SU0004916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

School Access One of the proposed designs of Mountain House for families with school-age children is that each of the _ residential neighborhoods will have its own elementary school. In addition,all the schools have been centrally located and are bike and pedestrian accessible.Many studies have shown that the method by which the general student population gains access to a school is unique to each school. Because all the schools in the Mountain _ House community have been designed so that children can walk to school,it is expected that a large percentage of students might actually walk to school as opposed to being dropped off—especially children older than fourth grade. To ensure that more students actually feel safe walking or biking to school,the schools and parent groups(such as parent-teacher associations)can work closely to design and map recommended routes to the schools and provide safety suggestions for parents and children.Even though the recommended access routes to each school are — unique,the following general guidelines for the design of roadways near schools can be applied to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety and thereby encourage reductions in automobile trips: To improve mobility and reduce exposure for pedestrians and bicyclists,include curb extensions,chokers, pedestrian crossing islands,and raised intersections where feasible. Also include countdown or audible signal at pedestrian crossings. _ To reduce speeds of vehicles,include raised intersections,modem roundabouts,and paving treatment at strategic locations where feasible. To improve sight distance and visibility for vehicles,pedestrians and bicyclists,include paving treatments, high visibility SCHOOL and XING signs,advanced stop lines,LED pedestrian signals, and lighted crosswalks as appropriate. — 2025 Cumulative Traffic Projections As noted above,year 2025 represents the current cumulative"buildout"year for the MHMP(the MHMP EIR identified the cumulative buildout year as 2010). The projected traffic volumes for I-205 exceed the existing capacity of the freeway in some areas as anticipated by the MHMP EIR.It is likely the upstream constraints on the — network would preclude some of the forecasted volumes from actually reaching the study area.However,the forecasted volumes were treated and analyzed as though they would actually occur.Consequently,the model forecast could be considered to be conservatively high. Link Analysis for 2025 Cumulative Conditions For consistency with the MHMP EIR analysis,the link-level (i.e.,roadway-segment)peak-hour LOS was — analyzed for 25 arterial roadway sections and 12 freeway locations.The volumes for 2025 are compared to the corresponding 2010 buildout volumes for the link-level locations that were assessed in the MHMP EIR. The LOS analysis methodology used for the present analysis is somewhat different form that used for the MHMP — EIR analysis.The LOS analysis for the MHMP EBR was based on volume-to-capacity(V/C)ratios.The peak- hour link-level capacity for each travel lane assumed in the MHMP EBR was 900 vehicles per hour.The more recent Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)methodology for link-level LOS analyses for arterials(Transportation Research Board 2000)was used for the present evaluation.This methodology is based on average speed. The class type used to categorize each link is based on whether the arterial is urban or suburban;minor or major; and other factors such as the free-flow speed,signal density,and saturation flow rates. — For example,Table 4.11-12 shows that the peak-hour per-lane capacity for a major arterial with limited midblock access such as Byron Road and Grant Line Road(near Altamont Pass Road)is approximately 1,140 vehicles per — hour(vph).The two-lane peak-hour capacity is approximately 2,280 vph. On the other hand, the peak-hour EDAW College Park at Mountain House Speck Plan III Draft EIR Transportation 4.11-32 San Joaquin County