APPENDIX K Traffic Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section
1.0
Page
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY .......................................................................1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Area......................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Summary of Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 6 1.6 Summary of Long-Range 2035 Conditions ....................................................................... 7
2.0
Kern County General Plan............................................................................8 2.1 2.2
Kern County Functional Roadway Classifications ............................................................. 8 Kern County Circulation Element .................................................................................... 11
3.0 Other 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
4.0
Highway Capacity Manual ............................................................................................... 15 Kern Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan .......................................... 15 SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.................................................................. 16 AB 1358 California Complete Streets Act of 2008 .......................................................... 16 Tehachapi – Cummings Valley Fee Program .................................................................. 16
Methodology ...............................................................................................18 4.1 4.2
5.0
Regulatory Standards .......................................................................15
Traffic Operations Analysis ............................................................................................. 18 Kern Council of Governments Travel Demand Model ..................................................... 19
Thresholds of Significance – CEQA and Other ......................................... 23
6.0 Existing
Conditions .................................................................................... 24
6.1 Existing Circulation Network............................................................................................ 24 6.2 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 27 6.3 Existing Operations Analysis ........................................................................................... 27 6.4 Existing Transit Service ................................................................................................... 32 6.5 Truck Routes ................................................................................................................... 32 6.6 Southern Pacific Railroad ................................................................................................ 32
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
7.0
Significance Status of Existing Conditions ................................................ 33
8.0
Long-Range 2035 Future Conditions ........................................................ 34 8.1 8.2 8.3
9.0
Long-Range 2035 Circulation Network ........................................................................... 34 Long-Range 2035 Future Conditions Average Daily Traffic Volumes ............................. 34 Long-Range 2035 Future Operations Analysis ............................................................... 37
Significance Status of Long-Range 2035 Future Conditions ..................... 42
10.0 GTASP Functional Roadway Classifications ............................................. 44 11.0 References ................................................................................................ 48
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Pa 1
ge
Project Location Map ................................................................................... 2
2 Study
Area ................................................................................................... 5
3
Kern County General Plan Circulation Element .......................................... 9
4
Kern County General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections ............................... 10
5
Kern COG Traffic Analysis Zones ............................................................. 20
6
Kern COG Model Roadway Network Features .......................................... 21
7
Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls .................. 25
8
Existing Average Daily Traffic.................................................................... 28
9
2035 Refined Average Daily Traffic ............................................................36
10
2035 Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls ........................43
11
GTASP Functional Roadway Classifications ..............................................47
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
LIST OF TABLES Table Pa
ge
1
Roadway Level of Service Threshold Volumes ......................................... 29
2
Existing Roadway Level of Service ............................................................30
3
Tehachapi – Cummings Valley Fee Program Roadway Improvements .....35
4
2035 Refined Future Average Daily Traffic Forecast .................................38
5
Long-Range Roadway Segment Level of Service ......................................40
6
GTASP Functional Roadway Classifications ..............................................45
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
GREATER TEHACHAPI AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (GTASP) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (DRAFT) COUNTY OF KERN, CALIFORNIA
1
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
1.1
INTRODUCTION
This se ction pro vides a summary o f th e traffic c onditions f or th e Greater Te hachapi Area Specific Pla n project area that encompasses approximately 400 square miles in Count y of Kern as shown on Exhibit 1. The traffic analysis explores the currently adopted County of Kern General Plan Circulation Element, the ch aracteristics o f t he c irculation n etwork, existing c onditions, l ong-range c onditions, a nd regional transportation programs. The purpose of t his T raffic Analysis is to ass ess the existing con ditions and i dentify the p otential traf fic impacts associated with the full utilization and development of the Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan for long-range 2035 traffic conditions.
1.2
BACKGROUND
The Greater Tehachapi area is loca ted in eastern Kern Co unty along California Highway 58 b etween the San Joaquin Valle y and the Mojave Desert. The Greater Tehachapi area is known for its fou r seasons, rural communities, Tehachapi Loop, electricity generating wind turbines, proximity to Edwards Air Force Base, and gliding. The Greater Tehachapi area generally refers to the City of Tehach api and the surrounding rural communities of Alpine Forest, Golden Hills, Stallion Springs, Bear Valley, Cummings Valley, and Brite Valley. Since 2000, the area’s population has grown from approxi mately 28,4 00 to approximately 35, 000, an increase of about 23 percent. In re sponse to this growth, the County of Kern is updating the planning and environmental information in this unincorpo rated Greater Tehacha pi area and will prepar e a new program-level Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GT ASP) that will rescind and consolidate the existing specific and other community plans in the area. This new Specific Plan will allow the County to identify and coordinate implementation strategies and policies for futu re land use s by balancing th e competing social, e conomic, resource and environment al factors for future growth in the Greater Tehachapi area. For purposes of the GTASP, the boundary encompasses approximately 400 square miles, as shown on Exhibit 1. T he eastern boundary of the Specific Plan area is Sand Canyon Roa d just west of th e Tehachapi Pass. The western boundary is near Hart Flat Road just east of Highway 223. The northern
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
1
2
boundary of the Specific Plan area is Orejano Ridge on the west to Emerald Mountain on the east. The southern boundary is generally defined by Cummings Mountain, Covington Mountain, Double Mountain and Tehach api Mountain, each of which has p eaks at ele vations abo ve 7,700 fe et in t he Te hachapi Mountain range. The County’s 2004 General Plan o utlines the growth opportunities a nd challeng es facing all of Kern County. These opportunities and ch allenges1 that are particularly relevan t to the GT ASP area in clude but are not limited to: • • • • • •
Promoting managed economic growth Providing for continued agricultural use and resource conservation Promoting smart growth concepts to effectively manage the County’s future development Enhancing the linkage between land use and water supply planning Air quality’s role in land use planning Kern County’s importance in energy development
The GTASP will become the future development guidance for this 400-square mile Greater Teh achapi area working in tandem with the County’s 2004 General Plan and Kern Count y Zoning Ordinance. Consistent with State a nd County requirements, the Specific Plan will set forth a definitive land use development plan, development regulations, a nd implementation plan s and programs designed to ensure a successful fut ure development consistent with th e goals and policies o f the County’s 2004 General Plan. The purposes of the pr oposed GTASP are to more spec ifically identify and build upon these growth opportunities and challenges for the Greater Tehachapi Area. This planning process is three-fold: • • •
Identify existing conditions in the Specific Plan area; Establish a uniform set of planning assumptions (land use constraints and opportunities); and Implement 2004 Gene ral Plan goals and/or policies by coordinating and identifying implementation strategies and policies for future land use in the Greater Tehachapi area.
The Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) planning effort will include three basic tasks: 1) the accumulation and con solidation o f known in formation on existing conditions, particularly water availability; 2) the prep aration of t he Specific Plan docu ment, and; 3) prepara tion of a P rogram Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR).
1
Kern County General Plan, adopted June 2004, pp. vi – ix.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
3
1.3
STUDY AREA
The study area for this analysis shown on Exhibit 2 is based on a review of key roadway facilities within the GTASP. The project study area identifie s the follo wing forty (40) roadwa y segment analysis locations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.
Backes Lane North of Highline Road Banducci Road West of Pelliser Road Banducci Road East of Pelliser Road Banducci Road West of Highline Road Bear Valley Road North of Cummings Valley Road Cherry Lane West of Tucker Road Cummings Valley Road West of Bear Valley Road Cummings Valley Road East of Bear Valley Road Dennison Road North of Highline Road Giraudo Road West of Pelliser Road Golden Hills Boulevard North of State Route 202 Golden Hills Boulevard East of Woodford Tehachapi Road Highline Road East of Banducci Road Highline Road West of Water Canyon Road Highline Road West of Tehachapi Willow Springs Road Old Town Road South of Jeffrey Road Old Town Road South of Woodford Tehachapi Road Pelliser Road South of Giraudo Street Schout Road East of State Route 202 Steuber Road North of Highline Road Tehachapi Boulevard West of Tehachapi Willow Springs Road Tehachapi Boulevard West of Sand Canyon Road Tehachapi Willow Springs Road South of Highline Road Tehachapi Willow Springs Road South of Tehachapi Boulevard Tucker Road North of Highline Road Westwood Boulevard North of Golden Hills Boulevard Westwood Boulevard East of Woodford Tehachapi Road Woodford Tehachapi Road South of State Route 202 Woodford Tehachapi Road North of State Route 202 Woodford Tehachapi Road North of State Route 58 State Route 58 South of Bear Mountain Boulevard State Route 58 North of State Route 202 State Route 58 East of State Route 202 State Route 58 East of Mill Street Interchange
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
4
5
35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.
1.4
State Route 202 North of California Correctional Institute State Route 202 North of Cummings Valley Road State Route 202 East of Old Town Road State Route 202 West of Tucker Road State Route 202 North of East Valley Boulevard State Route 202 South of State Route 58
METHODOLOGY
A Level of Service (LOS) analysis was prepared for the r oadway segments within the proje ct study area. LOS is a qu alitative mea sure whic h de scribes operational conditions with in a traf fic stream, generally in terms o f s uch f actors a s spe ed an d t ravel time, f reedom t o man euver, traffic i nterruptions, comfort and co nvenience, and s afety. T he criteria us ed t o evaluate L OS c onditions vary based on t he type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. LOS is expressed as a letter designation from A through F, with A representing the b est operatin g condition s and F representing the worst. The analysis provided in this study is based on the current technical guide for the evaluation o f traff ic op erations is t he 2000 Highway Capacity Manual ( HCM) (T ransportation Research Board Special Report 209).
1.5
SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
The GTASP existing co nditions analysis is base d on the existing 24-ho ur Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes pro vided by the County of Kern Road Departmen t, the roadway segment capacities and the LOS thresholds for ea ch facility t ype. The r oadway segment capacities are su itable for p lanning purposes, but they are not precise measures of capacity. The ultimate capacity of a roadway i s based upon a number of factor s. The se factors include the relat ionships between peak hour and daily traffic volumes, the roadway design fe atures (access sp acing, interse ction geometries, et c.), and the proportions and amount of traffic turning at key i ntersections (along with the amount of traffic crossing the roadway, or turning onto or off of the roadway at intersecting roadways). The existing cond itions daily roadway se gment anal ysis i ndicates that out of 4 0 study a rea roadway segments: • •
38 roadway segments operate at LOS A conditions. 2 roadway segments operate at LOS B conditions.
The existing condit ions LOS analysis indicates t hat all of th e study are a roadway segments maintain the acceptable Kern County LOS C or better conditions.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
6
1.6
SUMMARY OF LONG-RANGE 2035 CONDITIONS
The long-ra nge 2035 average daily traffic volumes were developed using th e Kern Council o f Governments (KernCOG) travel demand mode l foreca sts f or the Teha chapi Specif ic plan area . The KernCOG travel demand utilize s socio-econo mic dat a (SED), such as dwellin g units, po pulation, employed residents, a nd jobs (retail, services a nd other employment), f or trip gene ration. To ensure that the GTASP land use is reflect ed in the KernCO G mo del forecast s, the SED by Traffic A nalysis Zone was compared wit h the land use totals for GTASP. A review of t he 2035 SED shows that the KernCOG model inclu des 14,371 dwelling u nits within 63 traffic a nalysis zo nes represen ting the GTASP project study area. The number of dwelling units repre sented in th e KernCOG 2035 traffic model is generally consistent with the 13, 534 dwelling units projected in t he 2030 GTASP land use assumptions using a 2% annual growth rate. Extrapolating the 2030 GTASP lan d use assumptions to 2035 conditions using the same 2% annual growth rate provides an estimate of 14,942 dwelling units for 2035 conditi ons. A comparison of the 2035 KernCOG model and the GTASP land use assumptions shows that the 14,942 dwelling units expected within the GTASP at 2035 conditions (using t he 2% annual growth rate) are adequately represented by the 14,371 dwelling units in the traffic model , a 4% diffe rence. Since the KernCOG travel deman d model is used primarily to estimate regional air quality i mpacts and is not suitable for focused traf fic foreca sting exercise s, the raw long-range traffic foreca sts were refined, to provide reasonable for ecasts of th e future traffic condit ions. Based on the refined long-range 2035 average daily traffic volumes, the roadway s egment a nalysis i ndicates that o ut o f t he 4 0 s tudy a rea roadway segments: • • • • • •
31 roadway segments operate at LOS A conditions. 4 roadway segments operate at LOS B conditions. 2 roadway segments operate at LOS C conditions. 1 roadway segment operates at LOS D conditions. 1 roadway segment operates at LOS E conditions. 1 roadway segment operates at LOS F conditions.
The long-range 2035 conditions LOS analysis indica tes that the fo llowing three ro adway segments will not maintain the acceptable Kern County LOS C or better criteria with the existing lane capacity: • • •
Tehachapi Willow Springs Road South of Highline Road State Route 202 West of Tucker Road State Route 202 North of East Valley Boulevard
Additional roadway capacity is needed to satisfy the expected long-range 2035 traffic demand for these three roadway segments to maintain the acceptable Kern County LOS C or better conditions.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
7
2
KERN COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
2.1
KERN COUNTY FUNCTIONAL ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS
The County of Kern has identified freeways, arterials, collectors and local streets as the primary functional vehicular roadway classifications in the General Plan Circulation Element as shown on Exhibit 3. • F reeways such as the St ate Rou te 58 Free way are intended t o s erve th rough traffic traveling relatively long-distances. Th ey p rovide no access to adjacent l and e xcept at interchanges. A freeway is defined as a divided highway with full control of access and two or more lanes for the exclusive use of traffic in each direction. Freeways provide for uninterrupted flow of traffic. • Arterials in Tehachapi serve as the principal network for traffic flow. They t ypically provide four to six lanes of travel an d connect areas of maj or traffic generation within the urban areas and connect wit h important county roads and st ate highways. O n arterial streets, mobility overshadows t he n eed to pr ovide acce ss to fr onting pr operties. A rterials also provide for the distribution and collect ion of through traffic to and from collector an d local stre ets serving residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. • Collector st reets provide for traffic move ment between arterial and local str eets; traffic movement within and between neighborhoods and major activity centers; and limited direct access to a butting properties. Collector streets ty pically provide two to four lanes of travel and are intended to connect arterials with local streets and activity centers. • Local streets provide for direct acce ss to abutting properties and for localized traffic move ments with residential, commercial, and industrial areas. In general, local co llectors are local streets designated to connect neighborhoods that are designed to discourage through traffic. The Kern County Reso urce Management Agen cy publishes Developme nt Standards to be use d for all developments within Kern County that are outside of incorporated cities. The standards are to provide a basis for design and construction that will result in improvements that are economical to maintain and will adequat ely service the general public. T he Development Standards also pro vide the minimu m roadway improvements requirements and roadway cross-sections that are described below and shown on Exhibit 4. • • • •
Expressway (Four Travel Lanes) Arterial (Major Highway) Collector (Secondary Highway) Local Street (Select Local Road)
Minimum 110-foot right-of-way Minimum 110-foot right-of-way Minimum 90-foot right-of-way Minimum 60-foot right-of-way
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
8
9
10
2.2
KERN COUNTY CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The Circulation Element was adopted on J une 15, 2004 as Chapter 2 o f the Kern County General Plan. The Circulation Element is divided into eleven districts with district ten representing the Tehachapi region. The pu rpose of th e Ci rculation Ele ment is to set up local Goals and guiding Pol icies ab out buil ding transportation improvements. To focus on specific regions within the County, the General Plan identifies “Priority Focus Area Topics”. Two of the priority focus area topics 2.4.2 Tehachapi – Antelope Valley and 2.4.6 Tehachapi – Cummings Area are included within the boundaries of the GTASP. 2.4.2 Tehachapi – Antelope Valley a. Issu
es Land use plans for Tehachapi and Antelope Valley areas show considerable growth. A majority of traffic between these areas now uses State Route 14 and State Route 58. As an al ternate route, traffic uses the two-lane Tehachapi -Willow Springs Road. The Coun ty will need better c irculation between Tehachapi and Antelope Valley as they further develop.
b. Goals Kern County p lans to enhance th e efficiency and sa fety of circulation between Te hachapi an d Antelope Valley. c. Policies 1.
Investigate a spec ific plan li ne a nd funding p rogram t o en hance t he sa fety an d cap acity between Teh achapi an d A ntelope Valley, in cluding th e a ssessment of an exp ressway in the current Tehachapi-Willow Springs corridor. Safety enhancements should be prioritized for funding.
2.
A sp ecial t raffic model s tudy s hall b e con ducted t o ad dress Highline Roa d in T ehachapi. The study shall provide viable alternatives to raise the Level of Service to acceptable levels. The mo del shal l, at a mi nimum, consider capacity increasing projects impa cting Hi ghline Road. The study shall be conducted prior to recordation of any land divisions suspected of impacting traffic along this alignment causing Level of Service below "C."
3.
The County shou ld monitor development a pplications as t hey relate t o traf fic g eneration developed f or t his plan. I f t raffic res ulting from projects such as Ge neral Plan amendment(s) would exceed current volume to capacity projections, mitigation is required if development cause s ro adways t o fa ll bel ow LOS D and LOS C for Calt rans ro adways.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
11
Utilization of the CEQA process would hel p iden tify al ternatives to, or mitigation for suc h developments. Mitigation coul d in volve a mending t he Land Us e, Open Space and Conservation Element to establish jobs - housing balance. This is triggered if projected trips in a ny t raffic zon e e xceed trips i dentified for t his Circulation Element. Mi tigation could involve exactions to build of f-site tra nsportation f acilities. These e nhancements would reduce traffic congestion impacts. d. Im
plementation Measures A.
Planning De partment sh ould pr epare a sp ecific p lan line f or an imp roved co nnection between Te hachapi an d Ant elope Valley. T he p lan sh ould i nclude widening Te hachapiWillow Springs Road to four lanes.
B.
The County should plan construction of a four-lane expressway from State Route 14, south of Rosamond Boul evard. Kern County also needs a funding program for the facility. Funding could be from local benefit assessment districts. The districts should include both Tehachapi and Antelope Valley areas.
C.
Preparation and a pproval o f t raffic stu dies s hould be c oordinated with the Road s Department. Th e e xaction s hould be li nked di rectly to n ew de velopment c reating traffic volumes potentially in excess of Highline Road's capacity. The Department shall use such a study to base recommendations for alternative circulation routes, and/or the possibility of a change in land use designations impacting Highline Road.
D.
Kern County should not allow new roads that serve low-density parcels to have unpaved surfaces. Any road capable of or now serving fifty average daily traffic trips or more should be paved.
2.4.6 Tehachapi – Cummings Area The Tehachapi - Cummings area is between State Route 58 and the Tehachapi Mountains. It includes the Cummings Valley, Bear Valley Springs, Stallion Springs, Cameron Canyon, Sand Canyon, Tehachapi and Brite Val leys. Devel opments na med Monoli th, Golden Hills, Ol d Towne, Mountain Meadows and incorporated Tehachapi are in the T ehachapi Valle y. In th e developing areas west of Te hachapi, th e terrain i s ro lling hi lls a nd g entle mountains. The area c ontains mostly resi dential la nd uses. Most employment cate rs to the res idential supp ort an d cons truction n eeds. Pri mary i ndustries a re rea l esta te, mining, cement manufacturing, wind farm development, and agriculture.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
12
Main road access to and from the area is via State Route 58. The highway has seven interchanges in the area. F rom t he Tehachapi Summit i nterchange, Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road p rovides ac cess so uth into Willow Springs. Highline Road, State Rout e 20 2, and Ban ducci Ro ad al so provide ea st-west circ ulation wi thin t he a rea. Woodford-Tehachapi Road provides access into the Golden Hills development. a. Issu
es The area is "land locked" on the west side by the El Tejon range. The main internal eastwest route is S tate R oute 202. This highway p rovides lo cal a ccess from the w estern va lleys to C ity of Tehachapi and State Route 58. It takes an indirect route through town to connect with State Route 58. T he Co unty e xpects sus tained ho using development i n t he a dopted Golden Hills, Stal lion Springs, and Bear Valley Springs Specific Plan areas as well as expansion of the Tehachapi Prison in Cummings Valley. This may severely tax the local and regional circulation system. The list below gives specific Issues. State Route Capacity - As Stallion Springs and Bear Valley Springs grow, State Route 202 will become increasingly congested. •
•
Emergency Access - The Stallion Springs, Bear Valley Springs, and Sand Canyon areas both have onl y o ne pa ved road i n an d out. Besides li miting circu lation op tions, it a lso makes emergency access a concern. Connectivity and I nternal Ci rculation - Th e various de velopment c enters are going to req uire major highways in and between them
b. Goals 1. 2. 3. 4.
Reduce congestion in the Golden Hills - Old Towne areas. Upgrade road circulation in and around Tehachapi. Reduce the travel time and con gestion between Stallion Springs and Be ar Valley Springs areas to San Joaquin Valley transportation routes. Upgrade emergency access to Sand Canyon, Bear Valle y Spri ngs, and St allion Sp rings developments.
c. Policies 1.
Kern County a nd California Dep artment of T ransportation (Ca ltrans) should e valuate feasibility of extending State Route 202 through Cummings Valley to provide better access to the Stallion Springs Phases I through III.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
13
2. 3. 4. 5.
6.
7.
d. Im
Caltrans should widen existing State Route 202 to four lanes. See Overall Implementation of the Highway Plan. The Red Ap ple Road al ignment s hould b e a fo cus fo r i mplementation a s an al ternative means to relieve traffic congestion on State Route 202. Improve access to the Sand Canyon area. The County shou ld monitor development a pplications as t hey relate t o traf fic g eneration developed f or t his plan. I f t raffic res ulting from projects such as Ge neral Plan amendment(s) would exceed current volume to capacity projections, mitigation is required if development cause s ro adways t o fa ll bel ow LOS D and LOS C for Calt rans ro adways. Utilization of the CEQA process would hel p iden tify al ternatives to, or mitigation for suc h developments. Mitigation coul d in volve a mending t he Land Us e, Open Space and Conservation Element to establish jobs - housing balance. This is triggered if projected trips in a ny t raffic zon e e xceed trips i dentified for t his Circulation Element. Mi tigation could involve exactions to build of f-site tra nsportation f acilities. These e nhancements would reduce traffic congestion impacts. Kern County should not allow new roads that serve low-density parcels to have unpaved surfaces. Any road capable of or now serving fifty average daily traffic trips or more should be paved. Support City of Te hachapi to p rovide a ne w interchange at State Route 58 and Dennison Road. plementation Measures
A. B. C.
Survey a Specific Pl an Line for the State Route 202 extension through Cummings Valley between the State Prison and into the Stallion Springs development. Develop a funding plan for these routes that would consider benefit assessment districts. Require exactions from new development in the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element Tehachapi Priority Area to apply to i mprovements and expansion of State Route 58, e .g. pas sing l anes, High Occupancy Vehicles lan es, a dditional c apacity an d saf ety projects.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
14
3
OTHER REGULATORY STANDARDS
The GTASP study area is affected not only by the various policies of Kern County, but also by the policies of other j urisdictions and regi onal planning a gencies. The disc ussion below d escribes ot her related criteria, planning efforts, programs, and policies that have an effect on the GTASP circulation system.
3.1
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCM)
The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 20 00), prepar ed by the f ederal Transportation Research Board (TRB), is the re sult of a co llaborative multi-agency effort between the TRB, Federal Highwa y Administration (FHWA) and American Asso ciation of St ate Route and Transp ortation Officials (AASHTO). The HCM 2000 contains concepts, guidelines, and computational procedures for computing the capacity and quality of service of various h ighway facilities, including freeways, signa lized and unsignalized intersectio ns, and rural highways, and the effects of tran sit systems, pedestrian s, and bicycles on the performance of these systems.
3.2
KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (KERNCOG) REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP)
The Regional Transportation Plan is a 24-year blueprint that establishes a set of regional transportation goals, obje ctives, policies and a ctions intend ed to guide developme nt of the planned multimodal transportation systems in Kern County. It wa s developed through a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative planning process, and provides for effective coordination between local, regional, state and federal agencies. The RTP which includes a C ongestion Management Program (CMP) is designed to ensure that a balanced t ransportation system is developed, relating popu lation and tr affic growth, land use decisio ns, performance stand ards and air quality improvements. T he Kern County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) identifies two regionally significant roadways within GTASP project study area; 1. State Route 58 (Rosedale Highway/Mojave Freeway) 2. State Route 202 (Cummings Valley Road) The RTP defines LOS E as th e minimum system wide LOS traffic standard in the Kern County Congestion Management Plan. In addition to the LOS standards of the Congestion Management Program, th e City of Tehachapi and the County of Kern ha ve adopted policie s to h elp maintain their own LOS s tandards. In most case s, these lo cal policies are aimed at maintaining LOS C. These standards are not intended to replace local policies by allowing greater congestion ; they serve a ver y different purpose. The locally adopted LOS sta ndards are tied to the City's and Co unty's authority to approve or deny development, require mitigation measures, and construct roadway improvements. The LOS standard is a planning tool to be used in the development review process.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
15
KernCOG i s responsib le for developing, coor dinating, monitoring an d updating the RTP for Kern County. KernCOG deve lops the RTP in coordination with the eleven cities of Ker n County a nd the County of Kern, transit operators, and other transportation stakeholders.
3.3
SB 375 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGIES
On Sep tember 3 0, 2008, t he Sta te of California up dated its lan d u se policies to focus o n a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the regional transportation plan for each metropolitan area. SCS is intended as a wa y to re ach the goals of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act passed in 2006, which requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. SCS is generally de fined as a development pattern th at mee ts the stat e ta rget for re ducing GHG emissions, while taking into account the region's housing needs, transportation demands, and protection of resource lands.
3.4
AB 1358 CALIFORNIA COMPLETE STREETS ACT OF 2008
Assembly Bill 1358, better known as the California Complete Streets Act of 20 08 (Complete Streets Act), requires th at, upon any subs tantive re vision of t he Ge neral Pla n’s Ci rculation Ele ment, th e community’s circulation plan be modified to plan for a balanced, multimodal circulation system. The new circulation plan must be designed to meet the needs of all users of area roadways, defined to include motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of pub lic transportation. A range of actions may be taken to encourage the use of multiple modes of transportation and comply with state requ irements. Th e GTASP Circu lation El ement inc orporates g oals, pol icies, and i mplementation measures that address the complete streets act’s requirements.
3.5
TEHACHAPI – CUMMINGS VALLEY FEE PROGRAM
To maintain a Le vel of Service C o r better f or new g rowth or to p revent t he d egradation o f roa ds, Ke rn County h as adopted the Teh achapi – Cu mmings Va lley Transportation I mpact F ee. The fee p rogram consists of an ordin ance to implement the fee on ne w de velopment a nd a Res olution ad opting th e Regional T ransportation Faci lities List a nd a T ransportation I mpact Fee Sch edule. The T ransportation Impact Fee pays for the construction of both regional and local fac ilities that are required to maintain a LOS C for the Tehachapi Region and Tehachapi Region Core area transportation system. The Tehachapi – Cummings Valley Fee program identifies improvement on segments of the following roadways. • Be ar Valley Road • Cummings Valley Road
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
16
• De nnison Road • H ighline Road • Red Apple Road • T ehachapi Boulevard • Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road • Tucker Road (SR 202) • Valley Boulevard (SR 202) • W estwood Boulevard • Woo dford-Tehachapi Road
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
17
4
METHODOLOGY
4.1
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The c urrent technical g uide t o th e e valuation o f t raffic op erations is the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (T ransportation Re search Board Sp ecial Report 209). The HCM def ines le vel of se rvice as a qualitative measure which d escribes operational conditions within a t raffic strea m, g enerally in te rms of such factors as sp eed an d t ravel ti me, f reedom t o maneuver, traffic in terruptions, co mfort a nd convenience, and safety. T he criteria used to evaluate LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. Percent LOS
Example
Flow Conditions ge travel sp
eeds.
Vehicles are compl etely unimpeded in their ab ility to maneuver within the traffic str eam. Control delay at sig nalized
90
intersections is normal. Reasonably unimpeded o perations at av erage trave l sp eeds. Vehicles are compl etely unimpeded in their ab ility to
B
maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized
70
intersections is minimal. Stable C
operations; however, ability to ma neuver and cha nge
lanes in midblock locations
may be more restricted than at
LOS “B” an d l onger q ueues, advers e si gnal co ordination, or
50
both may contribute to lower average travel speeds. Small incr eases in flo w m ay cause substa ntial incr eases in D
delay and decreases in travel speed. Ma y be due to adverse signal pro gression, in appropriate sig nal timi ng, hig h vol umes,
40
or a combination of these factors. Significant d elays c aused b y a combi nation of a E
dverse
progression, high sig nal de nsity, hi gh vo lumes, e xtensive
33
delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. Extremely lo w spee ds. Intersection c ongestion is l ikely at F
free
flow speeds (FFS)
Primarily fre e-flow o perations at avera A
of
critical signalized locati ons, w ith hig h del ays, hig h volumes, and extensive queuing. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
18
25
The roadway segment capacities are suitable for planning purposes, but they are not precise measures of capacity. The ultimate capacity of a roadway is based upon a number of factors. These factors include th e relationships between peak hour and daily tr affic volumes, the road way design features (access spacing, intersection geometries, etc.), and the proportions and amount of traffic turning at key intersections (along wit h the amount of traffic crossing t he roadway, or turning onto or off of the roadway at intersecting roadways).
4.2
KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (KERNCOG) TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL
KernCOG maintains a regional travel demand forecast model for the Kern region. The model is used to forecast the demand for future transportation infrastructure by predicting future travel patterns based on such factor s as loca lly approved general plan l and use entitlements, input f rom local planning departments on so cio-economic growth areas, a nd state and federal da ta sources. Some of the socioeconomic f orecast in put variables include po pulation, ho useholds, e mployment, school enr ollment, income, traffic count s, speeds, intersection configuration, as well as the existing and planned transportation networks. The traffic network is built to represent the existing street system. The Kern2006 Model network is based on the Kern Geographic Information Network (Kern GEONET) and includes most streets within the study area classified as “minor collector” or higher by the function classification system. Network att ributes re quired fo r each link incl ude roa dway type, link type, area type, nu mber of t hrough lanes, volume of truck traffic, free flow speeds, traffic counts, and hourly capacity. The model is driven by the relationship between land use activities and characteristics to transportation network. The GTASP project stud y area is represented b y 63 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) within the KernCOG travel dema nd model as shown on Exhibit 5. While the T AZ boundaries are not contiguous w ith the specific pla n communities, the lon g-range 2035 residential land use contained within the model is generally consistent with the expected 2% annual growth rate. Extrapolating the 2030 GTASP land use assumptions to 2035 conditions using the same 2% annual growth rate provides an estimate of 14,942 dwelling units for 2035 conditions. A comparison of the 2035 KernCOG model and the GTASP land use assumptions show s that the 14,942 dwelling units expected at 2035 conditions (using t he 2% annual gro wth rate) are adequatel y represented by 14,371 dwelling units in the traffic model, a 4% difference. Exhibit 6 shows the KernCOG 2035 travel model network structure. Ea ch roadway segment or link on the network is def ined based on characteristics such as facility type, number of lanes, one-way or twoway, s peed, an d ca pacity. Centroid con nectors (co nnections to the st reet system from zo nes wh ich represent a combination of driveways and o ther local streets) are i ncluded for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). Each centroid connector is coded explicitly as such to prohibit through travel on these local access roads / driveways.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
19
EXHIBIT 5
KERN COG TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES (TAZ) LEGEND: White White Wolf Wolf 701
951
720
720
TAZ BOUNDARY GREATER TEHACHAPI SP BOUNDARY
713 Keene Keene Rural Rural Community Community
771
Keene Keene Ranch Ranch
1049
Bear Bear Valley Valley Springs Springs
707
770
Sand Sand Canyon Canyon
714
Stallion Stallion Springs Springs (Phase (Phase III) III)
Golden Golden Hills Hills
GTASP bndy North North Cummings Cummings Valley Valley
Stallion Stallion Springs Springs (Phase (Phase II) II)
699
698
702
1647
Tamaron Tamaron 777
City of Tehachapi (CCI)
Commanche Commanche
954
557
772
463 703
533City
of Tehachapi 539 538
16491646 530 1650 1648
1645 1639 Monolith 545 1643 549 Monolith 1629 697 1633704 1637 Old Old Towne Towne 1635 1636 531 520 1638 529 1642 799 1688 1628 1630 1632 1634 Mendiburu 1640 Mendiburu Springs Springs 1631 1641 Mackenzie Mackenzie 1644 779
835
1626
Stallion Stallion Springs Springs Tract Tract 4286 4286 495 Tejon Tejon Hills Hills
778
1050 Cummings Cummings Ranch Ranch
834
Cameron Cameron Canyon Canyon
Cummings Cummings Peak Peak
Tejon Tejon Canyon Canyon Resort Resort
deleted SE area
700
Tejon Tejon Creek Creek No. No. 22 Tejon Tejon Canyon Canyon North North Tejon Tejon Creek Creek No. No. 11
Tejon Tejon Canyon Canyon South South 832 Soledad Soledad Mtn. Mtn. -- Elephant Elephant Butte Butte
Tunis Tunis Ridge Ridge Tunis Tunis Creek Creek
Cottonwood Cottonwood
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan Traffic Analysis City of Tehachapi, CA (JN - 05176:10_TazBoundary.mxd)
20
EXHIBIT 6
KERN COG MODEL ROADWAY NETWORK FEATURES LEGEND:
FREEWAY MAJOR ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL COLLECTOR CENTROID CONNECTOR
707
RAMP 714
702
714
CHALLENGER DR
798
DENNISON
VALLEY BL 537 797 1639
536
FIG
ABAJO 1635
HIGHLINE RD
1636
531
520
HIGHLINE RD
CHEYENNE
463
SR
1643
545
58 1645 549
1642
529
HARRIS
779
DANFORD
STEUBER
DENNISON
1050 495 778 834
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan Traffic Analysis City of Tehachapi, CA (JN - 05176:09_2035Model.mxd)
21
SR5 8 1688
799
HIGHLINE RD
1644
TEHACH API BLV D
ABAJO
ABAJO
HIGHLINE RD
1641
1640
1638
DENNISON
1634
TUCKER RD
1631
COUNTRY OAKS
DESCANSO
OAK PASS
777
1632
1637
544
539 TEHACH API BLV D 538 VALLEY BL
TURF
704
542 543
557
TURF
1633
H St
WYMAN
20 2 1630
540
532
1629 ABAJO 1628
530
VALLEY BL 697
SR
699
1646
H BEEC
SR 22
GIRAUDO
1649
535
541
APACHE
1650
534
SUMMIT
1648
533
2 SR 2
SR 22
703
Mill
1647
TEHACHAPI WILLOW SPRINGS
772
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ)
Since the K ernCOG model is used primarily to esti mate regional air quality impacts and is not suitable for focused traffic forecasting exercises, the raw traffic forecasts must be refined, to provide reasonable forecasts.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
22
5
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE – CEQA AND OTHER
To assess traffic operations, each roadway segment has been assigned a Level of Service (LOS) grade. Generally, LOS A represents free flow traffic conditions with little if any congestion. LOS E indicates that the roadway is at capacity and vehicles encounter congestion. County of Kern General Plan has identified L OS D as th e minimu m traffic level to be considered acceptable for County maintained road facilities. The City of Tehachapi has design ated LOS C as the minimum acceptable LOS standard for City facilities. However, the City Council may cons ider spe cial circumstances whe re LOS D may be acceptable f or street se gments or intersection s where residences are not directly impacted and the improvements required to meet the City LOS C standard are determined to be cost pro hibitive, disruptive or not feasible. Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C a nd LOS D on State Route facilities. The ap propriate LOS criteria will be applied for each roadway segment based on the jurisdiction each facility is located within. The KernCOG RTP d efines LOS E as th e minimum system wide LOS traffic standard in the Kern County Congestion Management Plan.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
23
6
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This s ection of t he rep ort e xplores t he ch aracteristics o f th e e xisting circulation n etwork, prese nts t he existing a verage daily t raffic volumes, the e xisting ope rations analysis, d escribes t he transit s ervice an d the truck routes.
6.1
EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
The existing circulation network within the Gre ater Tehachapi area consists of a n etwork of city streets and rural county roads. T he existing roadway segments in The Greater Tehachapi area generally have two or fo ur total travel lanes and do not have raised medians. Exhibit 7 pre sents the number of t hrough travel lanes for existing roadways, and the traffic control devices for existing intersections within the study area. Existing roadways that provide circulation in the vicinity of the study area include State Route 58, State Route 202, Cummings Valley Boulevard, Highline Road, T ucker Road, Curry Stre et, Denniso n Road, Steuber Road, Tehach api Willow Springs Road, Cummings Valley Road, Banducci Road, Giraudo Road, and Bear Valley Road. No roadways within the GTASP study area are considered as a scenic route corridor. vide for interre gional and interstate travel. Th e route State Rout e 58 (SR-58) serves to pro accommodates significant volumes of heavy trucks travelin g between central and southern Cali fornia. In 2007 hea vy truck traffic represent ed approximately 34% o f the total tr affic on SR-58. This fo ur-lane divided freeway traverses the entire county and is oriented in an east-west manner. SR-58 also serves as an alternative route to and from the Central Valley when the Interstate 5 (I-5) Freeway is closed due to weather or an accid ent. Currently, the existing average daily traffic (ADT) on SR-58 in the Greater Tehachapi area is approximately 2 3,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Withi n the Great er Tehachapi Area, SR-58 contains inter changes at Sa nd Canyon Road, East Tehachapi Boulevard, North Mill Street and State Route 202. A fut ure intercha nge is plan ned at Den nison Road, which is currently an undercrossing. State Route 202 (SR-202) also known as Cummings Valle y Boulevard for a portio n of the rout e, is an arterial that generally ru ns in an ea st-west dire ction. This heavily used facility co ntains two and four lane sections and run s from the California Correctional Instit ution to SR-58. Portion s of t his route are located with in the Coun ty of Kern and the City of Tehacha pi. On a p ortion of the roadway between Woodford/Tehachapi Road and Tucker Road, SR-202 ope rates as an enhanced two-lane collector with a two-way turn lane a cting as th e median and adequat e space to provide for accelerat ion and deceleration lanes that serve local businesse s. The existing ADT on SR-202 ranges from 2,500 in the Cummings Valley of Ke rn County to 15,000 in the City of Tehachapi between Go lden Hills Boulevard and Tucker Road.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
24
25
Cummings Valley Boul evard is classified as a n east-west Arterial facility that travels between Tucker Road and Dennison Road that contains two and four lane sections. Cumming s Valley Bo ulevard provides access to residential neighborhoods and commercial and retail land uses. Highline Road is a two lane road that is located in southern Tehachapi. This east-west facility p rovides relief to the SR-202 corridor by “cat ching” trips that are traveling to/from the Cummings Valley/SR-5 8 sub-areas. This facility currently serves residential and agricultural land uses. Truck Routes Tucker Road is a key f our lane arterial that extends north from Highline Road Ave nue in the City o f Tehachapi to Tehachapi Boulevard and as a two l ane collector between Tehachapi Boulevard and SR58. An interchange is located at SR-58/Tucker Road. Tucker Road is the first major roadway that vehicles tra vels when entering the City of Tehac hapi. Tu cker Road primarily serves commercial and retail type developments to the north and residences to the south in the City of Tehachapi. Curry Stree t is a two lane north-south street located in t he downtown central core of the City of Tehachapi. The limits of Curry Street are fro m Highline Road to Te hachapi Boulevard. Curry Street serves the downtown district to the north and a combination of commercial, residential, and institutional uses to the south. Dennison Road is a two lane north-south roadway that is located in eastern Tehach api. Within the city limits, Dennison Road extends from Highline Road to SR-58. Industrial land uses are found along Dennison Road near SR-58. Steuber Ro ad is also a two lane n orth-south road located in eastern Tehachapi. The limits of this roadway ext end from Highline Road to SR-58. In addit ion, industria l a nd agricultu ral utilize St euber Road. Tehachapi Willow Springs Road is a regional north/south roadway mostly within the County of Kern that connects the City of Tehachapi with the communities of Willow Springs and Rosamond in southeastern County of Kern. This two lane road acts as a cut-off alternative for locals who wish to avoid SR-58 and State Route 14 to travel between these two regions . Wind mill farms and other agricultural u ses are found adjacent to Tehachapi Willow Springs Road. Cummings Valley Road, Banducci Road, Giraudo Road, and Bear Valley Road in the Cummings Valley and Bear Valley areas are two lane roads that serve local residents. These rural mountain roads eventually fl ow toward SR-202 and Highline Road, w here residents travel for local services and work day commuting.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
26
6.2
EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Exhibit 8 depicts the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the study area. Existing ADT volumes are ba sed u pon the 2 007 traf fic c ount d ata co llected t he County of Kern Roads De partment. Recent 2008 count s sugge st t hat traffic in the proje ct study area has de clined as a result of the e conomic conditions experienced throughout t he region. Since the 2 007 existing traffic coun ts are great er than those obser ved in 2008, the 2007 counts wer e used to describe th e existing conditions. Existing roadway segm ent count d ata she ets ar e in cluded in Appendix "A" of this re port. Average da ily t raffic counts on State Route 58 and State Route 202 were collected from the 2007 traffic counts published by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Traffic Data Branch.
6.3
EXISTING OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
To assess the existing roadway segment conditions throughout the Greater Tehachapi area a total of forty (40) r oadway s egment c ount l ocations w ere identified a s s hown on E xhibit 8 . The GTASP existing conditions o perations a nalysis are based on the existing 24-hour Average Daily Traffic (ADT), the roadway segment capacities and t he LOS thresholds for each facility type. The roadway segment capacities are suitable for planning purposes, but they are not precise measures of capacity. The ultimate ca pacity of a roadway is based up on a number of factor s. These factors in clude the relationships between peak hour and daily tr affic volumes, the roa dway design features (access spacing, int ersection g eometries, etc.), and the proportions and amount of traffic turning at key intersections (along wit h the amount of traffic crossing t he roadway, or turning onto or off of the roadway at intersecting roadways). Table 1 presents the County of Kern has roadway segment capacities and LOS thresholds for each facility type using the tables published by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The Florida Tables have be en adopted b y the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) as the a nalysis meth odology fo r assessing LOS for roadway segments. T able 2 presents a summary of the existing study area roadway segments, the facility type, the average daily traffic volumes, the LOS roadway capacity, and the resulting LOS. The existing conditions daily roadway segment operations analysis indicates that out of the 40 study area roadway segments: • •
38 roadway segments operate at LOS A conditions. 2 roadway segments operate at LOS B conditions.
The existin g condition s LOS analysis indica tes that al l of the stud y area roadway segments will maintain the acceptable Kern County LOS C or better conditions.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
27
28
Table 1 Roadway Level of Service Threshold Volumes 1 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) in Both Directions
Facility Type2
LOS A
LOS B
LOS C
LOS D
LOS E
6-Lane Freeway
6F
67,500
78,750
90,000
101,250
112,500
4-Lane Freeway
4F
45,000
52,500
60,000
67,500
75,000
6-Lane Arterial
6D
36,000
42,000
48,000
54,000
60,000
4-Lane Arterial
4D
24,000
28,000
32,000
36,000
40,000
4U
18,000
21,000
24,000
27,000
30,000
2-Lane Collector (Enhanced)
2E
13,500
15,750
18,000
20,250
22,500
2-Lane Collector
2U
9,000
10,500
12,000
13,500
15,000
Roadway Type
4-Lane Collector 3
1
Source: Based on the KernCOG's currently adopted Level of Service (LOS) methodology for roadway segments.
2
Represents number of lanes followed by the Facility Type: F - Freeway; D - Divided; U - Undivided; E - Enhanced.
3
Source: Greater Tehachapi Area Circulation Study prepared by Omni-Means, LTD. August 2004.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN: 05176-08)
29
Table 2 Existing Roadway Level of Service Existing Roadway Facility Type1
Location
Roadway
Level of Service "C" Capacity
Average Daily Traffic2
Level of Service3
Backes Lane
North of Highline Road
2U
12,000
1,000
A
Banducci Road
West of Pelliser Road
2U
12,000
3,400
A
East of Pelliser Road
2U
12,000
3,400
A
West of Highline Road
2U
12,000
3,500
A
Bear Valley Road
North of Cummings Valley Road
2U
12,000
7,300
A
Cherry Lane
West of Tucker Road
2U
12,000
600
A
Cummings Valley Road
West of Bear Valley Road
2U
12,000
3,100
A
East of Bear Valley Road
2U
12,000
8,100
A
Dennison Road
North of Highline Road
2U
12,000
1,000
A
Giraudo Road
West of Pelliser Road
2U
12,000
500
A
Golden Hills Boulevard
North of State Route 202
4U
24,000
14,700
A
East of Woodford Tehachapi Road
2U
12,000
5,800
A
East of Banducci Road
2U
12,000
4,800
A
West of Water Canyon Road
2U
12,000
5,000
A
West of Tehachapi Willow Springs Road
2U
12,000
3,000
A
South of Jeffrey Road
2U
12,000
700
A
South of Woodford Tehachapi Road
2U
12,000
3,400
A
Pelliser Road
South of Giraudo Street
2U
12,000
1,700
A
Schout Road
East of State Route 202
2U
12,000
1,000
A
Steuber Road
North of Highline Road
2U
12,000
500
A
Tehachapi Boulevard
West of Tehachapi Willow Springs Road
2U
12,000
4,100
A
West of Sand Canyon Road
2U
12,000
1,100
A
South of Highline Road
2U
12,000
4,200
A
South of Tehachapi Boulevard
2U
12,000
2,800
A
Tucker Road
North of Highline Road
2U
12,000
4,200
A
Westwood Boulevard
North of Golden Hills Boulevard
2U
12,000
5,400
A
East of Woodford Tehachapi Road
2U
12,000
1,300
A
South of State Route 202
2U
12,000
4,000
A
North of State Route 202
2U
12,000
5,000
A
North of State Route 58
2U
12,000
600
A
Highline Road
Old Town Road
Tehachapi Willow Springs Road
Woodford Tehachapi Road
___________________________________________________________________________________________ Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN: 05176-08)
30
Table 2 Existing Roadway Level of Service
Location
Roadway State Route 58
State Route 202
Existing Roadway Facility Type1
Level of Service "C" Capacity
Average Daily Traffic2
Level of Service3
South of Bear Mountain Boulevard
4F
60,000
23,000
A
North of State Route 202
4F
60,000
22,500
A
East of State Route 202
4F
60,000
22,000
A
East of Mill Street Interchange
4F
60,000
21,000
A
North of California Correctional Institute
2E
18,000
2,500
A
North of Cummings Valley Road
2E
18,000
9,300
A
East of Old Town Road
2E
18,000
9,500
A
West of Tucker Road
2E
18,000
15,000
B
North of East Valley Boulevard
2E
18,000
15,000
B
South of State Route 58
2E
18,000
10,900
A
1
Represents number of lanes followed by the Facility Type: F - Freeway; D - Divided; U - Undivided; E - Enhanced.
2
Existing Average Daily Traffic Counts provided by Kern County.
3
Based on the Level of Service Capacities provided on Table 1.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN: 05176-08)
31
6.4
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Kern Regional Transit provides fixed-route and demand response (Dial-A-Ride) service in County of Kern. The East Kern Express provides fixed route scheduled services for the communities of Bakersfield, Keene, Tehachapi, Mo jave, Ro samond and L ancaster. U p t o eight t rips are provided M onday through F riday. Only three trips operate on Saturday. T rip duration between Tehachapi and Mojave is approximately 35 minutes, and 6 5 minutes fo r t he ro ute be tween Te hachapi and Bake rsfield. T he T ehachapi dial-a-ride system operates Monday through Friday in the Greater Tehachapi area. The dial-a-ride system is open to the general public and requires advance reservations to guarantee rides. For trips to Bakersfield, Mojave, Rosamond or Lancaster, passengers will need to transfer to the East Kern Express bus at Old Town or Kmart.
6.5
TRUCK ROUTES
The County of Kern has identified SR-58 as the primary truck route in the Greater Tehachapi area. The City of Tehachapi General Plan Circulation Element has identified the following three truck routes in the study area: • • •
6.6
Tucker Road between SR-58 and Highline Road. Tehachapi/Willow Road south of SR-58. Highline Road between the western City limits and Tehachapi/Willow Road.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
The Southern Pacific Railroad line provides a vital link across the Tehachapi Mountains with over 30 trains a day passing through the City of Tehachapi. The rail road divides the City of T ehachapi into two halves with crossing points at Green Street, Hayes Street and Dennison Road.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
32
7
SIGNIFICANCE STATUS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Based on a review of the existing conditions analysis provided in s ection 6, all of the study area roadway segments o perate at t he mi nimum acceptable L OS C or better con ditions. In ad dition, th e Gre ater Tehachapi Area Speci fic Plan will help i mplement the County of Kern General Plan Ci rculation Element goals a nd p olicies t hat i nclude: (1) reducing co ngestion in the Gol den Hi lls an d Old Towne a reas; (2) upgrading road circulation i n an d a round the Greater T ehachapi a rea; (3) redu cing the travel ti me a nd congestion between the Stallion Springs a nd Bear Valley Springs areas and to surrounding San Joaquin Valley transportation routes; and (4) upgrade emergency access to the Sand Canyon, Bear Valley Springs and Stallion Springs areas.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
33
8
LONG-RANGE 2035 FUTURE CONDITIONS
This section of the report presents the Long-Range 2035 circulation network, presents the refined future average da ily t raffic volumes, t he 2 035 op erations anal ysis, and i dentifies the i mprovements n eeded t o maintain the minimum acceptable LOS criteria.
8.1
LONG-RANGE 2035 CIRCULATION NETWORK
The Kern County Gene ral Plan Circulation Ele ment identifies the ultimate future roadway net work, b y facility type. The KernCOG tra vel demand mod el provides a computer representation of the fre eways, arterials an d collector roads identified on the General Plan Circulation Element network within the Greater Tehachapi area. While the tr avel deman d model represents the roadway networks by facility type, the capacity of the roadway segments in the model are limited by the number of lanes. This is appro priate since the 2035 circulation network is ba sed on 2 035 conditions and not full development of Gener al Plan. For 2035 conditions the travel demand model identified only one significant roadway improvement to the existing roadway circulation net work. The KernCOG 2 035 model improves St ate Route 202 between Golden Hills Boulevard and Tucker Road from a two lane enhanced facility to a four-lane facility. To ensure that the roadway segments within the GTSAP proj ect study area maintain LOS C or b etter for new growth or to prevent the degradation of roads, Kern County has developed a Regional Transportation Facilities List. Roadway Improvements described in the Tehachapi – Cummings Valley Fee Program are identified on Table 3.
8.2
LONG-RANGE 2035 FUTURE CONDITIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Exhibit 9 depicts the 2035 refined average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the GTASP project study area. The long-ra nge 2035 average daily traffic volumes were developed using the (KernCOG) travel demand mo del forecast s for the Te hachapi Sp ecific p lan area. Since the KernCOG model is used primarily to estimate regional air quality impacts and is not suitable for focuse d traffic for ecasting exercises, the raw traffic forecasts were refined, to provide reasonable forecasts. While the GTASP land use assumptions included in the KernCOG model reflect a 2% annual growth rate, the fut ure forecast s on ind ividual roadway segments may not fully account for existing traffic conditions or future development. To ensure that tra ffic model forecasts provide growth over existing conditions, all future raw average daily traffic model forecasts were refined. The 2035 refined average daily traffic forecasts were calculated using the existing traffic counts plus the difference b etween the existing and 2035 Kern COG traffic model forecasts. This approach uses the
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
34
Table 3 Tehachapi - Cummings Valley Fee Program Roadway Improvements Segement Limits
Roadway
From
To
Improvement
Bear Valley Rd
Bear Valley Entr
Cummings Valley Rd
Add 2 lanes to Collector
Cummings Valley Rd
Bear Valley Rd
Valley Blvd (SH 202)
Add 2 lanes to Collector
Dennison Rd
SH 58
Tehachapi Blvd
Add 2 lanes to Collector
EB 58 Off Ramp
Roadway Taper
Tehachapi Blvd
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
EB 58 Off Ramp
Roadway Taper
Tucker Road (SH 202)
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Highline Road
Banducci
Tucker Road
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Highline Road
Tucker Road
Tehachapi-Willow Springs
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Red Apple Rd
Westwood Blvd
Tucker Road (SH 202)
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Tehachapi Blvd
Tucker Road (SH 202)
Mulberry Str
Add 2 lanes to Collector
Tehachapi Blvd
Hayes
Dennison Rd
Add 2 lanes to Collector
Tehachapi Blvd
Dennison Rd
Tehachapi-Willow Springs
Add 2 lanes to Collector
Tehachapi-Willow Springs
Tehachapi Blvd
Highline
Add 2 lanes to Collector
Tehachapi-Willow Springs
Highline
2-Lane Taper
Add 2 lanes to Collector
Tucker Road (SH 202)
EB 58 Off Ramp
Red Apple Rd
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Tucker Road
Cherry Lane
Highline Road
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Valley Blvd (SH 202)
Cummings Valley Rd (west)
Old Town Rd
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Valley Blvd (SH 202)
Old Town Road
Woodford-Teh Road
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Valley Blvd (SH 202)
Woodford-Teh Road
Golden Hills Blvd
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Valley Blvd (SH 202)
Golden Hills Blvd
Sierra Vista
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Valley Blvd (SH 202)
Sierra Vista
Tucker Road
Add 2 lanes to Arterial
Valley Blvd
Tucker Road
Dennison Rd
Add 2 lanes to Collector
Woodford-Teh Road
Country Club Dr
Valley Blvd (SH 202)
Add 2 lanes to Collector
1
The roadway improvements identified on this list were used to develop the preliminary fee structure.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN: 05176-08)
35
36
observed growth in the model forecasts in combination with the existin g traffic counts to est imate the future 2035 refined ADT’s. To ensure that the model provides adequate growth fo r all the study area roadway segments, all future ADT volumes reflect a minimum 10% growth over the existin g traffic conditions. Table 4 pro vides a summary of the 2035 Refined Future Average Daily Traffic Fore casts that are also shown on Exhibit 9.
8.3
LONG-RANGE 2035 FUTURE OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Table 5 presents a summary of the Long-Range 2035 study area roadway segments, the facility type, the average daily traffic volumes, the LOS roadway c apacity, and the res ulting LOS. B ased on the refined long-range 2035 avera ge daily traf fic volumes, the r oadway segment analysis indicates that out of the total 40 study area roadway segments: • • • • • •
31 roadway segments operate at LOS A conditions. 4 roadway segments operate at LOS B conditions. 2 roadway segments operate at LOS C conditions. 1 roadway segment operates at LOS D conditions. 1 roadway segment operates at LOS E conditions. 1 roadway segment operates at LOS F conditions.
The long-range 2035 conditions LOS analysis indica tes that the fo llowing three ro adway segments will not maintain the acceptable Kern County LOS C or better criteria with the existing lane capacity: • • •
Tehachapi Willow Springs Road South of Highline Road State Route 202 West of Tucker Road State Route 202 North of East Valley Boulevard
Additional roadway capacity is needed to satisfy the expected long-range 2035 traffic demand for these three roadway segme nts to maintain the a cceptable Kern County LOS C or better conditions. However, State Route 202 will operate at acceptable LOS E or b etter conditi ons based on the KernCOG RTP CMP roadway se gment LOS criteria. All of three roadway se gments that require additional roadway capacity for 2035 conditions are included in the T ehachapi – Cummings Valley Fee Program.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
37
38
West of Bear Valley Road
North of Highline Road
North of State Route 202
East of Banducci Road
Dennison Road
Golden Hills Boulevard
Highline Road
5,100
5,000
West of Water Canyon Road
North of Highline Road
Steuber Road
West of Sand Canyon Road
West of Tehachapi Willow Springs Road
County of Kern, CA (JN: 05176-08)
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis
Tehachapi Boulevard
East of State Route 202
South of Giraudo Street
Pelliser Road
600
1,800 1,100
4,100
1,200
400 500
1,000
-
-
1,700
3,400
South of Woodford Tehachapi Road
-
4,500
3,900
700
3,000
West of Tehachapi Willow Springs Road
4,800
4,000 1,000
14,700 5,800
900
East of Woodford Tehachapi Road
1,000 -
South of Jeffrey Road
Schout Road
-
1,500
8,100
3,100
2,400
8,700
600
7,300
3,500
500
West of Pelliser Road
Old Town Road
Giraudo Road
East of Bear Valley Road
West of Tucker Road
Cummings Valley Road
Cherry Lane
North of Cummings Valley Road
West of Highline Road
5,000
3,900
5,100
3,400
3,400
East of Pelliser Road
West of Pelliser Road
100
1,000
2006 100
1,200
5,400
1,100
600
-
-
-
12,400
9,900
8,100
1,600
6,200
-
1,900
-
3,600
3,200
13,100
7,100
5,300
6,500
2035
KernCOG Model
North of Highline Road
Location
Bear Valley Road
Banducci Road
Backes Lane
Roadway
Existing Average Daily Traffic -
600
3,600
(100)
200
-
-
-
7,900
4,800
4,200
600
2,200
-
1,000
-
2,100
800
4,400
2,100
1,400
1,400
Model Growth1
2035 Refined Future Average Daily Traffic Forecast
Table 4
110
410
50
100
170
340
70
300
500
480
580
1,470
50
100
810
310
60
730
350
340
340
100
10% Minimum Growth2
600
3,600
50
200
170
340
70
7,900
4,800
4,200
600
2,200
50
1,000
810
2,100
800
4,400
2,100
1,400
1,400
100
1,700
7,700
600
1,200
1,900
3,700
800
10,900
9,800
9,000
6,400
16,900
600
2,000
8,900
5,200
1,400
11,700
5,600
4,800
4,800
1,100
Calculated Refined 3 Growth Future ADT4
39
Location
22,000
9,400
Increase in model growth from 2006 to 2035 or a 10% increase in traffic volume whichever is greater.
Refined Future ADT = (Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT)) + (Calculated Growth) Rounded to the nearest 100's.
4
County of Kern, CA (JN: 05176-08)
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis
Represents the 10% Growth in the Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
12,500
12,600
19,600
3
8,100
8,200
12,700
Model growth from 2006 to 2035 conditions.
10,900
15,000
15,000
14,900
14,900
-
40,600
42,500
39,500
38,300
500
2,700
500
6,300
2
South of State Route 58
North of East Valley Boulevard
West of Tucker Road
9,400
9,500
9,300
East of Old Town Road
North of Cummings Valley Road
-
15,600
2,500
21,000
15,800
16,300
16,400
1,000
North of California Correctional Institute
East of Mill Street Interchange
22,500
East of State Route 202
North of State Route 202
23,000
South of Bear Mountain Boulevard
600
1,500
300
3,000
1,900
1,300
5,000
16,900
2035
4,400
4,400
6,900
5,500
5,500
-
25,000
26,700
23,200
21,900
(500)
1,200
200
3,300
100
500
3,500
11,200
Model Growth1
1
State Route 202
State Route 58
North of State Route 58
5,000
4,000
North of State Route 202
South of State Route 202
Woodford Tehachapi Road
1,300
5,400
1,800
800
1,500
4,200
2,800
5,700
2006
KernCOG Model
4,200
East of Woodford Tehachapi Road
North of Golden Hills Boulevard
North of Highline Road
Westwood Boulevard
Tucker Road
South of Tehachapi Boulevard
Tehachapi Willow Springs Road South of Highline Road
Roadway
Existing Average Daily Traffic
2035 Refined Future Average Daily Traffic Forecast
Table 4
1,090
1,500
1,500
950
930
250
2,100
2,200
2,250
2,300
60
500
400
130
540
420
280
420
10% Minimum Growth2
4,400
4,400
6,900
5,500
5,500
250
25,000
26,700
23,200
21,900
60
1,200
400
3,300
540
500
3,500
11,200
15,300
19,400
21,900
15,000
14,800
2,800
46,000
48,700
45,700
44,900
700
6,200
4,400
4,600
5,900
4,700
6,300
15,400
Calculated Refined 3 Growth Future ADT4
Table 5 Long-Range Roadway Segment Level of Service Existing Roadway Facility Type1
Location
Roadway
Level of Service "C" Capacity
Refined 2035 Average Daily Traffic2
Level of Service3
Backes Lane
North of Highline Road
2U
12,000
1,100
A
Banducci Road
West of Pelliser Road
2U
12,000
4,800
A
East of Pelliser Road
2U
12,000
4,800
A
West of Highline Road
2U
12,000
5,600
A
Bear Valley Road
North of Cummings Valley Road
2U
12,000
11,700
C
Cherry Lane
West of Tucker Road
2U
12,000
1,400
A
Cummings Valley Road
West of Bear Valley Road
2U
12,000
5,200
A
East of Bear Valley Road
2U
12,000
8,900
A
Dennison Road
North of Highline Road
2U
12,000
2,000
A
Giraudo Road
West of Pelliser Road
2U
12,000
600
A
Golden Hills Boulevard
North of State Route 202
4U
24,000
16,900
A
East of Woodford Tehachapi Road
2U
12,000
6,400
A
East of Banducci Road
2U
12,000
9,000
A
West of Water Canyon Road
2U
12,000
9,800
B
West of Tehachapi Willow Springs Road
2U
12,000
10,900
C
South of Jeffrey Road
2U
12,000
800
A
South of Woodford Tehachapi Road
2U
12,000
3,700
A
Pelliser Road
South of Giraudo Street
2U
12,000
1,900
A
Schout Road
East of State Route 202
2U
12,000
1,200
A
Steuber Road
North of Highline Road
2U
12,000
600
A
Tehachapi Boulevard
West of Tehachapi Willow Springs Road
2U
12,000
7,700
A
West of Sand Canyon Road
2U
12,000
1,700
A
South of Highline Road
2U
12,000
15,400
F
South of Tehachapi Boulevard
2U
12,000
6,300
A
Tucker Road
North of Highline Road
2U
12,000
4,700
A
Westwood Boulevard
North of Golden Hills Boulevard
2U
12,000
5,900
A
East of Woodford Tehachapi Road
2U
12,000
4,600
A
South of State Route 202
2U
12,000
4,400
A
North of State Route 202
2U
12,000
6,200
A
North of State Route 58
2U
12,000
700
A
Highline Road
Old Town Road
Tehachapi Willow Springs Road
Woodford Tehachapi Road
___________________________________________________________________________________________ Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN: 05176-08)
40
Table 5 Long-Range Roadway Segment Level of Service
Location
Roadway State Route 58
State Route 202
Existing Roadway Facility Type1
Level of Service "C" Capacity
Refined 2035 Average Daily Traffic2
Level of Service3
South of Bear Mountain Boulevard
4F
60,000
44,900
A
North of State Route 202
4F
60,000
45,700
A
East of State Route 202
4F
60,000
48,700
A
East of Mill Street Interchange
4F
60,000
46,000
A
North of California Correctional Institute
2E
18,000
2,800
A
North of Cummings Valley Road
2E
18,000
14,800
B
East of Old Town Road
2E
18,000
15,000
B
West of Tucker Road
2E
18,000
21,900
E
North of East Valley Boulevard
2E
18,000
19,400
D
South of State Route 58
2E
18,000
15,300
B
1
Represents number of lanes followed by the Facility Type: F - Freeway; D - Divided; U - Undivided; E - Enhanced.
2
Existing Average Daily Traffic Counts provided by Kern County.
3
Based on the Level of Service Capacities provided on Table 1.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN: 05176-08)
41
9
SIGNIFICANCE STATUS OF LONG-RANGE 2035 FUTURE CONDITIONS
Based on a review of the conditions analysis provided in section 7, all of the study area roadway segments are e xpected to o perate at the minimum a cceptable L OS C or better c onditions with the i mprovements described in the Te hachapi – Cu mmings Valley Fee Pro gram. Exhibit 10 illustrates the n umber of through travel lanes for 2035 roadways identified Regional Transportation Facilities List of the Tehachapi – Cummings Valley Fee Program.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
42
43
10
GTASP FUNCTIONAL ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS
The existing functional roadway c lassifications for segments i n the GTASP were originally developed as part of Kern Co unty General Plan Circu lation El ement. W hile th e Cou nty Circulation Ele ment ha s be en updated several t imes, t he functional ro adway cl assifications in t he GTASP st udy a rea have es sentially remained c onstant with l ittle o r no updates to reflect ac tual t raffic demands or land use d evelopment patterns. To ensure the functional roadway classifications in the GTASP refl ect existing and future traffic demands, the Kern County Roads Department identified updated roadway classifications that are provided on Table 6. Exhibit 11 illustrates the modifications described on Table 6
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
44
45
46
47
11
REFERENCES
City of Tehachapi General Plan Circulation Element, City of Tehachapi, Adopted on October 18, 1999. Destination 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Draft, Kern Council of Governments, Public Review Draft March 6, 2007 – April 19, 2007. State Route 58 Transportation Concept Report, Caltrans Office of System Planning, District 6, December 2004. County of Kern General Plan Circulation Element, County of Kern Planning Department, Approved June, 2004. County of Kern Geographic Information System GIS County of Kern Development Standards, Engineering & Survey Services Department, August 1995 County of Kern Land Division Ordinance Greater Tehachapi Area Circulation Study Revised Final Report, Omni-Means, LTD, August 2004. Regional Fee Nexus Study Traffic Operations Analysis Working Paper #1, Omni-Means, LTD, KernCOG, September 2003. Tehachapi General Plan Update, City of Tehachapi Planning Department Walmart SuperCenter Initial Study, City of Tehachapi 2006 Regional Travel Demand Model, Parson, August 2009.
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report)
48
APPENDIX A EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Traffic Analysis County of Kern, CA (JN:05176-08 Report.doc)
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
A-33
