 (2026) CONDITIONS y t t 7 y DEF — t t r ��TT t/� �� SAME AS PHASE WITHOUT CONDITIONS 1 (2026)NO PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE WITHOUT CONDITIONS 1 (2026) PROJECT NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT SAME AS PHASE WITHOUT CONDITIONS 1 (2026) ECT NO IMPROVEMENTS ,J i L L T— NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS -1 11 W A- SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) IIMPROVEMENTSITHOUT T WITHOUT PROJECT PHASE 2 (2029) CONDITIONS y i ft —�� t t' �•tT►� SAME AS PHASE WITHOUT CONDITIONS 1 (2026)NO PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE WITHOUT CONDITIONS 2 (2029) PROJECT NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT SAME AS PHASE WITHOUT CONDITIONS 1 (2026)NO PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE WITHOUT CONDITIONS 2 (2029) PROJECT NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT (OPT. 2) 12184 - 05 - improvements.dwg 10 0 CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 1-3 (2 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 1 MADISON ST. & AVENUE 58 2 MADISON ST. & AIRPORT BLVD. 3 MADISON ST. & AVENUE 54 4 MADISON ST. & AVENUE 52 5 MADISON ST. & AVENUE 50 6 JEFFERSON ST. & AVENUE 54 7 JEFFERSON ST. & AVENUE 52 8 JEFFERSON ST. & AVENUE 50 SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS �114► SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT PHASE 3 (2031) CONDITIONS mP —31 'ttY [' SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026)NO WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS SAME AS PHASE 3 (2031) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT W D J L Rio s— NO IMPROVEMENTS -1 l L 4—,4= r1l . =l Jb RTO J l l W \� —f SAME AS PHASE 3 (2031) WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTST J 111 W 2040 WITH MADISON ST. EXT. -*-I t t r� —�'1 f f r DEF — ttr f ttt �® f LI [ 4 -' l t t r - JllL 4-4M � NO IMPROVEMENTS ilL LM � .b1Ja t ~~ dll�b�~j a RTo JllW RTO SAME AS PHASE 3 (2031) WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS Jllll.l_ a 2040 WITHOUT MADISON ST. EXT. (GPA OPT. I) _4 t t - 711 t t r y DEF — 1 tT7 y t �T� �� h- 1 t t � 4A► -4A"- t .i L t— NO IMPROVEMENTS i L— IX I d=l �b ~ J l l — SAME AS PHASE 3 (2031) NIMPRO IMPROVITHOUT EMENTS J Ill War 4_ L 2040 W/0 MADISON W/ PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPT. 2) !4 1 t t r —717 t t r DEF f t' ii fir -�h t t 1 1�1 i t t t r LEGEND: DEF RTO = INTERSECTION ID = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL = EXISTING ROUNDABOUT = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP (RTC) = FUTURE RIGHT TURN OVERLAP = EXISTING LANE = LANE IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) L = ADDITIONAL/MODIFIED LANE IMPROVEMENT = FREE RIGHT TURN 12184 - 05 - improvements.dwg 11 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 1-3 (3 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 9 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 62 10 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 60 1 1 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 58 1 2 MONROE ST. & AIRPORT BLVD. . 1 3 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 54 14 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 52 15 MONROE ST. & 50TH AVENUE 16 JACKSON ST. & 62ND AVENUE J Lit .Q 7 -7' -I11. '± J �- ± W o .1 1 L ± J 1' + � 1 L. DEF _ r -1 1 �. 4—RTO t— t' t WITHOUT PROJECT EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS O O�}� O O4. O }} O NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS J— DEF NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT _ 4 NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS i�� 11��+ E i 1�� J— DEF NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT PHASE 1 (2026) CONDITIONS r } 7 } I' v► u t- 4. NO IMPROVEMENTS . 1_ ± SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT A► 7 t' NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS - 1 SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS 1 1 f— DEF NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT PHASE 2 (2029) CONDITIONS <A> —4 t' 4► NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT .L;; SAME AS PHASE 1(2026) SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) SAME AS PHASE 1(2026) SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029)NO NO WITH PROJECT (OPT. 2) WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS 12184 - 05 - improvements.dwg 12 Ilri:!°) CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 1-3 (4 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 9 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 62 10 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 60 1 1 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 58 12 MONROE ST. & AIRPORT BLVD. 13 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 54 14 MONROE ST. & AVENUE 52 15 MONROE ST. & 50TH AVENUE 16 JACKSON ST. & 62ND AVENUE NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS - .Jb! 4 , -. 1 L : DEF t— NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROJECT Z o z 0 u M O rsJ ,., a a i 10" <i4t' 1► SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 3 (2031) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 3 (2031) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT -r- ± + J 1- -4, �7fi> ''l.R.o � -41a� J UU Lr �® J 41 a� a i l Lb� -.1 1.10,,,, RTO sil�� 4�. 2040 WITH MADISON ST. EXT. �tie —44. Io 4�tml' 4.nfl' -htti' - =s ht o .i (101.1 Q Rro do.�� Ro � '4 it,,,, . Jll Lir ��4. -141 %,,,,,‘(,= it Lbi t -41 Lbuu RTO8 «tbr 2040 WITHOUT MADISON ST. EXT. (GPA OPT. 1) co —4, t -� ftP to i t yh � f4 -4"17 f f P -,11 z o� t e _1 .-1.,„„k4- Rro iV1L,� � RTo -41ab�� ..a_ JllLir _141a� a i1La„t- -11 Jut— a RTO 4. it, 4. 2040 W/0 MADISON W/ PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPT. 2) CD mv14, �f� �ihf4f 8—s �_ �tA �t4�r ��f4� —"V — ffP -fl z to LEGEND: 0 DEF RTO = INTERSECTION ID = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL = EXISTING ROUNDABOUT = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP (RTO) = FUTURE RIGHT TURN OVERLAP L = EXISTING LANE = LANE IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) L = ADDITIONAL LANE IMPROVEMENT = FREE RIGHT TURN 12184 - 05 - improvements.dwg 13 Ilri:!°, CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 1-3 (5 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 17 JACKSON ST. & AVENUE 60 18 JACKSON ST. & 58TH AVENUE 19 JACKSON ST. & AIRPORT BLVD. 20 JEFFERSON ST. & N. LOOP 21 JEFFERSON ST. & S. LOOP + - �t + .+. INTERSECTION FUTURE INTERSECTION WITHOUT PROJECT EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS 4- O41. + FUTURE } NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS + 4 d a�r� °®/' WITH PROJECT °�dq 44 rid, + NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS FUTURE INTERSECTION FUTURE INTERSECTION WITHOUT PROJECT PHASE 1 (2026) CONDITIONS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS +' °" WITH PROJECT ` 4-1%06 NO IMPROVEMENTS �+60;4-+60,-t- FUTURE INTERSECTION FUTURE INTERSECTION WITHOUT PROJECT PHASE 2 (2029) CONDITIONS NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS ° �o4/ °'� SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT ad' °, < dP��b NO IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS ° ®4 4../,' SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROJECT (OPT. 2) rid, a (414. LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID O = ALL WAY STOP • = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL • = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL = EXISTING ROUNDABOUT =▪ PROJECT ROUNDABOUT = EXISTING LANE = LANE IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA. MAY 2012) =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT = FREE RIGHT TURN DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP RTO = FUTURE RIGHT TURN OVERLAP 12184 - 05 - improvements.dwg 14 11::?.Fil CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 1-3 (6 OF 6): SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 17 JACKSON ST. & AVENUE 60 18 JACKSON ST. & 58TH AVENUE 19 JACKSON ST. & AIRPORT BLVD. 20 JEFFERSON ST. & N. LOOP 21 JEFFERSON ST. & S. LOOP 22 MADISON ST. & AVENUE 60 23 MADISON ST. & AVENUE 62 t + SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS FUTURE INTERSECTION FUTURE INTERSECTION 2040 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS NOT APPLICABLE WITHOUT PROJECT PHASE 3 (2031) CONDITIONS + SAME AS PHASE 3 (2031) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 2 (2029) WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SAME AS PHASE 1 (2026) WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS 2040 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS NOT APPLICABLE WITH PROJECT 4C kat 4I I. ', 4Cyar ++ 4+ +4l �a�� ,fib:r- 2040 WITH MADISON ST. EXT. 1 Ito J. Jmio.hfA 4►+ ++ �4T A «llb r ill r «llb r «!►+ «!►4"J1l1.a � NOT APPLICABLE 2040 WITHOUT MADISON ST. EXT. (GPA OPT. 1) soh �_ f A 1i1 _� }� 1i11�'► _� +� + + ti °° vv °° «ilb r «il4 r silk r +a If ♦!+'� �l 1.a NOT APPLICABLE 2040 W/0 MADISON W/ PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPT. 2) soh }f. soh 1 . 111 �� + 4*��ti LEGEND: DEF RTO = INTERSECTION ID = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL = EXISTING ROUNDABOUT = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP (RTO) = FUTURE RIGHT TURN OVERLAP L = EXISTING LANE = LANE IMPROVEMENT (CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE TIA, MAY 2012) = ADDITIONAL LANE IMPROVEMENT = FREE RIGHT TURN 12184 - 05 - improvements.dwg 15 URBAN CROSSROADS Y. 084114= 81A4{ ARV Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Phasing Analysis EXHIBIT 1-4: ON-SITE ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS 20' RAY 84' RO RAY 20' LANDSCAPE SETBACK VARIES 2'81N. 42' 42' 15' PARKWAY MEANDERING SIDEWALK 27' 27' VARIES 3'MIN. 70' ROW AND CVWD EASEMENT 8' BIKE LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE R/18 5' 4 • 15' PARKWAY 6.0' 9' 20' 20' PARKWAY 9' 6.0' 8' 12' 12' 8' BIKE LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE SIDEWALK 25818 LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK 25814 8/LT w COLLECTOR 60' ROW JEFFERSON STREET GUADALUPE BRIDGE 14' MEDIAN 12' TRAVEL LANE 8' BIKE LANE VARIES 3'MIN. LANDSCAPE SETBACK MEANDERING SIDEWALK VARIES 2.1AN. MODIFIED SECONDARY (JEFFERSON STREET/AVENUE 62) w NOME Mgr yr ff *NM Y CONK MLLE tt 8483 FERREE rill N ,IIu><5 i•TD 1188 SITIPFD IER15 1 - I/'F•GRAG S. 2 64-113LICI , T/!7 STAhX FSiHi mawmawUS. RRASING 4111 N %IRA t' 80 351 ICann CNC rimer mei 2T 171 K LA 1:1.4511 12' LANDSCAPE 10.0' PUE ARV 40' R/W AND CVWD EASEMENT R/W 20' 20' 12' LANDSCAPE PUE 2'-9 12' LANDSCAPE LOCAL, PARKING ON BOTH SIDES R/W 32' R/W AND 0080 EASEMENT R/W 20' 12' 12' LANDSCAPE LOCAL, PARKING ON ONE SIDE 20' 20' 20' 12' 12' 8.0' BIKE TRAVEL NNE SIDEWALK BIKE LAE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BIKE NNE SIDEWALK JEFFERSON STREET GUADALUPE BRIDGE 14' MEDIAN 12' TRAVEL LANE 8' BIKE LANE VARIES 3'MIN. LANDSCAPE SETBACK MEANDERING SIDEWALK VARIES 2.1AN. MODIFIED SECONDARY (JEFFERSON STREET/AVENUE 62) w NOME Mgr yr ff *NM Y CONK MLLE tt 8483 FERREE rill N ,IIu><5 i•TD 1188 SITIPFD IER15 1 - I/'F•GRAG S. 2 64-113LICI , T/!7 STAhX FSiHi mawmawUS. RRASING 4111 N %IRA t' 80 351 ICann CNC rimer mei 2T 171 K LA 1:1.4511 12' LANDSCAPE 10.0' PUE ARV 40' R/W AND CVWD EASEMENT R/W 20' 20' 12' LANDSCAPE PUE 2'-9 12' LANDSCAPE LOCAL, PARKING ON BOTH SIDES R/W 32' R/W AND 0080 EASEMENT R/W 20' 12' 12' LANDSCAPE LOCAL, PARKING ON ONE SIDE INTERIM OFF-SITE JEFFERSON STREET ACCESS CONNECTIONS G VEAUE 8 843.5 SIAM 8IeN4-81101 30' 12 12' L3 TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE -rJ SIDEWALK 25141N EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS (EVA) 30' 12' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE ACCESS DRIVE TO NAP PARCEL 30' 2' 12' TRAVEL LANE c TRAVEL LANE SECTION 5 ACCESS DRIVE ON WEST BOUNDARY 12184 - 09 - on-site street sections.dwg 16 11:46!°/° CROSSROADS URBAN E%ISTE NATURAL RAD %IST- NATURAL GRADE 20' 8 20' 12' 12' 8.0' BIKE TRAVEL NNE TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE LANE INTERIM OFF-SITE JEFFERSON STREET ACCESS CONNECTIONS G VEAUE 8 843.5 SIAM 8IeN4-81101 30' 12 12' L3 TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE -rJ SIDEWALK 25141N EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS (EVA) 30' 12' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE ACCESS DRIVE TO NAP PARCEL 30' 2' 12' TRAVEL LANE c TRAVEL LANE SECTION 5 ACCESS DRIVE ON WEST BOUNDARY 12184 - 09 - on-site street sections.dwg 16 11:46!°/° CROSSROADS URBAN E%ISTE NATURAL RAD %IST- NATURAL GRADE Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 1-6: SUMMARY OF LONG RANGE (2040) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS (Page 1 of 2) # Intersection Traffic Control3 2040 W/ Madison Extension 2040 (GPA Option 1) 2040 (GPA Option 2) Delay" (Secs) Level of Service' Delay' (Secs) Level of Service' Delay' (Secs) Level of Service' AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 - With Modified GPCE Improvements TS TS 35.8 - 54.7 - D - D - 37.7 33.2 67.8 51.5 D C E D 40.5 34.8 74.0 54.2 D C E D 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 24.9 30.6 C C 24.7 28.8 C C 23.9 27.5 C C 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 TS 41.7 54.3 D D 41.7 51.7 D D 41.7 51.0 D D 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 TS 52.1 54.0 D D 50.9 53.6 D D 53.3 54.6 D D 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 TS 40.8 53.1 D D 39.8 50.1 D D 41.2 54.2 D D 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 TS 21.2 39.4 C D 23.5 49.0 C D 22.2 44.8 C D 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 RDB 5.8 8.3 A A 5.9 9.1 A A 5.8 8.6 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 TS 42.8 44.7 D D 40.5 43.1 D D 43.3 44.8 D D 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 - With Added GPCE Improvements TS TS 32.1 - 29.0 - C - C - 53.0 42.3 137.3 53.8 D D F D 65.4 44.6 149.7 54.3 E D F D 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 - With Added GPCE Improvements TS TS 37.1 - 46.6 - D - D - 45.4 42.9 103.3 52.6 D D F D 46.4 37.3 106.7 54.9 D D F D 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 - With Added GPCE Improvements TS TS 41.4 - 54.2 - D - D - 51.2 39.1 77.8 51.8 D D E D 57.0 41.6 83.4 54.1 E D F D 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. - With DIF & County Improvements' TS 33.6 42.3 C D 33.9 44.7 C D 33.2 45.0 C D 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 TS 32.0 54.7 C D 32.4 54.6 C D 31.8 54.7 C D 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 TS 38.3 54.7 D D 38.2 54.4 D D 38.7 54.9 D D 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue - With Improvements TS 34.2 54.7 C D 36.0 54.9 D D 35.5 54.3 D D 16 Jackson St. / 62nd Avenue - With Improvements TS 44.4 38.9 D D 47.4 40.7 D D 46.5 40.8 D D 17 Jackson St. / 60th Avenue - With Improvements TS 37.6 45.2 D D 38.0 54.8 D D 37.4 54.7 D D 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue - With Improvements TS 27.5 35.8 C D 29.7 36.8 C D 29.9 36.9 C D 17 URBAN CROSSROAIDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 1-6: SUMMARY OF LONG RANGE (2040) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS (Page 2 of 2) # Intersection Traffic Control3 2040 W/ Madison Extension 2040 (GPA Option 1) 2040 (GPA Option 2) Delay" (Secs) Level of Service' Delay' (Secs) Level of Service" Delay' (Secs) Level of Service' AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. - With Improvements TS 38.4 39.1 D D 39.0 40.1 D D 38.5 41.0 D D 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop RDB 5.7 7.0 A A 6.1 8.4 A A 5.1 6.1 A A 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop RDB 5.9 7.3 A A 6.4 8.9 A A 5.3 6.3 A A 22 Madison St. / Avenue 60 - With GPCE Update Improvements3 TS 48.4 49.1 D D 35.1 53.3 D D 35.2 54.0 D D 23 Madison St. / Avenue 62 - With Improvements TS 14.4 25.5 B C - - - - - - - - BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal 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. 2 CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All -way Stop; RDB = Roundabout;1 = Improvement 3 Source: City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012. Prepared by Iteris ° DIF = Development Impact Fee C:I UXRjobsL12000-12500112184\Exce1 \[12184 - Report.x1sx)1-6 18 11:2°fr CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 1-7: SUMMARY OF ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS Roadway Segment Roadway Designation 9 of Lanes' Existing and Near Term Capacity' Existing 2019) E+P Potentially Significant Project Specific Impact' Phase 3 (2031) Conditions Potentially Significant Cumulative Impact' # of Lanes' 2040 Capacity' 2040 W/ Madison 2040 (GPA Op ion 1) 2040 (GPA Op ion 2) Without Project With Project ADT3 V/C ADT3 V/C ADT3 V/C ADT' V/C ADT' V/C ADT' V/C ADT3 V/C Avenue 58 West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 1,600 0.08 7,300 0.35 No 6,000 0.29 11,600 0.55 No 4 28,000 12,000 0.43 12,500 0.45 13,500 0.48 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 2,300 0.08 4,000 0.14 No 8,100 0.29 9,800 0.35 No 4 28,000 10,200 0.36 14,000 0.50 14,000 0.50 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 1,800 0.13 3,000 0.21 No 7,700 0.55 8,900 0.64 No 4 28,000 18,600 0.66 19,000 0.68 19,000 0.68 Madison St. South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 6,700 0.16 10,100 0.24 No 20,500 0.48 23,900 0.56 No 4 42,600 35,600 0.84 34,000 0.80 34,000 0.80 60th Avenue West of Jackson Street Primary 2 19,000 6 1,200 0.06 1,800 0.09 No 6,100 0.32 6,700 0.35 No 4 42,600 12,000 0.28 15,000 0.35 15,000 0.35 Avenue 62 West of Monroe Street Modified Secondary 2 19,000 600 0.03 6,300 0.33 No 1,800 0.09 7,500 0.39 No 2 19,000 9,600 0.51 13,000 0.68 14,000 0.74 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 1,700 0.12 4,000 0.29 No 6,700 0.48 9,000 0.64 No 4 28,000 19,800 0.71 19,000 0.68 19,000 0.68 Monroe St. South of Avenue 60 Secondary 2 14,000 4 1,600 0.11 5,000 0.36 No 8,200 0.59 11,600 0.83 No 4 28,000 19,000 0.68 25,000 0.89 25,000 0.89 South of Avenue 58 Primary 2 19,000 6 2,700 0.14 5,500 0.29 No 12,100 0.64 14,900 0.78 No 4 42,600 26,000 0.61 27,000 0.63 27,000 0.63 South of Avenue 56 Primary 3 31,950 6 3,400 0.11 6,800 0.21 No 12,500 0.39 15,900 0.50 No 4 42,600 25,000 0.59 26,000 0.61 27,000 0.63 Jackson St. South of Airport Boulevard Primary 2 19,000 6 2,400 0.13 3,500 0.18 No 10,400 0.55 11,500 0.61 No 4 42,600 28,400 0.67 29,000 0.68 29,000 0.68 BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). ' These maximum roadway capacities have been extracted from the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin 906-13. 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. 2A 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 by 0.02 or more by addition of 3A 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 Opening Year Cumulative 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. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Secondary capacity. Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity. 6 Estimated capacity for 2 -lane Primary. = Existing number of lanes; 1= City of La Quints General Plan Buildout number of lanes C:1 UXRjobsL12000-125001121841 Exce11(12184 - Repart.x1sx11-7 19 0 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis • #1 - Madison Street at Avenue 58 • #3 - Madison Street at Avenue 54 • #6 - Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 • #10 — Monroe Street at Avenue 60 • #11 — Monroe Street at Avenue 58 • #12 — Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard • #13 — Monroe Street at Avenue 54 • #14 — Monroe Street at Avenue 52 Phase 1 (2026) analysis results indicates that the intersections of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7) and Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (#8) experiences deficient operations under cumulative "without project" 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. Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (#8) requires a 2" westbound through lane. 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 Phase 1 (2026) without and with Project traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. 1.5.4 PHASE 2 (2029) CONDITIONS For EAPC Phase 2(2029) traffic conditions, the following eight study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS: • #1 - Madison Street at Avenue 58 • #3 - Madison Street at Avenue 54 • #6 - Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 • #10 — Monroe Street at Avenue 60 • #11 — Monroe Street at Avenue 58 • #12 - Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard • #13 — Monroe Street at Avenue 54 • #14 - Monroe Street at Avenue 52 EAPC Phase 2 (2029) analysis results indicates that the intersections of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7), Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (#8), Jackson Street at Avenue 58 (#18),and Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard (#19) 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. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 20 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (#8) requires a 2nd westbound through lane. Jackson Street at Avenue 58 (#18) and Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard (#19) requires a traffic signal 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 (2029) traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. However, if Project Phase 2 Option 2 (without Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58) is utilized, the intersection of Monroe Street at Avenue 62 (#9) and will require installation of a traffic signal (for eventual reimbursement via the City of La Quinta CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS. In addition, the roadway segment of Monroe Street, south of Avenue 60 appears to exceed the theoretical daily segment LOS thresholds if Option 2 scenario is utilized. 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. 1.5.5 EAPC PHASE 3 (2031) CONDITIONS For EAPC Phase 3 (2031) 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 (2031) conditions: • #1 - Madison Street at Avenue 58 • #3 - Madison Street at Avenue 54 • #6 - Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 • #10 — Monroe Street at Avenue 60 • #11 - Monroe Street at Avenue 58 • #12 - Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard • #13 - Monroe Street at Avenue 54 • #14 - Monroe Street at Avenue 52 EAPC Phase 3 (2031) analysis results indicates that the intersections of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7), Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (#8), Jackson Street at Avenue 60 (#17), Jackson Street at Avenue 58 (#18), and Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard (#19) experiences deficient operations under cumulative "without project" 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. Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (#8) requires a 2nd westbound through lane. Jackson Street at Avenue 60 (#17), Jackson Street at Avenue 58 (#18) and Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard (#19) requires a traffic signal to provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 21 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EAPC Phase 3 (2031) analysis results indicates that the intersections of Monroe Street at Avenue 62 (#9) and Jackson Street at Avenue 62 (#16) experiences deficient operations under cumulative "with project" conditions and will require installation of traffic signal (for eventual reimbursement via the City of La Quinta CIP) in order to maintain 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 (2031) traffic conditions. 1.5.6 YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS For General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions, as shown in Table 1-7, 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). Recommended intersection lanes were determined for: • General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) With Madison Street Extension (Existing General Plan). This scenario includes the following: 1. Future Madison Street extension, south of Avenue 60 to Avenue 62. 2. Future Jefferson Street connection from Avenue 58 to Avenue 62. • General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) Without Madison Street Extension (GPA Option 1). This scenario includes the following: 1. Termination of Madison Street as a General Plan roadway, south of Avenue 60. 2. Future Jefferson Street connection from Avenue 58 to Avenue 62. 3. Emergency vehicle access (EVA) is provided via Madison Street, from the northerly boundary of the Project's Planning Area 18 to Avenue 60. • General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) Without Madison Street Extension and With Project Entry Gates (GPA Option 2). This scenario includes the following: 1. Termination of Madison Street as a General Plan roadway, south of the Avenue 60. 2. Future Jefferson Street connection from Avenue 58 to Project boundary. 3. The deletion of Jefferson Street as General Plan roadway south of the hypothetical westerly extension of Avenue 60, and the deletion of Avenue 62 west of the hypothetical southerly extension of Madison Street. 4. On-site entry gates on Jefferson Street. Jefferson Street is a private roadway within the Project boundary. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 22 �i► URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 5. Emergency vehicle access (EVA) is provided via Madison Street, from the northerly boundary of the Project's Planning Area 18 to Avenue 60. For General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with Madison Street Extension, lane recommendations for intersections included in the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis are consistent with that report. Four intersections require modifications to the previously identified improvements for General Plan buildout conditions. If either of the following alternatives occur: • General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension (GPA Option 1) • General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension and with Project Entry Gates (GPA Option 2) The four intersections which would require modifications with either of the above two scenarios are as follows: • Madison Street at Avenue 58 • Monroe Street at Avenue 62 • Monroe Street at Avenue 60 • Monroe Street at Avenue 58 As shown on Table 1-7, study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under Year 2040 traffic conditions, including GPA Option 1 and GPA Option 2, without changes in roadway classifications. 1.5.7 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 8-1. The Travertine Project is proposed to be served by two main access points to the surrounding area: 1) the southerly extension of South Jefferson as a Modified Secondary, south of Avenue 58, and 2) the westerly extension of Avenue 62 as a Modified Secondary, west of Monroe Street. Off-site, Jefferson Street is recommended to be constructed from the Project boundary to Avenue 58 as an interim section with 1 lane northbound, 1 lane southbound, bike lanes, and a sidewalk adjacent to the west side of the street. Avenue 62 should be constructed from the Project boundary to Monroe Street as a similar interim street cross- section with a sidewalk on the north side. For emergency access purposes, an EVA alignment is provided via Madison Street, south of Avenue 60 to the northerly edge of the Project's Planning Area 18. On-site Modified Secondary and Collector facilities shall be constructed to their ultimate General Plan designation, including curb -and -gutter and sidewalk improvements for new Project roadways. Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes shall be provided along Jefferson Street and Avenue 62 within the Project. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 23 �i► URBAN CR DSSR DAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis The internal residential circulating collector roadway (Loop) intersects with Jefferson Street at two roundabout -controlled intersections (Jefferson Street at North Loop and Jefferson Street at South Loop). Additional Project access points along Jefferson Street are provided as cross -street stop controlled intersections with median breaks at five intersections. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 24 Ck URBAN CROssROA0s Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS In response to City comments, the previous 2017 traffic counts (utilized in the 2018 TIA) are adjusted to represent 2019 baseline conditions. This section provides a summary of the updated (2019) existing conditions. The analysis methodologies, level of service definitions, and required level of service are consistent with those utilized in the TIA. 2.1 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 sample comparison of the 2017 data and new 2019 counts focuses on key locations (5 intersections and 5 roadway segments), as listed in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 2.1. TABLE 2-1: 2019 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 9 Monroe Street at Avenue 62 TABLE 2-2: 2019 ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNT LOCATIONS Volume changes at these locations are extrapolated to the remaining existing study area locations as identified in the TIA. 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. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 25 I�1 URBAN CROSS ROaEIS Roadway Segment 3 Avenue 58, west of Jackson Street 8 Monroe Street, south of Avenue 60 4 Madison Street south of Avenue 56 10 Monroe Street, south of Avenue 56 7 Avenue 62, west of Jackson Street Volume changes at these locations are extrapolated to the remaining existing study area locations as identified in the TIA. 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. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 25 I�1 URBAN CROSS ROaEIS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis The raw traffic count data provided in Appendix 2.1 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 2-1 through 2-3. Existing weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area are shown on Exhibit 2-1. Where 2019 counts are unavailable, 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: 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). 2.2 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 1.3 Level of Service Definitions and Analysis Methodologies of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 2-3 which indicates that the 19 existing study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 2.2 of this traffic phasing analysis. 2.3 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 2-4 provides a summary of the Existing conditions roadway segment capacity analysis based on the roadway segment capacity thresholds identified in the TIA. As shown on Table 2-4, study area roadway segments analyzed are currently operating at acceptable LOS. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 26 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Phasing Analysis 12.9 01 1 EXHIBIT 2-1: EXISTING (2019) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) (WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) P AVENUE 50 © 50TH AV. 11.2 8.8 1 I I P .O AVENUE 52 C. z 0 0 7.9 AVENUE 54 5.3 AIRPORT BL. 9.3 P co 7.7 4.9 2 2.2 0 z 0 0 a ai AVENUE 5811 58TH AV. 1.6 \ + rL I _ 0° SITE 00 co 1 LEGEND: m = INTERSECTION ID ---- = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) 2.3 1.8 �---_A1[ENllEbD 3.2 AVENUE 62 0.6 JACKSON ST. 60TH AV. 1.2 62NEj AV. 1.7 3.1 v r 1.4 03 07 co 12184 - 04 - adts.dwg 27 11::!! CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Phasing Analysis EXHIBIT 2-2: EXISTING (2019) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) 50TH AV. AIRPORT BL. MADISON ST. MONROE ST. 1 37- 5—.- 2— Madison St. & Avenue 58 2 Os, Os, Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 4-60 10 oosso 3 0 NOM Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-24 s-24 4 aO o Madison St. & Avenue 52 9-4 138- 205- agONN 55-4 282-- 25—* 4-52 11257 ,^000 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 CO V -253 -22 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 2711,9 —247 *-41 7 ON �O^ efferson St. & Avenue 52 4-244 8 efferson St. & Avenue 50 v 4-152 j;r—289 �►S 45 47-4 255 8 'O—��o =N 96-4 208- 209 273 O 48—* sod^" -OO U ® = INTERSECTION ID 0 e1� = COUNT DATE: 5/7/2019 = COUNT DATE: 4/9/2019 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 o r— 4-43 *-3 10 10 NM^ 13-4 63— Monroe St. & Avenue 60 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 coN,f, 4-26 .� ; L —4 19-4' 16y u' 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. 13 Oso 1041— Monroe St. & Avenue 54 1809 NCO 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 i' s— 73-4' 22 ? 15 20-4 129~ Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 4—_121 *-252 vol 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 4- .1i�►�z 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 4-7 —6 �t� 18 30� Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 2-4t 92y �- 20 efferson St. & N. Loop FUTURE INTERSECTION = ESTIMATED 2019 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (2017 COUNTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO ESTIMATE 2019 CONDITIONS) 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg 28 111:!! CROSSROA OS 21 Jefferson St. & S. Loop FUTURE INTERSECTION URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Phasing Analysis EXHIBIT 2-3: EXISTING (2019) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (WITH PEAK SEASON ADJUSTMENT) AVENUE 50 50TH AV. AVENUE 52 N® AIRPORT BL. 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 4-55 59—* 59—* t� 2 min Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 0 Oct: N 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 sa + � 74 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 0.431.- 4-39 —2955 13- 196—* 236—tNN 64-4 368—* t o 26— V1�N 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 i— 4-32 —269 X26 6 54_41.0 324—* 133 0`NN coin 24— Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 10 5 -30 7 efferson St. & Avenue 52 240—* 4-210 f-15 v 111 8 ur�co efferson St. & Avenue 50 4-140 f-787 242-4 350—* .o MADISON ST. MONROE ST. ® = INTERSECTION ID 0 Lei 0 = COUNT DATE: 5/7/2019 = COUNT DATE: 4/9/2019 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 N 4-41 .oulti —3 J��►�4 20— r 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 4-9 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 "TT.T. 4-35 —35 s-6 36-4 14—* N -N 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. orn 4-25 *-11 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 .o.orn 4-37 t ► —79 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 4_79 -127 4 54-4' 186—* ? 30- — 72-4 290—* 37—* NnNi 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue ooN_ 4-123 . iL.-1118 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 4— T —11 �4 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 4_5 t 37—* 30�� M 4 43— -u 26-4 18 Nunn 27-4 '6—* Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. r ov 4-31 68 Jt ►s-7 24-4' � � • 20 efferson St. & N. Loop FUTURE INTERSECTION = ESTIMATED 2019 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (2017 COUNTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO ESTIMATE 2019 CONDITIONS) 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg 29 1[1210 CROSSROAES 21 Jefferson St. & S. Loop FUTURE INTERSECTION URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 2-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS (WITH SEASONAL FACTOR ADJUSTMENT) # Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L TR 1 TR 1 TR 1 T R AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 AWS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 8.5 9.3 A A 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 9.9 8.4 A A 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 AWS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 1 12.9 15.9 B C 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 1 27.9 28.5 C C 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 28.6 29.4 C C 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 AWS 0.5 1 0.5 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 12.2 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. / Avenue 50 TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 46.3 49.4 D D 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 7.5 8.0 A A 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 AWS 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 8.1 8.3 A A 11 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 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 8.5 9.2 A A 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 1! 0 14.3 12.7 B B 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 AWS 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 d 15.4 27.1 C D 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1> 16.6 18.0 B B 16 Jackson St. / Avenue 62 AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 7.4 7.6 A A 17 Jackson St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 7.3 7.7 A A 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 7.5 8.2 A A 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.1 8.6 A A 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop Intersection Does Not Exist 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop Intersection Does Not Exist 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. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; » = Free -Right Turn Lane; d= Defacto Right Turn Lane 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 C: UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184\Excel x(12184 - Report.xlsx]2-3 30 URBAN CROSSROAIDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 2-4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2019) CONDITIONS (WITH SEASONAL FACTOR ADJUSTMENT) Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes' Capacity2 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio Avenue 58 West of Madison Street Secondary Secondary Secondary 3 4 2 21,000 4 1,600 0.08 West of Monroe Street 28,000 2,300 0.08 West ofJackson Street 14,000 4 1,800 0.13 Madison St. South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 6,700 0.16 60th Avenue West of Jackson Street Primary 2 19,000 6 1,200 0.06 Avenue 62 West of Monroe Street Modified Secondary 2 2 19,000 14,000 4 600 1,700 0.03 0.12 West ofJackson Street Secondary Monroe St. South of Avenue 60 Secondary 2 14,000 4 1,600 0.11 South of Avenue 58 Primary 2 19,000 6 2,700 0.14 South of Avenue 56 Primary 3 31,950 5 3,400 0.11 Jackson St. South of Airport Boulevard Primary 2 19,000 6 2,400 0.13 1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (July 2015) 'Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Secondary capacity. 'Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity. 6 Estimated capacity for 2 -lane Primary. C: \ UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184 \Exce1 \(12184 - Report.xls42-4 31 liri:!! CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 2.4 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 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta GP) • Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta CIP 2018-2023 as "unfunded additional projects") • Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (Traffic signal and lane improvements included in the La Quinta GP) • Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta GP) The traffic signal warrant worksheets for Existing traffic conditions are included in Appendix 2.3 of this report. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 32 Ck URBAN cROssROA0s Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This section evaluates Existing plus Project (E+P) traffic conditions to determines circulation system deficiencies that would occur on the existing roadway system in the scenario of the Project buildout (phase 3) 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. Project buildout (phase 3) land use, trip distribution, and trip assignment are discussed in detail in Section 6 of this report. Exhibit 3-1 shows the existing plus project daily traffic projections on study area roadway segments. Exhibit 3-2 presents the existing plus project weekday AM peak hour volumes at study area intersections. Exhibit 3-3 depicts the existing plus project weekday PM peak hour volumes at study area analysis locations. 3.1 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under E+P traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 3-1, which indicates that the study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable level of service, with existing geometry, with the exception of Monroe Street / Avenue 52 (#14). Installation of a traffic signal at this location is anticipated to improve the intersection to provide acceptable LOS The intersection operations analysis worksheets for E+P traffic conditions are included in Appendix 3.1 of this TIA. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the roadway segment analysis for E+P traffic conditions. As shown on Table 3-2, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under E+P traffic conditions. 3.2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area intersections for Existing Plus Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 3.2). Two additional intersections are projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants: • Madison Street at Avenue 58 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta GP) • Monroe Street at Avenue 62 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 33 �i► URBAN CR DSSR DAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 0 N AVENUE 50 1- N D 50TH AV. n 11.7 8.8 AVENUE 52 9.9 14.4 VI z 0 CC CC 0 0, V/ 0 0 o J 5.3 ^ AIRPORT BL. 1 2.5 ■ NUE 58 7.3 4.0 ^1 C. ,41 cP q I ---_A1[ENllEbD AVENUE 62 Z Z0 8.5 5.5 3.1 58TH AV. 3.0 60TH AV. FJj"` i 1.8 62ND AV. LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID ---- = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) JACKSON ST. .0 r 3.6 2.0 1.3 t 'i SITE 6.3 4.0 2.2 LA r 12184 - 04 - adts.dwg 34 lir:21fr CROSSROAIDS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 3-2: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z AIRPORT BL. 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 � 0 212— 93—c - 31—t 2 Ifl Madison St. & Airport Blvd. —60 *-10 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-24 VIA •� + .4 24 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 aglco -257 s-23 0 138�� f 228—tNNN 282 36—* gag,' 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 m 1253 s-22 6 efferson St. & Avenue 54 4-305 X41471 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 4-273 8 47-4 259 r v► 66— 0*oN 'O8 =N 96-4 208-4.0 efferson St. & Avenue 50 MOv 4-152 45 209-4 284 O 48— socom MADISON ST. MONROE ST. 58TH AV. j I AVENUE 6010 60 HAV. r I 5 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 co 4-43 4-3 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 120~ } 13-4' 63— 48-4' 16y 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. ___13 N *-21 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 r n X209 s-29 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 `Orn:; 4-117 .1iLX1147 0-4t 16— MsoM 14—t 73-4 - co 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue � ± O 2 —32672 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue + � —28 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 4_7 �z 20-4 129- 33 82�t: 1-4'1 ', 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 4-2 —43 4-1 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. ,oN0S -25 25 20 efferson St. & N. Loop irJ i53 s-53 34-4 59.— 12212- 35 CROSSROAIDS 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwglirl2P0 21 M0 N1M_I=_ t y 58- 1—.- 82— efferson St. & S. Loop URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 3-3: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z AVENUE 52 AVENUE 54 Madison St. & Avenue 58 mcr i 101 106� r 24- 2 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 ="'"104 -17 13- 302- t krrn 4 N cracr L- 64-4 3-- Madison St. & Avenue 52 439 z5 5 ma," L- 54-4 166- Madison St. & Avenue 50 4_3229 s-6 6 N co- 24- efferson St. & Avenue 54 4335 —10 -30 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 -4-268 •� + . -is 8 efferson St. & Avenue 50 u� o -1250 -78 73-4'1 t 274- 240 "An 242-4t 1 5 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 N 441 271.~44 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 4_9 r=vcr� s-3 X35 11 0NN Monroe St. & Avenue 58 435 1601 15-4'1t(' 48- 104—* 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. N - c92 425 � -44 X44 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 .J +l► 4os _89 - 40 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 rnMao 4_79 .� �► X120 4 4l- f 54-4 186 -c- 30 -* 86 ? o 30- Na 72-4 310-c- 37-* NN 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue �±�-218 *-44 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 4 + —77 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 4_5 .� i-46 37-* 330— f NTr Tr 24- 63- 26-4 40��.* 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 20 efferson St. & N. Loop � 436 S-36 47-4 —�}95 m, 6- 24- 108— LEIVI 6-s Tr 36-4 32---i ? -1 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg 36 1[1210 CROSSROAES 21 efferson St. & S. Loop sgmcn .1+4_20 -28 40-4'1 56-* 0'• URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS # Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L TR L TR 1 TR 1 TR AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 - Without Improvements AWS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 11.0 13.9 B B 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8.3 6.7 A A 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 1 16.3 27.9 C D 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 1 29.9 30.7 C C 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 29.5 30.0 C C 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 0.5 1 0.5 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 17.1 21.6 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» 11.3 12.5 B B 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 - Without Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 47.7 49.2 D D 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 - Without Improvements AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 9.6 12.1 A B 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 - Without Improvements AWS 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 10.2 11.1 B B 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.9 17.4 A C 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. - Without Improvements AWS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 10.3 11.9 B B 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 1! 0 17.8 18.0 C C 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 - Without Improvements - With Improvements AWS TS 0 0 1! 1! 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 d d 22.8 34.2 50.4 30.3 C C F C 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1> 16.2 17.4 B B 16 Jackson St. / Avenue 62 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.3 8.6 A A 17 Jackson St. / Avenue 60 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 7.6 8.2 A A 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.0 9.2 A A 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.6 9.7 A A 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 4.0 4.7 A A 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 4.1 4.8 A A 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. 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) 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). TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop; AWS = All -Way Stop; RDB = Roundabout C: j UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184\Excel \(12184 - Report.xls4EP1 37 IriA\f! CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 3-2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes' Capacity' With Project Volume/ Capacity Ratio Avenue 58 West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 7,300 0.35 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 4,000 0.14 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 3,000 0.21 Madison St. South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 10,100 0.24 60th Avenue West of Jackson Street Primary 2 19,000 6 1,800 0.09 Avenue 62 West of Monroe Street Modified Secondary 2 19,000 6,300 0.33 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 4,000 0.29 Monroe St. South of Avenue 60 Secondary 2 14,000 4 5,000 0.36 South of Avenue 58 Primary 2 19,000 6 5,500 0.29 South of Avenue 56 Primary 3 31,950 5 6,800 0.21 Jackson St. South of Airport Boulevard Primary 2 19,000 6 3,500 0.18 1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (July 2015) 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. 6 Estimated capacity for 2 -lane Primary. C:\UXRjobsL12000-1250M12184\Excel\112184 - Report.xlsx]EP2 38 11::!1.1• CROSSROAIDS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 4 PROJECT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This section discusses Project Phase 1 conditions, which includes Existing (2019) volumes, Ambient Growth traffic for 7 years, cumulative development traffic, and Project traffic. The results of the Phase 1 HCM intersection analysis and roadway segment capacity analysis are also presented. 4.1 PROJECT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Project Phase 1 is anticipated to occur in 2026, and includes 530 single family detached residential homes, 74 duplex residential units, and PA 11 resort/golf uses (golf practice, golf academy, and banquet accommodations).. Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. The Project trip generation rates used for the traffic phasing analysis are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 10th Edition (2017). Trip generation rates are presented on Table 4-1 for Phase 1 conditions. ITE trip generation rates for Single Family Detached (Code 210), Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (Code 220), and Golf Course (Code 430) are used. ITE LU Code 430 indicates golf course sites may also have driving ranges and clubhouses with a pro shop, restaurant, lounge, and banquet facilities. This LU code is therefore used to estimate the vehicle trips generated by resort/golf uses in PA 11, resulting in 365 trip ends per day on a typical weekday, with 21 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour, and 34 VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. As shown on Table 4-1, Phase 1 of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 5,836 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 442 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 590 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. The project land uses consists of a mix of recreation and residential uses, so reasonable assumptions regarding internal interactions between these uses are included in the trip generation calculations. 4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trip distribution pattern for Phase 1 of the proposed Project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 4-1. The westerly extension of Avenue 62 as an interim section (40 -foot pavement section), west of Monroe Street is used for Project Phase 1 access. At the first intersection after leaving the Project (Monroe Street at Avenue 62), approximately 80% of the traffic is anticipated to turn left (north) while the remaining 20% continue east. Much of the Project traffic heading northward continues north of Avenue 58 (70%). 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 39 �i► URBAN CR DSSR DAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 4-1: PROJECT PHASE 1 (2026) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates' Land Use ITE LU Quantity' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use Code Quantity' In Out Total In Out Total Daily Single Family Detached 210 530 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 220 74 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 Resort/Golf3 430 12 HOLES 1.39 0.37 1.76 1.54 1.37 2.91 30.38 Trip Generation Results Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached 210 530 DU 101 292 393 329 196 525 5,003 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 220 74 DU 8 26 34 26 16 42 542 Internal to Resort/Golf 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (4) (37) Residential External Trips 109 316 425 353 210 563 5,508 Resort/Golf3 430 12 HOLES 17 4 21 18 16 34 365 Internal to Residential (2) 0 (2) (2) (2) (4) (37) Resort/Golf3 External Trips 15 4 19 16 14 30 328 Project Subtotal 126 322 448 373 228 601 5,910 Internal Capture Subtotal (2) (2) (4) (4) (4) (8) (74) — Phase 1 (2026) Project Total External Trips 124 320 444 369 224 593 5,836 i Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). ' DU = Dwelling Unit 3 Resort/Golf (golf practice, golf academy, and banquet accommodations). F: \ UXRjobsL12100-12500\121841 Excel \(12184 - Report.xlsx]P1 40 URBAN CROSSROAIDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis T EXHIBIT 4-1: PHASE 1 (2026) PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION o u u 5 7 AVENUE 50 50TH -AV. JEFFERSON ST.:', AVENUE 62 AIRP 5 ON-SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION r 009 r1 /, .. AVENUE 62 /��pp / SITE 'p ` 1 1 1 1 s LOOP /4, ,o I.-- 78 _ \ / as /` RT BL. 58TH 4AV, 10 z 0 66TH AV. 5 its 62ND AV. SITE 100 20 10 LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 41 URBAN CROSSROA OS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 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 add traffic at study area analysis locations. 4.4 TRAFFIC VOLUME ASSIGNMENT Based on the identified Project Phase 1 development area traffic generation and trip distribution pattern, Project only ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4-2 through 4-4, respectively. Ambient growth between 2019 and 2026 as well as cumulative development are incorporated in the cumulative traffic projections shown on Exhibits 4-5 through 4-7. Exhibit 4-5 shows the cumulative (2026) daily traffic projections on study area roadway segments. Exhibit 4-6 presents the cumulative (2026) weekday AM peak hour volumes at study area intersections. Exhibit 4-7 depicts the cumulative (2026) weekday PM peak hour volumes at study area analysis locations. 4.5 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Phase 1 (2026) Without and With Project traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 4-2. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Phase 1 (2026) Without and With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 4.1 of this report. One off-site intersection (Monroe Street at Avenue 60) experiences a Project impact for Phase 1 conditions. The intersection improvement to provide acceptable LOS for Monroe Street at Avenue 60 is construction of a traffic signal, which is recommended to be implemented by the Project for eventual reimbursement via the City of La Quinta CIP. Table 4-2 indicates that the following eight study area intersections experience deficient operations under cumulative "without project" conditions, requiring CIP-funded improvements in order to maintain acceptable LOS for both Phase 1 Without and With Project conditions: • Madison Street at Avenue 58 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta GP) • Madison Street at Avenue 54 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta GP) • Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta CIP 2018-2023 as "unfunded additional projects", WB Right Turn Overlap improvement included in the La Quinta GP) • Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (2nd WB Through Lane improvement included in the La Quinta GP) • Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta GP) • Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta CIP 2018-2023 as "unfunded additional projects") • Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (Traffic signal and lane improvements included in the La Quinta GP) • Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta GP) 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 42 �i► URBAN CR DSSR DAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis AVENUE 50 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY PHASE 1 (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) t'o 50TH AV. k_0.3 0.3 AVENUE 52 0.3 JEFFERSON ST , rL 0 1 , — — '3O \` i,`•' — �� /�\_�// 1�\__--Ay�IUEbD 1-' SITE AVENUE 62 0.3 58TH AV. 0.6 60TH AV. 0.3 FJ 62ND AV. LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID ---- = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) JACKSON ST. .! 0 .! 0 O 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.8 1.2 0.6 O 12184 - 04 - adts.dwg 43 lir:21fr CROSSROAIDS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT ONLY PHASE 1 (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z t--) AIRPORT BL. 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 i0 —0 f lO 2 00 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 32 .� i ► -3 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 o!o —16 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 4-0 f0 sosoo 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 4-32 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 4-0 0-t t 0-i 8 efferson St. & Avenue 50 o!o —16 MADISON ST. MONROE ST. i. SITE LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 3'77. s--15 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 4-0 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Ft L +� X-1 12 26- r 0 -Os VI 12 0-4 0~ Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. 13 0� 0— 25— Monroe St. & Avenue 54 4-0 f0 '1 f f sow - 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 oho f0 0-4'101: 6— ^1^ 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 4-0 caio 16 0- 16— 32— 16— Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue —12 :101: 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue i0 f6 i0 0-4 10—* 18 .1i�. 16— 106— Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 4-0 oNo .� 0 20 32- Jefferson St. & N. Loop 1 44 CROSSROAIDS 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg1[1210 21 o.Noo 0- 0— 112— efferson St. & S. Loop 4-0 f0 s-80 Tr URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 4-4: PROJECT ONLY PHASE 1 (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z AIRPORT BL. 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 0-4 i0 -0 000 2 00 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 22 -02 4 0�0 0-4 10- Madison St. & Avenue 52 4-0 0 0 0 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 4-0 oVo .�i�►i0 0- } 0 6 efferson St. & Avenue 54 0-411: 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 0 0 ~0 8 '0-* efferson St. & Avenue 50 4-0 0 0 MADISON ST. _4 1ENUE 58 MONROE ST. 58TH AV. it • .i JEfEERSON%f, 5. SITE AVENUE 60 .1 60 HAV. 0 62ND AV. LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 Psoo �+�f74 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 17'1 X-1 18 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 -3 osmo X37 179-4t 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. 4-0 0°20 fp -18 0-4 t 18- - 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 4-0 Orn0 fO i s-18 8' it 74- am 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 4-0 zz-4 l ? : 11-* 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue °0°00 4-0 o 19 OMO Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 4-0 ~0 20 Jefferson St. & N. Loop o-4 0~ zz- 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg 45 1[1210 CROSSROA OS 21 efferson St. & S. Loop 78 - URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 4-5: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 1 PROJECT (2026) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) e AVENUE 50 t 50TH AV. k 17.5 22.1 .0 17.6 13.2 13.4 li II JEFFERSON ST: —1 eL o i J Q Q J , AVENUE 62 62ND AV. LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID – — — – = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) JACKSON ST. C.4 5.4 3.9 3.7 SITE I 6.5 6.0 2.4 e 12184 - 04 - adts.dwg 46 11::!! CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 4-6: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 1 PROJECT (2026) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z AVENUE 52 AVENUE 54 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 4-74 :7 L X38 118-17- 77- - o' 2 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 t 422 X510 19- 244-40 I MM 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 MSM 472 51 73-4 464 f M 5 5 I y 3671— Madison St. & Avenue 50 4_33 f-331.112 6 efferson St. & Avenue 54 '_776 *-43 7 8 1013-n otNI Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 rn.�0o 4322 .� � 505 126 322- rJu, N,fl 8 Moo. - Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 4232 s-846 309— MONROE ST. SITE 5 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 N_u'u_oi 4-124 10 26- t In MI 42-4 136— Monroe St. & Avenue 60 1167 —10 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 :77. -61 -38 1.uo 180- f 62—* Iry 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. MNti r86 —32 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 o _ -524 � s-37 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 Cr..0•o 4138 f390 X39 0 133-0- cacao szr 44-4' 162- u Cr M.N 106-4-"1 l 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue vu°• ir- 4_124 . �. X383 16 0— f r 44—* 'g°• 21-4 53— Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 413 —24 OU: 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue NIf1 4_28 .l 1, —l2 4 63-4 119— - 20 * Nr -s :2^ 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 44 —97 *-2 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. un,ino 4-26 i s-15 20 Jefferson St. & N. Loop 35-4 1 12— 6 184— ? � 25— ^M 32- 1 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg 47 1[1210 CROSSROAIDS 21 o.`"o0 0� 0— 112— efferson St. & S. Loop 40 —0 s-80 MNM URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 4-7: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 1 PROJECT (2026) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z t--) AIRPORT BL. 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 -114 X101 132 122—*�� 2 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. f-838 Orn 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-134 -51 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 —497 t-43 24-4 493—* 8� 100-6 l 5 5 I y =MN- 111-4123 Madison St. & Avenue 50 4-77 X57 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 L.10 0 X34 7 31—* 24—*�}n 2— N� Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 woo woo —468 L. X31 108— juvrzr- 364— 8 efferson St. & Avenue 50 assom 4-214 53 404�� 146 goTrio MADISON ST. MONROE ST. 1 � AVENUE 60 �1 60 HAV. ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 O,r,_P 4-170 �. —57 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 cD 4-131 s-20 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 :17t61459 X 262- tr 148- 151- o ;- 91-4 171—*st5� 62— 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. 4-66 t L —72 10-* 111-*� } 29— Na.) 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 rnrnv —66 —3 X377 28889- -* 133-* COMM 14 0 r -0(N„ oun_ 116-4 408—* Monroe St. & Avenue 52 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue —126 *-484 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue ofsirsi +J-70 s-5 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 4-23 s-112 59-4 58—* 11: 16— 60— r9-,fsr 81-4 33—* 18 s0 Mirm- 53- 12000—* Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 4-12 —1064 N 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. rnN(n 4-39 47 20 Jefferson St. & N. Loop 38— 1; 9 —* NM 22— 48 CROSSROA OS 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg1[1210 21 ONO 0-* 0— 78— efferson St. & S. Loop URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 4-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 1 (2026) CONDITIONS # Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes' Without Project With Project De ay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 De ay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 - Without Improvements AWS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 17.2 57.2 C F 17.2 57.2 C F - With Improvements TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 26.5 32.6 C C 26.5 32.6 C C 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 9.6 8.5 A A 9.6 8.5 A A 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 1 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 1 41.0 48.6 D D 41.2 49.0 D D 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 1 32.2 32.9 C C 32.3 33.1 C C 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 31.9 33.4 C C 32.2 33.6 C C 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 0.5 1 0.5 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 0.5 1 0.5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1> 32.6 32.4 C C 32.8 33.4 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 - With Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1» 0.5 1.5 1» 0.5 0.5 1» 0.5 0.5 1» 15.3 28.4 C D 16.8 32.6 C D 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 - Without Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 55.5 71.8 E E 55.7 71.8 E E - With Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 50.5 45.2 D D 50.5 45.5 D D 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 8.7 10.8 A B 11.3 19.4 B C 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 - Without Improvements AWS 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 15.4 21.0 C C 44.7 >80 E F - With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 - - - - 12.7 13.0 B B 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 15.5 >80 C F 54.1 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 26.1 33.1 C C 26.3 37.7 C D 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. - Without Improvements AWS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 18.4 50.7 C F 70.1 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 10.1 10.8 B B 10.1 11.3 B B 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 1! 0 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 31.9 33.3 C C 34.5 37.7 C D 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 d >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 d 33.6 41.0 C D 35.6 50.2 D D 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1> 17.9 24.1 B C 18.1 24.9 B C 16 Jackson St. / Avenue 62 AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 8.3 8.9 A A 8.7 9.7 A A 17 Jackson St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.0 11.3 A B 9.2 12.0 A B 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.5 16.5 A C 10.0 21.3 A C 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 10.2 15.4 B C 10.9 18.8 B C 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop RDB 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Intersection does not exist 2.8 2.8 A A 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 Intersection does not exist 3.5 4.1 A A ' 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. 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) 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 C: \UXRjobsL12000-12500\121841 ExneII (12184 - Report.x1soJ4-2 49 tAb!PJ° CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Table 4-2 also indicates that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 experiences deficient operations under cumulative "without project" conditions. As shown in Table 4-2, 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. For locations where improvements are needed in 2026 without the Project, a fair share contribution is appropriate for the Project Phase 1 development. Exhibit 4-8 shows the recommended Phase 1 access features and Project contributions to off-site improvements. Table 4-3 provides a summary of the Phase 1 (2026) roadway segment traffic conditions. As shown on Table 4-3, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under Phase 1 (2026) traffic conditions. 4.6 PHASE 1 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS To provide access to the Project Phase 1 development area, public access will be accommodated on the westerly extension of Avenue 62 into the site. The Project will be responsible to construct interim cross-section improvements along Avenue 62 west of Monroe Street and extending across Dike No. 4 to include one lane in each direction, with 40' pavement section with sidewalk on the north side. Within the Project boundary, the Avenue 62 extension (which becomes Jefferson Street) should be constructed at its ultimate full section width as a Modified Secondary (54 -foot curb -to -curb), with curb and gutters, sidewalks, and Class II bike lanes. The Phase 1 Avenue 62 /Jefferson Street will extend from the east Project boundary to the on-site North Loop intersection as shown on Exhibit 4-9. Along this segment of Jefferson Street, two roundabout intersections will be implemented at Jefferson Street / North Loop and Jefferson Street / South Loop. Jefferson Street temporarily ends at the North Loop intersection for Phase 1. This results in an interim roundabout design with the future north and east legs of the intersection temporarily closed. Implementing the interim roundabout configuration provides a turning path for vehicles between the west and south legs of the intersection, rather than an L-shaped (knuckle) intersection. Ultimate roundabout design features at the on-site Project intersections are documented in Section 8.3 of the TIA. Segments of the Loop Road will be constructed at its ultimate full section width as a Collector (40 -foot curb -to -curb), with curb and gutters and parkway improvements for the segments of Loop Road located southwest of Jefferson Street, and also northerly from the Jefferson Street / South Loop intersection, as indicated on Exhibit 4-9. Other local street Project access points along Jefferson Street within the Phase 1 development area will require median openings and left turn pockets and cross -street stop traffic control as indicated in the 2018 TIA. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 50 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 4-8: PHASE 1 (2026) RECOMMENDED ACCESS FEATURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION PROJECT FAIR SHARE JEFFERSON ST. FAIR SHARE -AVENUE54 3% -AVENUE52 3% - AVENUE 50 3% PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 14% PROJECT INTERSECTION FAIR SHARE MADISON ST. -AVENUE54 5% PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 14% AVENUE 58 58TH AV. PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 10% PROJECT IMPACT LOCATION FOR PHASE 1 CONDITIONS. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MONROE STREET AT AVENUE 60 SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED (EVENTUAL REIMBURSEMENT VIA THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CIP). PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 8% CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON STREET AT ITS ULTIMATE FULL -SECTION WIDTH AS A MODIFIED SECONDARY ROADWAY (54 -FOOT CURB -TO -CURB WIDTH) WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. 10 i MM.WeeMM4V4VMM:MM00dMea 9 21 CONSTRUCT LOOP ROAD AT ITS ULTIMATE FULL SECTION WIDTH AS A COLLECTOR (70 -FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY) CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON STREET -AVENUE 62 WITH INTERIM CROSS-SECTION (40 -FOOT PAVEMENT SECTION, SIDEWALK ON NORTH SIDE) FROM THE FROM THE PROJECT BOUNDARY TO MONROE STREET. LEGEND: JACKSON ST. 62ND AV. - INTERSECTION ID 41 = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WQQQQQQ, = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT (INTERIM CROSS-SECTION) =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT =COLLECTOR = BRIDGE NOTE: PROJECT FAIR SHARE BASED UPON GENERAL PLAN SCENARIOS (TRAVERTINE SPECIFIC PLAN TIA, APRIL 2018, TABLE 9-2) 12184 - 08 - on-site.dwg 51 11:2Ffr CROSSROADS URBAN PROJECT INTERSECTION FAIR SHARE % MONROE ST. - AIRPORT BLVD. 8% -AVENUE54 4% -AVENUE52 4% AVENUE 58 58TH AV. PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 10% PROJECT IMPACT LOCATION FOR PHASE 1 CONDITIONS. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MONROE STREET AT AVENUE 60 SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED (EVENTUAL REIMBURSEMENT VIA THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CIP). PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 8% CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON STREET AT ITS ULTIMATE FULL -SECTION WIDTH AS A MODIFIED SECONDARY ROADWAY (54 -FOOT CURB -TO -CURB WIDTH) WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. 10 i MM.WeeMM4V4VMM:MM00dMea 9 21 CONSTRUCT LOOP ROAD AT ITS ULTIMATE FULL SECTION WIDTH AS A COLLECTOR (70 -FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY) CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON STREET -AVENUE 62 WITH INTERIM CROSS-SECTION (40 -FOOT PAVEMENT SECTION, SIDEWALK ON NORTH SIDE) FROM THE FROM THE PROJECT BOUNDARY TO MONROE STREET. LEGEND: JACKSON ST. 62ND AV. - INTERSECTION ID 41 = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WQQQQQQ, = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT (INTERIM CROSS-SECTION) =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT =COLLECTOR = BRIDGE NOTE: PROJECT FAIR SHARE BASED UPON GENERAL PLAN SCENARIOS (TRAVERTINE SPECIFIC PLAN TIA, APRIL 2018, TABLE 9-2) 12184 - 08 - on-site.dwg 51 11:2Ffr CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Phasing Analysis EXHIBIT 4-9: PHASE 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN e Dike CORA! CANYON (FUTURE) Coral Mountain Dike 4 MADISON ST EVA AVENUE 60 l zr AVENUE 62 Martinez Rock Slide WATER TANKS 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 52 11:::!Pfr CROSSROAES URBAN PHASE l -A Cunstuctian/Sales PA Land Use Acres Density Range Target [xnstry target uplta vtltas 10 Low Density Residential 25.6 1.5-4.5 duffle 2.9 75 11 Resort l Golf 462 12 Law Density Residcnliai 52.2 1.5-4.5 du/ac 2.0 107 13 low density Residential 26.7 1.5-4.5 dufac 1.8 48 14 Low Density Residential 39.0 1.5-4.5 dnlac 1.7 65 15-A Law Density Residential 20.9 1.54.5 dulac 2.1 44 19 Open Space Recreation 23.1 20 Open Space Natural 301.2 Phase 1-:1. Totals 534.9 0.6 37'J PHASE 1-B ConstuctionISales PA Land Use Acres Density Range Target Density la roll nits Villas 5 Low Density Residential 16.2 1.5-4.5 du/au 1.9 3! 7 Law Density Residential 18.7 1.5-4.5 du/ae 3.3 61 8 Low Density Residential 16.9 1.5-4.5 dulac 4.3 73 4 Medium Density Residential 14.8 4.5-8.5 dulae 5.0 74 15-B Law Density Residential 12.4 1.5-4.5 dulac 2.1 26 18 erica Space Recreation 14.7 Masc. 1-11 Tutals 93.7 2,8 265 Dike 4 MADISON ST EVA AVENUE 60 l zr AVENUE 62 Martinez Rock Slide WATER TANKS 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 52 11:::!Pfr CROSSROAES URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 4-3: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PHASE 1 (2026) CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes' Capacity' Without Project With Project ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio Avenue 58 West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 5,500 0.26 5,500 0.26 0.24 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 6,700 0.24 6,700 West ofJackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 5,100 0.36 5,700 0.41 Madison St. South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 16,900 0.40 16,900 0.40 60th Avenue West ofJackson Street Primary 2 19,000 6 4,600 0.24 4,900 0.26 Avenue 62 West of Monroe Street Modified Secondary 2 19,000 700 0.04 6,500 0.34 West ofJackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 4,800 0.34 6,000 0.43 Monroe St. South of Avenue 60 Secondary 2 14,000 4 5,100 0.36 9,800 0.70 South of Avenue 58 Primary 2 19,000 6 8,700 0.46 13,100 0.69 South of Avenue 56 Primary 3 31,950 5 9,300 0.29 12,800 0.40 Jackson St. South of Airport Boulevard Primary 2 19,000 6 6,300 0.33 6,900 0.36 ' Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (July 2015) 'Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. 4 Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Secondary capacity. 'Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 4 -lane Primary capacity. 6 Estimated capacity for 2 -lane Primary. C: \ UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184 \Excel i(12184 - Report.xls44-3 53 11::!1.1• CROSSROAIDS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis In order to provide secondary emergency access to the Phase 1 development area, an EVA alignment is identified (see Exhibit 4-9). The EVA alignment extends from the northerly edge of Planning Area 18 to the intersection of Madison Street at Avenue 60. 4.7 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area intersections for Phase 1 (2026) Without Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 4.2). Five additional intersections are projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants: • Madison Street at Avenue 58 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta GP) • Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta CIP 2018-2023 as "unfunded additional projects") • Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta GP) • Monroe Street at Avenue 60 (Traffic signal improvement included in the La Quinta GP) • Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard • Jackson Street at Avenue 58 For Phase 1 (2026) With Project traffic conditions, Monroe Street at Avenue 62 is also projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 54 Ck URBAN cROssROA0s Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 5 PROJECT PHASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This section discusses Project Phase 2 conditions, which includes Existing (2019) volumes, Ambient Growth traffic for 10 years, cumulative development traffic, and Project traffic. The results of the Phase 2 HCM intersection analysis and roadway segment capacity analysis are also presented. 5.1 PROJECT PHASE 2 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Project Phase 2 is anticipated to occur in 2029, and includes 673 single family detached residential homes, 237 duplex residential units, and PA 11 resort/golf uses (golf practice, golf academy, and banquet accommodations). Trip generation rates are presented on Table 5-1 for Phase 2 conditions. As shown on Table 5-1, Phase 2 of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 8,343 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 620 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 821 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. 5.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION For Project Phase 2 conditions, two public access routes are provided: 1) the southerly extension of South Jefferson as an interim section (40 -foot pavement section, sidewalk on west side), south of Avenue 58, and 2) the westerly extension of Avenue 62 as an interim section (40 -foot pavement section, sidewalk on north side), west of Monroe Street (consistent with Phase 1 conditions). The trip distribution pattern for Phase 2 of the proposed Project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 5-1. For Project Phase 2 conditions, both Project access locations are used, with approximately 50% of traffic using the westerly extension of Avenue 62, west of Monroe Street and approximately 50% of traffic using southerly extension of South Jefferson, south of Avenue 58. Similar to Phase 1 conditions, approximately 70% of Project traffic travels north of Avenue 58. It should be noted that an optional Phase 2 scenario (Option 2) has also been evaluated in response to City of La Quinta's request to modify the analysis without the future Jefferson Street connection from Project boundary to Avenue 58 since BLM may not grant a permit by the current Phase 2 (2029) build year. For Phase 2 Option 2 scenario, the off-site trip distribution pattern is consistent with Phase 1 which utilizes Avenue 62 as the sole access point. 5.3 TRAFFIC VOLUME ASSIGNMENT Based on the identified Project Phase 2 traffic generation and trip distribution pattern, Project only ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-2 through 5-4, respectively. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 55 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 5-1: PROJECT PHASE 2 (2029) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates' Land Use ITE LU Quantity' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use Code Quantity' In Out Total In Out Total Daily Single Family Detached 210 673 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 220 237 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 Resort/Golf3 430 12 HOLES 1.39 0.37 1.76 1.54 1.37 2.91 30.38 Trip Generation Results Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached 210 673 DU 128 370 498 417 249 666 6,353 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 220 237 DU 26 83 109 83 50 133 1,735 Internal to Resort/Golf (1) (3) (4) (2) (3) (5) (55) Residential External Trips 153 450 603 498 296 794 8,033 Resort/Golf3 430 12 HOLES 17 4 21 18 16 34 365 Internal to Residential (3) (1) (4) (3) (2) (5) (55) Resort/Golf3 External Trips 14 3 17 15 14 29 310 Project Subtotal 171 457 628 518 315 833 8,453 Internal Capture Subtotal (4) (4) (8) (5) (5) (10) (110) Phase 2 (2029) Project Total External Trips 167 453 620 513 310 823 8,343 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). ' DU = Dwelling Unit 3 Resort/Golf (golf practice, golf academy, and banquet accommodations). F: i UXRjobsL12100-12500\12184 \Excel \[12184 - Report.xlsx]P2 56 URBAN CROSSROAIDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis o u u 5 EXHIBIT 5-1: PHASE 2 (2029) PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION sorkrAV. 7 AVENUE 50 i 111 ----I ▪ 5 AIRP '"Ir 0I1 �I w w % \\ Sp ON-SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION r • .1loQ �\ IN _ \ 1, \ / ▪ ,�,/. a \` •S//.. / N / // r __J , SITE /�9°` a s 3 1 8 i► ? s. —i�++;' '� T 4 431 4o A / AVENUE 62 RT BL. 0 co 5 58TH AV. 10 60TH AV. z 0 C./ 5 AVENUE 62 62ND AV. / f/ ` ---- . 50 20 10 LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 57 URBAN CROSSROA OS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis AVENUE 50 EXHIBIT 5-2: PROJECT ONLY PHASE 2 (2029) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) t'o 50TH AV. k_0.4 0.4 00 AVENUE 52 0.4 0.4 VI z 0 CC CC 0 z 0 0 1.»WUES8 WI 4.2 1.3 ^ 0 O 0 AVENUEb0 C. eL AVENUE 62 0.4 0.4 0.4 58TH AV. 0.8 60TH AV. 1' i 0.4 FJ i N 62ND AV. LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID ---- = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) JACKSON ST. 00 0 00 0 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 SITE 4.2 1.7 0.8 0 12184 - 04 - adts.dwg 58 lir:21fr CROSSROA0S URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 5-3: PROJECT ONLY PHASE 2 (2029) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z AVENUE 52 AVENUE 54 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 4-0 -25 136-4 oo 2 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 0 0 . 0 0 3 cao 00— Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-0 f0 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 oro f0 .�i�►�8 17- 8-4`l�l' 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 *-0 .lil►�o 6 efferson St. & Avenue 54 4-45 OOr f0 *-0 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 4-0 .� ► —23 8 efferson St. & Avenue 50 0r=0 —23 .lil►�o 8-4 �o 0 -*1 fes' 0-4 t 5 1 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 unOO __o 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 4-0 0— 11 cov0 23-4 45- Monroe St. & Avenue 58 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 ip 4-0 0-4'1 ° i 14 0N0 0—* 20—* Monroe St. & Avenue 52 4-0 f8 t r- 0 0 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 4-0 . �. ~8 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 4-0 ~0 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue i0 f8 23-4 45- 23- 0-4 Oy 0 18 23-4 23— o- Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 4-0 f8 *-0 0 0 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 4-0 0 20-ofo 20 54-4 50— efferson St. & N. Loop i0f 59 CROSSROA OS 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg1[1210 21 efferson St. & S. Loop Mr• 4-23 X22— 3 63-4 86— 0 URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 5-4: PROJECT ONLY PHASE 2 (2029) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z AIRPORT BL. 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 �_ 4-0 tDoo f77 46-4 'l 0 0' 2 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 4—o ,0 og o 3 o.c2o 0- Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-0 f0 4 jr. 0-4 26— Madison St. & Avenue 52 5 oitio ii 0-4 0— 26— Madison St. & Avenue 50 4-0 f0 sosoo 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 oorn 4-31 0-411: 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 I I y o-4 206— 4— —1 o;° 8 efferson St. & Avenue 50 4-0 —1 otr- ; o MADISON ST. MONROE ST. 58TH AV. j I AVENUE 6010 60 HAV. 5 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 4-0 3 s-0 o-000 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 or=o -0 �s-26 0- 4 t 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. 4-0 ah, 4-0 f0 —26 13 orZo Monroe St. & Avenue 54 4—o f0 s-26 14 0 26— —0- orto 0-4 106- Monroe St. & Avenue 52 4-0 —226 0 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 4-0 f-26 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 17 0_* 0 - 16—t16-4 t oitio 0-4 16- Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 4— —26 lost: 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 4— —26 20 efferson St. & N. Loop O6 0-4 10—t o; o 0 t 34— suo-icV 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg 60 Iri:!°, CROSSROAES 21 efferson St. & S. Loop tJv.o 4-16 i — X1l 6 43-4 t 59_ o•a•r� URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Ambient growth between 2019 and 2029 as well as cumulative development are incorporated in the cumulative traffic projections shown on Exhibits 5-5 through 5-7. Exhibit 5-5 shows the cumulative (2029) daily traffic projections on study area roadway segments. Exhibit 5-6 presents the cumulative (2029) weekday AM peak hour volumes at study area intersections. Exhibit 5-7 depicts the cumulative (2029) weekday PM peak hour volumes at study area analysis locations. For Phase 2 Option 2 conditions (without Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58), daily traffic projections on study area roadway segments and weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-8 through 5-10, respectively. 5.4 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Phase 2 (2029) Without, With Project, and With Project Option 2 traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 5-2. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Phase 2 (2029) Without and With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.1 of this report. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Phase 2 (2029) With Project Option 2 traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.2 of this report. Two additional off-site study area intersections (beyond the intersections identified for Phase 1) are anticipated to require improvements to serve 2029 conditions without the Project: • Jackson Street at Avenue 58 • Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard Table 5-2 also 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, southbound, eastbound, and westbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. For Phase 2 Option 2 conditions, intersection analysis results presented in Table 5-2 indicate that if Option 2 scenario (without Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58) is utilized, the intersection of Monroe Street at Avenue 62 (#9) is anticipated to require traffic signal improvement to serve Phase 2 (2029) With Project Option 2 conditions. Intersection operations analysis worksheets for Phase 2 (2029) With Project Option 2 traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.2 of this report. For locations where improvements are needed in 2029 without the Project, a fair share contribution is appropriate for the Project Phase 2 development. Exhibit 5-11 shows the recommended access features and Project contributions to off-site improvements. Project Phase 2 development plan is shown on Exhibit 5-12. Table 5-3 provides a summary of the roadway segment analysis for Phase 2 (2029) traffic conditions. As shown on Table 5-3, study roadway segments are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under Phase 2 (2029) traffic conditions. However, if Option 2 scenario is utilized, the roadway segment of Monroe Street, south of Avenue 60 appears to exceed the theoretical 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 61 �i► URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis daily segment LOS thresholds. It should be noted however that 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. 5.5 PHASE 2 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Off-site, the Project will be responsible to construct interim cross-section improvements along Jefferson Street from the Project boundary to Avenue 58 and extending across Guadalupe Creek Diversion Dike to include one lane in each direction, with 40' pavement section with sidewalk on the west side. On-site, Jefferson Street should be constructed from the North Loop intersection to the northerly Project boundary at its ultimate full section width, with curb and gutters. However, if Option 2 scenario is implemented, this connection is not anticipated to be in place by Phase 2 conditions. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 62 Ck URBAN cROssROA0s Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 00 EXHIBIT 5-5: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) AVENUE 50 50TH AV. r 1 19.5 14.6 ILL, AVENUE 52 14.8 24.1 z 0 CC CC 10.0 z 0 0 ti J 9.8 ^ AIRPORT BL. 1 6.5 NUE 58 9.5 ^1 N a 1 0 41 ce0 1 -___AVENUEbQ -4 t X00 / y�r:: SITE C. AVENUE 62 .p 15.7 8.1 [1— 1-1 6.8 58TH AV. 7.3 60TH AV. 7.4 62ND AV. LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID ---- = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) JACKSON ST. w 0 In 6.3 4.7 5.3 5.7 7.1 4.2 .0 12184 - 04 - adts.dwg 63 11::!! CROSSROADS URBAN z Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 5-6: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 50TH Ar' - AVENUE 52 AVENUE 54 AIRPORT BL. 1 I -NN NcM L- 257-4 130— Madison St. & Avenue 58 4_84 f-38 OJT, Os 2 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. *-62 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 J + : -210 s-63 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 r.Jo0 482 -t i L -483 226 520—Mau+ 78—t 5079-� ' , 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 4_44 .� i �►-35 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 4534 X43 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 s-0 49 8 Mos- efferson St. & Avenue 50 4258 05 93-4 397- 75_ ^OrLn 8 10— . f 13— NN 128-4'1 438— 376 N n^' 379-* z MONROE ST. ............... r 5.ti. SITE: 5 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 1:-312:24135 t t-35 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 «o'_M 4179 .� ► ~123 —12 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 , 4_50 X34 175—* r 54_-4' 167-Ols?� 105-4,1 f 72—* .00 N 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. cr 11 4_53 � � L —36 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 som —52 •� + ► X488 14 0 ,27-•f- 58—* 238- 53 Tr co Monroe St. & Avenue 52 T4-146 -38 X38 112 4071 -co 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue otiN 4125 _ -402 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue No -12 Jt ►s-5 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue ul —119 -16 30—* 353CO IS1 36—t 00 1103 f �' 164- f 25—* MON 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 4-6 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 18 X18 20 efferson St. & N. Loop 450 s-14 42—f 180- 16- N 9-4'1 42— 'J ^ 50— 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg 64 21 efferson St. & S. Loop Mr•to 423 t X23 63—t 86— CO* URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 5-7: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. AVENUE 52 z AVENUE 54 AIRPORT BL. Madison St. & Avenue 58 ko.~o� 4-218 213120012 232— 39- so 2 crko Madison St. & Airport Blvd. —103 0' c0 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 �fu`Oia1 4-152 •� + ► X592 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 4-90 .� i �► X756 32— —* 63307 3v.= 95-4 560— 126--- * in 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 4-111 9is" ko9 .o kr 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 oa 4-701 *-3 X34 3I—* 24- 2— N'^ 7 «1 _R- `�aDN 111-* 396—* efferson St. & Avenue 52 4—_373 —326 t r- ocom Mti 8 EONN vQN 362-4 146—* efferson St. & Avenue 50 4-229 s-1849 Icrt0 z _4 1ENUE 58 O rr f 58TH AV. r I AVENUE 6010 60 HAV. 0 62ND AV. 5 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 k-45 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 rsicsi -126 X28 11 165- tr N 1—* 68- 218—*?� 195- Monroe St. & Avenue 58 Nur- 4-231 .� i �► 4--48 114 269—*inko �r- 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. 4— 94 89 —84 13 116-4 38—� a"- Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Nvo 4-84 .1 ► ~537 107-4 r 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 �7 s-03 127 112—* *3" Loco 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 4-127 17 *-56 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue .� ►4-30 X10 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 4-43 92 59-4 5 706—* co 29-4 139—*�?� °0 189- 46— N^`N 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue n1� 4-15 ~022 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. r,�� 4—_43 4221 20 efferson St. & N. Loop 4-34 *-9 61-4 122 5-� M 47-4 214—*?� 32— tJ 3'- `I t 34_ �ovu1 rnm— 65 CROSSROAIDS 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg1[1210 21 efferson St. & S. Loop F.....TorRi 4-16 X1l— 6 43_J `! f 59_ oaN URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 5-8: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) OPTION 2 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 00 AVENUE 50 t'^ 50TH AV. 17.7 24.1 0+1 N a N 19.5 14.6 I� AVENUE 52 O N N N (T AIRPORT BL. 6.5 MONROE ST._< II .I p I III I: it . `___'.. .. ....i 5.8 r AYEb41E_6D 14.8 15.7 co .0 8.1 6.8 58TH AV. 7.3 60TH AV. LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID — — — — = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) JACKSON ST. 00 0 .0 0 n 6.3 4.7 JEFFEliSON ST. Iii1el �� u \ \ ! T. L -i \�—;toOP _.................... SITE AVENUE 62 FJj i 7.4 O` 62ND AV. V1 5.3 9.8 7.1 4.2 0 12184 - 04 - adts.dwg 66 11::!! CROSSROADS URBAN z Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 5-9: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) OPTION 2 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES Madison St. & Avenue 58 NN + . 93 X38 5 87�'l f — N.rn Madison St. & Avenue 50 ��rn 4_44 .�iL. -35 93-4 397— � � - 75_ ^orrn 5 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 2 6 9 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 4-534 X43 8 10— 410,0, 13— NN Monroe St. & Avenue 62 o 135 c4"..0`.2�75 *-3 3 7 10 co 503— Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-1125 —63 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 o�N s-490 128 438— o 376som - Nu, Monroe St. & Avenue 60 4-103 X12 4 8 11 Madison St. & Avenue 52 r.Jo0 4-82 .� i �► —406 78-4 517- 71 ^NDN .Noo03^1 mo 379-* efferson St. & Avenue 50 4-258 05 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 4-50 s -5l 10 l- r 0- 54_4' 167—t 1406•1 sop -- 12 ~ 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. o`Mo.▪ a4-99 � � L —36 13 0 127- N- 286— Monroe St. & Avenue 54 4-528 s-48 ^rn 14 o N• _ L- 112-4 379-* Monroe St. & Avenue 52 4-114 f—,46 or 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue oti▪ N 4-125 X402 16 SND Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 4-12 —48 *-5 17 u7 �Or^ Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 4-51 6 30—t 353mcom an 1037—i 64-4 25- 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 4— �+�f127 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 20 efferson St. & N. Loop 4-0 .77?.X23 42—* 16—t N 9 ? 218—oo 42— '—J 0 104— ? 0 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg 67 lirl2le CROSSROADS 21 efferson St. & S. Loop ti 4-0 o!o fl s-54 136— u'o URBAN z Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 5-10: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 2 PROJECT (2029) OPTION 2 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AIRPORT BL. 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 M_.r`oMI 4_218 -101 139-4t --Lno•o f 2 0,00 CO Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 4138 —103 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 4183 .� ► • ~593 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 4-90 .�i�► —49 9 of 32— 381— 586— a�- 95-4 586—* 0 0 100—* v_�N- 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 4111 99 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 oa 4701 *-3 X34 31—* 24- 2— N'^ 7 t+1 _0= `oaoN 454—* 396— Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 4_373 —326 o�� Mti 8 EONN ✓ QN 362-4 146—* Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 4229 s-184crmrsi9 z to MONROE ST. LEGEND: 0 ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 so 174 445 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 osru -126 X28 11 N O InIti 120- tr 68-4 918— =a 98-4 269—* Monroe St. & Avenue 58 4-78 f-99 orno 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. ��41 4� —849 13 136- lost: 38— TeNN- Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Noo 484 .� ► ~537 107— � Tr 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 4-148 .� i �► 4967 127 138—* 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 4_127 *-56 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue sov_ 4_40 � s-10 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue .113 p 92 59-4 s 76-* Ln Cr, CO 29-4 139—* � ? � 00 189- 46— N^`N 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue n1� 415 ~022 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. r,�� 4_43 ► —421 20 000 Jefferson St. & N. Loop 40 f1 f-16 61-4 122 5- cmcmiNM 47-4 214—*? o 32— tJ 0—* � f0 68 CROSSROAIDS 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg1[1210 21 Jefferson St. & S. Loop 4 drso.o_ X33 7 0 1—* � J 93—* umrso URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 5-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 2 (2029) CONDITIONS tt Intersection Traffic Control° Intersection Approach Lanes' Without Project With Project With Project (Option 2)4 De ayz (Secs) Level of Servicez De ayZ (Secs) Level of ServiceZ De ayZ I (Secs) Level of ServiceZ Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 1 T R 1 T R 1 T R 1 T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 - Without Improvements AWS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 21.9 >80 C F 37.8 >80 E F 21.9 >80 C F - With Improvements TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 26.7 35.3 C D 32.4 39.4 C D 26.7 35.3 C D 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10.3 9.4 B A 10.3 9.4 B A 10.3 9.4 B A 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 1 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1» 1 2 1 36.1 36.7 D D 35.6 37.0 D D 37.5 39.1 D D 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 1 33.1 34.6 C C 33.8 35.7 C D 33.4 34.9 C C 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 33.0 35.0 C C 33.3 35.2 C D 33.3 35.2 C D 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 0.5 1 0.5 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1> 36.2 25.2 D C 36.4 27.5 D C 36.4 27.5 D 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 >80 >80 F F - Without Improvements RDB 0.5 1.5 1» 0.5 1.5 1» 0.5 1.5 1» 0.5 1.5 1» 13.2 25.3 B D 14.6 31.5 B D 14.6 31.5 B D 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 - Without Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 55.7 73.5 E E 56.1 73.7 E E 56.1 73.7 E E - With Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 51.5 47.9 D D 51.7 48.6 D D 51.7 48.6 D D 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 - Without Improvements AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 9.0 12.5 A B 10.8 20.8 B C 18.7 77.6 C F - With Improvements T5 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 - - - - - - - - 15.3 22.4 B C 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 - Without Improvements AWS 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 22.5 49.6 C E 38.7 >80 E F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements T5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 13.0 14.2 B B 13.4 14.5 B B 13.6 16.4 B B 11 Monroe St. /Avenue 58 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 25.0 >80 C F 76.5 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 28.8 34.1 C C 29.0 39.6 C D 29.1 46.1 C D 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. - Without Improvements AWS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 35.1 >80 E F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 11.0 12.4 B B 11.2 14.1 B B 11.8 15.5 B B 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 1! 0 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 31.5 38.0 C D 31.9 40.2 C D 44.3 54.0 D D 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 d >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 d 42.0 44.5 D D 42.5 46.1 D D 42.7 47.8 D D 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1> 19.7 33.8 B C 20.4 36.4 C D 20.4 36.4 C D 16 Jackson 5t. / Avenue 62 AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.6 12.3 A B 11.1 21.5 B C 11.1 21.5 B C 17 Jackson St. / Avenue 60 AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.9 16.0 A C 10.5 20.1 B C 10.5 20.1 B C 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 11.2 56.9 B F 12.5 >80 B F 12.5 >80 B F - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 12.3 24.8 B C 12.5 26.1 B C 12.5 26.1 B C 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 12.1 39.2 B E 13.7 76.0 B F 13.7 76.0 B F - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 23.9 13.6 C B 24.2 13.6 C B 24.2 13.6 C B 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 Intersection does not exist 3.7 4.4 A A 3.2 3.4 A A 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 Intersection does not exist 3.8 4.3 A A 3.9 4.7 A A When a right turn 0 designated, the lane can either be st iped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there mu t be sufficient widt for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right -Turn Overlap Phasing; >0 = 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) 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCMG), 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). TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop; AWS = All -Way Stop; RDB =Roundabout ° Option 2: Without Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58. C.l UXR/obsL12000-12500)121041 Excei)lu184 - Report.xlsx)5-2 69 11:46!! CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 5-11: PHASE 2 (2029) RECOMMENDED ACCESS FEATURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION PROJECT FAIR SHARE JEFFERSON ST. FAIR SHARE -AVENUE54 3% - AVENUE 52 3% - AVENUE 50 3% z 0 0) • w NUE 58 PROJECT INTERSECTION FAIR SHARE MADISON ST. -AVENUE54 5% NUE 58 PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 14% CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON STREET -AVENUE 62 INTERIM CROSS-SECTION (40 -FOOT PAVEMENT SECTION, SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE) FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY TO AVENUE 58. CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON STREET AT ITS ULTIMATE FULL -SECTION WIDTH AS A MODIFIED SECONDARY ROADWAY (54 -FOOT CURB -TO -CURB WIDTH) FROM THE NORTH LOOP ROAD TO NORTHWESTERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY. —MADISON ST. PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 10% PROJECT INTERSECTION FAIR SHARE MONROE ST. - AIRPORT BLVD. 8% -AVENUE54 4% -AVENUE52 4% PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 14% CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON STREET -AVENUE 62 INTERIM CROSS-SECTION (40 -FOOT PAVEMENT SECTION, SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE) FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY TO AVENUE 58. CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON STREET AT ITS ULTIMATE FULL -SECTION WIDTH AS A MODIFIED SECONDARY ROADWAY (54 -FOOT CURB -TO -CURB WIDTH) FROM THE NORTH LOOP ROAD TO NORTHWESTERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY. —MADISON ST. PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 10% 58TH AV. PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 5% PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 8% 60TH AV. COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF LOOP ROAD AT ITS ULTIMATE FULL SECTION WIDTH AS A COLLECTOR (40 -FOOT CURB -TO -CURB) AVENUE 62 OPTION 2 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT (WITHOUT JEFFERSON ST. CONNECTION TO AVENUE 58) LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL =PROJECT ROUNDABOUT =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT = CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENT = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL Win = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL (INTERIM CROSS-SECTION) = COLLECTOR = BRIDGE NOTE: PROJECT FAIR SHARE BASED UPON GENERAL PLAN SCENARIOS (TRAVERTINE SPECIFIC PLAN TIA, APRIL 2018, TABLE 9-2) JACKSON ST. 62ND AV. ADDITIONAL PROJECT IMPACT LOCATION IF OPTION 2 (WITHOUT JEFFERSON ST. CONNECTION TO AVENUE 58) IS UTILIZED. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS (WITH RELATED SEPARATE TURN LANES) FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MONROE STREET AT AVENUE 62 SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED (EVENTUAL REIMBURSEMENT VIA THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CIP). OPTION 2 PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 22% 12184 - 08 - on-site.dwg 70 11:21, CROSSROADS URBAN PROJECT INTERSECTION FAIR SHARE JACKSON ST. - AIRPORT BLVD. 5% 58TH AV. PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 5% PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 8% 60TH AV. COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF LOOP ROAD AT ITS ULTIMATE FULL SECTION WIDTH AS A COLLECTOR (40 -FOOT CURB -TO -CURB) AVENUE 62 OPTION 2 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT (WITHOUT JEFFERSON ST. CONNECTION TO AVENUE 58) LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL =PROJECT ROUNDABOUT =PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT = CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENT = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL Win = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL (INTERIM CROSS-SECTION) = COLLECTOR = BRIDGE NOTE: PROJECT FAIR SHARE BASED UPON GENERAL PLAN SCENARIOS (TRAVERTINE SPECIFIC PLAN TIA, APRIL 2018, TABLE 9-2) JACKSON ST. 62ND AV. ADDITIONAL PROJECT IMPACT LOCATION IF OPTION 2 (WITHOUT JEFFERSON ST. CONNECTION TO AVENUE 58) IS UTILIZED. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS (WITH RELATED SEPARATE TURN LANES) FOR THE INTERSECTION OF MONROE STREET AT AVENUE 62 SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED (EVENTUAL REIMBURSEMENT VIA THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CIP). OPTION 2 PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 22% 12184 - 08 - on-site.dwg 70 11:21, CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Phasing Analysis EXHIBIT 5-12: PHASE 2 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Like 2 CORAL CANYON {FUTURE) AVENUE 58 Coral Mountain NAP I __ it i'A15A� rf� PA -14 Dike 4 PA -8 c6. PA -10 PA -i9 PA -12 PA -11 PA -20 WATER TANKS Martinez Rock Slide AVENUE 60 AVENUE 62 L 0 Z 0 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 71 URBAN CROSSROADS PHASE 2 ComstuctionISales PALand Use Acres Density Range Target Density Targe[ Units Villas 4 B 16 Luw bensiiy Residential Medium Density Residential Los Density Residential 9.6 20.1 50.4 1.5-4.5 dulae 4.54.5 dulac 1.5-4.5 dulac 2.8 8.1 2.3 27 163 116 Phase 2 Totals SU.I 3.8 3% Dike 4 PA -8 c6. PA -10 PA -i9 PA -12 PA -11 PA -20 WATER TANKS Martinez Rock Slide AVENUE 60 AVENUE 62 L 0 Z 0 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 71 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 5-3: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PHASE 2 (2029) CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes' Capacity2 Without Project With Project With Project (Option 2)' ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio Avenue 58 West of Madison Street Secondary 3 21,000 4 5,800 0.28 10,000 0.48 5,800 0.28 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 7,500 0.27 8,800 0.31 7,500 0.27 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 6,500 0.46 7,300 0.52 7,300 0.52 Madison St. South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 18,900 0.44 21,500 0.50 18,900 0.44 60th Avenue West of Jackson Street Primary 2 19,000 6 5,400 0.28 5,800 0.31 5,800 0.31 Avenue 62 West of Monroe Street Modified Secondary 2 19,000 1,500 0.08 5,700 0.30 9,800 0.52 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 5,500 0.39 7,100 0.51 7,100 0.51 Monroe St. South of Avenue 60 Secondary 2 14,000 4 6,700 0.48 9,200 0.66 13,400 0.96 South of Avenue 58 Primary 2 19,000 6 10,600 0.56 12,600 0.66 16,800 0.88 South of Avenue 56 Primary 3 31,950 5 11,100 0.35 13,600 0.43 16,100 0.50 Jackson St. South of Airport Boulevard Primary 2 19,000 6 8,500 0.45 9,300 0.49 9,300 0.49 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (July 2015) 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. 6 Estimated capacity for 2 -lane Primary. 'Option 2: Without Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58. C:\UXRjobsL12000-125001121841ExcelV12184 [12184 - Report.x1s45-3 72 11:2°fr CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis For Phase 2, the Project should complete construction of Loop Road at its ultimate full section width as a Collector (40 -foot curb -to -curb), with curb and gutters. Other local street Project access points along Jefferson Street within the Phase 2 development area will require median openings and left turn pockets and cross -street stop traffic control as indicated in the 2018 TIA. 5.6 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrant analyses have been performed at all applicable unsignalized study area intersections for Phase 2 (2029) Without Project traffic conditions (see Appendix 5.3). Two additional intersections are projected to satisfy traffic signal warrants: • Jackson Street at Avenue 60 • Jackson Street at Avenue 62 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 73 Ck URBAN cROssROA0s Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 74 Ck URBAN CROssROAOs Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 6 PROJECT PHASE 3 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This section discusses Project Phase 3 conditions, which includes Existing (2019) volumes, Ambient Growth traffic for 12 years, cumulative development traffic, and Project traffic. The results of the Phase 3 HCM intersection analysis and roadway segment capacity analysis are also presented. 6.1 PROJECT PHASE 3 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Project Phase 3 is anticipated to occur in 2031, and includes 758 single family detached residential homes, 442 duplex residential units, a 100 -room resort hotel, and PA 11 resort/golf uses (golf practice, golf academy, and banquet accommodations). Trip generation rates are presented on Table 6-1 for Phase 3 conditions. As shown on Table 6-1, Phase 3 of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 11,321 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 812 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 1,057 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. 6.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION For Project Phase 3 conditions, two public access routes are provided: 1) the southerly extension of South Jefferson as an interim section (40 -foot pavement section, sidewalk on west side), south of Avenue 58, and 2) the westerly extension of Avenue 62 as an interim section (40 -foot pavement section, sidewalk on north side), west of Monroe Street (consistent with Phase 1 conditions). The trip distribution pattern for the proposed Project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 6-1. For Project Phase 3 conditions, both Project access locations are used, with approximately half of Project traffic using each access. Similar to Phases 1 and 2 conditions, approximately 70% of Project traffic travels north of Avenue 58. 6.3 TRAFFIC VOLUME ASSIGNMENT Based on the identified Project Phase 3 development area traffic generation and trip distribution pattern, Project only ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 6-2 through 6-4, respectively. Ambient growth between 2019 and 2031 as well as cumulative development are incorporated in the cumulative traffic projections shown on Exhibits 6-5 through 6-7. Exhibit 6-5 shows the cumulative (2031) daily traffic projections on study area roadway segments. Exhibit 6-6 presents the cumulative (2031) weekday AM peak hour volumes at study area intersections. Exhibit 6-7 depicts the cumulative (2031) weekday PM peak hour volumes at study area analysis locations. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 75 �i► URBAN CR DSSR DAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 6-1: PROJECT PHASE 3 (2031) TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates' Land Use ITE LU Quantity2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Single Family Detached 210 758 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 220 442 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 Hotel 310 100 RM 0.36 0.26 0.62 0.36 0.37 0.73 12.23 Resort/Golf3 430 12 HOLES 1.39 0.37 1.76 1.54 1.37 2.91 30.38 Trip Generation Results Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached 210 758 DU 144 417 561 470 280 750 7,156 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 220 442 DU 49 155 204 155 93 248 3,235 Internal to Hotel & Resort/Golf (6) (12) (18) (12) (12) (24) (256) Residential External Trips 187 560 747 613 361 974 10,135 Hotel 310 100 RM 36 26 62 36 37 73 1,223 Internal to Residential & Resort/Golf (5) (4) (9) (5) (6) (11) (256) Hotel External Trips 31 22 53 31 31 62 967 Resort/Golf3 430 12 HOLES 17 4 21 18 16 34 365 Internal to Residential & Hotel (7) (2) (9) (7) (6) (13) (146) Resort/Golf3 External Trips 10 2 12 11 10 21 219 Project Subtotal 246 602 848 679 426 1,105 11,979 Internal Capture Subtotal (18) (18) (36) (24) (24) (48) (658) Phase 3 (2031) Project Total External Trips 228 584 812 655 402 1,057 11,321 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). ' DU = Dwelling Unit; RM = Occupied Room 3 Resort/Golf (golf practice, golf academy, and banquet accommodations). F: \ UXRjobsL12100-12500\12184 'Excel \(12184 - Report.xlsx]P3 76 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis o u u 5 EXHIBIT 6-1: PHASE 3 (2031) PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION !- N sorkrAV. 7 AVENUE 50 -- 3 gege its AVENUE 62 5 AIRP ON-SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION r 1 / 1 1 \ ` '1 7.1 \ i I \\ �h �e AVENUE 62 J a 0 SITE S. LOOP CvI et. 6 \ti by 43 RT BL. 0 5 58TH AV, 10 6DTH AV. z 0 5 its M 50 20 62ND AV. 10 LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 77 URBAN CROSSROA IDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis AVENUE 50 EXHIBIT 6-2: PROJECT ONLY PHASE 2 (2029) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) t'o 50TH AV. 0.6 AVENUE 52 0.6 VI z 0 CC z 0 0 AVENUE 58 -_-AVENUE 60 1 \#+ T` t6 j.\• i 1 - 3 1%/� SITE 0 AVENUE 62 01 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.9 58TH AV. 1.1 60TH AV. 0.6 FJ M 62ND AV. LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID – — — – = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) JACKSON ST. O 0.6 0.6 0.6 5.7 2.3 1.1 0 12184 - 04 - adts.dwg 78 11::!°) CROSSROAIDS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 6-3: PROJECT ONLY PHASE 3 (2031) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. AVENUE 52 z AVENUE 54 AIRPORT BL. z _4 1ENUE 58 0 f 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 4— ~0 175- 88-- 29--- * 0 0' 2 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 .o 4-0 J� S-0 o 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 4— .ls—n ii 0 0— cncoos 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 0 0— ososo 0-4 oo— —08 *-0 f000 7 ONO Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 4— —2 8 ONO efferson St. & Avenue 50 4-0 —229 0—t 11-4- Th - 020 0� oy t r - 58TH AV. j — I AVENUE 6010 1 60 HAV. 5 62ND AV. LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 'oi f 0�0' 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 4— ^r5n0 —23 29- t r 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. o74:, ,cJ o �0 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Xii .1i►11 14 0 0,14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 0—f 0 0- '1 frmascsi 0- o a COSNI 20—f`�fo' 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue In 4-0 *-11 16 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue _ 4-0 •� + l► X000 3 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 4- J � O0 r0 ^;1 0— ff 58-4- 9� '1 ? 20—f o f lo 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 19 ONO Jackson St. Sr Airport Blvd. 4-0 ~o 20 efferson St. & N. Loop ^.n^ 4-53 J � L X5—5 3 O9 ��o 92— Th - 53_J 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg 79 lirl:!Pe CROSSROA OS 21 efferson St. & S. Loop r,0 4-29 -41 58-4' r- 82—* URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 6-4: PROJECT ONLY PHASE 3 (2031) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z AVENUE 52 AVENUE 54 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 N. Lo 00 f98 121-4 20— oo 2 Cho Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-0 0-4 t 66— 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 t s-3 X33 0- 000 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 oIZ-10 f0 0-4 t 6 0— Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 4-40 *—O 000 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 O.So 4-0 foo 0..?0 8 03330 0� 333 efferson St. & Avenue 50 4-0 f20o 000 5 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 N- 4-0 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 a 4-0 oho f0 t L —33 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 4-0 80 ��0oso o-4 t 40- 050 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. 4_ Oin f0 t *-33 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 ooa0•o f0 t L —33 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 �► __03 i �0 33— }000 0-4 t 20-4 f omo 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue O..00O 0 Jul. -3 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue 4— —33 0-* t00 40- ?o 0-4 200— 0?0 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue t*-0 �0 19 o.'Ooo Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 4-0 —3 20 efferson St. & N. Loop +�-0 t-336 20-000 20—t 0..?0— 36-4 32— u• 80 CROSSROA OS 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg1[1210 21 efferson St. & S. Loop —28 40- 56—* 0. URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis O T EXHIBIT 6-5: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 3 PROJECT (2031) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 50TH AV. AVENUE 50 20.9 N P 15.6 I nffl AVENUE 52 .O 15.9 25.6 VI z 0 CC CC 1 z 0 tn0 `VVV €l ✓AIRPORT BL. M J 1.WUES8 ■ N 11.6 0 0 ----AVENUE_60 tom, / SITE E. AVENUE 62 ro 1 P N P ttti 17.4 8.8 8.6 58TH AV. 8.9 60TH AV. 8.4 FJ .0 62ND AV. LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID ---- = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) JACKSON ST. 0 .•i 00 P n 6.9 5.5 7.0 7.5 9.0 5.1 00 12184 - 04 - adts.dwg 81 lir:21fr CROSSROAIDS URBAN z Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 6-6: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 3 PROJECT (2031) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 50TH Ar'— I AVENUE 52 AVENUE 54 AIRPORT BL. 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 IFPLI s-39 298— 36—t encoos 2 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 728 co 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 .0T °1:72 —726 X72 4 tiRt Madison St. & Avenue 52 34 t 2 - 6067011 585 4-90 5 —v 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 X580 *-43 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 00 0,�N 4-356 �s-23 8 efferson St. & Avenue 50 .Norno —277 —132619 103 420—z z 79— `^2 • 8 13—* . ,tNI 130-4— o' i CW1 256-41 322—n o 79— "12oo z MONROE ST. SITE 5 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 Nu'^ �96 *-3 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 o'°,32 —189 :TT --4-121 s-15 11 o- tesi 64-4 192? �N Monroe St. & Avenue 58 'r57 X9542 112 281- '°risr 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. --115 *-41 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 4-52 s-586 14 ouu, .ou'tD 0 136- foo - 70-4 270— 482 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 4-151 z7 rst: osoirt 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue ro 4-126 -ti i L X433 30-4 359- f 0 16 0c'10 NSM 45-4 176— Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue +0 192 X19 64-4 129. J 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 4_7 ~54 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 31 -113 X20 20 efferson St. & N. Loop r7.1+4-53 s-53 48-4 218—c- 19—* 18 } 19— �N 12-4 260 N 53_J ? 47—* 82 CROSSROAl7S 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg1[1210 21 M0 t y 58- 1- 82--- * efferson St. & S. Loop URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis AVENUE 50 EXHIBIT 6-7: CUMULATIVE WITH PHASE 3 PROJECT (2031) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 50TH AV. 1 5 5 LEGEND: Madison St. & Avenue 58 M^rn 4-265 01 265- 208- 43-t Lc)� Madison St. & Avenue 50 ruri o 4-_143 i � X624 149 594 188-t.^tiro 0 ® = INTERSECTION ID 2 6 9 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. efferson St. Sr Avenue 54 coca 05 98 X34 31-* 24—�}m 2- Nr^ Monroe St. & Avenue 62 �±�-164 4-4 3 7 10 Madison St. & Avenue 54 =4-252 s-66 38- 358- 726- vow 420- Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 4-401 -329 0' Mco Monroe St. & Avenue 60 4-162 151 s-35 4 8 11 15 214- t N 1—* 86-4' f 234-- -aN u 101-4 183— ul~M 362-4 447- Madison St. & Avenue 52 4-106 s-869 efferson St. & Avenue 50 x-439 -210 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 vrz.o -92 t• L. -70 123 274-� 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. Tr -120 -.471s.T" 14--19 X9533 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 4-99 s-685 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 603 X73 160-c- 47- ur"m 9 3— ti 135-4 514 -c- 130 -* 14 I30- a`:P 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue �±t-594 -63 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue C• +n —13 s-123 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue rnrnN 4-66 � + � -6 X226 59� 92- coma` —t t- N 96-4 157- ( f 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue N 4-18 " v T T. ~078 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. �+a o 4-46 -286 L. -49 20 67-4 3011— r j 54-4 244-c- r: -Cm ncnTr- o' 0• 36-4 32- efferson St. & N. Loop -36 f-36 83 CROSSROAES 12184 - 03 - volumes & geometrics.dwg1[1210 21 efferson St. & S. Loop -28 40-4'1 56-* a nv URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 6.4 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Phase 3 (2031) Without and With Project traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6-2. Table 6-2 indicates that the following two study area intersections experience Project impacts, requiring CIP-funded improvements in order to maintain acceptable LOS under Phase 3 With Project conditions: • Monroe Street at Avenue 62 • Jackson Street at Avenue 62 The intersection improvements to provide acceptable LOS at these two locations are traffic signals (with related separate turn lanes), which is recommended to be constructed by the Project for eventual reimbursement via the City of La Quinta CIP. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC Project Phase 3 (2031) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.1 of this TIA. Additional cumulative improvements are required to serve 2031 "without project" conditions at three study area intersections (beyond the improvement needs identified for Project Phases 1 and 2): • Jackson Street at Avenue 60, (traffic signal) • Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (2nd northbound left turn lane, 2nd southbound left turn lane) • Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (2nd eastbound through lane) These cumulative "without project" improvement needs are mitigated by fair share contributions at each location. Table 6-2 also 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 3 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates 2 additional through lanes in the northbound, southbound, eastbound, and westbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. These improvements were previously identified in the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 14, 2012), for the City's buildout (2035) enhanced intersection configurations. Exhibit 6-8 shows the recommended access features and Project contributions to off-site improvements. Project Phase 3 development plan is shown on Exhibit 6-9. Table 6-3 provides a summary of the roadway segment analysis for Phase 3 (2031) traffic conditions. As shown on Table 6-3, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS under Phase 3 (2031) traffic conditions. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 84 �i► URBAN CR DSSR DAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 6-8: PHASE 3 (2031) RECOMMENDED ACCESS FEATURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS 58TH AV— PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 3% LEGEND: • = INTERSECTION ID = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT = EXISTING LANE = PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT 10 95502) = CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENT = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL (INTERIM CROSS-SECTION) = COLLECTOR = BRIDGE PROJECT IMPACT LOCATIONS FOR PHASE 3 CONDITIONS. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS (WITH RELATED SEPARATE TURN LANES) FOR THE INTERSECTIONS OF MONROE STREET AT AVENUE 62 AND JACKSON STREET AT 62ND AVENUE SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED (EVENTUAL REIMBURSEMENT VIA THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CIP). PROJECT FAIR SHARE: • 22% AT MONROE STREET/AVENUE 62 • 9% AT JACKSON STREET/62ND AVENUE NOTE: PROJECT FAIR SHARE BASED UPON GENERAL PLAN SCENARIOS (TRAVERTINE SPECIFIC PLAN TIA, APRIL 2018, TABLE 9-2) 12184 - 08 - on-site.dwg 85 URBAN CROSSROAES PROJECT INTERSECTION FAIR SHARE JEFFERSON ST. -AVENUE54 3% -AVENUE52 3% - AVENUE 50 3% 58TH AV— PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 3% LEGEND: • = INTERSECTION ID = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT = EXISTING LANE = PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT 10 95502) = CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENT = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL (INTERIM CROSS-SECTION) = COLLECTOR = BRIDGE PROJECT IMPACT LOCATIONS FOR PHASE 3 CONDITIONS. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS (WITH RELATED SEPARATE TURN LANES) FOR THE INTERSECTIONS OF MONROE STREET AT AVENUE 62 AND JACKSON STREET AT 62ND AVENUE SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED (EVENTUAL REIMBURSEMENT VIA THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CIP). PROJECT FAIR SHARE: • 22% AT MONROE STREET/AVENUE 62 • 9% AT JACKSON STREET/62ND AVENUE NOTE: PROJECT FAIR SHARE BASED UPON GENERAL PLAN SCENARIOS (TRAVERTINE SPECIFIC PLAN TIA, APRIL 2018, TABLE 9-2) 12184 - 08 - on-site.dwg 85 URBAN CROSSROAES PROJECT INTERSECTION FAIR SHARE % MADISON ST. -AVENUE54 5% 58TH AV— PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 3% LEGEND: • = INTERSECTION ID = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT = EXISTING LANE = PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT 10 95502) = CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENT = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL (INTERIM CROSS-SECTION) = COLLECTOR = BRIDGE PROJECT IMPACT LOCATIONS FOR PHASE 3 CONDITIONS. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS (WITH RELATED SEPARATE TURN LANES) FOR THE INTERSECTIONS OF MONROE STREET AT AVENUE 62 AND JACKSON STREET AT 62ND AVENUE SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED (EVENTUAL REIMBURSEMENT VIA THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CIP). PROJECT FAIR SHARE: • 22% AT MONROE STREET/AVENUE 62 • 9% AT JACKSON STREET/62ND AVENUE NOTE: PROJECT FAIR SHARE BASED UPON GENERAL PLAN SCENARIOS (TRAVERTINE SPECIFIC PLAN TIA, APRIL 2018, TABLE 9-2) 12184 - 08 - on-site.dwg 85 URBAN CROSSROAES PROJECT INTERSECTION FAIR SHARE % MONROE ST. - AIRPORT BLVD. 8% -AVENUE54 4% -AVENUE52 4% 58TH AV— PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 3% LEGEND: • = INTERSECTION ID = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT = EXISTING LANE = PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT 10 95502) = CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENT = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL (INTERIM CROSS-SECTION) = COLLECTOR = BRIDGE PROJECT IMPACT LOCATIONS FOR PHASE 3 CONDITIONS. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS (WITH RELATED SEPARATE TURN LANES) FOR THE INTERSECTIONS OF MONROE STREET AT AVENUE 62 AND JACKSON STREET AT 62ND AVENUE SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED (EVENTUAL REIMBURSEMENT VIA THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CIP). PROJECT FAIR SHARE: • 22% AT MONROE STREET/AVENUE 62 • 9% AT JACKSON STREET/62ND AVENUE NOTE: PROJECT FAIR SHARE BASED UPON GENERAL PLAN SCENARIOS (TRAVERTINE SPECIFIC PLAN TIA, APRIL 2018, TABLE 9-2) 12184 - 08 - on-site.dwg 85 URBAN CROSSROAES PROJECT INTERSECTION FAIR SHARE % JACKSON ST. - AIRPORT BLVD. 5% 58TH AV— PROJECT FAIR SHARE: 3% LEGEND: • = INTERSECTION ID = FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL = PROJECT ROUNDABOUT = EXISTING LANE = PROJECT ACCESS LANE IMPROVEMENT 10 95502) = CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT IMPROVEMENT = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL (INTERIM CROSS-SECTION) = COLLECTOR = BRIDGE PROJECT IMPACT LOCATIONS FOR PHASE 3 CONDITIONS. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS (WITH RELATED SEPARATE TURN LANES) FOR THE INTERSECTIONS OF MONROE STREET AT AVENUE 62 AND JACKSON STREET AT 62ND AVENUE SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED (EVENTUAL REIMBURSEMENT VIA THE CITY OF LA QUINTA CIP). PROJECT FAIR SHARE: • 22% AT MONROE STREET/AVENUE 62 • 9% AT JACKSON STREET/62ND AVENUE NOTE: PROJECT FAIR SHARE BASED UPON GENERAL PLAN SCENARIOS (TRAVERTINE SPECIFIC PLAN TIA, APRIL 2018, TABLE 9-2) 12184 - 08 - on-site.dwg 85 URBAN CROSSROAES Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 6-9: PHASE 3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CORAL CANYON {FUTURE) AVENUE 8 Coral Mountain L. 1r IA- PA -6 PA -7 ,, PA -15A r . PA -14 `-I _. PA -12 PA -13 r WATER TANKS Pri 7n Martinez Rock Slide Dike 4 is NQSIQVW AVENUE 60 PA -8 PA -16 PA -9 PA -11 PA -1 MADISON ST EUA AVENUE SP 0 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 86 11::!1!fr CROSSROAES URBAN PHASE 3 Constuction/Sales PA Land 1 se Acres Range Tamil Density Txr1 cc Unita •Ilensi1 4'illa. I Ream Spa 38.3 lop 2 Medium Density Residential 25.9 4.5-8.5 dniac 7.9 205 3 Low Densiiy Residential 29.4 1.5-4.5 dWac 2.9 85 17 Clpcn Space 1te.crcuion 18.1 Phare 3 Totals 111.7 2.6 290 101i IA- PA -6 PA -7 ,, PA -15A r . PA -14 `-I _. PA -12 PA -13 r WATER TANKS Pri 7n Martinez Rock Slide Dike 4 is NQSIQVW AVENUE 60 PA -8 PA -16 PA -9 PA -11 PA -1 MADISON ST EUA AVENUE SP 0 12184 - 01 - study area.dwg 86 11::!1!fr CROSSROAES URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 6-2. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 3 (2031) CONDITIONS Page2of2 # Intersection Traffic Control' Intersection Approach Lanes' Without Project With Project De ay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 De ay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 - Without Improvements AWS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 28.2 >80 D F 72.4 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 1 1 1 2 1 27.8 38.5 C D 34.8 43.9 C D 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 11.0 10.5 B B 11.1 10.5 B B 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 1 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1» 1 2 1 37.3 38.7 D D 38.9 39.8 D D 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 1 33.9 36.0 C D 34.7 37.4 C D 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 34.1 36.5 C D 34.5 36.8 C D 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 0.5 1 0.5 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1> 36.9 34.5 D C 37.6 41.4 D D 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 - With Improvements RDB 0.5 2.5 1» 0.5 2.5 1» 0.5 2.5 1» 0.5 2.5 1» 3.7 4.7 A A 3.7 5.2 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 - Without Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 56.3 75.2 E E 56.9 76.2 E E - With Improvements TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 52.9 50.5 D D 53.2 51.8 D D 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 - Without Improvements AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 9.7 16.6 A C 13.3 53.5 B F - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 - - - - 39.2 42.4 D D 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 - Without Improvements AWS 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 36.7 >80 E F 70.8 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 13.5 14.9 B B 13.8 18.3 B B 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 55.9 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 29.0 38.7 C D 29.4 54.6 C D 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. - Without Improvements AWS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 59.9 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 1 0 1 2 d 1 1 1 0 1! 0 11.7 15.1 B B 12.5 22.7 B C 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 1! 0 >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 29.5 33.8 C C 29.3 34.5 C C 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 d >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F - With Improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 d 39.6 43.7 D D 40.1 45.7 D D 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1> 22.1 49.2 C D 23.3 54.9 C D 16 Jackson St. / Avenue 62 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 10.9 17.8 B C 13.9 46.8 B E - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 - - - - 26.0 27.7 C C 17 Jackson St. / Avenue 60 - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 11.3 37.1 B E 12.4 72.7 B F - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 29.1 26.7 C C 15.3 27.3 B C 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue - Without Improvements AWS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 13.7 >80 B F 17.3 >80 C F - With Improvements TS 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 12.3 26.7 B C 12.7 29.4 B C 87 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 6-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR PHASE 3 (2031) CONDITIONS Page 2of2 # Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes' Without Project With Project De ay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. - Without Improvements - With Improvements AWS TS 0 0 1! 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 1! 0 0 14.9 23.2 >80 14.0 B C F B 19.3 23.7 >80 27.3 C C F C 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 Intersection does not exist 4.0 4.7 A A 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 Intersection does not exist 4.1 4.8 A A 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 wid h for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 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) 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 CI UXRjobsL12000-115001121841 Exce11(12184 - Report.xls46-2 88 URBAN CROSSROAES Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 6-3: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PHASE 3 (2031) CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanese Capacity2 Without Project With Project ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio Avenue 58 West of Madison Street Secondary Secondary 3 4 21,000 4 6,000 0.29 0.29 0.55 11,600 9,800 0.55 West of Monroe Street 28,000 8,100 0.35 West of Jackson Street Secondary 2 14,000 4 7,700 8,900 0.64 Madison St. South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 20,500 0.48 23,900 0.56 60th Avenue West of Jackson Street Primary 2 19,000 6 6,100 0.32 6,700 0.35 Avenue 62 West of Monroe Street Modified Secondary 2 2 19,000 1,800 0.09 7,500 0.39 West of Jackson Street Secondary 14,000 4 6,700 0.48 9,000 0.64 Monroe St. South of Avenue 60 Secondary 2 14,000 4 8,200 0.59 11,600 0.83 South of Avenue 58 Primary 2 19,000 6 12,100 0.64 14,900 0.78 South of Avenue 56 Primary 3 31,950 5 12,500 0.39 15,900 0.50 Jackson St. South of Airport Boulevard Primary 2 19,000 6 10,400 0.55 11,500 0.61 1 Existing Number of Through lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (July 2015) 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. 6 Estimated capacity for 2 -lane Primary. c: UXRjobsL12000-i2soo\121s4\Exceil[121s4- Reportxlsx]6-3 89 11::!! CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 6.5 PHASE 3 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Off-site, the Project Phase 1 access improvements on the westerly extension of Avenue 62 and the Project Phase 2 access improvements along Jefferson Street will continue to provide access for buildout of the Project in Phase 3. The Phase 1 interim cross-section improvements along Avenue 62 west of Monroe Street and extending across Dike No. 4 include one lane in each direction, with 40' pavement section with sidewalk on the north side. The Phase 2 interim cross-section improvements along Jefferson Street from the Project boundary to Avenue 58 and extending across Guadalupe Creek Diversion Dike to include one lane in each direction, with 40' pavement section with sidewalk on the west side. Along Jefferson Street within the site, two roundabout intersections are implemented during Phases 1 and 2 at Jefferson Street / North Loop and Jefferson Street / South Loop. Other local street Project access points along Jefferson Street within the Phase 3 development area will require median openings and left turn pockets and cross -street stop traffic control as indicated in the 2018 TIA. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 90 Ck URBAN cROssROA0s Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 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) WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION CONDITIONS This scenario includes the following alignment: 1.) Future Madison Street extension, south of Avenue 60 to Avenue 62; 2.) Future Jefferson Street connection from Avenue 58 to Avenue 62. General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with Madison Street Extension 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) with Madison Street Extension 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) with Madison Street Extension traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7-1. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with Madison Street Extension 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) with Madison Street Extension 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) with Madison Street Extension 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) with Madison Street Extension 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. It should be noted that 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. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 91 e URBAN CR DSSRoaos Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 7-1: 2040 CONDITIONS WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) M 8 AVENUE 50 © 50TH AV. I 16.1 30.6 21 21 M AVENUE 52 31.8 0 N 28.9 \26.5 AVENUE 54 0 N m 24 0.8 29.4 / -L 12 d' II III0 \\ 1 \6 j 1.17 7 0 0 /-- 22 SITE 00 M 18 AIRPORT BL. 17.2 AVENUE 58 10.2 AVENUE 60 k 14.8 11 a M LEGEND: m = INTERSECTION ID – — — – = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) e n 58TH AV. 18.6 ® 10 JACKSON ST. AVENUE 62 9.6 0 N M H TO - 26 62ND AV. 19.8 m 10 N 1 12184 - 07 - 2040 adts.dwg 92 URBAN CROSSROADS Z Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 7-2: 2040 CONDITIONS WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1 5 MON L- 310-4 37-t en so U 1N0I I L- 179-4 594-- St. & Avenue 58 4-79 f-23 "`i u� D• Madison St. & Avenue 50 4-124 f-39 Th- Inen NOsc0 LEGEND: ® =INTERSECTION ID 2 6 9 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 4-169 *-169 3 N N.—cm rl7.N Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-_160 s-139 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 Nom 4-140 .� i �► X895 �u� efferson St. & Avenue 54 ".2 4-734 X41 10 s o 13- tt J Monroe St. & Avenue 62 4-327 M327 77MM . -.-229 7 10 80- 555-- 1127 SOP 638-- Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 4-412 f-575 cmosul MT1- Monroe St. & Avenue 60 arm_ 4-251 .� ► -6 4 8 11 96-t } 1I7- somr- N 353-- efferson St. & Avenue 50 4-419 5 CMCICI �O Monroe St. & Avenue 58 NO,o„ 4-102 X337 73 -*1 1-* 141 74--oF..co 193 ^`M 88� 294 n 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. FNM 4-_222 �. X511 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 Marto, 4-17 s-99 14 rn NOap Monroe St. & Avenue 52 4-_173 f-693 32-4 3998 f r` 169- 4Z0- 217-- 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue .or=w 4—_130 • + l► X434 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue Is A rMa 170 •� + l► �4 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue .J7`1 X465 26-4 10 -*71, } 520 MN^ 66-t 15- * NN ° 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue ou�iM 4-8 1. -361 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. ossoo_ 4-27 .�54 20 efferson St. & N. Loop .� i �► 4-56 FAD S-56 39-4 38 --co 43_-t 286 141040 rucr 56-4' 50---? m 21 efferson St. & S. Loop MN, 4-_31 X44 62-r 87- M 22 Madison St. & Avenue 60 __433 23 Madison St. & Avenue 62 OM 4-342 -110 228 184 No 158 242-- 12184 - 06 - 2040 volumes & geometrics.dwg 93 liAk!! CROSSROADS URBAN z Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 7-3: 2040 CONDITIONS WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1 MNOIOI .iiL- 281- 43— Madison St. & Avenue 58 909 0' Madison St. & Avenue 50 909 $-78 287 894mop — 118— 5 LEGEND: ® =INTERSECTION ID 2 6 9 co Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 4-335 *-369 ^MSD CON r+1 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 I L. $-440 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 0 a_o_N 959 t $-126 Jefferson St. Sr Avenue 54 mr o t y 22-* P 60- 401—* 4-1329 $-32 so so Lc,— N Monroe St. & Avenue 62 4-429 $-2 7 10 80— 492y '� f . COM Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 —851 $-33 1174 526—t LnOs Monroe St. & Avenue 60 4-1714 $-22 8 11 130 612694 -.- Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 u00 alboi oI'o 4-326 *-415 rsJ Monroe St. Sr Avenue 58 4-186 —472 *-404 267 350—* 174—tnom"' 372—* ON 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. N r"s.roM—463 t $-112 13 0 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 crco- 4-802 $-135 14 au, MON Monroe St. & Avenue 52 1004 $-92 72-4 3 f 0 55 205—* 183-4' z 0—* oleo - 15 ^_0M 42- 209—* Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 4-132 $-494 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue rn�v 4-58 �"^^r —501 $-27 17 11,t0 0r-= 4258—t2_, -1 427—svin Jackson St. & 60th Avenue U (SJ 4-462 09 109 420_ � , in^ 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 4-36 —8808 $- 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 4—_63 $-182 20 Jefferson St. & N. Loop NDN 4-37 $-37 37_4' 33_ .n 0 21 Jefferson St. & S. Loop osg_smr 4-20 J � �► $-29 —29 22 Madison St. & Avenue 60 o°^° 4-187 v"^'^ —365 J � . $-5 23 Madison St. & Avenue 62 41� 574}7 967- 303—* 489—tMN^ Via. L- 163—* 4-517 —257 94 CROSSROAIDS 12184 - 06 - 2040 volumes & geometrics.dwgliAk!! URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR 2040 CONDITIONS WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION CONDITIONS # Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay2 (Secs) Level of Service2 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L TR L TR L TR L TR AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 0 1 2 1> 35.8 54.7 D D 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 24.9 30.6 C C 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 TS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1» 1 2 1> 41.7 54.3 D D 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 52.1 54.0 D D 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1> 40.8 53.1 D D 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2> 21.2 39.4 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» 5.8 8.3 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 42.8 44.7 D D 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 TS 0 1! 0 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1> 32.1 29.0 C C 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1> 37.1 46.6 D D 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 41.4 54.2 D D 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 0 1 2 1> 33.6 42.3 C D 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 32.0 54.7 C D 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 38.3 54.7 D D 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1> 34.2 54.7 C D 16 Jackson St. / 62nd Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 44.4 38.9 D D 17 Jackson St. / 60th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1> 37.6 45.2 D D 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 27.5 35.8 C D 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 38.4 39.1 D D 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 5.7 7.0 A A 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 5.9 7.3 A A 22 Madison St. / Avenue 60 TS 1 2 0 2 2 1> 2 2 0 1 2 1 48.4 49.1 D D 23 Madison St. / Avenue 62 TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 14.4 25.5 B C 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. 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) Per the Highway Capacity Manual, 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 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 ° 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). C: I UXRjobs L12000-12500\12184\Exce1 \(12184 - Repert.xlsx]7-1 95 URBAN CROSSROAES Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 7-2: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR 2040 CONDITIONS WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes' Capacity2 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 4 28,000 12,000 0.43 Avenue 58 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 10,200 0.36 West ofJackson Street Secondary 4 28,000 18,600 0.66 Madison St. South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 35,600 0.84 60th Avenue West ofJackson Street Primary 4 42,600 12,000 0.28 West of Monroe Street Modified Secondary 2 19,000 9,600 0.51 Avenue 62 West ofJackson Street Secondary 4 28,000 19,800 0.71 South of Avenue 60 Secondary 4 28,000 19,000 0.68 Monroe St. South of Avenue 58 Primary 4 42,600 26,000 0.61 South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 25,000 0.59 Jackson St. South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 28,400 0.67 1 = Existing number of lanes;1= City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (July 2015) 'Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. C:\UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184\Exce102184 - Report.xlsx]7-2 96 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 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) with Madison Street Extension traffic conditions (see Appendix 7.2). Three additional study area intersections are anticipated to warrant traffic signals beyond those warranted for EAPC conditions (Jackson Street at Avenue 62, Jackson Street at Avenue 60, and Jackson Street at Avenue 58). 7.2 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) CONDITIONS This scenario includes the following alignment: 1. Termination of Madison Street as a General Plan roadway, south of Avenue 60. 2. Future Jefferson Street connection from Avenue 58 to Avenue 62. 3. Emergency vehicle access (EVA) is provided via Madison Street, from the northerly boundary of the Project's Planning Area 18 to Avenue 60. General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension (GPA Option 1) ADT, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 7-4 through 7-6, respectively. 7.2.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension (GPA Option 1) 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) without Madison Street Extension (GPA Option 1) traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7-3, which also documents intersection lanes anticipated to provide acceptable LOS operations during the peak hours. For intersections included in the City of La Quinta General Plan analysis, four intersections require modification of typical improvements indicated for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with Madison Street Extension: • Madison Street at Avenue 58 • Monroe Street at Avenue 60 • Monroe Street at Avenue 62 • Monroe Street at Avenue 58 The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension (GPA Option 1) 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) without Madison Street Extension 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 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 97 �i► URBAN CRc SSRDAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 7-4: 2040 WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) M M L 50TH AV. 21 AVENUE 52 26 J AVENUE 54 31 18 (D-71— O N r M In 24.6 12 LEGEND: m = INTERSECTION ID – — — – = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) AVENUE 58 12.5 14 58TH AV. 19 10 a. JACKSON ST. r 26 11 \ DOS _i SITE 0I.• AVENUE 62 13 62ND AV. 19 12184 - 07 - 2040 adts.dwg 98 11::!! CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 7-5: 2040 WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. 1 Madison St. & Avenue 58 0 0 ° 1188 � s-32 5 138-ooj �M n10'0 0 L- 165- 586~ Madison St. & Avenue 50 4-626 f-39 Th- N0" 0 N10 5 LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID 2 6 9 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 4-167 X167 3 N N.—cm 117—N Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-160 X39 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 1^orr- 4-137 —87 -rn� 0- efferson St. & Avenue 54 .0P� 4-771 43 10—." } 0 13— tt J Monroe St. & Avenue 62 ti 4-435 *-30 7 10 258"1 t: 1—* 583—* 1183 0P—"=M 664—* 43.0 M 373—* - a:171: rn Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 4-428 f-59 Kr— so Miin Monroe St. & Avenue 60 4-284 1868 nun 8 11 100 748— o - 122- * No.• Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 u1u, J t T 352—* -385 f-236 m0 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 u 1• 4-104 r" -c142 L s-34 X344 121_ 129— -- 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. socr 54-2 X5424 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 4-1397 —108 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 No,* 4-178 7591 32-4 397- 480—* 01,1\ OI - 135 z03y�o . Nr 15 Monroe St. & 50th Avenue MMp 4-130 �► —434 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 4-170 X14 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue .� i f-46-4-305 26-4: 26-4 10 _ } 78— ? 40—*�� MN 69-4' 408_ 59--- * NC' 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue ° 4-20 frt.-151 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. 0c0oN 4-27 —35 20 Jefferson St. & N. Loop Tr 4-56 J � � s— X56 40-4 39— vo 46— 303 378—* so—co 56-4' 1— 50--- * —NN 21 Jefferson St. & S. Loop M'N 4-31 _ -44 62- 87— 22 ti-1��1 Madison St. & Avenue 60 4-270 *-1 375 411—* 1—* 12184 - 06 - 2040 volumes & geometrics.dwg 99 Irk!Pe CROSSROA 0S URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 7-6: 2040 WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z AVENUE 52 AVENUE 54 u, mRM 292- 245—* Madison St. & Avenue 58 4-684 i -4I 100 2 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 3 Madison St. & Avenue 54 crLm 70 .� ► X440 521-�? 1231-s .0�N 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 —O°' ' 4-940 X123 135-4'129—* t o NM� 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 4- + X78909 264-4t 4 9 6 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 +,„f11 X34 29� 23—*� } 2— 7 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 4-885 X34 122- 547—* uIO 8 Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 4-300 f-382 e LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 VD uuli 4-661 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 M°? 3 4-324 :T7._44138 11 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 R"O -l9 �i-412 284 -}NON 272 576—* 583—*MOM 150 599 0Oru 12 0 OWN 71-4 354—* Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. 4-361 —119 13 017,0, Monroe St. & Avenue 54 cj r- 4-206 (74='— [,„s-7 215 Lev.;j• 205—* o ^�R 14 o•_ MON Monroe St. & Avenue 52 1034 s-95 266—* osMR NMR 15 WM^ 42- 209—* Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 4-132 *-494 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue coon 4-58 coRu1 .�iL. —201 17 67—t 434—* Ll 410—van Jackson St. & 60th Avenue r�uRiv 4-462 'r150394 136 583—*OLL� 155—* N;o= 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue 4-36 8830 0 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. LID on 4-_63 .� 182 99_4 205- 20 Jefferson St. & N. Loop NaN 4-37 j L *— X37 37-4 ` t � 33_ u,Ns0 21 Jefferson St. & S. Loop o MR 4-20 X29 22 Madison St. & Avenue 60 o7for 4-300 f699 41 — 57— o`RR 967 790_ 2—* 12184 - 06 - 2040 volumes & geometrics.dwg 100 liAk!Pe CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 7-3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR 2040 WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) # Intersection Traffic Control' Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay° (Secs) Level of Service° Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R 1 T R 1 T R 1 T R AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 - With GPCE Update Improvements - With Modified GPCE Improvements TS TS 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 d d 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 1> 1> 37.7 33.2 67.8 51.5 D C E D 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 24.7 28.8 C C 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 TS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1» 1 2 1> 41.7 51.7 D D 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 50.9 53.6 D D 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1> 39.8 50.1 D D 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2> 23.5 49.0 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. / Avenue 50 TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 40.5 43.1 D D 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 - With GPCE Update Improvements - With Added GPCE Improvements TS TS 0 0 1! 1! 0 0 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 1 1> 1 1 1 1! 0 0 0.5 1 0.5 1 1> 1> 53.0 42.3 137.3 53.8 D D F D 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 - With GPCE Update Improvements - With Added GPCE Improvements TS TS 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1> 1 1 1 2 1> 1> 45.4 42.9 103.3 52.6 0 0 F D 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 - With GPCE Update Improvements - With Added GPCE Improvements TS TS 1 2 2 2 1 1> 1 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 51.2 39.1 77.8 51.8 D D E D 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 0 1 2 1> 33.9 44.7 C D 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 32.4 54.6 C D 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 38.2 54.4 D D 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1> 36.0 54.9 D D 16 Jackson St. / 62nd Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 47.4 40.7 D D 17 Jackson St. / 60th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1> 38.0 54.8 D D 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 29.7 36.8 C D 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 39.0 40.1 D D 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 6.1 8.4 A A 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 6.4 8.9 A A 22 Madison St. / Avenue 60 - With GPCE Update Improvements TS 0 1! 0 2 1 1> 2 2 0 1 2 1 35.1 53.3 D D When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a ight turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 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) Per the Highway Capacity Manual, 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 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 ° 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). C: \UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184\Excelk(12184 - Report.xlsxJ7-3 101 11:21fr CROSSROAIDS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 7-4: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR 2040 WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes' Capacity2 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 4 28,000 12,500 0.45 Avenue 58 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 14,000 0.50 West ofJackson Street Secondary 4 28,000 19,000 0.68 Madison St. South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 34,000 0.80 60th Avenue West ofJackson Street Primary 4 42,600 15,000 0.35 West of Monroe Street Modified Secondary 2 19,000 13,000 0.68 Avenue 62 West ofJackson Street Secondary 4 28,000 19,000 0.68 South of Avenue 60 Secondary 4 28,000 25,000 0.89 Monroe St. South of Avenue 58 Primary 4 42,600 27,000 0.63 South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 26,000 0.61 Jackson St. South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 29,000 0.68 1 = Existing number of lanes;1= City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (July 2015) BOLD = Estimated to exceed threshold daily capacity values and subject to further evaluation of peak hour performance at key intersections along these routes. 'Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. C:\UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184\Exce102184 - Report.xlsx]7-4 102 11::!! CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis of the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension (GPA Option 1) 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) without Madison Street Extension (GPA Option 1) 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. 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. 7.3 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) CONDITIONS This scenario includes the following alignment: 1. Termination of Madison Street as a General Plan roadway, south of the Avenue 60. 2. Future Jefferson Street connection from Avenue 58 to Project boundary. 3. The deletion of Jefferson Street as General Plan roadway south of the hypothetical westerly extension of Avenue 60, and the deletion of Avenue 62 west of the hypothetical southerly extension of Madison Street. 4. On-site entry gates on Jefferson Street. Jefferson Street is a private roadway within the Project boundary. 5. Emergency vehicle access (EVA) is provided via Madison Street, from the northerly boundary of the Project's Planning Area 18 to Avenue 60. General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension and with Project Entry Gates (GPA Option 2) ADT, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibits 7- 7 through 7-9, respectively. 7.3.1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension and with Project Entry Gates (GPA Option 2) 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) without Madison Street Extension and with Project Entry Gates (GPA Option 2) traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7-5, which also documents intersection lanes anticipated to provide acceptable LOS operations during the peak hours. For intersections included in the City of La Quinta General Plan analysis, four intersections require modification of typical improvements indicated for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with Madison Street Extension: 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 103 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis • Madison Street at Avenue 58 • Monroe Street at Avenue 62 • Monroe Street at Avenue 60 • Monroe Street at Avenue 58 The intersection operations analysis worksheets for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension and with Project Entry Gates (GPA Option 2) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 7.4 of this TIA. All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension and with Project Entry Gates (GPA Option 2) conditions. 7.3.2 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 7-6 provides a summary of the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension and with Project Entry 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 104 e URBAN CRc SSRoAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 7-7: 2040 WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) AVENUE 50 50TH AV. 22 AVENUE 52 32 29 27 0 CCCC AVENUE 54 e (D-71— 0 C., 24.6 0.8 30 17 In LEGEND: m = INTERSECTION ID - - - - = FUTURE ROADWAY 10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) 12 * = GATE AVENUE 58 13.5 14 58TH AV. 19 11 0 JACKSON ST. TO - 26 E AVENUE 62 14 62ND AV. 19 N 1 12184 - 07 - 2040 adts.dwg 105 liri:!! CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 7-8: 2040 WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 50TH AV— AVENUE 50 0, 0 N_O_ M L- 350 -4 - 350- 42 - Madison St. & Avenue 58 -I32 f-38 OON '0 2 1N IMI Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 4-157 X157 3 N rn�M 11,�N Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-300 f-131 4 N NOOOO y Madison St. & Avenue 52 4-1148 -91 ^Oa osul 82- 566-* 1150- — a01 0' 96- 719-* 117- ]t: NO,� 5 Madison St. & Avenue 50 ocn 57 I 6 efferson St. & Avenue 54 0•r•-• •� 4-749 *-42 7 SOP �1=M Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 f-575 8 Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 0 '1�r J t y 4-423 60 181-4 600 -*t 95- No.°o 10 t 1110J00 13- ttN 644-* 0101.11 M� 353—* -111 Onflop 5 LEGEND: ® = INTERSECTION ID * = GATE 9 Monroe St. & Avenue 62 e, a 4-440 271.f30 10 Monroe St. & Avenue 60 ou0,0' 4-285 .� 16 -4-270 0 11 224 376- NSM u, co~M 457—* Monroe St. & Avenue 58 4-104 -340 .00.103 12 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. socr 4-2112 X51 13 360- 4 } L oo-• Monroe St. & Avenue 54 mos 4-19 08 159- 451-.— 204- '-ga 14 Monroe St. & Avenue 52 No,* 4-178 7591 1 6 2114— N 15 M 27- 106—* Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 4-130 _ *-434 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue Orsan 4-12 .1i1s_-1400 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue oS.9 57 .� �► f-46 79-4 489-* MN 420—t 69oo - N0J 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue r$M 4-_19 —1397 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. owN 4-30 :TT. -99 20 NEON Jefferson St. & N. Loop 542—* }RM o 43- v 43 -t 357-* ? 0 286-*Na'0 56- 1-* 50- 4-56 s-56 40—*t r- 21 Jefferson St. & S. Loop M'0mem 4-31 -44 22 Madison St. & Avenue 60 62- 87t t- as in '0 U 341— 4-174 12184 - 06 - 2040 volumes & geometrics.dwg 106 Irk!Pe CROSSROA OS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 7-9: 2040 WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES AVENUE 50 50TH AV. z Madison St. & Avenue 58 Lnul ii 5 318- 249-4 4-695 4-40 o ,o Madison St. & Avenue 50 omco so 4-914 4-82 290 903-4 o 119-4 csi.^r 5 a LEGEND: = INTERSECTION ID * = GATE 2 6 9 Madison St. & Airport Blvd. 4-343 ^NM 3 MOS Madison St. & Avenue 54 4-442 4-107 4 Madison St. & Avenue 52 0 aoN 4-974 t 4-129 Jefferson St. & Avenue 54 4-13356 4-33 N Monroe St. & Avenue 62 CO Osc 4-675 • 5 0 —341 7 10 82- 506-4 1195-4 Jefferson St. & Avenue 52 +4-851 433 118-4' Latl ? 531-4 foo' Monroe St. & Avenue 60 vc—in 4-322 •�+ ►4360 8 11 130 669-4- co 124--- 4 Nom - Jefferson St. & Avenue 50 CO �N I N L— 194-4 123-4 49 Monroe St. & Avenue 58 a.o0 4-190 . L. 4-412 270— 567-4 585 Morr 150 120-4 NMN 12 0 OWN t L- 67— 3-4 51-4 Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. 4-463 4-112 13 Monroe St. & Avenue 54 cnrn.q 4-206 +L. 170 202— 693_ f -^� 14 o•_ MON Monroe St. & Avenue 52 1034 4-95 187-4 276-4 15 crU N - Monroe St. & 50th Avenue 4-132 4-49 16 Jackson St. & 62nd Avenue 00os 4-64 T+L.4270 17 Jackson St. & 60th Avenue r�oov 4-462 .� i �► 4 109 44-4 1-4 219-4 43z��s� c v� 136-4 580_ 157— c"r = 18 Jackson St. & 58th Avenue oa 4-40 i �. 4-119 19 Jackson St. & Airport Blvd. ft, 4-_69 �130 4- 20 Jefferson St. & N. Loop 4-37 so + t-37 78-4 640 r } 32-4 moo^^ 93_4 193-4 `004NI 33-4�g0 21 Jefferson St. & S. Loop %Sig 4- L. 29 + 4-29 22 Madison St. & Avenue 60 0 ? 4-304 j+r.f699 4-2 41- t t 57-4 o`.ov 967 790_ 2--- 4 12184 - 06 - 2040 volumes & geometrics.dwg 107 Irk!Pe CROSSROAES URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 7-5: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR 2040 WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) # Intersection Traffic Control' Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay° (Secs) Level of Service° Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R 1 T R 1 T R 1 T R AM PM AM PM 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 - With GPCE Update Improvements - With Modified GPCE Improvements TS TS 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 d d 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 1> 1> 40.5 34.8 74.0 54.2 D C E D 2 Madison St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 23.9 27.5 C C 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 TS 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1» 1 2 1> 41.7 51.0 D D 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 d 1 2 1 53.3 54.6 D D 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 TS 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1> 41.2 54.2 D D 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2> 22.2 44.8 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 8.6 A A 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 TS 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 43.3 44.8 D D 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 - With GPCE Update Improvements - With Added GPCE Improvements TS TS 0 0 1! 1! 0 0 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 1 1> 1 1 1 1! 0 0 0.5 1 0.5 1 1> 1> 65.4 44.6 149.7 54.3 E D F D 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 - With GPCE Update Improvements - With Added GPCE Improvements TS TS 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1> 1 1 1 2 1> 1> 46.4 37.3 106.7 54.9 0 0 F D 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 - With GPCE Update Improvements - With Added GPCE Improvements TS TS 1 2 2 2 1 1> 1 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 57.0 41.6 83.4 54.1 E D F D 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 0 1 2 1> 33.2 45.0 C D 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 31.8 54.7 C D 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 TS 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 38.7 54.9 D D 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue TS 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1> 35.5 54.3 D D 16 Jackson St. / 62nd Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 46.5 40.8 D D 17 Jackson St. / 60th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1> 37.4 54.7 D D 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 29.9 36.9 C D 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 38.5 41.0 D D 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 5.1 6.1 A A 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop RDB 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 5.3 6.3 A A 22 Madison St. / Avenue 60 - With GPCE Update Improvements TS 0 1! 0 2 1 1> 2 2 0 1 2 1 35.2 54.0 D D When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a ight turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. 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) 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual, 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 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 ° 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). C: \UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184\Excelk(12184 - Report.xlsxJ7-5 108 11:21fr CROSSROAIDS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 7-6: ROADWAY VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR 2040 WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes' Capacity2 ADT3 Volume/ Capacity Ratio West of Madison Street Secondary 4 28,000 13,500 0.48 Avenue 58 West of Monroe Street Secondary 4 28,000 14,000 0.50 West ofJackson Street Secondary 4 28,000 19,000 0.68 Madison St. South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 34,000 0.80 60th Avenue West ofJackson Street Primary 4 42,600 15,000 0.35 West of Monroe Street Modified Secondary 2 19,000 14,000 0.74 Avenue 62 West ofJackson Street Secondary 4 28,000 19,000 0.68 South of Avenue 60 Secondary 4 28,000 25,000 0.89 Monroe St. South of Avenue 58 Primary 4 42,600 27,000 0.63 South of Avenue 56 Primary 4 42,600 27,000 0.63 Jackson St. South of Airport Boulevard Primary 4 42,600 29,000 0.68 1 = Existing number of lanes;1= City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes 2 Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (July 2015) BOLD = Estimated to exceed threshold daily capacity values and subject to further evaluation of peak hour performance at key intersections along these routes. 'Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. C:\UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184\Exce102184 - Report.xlsx]7-6 109 URBAN CROSSROAIDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Gates (GPA Option 2) 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 7-6, the study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension and with Project Entry Gates (GPA Option 2) 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. 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. 7.4 EVACUATION AND ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS WITH FLOOD EVENTS The Jefferson Street and Avenue 62 roadway extensions into the project site will require crossings of the Guadalupe Creek Diversion Dikes and Dike No. 4. The conceptual design for the crossings include the use of a multiple arch bridge. The bridge configuration and sizing shall be determined during the final design. The design shall address freeboard and scour calculations as well as impacts to the dikes. With the existing General Plan circulation infrastructure in the Project area, as well as GPA Option 1 (the termination of Madison Street as a General Plan Roadway south of Avenue 60) or GPA Option 2 (on-site entry gates for Jefferson Street and Avenue 62 roadway extensions, in addition to the termination of Madison Street as a General Plan Roadway south of Avenue 60), access alternatives for evacuation will nevertheless be provided using the Jefferson Street and Avenue 62 roadway extensions into the project site. Development of the Travertine Specific Plan will have the potential to create cumulative impacts if not properly mitigated to address water quality, drainage, flooding and water supply. Cumulative impacts would generally be confined to an increase in the amount of water retention behind Dike No. 4 from increased impervious surfaces (i.e., paved roads, roofs, sidewalks, etc.) created from the development of the project. However, with the incorporating of the Stormwater Management Plan's design standards and objectives for stormwater runoff, the development of onsite infiltration basins (Basins A, B, and C) and the project's adherence to the Flood Hazard and Mitigation Plan as identified in the Drainage Master Plan, would contribute in reducing cumulative impacts in regard to increased water retention and increased silt and sand deposition behind Dike No. 4. The conceptual design and layout of the proposed flood protection for the project was developed and evaluated as a part of the Drainage Master Plan. Mitigation Measure HWQ-6, as identified in Section 4.9 of the Travertine Specific Plan Admin Draft EIR (v1), Hydrology and Water Quality, requires that more detailed engineering and design, consistent with design standards established by the City of La Quinta and CVWD shall be completed at the Tentative Map and Final Map stages of development within each development planning area, resulting in the precise location, alignment, and sizing of all regional drainage facilities, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or his/her designee, and CVWD. The following summarizes the requirements and criteria to be evaluated as a part of the more detailed facility design. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 110 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis • All facilities shall be designed in accordance with the latest version of the CVWD Development Design Manual. • Regional Hydrology of The Drainage Master Plan is acceptable for use in the final design. Regional facilities shall be designed using the bulked 1- percent annual chance event. • Updated hydraulic analyses utilizing a refined grid -cell size and detailed topography, grading and facility alignments shall be prepared to determine design water surface elevations and flow velocities along the perimeter flood barriers and Guadalupe Diversion Dikes. • Evaluate flow depths and velocities on a reach -by -reach basis to determine: a) water surface elevations, b) freeboard requirements, c) lining requirements in terms of materials and lining thickness, d) scour depths, e) potential for deposition of sediments, and f) the need for channel stabilization to control degradation or bed incision. • Adjust flood protection system configuration (in terms of barrier and levee heights/scour depths and bridge crossing configurations) based on the refined hydraulic analysis. Determine the optimum configuration of channels, barriers, and levees with necessary containment and erosion control structures which will provide the 100 -year flood protection and blend effectively with natural environment (where appropriate) and the proposed development. • Bridges at the Jefferson Road crossing of the Guadalupe Dike and the Avenue 62 crossing of Dike No. 4 shall be designed in accordance with the scour requirements in Section K-3.11 of the Development Design Manual. • Prepare detailed designs and specifications for facilities including levee improvements, erosion protection (natural appearing where possible), and channel stabilization structures for the required facilities. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 111 URBAN CR DSSR DAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 112 Ck URBAN CROssROAOs Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 8 PROJECT INTERNAL CIRCULATION 8.1 PROJECT INTERSECTION CONTROLS AND STREET CROSS-SECTIONS The Travertine Project is proposed to be served by two main access points to the surrounding area: 1) the southerly extension of South Jefferson as a Modified Secondary, south of Avenue 58, and 2) the westerly extension of Avenue 62 as a Modified Secondary, west of Monroe Street. The internal residential circulating roadway (Loop) intersects with Jefferson Street at two roundabout -controlled intersections (Jefferson Street at North Loop and Jefferson Street at South Loop). Roundabout design features are documented in this Section 8.3. Five additional Project access points along Jefferson Street are provided as cross -street stop controlled intersections with median breaks to allow left turns. All five full access intersections meet Jefferson Street as three-legged intersections, with turning volume of less than 50 vehicles per hour in the peak hour. The opposing volume in each instance is less than 500 vehicles per hour in the peak hour, and the left turn bays / lanes needed are less than the minimum (100' with 90' transition), so the minimum is recommended. 8.1.1 PROJECT ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS Exhibit 8-1 illustrates the on-site recommended roadway lane improvements, and roadway cross- sections are shown on Exhibit 8-2. Construction of on-site improvements shall occur in conjunction with adjacent Project development activity or as needed for Project access purposes. These improvements should be in place prior to occupancy. On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site. Jefferson Street—Jefferson Street is a north -south oriented roadway located along the Project's northern boundary. Off-site, construct Jefferson Street from the Project boundary to Avenue 58 as an interim section with 1 lane northbound, 1 lane southbound, bike lanes, and a sidewalk adjacent to the west side of the street. Within the Project boundary, Jefferson Street should be constructed at its ultimate full section width, with curb and gutters. Avenue 62 — Avenue 62 is an east -west oriented roadway located along the Project's northern boundary. Construct Avenue 62 from the Project boundary to Monroe Street as an interim section with 1 lane eastbound, 1 lane westbound, bike lanes, and a sidewalk adjacent to the north side of the street. Within the Project boundary, Avenue 62 should be constructed at its ultimate full section width, with curb and gutters. Loop — The North and South Loop roads operate as a circular roadway between the North and South Loop intersections with Jefferson Street. Construct Loop Road at its ultimate full section width as a Collector (70 -foot right-of-way), with curb and gutters. Where necessary, roadways providing site access and site -adjacent intersections will be constructed consistent with / within the recommended roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 113 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8-1: ON-SITE RECOMMENDED LANE IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON AVENUE/AVENUE 62 INTERIM CROSS-SECTION (40 -FOOT PAVEMENT SECTION, SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE) FROM THE PROJECTS NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY TO AVENUE 58. J SITE BOUNDARY L 4'. lV► CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON AVENUE/AVENUE 62 AT ITS ULTIMATE FULL -SECTION WIDTH AS A MODIFIED SECONDARY ROADWAY (54 -FOOT CURB -TO -CURB WIDTH) WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. Ri CONSTRUCT JEFFERSON AVENUE/AVENUE 62 INTERIM CROSS-SECTION (40 -FOOT PAVEMENT SECTION. SIDEWALK ON NORTH SIDE) FROM THE PROJECT'S SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY TO MONROE STREET. AVENUE 62 O OJ 5 1� LEGEND: = ROUNDABOUT = STOP SIGN = GATE 100' = MINIMUM TURN POCKET LENGTH 4.11 = MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERIAL 1111 =COLLECTOR = LOCAL = BRIDGE = SITE BOUNDARY 12184 - 10 - on-site (20170928)_10579.dwg 114 11::!!° CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 20' R/W EXHIBIT 8-2: ON-SITE ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS 84' ROW R/W 20' LANDSCAPE SETBACK 12' LANDSCAPE PUE R/W VARIES 42' 42' 15' 27' 27' 15' PARKWAY VARIES 12' 14' 2'MIN. MEANDERING 3MIN. BIKE TRAVEL LANE MEDIAN TRAVEL LANE BIKE SIDEWALK LANE LANE 2% MqJ 36 R/81 AND 29, 20', MODIFIED SECONDARY (JEFFERSON STREET/AVENUE 62) 70' ROW AND CVWD EASEMENT VARIES 6 LANDSCAPE SETBACK VARIES 3'MIN. MEANDERING 2'MIN. SIDEWALK PARKWAY 20' 20 SIDEWALK 2%MIN LANDSCAPE CVWD EASEMENT BIKE LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL UNE 8' BIKE LANE R/W 18 12' LANDSCAPE 10.0' PUE COLLECTOR LOCAL, PARKING ON BOTH SIDES PARKWAY 9' LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK 25MIN R MAA 32' R W AND CVWD EASEMENT 3 , N4X LANDSCAPE LOCAL, PARK! G ON ONE SID JEFFERSON STREET GUADALUPE BRIDGE AND AVENUE 62 BRIDGE EXISTl o - Evsr �Gu�� f 40' 20' 20' 20' 12' 12' 12' 12' TRAVEL WJE SIDEWALK BIKE LANE TRAVEL WJE TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE SIDEWALK 1 JEFFERSON STREET GUADALUPE BRIDGE AND AVENUE 62 BRIDGE EXISTl o - Evsr �Gu�� f 40' SIDEWALK GRAEXIST. NATURAL DE 2%MIN EXIST. NATURAL GRADE INTERIM OFF-SITE JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 62 ACCESS CONNECTIONS 12184 - 09 - on-site street sections.dwg 115 11[6:!°/° CROSSROADS URBAN 20' - 20' 12' 12' 8.0' BIKE TRAVEL WJE TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE LANE SIDEWALK GRAEXIST. NATURAL DE 2%MIN EXIST. NATURAL GRADE INTERIM OFF-SITE JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 62 ACCESS CONNECTIONS 12184 - 09 - on-site street sections.dwg 115 11[6:!°/° CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 8.2 PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS Exhibit 8-3 shows Project pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes are provided along Jefferson Street and Loop throughout the Project. Off-site, the interim section of Jefferson Street from the Project boundary to Avenue 58 includes a sidewalk on the west side. The interim section Avenue 62 from the Project boundary to Monroe Street includes a sidewalk on the north side. Hiking trails generally run outside the developed portion of the Project. A Multi -Use trail bisects the loop and connects east to the hiking trail, as well, with grade separation at Jefferson Street (i.e. the trail goes under the roadway). 8.3 ROUNDABOUT DESIGN FEATURES 8.3.1 JEFFERSON STREET/ NORTH LOOP The roundabout layout for Jefferson Street at North Loop is illustrated on Exhibit 8-4. As shown on Exhibit 8-5, design features for this roundabout include single lane entries on the four approaches (northbound, southbound, eastbound, and westbound). An inscribed diameter of 110 feet and lane entries with widths of 20' (NB), 19' (EB), 20' (SB), and 19' (WB) is shown. The Jefferson Street at North Loop roundabout has been designed to accommodate the WB -50 truck as shown on Exhibit 8-6. The additional right of way areas needed for the proposed roundabouts are accounted for in the Project circulation design. The fastest path allowed by the geometry (see Exhibit 8-7 for Jefferson Street at North Loop) determines the negotiation speed for that particular movement into, through, and exiting the roundabout. It is the smoothest, flattest path possible for a single vehicle, in the absence of other traffic and ignoring all lane markings. The fastest path is drawn for a vehicle traversing through the entry, around the central island, and out the relevant exit. Note that the fastest path methodology does not represent expected vehicle speeds, but rather theoretical attainable entry speeds for design purposes. Actual speeds can vary substantially based on vehicle suspension, individual driving abilities, and tolerance for gravitational forces. 8.3.2 JEFFERSON STREET / SOUTH LOOP The roundabout layout for Jefferson Street at South Loop is illustrated on Exhibit 8-8. As shown on Exhibit 8-9, design features for this roundabout include single lane entries on the four approaches (northbound, southbound, eastbound, and westbound). An inscribed diameter of 110 feet and lane entries with widths of 20' (NB), 19' (EB), 20' (SB), and 21' (WB) is shown. The Jefferson Street at South Loop roundabout has been designed to accommodate the WB -50 truck as shown on Exhibit 8-10. The fastest path allowed by the geometry is shown on Exhibit 8-11. Tables 8-1 and 8-2 show the speed performance checks for both Travertine roundabouts through movements and right turn movements, respectively. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 116 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8-3: PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE ROUTES Ni ti SITE BOUNDARY � J GRADE SEPARATED (TRAIL UNDERCROSSING) e1 AVENUE 62 1� LEGEND: = GATE O= TRAILHEADS = PARKS = SIDEWALK/PATH = CLASS II BIKE LANE = MULTI -USE TRAIL = HIKING TRAIL 0 = TRAIL UNDERCROSSING OF JEFFERSON/AVENUE62 ® = CROSSWALK ON ALL APPROACHES = SITE BOUNDARY 12184 - 10 - on-site (20170928)_10579.dwg 117 11:2Pfr CROSSROADS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8-4: JEFFERSON STREET AT NORTH LOOP CONCEPTUAL ROUNDABOUT LAYOUT LEGEND: = = MOUNTABLE APRON 12184 - Roundabouts\travertine 20170927.dwg 118 0 URBAN CROSSROAIDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8-5: JEFFERSON STREET AT NORTH LOOP ROUNDABOUT DESIGN FEATURES LEGEND: = MOUNTABLE APRON 12184 - Roundabouts\travertine__20170927.dwg 119 URBAN CROSSROAlDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8-6: JEFFERSON STREET AT NORTH LOOP WB -50 TRUCK PATH OVERLAY LEGEND: 11111.1 = MOUNTABLE APRON irtet rto 12184 - Roundabouts\travertine__20170927.dwg 120 URBAN CROSSROAlDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8-7: JEFFERSON STREET AT NORTH LOOP FHWA FASTEST VEHICLE PATHS LEGEND: = MOUNTABLE APRON 12184 - Roundabouts\travertine__20170927.dwg 121 URBAN CROSSROAlDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8-8: JEFFERSON STREET AT SOUTH LOOP CONCEPTUAL ROUNDABOUT LAYOUT 12184 - Roundabouts\travertine 20170927.dwg 122 LEGEND: L. = MOUNTABLE APRON 0 URBAN CROSSROAIDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8-9: JEFFERSON STREET AT SOUTH LOOP ROUNDABOUT DESIGN FEATURES 12184 - Roundabouts\travertine__20170927.dwg 123 LEGEND: = MOUNTABLE APRON URBAN CROSSROAlDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8-10: JEFFERSON STREET AT SOUTH LOOP WB -50 TRUCK PATH OVERLAY 12184 - Roundabouts\travertine 20170927.dwg 124 LEGEND: = MOUNTABLE APRON URBAN CROSSROAIDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8-11: JEFFERSON STREET AT SOUTH LOOP FHWA FASTEST VEHICLE PATHS 12184 - Roundabouts\travertine__20170927.dwg 125 LEGEND: = MOUNTABLE APRON URBAN CROSSROAlDS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Table 8-1 Speed Performance Check for Travertine Roundabouts Through Movements Approach Fastest Entry Speed Fastest Circulating Speed Fastest Exit Speed NB 18 18 26 Northern Jefferson St. SB 18 18 27 Roundabout EB 18 18 27 WB 17 17 27 NB 20 18 26 Southern Jefferson St. SB 18 18 27 Roundabout EB 17 17 26 WB 18 18 27 Design Criteria: 1. Flattest path possible for single 6 foot wide vehicle, in the absence of other traffic and ignoring all lane markings, traversing through the entry, around the central island, and out the exit, maintaining 2 foot clearance to pavement edges. These are higher speed paths than the natural paths of vehicles within lane markings. 2. Roundabout Design Criteria • Maximum Entry Design Speed: - 25 mph Single -Lane and 30 mph Multi -Lane Roundabout • Internal Circulating Speed: - 15 mph to 35 mph • Maximum Exit Speed: - 30 mph Single -Lane and/or Multi -Lane Rn;:ndabout C: \UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184\ExceI\[12184 - Report.xlsx]8-1 Summary 126 lir:21fr C RC>SSROAIDS URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Table 8-2 Speed Performance Check for Travertine Roundabouts Right Turn Movements Approach Right Turn Speed NB 24 Northern Jefferson St. SB 23 Roundabout EB 21 WB 22 NB 23 Southern Jefferson St. SB 25 Roundabout EB 22 WB 22 Design Criteria: 1. Flattest path possible for single 6 foot wide vehicle, in the absence of other traffic and ignoring all lane markings, traversing through the entry, around the central island, and out the exit, maintaining 2 foot clearance to pavement edges. These are higher speed paths than the natural paths of vehicles within lane markings. 2. Roundabout Design Criteria • Maximum Entry Design Speed: - 25 mph Single -Lane and/or Multi -Lane Roundabout • Internal Circulating Speed: - 15 mph to 35 mph • Maximum Exit Speed: - 30 mph Single -Lane and/or Multi -Lane Roundabout C: \UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184\ExceI\[12184 - Report.xlsx]8-2 Summary 127 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 128 Ck URBAN CROssROAOs Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC At buildout, the proposed mixed-use Project consists of approximately 758 single family detached residential homes, 442 duplex residential units, a 100 -room resort hotel and PA 11 resort/golf uses (golf practice, golf academy, and banquet accommodations). The Project is anticipated to be constructed in phases with the total development for each phase summarized below: • Phase 1 (2026) — 530 single family detached residential homes, 74 duplex residential units, and PA 11 resort/golf uses (golf practice, golf academy, and banquet accommodations). Phase 1 of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 5,836 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 442 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 590 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. • Phase 2 (2029) — additional 143 single family detached residential homes and 163 duplex residential units. Phase 2 of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a cumulative total of 8,343 external trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 620 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 821 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. • Phase 3 (2031) — additional 85 single family detached residential homes, 205 duplex residential units and a 100 -room resort hotel. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a cumulative total of approximately 11,979 trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 848 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 1,105 VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. 9.2 PROJECT ACCESS Project Phase 1 includes the westerly extension of Avenue 62 as an interim section, west of Monroe Street, with an emergency only access northerly from the Project to Madison Street/Avenue 60 intersection. Project Phases 2 and 3 include the southerly extension of South Jefferson as an interim section, south of Avenue 58. Project access features and study area improvements required in conjunction with each phase of development are presented in Sections 3 through 6 of this report. For each study area intersection, the sequencing of improvements is summarized previously on Exhibits 1-4 through 1-7. Roadway cross-sections for Project facilities are shown on Exhibit 1-4. For Project Phase 1 conditions, the following site access improvements are recommended: • Within the Phase 1 development area, construct Jefferson Street from the east Project boundary to the North Loop intersection at its ultimate full section width as a Modified Secondary (54 -foot curb -to -curb), with curb and gutters, sidewalks, and Class II bike lanes. • East of the Project boundary to Monroe Street, construct Avenue 62 with interim cross-section improvements to include 40' pavement section with sidewalk on the north side. • Construct roundabout intersections at Jefferson Street / North Loop and Jefferson Street / South Loop, with related segments of the North Loop and South Loop Collector facilities. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 129 �i► URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis • Construct a secondary emergency vehicle access (EVA) connection from the northerly boundary of Planning Area 18 to Madison Street / Avenue 60. For Project Phase 2 conditions, the following site access improvements are recommended: • Construct Jefferson Street off-site from the Project boundary to Avenue 58 as an interim section (40 -foot pavement section, sidewalk on west side), resulting in the provision of 2 public access connections (in conjunction with Phase 1 improvements) between the Project and surrounding areas. • Within the Project boundary, construct the remaining segment of Jefferson Street at its ultimate full section width, with curb and gutters. • Complete construction of Loop Road at its ultimate full section width as a Collector (40 -foot curb - to -curb), with curb and gutters. For Project Buildout (Phase 3) conditions, site access is recommended to be consistent with Project Phase 2. 9.3 OFF-SITE PROJECT PHASE IMPACTS AND CUMULATIVE NEEDS Table 9-1 documents improvements for existing plus project and near term by phase conditions. Table 9-2 summarizes the intersection operations results for General Plan Buildout (2040) conditions. Existing intersection operations were presented in Section 2 of this TIA. The 19 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: • (#3) - Madison Street at Avenue 54 • (#6) - Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 • (#13) - Monroe Street at Avenue 54 • (#14) - Monroe Street at Avenue 52 9.3.1 E+P CONDITIONS For Existing Plus Project conditions, intersection operations were presented previously in Section 3 of this TIA. The intersection of Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14) is anticipated to require an installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under E+P conditions. 9.3.2 PROJECT PHASE 1(2026) CONDITIONS Off-site intersection improvements for 2026 conditions include the following: Project Responsibilities Project Phase 1 intersection analysis results were presented on Table 4-2. Construct traffic signal improvements for the intersection of Monroe Street at Avenue 60 (#10) for eventual reimbursement via the City of La Quinta CIP. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 130 �i► URBAN CR DSSR DAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 9-1: SUMMARY OF E+P AND PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Page 1 of 2 ID Intersection Jurisdiction Existing + Project Recommended Improvements Funding Source? General Plan Buildout 2040 Project Fair Share (%)5 Phase (2026) Phase 2 (2029) Phase 3 (2031) Without Project With Project Without Project With Project W/ Project Opt. 2 , Without Project With Project 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 City of La Quinta None • Install Traffic Signal • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same DIF / CIP3'4 14% 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 City of La Quinta None • Install Traffic Signal • Same • Same • 1 EB free RT lane • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same DIF / CIP 5% 6 Jefferson St. / Avenue 54 City of La Quinta None • Install Traffic Signal • WBR overlap phase • Same • Same • Same • Same • 1 NBL • 2nd WBR • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same DIF / CIP 3% 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 City of La Quinta None • 2nd NBT • 2nd SBT • Same • Same • Same • Same • 2nd EBT • 2nd WBT • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • 2nd NBT, 3rd NBT • 2nd SBT, 3rd SBT • 2nd EBT, 3rd EBT • 2nd WBT, 3rd WBT • Same • Same • Same • Same 3% 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 City of La Quinta/ City of Indio None • 2nd WBT • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same La Quinta CIP 3% 9 Monroe St. /Avenue 62 City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside None None None None None • Install Traffic Signal None • Install Traffic Signal Project (Reimbursable)/ La Quinta CIP 22% 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside None None • Install Traffic Signal • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same Project (Reimbursable)/ La Quinta CIP 8% 11 Monroe St. /Avenue 58 City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside None • Install Traffic Signal • 1 NBL • 1 SBL (restripe) • 1 EBL • 1 WBL • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • 1 NBL, 1 NBR • 1 SBL (restripe), 1 SBR • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same DIF / CIP3'6 10% 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside None • Install Traffic Signal • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same DIF / CIP 8% 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside None • Install Traffic Signal • 1 NBL • 1 SBL (restripe) • 1 WBL • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • 1 SBL (restripe), 1 SBR • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • 1 NBL, 2nd NBT • 1 SBL (restripe), 2nd SBT, 15BR • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same DIF / CIP3'6 4% 14 Monroe St. /Avenue 52 City of La Quinta/ City of Indio / County of Riverside • Install Traffic Signal • Install Traffic Signal • Same • Same • Same • 1 NBL, 2nd NBT • Same • 1 NBL, 2nd NBT • Same • Same • Same • Same DIF / CIP3'6 4% 16 Jackson St. / Avenue 62 City of Indio None None None None None None None • Install Traffic Signal Project (reimbursable)/ TBDs 9% 17 Jackson St. / Avenue 60 City of Indio None None None None None None • Install Traffic Signal • Same TBDs 3% 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue City of Indio None None None • Install Traffic Signal • Same • Same • Same • Same TBDs 5% 131 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 9-1: SUMMARY OF E+P AND PHASED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Page 2 of 2 ID 1 Intersection Jurisdiction Existing + Project Recommended Improvements Funding Source? General Plan Buildout 2040 Project Fair Share (%)5 Phase (2026) Phase 2(2029) Phase 3(2031) Without Project With Project Without Project With Project W/ Project Opt. 2 Without Project With Project 19 Jackson St. /Airport Blvd. City of Indio None None None • Install Traffic Signal None None None None TBDs 5% 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop City of La Quinta None None None • Install single lane roundabout • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same Project N/A' 21 Jefferson St. / S. Loop City of La Quinta None None • Install single lane roundabout • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same Project N/A' Program improvements construct d by project may be eligible for fee credit, at discretion of City. Source: Travertine Specifc Plan TIA, April 2018 (Table 9-2 for General Plan Buildout 2040 Fair Share Calculations, Option 1) 2 Fair Share is not applicable (N/A) for the improvements identifi d as they are needed to facilitate site access and would be constructed by the Project as de gn features. 3 City of La Quinta CIP also include a roundabout improvement for near-term conditions. Source: City of La Quinta 2035 General Plan include the traffic signal improvement. s City of Indio Funding Sources To B Determined - City General Plan update in process. C(UXRjobsL12000-12500(121841Exc 1((12184- Report.xls49-1 132 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 9-2: SUMMARY OF 2040 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (Page 1 of 3) ID Intersection Jurisdiction Recommended Improvements' Funding Source? Project Fair Share (%)2 Existing General Plan (2040 w/ Madison Street Extension) GPA Option 1 (2040 w/o Madison Street Extension) GPA Option 2 (2040 w/o Madison Street Extension and w/ Project Entry Gates) Existing General Plan GPA Option 1 GPA Option 2 1 Madison St. / Avenue 58 City of La Quinta • Install Traffic Signal • 2nd EB through lane • WBR overlap phase • Same • N/A • Same • Same • N/A • Same La Quinta CIP 18% 14% 13% Modified Improvements: Modified Improvements: TBD5 • Modify EB approach to provide 2EBL, 1 EBT/R lanes • Same 3 Madison St. / Avenue 54 City of La Quinta • Install Traffic Signal • 1 EB free RT lane • WBR overlap phase • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same La Quinta 7% 5% 5% 4 Madison St. / Avenue 52 City of La Quinta/ City of Indio • 2nd NBT lane • 2nd SBL, 2nd SBT, & 1 SBR • 1 WBR turn lane • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same La Quinta CIP 6% 4% 4% 5 Madison St. / Avenue 50 City of La Quinta/ City of Indio • 2nd & 3rd NBT, 1 NBR • 2nd SBL, 2nd SBT, & 1 SBR • 2nd EBT lane • 2nd WBT, 1 WBR w/ overlap • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same La Quinto 4% 2% 2% 6 Jefferson St. / P City of La Quinta • Install Traffic Signal • 1 NBL, 1 NBR • 2nd WBR w/ overlap phase • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same La Quinta CIP 3% 3% 3% 7 Jefferson St. / Avenue 52 City of La Quinta • 3 lane roundabout • Same • Same La Quinta CIP 3% 3% 3% 8 Jefferson St. / Avenue 50 City of La Quinta/ City of Indio • 2nd EBL turn lane • 2nd WBL, 2nd WBT • Same • Same • Same • Same La Quinta CIP 3% 3% 3% 9 Monroe St. / Avenue 62 City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside • Install Traffic Signal • 1 shared NBL/T/R lane • 1 EBL turn lane • 1 WBR with overlap phase • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same La Quinta CIP 15% 22% 19% Additional GPCE Improvements Additional GPCE Improvements TBD5 • 1 SBL and SBR overlap • Modify EBT/R to shared EBL/T/R • 1 WBL • Same • Same • Same 10 Monroe St. / Avenue 60 City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside • Install Traffic Signal • 2nd NBT lane • 2nd SBT lane • 2nd EBT lane • 1 WBL, 1 WBR w/ overlap • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same La Quinta CIP 4% 8% 8% Additional GPCE Improvements Additional GPCE Improvements TBD5 • 1 SBR • 1 EBR with overlap phase • 2nd WBT • Same • Same • Same 133 11:46!Pe CROSSROAES URBAN Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 9-2: SUMMARY OF 2040 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (Page 2 of 3) ID Intersection jurisdiction Recommended Improvements' Funding Source? Project Fair Sha e (%)2 Existing General Plan (2040 w/ Madison Street Extension) GPA Option 1 (2040 w/o Madison Street Extension) GPA Option 2 (2040 w/o Madison Street Extension and w/ Project Entry Gates) Existing General Plan GPA Option 1 GPA Option 2 11 Monroe St. / Avenue 58 City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside • Install Traffic Signal • 2nd NBT, 1 NBR • 1 SBL, 2nd SBT lane • 1 EBL, 2nd EBT lane • 1 WBL, 2nd WBT lane • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same Additional GPCE Improvements • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same Additional GPCE Improvements La Quinta CIP TBD 6% 10% 10% • 2nd NBL & NBR overlap phas< • 2nd SBL • 1 EBR • Same • Same • Same 12 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd. City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside • Install Traffic Signal Additional Improvements • Same Additional Improvements • Same Additional Improvements La Quinta CIP TBD7 4% 8% 8% • 2nd NBT • 2nd EBT • 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, 1 WBR w/ overlap phase • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same 13 Monroe St. / Avenue 54 City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside • Install Traffic Signal • 1 NBL, 2nd NBT, 1 NBR • 1 SBL, 2nd SBT, 1 NBR • 2nd EBL, 2nd EBT, 1 EBR • 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, 1 WBR • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same La Quinta 2% 4% 4% 14 Monroe St. / Avenue 52 City of La Quinta/ City of Indio / County of Riverside • Install Traffic Signal • 2 NBL, 2nd NBT, 1 NBR • 2nd SBL • 2nd EBT • 1 WBR • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same La Quinta CIP 2% 4% 4% 15 Monroe St. / 50th Avenue City of Indio • 2nd NBL, 1 NBR • 2nd SBL • 2nd EBT • 2nd WBT • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same TBD4 2% 3% 3% 16 Jackson St. / 62nd Avenue City of Indio • Install Traffic Signal • 1 NBL, 2nd NBT • 1 SBL, 2nd SBT • 1 EBL, 1 EBR • 1 WBL, 2nd WBT • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same TBD4 9% 9% 8% 17 Jackson St. / 60th Avenue City of Indio • Install Traffic Signal • 1 NBL, 2nd NBT • 1 SBL, 2nd SBT • 1 EBL, 2nd EBT • 1 WBL, 2nd WBT, 1 WBR w/ Overlap phase • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same TBD4 4% 3% 3% 134 URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 9-2: SUMMARY OF 2040 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (Page 3 of 3) ID Intersection Jurisdiction Recommended Improvements' Funding Source? Project Fair Share (%)2 Existing General Plan (2040 w/ Madison Street Extension) GPA Option 1 (2040 w/o Madison Street Extension) GPA Option 2 (2040 w/o Madison Street Extension and w/ Project Entry Gates) Existing General Plan GPA Option 1 GPA Option 2 18 Jackson St. / 58th Avenue City of Indio • Install Traffic Signal • 1 NBL, 2nd NBT • 1 SBL, 2nd SBT • 1 EBL, 2nd EBT • 1 WBL, 2nd WBT • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same TBD4 3% 5% 5% 19 Jackson St. / Airport Blvd. City of Indio • Install Traffic Signal • 1 NBL, 2nd NBT • 1 SBL, 2nd SBT • 1 EBL, 2nd EBT • 1 WBL, 2nd WBT • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same • Same TBD4 6% 5% 5% 20 Jefferson St. / N. Loop City of La Quinta • Install single lane roundabout • Same • Same Project N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 21 Jefferson St. / 5. Loop City of La Quinta • Install single lane roundabout • Same • Same Project N/A3 N/A3 N/A3 22 Madison St. / Avenue 60 City of La Quinta • Install Traffic Signal • 1 NBL, 2 NBT • 2nd SBL, 2 SBT, & 1 SBR w/ Overlap phase • 2 EBL • 1 WBL, 2nd WBT • Same • 1 Shared NBT/R • 2nd SBL, 1 SBT, 1 SBR w/ Overlap phase • Same • Same • Same • Same (GPA Option 1) • Same (GPA Option 1) • Same • Same CIP 7% 0% 0% 23 Madison St. / Avenue 62 City of La Quinta/ County of Riverside • Install Traffic Signal • 1 SBL, 1 SBT •1EBT • 1 WBT, 1 WBR Intersection does not exist Intersection does not exist TBD' 34% - - t Intersection improvements within the City of La Quinta are consistent with the City's General Plan City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012). 2 Program improvements constructed by project may be eligible for fee credit, at discretion of City. See Table 9-2 for General Plan Buildout 2040 Fair Share Calculations. 3 Fair Share is not applicable (N/A) for the improvements identified as they are needed to facilitate site access and would be constructed by the Project as design features. 4 City of Indio Funding Sources To Be Determined - City General Plan update in process. s City of La Quinta Funding Sources To Be Determined for lane improvements associated with GPA Options. 6 City of La Quinta/County of Riverside Funding Sources To Be Determined for lane improvements which are consistent with existing General Plan. City of La Quinta/County of Riverside Funding Sources To Be Determined for lane improvements which are consistent with existing General Plan and GPA Options. C:\UXRjobsL12000-12500\12184\Excel\[12184 - Report.xls49-2 URBAN CROSSROAES 135 Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Project Contributions to Cumulative Needs Provide fair share contributions (shown on Exhibit 4-8 of this report) to improvements required to provide acceptable LOS at eight study area intersections: 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, convert 2nd eastbound through lane into right turn lane, provide westbound right turn overlap phasing Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (#8) - provide second westbound through lane Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (#11) - install CIP-funded traffic signal control, provide separate northbound left turn lane, provide separate northbound right turn lane, provide separate southbound left turn lane, provide separate eastbound left turn lane, provide separate westbound left turn lane Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard (#12) - install CIP-funded traffic signal control Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (#13) - install CIP-funded traffic signal control, provide separate southbound left turn lane, provide separate westbound left turn lane Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14) - install CIP-funded traffic signal control Project Phase 1 analysis indicates that 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. 9.3.3 PROJECT PHASE 2 (2029) CONDITIONS Off-site intersection improvements for 2029 conditions include the following: Project Responsibilities Project Phase 2 intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 5-2. No Project impacts were identified for Project Phase 2 conditions. However, if Project Phase 2 Option 2 (without Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58) is utilized, a Project impact is anticipated at the intersection of Monroe Street at Avenue 62 (#9) and will require installation of a traffic signal (for eventual reimbursement via the City of La Quinta CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS. Project Contributions to Cumulative Needs The following additional study area intersections are anticipated to require improvements in order to maintain acceptable LOS under Project Phase 2 conditions (in addition to those identified for Project Phase 1): Jackson Street at Avenue 58 (#18) - install CIP-funded traffic signal control Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard (#19) - install CIP-funded traffic signal control 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 136 �i► URBAN CR DSSR DAD Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Project Phase 2 analysis also results in deficient operations at Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7) under cumulative "without project" and "with 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, southbound, eastbound, and westbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. At four of the intersections identified for Project Phase 1 as needing improvements, additional improvements are necessary for Project Phase 2 conditions: Madison Street at Avenue 54 (#3) - convert eastbound defacto right turn lane into free right turn lane Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (#6) - provide separate northbound left turn lane Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (#11) - provide separate northbound right turn lane Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#14) - provide separate northbound left turn lane, provide second northbound through lane If Project Phase 2 Option 2 (without Jefferson Street connection to Avenue 58) is utilized, the intersection of Monroe Street at Avenue 62 (#9) is anticipated to require traffic signal improvement to serve Phase 2 (2029) With Project Option 2 conditions. In addition, the roadway segment of Monroe Street, south of Avenue 60 appears to exceed the theoretical daily segment LOS thresholds if Option 2 scenario is utilized. However, 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. 9.3.4 PROJECT PHASE 3 (2031) CONDITIONS Off-site intersection improvements for 2031 conditions include the following: Project Responsibilities Project Phase 3 intersection analysis results were previously presented on Table 6-2, and two additional study area intersections are anticipated to require improvements in order to maintain acceptable LOS under Project Phase 3 conditions: Monroe Street at Avenue 62 (#9) - install CIP-funded traffic signal control, provide northbound shared left -through -right lane, provide separate eastbound left turn lane, provide separate westbound right turn lane Jackson Street at Avenue 62 (#16) - install CIP-funded traffic signal control Project Contributions to Cumulative Needs Additional cumulative improvements are required to serve 2031 "without project" conditions at three study area intersections (beyond the improvement needs identified for Project Phases 1 and 2): Jackson Street at Avenue 60 (#17) - provide traffic signal 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 137 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (#13) - provide second northbound through lane, provide second southbound through lane Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (#1) - provide second eastbound through lane Project Phase 3 analysis also results in deficient operations at Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7) under cumulative "without project" and "with project" conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 3 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates 2 additional through lanes in the northbound, southbound, eastbound, and westbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. These improvements were previously identified in the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 14, 2012), for the City's buildout (2035) enhanced intersection configurations. 9.3.5 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT YEAR 2040) WITH MADISON STREET EXTENSION CONDITIONS All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with the Madison Street Extension south of Avenue 60 as shown on the current City of La Quinta General Plan, based upon improvements indicated in the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis. 9.3.6 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION (GPA OPTION 1) CONDITIONS All intersections are anticipated to experience acceptable operations under General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with Madison Street Extension conditions with improvements. For intersections included in the City of La Quinta General Plan analysis, four intersections require modification of typical improvements indicated for General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) with Madison Street Extension. Madison Street at Avenue 58 (#1) — In addition to General Plan geometrics, provide the following lanes: • EB Approach: Convert inside through lane into 2nd left turn lane Monroe Street at Avenue 62 (#9) — In addition to General Plan geometrics, provide the following lanes: • SB Approach: Provide 2nd left turn lane, add right turn overlap phase to existing right turn lane • EB Approach: Convert through -right lane into left -through -right lane • WB Approach: Provide separate left turn lane Monroe Street at Avenue 60 (#10) — In addition to General Plan geometrics, provide the following lanes: • SB Approach: Provide separate right turn lane • EB Approach: Provide separate right turn lane with right turn overlap phase 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 138 e URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis • WB Approach: Provide 2' through lane Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (#11) — In addition to General Plan geometrics, provide the following lanes: • NB Approach: Provide 2nd left turn lane, add right turn overlap phase to right turn lane • SB Approach: Provide 2nd left turn lane • EB Approach: Provide separate right turn lane 9.3.7 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2040) WITHOUT MADISON STREET EXTENSION AND WITH PROJECT ENTRY GATES (GPA OPTION 2) CONDITIONS The General Plan improvement configurations anticipated at the following four intersections would need to be modified, consistent with GPA Option 1 recommendations, without the Madison Street Extension south of Avenue 60 and with Project Entry Gates (GPA Option 2): • Madison Street at Avenue 58 • Monroe Street at Avenue 62 • Monroe Street at Avenue 60 • Monroe Street at Avenue 58 Recommended General Plan improvements at these locations are the same as included for the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) without Madison Street Extension (GPA Option 1) scenario (see list in Section 9.3.6 above), so the Project entry gates do not result in additional changes to the roadway system. 9.4 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 development should be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City's discretion). Tables 9-1 and 9-2 shows the project fair share percentages for Year 2040 conditions, GPA Option 1. 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. 9.5 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED Project VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) has been evaluated and provided in a separate letter "Travertine Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis", dated November 3, 2020. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 139 ��► URBAN CROSS ROaEIS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 140 Ck URBAN CROssROAOs Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis 10 REFERENCES 1. Urban Crossroads, Inc.. Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. City of La Quinta, April 9, 2018. 2. Iteris. City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis. Prepared for City of La Quinta, May 14, 2012. 3. City of La Quinta. Engineering Bulletin #06-13. s.l. : City of La Quinta, July 23, 2015. 4. City of La Quinta. Engineering Bulletin #10-01 Intersection Sight Distance Guidelines. City of La Quinta Public Works/Engineering Department, 2010. 5. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation. 10th Edition. 2017. 6. Riverside County Transportation Commission. 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program. County of Riverside : RCTC, December 14, 2011. 7. City of La Quinta. City of La Quinta Municipal Code. City of La Quinta. December 1996. 8. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). National Academy of Sciences, 2010. 9. California Department of Transportation. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. December 2002. 10. 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. 11. Southern California Association of Governments. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. April 2016. 12. City of La Quinta. Resolution No. 2012-12: Fiscal Year 2012/2013 through 2016/2017 Capital Improvement Plan. City of La Quinta, 2012. 13. KOA Corporation. CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study - 2010 Update. Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 2010. 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 141 �i► URBAN CROSSROADS Travertine Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 12184-04 TIA Report.docx 142 Ck URBAN CROssROAOs