Laserfiche WebLink
Oct. B. 2008 1 ;46 PM <br /> e <br /> Mr. Jones <br /> April Z7, 2008 <br /> Page 2 <br /> conceptual 54ane conventional highway facility. <br /> 2. The traffic turning movements shown in Figure 4 for"Existing plus Approved Projects Traffic <br /> Volumes"at intersection:#3 appear to be incorrect. Referring back to Figure 3 for Existing <br /> Traffic Volumes, according to the TIS,the addition of the approved projects will decrease the <br /> east bound(EB) SR 120 left-tunas into Carrolton Road and also decrease both the right turns, and. <br /> left-turns out of southbound Carrolton Road to SR 120. Please explain how this is supported <br /> considering that the church generated traffic will be accessing the proposed new church location <br /> on Carrolton Road to the north of this intersection. <br /> Figure 4 was then used to add the Phase 1 &2 project generated traffic(Fig.5)to obtain the <br /> "Existing+Approved Projects+Project Trak Volumes"in Figure 6. Additionally,these <br /> volumes were.then used in the Traffix analysis for"EPAP plus Phase 1-2 Sunday". As a result, <br /> the base volumes entered in the Traffix analysis may be incorrect Volumes. <br /> 3. Phase 1 and 2 do not look at the required storage length of the eastbound left-turn lane. <br /> 4. Page 9—The target level of service (LOS) for the intersections on SR 120 on this facility,per <br /> Caltrans guidelines, should be LOS C,not LOS D. <br /> If you have any questions or would like to discuss our comments in more detail, please contact Kathy <br /> Selsor at(209)948-7194(e-mail! barbas kathy selso dot.ca_ ov or me at(209)941-1921. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> i�43w� v <br /> TOM DUMAS, CHIEF <br /> OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING <br /> c: SMorgan State Clearinghouse <br /> "Caltrans improved mobility across California" <br />