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