FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS
B o u l d e r B a y C o m m u n i t y E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m P r o j e c t E I S
Alternatives C and D propose different mixes of land use sizes and types, and
therefore have different internal and external Alternative mode reductions. Master
Response 3 provides additional clarification on internal and external Alternative
mode trips.
Comment 286-bf: Comment Summary - Exhibit C from Joy Dahlgren dated 24-Jan-10: The number of
Alternative mode trips for Alt. C seems to be obtained by applying the same
Alternative mode split factors as Alt A, yet the factors applied to Alt E are higher.
Internal alternate mode rates, including on-site internal capture and off-site alternate
modes, were developed specific to the type, size, and mix of the uses proposed for
each Alternative. The number of internally captured walking trips between the
project land uses was calculated by balancing the trips to correspond with the
capacity of the lower trip generating use. Further explanation of the methodology
used to calculate internal capture trips, as well as a visually representative figure, are
provided in Master Response 3.
Comment 286-bg: Comment Summary - Exhibit C from Joy Dahlgren dated 24-Jan-10: Explain how the
existing Alternative transportation opportunities and the Alternative Transportation
Plan impact the Alternative mode split for each Alternative and why different factors
are used for Alt F than the other Alternatives.
Please see response to comment 128-b.
Comment 286-bh: Comment Summary - Exhibit C from Joy Dahlgren dated 24-Jan-10: If the
Alternative Transportation Plan costs $319,000, describe how funding will be
assured.
Please see responses to comments 54 and 137-h regarding the requirements for the
project to document funding for project components and mitigation measures.
Comment 286-bi: Comment Summary - Exhibit C from Joy Dahlgren dated 24-Jan-10: Why don't the
numbers in the Mixed Use Development Trip Generation Model agree with the
numbers in the trip generation spreadsheet?
Please see response to comment 103-g.
Comment 286-bj: Comment Summary - Exhibit C from Joy Dahlgren dated 24-Jan-10: Because of the
different numbers presented, the internal capture trips, alternate trip mode trips and
external trips are not accurate.
Please see response to comment 103-g.
Comment 286-bk: Comment Summary - Exhibit C from Joy Dahlgren dated 24-Jan-10: Explain why the
numbers in Appendix W are not used in the traffic analysis.
Please see response to comment 103-g.
Comment 286-bl: Comment Summary - Exhibit C from Joy Dahlgren dated 24-Jan-10: Why are the
daily trips generated by the Tahoe Biltmore inflated three times the actual number of
trips. There is nothing to support analysis at full-capacity operations.
Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and
Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. The analysis included in the DEIS
applies the same trip generation assumptions to the existing land uses as it does to the
proposed land uses in the various Alternatives.
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 77