2007-11-28 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. Comment Summary: In regard to trip generation for the proposed development, it appears (Table 21-1) that the pass-by trip reductions were applied to the initial trip estimates instead of the through volume. This results in too few trips being distributed to the system. Response: Pass-by trips are those vehicles currently on the roadway system today that will include a stop at the proposed development in the future. An example is a commuter who stops at a new gas station. The commuter was on the road before the gas station and would not represent an increase in traffic on the roadway system with the gas station. Pass-by trips are more explicit and can have a greater effect when individual access locations are examined. In this case, pass-by trips are mixed into the existing traffic volumes and are not shown separately. For this proposed development, pass-by traffic is expected to be 420 vehicles for an average day and nine trips and 23 trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Again, this represents vehicles that are currently on the roadway system and are expected to include a stop at the proposed development in the future. Therefore, all the vehicles trips are accounted for in the study intersections. 6. Comment Summary: In regard to background growth for the proposed development, a review of the future 2020 no-build traffic volumes was completed to compare to existing volumes. Using a 2.4 percent yearly growth rate (background growth indicated in the study), the no build numbers appear low. Response: The background growth of 2.4 percent per year was applied to the existing traffic volumes before traffic from the elementary school was applied. As described in the traffic study, turning movement counts were taken when school was not in session. Trip generation for the school was estimated using standard ITE rates. The school is not likely to grow at 2.4 percent per year and its traffic was therefore not included in the background growth. 7. Comment Summary: In regard to trip distribution for the proposed development, the directional distribution that was used for the proposed development has 65 percent of the trips routed to/from the east on 1-35E and east of the interchange. This indicates a regional trip distribution. It is assumed that this distribution was used for all proposed uses. Generally, directional distribution varies based on the land use type. Applying the same distribution could distort some of the trip patterns. Response: The trip distribution percentages in the study are an estimated average of the different land use types. With a daily trip generation of new traffic fewer than 4,000, breaking the distributions out separately would not change the conclusions or results. In larger studies, a break-out of trip distribution by land type is prudent as the differences can drastically alter the recommendations. Since this is a smaller proposed development, using one percentage is more transparent to the readers and does not affect the outcome. 8. Comment Summary: In regard to trip distribution for the proposed development, previous work completed by the county indicated the need for additional regional access locations - one at CSAH 14/1-35W and one at 80th Streetll-35E. It does not appear that the EAW took these future changes into account. Changes in regional access would likely change the directional distribution and the overall affect on the adjacent intersections. Centerville Downtown Redevelopment Page 10