City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-37 June 2024
ICF 103175
The GPU FEIR concluded that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and the impact would be less than significant. State and local authorities regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. Regulations at the state level are intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The project would comply with these regulations that include, among others, AB 1493–Light-duty Vehicle Standards, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6–Energy Efficiency Standards, and California Code of Regulations Title 24.
The Roseville City Council adopted a Municipal Climate Action Plan in November 2009. The plan applied to GHG emissions from City facilities and operations (e.g., buildings, vehicle fleets, treatment plants, and other infrastructure). The City Council approved a GHG reduction goal of 22.8 percent by 2035 using various measures. The project’s construction methods are consistent with the goals and measures in the City’s Climate Action Plan.
Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
Mitigation Measures
The project would not result in any new potentially significant impacts on energy not already analyzed in the GPU FEIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are necessary.
References
City of Roseville. 2020. City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by AECOM. August 5.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-38 June 2024
ICF 103175
VII. Geology and Soils
VII. Geology and Soils
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
4) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable or that would become
unstable as a result of the project and
potentially result in an onsite or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
in areas where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Setting
The project site is level to slightly undulating. The elevation ranges between approximately 150 and 225 feet above mean sea level. The project site is in the Great Valley geomorphic province (California Geological Survey 2002). Thick sequences of alluvial (water-deposited) sediments
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-39 June 2024
ICF 103175
derived from erosion of the Sierra Nevada typify the geological formations on the east side of the Sacramento Valley, where the site is located.
The project site is underlain by the Turlock Lake Formation (map symbol Qtl) (California Geological Survey 2011), which consists of alluvial sand, silt, and gravel of arkosic composition, with minor clay interbeds. Gravel composition is heterogeneous, featuring granitic, metamorphic, volcanic and vein-quartz clasts.
The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and there are no known active faults at the project site (California Geological Survey 2019a). Therefore, the potential for surface rupture to occur at the project site is low.
The project site lies between the seismically active Coast Ranges and the historically seismically active Foothills fault zone in the Sierra Nevada. The primary seismic hazard to the project site is associated with ground shaking from more distant faults, such as the San Andreas fault and the closer Hayward fault, which have the potential for generating strong seismic shaking. USGS has estimated that there is a 72 percent probability of at least one 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake occurring that could cause widespread damage in the greater San Francisco Bay area before 2043 (U.S. Geological Survey 2016).
Other potential earthquake sources are the faults associated with the western edge of the Central Valley, defined as the Coast Range Central Valley Boundary Thrust Fault System.
Various documents define portions of this little-known system as the Midland Fault Zone or the Dunnigan Hills fault, where the 1892 Vacaville-Winters earthquake occurred (City of Roseville 2016a).
The Foothill Fault Zone, a complex series of northwest-trending faults that are related to the Sierra Nevada uplift, and whose activity also is little understood, extends from about Oroville in the north to east of Fresno in the south. Earthquakes on nearby faults in the zone can be the source of ground shaking in the greater Sacramento area. The closest potentially active faults to the project site are the Bear Mountain and Melones faults (City of Roseville 2016a). The closest recently active fault in the western Sierra Nevada foothills is the Cleveland Hills fault, about 36 miles northwest of Auburn.
No active faults are known to exist in Placer County. The following inactive faults have been identified within the City limits:
⚫ The Volcano Hill fault extends northwest from Volcano Hill for a distance of 1 mile, terminating near Eureka Road. No activity has been recorded along this fault; therefore, it is considered inactive.
⚫ Identified in 1973, the Linda Creek fault is located along Linda Creek in Roseville and Sacramento County. No activity has been recorded along this fault. ⚫ The Willows fault and Stockton fault are in the Roseville vicinity and are considered inactive as displacement occurred more than 1.8 million years ago. ⚫ An unnamed fault extends east to west between Folsom Lake and the City of Rocklin.
Segments of the fault are concealed and therefore unmapped. However, the east/west alignment suggests that the fault could connect to the Bear Mountain fault, branches of which are located beneath Folsom Lake. The Bear Mountain fault could be undergoing reactivation as a result of continental tectonic activity. However, there is no evidence of such reactivation along the unnamed fault alignment (City of Roseville 2016a).
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-40 June 2024
ICF 103175
The project site is classified as being in a low-severity earthquake shaking zone (California Geological Survey 2016). The maximum peak ground acceleration that can be expected to occur at the site based on a return period of 2 percent in 50 years is 0.317 g, where 1 g is equal to the force of gravity (California Geological Survey 2019b).
Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength as a result of seismic forces acting on water-saturated, granular soils having low cohesion. During seismic shaking, the soil behaves like a liquid, causing a reduction in its bearing strength. The potential for liquefaction is based on soil particle size and density, depth to the groundwater table, and duration and intensity of ground shaking.
Liquefaction most commonly occurs in low-lying areas of poorly consolidated to unconsolidated water-saturated sediments or similar deposits (California Geological Survey 2008). The City of Roseville is not specifically addressed in currently available State Division of Mines and Geology liquefaction risk data. That is, no determination has been made as to whether liquefaction potential exists in Roseville. However, based on project-specific analysis that has been done for many of Roseville’s development projects, liquefaction has not been identified as a significant problem in Roseville (City of Roseville 2016a).
Based on the relatively flat ground, landslides and other forms of slope instability are not expected to exist at the site.
Near-surface (i.e., approximately 60-inch-deep) soils at the project site consist of Cometa- Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes (Rogers 1980). This soil map unit poses no significant constraints to site development that cannot be overcome using conventional construction approaches and engineering design. The Cometa-Fiddyment complex characteristics include the following: well-drained, very high runoff, depth to water is 80 inches, no frequency of flooding or ponding, wind erosion hazard of 3 (soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible), and low-high shrink-swell potential.
Expansive soils are those that greatly increase in volume, or swell, when they absorb water and shrink when they dry out. Expansion may damage building foundations, concrete slabs, hardscaping, pavement, and other improvements on or near the surface. The project site has a very low plasticity index rating of 15.5 percent, which means that project site soils are not considered expansive (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019).
The eastern margin of the Central Valley is a nearly continuous series of coalescing alluvial fans, which form a continuous belt between the uplands of the Sierra Nevada and the relatively flat surface of the Central Valley floor. These deposits formed primarily during the Plio-Pleistocene by the streams that drained the adjacent uplands of the Sierra Nevada. The alluvial deposits accumulated on Central Valley alluvial fans consist of medium- to fine-grained sediment eroded from Tertiary and older volcanic, plutonic, and metamorphic rocks in the mountains to the east.
The gravel, sand, and silt that compose these alluvial fans have in the past produced significant fossils, primarily large land mammals, such as mammoths, mastodons, camels, bison, and horses. (City of Roseville 2016b).
Impact Analysis
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-41 June 2024
ICF 103175
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
The GPU FEIR concluded that because there are no fault traces either within or immediately adjacent to the Planning Area, surface fault rupture would not pose a hazard. Because the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the hazard of fault rupture at the project site is low; therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
The GPU FEIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan Update policies, compliance with the requirements of the California Building Code (CBC), and the City’s site-specific Design Review process, impacts from strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. The project site is not located in an area that is subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion and the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The GPU FEIR concluded that liquefaction would not pose a hazard for the Planning Area because the Planning Area is underlain by stable, moderately cemented to very well cemented, older Pleistocene–Eocene age rock formations; and active seismic sources are at least 30 miles away. However, a site-specific geotechnical study would be needed to characterize liquefaction potential. The geotechnical study would be required as part of the building permit process and would be prepared prior to site development to ensure that the project is appropriately designed (City of Roseville 2016b). Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
4) Landslides?
The GPU FEIR concluded that because the Planning Area does not have a history of landslides and is composed of stable geologic units that are moderately to very strongly cemented, and active seismic sources are at least 30 miles away, the impact did not need to be addressed further. Because there are no known landslides in the project area and considering the site’s relatively flat ground and limited ground-shaking potential, the hazard of a seismically induced landslide occurring at the site is very low; therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The GPU FEIR concluded that soil erosion or loss of topsoil impacts would be less than significant with compliance with existing stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations and implementation of policies in the existing General Plan and proposed General Plan Update. The soils underlying the project site have a moderate water erosion hazard. Project construction activities would entail soil disturbance over several acres. This is not expected to cause substantial accelerated soil erosion, especially because of the erosion and sediment control BMPs that must be implemented to comply with the state stormwater
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-42 June 2024
ICF 103175
General Permit for Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (see Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a more detailed discussion of BMPs and General Permit compliance).
Additionally, per Section 111-3 of the City’s Design and Construction Standards, all grading improvements shall be reinstalled in accordance with provisions in the CBC, and recommendations of site-specific geotechnical reports and geotechnical engineers.
Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Update policies, and compliance with existing laws and regulations, including Section 111 (Grading) of the City’s Design and Construction Standards related to soil testing for earthwork and backfill, which would address issues related to unstable and expansive soils by requiring new construction to prepare site-specific geotechnical reports to identify areas of unstable soil and shrink-swell potential, and to follow design specifications contained in the CBC and standard engineering practices to prevent adverse impacts associated with these limitations. Because the Turlock Lake Formation generally consists of semi-consolidated sediments and given the relatively flat land of the project site, there appear to be no unstable ground conditions present. The roadway widening and intersection improvements would be constructed consistent with the City’s Design and Construction Standards, provisions in the CBC, and recommendations of site-specific geotechnical reports. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Update policies, and compliance with existing laws and regulations, including Section 111 (Grading) of the City’s Design and Construction Standards related to soil testing for earthwork and backfill, which would address issues related to expansive soils by requiring new construction to prepare site-specific geotechnical reports to identify areas of unstable soil and shrink-swell potential, and to follow design specifications contained in the CBC and standard engineering practices to prevent adverse impacts associated with these limitations.
As described above, the project site is not located on soils with expansive qualities, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
Standard engineering practices and compliance with the CBC and the City’s Design and Construction Standards III-3 (Soil Testing and recommendations from geotechnical report) would ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level, and no mitigation is required.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The GPU FEIR concluded that because alternative wastewater treatment systems would not be used, the impact was not addressed further in the GPU FEIR. No septic tanks or
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-43 June 2024
ICF 103175
alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed for the project. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts on unique paleontological resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 because guidance would be provided to construction personnel for projects that could affect unique paleontological resources, and in the event fossil specimens are encountered during construction activities, a paleontologist would be retained to evaluate the fossil and recommend appropriate actions.
The Turlock Lake Formation, which primarily underlies the project site, is known to be sensitive for paleontological resources. Excavation work to construct the project could directly or indirectly destroy such resources or alter their stratigraphic context. The impact could be significant; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 from the GPU FEIR would reduce the impact to less than significant, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
Mitigation Measures
The project would not result in any new potentially significant impacts on geology and soils not already analyzed in the GPU FEIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are necessary.
References
California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf.
Accessed: April 11, 2022.
California Geological Survey. 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A. Available:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/webdocs/Documents/sp117.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2022.
California Geological Survey. 2011. Preliminary Geologic map of the Sacramento 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California. Scale 1:100,000. Available:
http://www.science.earthjay.com/instruction/CR_eureka/2016_spring/GEO_02/field_trips/patr icks_point/Sacramento100k_preliminary_pamphlet.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2022.
California Geological Survey. 2016. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Map-Sheets/MS_048.pdf.
Accessed: April 11, 2022.
California Geological Survey. 2019a. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.
Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed: April 11, 2022.
California Geological Survey. 2019b. Ground Motion Interpolator. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ground-motion-interpolator. Accessed: April 11, 2022.
City of Roseville. 2016a. 2016 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Prepared by Tetra Tech. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Department
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-44 June 2024
ICF 103175
s/Fire%20Dept/Emergency%20Preparedness/Multi%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan/Rose ville_FinalRevisedforSubmission_MHMP.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2022.
City of Roseville. 2016b. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. Section 4.9, Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Prepared by AES. May.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey. Web application. Available:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: April 11, 2022.
Rogers, J. H. 1980. Soil Survey of Placer County, California, Western Part. USDA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2016. Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014– 2043. Available: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2022.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-45 June 2024
ICF 103175
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Setting
The affected environment for GHGs that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed project would be similar to what is described in GPU FEIR, Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The GPU FEIR provides a discussion of climate change and global warming, primary GHG pollutants relevant to the study area and impact analyses; current GHG emissions inventories; and relevant federal, state, and local GHG regulations. The proposed project would be located entirely within the General Plan study area. The affected environment described in the GPU FEIR has not changed and is incorporated by referenced.
Impact Analysis
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The GPU FEIR determined that buildout of the General Plan would involve land use change and construction and operation of public facilities and infrastructure that would result in construction and operational GHG emissions. Additionally, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in the generation of GHG emissions at a level that may have a significant impact on the environment and conflict with state GHG emission targets adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The impact was determined to be cumulatively considerable.
Construction of the proposed project would generate emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust and employee and haul truck vehicle exhaust. Emissions were estimated using the methods described in Section III, Air Quality; the results are summarized in Table 2-4.
Please refer to Appendix B for complete construction assumptions and calculation spreadsheets.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-46 June 2024
ICF 103175
Table 2-4. Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Construction (metric tons per year)
Construction Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e1
2024 1,225 <1 <1 1,262
PCAPCD Threshold -- -- -- 10,000
Exceed Threshold? -- -- -- No
1 Refers to carbon dioxide equivalent, which includes the relative warming capacity (i.e., global warming potential) of each GHG.
CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
N2O = nitrous oxide
As shown in Table 2-4, construction of the project would generate minor amounts of GHGs.
These emissions would be short term and well below PCAPCD’s (2017) construction threshold. As such, there would be no new impact with respect to generation of construction GHG emissions.
As discussed in Section III, widening of Roseville Parkway, including associated changes in VMT and GHG emissions, was comprehensively evaluated in the GPU FEIR.
Implementation of the project would not change any of the prior analysis completed for widening of Roseville Parkway or the associated findings in the GPU FEIR. The triple left- turn lanes and intersection improvements proposed under the project were not previously evaluated in the GPU FEIR. However, these project components would not increase VMT or otherwise deteriorate traffic operations. Rather, the proposed improvements are likely to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion, contributing to a GHG benefit.
Because the effect of widening Roseville Parkway was previously evaluated in the GPU FEIR and the proposed triple left-turn lanes and intersection improvements would not result in GHG emissions, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and there would be no new impact with respect to generation of operational GHG emissions. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The GPU FEIR concluded that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may conflict with applicable state plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and could contribute substantially to the cumulatively considerable impact climate change on the environment. There were no additional feasible mitigation measures available to address this impact. This impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.
The most applicable legislation for the purpose of reducing transportation-related GHG emissions are Senate Bill (SB) 375 and SB 743. These policies support attainment of the state’s GHG reduction targets, as expressed under SB 32 and Assembly Bill (AB) 1279.
SB 375 was enacted to reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning. Under this law, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is tasked with developing a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that provides a plan for meeting per capita CO2 emissions levels allocated to SACOG by CARB. The Final EIR for the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)/SCS demonstrates that projects identified in the MTP/SCS meet CARB’s issued
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-47 June 2024
ICF 103175
SB 375 GHG targets for the SACOG region in 2020 and 2035 (Sacramento Area Council of Governments 2019). The proposed project was included in SACOG’s 2020 MTP/SCS, and therefore would not conflict with SACOG’s regional strategies implemented pursuant to SB 375.
The purpose of SB 743 is to integrate and better balance the needs of congestion management, infill development, active transportation, and GHG emissions reduction. As discussed further in response VIII.a, and Section XVII, Transportation, implementation of the project would not increase operational-related emissions. The proposed left-turn lanes and intersection improvements would improve traffic flow and reduce congestion, which in turn achieves long-term GHG reductions. This is consistent with SB 743 and the state’s climate change goals, including SB 32 and AB 1279.
Because the proposed project would not conflict with applicable plans and legislation adopted to reduce GHG emissions, there would be no new impact. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
Mitigation Measures
The project would not result in any new potentially significant impacts on GHG resources not already analyzed in the GPU FEIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are necessary.
References
Placer County Air Pollution Control District. 2017. 2107 CEQA Handbook. November.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2019. Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. State Clearinghouse # 2019049139. November.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-48 June 2024
ICF 103175
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create
a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. Be located within an airport land use plan
area or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, be within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, and result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
Setting
The project site consists primarily of commercial, residential, and open space land uses.
Catheryn Gates Elementary School is located approximately 0.15 mile south of the Roseville Parkway/Gibson Drive intersection. Vencil Brown Elementary School is located approximately
0.3 mile west of the Roseville Parkway/Pleasant Grove intersection.
A preliminary search of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker online database and the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) Envirostor online database
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-49 June 2024
ICF 103175
was conducted in an effort to identify hazardous materials sites of environmental concern within
0.25 mile of the project. No sites were identified as a result of the database search (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2022a, 2022b).
There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site. The closest airport is the Lincoln Regional Airport, approximately 8 miles to the north.
The project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area where the Roseville Fire Department is responsible for fire protection services. The project site is within Fire Protection District 7 served by Fire Station No. 7 approximately 0.50 mile north of the project site at 911 Highland Point Drive (City of Roseville 2017).
Impact Analysis
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of current state and federal regulations, as well as the policies of the proposed General Plan Update. Construction and operation of the project could involve small quantities of commonly used hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, and oils, to operate construction equipment and motor vehicles. Standard construction BMPs, including preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), erosion control, temporary fencing, and hazardous material management practices, would be implemented to reduce exposure to, or potential for, accidental spills involving these materials. A spill prevention and control plan, which includes the preparation of a hazardous material spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan before construction and implemented during construction, would be prepared to avoid or minimize the risk of spills or discharges of hazardous materials into waterways. Additionally, a health and safety plan (prepared by a registered industrial hygienist) would be prepared that addresses release prevention measures, employee training, notification, and evacuation procedures, and adequate emergency response protocols and cleanup procedures.
No hazardous materials would be disposed of on the project site. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of current state and federal regulations, as well as the policies of the proposed General Plan Update. Site workers, the public, and the environment in general could be inadvertently exposed to existing contaminants on site during project construction. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (such as petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the area during construction. However, the handling and disposal of these materials would be governed according to regulations enforced by the Certified Unified Program Agency, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA), California DTSC, SWRCB, and the City.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-50 June 2024
ICF 103175
In addition, the following plans and special provisions would be followed. ⚫ Compliance with the City’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency), which requires contractors to transport and store materials in approved containers along designated truck routes, maintain required clearances, and handle materials using fire department–approved protocols, as illustrated in Roseville Fire Code Ordinance 4594.
⚫ Implementation of a hazardous material spill prevention and countermeasure plan to minimize the exposure of people and the environment to potentially hazardous materials.
The plan is intended to ensure that transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials required for construction is conducted in a manner consistent with relevant regulations and guidelines.
⚫ Implementation of a SWPPP as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit to minimize the potential for sediments or contaminants to enter waterways. ⚫ Compliance with the City’s Design and Construction Standards and the City’s Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction.
In addition, the City Fire Department would review construction plans and would respond to hazardous materials complaints or emergencies, if any, during construction. Because hazardous materials discovered or accidentally released during construction would be handled in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Update policies, and enforcement of California Department of Education school siting regulations, permitting requirements for individual hazardous material handlers and emitters, and enforcement of Public Resources Code Sections 21151.4(a) and 21151.8(a) during project-level review for projects developed under the General Plan. Catheryn Gates Elementary School is located approximately 0.15 mile south of the Roseville Parkway/Gibson Drive intersection. Hazardous emissions and accidental release or combustion of hazardous materials near existing schools could result in health risks or other dangers to students.
However, standard construction BMPs as described under response IX.a would reduce the potential for a hazardous materials spill. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Update policies, and existing required federal and state regulations pertaining to hazardous site cleanup, ongoing remedial activities at known contamination sites, site- specific environmental site assessments, and location of underground pipelines prior to site- specific earthmoving activities.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-51 June 2024
ICF 103175
As described above, a search of the SWRCB’s GeoTracker online database and the DTSC’s Envirostor online database was conducted in an effort to identify hazardous materials sites of environmental concern within 0.25 mile of the project. No sites were identified as a result of the database search (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2022a, 2022b).
Any hazardous materials encountered on the site would be handled and disposed of in compliance with state and local regulations that protect the public and the environment from exposure to such materials. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The GPU FEIR concluded that implementation of the land use changes and policies consistent with the proposed General Plan Update would have no impact related to safety hazards for aircraft or for people residing or working in the vicinity of an airport, and the issue was not addressed further in the GPU FEIR. There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site. The closest airport is the Lincoln Regional Airport approximately 8 miles to the north. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies and the City’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, and City Design Standards and Guidelines. Construction of the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The City would require the construction contractor to implement a traffic management plan. Requirements would include a construction schedule and plan to meet the City’s notice procedures, before construction activities are initiated. This plan would identify general methods by which construction activities would be managed to minimize substantial delays to traffic as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation. Provisions for maintaining traffic during construction would be implemented to ensure there is no interference with emergency vehicles/services or response/evacuation plans. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required. g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies along with City Design and Construction Standards related to roadways and ingress and egress points for emergency vehicles, and implementation of the City’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and Emergency Operations Plan.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps indicate that the project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area or lands classified by CAL FIRE as a very high fire hazard severity zone (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2007). The project site is in a Local Responsibility Area.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-52 June 2024
ICF 103175
Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment, welding, and other activities that have the potential to ignite fires. Malfunction of equipment that could cause a fire is extremely unlikely during project construction. However, Station 7 of the Roseville Fire Department, approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site, would provide fire protection.
Existing land uses are primarily urbanized and at low risk for wildland fires. Also, the contractor would comply with Cal-OSHA standards for the storage and handling of fuels and flammable materials. The project would not introduce a wildland fire risk or expose people or structures to an increased risk for wildland fire. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
The project would result in either no or less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous waste. No existing or new mitigation is required.
References
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2022a. EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (Cortese). Available:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=roseville%2C+ca. Accessed:
March 21, 2022.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2022b. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a).
Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/. Accessed: March 21, 2022.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. FHSZ Viewer. Available:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed: March 21, 2022.
City of Roseville. 2017. Location of Roseville Fire Stations. March. Roseville, California.
Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Department s/Fire%20Dept/Fire%20Station%20Locations/Location%20of%20Roseville%20Fire%20Stati ons%20-%202017.pdf. Accessed: March 21, 2022.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-53 June 2024
ICF 103175
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge the project may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces in a manner that
would:
1) result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite;
2) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
3) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
4) impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Setting
The climate in the project area is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters.
National Weather Service cooperative weather station number 047516 (Rocklin) is the closest weather station to the project site, approximately 4 miles east-northeast at an elevation of approximately 240 feet above mean sea level. Average annual precipitation at this weather
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-54 June 2024
ICF 103175
station is 22.8 inches, with most precipitation falling as rain from November through March (Western Regional Climate Center 2020).
The project site is located in the Upper Coon–Upper Auburn hydrologic unit (hydrologic unit code 18020127) (U.S. Geological Survey 2019). Surface water in the project area is driven by rainfall, and outfalls from adjacent commercial and business park buildings and residential subdivisions.
Surface water in the project area includes Antelope Creek to the east of the project site footprint and west of Interstate 80.
Surface runoff rates of the soils in the project area range from slow to very high, depending on the soil map unit. The erosion hazard for sheet and rill erosion is slight. After intense rainstorms, the soil is saturated for a short time (Rogers 1980).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2018) shows that the site is in Zone X, indicating that the project site is outside the special flood hazard area of Antelope Creek (Zone AE).
According to the 2014/2016 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List), Antelope Creek is not on the 303(d) list but is on the total maximum daily load required list for ammonia, arsenic, pH and specific conductivity (State Water Resources Control Board 2019).
Because of the project site’s elevation above sea level and because no large waterbody exists in the project area, there is no chance for a tsunami or seiche to occur at the site. The hazard for a mudflow (i.e., a debris flow) at the project site is likely low, based on the site’s shallow slopes and lack of significant concave areas.
Impact Analysis
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update, and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requiring proper drainage and erosion control, as well as the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction, and the City of Roseville Stormwater Management Program (2004) to reduce post-construction runoff through the incorporation of BMPs, low-impact development (LID), and hydromodification management techniques.
The SWPPP that would be prepared for the project would specify erosion control, sediment control, non-stormwater management, and housekeeping BMPs that, if properly selected and implemented, would prevent substantial sediment and other pollutant movement from the site, such that the project would not violate any water quality standards. The BMPs, provided that they are properly implemented and maintained, are expected to be effective in preventing violations of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements because of the low erosion hazard at the site. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and potential impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-55 June 2024
ICF 103175
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of policies in the proposed General Plan Update that would help preserve the minimal groundwater recharge potential of the Planning Area through the implementation of LID features and encourage water conservation/demand management. Additionally, the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance would help conserve surface and groundwater, and the Urban Water Management Plan and Groundwater Management Plan currently provide for sustainable management of groundwater supplies.
The project would not use groundwater. The project would create additional impervious surfaces in the project area through the widening of Roseville Parkway but would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and the impact related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of policies in the proposed General Plan Update, and compliance with existing land use, stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations including the City’s Stormwater Quality BMP Guidance Manual for Construction, the City’s Community Design Standards, and compliance with the avoidance and minimization measures contained in the Preserve Management Plan.
The project would involve clearing and grubbing, excavation and filling, soil stockpiling, and soil compaction. However, these activities would not alter the overall drainage pattern of the area, and runoff that currently drains into drainage ditches and the municipal storm drain system would not change as a result of the project.
Site grading would expose soils to accelerated erosion by runoff if soils are not properly protected. However, as part of the project, erosion and sediment control BMPs and post- construction BMPs to avoid hydromodification effects would be implemented. The SWPPP would include such practices as seeding, mulching, installing erosion control blankets, and installing sediment barriers such as fiber rolls and silt fences, as well as the stormwater management measures that are included in the project design.
Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-56 June 2024
ICF 103175
And
3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of policies in the proposed General Plan Update, which require implementation of LID technologies, BMPs, and hydromodification management techniques to protect receiving water quality, mitigate excessive runoff, and mimic the runoff of a natural environment. Additional policies and requirements include compliance with stormwater drainage design plans and standards, regulations contained in the City Municipal Code, and the plans to implement the regional drainage and detention basins at the Al Johnson Wildlife Area, which would serve to maintain and improve the City’s storm drainage system and prevent an increase in flood hazards.
The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. See responses X.c.i and X.c.ii above. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and the project would not result in substantial flooding or polluted runoff. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The GPU FEIR did not analyze whether General Plan implementation would result in development that impedes or redirects flood flows. The project would cause an increase in runoff rates and amounts during and shortly after construction, but runoff management measures required by the state Stormwater General Permit for Construction and Land Disturbance Activities and contained in the SWPPP would limit such increases to an acceptable level.
The project would not substantially alter the existing natural drainage pattern of the site or area. Because of the small area that the project would disturb relative to the watershed in which it is located, any increases in the rate or amount of surface runoff would not be sufficient to result in flooding on- or off site. The roadway widening and intersections improvements would be constructed to current City design and construction standards. Additionally, no aspect of the project would impede or redirect flood flows.
The impact related to flooding on- or off site would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of policies in the proposed General Plan Update and adherence to Municipal Code requirements. The project site is in Zone X, indicating that the project site is outside the 500- year floodplain of Antelope Creek. No large bodies of water are located in the project vicinity; therefore, there is no risk of inundation by seiche. The project area is located over 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean; therefore, there is no inundation risk related to tsunami.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-57 June 2024
ICF 103175
Consequently, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of policies in the proposed General Plan Update, and compliance with current laws, regulations, and implementation of the City’s Aquifer Storage and Recovery program. The project site is within the Sacramento Valley basin, North American subbasin. The water quality control plan (i.e., Basin Plan) that covers the project area is the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region’s Sacramento River Basin Plan revised in May 2018. The Basin Plan covers the entire Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. Basin plans consist of a designation or establishment for the waters within a specified area of beneficial uses to be protected, water quality objectives to protect those uses, and a program of implementation needed for achieving the objectives.
The project would incorporate erosion and sediment control BMPs and post-construction BMPs to avoid substantial degradation of water quality. The SWPPP would include such practices as seeding, mulching, installation of erosion control blankets, and installing sediment. No aspect of the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
The project would not result in any new significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality; therefore, no new mitigation measures are required.
References
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2018. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address. Map Number 06061C0944H. Available:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=roseville%2C%20ca#searchresultsancho r. Accessed: April 12, 2022.
Rogers, J.H. 1980. Soil Survey of Placer County, California, Western Part. USDA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.
State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Impaired Water Bodies. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml?w bid=CAR5142401020080822214143. Accessed: April 12, 2022.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2019. Science in Your Watershed. USGS Water Resources Links for:
18020127 – Upper Coon-Upper Auburn. Available:
http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getwatershed?18020127/www/cgi-bin/lookup/getwatershed.
Accessed: April 12, 2022.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2020. Rocklin, California (047516)—Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7516. Accessed:
April 12, 2022.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-58 June 2024
ICF 103175
XI. Land Use and Planning
XI. Land Use and Planning
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Setting
The project site is located in north Roseville along Roseville Parkway between the Roseville Parkway/Pleasant Grove Boulevard intersection on the west, and just west of Antelope Creek on the east (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The project site is currently Roseville Parkway, which is surrounded primarily by residential, commercial, and open space uses. Westfield Galleria at Roseville is located on the northwest corner of Roseville Parkway and Galleria Boulevard. The Ridge at Creekside/Creekside Town Center and The Fountains at Roseville are located on the northeast and southwest corners of Roseville Parkway and Galleria Boulevard, respectively.
There are also many Class A office buildings on Creekside Ridge Drive, Reserve Drive, and Gibson Drive. Residential development is located on the north and south sides of Roseville Parkway west of the Galleria.
The General Plan land use designations for adjacent uses include RC, CC, OS, BP, PR, HDR, MDR, IND, and P/QP. The project site is within the North Central Roseville Specific Plan.
City of Roseville General Plan 2035
The City of Roseville General Plan 2035 (City of Roseville 2020) guides the general distribution and intensity of land uses within the City. The General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements include the following relevant goals and policies.
Land Use Goal 7. Potential population growth in Roseville must be based on the long-term carrying capacities and limits of the roadway system, sewer and water treatment facilities, and electrical utility service, as defined in the Circulation Element and the Public Facilities Element.
Circulation Goal 1. Maintain an adequate level of transportation service for all of Roseville's residents and employees through a balanced transportation system, which considers automobiles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Circulation Level of Service Policy 2. Strive to meet the level of service standards through a balanced transportation system that reduces the auto emissions that contribute to climate change by providing alternatives to the automobile and avoiding excessive vehicle congestion through roadway improvements, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and transit improvements.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-59 June 2024
ICF 103175
City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance
The City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance codifies the land uses allowed within the incorporated City limits. The zoning ordinance defines and maps a series of zoning districts, establishes regulatory standards for development and resource protection, and identifies the specific uses permitted within each of those districts (City of Roseville 1996). The project site is right-of-way (ROW) with surrounding zoning consisting of OS, CC/SA-NC, RS, R3/DS/SA-NC, R3, PR, R1/DS, RC/SA-NC, and M2.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Update policies. The project site includes existing Roseville Parkway, adjacent to residential, commercial, and open space uses. The project would not physically divide the community; rather, it would simply widen Roseville Parkway generally between Gibson Drive and Creekside Ridge Drive and construct triple left-turn lanes on southbound Pleasant Grove Boulevard onto eastbound Roseville Parkway. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The GPU FEIR concluded that the impact was less than significant because the proposed General Plan Update was designed to ensure consistency with other relevant plans, programs, and regulations that were developed to reduce or avoid environmental impacts; and there are no inconsistencies between the proposed General Plan Update and other plans that would result in a significant environmental impact not already addressed in the GPU FEIR. The project is planned for in the General Plan and is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The project would comply with the development standards and requirements specified by the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance and the improvement standards of the General Plan. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and would be less impactful than the GPU FEIR concluded. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
Mitigation Measures
The project would not result in any new significant impacts related to land use. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required.
References
City of Roseville. 1996. City of Roseville Zoning Map. Adopted July 26, 1996. Last updated:
March 2017. Available: https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922& pageId=10990649. Accessed: April 12, 2022.
City of Roseville. 2020. City of Roseville General Plan 2035. Adopted August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8774544. Accessed:
April 12, 2022.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-60 June 2024
ICF 103175
XII. Mineral Resources
XII. Mineral Resources
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
Setting
The California Geological Survey identifies areas that contain or that could contain significant mineral resources so as to provide context for local agency land use decisions and to protect availability of known mineral resources. Classifications ranging from MRZ-1 to MRZ-4 are based on knowledge of a resource’s presence and the quality of the resource.
The City of Roseville does not overlie any known deposits of economically valuable mineral resources, and the City does not have a Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) permit.
No mining activities are currently underway nor does the City anticipate that any mining activities will take place in the future. Therefore, mineral resources were not evaluated in the GPU FEIR. (City of Roseville 2020.)
Impact Analysis
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Because no known mineral occurrences are present within the project area, the project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources that are of value to the region and residents of the state. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The City’s general plan does not designate lands for mineral resource recovery, and no known mineral occurrences are present within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
Mitigation Measures
The project would not result in any new significant impacts related to mineral resources.
Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-61 June 2024
ICF 103175
References
City of Roseville. 2020. City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report. Available: https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922& pageId=8774544. Accessed: April 13, 2022.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-62 June 2024
ICF 103175
XIII. Noise
XIII. Noise
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project noise
levels in excess of standards established
in a local general plan or noise ordinance
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan area, or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport and
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Setting
The affected environment for noise that would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed project would be similar to what is described in Section 4.6, Noise and Vibration, of the GPU FEIR. The GPU FEIR provides a discussion on various topics including the fundamentals of environmental noise, existing noise sources and measured ambient noise levels within the General Plan study area, and relevant federal, state, and local noise regulations.
The proposed project is located between Gibson Drive and Creekside Ridge Drive. The existing roadway alignment is a six-lane arterial roadway throughout the project alignment. General land uses located within the project area include commercial land uses such as restaurants, the Westfield Galleria at Roseville mall, and multi- and single-family residential land uses. Land uses surrounding the project would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed project which would be similar to what is described in Section 4.6 of the GPU FEIR. The GPU FEIR also provides a discussion of noise as it relates to construction and operational (traffic-related) impacts within the general study area and impact analyses. The proposed project would be located entirely within the General Plan study area. The affected environment described in the GPU FEIR applies to the proposed project and is incorporated by reference.
Field measurements conducted as part of the GPU FEIR did not include measurements within the project area; however, Short-Term (ST) Measurement 03 was conducted along Roseville Parkway to the east of the project alignment. The measured noise level at the time of this measurement was 51 dBA Leq.1 Construction noise analyzed in the GPU FEIR presented typical
1 Measurement ST-03 was conducted over a time period of 15 minutes on October 2, 2019. dBA Leq = the equivalent continuous sound level in A-weighted decibels.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-63 June 2024
ICF 103175
construction noise levels from equipment that could be used for projects. Table 2-5 (Table 4.6-9 from the GPU FEIR) shows construction equipment used as part of the analysis.
Table 2-5. Predicted Noise Levels from Typical Construction Equipment Type of Equipment
Noise Level in Decibels at 50 feet
Without Feasible Noise Control With Feasible Noise Control1 Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Compactor 82 75
Front-end Loader 79 75
Backhoe 85 75
Grader 85 75
Crane 83 75
Generator 78 75
Truck 91 75
Sources: EPA 1971; FTA 2018.
1 Feasible noise control includes the use of intake mufflers, exhaust mufflers, and engine shrouds in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
Traffic along the local roadway network and other local noise sources were noted as the controlling factors. The GPU FEIR analyzed the Roseville Parkway roadway network to identify the noise levels at a distance of 100 feet and distance to the 70, 65, and 60 dBA Ldn2 contours.
Table 2-6 presents the predicted existing noise levels from Table 4.6-1 of the GPU FEIR.
Table 2-6. Predicted Existing Noise Levels Within the Project Alignment Roadway Segment
Average
Daily
Traffic
Ldn at
100 Feet
Distance to Contours (dBA Ldn)
70 65 60
Roseville
Parkway
Pleasant Grove Blvd to
Galleria Blvd 43,500 70 99 312 985
Galleria Blvd to Taylor
Rd 47,700 70 108 342 1,080
The applicability of the analysis prepared in the GPU FEIR and any additional analysis is presented in the Impact Analysis below.
Impact Analysis
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction
The GPU FEIR determined that construction noise associated with buildout of the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable. General Plan Policy N1.9 exempts construction noise from applicable thresholds provided that construction complies with the requirements
2 Day-night average sound level in A-weighted decibels.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-64 June 2024
ICF 103175
of the City’s Municipal Code. Private construction (e.g., construction, alteration, or repair activities) can occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday provided that all construction equipment must be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and that all construction equipment must be maintained in good working order. Nevertheless, regardless of compliance with this ordinance the GPU FEIR found that no mitigation was available.
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur over five phases: (1) Grubbing/Land Clearing, (2) Grading/Excavation, (3) Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade, (4) Paving, and (5) Striping. Activities would occur over 180 working days, commencing in summer 2024. Project-specific construction equipment for each phase of construction was provided by the project engineers, Mark Thomas & Company (Cervantes pers. comm.).
Construction noise associated with the proposed project was modeled with the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Table 2-7 shows the construction equipment that would be used during each phase of the proposed project. To determine a worst-case condition, equipment noise levels from each phase were combined to calculate an overall noise level by development phase.
Table 2-7. Modeled Construction Nosie Results for Each Phase Phase Equipment Type1
Noise Level at a
Distance of 50
Feet (dBA Leq)2
Combined Noise
Level at a Distance of
50 Feet (dBA Leq)2
Grubbing/
Land Clearing
Skip Loader 75 77 Skid Steer 74
Grading/
Excavation
Skip Loader 75 77 Skid Steer 74
Draining/Utilities/
Subgrade
Skid Steer 75
80 Backhoe 74
Auger Drill Rig 77
Paving Paver 74
89 Vibratory Roller 73
Pneumatic Roller 82
Finish Roller (Steel Drum) 84
Skip Loader 75
Saw, Concrete 83
Pick Up Machine 82
Striping Truck, Pickup 71 76 Compressor, Air 74
1 The RCNM was used for the purposes of this analysis. Not all equipment referenced by the project applicant is included in the RCNM model. Therefore, construction equipment was substituted where the equipment type is not specifically called out.
2 Noise levels rounded to the nearest whole number.
Based on the results in Table 2-7, paving would be the worst-case phase for construction noise, with a combined noise level of 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. Appendix B provides the full list of modeling assumptions by phase. Construction equipment presented in Table 2-7 generally conforms to the equipment list and levels presented in the GPU FEIR
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-65 June 2024
ICF 103175
(Table 4.6-9). The nearest sensitive receptors are single- and multi-family residential land uses. In some cases, these homes are adjacent to the proposed project alignment and can be as close 50 feet. At this distance, combined noise levels from paving equipment are anticipated to be up to 89 dBA Leq. This is approximately 38 dBA greater than locally measured ambient noise levels (51 dBA Leq at ST-3)3 from the GPU FEIR. Noise levels of this magnitude would dominate the noise environment in the project area and would be clearly audible at nearby land uses. It should be noted that an increase of 38 decibels (dB) over the ambient is considered a conservative estimate. Construction equipment modeled in RCNM assumes that all equipment is running concurrently. Generally, one or two pieces of construction equipment would operate at a time. As such construction noise levels would realistically be lower.
As discussed above, General Plan Policy N1.9 exempts construction noise from the requirements of the General Plan Noise Element thresholds provided that construction comply with the City’s Municipal Code. The Municipal Code exempts construction provided construction occurs weekdays, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and weekends, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Project construction is anticipated to occur during daytime and nighttime hours. The project area is a heavily traveled corridor during the day. To minimize lane closures and daytime traffic, some construction activities are likely to occur during nighttime hours. The GPU FEIR identifies that a majority of construction would occur during daytime hours, when construction noise is exempt from numerical thresholds. Construction activities occurring at night (i.e., outside the allowable construction hours outlined in the municipal code) would need to meet the Sound Level Standards outlined in Section 9.24.100 of the Municipal Code (50 dBA Leq and 70 Lmax between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 45 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Lmax between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.).
Construction that occurs as part of City operations and activities is fully exempt from noise ordinance regulations under Section 9.24.140 of the Municipal Code, provided that all construction equipment is fitted with factory installed muffling devices and maintained in good working order. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Operation
The GPU FEIR identifies that the buildout of the General Plan would generate and attract vehicular traffic, which would increase traffic noise levels along existing and future roadways.
As seen in Table 4.6-10 of the GPU FEIR (existing conditions summarized in Table 2-6 above), traffic associated with buildout of the General Plan and regional growth is expected to increase noise levels along City streets and regional thoroughfares throughout the Planning Area. The GPU FEIR analyzed traffic noise within the project area assuming Roseville Parkway would be widened. This widening is largely consistent with the widening proposed by the project. This analysis estimated that traffic noise along the proposed project alignment is expected to increase between 1 and 2 dB, which is not considered a perceptible increase (at least 3 dB). These relevant traffic noise increases are shown in Table 2-8 (data from Table 4.6-10 from the GPU FEIR). It should also be noted that noise levels presented in Table 4.6-10 of the GPU FEIR also do not account for intervening buildings, sound walls, topography, and other factors that provide noise attenuation. Therefore, the table presents a worst-case analysis.
3 ST-3 was located along Roseville Parkway, east of the proposed project site.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-66 June 2024
ICF 103175
Table 2-8. Proposed General Plan Update 60 dBA, 65 dBA, and 70 dBA Ldn Traffic Contours for Unconstrained Buildout
Roadway Segment
Ldn at
100 Feet
Distance to Contours (dBA
Ldn)
Increase
dBA
70 65 60
Roseville
Parkway
Pleasant Grove Blvd to
Galleria Blvd 72 165 523 1,653 2
Galleria Blvd to Taylor
Rd 71 139 438 1,386 1
The proposed project would also include the addition of proposed triple left-turn lanes and an auxiliary lane located on westbound Roseville Parkway, between Creekside Ridge Drive and Galleria Boulevard. The proposed turn lane intersection improvements would not result in a substantial change in traffic noise because their inclusion would not attract additional traffic volumes along the proposed alignment. However, the addition of an auxiliary lane would relocate traffic closer to nearby lane uses.
The distance from the center of the westbound Roseville Parkway lanes to the City ROW is approximately 57 feet (i.e., the distance measured from the middle of westbound Roseville parkway lanes to the mall parking lot). By adding an auxiliary lane, the distance measured from the centroid of westbound lanes would shift approximately 6 feet closer to surrounding land uses located north of Roseville Parkway. This closest land use is commercial land use, which is approximately 200 feet from the center of the westbound lanes. The addition of an auxiliary lane could relocate a quarter of the total traffic volume 6 feet closer to nearby land uses. This would result in an increase of no greater than 1 dBA over the GPU FEIR analyzed buildout of the General Plan. Along Roseville Parkway, this would result in a predicted 3 dB increase over existing traffic noise conditions, as compared to the 2 dB increase reference in the GPU FEIR. As measured ambient noise levels fall within the normally acceptable land use compatibility noise thresholds (51 dBA Leq, ST-3 from the GPU FEIR), an increase of 3 dB is not considered significant. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required. b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Damage to Structures
Construction of the project would involve the use of construction equipment that could generate groundborne vibration. The most vibration-intensive equipment proposed for construction activities in Table 4.6-12 of the GPU FEIR include an auger drill rig, skid loader, vibratory roller, and backhoe. The analysis in the GPU FEIR identifies a reference distance of greater than 60 feet at which construction would not exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) damage criteria of
0.2 or 0.5 peak particle velocity (PPV), respectively or exceed the FTA standard of 80 vibration decibels (VdB) for human annoyance. Estimated vibration levels associated with construction equipment proposed for use during project construction are shown for a reference distance of 25 feet, as well as other distances, in Table 2-9.
Nearby structures consist of a mixture of commercial and residential land uses, the nearest of which is a commercial building approximately 40 feet from the project alignment. The nearest homes are approximately 50 feet south of the project alignment between Chase
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-67 June 2024
ICF 103175
Drive and West Drive. Additional residential structures are approximately 80 feet south of the project alignment west of Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
Table 2-9. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV (VdB)
at 25 Feet
PPV (VdB)
at 40 Feet
PPV (VdB)
at 50 Feet
PPV (VdB)
at 80 Feet
PPV (VdB)
at 100 Feet
Vibratory roller1 0.210 (94) 0.104 (88) 0.074 (85) 0.037 (79) 0.026 (76) Auger drill rig 0.089 (87) 0.044 (81) 0.031 (78) 0.016 (72) 0.011 (69) Small bulldozer2 0.003 (58) 0.001 (52) 0.001 (49) 0.001 (43) 0.000 (40) Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018.
Note:
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is used for the vibration-related damage analysis and is expressed in units of inches per second.
VdB is used in the vibration-related annoyance analysis. 1 Representative of a vibratory hopper.
2 Representative of a backhoe, front-end loader, and concrete mixer truck Tables 4.6-3 and 4.6-5 of the GPU FEIR include FTA and Caltrans Guidelines for vibration- related damage. Commercial buildings located near the project site would be classified as “modern Industrial/commercial buildings” under Caltrans guidelines or Building Category I under FTA guidelines. In both cases, the applicable vibration-related damage criterion is 0.5 PPV inch per second (in/sec) for these structure types. Single- and multi-family residential land uses located near the project site may be most similar to “new residential structures” under Caltrans guidelines, which also has a damage criterion of 0.5 PPV in/sec. The FTA would classify these residential structures as Building Category III (non-engineered timber or masonry buildings), which have a damage criterion of 0.2 PPV in/sec.
With regard to construction activities taking place within the project alignment, the most vibration intensive equipment proposed is a vibratory roller. As shown in Table 2-9, a vibratory roller can result in a vibration level of 0.104 PPV in/sec at a distance of 40 feet. This is below the 0.5 PPV in/sec Caltrans damage criterion for “modern industrial/commercial buildings” (California Department of Transportation 2020:38) as well as the FTA’s damage criterion for Building Category I (Federal Transit Administration 2018).
At a distance of 50 feet, the distance from the project alignment to the closest residential land use, a vibratory roller could result in a vibration level of up to 0.074 PPV in/sec This level is below the 0.5 PPV in/sec Caltrans damage criterion for new residential structures. It is also below the FTA damage criterion of 0.2 PPV in/sec for Building Category III. Note that additional residential structures are located farther away from the project alignment (approximately 80 feet). Vibration levels from a vibratory roller, and the other less vibration- intensive equipment proposed, would be even lower at these structures.
Because the estimated ground vibration levels at the nearest structures would be below the applicable Caltrans and FTA damage criteria, vibration-related damage would result in no new impacts when compared to the GPU FEIR. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-68 June 2024
ICF 103175
Vibration-Related Annoyance
Vibration-related annoyance is considered to be substantial if it is expected to result in sleep disturbance at nearby residences. Sleep disturbance from vibration typically occurs if residences are very close to nighttime ground-disturbing construction activities. For the purpose of this analysis, a significant vibration impact related to sleep disturbance could occur if construction activities generate prolonged vibration levels that are in exceedance of the FTA vibration annoyance thresholds. Residences and buildings where people normally sleep would be limited to vibration levels of 80 VdB. Commercial buildings are not typically analyzed for vibration annoyance as they are generally closed during nighttime hours.
The use of a vibratory roller, the most vibration-intensive equipment proposed for this project, would result in a vibration level up to 85 VdB at the nearest residential land use (approximately 50 feet away from the project alignment). This is consistent with the findings of potential vibration levels presented in the GPU FEIR. To help reduce impacts due to vibration annoyance, the GPU FEIR adopted Policy N1.10. This policy says to include all feasible measures necessary, as a part of proposed development and public infrastructure projects, to avoid substantial annoyance for adjacent vibration-sensitive uses, consistent with Caltrans and FTA guidance, which may include the following. ⚫ When designing new transportation facilities, reasonable amounts of care should be taken to keep these facilities away from vibration sensitive areas. ⚫ The use of alternate construction methods and tools may reduce construction vibrations. ⚫ Construction activities should be scheduled for times when they do not interfere with vibration-sensitive operations (e.g., nighttime).
In the event that mitigation cannot reduce vibration levels, community outreach can be used to inform homeowners in the project vicinity that high vibration levels may be experienced.
This outreach should also inform the community that vibration-intensive construction activities are not anticipated to result in damage to structures. Even though estimated vibration annoyance levels exceed the FTA threshold of 80 VdB, implementing existing policies and mitigation measures from the GPU FEIR would help reduce impacts due to vibration-annoyance in line with what was identified in the GPU FEIR. Due to this, vibration- related annoyance would result in no new impacts. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and no mitigation is required. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The GPU FEIR identified that the Planning Area is not located within 2-miles of any public or private airstrip, resulting in no impacts due to excessive airport noise. Because the proposed project is within the boundaries of the Planning Area, this initial determination still applies.
There are no new impacts due to excessive public or private airstrips. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-69 June 2024
ICF 103175
Mitigation Measures
The project would not have a new significant impact on noise. Therefore, no new mitigation is required.
References
California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA: Noise, Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed: July 18, 2022.
Cervantes, Raul. Division Manager. Mark Thomas. September 9, 2022—email to Susan Bushnell-Bergfalk, Principal, ICF, Sacramento, CA.
Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf. Accessed: July 18, 2022.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-70 June 2024
ICF 103175
XIV. Population and Housing
XIV. Population and Housing
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace a substantial number of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Setting
The project site is the existing Roseville Parkway. The General Plan Update Land Use Map designates Roseville Parkway adjacent uses for commercial, business park, residential, parks and open space and public/quasi-public uses. No new homes are proposed for the project site.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant because the proposed General Plan Update would not change the City’s Land Use Map or Sphere of Influence and would not include any new growth; therefore, the project would not directly induce unplanned growth. The proposed project is identified in the City of Roseville Transportation System Capital Improvement Program. Employment-generating activities, such as construction of the roadway and intersection improvements, would bring some workers into the area, but these activities are not anticipated to directly result in substantial population growth.
The project would not indirectly induce population growth by widening Roseville Parkway; rather, it would provide for more efficient east-west travel in the project area. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
b. Would the project displace a substantial number of existing people or housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant because the proposed General Plan Update does not propose converting established residential areas to a nonresidential land use or redeveloping existing residential areas with new residences by removing existing dwelling units, and the existing General Plan land use plan includes capacity for the construction of 22,300 residential dwelling units, which would provide housing for any displaced residents. There are no residences on the project site or
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-71 June 2024
ICF 103175
immediately adjacent to the project site that would be displaced; therefore, the project would not displace housing. The impact would be less than anticipated in the GPU FEIR, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
Mitigation Measures
The project would not have a new significant impact on population and housing. Therefore, no new mitigation is required.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-72 June 2024
ICF 103175
XV. Public Services
XV. Public Services
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities or a need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Setting
Fire Protection
The Roseville Fire Department operates nine fire stations that provide fire protection, suppression, emergency medical services, and hazardous material management within the City of Roseville, including the project site. The project site is within Fire Protection District 7, served by Fire Station No. 7, which is just north of Roseville Parkway, approximately 0.37 mile from the project site, at 911 Highland Point Drive. (City of Roseville 2017).
Police Protection
The Roseville Police Department, headquartered approximately 1.4 miles southwest of Roseville Parkway at 1051 Junction Boulevard, provides police protection services to Roseville.
Schools
The closest school to the project site is Catheryn Gates Elementary School approximately 0.17 mile south of the Roseville Parkway/Gibson Drive (west) intersection. The next closest school is Vencil Brown Elementary School approximately 0.5 mile west of the Roseville Parkway/Pleasant Grove Intersection.
Parks
The nearest existing park to the project site is Sylvia Besana Park, approximately 0.14 mile south of the Roseville Parkway/Gibson Drive (west) intersection. Additional parks in the project
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-73 June 2024
ICF 103175
vicinity include Vencil Brown Park and Diamond Oaks Park. Diamond Oaks Golf Course is to the south.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
Fire protection?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant because the addition of new staff would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could potentially have adverse impacts on the physical environment, to maintain acceptable response times or other performance objectives for fire protection. During construction, Roseville Parkway would remain open. The project would be constructed in compliance with applicable City codes and regulations. The project would improve east-west accessibility in the project area by providing additional east-west travel lanes for service calls in North Roseville. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Police protection?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant because the addition of new staff would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could potentially have adverse impacts on the physical environment, to maintain acceptable response times or other performance objectives for police protection. Because the project would not introduce new residents to the area, it would not result in a need for new or physically altered police facilities in order to maintain adequate service levels. The project would improve east-west accessibility in the project area by providing additional east-west travel lanes for service calls in North Roseville.
Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Schools?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant because the proposed General Plan Update includes mitigating policies and measures, where necessary, that would reduce or avoid impacts, and school impact fees would be collected in accordance with SB 50 to ensure the development of adequate school facilities; also the California Legislature has declared that payment of the state-mandated school impact fee is deemed to be full and adequate mitigation under CEQA (California Government Code Section 65996).
The project would not introduce additional residents to the area. The project would improve east-west accessibility in the project area by providing additional east-west travel lanes.
Because the project would not increase the demand for school facilities, there would be no
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-74 June 2024
ICF 103175
change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Parks and Other Public Facilities?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts on parks/recreational facilities would be less than significant because the proposed General Plan Update includes mitigating policies and measures, where necessary, that would reduce or avoid impacts. In addition, dedication of parkland or payment of in-lieu fees could also be used by the City to improve, expand, and maintain existing City parks to ensure that accelerated deterioration does not occur. Because the project would not introduce new residents to the area, it would not result in the need for new or expanded parks or other public facilities; therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
The project would have no new impact on public services, and, therefore, no new mitigation is required.
References
City of Roseville. 2017. Location of Roseville Fire Stations. March. Roseville, California.
Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Department s/Fire%20Dept/Fire%20Station%20Locations/Location%20of%20Roseville%20Fire%20Stati ons%20-%202017.pdf. Accessed: April 13, 2022.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-75 June 2024
ICF 103175
XVI. Recreation
XVI. Recreation
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Setting
The project site is the existing Roseville Parkway surrounded by lands primarily already developed for commercial, residential, and open space uses. See Section XV, Public Services, for information on parks in the project area.
Impact Analysis
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts on parks/recreational facilities would be less than significant because the proposed General Plan Update includes mitigating policies and measures, where necessary, that would reduce or avoid impacts. In addition, dedication of parkland or payment of in-lieu fees could also be used by the City to improve, expand, and maintain existing City parks to ensure that accelerated deterioration does not occur. The project would not introduce new residents to the area and would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts on parks/recreational facilities would be less than significant because the proposed General Plan Update includes mitigating policies and measures, where necessary, that would reduce or avoid impacts. In addition, dedication of parkland or payment of in-lieu fees could also be used by the City to improve, expand, and maintain existing City parks to ensure that accelerated deterioration does not occur. The project does not include construction of recreational facilities and would not require the construction of new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing recreational facilities
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-76 June 2024
ICF 103175
that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
Mitigation Measures
The project would have no new impact on recreational facilities. Therefore, no new mitigation is required.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-77 June 2024
ICF 103175
XVII. Transportation
XVII. Transportation
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance,
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Setting
The transportation analysis is based on the Roseville Parkway Widening Traffic Evaluation Memorandum prepared by Kimley-Horn (Kimley-Horn 2022, included as Appendix C to this IS/MND). The Kimley-Horn traffic memorandum was prepared to support the Subsequent MND and to document project consistency with prior, more comprehensive environmental studies, and to inform the intersections’ lane geometries to achieve acceptable operations.
City of Roseville General Plan 2035
The Circulation Element of the General Plan includes the following relevant goals and policies.
Functional Classification Goal 1. Provide guidance to the long-range planning of the City's roadway system including design standards, right-of-way requirements and coordination with surrounding jurisdictions.
Functional Classification Policy 4. Maintain a system of truck routes to provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods and to avoid impacting residential neighborhoods.
Level of Service Goal 1. Maintain an adequate level of transportation service for all of Roseville's residents and employees through a balanced transportation system, which considers automobiles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Level of Service Policy 1. Maintain a level of service (LOS) "C" standard at a minimum of 70 percent of all signalized intersections and roadway segments in the City during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Exceptions to the LOS “C” standard may be considered for intersections where the City finds that the required improvements are unacceptable based on established criteria identified in the implementation measures. In addition, Pedestrian Districts may be exempted from the LOS standard.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-78 June 2024
ICF 103175
Bikeways/Trails Goal 2. Establish and maintain a safe, comprehensive and integrated bikeway and trail system that encourages the use of bikes and walking for commuting, recreational and other trips.
Project Roadways
The proposed project is located in the North Central Roseville Specific Plan area. The project would consist of the widening of Roseville Parkway from three lanes to four lanes in each direction. The westbound direction would generally be widened between Creekside Ridge Drive and Gibson Drive (east), and the eastbound direction would be widened between Reserve Drive and Creekside Ridge Drive. The project would also include constructing triple left-turn lanes on southbound Pleasant Grove Boulevard onto eastbound Roseville Parkway, and intersection improvements along Roseville Parkway at Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Gibson Drive, West Drive, Reserve Drive, Galleria Boulevard, and Creekside Ridge Road.
The transportation analysis evaluated the following study intersections (see Exhibit 2 in the traffic evaluation memorandum):
1. Roseville Parkway at Pleasant Grove Boulevard
2. Roseville Parkway at Chase Drive
3. Roseville Parkway at Gibson Drive
4. Roseville Parkway at West Drive
5. Roseville Parkway at Reserve Drive
6. Roseville Parkway at Galleria Boulevard
7. Roseville Parkway at Creekside Ridge Drive
8. Galleria Boulevard at Antelope Creek Drive
The primary focus of study was to document project consistency with prior, more comprehensive environmental studies, and to inform the intersections’ lane geometries to achieve acceptable operations. Accordingly, this traffic evaluation considered the following analysis scenarios:
A. Existing (2020) Conditions. Conditions representative of “Pre-COVID” on-the-ground conditions established using traffic count data provided by the City’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) from February 2020.
B. Existing (2020) plus Proposed Project Conditions. Conditions representative of year 2020 conditions resulting from the addition of the project. The project includes:
⚫ Additional westbound and eastbound through lanes along Roseville Parkway. ⚫ Elimination of free right-turns at Galleria Boulevard (all four approaches), southbound and eastbound at Pleasant Grove Boulevard, westbound and southbound at Gibson Drive, southbound at West Drive, and westbound and southbound at Reserve Drive. ⚫ Additional southbound through lane at Galleria Boulevard. ⚫ Westbound right-turn auxiliary lane between Creekside Ridge Drive and Galleria Boulevard. ⚫ Triple southbound lefts at Pleasant Grove Boulevard.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-79 June 2024
ICF 103175
C. Cumulative (2035) plus Proposed Project Conditions. Conditions representative of 2035 Cumulative Conditions (“Unconstrained”) as documented in the GPU resulting from the addition of the project.
Approach
Analysis of transportation facilities’ operations is primarily based on the concept of Level of Service (LOS). The LOS of a facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from A (best), which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity. Levels of service for the traffic evaluation were determined using methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition.
Due to the close spacing of the project intersections, delay, LOS, and queuing were determined using the SimTraffic micro-simulation analysis software. The existing conditions’ SimTraffic models were validated based on field observations of traffic volumes, driver behavior, lane utilization, and maximum vehicle queue lengths. As a result of these observations, adjustments were incorporated that improve the accuracy of the vehicles’ behavior as they position for downstream maneuvers. SimTraffic measures of effectiveness were compared against the HCM intersection delay thresholds to equate SimTraffic results to HCM LOS. For this simulation effort, industry standard parameters were applied including a network seed time (the time during which the network is populated with vehicles) of 10 minutes and 10 runs that were averaged to obtain the results.
The HCM includes procedures for analyzing signalized traffic control as a function of average control delay for the intersection as a whole. Table 2-10 presents intersection LOS definitions as defined in the HCM. Reference the traffic evaluation memorandum (Appendix C) for the technical analysis results.
Table 2-10. Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of Service (LOS)
Signalized
Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)
A ≤10
B >10–20
C >20–35
D >35–55
E >55–80
F >80
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities along Roseville Parkway consist of Class II bike lanes. Class II bike lanes provide a restricted ROW designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles, prohibiting through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians but permitting vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists. Class II lanes are generally developed within the ROW of collector streets and arterials.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-80 June 2024
ICF 103175
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities along Roseville Parkway consist of wide sidewalks flanked by landscaping corridors. At signalized intersections, crosswalks with push-button pedestrian actuation are provided.
Transit Facilities
Transit services in the City are provided by Roseville Transit. Roseville Transit has a local fixed route service, a peak-hour commuter service, and a dial-a-ride service. There is a transfer point at the Galleria Mall that allows local service users to transfer with other local transit systems.
Impact Analysis
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The GPU FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of policies that would encourage greater use of transit and more walking and bicycling in the future. The project, through its widening of Roseville Parkway generally between Gibson Drive and Creekside Ridge Drive, would not conflict with the City of Roseville’s applicable planning documents including the General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Short Range Transit Plan. The following is an overview of the project’s consistency with these guiding documents:
Circulation System
Consistent with the project, the facility is indicated to have seven or eight future lanes (Exhibit 4.3-4, GPU FEIR, Page 4.3-23).
Transit Facilities
The immediate project area includes the Roseville Transit Galleria Transfer Point, which accommodates Bus Routes A, B, M, and S. The project limits, and therefore the project, include several bus stops in addition to the aforementioned transfer point. These stops are located along eastbound Roseville Parkway after Reserve Drive (Routes A and B), eastbound Roseville Parkway after Galleria Boulevard (Route A), southbound Galleria Boulevard after Antelope Creek Drive (Route M), and northbound Pleasant Grove Boulevard after Roseville Parkway (Route M).
Bicycle Facilities
Consistent with the project, Roseville Parkway is indicated to have Class II Bike Lanes along the entire stretch from Pleasant Grove Boulevard through the project area (Figure III-5, General Plan 2035 Circulation Element, Page III-23, and Figure 4, City of Roseville Bicycle Master Plan, Page 43).
Pedestrian Facilities
The project includes both attached and detached (meandering) sidewalks, generally mimicking the existing conditions. Through its inclusion of these facilities, the project supports the City’s General Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan goals.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-81 June 2024
ICF 103175
The project would be consistent with the above-mentioned plans; therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? The GPU FEIR concluded that the VMT generated by buildout of the existing General Plan is
15.5 VMT per capita under financially constrained network conditions and 14.9 VMT per capita under financially unconstrained network conditions, which exceeds the significance threshold. This impact was considered significant.
The project’s effect on VMT was evaluated in a manner consistent with the City’s direction under the General Plan Update and VMT Impact Studies Guidelines, and to a lesser degree the December 2018 guidance provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as it pertains to SB 743.
Although the project is understood to be a capacity-enhancing roadway project, it was previously anticipated and evaluated as part of the CEQA documentation associated with the GPU FEIR (see Exhibit 4.3-4, Page 4.3-23, and Appendix D, Traffic Impact Report, of the GPU FEIR). As a result, the City’s VMT Impact Study Guidelines conclude that a quantitative VMT study is not required. Furthermore, because the effects of the project were evaluated in the GPU FEIR, no additional VMT analysis (qualitative or quantitative) is required. Therefore, the project is considered to be consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and would not result in a more substantial impact than was analyzed in the GPU FEIR, and the impact remains significant.
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The GPU FEIR concluded that the impact was less than significant because all new facilities and facility improvements contained in the circulation diagram would be constructed according to the City’s Design and Construction Standards, which have been created to ensure a safe and reliable multi-modal network. The project has been designed in a manner consistent with all applicable, published design standards including the City’s Design and Construction Standards, Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2019), and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2018). Consistent with the City’s expansive transportation system, the project would support all compatible uses including the surrounding land uses that are reasonably anticipated to contribute traffic to and rely on this facility. Accordingly, through its consistency with these standards, as well as resulting from its improved traffic operations and multi-modal safety enhancements, the project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature and would support all compatible uses. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
The GPU FEIR concluded that the impact was less than significant because all new facilities and facility improvements contained in the circulation diagram would be constructed according to the City’s Design and Construction Standards, which have been created to ensure a safe and reliable multi-modal network. The project would provide additional
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-82 June 2024
ICF 103175
capacity through one of the most congested corridors in the City. In addition to recurring commute peak-hour patterns, the project area accommodates off-peak and seasonal traffic congestion associated with the adjacent regional retail and related establishments.
Accordingly, through its additional capacity and documented improved traffic flow, the project is reasonably anticipated to have a positive effect on emergency response times and access.
Peak-hour travel times and general vehicular access to emergency and medical service facilities are anticipated to be improved by the project. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2018. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2018 7th Edition. Available:
file:///C:/Users/40895/Downloads/GDHS-7_TableOfContents.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2023.
Caltrans. 2019. Highway Design Manual U.S. Customary Units. Seventh Edition. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm. Accessed: January 19, 2023.
Kimley-Horn. 2022. Roseville Parkway Widening Draft Traffic Evaluation Memorandum. Draft.
CA. Prepared for Raul Cervantes, Mark Thomas.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-83 June 2024
ICF 103175
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either
a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
2) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
Setting
The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) is a federally recognized Tribe composed of both Miwok and Maidu (Nisenan) Tribal members who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. The Tribe has deep spiritual, cultural, and physical ties to their ancestral land and are contemporary stewards of their culture and landscapes. The Tribal community represents a continuity and endurance of their ancestors by maintaining their connection to their history and culture. It is the Tribe’s goal to ensure the preservation and continuance of their cultural heritage for current and future generations.
Regulatory
Tribal cultural resources are defined in CEQA as:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are either of the following:
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-84 June 2024
ICF 103175
a. Included in or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
AB 52 defines a California Native American Tribe as a Native American Tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (Public Resources Code Section 21073). A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. Sacred places can include Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, and sacred shrines. Both unique and non-unique archaeological resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, can be tribal cultural resources if they meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR (Public Resources Code Section 524.1(c)). The lead agency relies upon substantial evidence to make the determination that a resource qualifies as a tribal cultural resource when it is not already listed in the CRHR or a local register.
Consultation
On April 26, 2022, the City of Roseville sent certified letters to the following tribes requesting consultation or information regarding tribal cultural resources in the project area. The letters requested a response within 30 days.
⚫ United Auburn Indian Community (Gene Whitehouse, Chairman) ⚫ Shingle Springs band of Miwok Indians (Nicholas Fonseca, Chairperson) ⚫ Tsi Akim Maidu (Don Ryberg, Chairperson)
⚫ Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Sara D. Setshwaelo, Cultural Committee Chair) ⚫ Wilton Rancheria
The only response came on May 18, 2022, from Anna Starkey of the UAIC. In her email, Ms.
Starkey stated that the UAIC would like to consult on the project and asked for further information about the project area, schedule, and depths of excavation.
Terri Shirhall from the City of Roseville, responded on May 23, 2022, confirming UAIC’s request and answering Ms. Starkey’s questions about the project.
On June 14, 2022, Ms. Starkey requested further project information as the project could be near an unrecorded cultural resource. Ms. Shirhall sent project plans on July 5, 2022, and explained that the project would not encroach upon the open space.
On November 8, 2022, Ms. Starkey responded that she had no further questions or concerns and requested that the City include UAIC’s standard unanticipated discovery mitigation measure language and that UAIC considers AB 52 consultation closed.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-85 June 2024
ICF 103175
Methods
United Auburn Indian Community
UAIC conducted a records search for the identification of tribal cultural resources for this project which included a review of pertinent literature and historic maps, and a records search using UAIC’s Tribal Historic Information System (THRIS). UAIC’s THRIS database is composed of UAIC’s areas of oral history, ethnographic history, and places of cultural and religious significance, including UAIC Sacred Lands that are submitted to the NAHC. The THRIS resources shown in this region also include previously recorded indigenous resources identified through the California Historic Resources Information System Center (CHRIS) as well as historic resources and survey data.
Results
No tribal cultural resources have been identified by the consulting tribe (UAIC), and AB 52 tribal consultations were closed with agreement on November 8, 2022. UAIC’s requested mitigation measure language for unanticipated discoveries has been included below.
Impact Analysis
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or other local register as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? No tribal resources were identified through consultation efforts. Therefore, it is expected that the project would not result in impacts on tribal cultural resources. There would be no impact. 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
No tribal resources were identified through consultation efforts. Therefore, it is expected that the project would not result in impacts on tribal cultural resources. However, it is possible that unknown buried tribal cultural resources could be present on the project site. Should buried or otherwise unknown tribal cultural resources be encountered and damaged during construction, a potentially significant impact would result. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TRC-1: Implement Measures to Protect Previously Unidentified Tribal Cultural Resources
If any suspected tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find, or an agreed upon distance based on the project area and nature of the find. A Tribal Representative from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area shall be immediately notified and shall determine if the find is a tribal cultural resource (Public Resources
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-86 June 2024
ICF 103175
Code Section 21074). The Tribal Representative will make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary.
When avoidance is infeasible, preservation in place is the preferred option, and every effort will be made to preserve the resource(s) in place, including through project redesign, if feasible.
Culturally appropriate treatment may be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, or returning objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts.
Permanent curation of tribal cultural resources will not take place unless approved in writing by the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area.
The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by the City to be necessary and feasible to preserve in place, avoid, or minimize impacts on the resource, including, but not limited to, facilitating the appropriate tribal treatment of the find, as necessary. Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural character and integrity of a tribal cultural resource may include tribal monitoring, culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil.
Work at the discovery location will not resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the discovery under the requirements of the CEQA, including AB 52, have been satisfied.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-87 June 2024
ICF 103175
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation of new
or expanded water, or wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Setting
Wastewater
Wastewater services in Roseville are provided by the City. Two wastewater treatment facilities, the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant, serve the City. The Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the southern edge of the City on an 80-acre parcel at 1800 Booth Road. The Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the City’s west side on a 110-acre parcel at 5051 Westpark Drive.
These plants are owned and operated by the City of Roseville on behalf of the Regional Partners consisting of the City, the South Placer Municipal Utility District, and portions of unincorporated Placer County (primarily Granite Bay and Sunset Industrial Area) (City of Roseville 2016).
Water
The City of Roseville provides water service to areas within the city, including the project site.
Roseville uses multiple water sources, including surface water, recycled water for landscaping, and, in dry years or emergency situations, groundwater.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-88 June 2024
ICF 103175
Stormwater Drainage
Stormwater drainage facilities in urbanized areas of Roseville, including developed portions of the project area, consist of surface gutters, subsurface drainage pipes, canals, and retention basins. The project site is the existing Roseville Parkway bordered primarily by developed commercial, residential, and business park uses and open space. The project site is in a mostly developed area; stormwater runoff in undeveloped areas drains primarily through natural drainage swales, and in the developed areas through surface gutters and subsurface drainage pipes.
Solid Waste Disposal
The City collects solid waste generated in Roseville and hauls it to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at the Western Placer Waste Management Authority’s Western Regional Sanitary Landfill. The Western Placer Waste Management Authority is a joint powers authority made up of Placer County and the Cities of Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln. The landfill is a Class II/III non- hazardous municipal solid waste facility located southeast of the Athens Avenue and Fiddyment Road intersection between Roseville and Lincoln in unincorporated Placer County. The MRF has a municipal solid waste processing capacity of approximately 1,900 tons per day and a green waste processing capacity of approximately 205 tons per day (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2019a). As of July 1, 2013, the landfill had a remaining capacity of 25,677,600 cubic yards (City of Roseville 2016). The landfill has an estimated closure date of 2058 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2019b).
Impact Analysis
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The GPU FEIR concluded that direct impacts would be less than significant. Indirect impacts were determined to be significant because buildout of the General Plan would contribute to the need to develop the offsite Ophir water treatment plant, and new development under the General Plan would indirectly contribute to significant and unavoidable construction-related air quality impacts.
The project includes the widening of Roseville Parkway generally between Gibson Drive and Creekside Ridge Drive and construction of triple left-turn lanes on southbound Pleasant Grove Boulevard onto eastbound Roseville Parkway. Storm drain, domestic water, reclaimed water, and sanitary sewer pipes exist within the existing road alignment. It is anticipated these pipes would remain in place and the manholes or valves adjusted to grade. Storm drain facilities constructed as part of the proposed roadway widening would tie into and discharge to existing storm drain facilities. The project would not include extension of any new water, wastewater, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, although some existing facilities may be slightly relocated within the disturbance footprint.
Existing overhead electric transmission and telecommunication lines located along Roseville Parkway would require relocation to accommodate the roadway widening. There are existing gas lines within the proposed roadway widening that may require relocation based on current depth and allowable placement of fill. Any relocations would be buried to a depth of
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-89 June 2024
ICF 103175
approximately 3 feet and would remain along the existing roadway alignment within identified disturbance areas.
Roadway construction would include low-impact development measures and underground storm drain improvements to convey stormwater runoff from the widened roadway. The storm drain system would tie into existing storm drains. The new storm drain system would be built to City and SWRCB standards and would include construction BMPs, thereby reducing any potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts. b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? The GPU FEIR concluded that by adhering to the goals, policies, and implementation measures proposed in the General Plan Update, as well as local and state laws and regulations, the City would ensure adequate water supply is available to meet future demand and that the impact was less than significant. The project would not require the provision of water from public sources, and no water supply system would be built as part of the project.
The only water used by the project would be water trucked on site during construction activities for soil compaction and dust suppression. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts. c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The GPU FEIR concluded that by adhering to the goals, policies, and implementation measures proposed in the General Plan Update, the City would ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to meet future demand and that the impact was less than significant. The project would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements because the project would not generate wastewater. Because the project would not require wastewater treatment service, no construction or expansion of wastewater systems would be required, and the project would not affect wastewater treatment capacity. During construction, one or more portable toilets would be placed on the project site; wastewater would be contained within the portable toilet and ultimately disposed of at an approved site.
Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
And
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The GPU FEIR concluded that solid waste impacts would be less than significant because future development would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, or local solid waste regulations or statues. In addition, development as a result of the General Plan Update would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of capacity of local infrastructure, and the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill has sufficient
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-90 June 2024
ICF 103175
landfill capacity available to accommodate solid-waste disposal needs for development under the General Plan.
The project would not generate solid waste during operation. Solid waste generated during construction would include debris such as concrete, scrap metal, and similar materials.
Waste materials generated during construction would be disposed of appropriately at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill or its associated MRF.
The majority of earthwork would involve soil import and compaction to ready the road base for widening. With an estimate closure date of 2058 and a remaining capacity of slightly more than 25 million cubic yards, the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill would be capable of accommodating the project’s construction solid waste disposal needs.
Given the nominal demand that the project would place on remaining landfill capacity, the project would have a limited impact on landfill capacity and would comply with relevant statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, the project would not result in any new impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
The project would have no new impacts on utilities and service systems; therefore, no new mitigation is required.
References
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019a. SWIS Facility/Site Inspection Details, Western Placer Waste Mgmt Authority MFR (31-AA-0001). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/290175?siteID=5531.
Accessed: April 19, 2022.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019b. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details Western Regional Landfill (31-AA-0210). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2542?siteID=2273. Accessed:
April 19, 2022.
City of Roseville. 2020. City of General Plan 2035. Adopted August 5, 2020. Available:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8774544. Accessed:
April 18, 2022.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-91 June 2024
ICF 103175
XX. Wildfire
XX. Wildfire
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project::
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
Setting
The project area is not within a State Responsibility Area; therefore, it is not designated a very high fire hazard severity zone (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2020). The project site is in a Local Responsibility Area where the Roseville Fire Department is responsible for fire protection services.
Impact Analysis
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
And
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks of, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
And
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-92 June 2024
ICF 103175
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment?
And
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The GPU FEIR concluded that potential wildfire impacts would be less than significant with implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies and actions, along with existing regulations. Widening of Roseville Parkway and intersection improvements would improve emergency response in the project area by providing additional lanes for east-west emergency response in the project area. The project site is on relatively flat ground in an urbanized area of North Roseville, so is not susceptible to downstream flooding or landslide.
The project area is not within a State Responsibility Area; therefore, it is not designated a very high fire hazard severity zone. There would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
Mitigation Measures
The project would have no new impacts on wildfire; therefore, no new mitigation is required.
References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Last revised: January 13, 2020. Available:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414.
Accessed: April 20, 2022.
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-93 June 2024
ICF 103175
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
New
Significant
Impact
Substantially
More
Severe
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant
Impact with
Additional
Mitigation
No
New
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental
effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
Impact Analysis
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As stated in Section IV, Biological Resources, project construction would remove large landscape trees that could provide suitable roosting habitat for special-status bat species and nesting habitat for migratory bird species. As described in the GPU FEIR, the City will implement Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 to ensure that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW and USFWS. To further avoid impacts on migratory birds and special-status bat species, the City will implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2.
As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, the project would not significantly affect examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory or disturb any human
City of Roseville
Environmental Checklist
Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Roseville Parkway Widening Project 2-94 June 2024
ICF 103175
remains. Implementation of existing Mitigation Measures 4.9-2a, 4.9-2b and 4.9-3 from the GPU FEIR would ensure that impacts are less than significant.
With implementation of existing mitigation measures from the GPU FEIR and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
The analysis in this chapter concludes that the project would have either no impact or less- than-significant localized impacts (with existing mitigation from the GPU FEIR) on all resource categories. Because the project would not induce population growth or result in the development of new housing or employment-generating uses, it would not combine with cumulative development to increase the demand for public services, recreation facilities, or utilities, the expansion of which could result in significant environmental effects. Further, the analysis indicates that the proposed improvements are likely to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion, contributing to a GHG benefit. Implementation of existing mitigation measures from the GPU FEIR would minimize potential localized construction impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and paleontological resources.
The project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts because its impacts would not combine with those of cumulative development. The project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts. c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project would have no new significant adverse effects on human beings. There would be no new significant increase in construction-related or operational air emissions or noise levels, and there would be no new significant exposure to geologic or seismic hazards or to hazardous materials as a result of the project. For all other topics, there would be either no new impact or new less-than-significant impact. Therefore, there would be no change from the GPU FEIR conclusion, and the project would not result in any new impacts.
Appendix A
Right-of-Way Exhibit
This page intentionally left blank
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B
Construction Assumptions
This page intentionally left blank
Construction Schedule
Phase Months Modeled Start Date
Grubbing/Land Clearing 7.50 6/1/2024
Grading/Excavation 7.50 6/6/2024
Draining/Utilities/Subgrade 7.50 6/10/2024
Paving 7.50 6/20/2024
Striping / Pavement Markings 1.00 10/29/2024
Offroad Equipment
Phase Type Operating Days Equip/Day Hrs/Day/Equip
Grubbing/Land Clearing Skip Loader 80 1 8
Skid Steer 120 1 8
Grading/Excavation Skip Loader 80 1 8
Skid Steer 120 1 8
Draining/Utilities/Subgrade Skid Steer 10 1 8
Backhoe 8 1 8
Auger 8 1 8
Paving Paver 20 1 8
Pick Up Machine 20 1 8
Vibratory Roller 20 1 8
Pneumatic Roller 20 1 8
Finish Roller 20 1 8
Skip Loader 20 1 8
Saw Cutter 20 1 8
Onroad Vehicles
Phase Employee Heavy Trucks Water Trucks
Roundtrips
per Day
VMT per
Day
Roundtrips
per Day
VMT
per Day
Roundtrips
per Day
VMT per
Day
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20 800 34 680 10 80
Grading/Excavation 20 800 24 480 10 80
Draining/Utilities/Subgrade 8 320 4 80 5 40
Paving 15 600 52 1,040 0 0
Striping / Pavement Markings 0 0 10 200 0 0
Earthworks
Phase Import/Export
(cubic yards)
Paving
(acres/day)
Grading
(acres/day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 3,950 0 0.5
Grading/Excavation 2,632 0 0.5
Draining/Utilities/Subgrade 370 0 0.5
Paving 0 0.25 0
Striping / Pavement Markings 0 0 0
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix C
Traffic Evaluation Memorandum
This page intentionally left blank
kimley-horn.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 916 858 5800
Memorandum
To: Raul Cervantes, Mark Thomas
Susan Bushnell, ICF
Antero Rivasplata, ICF
From: Stephen Dillon, EIT
Matt Weir, P.E., T.E., PTOE, RSP1
Re: Roseville Parkway Widening
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation
Date: April 28, 2022
We have prepared this memorandum to document our evaluation of focused traffic operations associated with the proposed Roseville Parkway Widening project in the City of Roseville. This traffic evaluation included the signalized intersections directly affected by the proposed widening and other locations where modified traffic operations are anticipated as a result of coordinated traffic signal control. The purpose of this evaluation was to document project consistency with prior, more comprehensive environmental studies, and to inform the intersections’ lane geometries to achieve acceptable operations. This evaluation was performed in a manner consistent with the Project Development Team’s (PDT) direction1 and is understood to be provided in support of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) being prepared by others.
Project Understanding
Kimley-Horn understands that the City of Roseville (City) desires to widen Roseville Parkway to provide four (4) travel lanes with Class II on-street bike lanes in each direction between Gibson Drive and Creekside Ridge Drive, and widen the southbound Pleasant Grove Boulevard approach to Roseville Parkway to provide an additional left-turn lane (Exhibit 1). This section of Roseville Parkway currently experiences traffic congestion largely the result of the nearby regional commercial centers and due to congested peak-hour conditions along Interstate 80 (I-80) and State Route 65 (SR-65).
Data Collection
Kimley-Horn collected the following information to assist with this initial traffic evaluation:
Synchro network and signal timing sheets
“Pre-COVID” weekday, peak-hour intersection turning movement traffic volumes Video clips to allow for observation of u-turns and lane utilization Site observations
The above information, along with the project team’s understanding of the study corridor’s prevailing conditions and propensity for peak-hour congestion, were used to establish the baseline conditions on which the project was assessed.
Study Facilities and Analysis Methodology
Study Facilities
Exhibit 2 illustrates this evaluation’s study facilities, existing traffic control, and existing lane configurations. The following intersections are included in this evaluation:
1 Project Development Team Meeting, March 7, 2022.
Roseville Parkway Widening Page 2 of 6
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation April 28, 2022
1. Roseville Parkway @ Pleasant Grove Boulevard
2. Roseville Parkway @ Chase Drive
3. Roseville Parkway @ Gibson Drive
4. Roseville Parkway @ West Drive
5. Roseville Parkway @ Reserve Drive
6. Roseville Parkway @ Galleria Boulevard
7. Roseville Parkway @ Creekside Ridge Drive
8. Galleria Boulevard @ Antelope Creek Drive
Analysis Scenarios
This LOS analysis was conducted for the weekday (Tuesday-Thursday) AM and PM peak-hours for the following scenarios:
A. Existing (2020) Conditions
Conditions representative of “Pre-COVID” on-the-ground conditions established using traffic count data provided by the City’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) from February 2020 B. Existing (2020) plus Project Conditions
Conditions representative of year 2020 conditions resulting from the addition of the Project. The Project includes:
o additional WB and EB through lanes along Roseville Parkway o elimination of free right-turns at Galleria Boulevard (all four approaches), southbound and eastbound at Pleasant Grove Boulevard, westbound and southbound at Gibson Drive, southbound at West Drive, and westbound and southbound at Reserve Drive
o additional southbound through lane at Galleria Boulevard o westbound right-turn auxiliary lane between Creekside Ridge Drive and Galleria Boulevard
o triple southbound lefts at Pleasant Grove Boulevard
C. Cumulative (2035)
plus Project Conditions
Conditions representative of 2035 Cumulative Conditions (“Unconstrained”) as documented in the 2035 General Plan Update resulting from the addition of the Project
Analysis Methodology
Analysis of transportation facilities’ operations is primarily based on the concept of Level of Service (LOS).
The LOS of a facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from A (best), which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity. Levels of Service for this study were determined using methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6
th Edition.
Due to the close spacing of the project intersections, delay, LOS, and queuing were determined using the SimTraffic micro-simulation analysis software. The existing conditions’ SimTraffic models were validated based on field observations of traffic volumes, driver behavior, lane utilization, and maximum vehicle queue lengths. As a result of these observations, adjustments were incorporated that improve the accuracy of the vehicles’ behavior as they position for downstream maneuvers. SimTraffic measures of effectiveness were compared against the HCM intersection delay thresholds to equate SimTraffic results to HCM LOS. For this simulation effort, industry standard parameters were applied including a network seed time (the time during which the network is populated with vehicles) of 10 minutes and 10 runs were averaged to obtain the results.
The HCM includes procedures for analyzing signalized traffic control as a function of average control delay for the intersection as a whole. Table 1 presents intersection LOS definitions as defined in the HCM.
Roseville Parkway Widening Page 3 of 6
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation April 28, 2022
Table 1 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of Service
(LOS)
Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
A ≤ 10
B > 10 – 20
C > 20 – 35
D > 35 – 55
E > 55 – 80
F > 80
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
Technical Analysis Results
Existing (2020) Conditions’ traffic volumes were established by using the intersection turning movement data provided by the City. Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, traffic count data obtained after approximately mid-March 2020 is still considered to be reflective of a hybrid set of factors in which travel behavior is modified and not reflective of “normal” conditions. As a result, the February 2020 data provided by the City is considered to be representative of the “baseline” conditions under which the project conditions are evaluated (the “plus Project” conditions).
Cumulative (2035) conditions were established using the “unconstrained conditions” as provided in the City’s 2035 General Plan Update. These forecasted volumes for the study intersections were further reviewed in collaboration with the City. According to the City2, these volumes are influenced by the following factors, in particular as reflected in the 2035 volumes at the Roseville Parkway intersection with Galleria Boulevard:
Regarding the east-to-south and west-to north right-turn volumes, the General Plan modeling is understood to reflect a reduction in “cut through” traffic associated with the eastbound I-80 to northbound SR-65 commute route. Because the 2035 conditions include improvements to this route (future phases of the “80/65 Interchange”), there is an expected reduction in the west-to- north right-turn as these vehicles are presumed to remain on the freeway route. In contrast, a similar reduction is not seen in the east-to-south right-turn. The east-to-south right-turn, although it experiences some benefits associated with the aforementioned “80/65 Interchange” improvements, is concluded to be largely affected by the projected growth in and around the Gibson Drive area and therefore shows a net growth over the projected timeline.
These critical movements’ peak-hour volumes (right-turns at Roseville Pkwy/Galleria Blvd) were reviewed and concluded to be appropriate for use in this evaluation.
The Existing (2020) weekday AM and PM peak-hour turn movement volumes (with plus Project geometries) for the study intersections are illustrated in Exhibit 3. Traffic count data is provided in Attachment A and Existing (2020) Conditions’ analysis worksheets (without and with the Project) are provided in Attachment B. The Cumulative (2035) weekday AM and PM peak-hour turn movement volumes (with plus Project geometries) for the study intersections are illustrated in Exhibit 4 and these analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment C. Table 2 presents the peak-hour intersection operating conditions.
2 Mark Johnson, City of Roseville, June 2, 2021.
Roseville Parkway Widening Page 4 of 6
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation April 28, 2022
Table 2 – Intersection Levels of Service
The following is a summary of the primary observations of the LOS analysis results presented in Table 2:
Overall, the addition of the Project is shown to result in slight improvements to the study intersections’ peak-hour operations compared to the Existing (2020) conditions. This finding is reasonable considering that the project components, while adding through capacity along Roseville Parkway, do convert several high-volume free right-turn movements to signal- controlled
3. This trade-off is shown to result in slight overall improvements while creating a significantly safer environment for bicycles and pedestrians. The addition of the Project is shown to result in improved traffic operations along westbound Roseville Parkway approaching and through the Creekside Ridge Drive intersection, in particular during the PM peak-hour.
As the case with the Existing (2020) Conditions’ results, the Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions’ results are reasonable considering that the project components, while adding through capacity along Roseville Parkway, do convert several high-volume free right-turn movements to signal-controlled
3. This tradeoff creates a safer environment for bicycles and pedestrians.
The operations for the Roseville Parkway intersection with Creekside Ridge Drive (Intersection #7) during the PM peak-hour are associated with meaningful improvements to the westbound traffic stream. The project’s geometric modifications at the downstream intersection with Galleria Boulevard (Intersection #6) are confirmed to reduce the westbound approach’s spillback and, therefore, improve the upstream Creekside Ridge Drive intersection’s peak-hour operations.
3 These right-turn conversions include the addition of right-turn overlap signal phases and elimination of the complementary U- turn movements.
Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
AM 39.5 D 36.6 D 131.3 F
PM 63.1 E 52.8 D 116.2 F
AM 13.3 B 13.9 B 8.6 A
PM 12.0 B 12.5 B 22.0 C
AM 13.2 B 13.8 B 26.3 C
PM 20.4 C 21.3 C 55.9 E
AM 13.3 B 12.2 B 22.2 C
PM 16.0 B 15.2 B 39.4 D
AM 11.5 B 10.5 B 23.7 C
PM 23.6 C 22.6 C 46.6 D
AM 24.7 C 24.9 C 53.1 D
PM 56.2 E 42.8 D 75.3 E
AM 8.8 A 9.9 A 8.6 A
PM 38.4 D 18.4 B 42.9 D
AM 12.3 B 12.0 B 17.0 B
PM 27.8 C 31.9 C 41.1 D
ID Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing (2020) Cumulative (2035)
plus Project
1 Rose ville Pkwy @ Ple asant Grove Blvd
2 Rosevi l l e Pkwy @ Chase Dr
Rose ville Pkwy @ Gibson Dr
4 Rosevi l l e Pkwy @ West Dr
Existing (2020)
plus Project
7 Rosevi l l e Pkwy @ Creeksi de Ri dge Dr
8 Gal l eri a Bl vd @ Antel ope Creek Dr
5 Rosevi l l e Pkwy @ Reserve Dr
6 Rose ville Pkwy @ Galle ria Blvd
3
Roseville Parkway Widening Page 5 of 6
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation April 28, 2022
CEQA Compliance
The following is an assessment of the Proposed Project using the current CEQA Guidelines’ “checklist” as pertains to Transportation (XVII. TRANSPORTATION).
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No Impact
The Proposed Project, through its widening of Roseville Parkway between Gibson Drive and Creekside Ridge Drive, does not conflict with the City of Roseville’s applicable planning documents including the General Plan 2035, Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Short Range Transit Plan. The following is an overview of the project’s consistency with these guiding documents:
Circulation System
o Consistent with the Project, the facility is indicated to have seven or eight future lanes (Exhibit 4.3-4, 2035 General Plan Update Final EIR, Page 4.3-23) Transit Facilities
o The immediate project area includes the Roseville Transit Galleria Transfer Point, which accommodates Bus Routes A, B, M, and S. The Project limits, and therefore the Project, include several bus stops in addition to the aforementioned transfer point. These stops are located along eastbound Roseville Parkway after Reserve Drive (Routes A and B), eastbound Roseville Parkway after Galleria Boulevard (Route A), southbound Galleria Boulevard after Antelope Creek Drive (Route M), and northbound Pleasant Grove Boulevard after Roseville Parkway (Route M).
Bicycle Facilities
o Consistent with the Project, Roseville Parkway is indicated to have Class II Bike Lanes along the entire stretch from Pleasant Grove Boulevard through the project area (Figure III-5, General Plan 2035 Circulation Element, Page III-23, and Figure 4, City of Roseville Bicycle Master Plan, Page 43).
Pedestrian Facilities
o The Proposed Project includes both attached and detached (meandering) sidewalks, generally mimicking the existing conditions. Through its inclusion of these facilities, the Proposed Project supports the City’s General Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan goals.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact
The Proposed Project’s effect on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was evaluated in a manner consistent with the City’s direction4, the 2035 General Plan Update and related VMT Impact Studies Guidelines, and to a lesser degree the December 2018 guidance provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
5 as pertains to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743).
Although the project is understood to be a capacity-enhancing roadway project, it was confirmed to have been previously anticipated and comprehensively evaluated as part of the CEQA documentation associated with the City’s 2035 General Plan (see Exhibit 4.3-4, 2035 General Plan Update Final EIR, Page
4.3-23). As a result, the City’s VMT Impact Study Guidelines conclude that a quantitative VMT study is not required. Furthermore, because the effect of the Project was comprehensively evaluated within the City’s 2035 General Plan, no additional VMT analysis (qualitative or quantitative) is required.
In summary, the Project is considered to be consistent with CEQA Guidelines.
4 Email from Mark Johnson, City of Roseville, April 25, 2022. 5 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California. December 2018.
Roseville Parkway Widening Page 6 of 6
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation April 28, 2022
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact The Project has been designed in a manner consistent with all applicable, published design standards at the onset of this project including the City of Roseville’s Design and Construction Standards, Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Consistent with the City’s expansive transportation system, the Project will support all compatible uses including the surrounding land uses that are reasonably anticipated to contribute traffic to and rely on this facility. Accordingly, through its consistency with these standards, as well as resulting from its improved traffic operations and multi- modal safety enhancements, the Project does not increase hazards and supports all compatible uses.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact
The Project provides additional capacity through one of the most congested corridors in the City. In addition to recurring commute peak-hour patterns, the project area accommodates off-peak and seasonal traffic congestion associated with the adjacent regional retail and related establishments.
Accordingly, through its additional capacity and documented improved traffic flow, the Project is reasonably anticipated to have a positive effect on emergency response times and access. Peak-hour travel times and general vehicular access to emergency and medical service facilities are anticipated to be improved by the Project.
Conclusions
The following are the primary conclusions based on the analyses discussed herein:
In general, the benefits of the added through capacity along Roseville Parkway are somewhat diluted by the inefficiencies realized by eliminating the free-right turn movements. This combination of enhanced capacity and traditional right-turn treatments (accompanied by right- turn overlap signal phases and elimination of the complementary U-turn movement) is anticipated to improve bicycle/pedestrian and vehicular safety at these major intersections, in particular at Galleria Boulevard. It is important to note that the Galleria Boulevard intersection ranks among the top collision frequency locations in the City. The Project is shown to improve the study corridor. The Project most notably improves operations along westbound Roseville Parkway approaching and through the Creekside Ridge Drive intersection.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 – Study Intersections, Traffic Control, and Lane Geometries Exhibit 3 – Existing (2020) plus Project Conditions Peak-Hour Volumes Exhibit 4 – Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions Peak-Hour Volumes
Appendix A – Traffic Count Data Sheets
Appendix B – Analysis Worksheets for Existing (2020) and Existing (2020) plus Project Conditions Appendix C – Analysis Worksheets for Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions
Exhibit 1
Project Vicinity Map
Roseville Parkway Widening - Traffic Evaluation
Roseville PkwyRoseville Pkwy
Gibson DrGibson Dr
Galleria BlvdGalleria Blvd
Reserve DrReserve Dr
Antelope Creek DrAntelope Creek Dr
Roseville PkwyRoseville Pkwy
Creekside Ridge DrCreekside Ridge Dr
Galleria BlvdGalleria Blvd
Roseville PkwyRoseville Pkwy
West DrWest Dr
Castaic DrCastaic Dr
Chase DrChase Dr
Pleasant Grove BlvdPleasant Grove Blvd
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
Project Left-Turn Capacity
Addition
Project Through Lane
Capacity Addition (directional)
Exhibit 2
Study Intersections, Traffic Control, and Lane Geometries Roseville Parkway Widening - Traffic Evaluation
5 6
Roseville Pkwy
Galleria Blvd
Reserve Dr
Roseville Pkwy
4 Roseville Pkwy
West Dr
8 Antelope Creek Dr
Galleria Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Pleasant Grove Blvd
2 Roseville Pkwy
Chase Dr
3 Roseville Pkwy
Castaic Dr
Gibson Dr
7 Driveway
Creekside Ridge DrRoseville Pkwy
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
F
Galleria Blvd
Creekside Ridge Dr
Reserve Dr
Roseville Pkwy
Antelope Creek Dr
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
West Dr
Gibson Dr
Castaic Dr
Chase Dr
Roseville Pkwy
Pleasant Grove Blvd
#
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Traffic Signal
Control
#
F Free Right
NOT TO SCALE
Exhibit 3
Existing (2020) plus Project Conditions Peak-Hour Volumes Roseville Parkway Widening - Traffic Evaluation
5 6
Roseville Pkwy
Galleria Blvd
Reserve Dr
Roseville Pkwy
4 Roseville Pkwy
West Dr
8 Antelope Creek Dr
Galleria Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Pleasant Grove Blvd
2 Roseville Pkwy
Chase Dr
3 Roseville Pkwy
Castaic Dr
Gibson Dr
19(44)
112(375)
18(153)
1862(1534)
153(252)
1139(1915)
38(156)
104(191)
3(22)
4(65)
10(34)
123(260)
134(435)
203(477)
598(558)
1307(1057)
585(480)
911(1384)
569(796)
85(200)
398(629)
164(355)
309(848)
50(58)
60(81)
13(26)
52(103)
1881(1530)
91(12)
1549(2229)
189(341)
25(44)
0(0)
35(83)
7(12)
7(29)
37(331)
10(103)
93(228)
5(52)
9(119)
14(77)
42(319)
106(201)
1107(1137)
30(135)
936(1790)
41(153)
60(144)
2(26)
17(138)
1995(1671)
7(24)
1221(2269)
57(97)
11(35)
0(2)
29(213)
35(1)
76(20)
61(137)
3(2)
222(324)
1831(1471)
0(0)
871(2139)
315(274)
17(33)
2(3)
73(74)
2(1)
27(15)
118(58)
1735(1544)
97(77)
827(2104)
137(117)
167(69)
148(181)
30(35)
556(632)
578(456)
19(20)
294(642)
395(873)
530(1087)
556(1260)
99(171)
894(1057)
877(704)
7 Driveway
Creekside Ridge DrRoseville Pkwy
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Galleria Blvd
Creekside Ridge Dr
Reserve Dr
Roseville Pkwy
Antelope Creek Dr
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
West Dr
Gibson Dr
Castaic Dr
Chase Dr
Roseville Pkwy
Pleasant Grove Blvd
#
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Traffic Signal
Control
#
F Free Right
NOT TO SCALE
AM(PM) Peak-hour Volumes
Exhibit 4
Cumulative (2035) plus Project Conditions Peak-Hour Volumes Roseville Parkway Widening - Traffic Evaluation
5 6
Roseville Pkwy
Galleria Blvd
Reserve Dr
Roseville Pkwy
4 Roseville Pkwy
West Dr
8 Antelope Creek Dr
Galleria Blvd
1 Roseville Pkwy
Pleasant Grove Blvd
2 Roseville Pkwy
Chase Dr
3 Roseville Pkwy
Castaic Dr
Gibson Dr
8(34)
293(427)
54(276)
2124(2652)
310(340)
2229(2297)
108(238)
237(320)
14(181)
6(83)
87(100)
133(418)
288(659)
741(594)
628(660)
1392(1658)
611(1032)
1486(1698)
480(741)
75(255)
495(759)
335(563)
705(1003)
53(64)
78(76)
6(27)
61(495)
1968(2226)
5(17)
1770(2268)
604(339)
17(42)
0(4)
35(151)
3(10)
3(23)
48(505)
17(119)
313(307)
8(75)
5(124)
7(88)
74(431)
52(430)
1365(1342)
123(259)
1181(1893)
74(181)
60(144)
2(26)
17(138)
1995(1671)
7(24)
1221(2269)
57(97)
11(35)
0(2)
29(213)
35(1)
76(20)
244(200)
2(2)
416(1101)
2205(2062)
0(0)
1536(2404)
975(597)
35(42)
3(7)
187(369)
3(3)
32(44)
44(50)
2312(2189)
53(78)
1665(2317)
66(458)
137(77)
173(406)
22(47)
989(838)
1106(986)
25(21)
1015(1243)
511(1218)
579(1100)
815(1555)
196(274)
1248(1377)
1067(882)
7 Driveway
Creekside Ridge DrRoseville Pkwy
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Galleria Blvd
Creekside Ridge Dr
Reserve Dr
Roseville Pkwy
Antelope Creek Dr
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
West Dr
Gibson Dr
Castaic Dr
Chase Dr
Roseville Pkwy
Pleasant Grove Blvd
#
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Traffic Signal
Control
#
F Free Right
NOT TO SCALE
AM(PM) Peak-hour Volumes
Roseville Parkway Widening
Traffic Evaluation
Appendix A
Traffic Count Data Sheets
4/25/22, 8:25 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:25:12 PM From 2/20/2020 to 2/20/2020
Galleria & Antelope
Creek
Intersection: 84
N S E W
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 20/02/20 00:00-
01:00
6 95 6 107 9 50 1 60 6 1 0 7 3 0 5 8 182
20/02/20 01:00-
02:00
5 41 2 48 6 20 1 27 1 1 0 2 5 4 6 15 92
20/02/20 02:00-
03:00
0 36 0 36 5 19 1 25 3 0 0 3 2 1 3 6 70
20/02/20 03:00-
04:00
1 34 1 36 5 29 0 34 3 0 2 5 0 0 4 4 79
20/02/20 04:00-
05:00
3 49 1 53 8 83 1 92 0 0 2 2 3 0 17 20 167
20/02/20 05:00-
06:00
5 131 6 142 12 188 6 206 5 1 1 7 4 7 19 30 385
20/02/20 06:00-
07:00
10 322 10 342 26 526 17 569 9 1 2 12 11 6 47 64 987
20/02/20 07:00-
08:00
11 749 36 796 55 986 21 1062 30 2 6 38 31 10 108 149 2045 20/02/20 08:00-
09:00
14 917 47 978 102 1103 38 1243 31 3 8 42 52 14 99 165 2428 20/02/20 09:00-
10:00
47 923 63 1033 76 890 71 1037 55 10 14 79 52 23 117 192 2341 20/02/20 10:00-
11:00
71 967 110 1148 136 880 125 1141 109 24 36 169 97 51 105 253 2711 20/02/20 11:00-
12:00
122 1132 164 1418 169 974 200 1343 220 42 88 350 168 70 156 394 3505 20/02/20 12:00-
13:00
118 1237 185 1540 200 1028 166 1394 278 53 117 448 211 75 200 486 3868 20/02/20 13:00-
14:00
109 1247 171 1527 187 1039 145 1371 323 65 124 512 242 83 180 505 3915 20/02/20 14:00-
15:00
112 1330 144 1586 173 1087 112 1372 371 71 143 585 251 88 183 522 4065 20/02/20 15:00-
16:00
94 1514 135 1743 171 1093 115 1379 321 55 114 490 195 65 243 503 4115 20/02/20 16:00- 100 1574 151 1825 198 1052 143 1393 320 59 114 493 223 74 277 574 4285 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:25 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:25:12 PM From 2/20/2020 to 2/20/2020
Galleria & Antelope
Creek
Intersection: 84
N S E W
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
20/02/20 17:00-
18:00
103 1790 153 2046 228 1137 135 1500 331 52 119 502 201 77 319 597 4645 20/02/20 18:00-
19:00
107 1329 122 1558 195 918 136 1249 321 58 111 490 201 52 216 469 3766 20/02/20 19:00-
20:00
70 990 99 1159 141 690 100 931 257 44 94 395 169 51 132 352 2837 20/02/20 20:00-
21:00
42 711 69 822 113 499 67 679 248 43 113 404 115 36 109 260 2165 20/02/20 21:00-
22:00
27 510 29 566 72 345 24 441 238 32 90 360 90 18 78 186 1553 20/02/20 22:00-
23:00
17 277 15 309 33 208 8 249 61 7 29 97 41 8 23 72 727
20/02/20 23:00-
00:00
7 176 14 197 24 99 2 125 20 2 9 31 18 3 13 34 387
Summary 1201 18081 1733 21015 2344 14943 1635 18922 3561 626 1336 5523 2385 816 2659 5860 51320 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:23 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:23:43 PM From 2/18/2020 to 2/18/2020
Galleria & Antelope
Creek
Intersection: 84
N S E W
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 18/02/20 00:00-
01:00
2 68 4 74 8 44 1 53 6 1 2 9 4 0 5 9 145
18/02/20 01:00-
02:00
1 41 1 43 3 25 2 30 1 1 3 5 4 2 4 10 88
18/02/20 02:00-
03:00
0 30 0 30 2 33 0 35 2 0 1 3 1 0 3 4 72
18/02/20 03:00-
04:00
0 31 2 33 1 25 2 28 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 8 69
18/02/20 04:00-
05:00
2 52 2 56 6 71 4 81 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 9 147
18/02/20 05:00-
06:00
4 132 9 145 10 200 9 219 6 1 1 8 3 2 15 20 392
18/02/20 06:00-
07:00
12 342 8 362 32 562 16 610 13 2 5 20 12 11 43 66 1058
18/02/20 07:00-
08:00
7 751 29 787 54 948 29 1031 15 3 2 20 32 10 108 150 1988 18/02/20 08:00-
09:00
10 936 41 987 93 1107 30 1230 37 5 9 51 42 14 106 162 2430 18/02/20 09:00-
10:00
35 936 61 1032 89 943 57 1089 55 17 14 86 50 29 86 165 2372 18/02/20 10:00-
11:00
83 1023 98 1204 128 958 132 1218 123 22 36 181 105 53 122 280 2883 18/02/20 11:00-
12:00
98 1170 146 1414 167 1064 149 1380 200 38 70 308 189 78 141 408 3510 18/02/20 12:00-
13:00
102 1285 137 1524 210 1059 136 1405 251 63 101 415 192 70 180 442 3786 18/02/20 13:00-
14:00
116 1295 144 1555 188 1053 150 1391 315 59 123 497 205 78 223 506 3949 18/02/20 14:00-
15:00
98 1304 116 1518 192 1057 120 1369 308 63 141 512 238 89 187 514 3913 18/02/20 15:00-
16:00
93 1442 142 1677 158 989 132 1279 311 46 106 463 201 64 248 513 3932 18/02/20 16:00- 83 1529 157 1769 173 975 125 1273 306 57 126 489 204 70 250 524 4055 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:23 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:23:43 PM From 2/18/2020 to 2/18/2020
Galleria & Antelope
Creek
Intersection: 84
N S E W
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
18/02/20 17:00-
18:00
73 1667 149 1889 178 1026 113 1317 286 54 110 450 207 68 301 576 4232 18/02/20 18:00-
19:00
72 1317 149 1538 161 857 128 1146 263 43 105 411 157 58 202 417 3512 18/02/20 19:00-
20:00
54 900 93 1047 129 635 72 836 235 44 102 381 138 38 116 292 2556 18/02/20 20:00-
21:00
31 664 68 763 85 431 46 562 207 35 69 311 127 33 84 244 1880 18/02/20 21:00-
22:00
24 503 25 552 55 304 23 382 197 32 78 307 78 22 61 161 1402 18/02/20 22:00-
23:00
14 261 20 295 31 168 9 208 61 7 18 86 38 9 27 74 663
18/02/20 23:00-
00:00
9 171 7 187 18 99 3 120 21 2 6 29 7 2 13 22 358
Summary 1023 17850 1608 20481 2171 14633 1488 18292 3220 595 1228 5043 2235 801 2540 5576 49392 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:24 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:24:37 PM From 2/19/2020 to 2/19/2020
Galleria & Antelope
Creek
Intersection: 84
N S E W
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 19/02/20 00:00-
01:00
1 106 0 107 9 52 3 64 5 0 4 9 8 1 2 11 191
19/02/20 01:00-
02:00
5 44 0 49 4 36 1 41 0 0 1 1 4 1 4 9 100
19/02/20 02:00-
03:00
0 35 0 35 4 27 0 31 1 1 0 2 2 1 2 5 73
19/02/20 03:00-
04:00
1 29 2 32 0 31 4 35 2 1 1 4 1 1 4 6 77
19/02/20 04:00-
05:00
0 41 1 42 6 79 3 88 1 0 1 2 2 1 10 13 145
19/02/20 05:00-
06:00
11 162 7 180 12 196 7 215 4 0 0 4 7 5 26 38 437
19/02/20 06:00-
07:00
15 324 8 347 33 536 17 586 14 1 7 22 11 4 40 55 1010
19/02/20 07:00-
08:00
14 699 32 745 61 982 40 1083 30 5 6 41 29 11 112 152 2021 19/02/20 08:00-
09:00
17 919 32 968 78 1091 37 1206 49 11 10 70 38 15 112 165 2409 19/02/20 09:00-
10:00
34 905 50 989 107 855 57 1019 57 16 21 94 58 27 98 183 2285 19/02/20 10:00-
11:00
89 1030 90 1209 137 878 118 1133 115 23 38 176 88 54 131 273 2791 19/02/20 11:00-
12:00
86 1106 119 1311 174 954 161 1289 190 35 62 287 166 51 156 373 3260 19/02/20 12:00-
13:00
128 1236 144 1508 228 1063 146 1437 275 57 93 425 211 70 168 449 3819 19/02/20 13:00-
14:00
98 1232 145 1475 231 1040 153 1424 314 67 112 493 247 89 208 544 3936 19/02/20 14:00-
15:00
97 1313 127 1537 186 1052 138 1376 316 69 117 502 214 70 171 455 3870 19/02/20 15:00-
16:00
91 1465 173 1729 152 935 144 1231 329 52 126 507 195 64 226 485 3952 19/02/20 16:00- 90 1607 141 1838 184 1005 126 1315 303 59 121 483 204 74 273 551 4187 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:24 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:24:37 PM From 2/19/2020 to 2/19/2020
Galleria & Antelope
Creek
Intersection: 84
N S E W
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
19/02/20 17:00-
18:00
76 1678 141 1895 198 1108 146 1452 290 46 107 443 196 63 315 574 4364 19/02/20 18:00-
19:00
89 1381 161 1631 163 901 133 1197 266 47 93 406 204 64 217 485 3719 19/02/20 19:00-
20:00
68 957 95 1120 144 620 112 876 279 48 116 443 162 55 123 340 2779 19/02/20 20:00-
21:00
38 685 67 790 96 467 41 604 240 46 88 374 102 29 106 237 2005 19/02/20 21:00-
22:00
19 543 21 583 49 407 24 480 226 27 84 337 81 12 50 143 1543 19/02/20 22:00-
23:00
8 278 21 307 32 182 4 218 44 6 19 69 26 9 35 70 664
19/02/20 23:00-
00:00
5 200 9 214 13 99 1 113 19 3 8 30 14 2 9 25 382
Summary 1080 17975 1586 20641 2301 14596 1616 18513 3369 620 1235 5224 2270 773 2598 5641 50019 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:27 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:27:09 PM From 2/20/2020 to 2/20/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Chase
Intersection: 151
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 20/02/20 00:00-
01:00
11 91 102 43 5 48 0 2 2 0 152
20/02/20 01:00-
02:00
4 45 49 15 1 16 0 1 1 0 66
20/02/20 02:00-
03:00
3 30 33 19 1 20 0 1 1 0 54
20/02/20 03:00-
04:00
1 20 21 22 1 23 0 1 1 0 45
20/02/20 04:00-
05:00
1 34 35 56 0 56 2 4 6 0 97
20/02/20 05:00-
06:00
3 91 94 199 2 201 5 13 18 0 313
20/02/20 06:00-
07:00
12 280 292 556 9 565 8 61 69 0 926
20/02/20 07:00-
08:00
41 687 728 1585 26 1611 20 136 156 0 2495
20/02/20 08:00-
09:00
136 819 955 1741 87 1828 124 157 281 0 3064
20/02/20 09:00-
10:00
37 754 791 1272 48 1320 78 100 178 0 2289
20/02/20 10:00-
11:00
70 786 856 1146 39 1185 34 79 113 0 2154
20/02/20 11:00-
12:00
67 1109 1176 1423 39 1462 41 70 111 0 2749
20/02/20 12:00-
13:00
66 1325 1391 1403 44 1447 34 72 106 0 2944
20/02/20 13:00-
14:00
84 1429 1513 1390 37 1427 26 54 80 0 3020
20/02/20 14:00-
15:00
96 1540 1636 1412 74 1486 52 74 126 0 3248
20/02/20 15:00-
16:00
146 1707 1853 1485 77 1562 115 114 229 0 3644
20/02/20 16:00- 119 1790 1909 1596 68 1664 50 70 120 0 3693 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:27 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:27:09 PM From 2/20/2020 to 2/20/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Chase
Intersection: 151
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
20/02/20 17:00-
18:00
138 1948 2086 1601 76 1677 72 95 167 0 3930
20/02/20 18:00-
19:00
101 1717 1818 1237 58 1295 37 73 110 0 3223
20/02/20 19:00-
20:00
74 1302 1376 734 51 785 32 25 57 0 2218
20/02/20 20:00-
21:00
61 986 1047 449 40 489 7 35 42 0 1578
20/02/20 21:00-
22:00
49 778 827 325 18 343 11 13 24 0 1194
20/02/20 22:00-
23:00
32 344 376 191 14 205 4 11 15 0 596
20/02/20 23:00-
00:00
12 219 231 91 15 106 2 5 7 0 344
Summary 1364 19831 0 21195 0 19991 830 20821 754 0 1266 2020 0 0 0 0 44036 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:26 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:26:22 PM From 2/18/2020 to 2/18/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Chase
Intersection: 151
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 18/02/20 00:00-
01:00
6 85 91 34 3 37 0 0 0 0 128
18/02/20 01:00-
02:00
2 35 37 15 1 16 0 1 1 0 54
18/02/20 02:00-
03:00
3 27 30 11 1 12 0 4 4 0 46
18/02/20 03:00-
04:00
2 21 23 20 1 21 0 1 1 0 45
18/02/20 04:00-
05:00
2 43 45 61 0 61 2 3 5 0 111
18/02/20 05:00-
06:00
4 100 104 210 3 213 9 20 29 0 346
18/02/20 06:00-
07:00
12 264 276 590 10 600 10 49 59 0 935
18/02/20 07:00-
08:00
47 700 747 1585 28 1613 22 127 149 0 2509
18/02/20 08:00-
09:00
121 811 932 1735 86 1821 112 151 263 0 3016
18/02/20 09:00-
10:00
44 721 765 1348 36 1384 69 88 157 0 2306
18/02/20 10:00-
11:00
57 878 935 1138 38 1176 40 84 124 0 2235
18/02/20 11:00-
12:00
60 1149 1209 1261 43 1304 42 72 114 0 2627
18/02/20 12:00-
13:00
50 1363 1413 1221 47 1268 30 63 93 0 2774
18/02/20 13:00-
14:00
69 1357 1426 1288 50 1338 28 56 84 0 2848
18/02/20 14:00-
15:00
125 1434 1559 1336 67 1403 48 68 116 0 3078
18/02/20 15:00-
16:00
123 1548 1671 1532 84 1616 120 107 227 0 3514
18/02/20 16:00- 112 1743 1855 1507 63 1570 53 71 124 0 3549 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:26 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:26:22 PM From 2/18/2020 to 2/18/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Chase
Intersection: 151
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
18/02/20 17:00-
18:00
120 1962 2082 1562 63 1625 47 68 115 0 3822
18/02/20 18:00-
19:00
110 1718 1828 1234 62 1296 19 72 91 0 3215
18/02/20 19:00-
20:00
74 1172 1246 723 38 761 28 33 61 0 2068
18/02/20 20:00-
21:00
51 865 916 394 21 415 17 15 32 0 1363
18/02/20 21:00-
22:00
40 708 748 296 25 321 12 12 24 0 1093
18/02/20 22:00-
23:00
24 307 331 198 16 214 6 8 14 0 559
18/02/20 23:00-
00:00
15 184 199 86 3 89 1 5 6 0 294
Summary 1273 19195 0 20468 0 19385 789 20174 715 0 1178 1893 0 0 0 0 42535 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:26 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:26:47 PM From 2/19/2020 to 2/19/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Chase
Intersection: 151
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 19/02/20 00:00-
01:00
9 82 91 31 5 36 0 1 1 0 128
19/02/20 01:00-
02:00
1 40 41 25 0 25 1 1 2 0 68
19/02/20 02:00-
03:00
2 36 38 15 0 15 0 3 3 0 56
19/02/20 03:00-
04:00
0 18 18 21 0 21 1 0 1 0 40
19/02/20 04:00-
05:00
2 29 31 66 0 66 2 6 8 0 105
19/02/20 05:00-
06:00
4 90 94 219 2 221 5 18 23 0 338
19/02/20 06:00-
07:00
11 285 296 612 15 627 14 56 70 0 993
19/02/20 07:00-
08:00
34 702 736 1655 31 1686 28 136 164 0 2586
19/02/20 08:00-
09:00
137 827 964 1735 97 1832 118 167 285 0 3081
19/02/20 09:00-
10:00
58 758 816 1385 41 1426 68 114 182 0 2424
19/02/20 10:00-
11:00
55 893 948 1124 47 1171 41 71 112 0 2231
19/02/20 11:00-
12:00
61 1113 1174 1265 54 1319 50 62 112 0 2605
19/02/20 12:00-
13:00
66 1301 1367 1321 37 1358 30 67 97 0 2822
19/02/20 13:00-
14:00
67 1317 1384 1229 53 1282 29 56 85 0 2751
19/02/20 14:00-
15:00
105 1411 1516 1287 53 1340 50 59 109 0 2965
19/02/20 15:00-
16:00
112 1603 1715 1560 74 1634 136 105 241 0 3590
19/02/20 16:00- 114 1708 1822 1605 47 1652 41 68 109 0 3583 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:26 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:26:47 PM From 2/19/2020 to 2/19/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Chase
Intersection: 151
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
19/02/20 17:00-
18:00
117 2104 2221 1544 77 1621 58 69 127 0 3969
19/02/20 18:00-
19:00
107 1651 1758 1195 64 1259 32 77 109 0 3126
19/02/20 19:00-
20:00
66 1227 1293 728 43 771 18 49 67 0 2131
19/02/20 20:00-
21:00
54 903 957 430 30 460 19 21 40 0 1457
19/02/20 21:00-
22:00
48 766 814 287 23 310 16 24 40 0 1164
19/02/20 22:00-
23:00
31 320 351 183 10 193 3 4 7 0 551
19/02/20 23:00-
00:00
18 180 198 90 12 102 4 3 7 0 307
Summary 1279 19364 0 20643 0 19612 815 20427 764 0 1237 2001 0 0 0 0 43071 Page: 2/2
SWNW SE NE
to 2/20/20202/20/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Parkway &
Creekside Ridge (332)
5/19/2021 1:28:02 PMReport Date:
106
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 420/02/20 00:00-
01:00
4 113 10 127 7 86 1 94 7 5 4 16 2 0 6 243
020/02/20 01:00-
02:00
1 44 11 56 2 26 0 28 2 2 3 7 2 0 2 93
220/02/20 02:00-
03:00
0 48 6 54 0 24 0 24 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 82
020/02/20 03:00-
04:00
0 44 4 48 0 30 0 30 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 79
120/02/20 04:00-
05:00
4 64 9 77 2 85 0 87 1 0 0 1 4 0 5 170
520/02/20 05:00-
06:00
1 212 33 246 5 271 0 276 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 531
920/02/20 06:00-
07:00
6 535 78 619 8 795 1 804 2 1 0 3 13 0 22 1448
2120/02/20 07:00-
08:00
19 1152 138 1309 39 1582 1 1622 3 2 4 9 28 0 49 2989
3520/02/20 08:00-
09:00
25 1549 189 1763 60 1881 9 1950 13 7 7 27 52 0 87 3827
1420/02/20 09:00-
10:00
29 1396 170 1595 45 1254 5 1304 10 4 7 21 32 0 46 2966
2620/02/20 10:00-
11:00
28 1438 155 1621 50 1102 10 1162 27 8 19 54 47 0 73 2910 4620/02/20 11:00-
12:00
44 1727 212 1983 72 1158 12 1242 23 7 24 54 83 0 129 3408 5720/02/20 12:00-
13:00
47 1815 273 2135 87 1336 16 1439 26 11 30 67 92 0 149 3790 6420/02/20 13:00-
14:00
54 1681 204 1939 100 1523 10 1633 40 15 36 91 101 0 165 3828 4520/02/20 14:00-
15:00
36 1728 212 1976 74 1518 11 1603 30 10 27 67 80 0 125 3771 5920/02/20 15:00-
16:00
30 1990 259 2279 75 1565 11 1651 30 7 21 58 101 0 160 4148 7320/02/20 16:00- 42 2100 302 2444 85 1520 5 1610 30 12 27 69 96 0 169 4292 1/2Page:
SWNW SE NE
to 2/20/20202/20/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Parkway &
Creekside Ridge (332)
5/19/2021 1:28:02 PMReport Date:
106
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
8520/02/20 17:00-
18:00
32 2253 321 2606 77 1559 10 1646 27 7 24 58 92 0 177 4487 4220/02/20 18:00-
19:00
27 1930 217 2174 69 1275 10 1354 25 8 23 56 89 0 131 3715 2120/02/20 19:00-
20:00
24 1287 113 1424 41 855 11 907 17 4 11 32 52 0 73 2436
2220/02/20 20:00-
21:00
14 855 86 955 43 718 4 765 15 7 12 34 49 0 71 1825
1420/02/20 21:00-
22:00
17 612 71 700 31 579 0 610 9 4 8 21 31 0 45 1376
420/02/20 22:00-
23:00
8 380 33 421 19 266 1 286 1 0 5 6 10 0 14 727
020/02/20 23:00-
00:00
11 227 24 262 9 159 0 168 2 2 4 8 7 0 7 445
535861718010697602971233402229512821167100028813313025180503 649Summary 2/2Page:
SWNW SE NE
to 2/18/20202/18/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Parkway &
Creekside Ridge (332)
5/19/2021 1:27:25 PMReport Date:
106
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 218/02/20 00:00-
01:00
2 83 9 94 4 60 1 65 3 2 3 8 2 0 4 171
018/02/20 01:00-
02:00
1 41 4 46 1 27 0 28 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 76
018/02/20 02:00-
03:00
1 44 6 51 2 26 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79
018/02/20 03:00-
04:00
1 46 3 50 1 21 0 22 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 74
218/02/20 04:00-
05:00
2 65 3 70 5 91 0 96 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 171
118/02/20 05:00-
06:00
3 222 29 254 6 287 0 293 0 0 0 0 7 0 8 555
418/02/20 06:00-
07:00
1 551 71 623 6 812 0 818 2 2 2 6 12 0 16 1463
1918/02/20 07:00-
08:00
9 1217 129 1355 34 1602 4 1640 6 3 1 10 24 0 43 3048
2818/02/20 08:00-
09:00
20 1534 206 1760 47 1890 7 1944 15 7 6 28 50 0 78 3810
2518/02/20 09:00-
10:00
38 1462 169 1669 47 1386 8 1441 10 3 11 24 19 0 44 3178 2918/02/20 10:00-
11:00
37 1546 175 1758 55 1122 10 1187 15 5 17 37 50 0 79 3061 3918/02/20 11:00-
12:00
42 1691 224 1957 68 1178 13 1259 31 7 11 49 66 0 105 3370 6118/02/20 12:00-
13:00
38 1756 242 2036 107 1260 11 1378 34 9 23 66 103 0 164 3644 5718/02/20 13:00-
14:00
47 1614 207 1868 110 1383 18 1511 47 15 26 88 91 0 148 3615 5018/02/20 14:00-
15:00
25 1641 184 1850 79 1481 10 1570 22 7 41 70 102 0 152 3642 5518/02/20 15:00-
16:00
47 1992 246 2285 88 1650 9 1747 27 10 15 52 85 0 140 4224 8018/02/20 16:00- 34 2089 297 2420 68 1487 9 1564 30 9 21 60 97 0 177 4221 1/2Page:
SWNW SE NE
to 2/18/20202/18/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Parkway &
Creekside Ridge (332)
5/19/2021 1:27:25 PMReport Date:
106
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
9218/02/20 17:00-
18:00
31 2250 314 2595 70 1517 7 1594 20 7 22 49 86 0 178 4416 4518/02/20 18:00-
19:00
33 1810 204 2047 77 1241 7 1325 23 6 17 46 70 0 115 3533 3218/02/20 19:00-
20:00
31 1186 122 1339 62 825 6 893 23 5 13 41 53 0 85 2358
1518/02/20 20:00-
21:00
24 800 94 918 33 625 7 665 17 9 10 36 43 0 58 1677
1118/02/20 21:00-
22:00
11 597 56 664 35 488 1 524 18 6 14 38 30 0 41 1267
318/02/20 22:00-
23:00
9 322 33 364 24 251 0 275 11 4 13 28 16 0 19 686
218/02/20 23:00-
00:00
3 185 27 215 15 147 2 164 7 2 3 12 8 0 10 401
527401671010197502701183622203113020857104428288305424744490 652Summary 2/2Page:
SWNW SE NE
to 2/19/20202/19/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Parkway &
Creekside Ridge (332)
5/19/2021 1:27:45 PMReport Date:
106
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 219/02/20 00:00-
01:00
2 112 11 125 9 81 0 90 1 1 3 5 0 0 2 222
219/02/20 01:00-
02:00
1 48 8 57 1 47 0 48 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 109
119/02/20 02:00-
03:00
0 51 4 55 1 30 0 31 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 90
019/02/20 03:00-
04:00
2 45 7 54 0 34 0 34 1 0 0 1 4 0 4 93
019/02/20 04:00-
05:00
3 58 9 70 1 97 0 98 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 171
219/02/20 05:00-
06:00
1 246 21 268 6 288 0 294 0 0 0 0 8 0 10 572
419/02/20 06:00-
07:00
4 541 73 618 11 815 1 827 2 2 0 4 13 0 17 1466
2619/02/20 07:00-
08:00
15 1174 125 1314 33 1674 2 1709 4 2 2 8 27 0 53 3084
2519/02/20 08:00-
09:00
23 1489 188 1700 55 1901 4 1960 8 5 9 22 46 0 71 3753
2819/02/20 09:00-
10:00
20 1438 166 1624 60 1368 8 1436 10 3 12 25 34 0 62 3147 3719/02/20 10:00-
11:00
36 1451 193 1680 56 1081 10 1147 24 9 7 40 33 0 70 2937 4319/02/20 11:00-
12:00
69 1637 211 1917 66 1138 11 1215 24 7 14 45 53 0 96 3273 5219/02/20 12:00-
13:00
46 1748 227 2021 80 1356 17 1453 27 10 28 65 82 0 134 3673 4119/02/20 13:00-
14:00
33 1584 255 1872 109 1399 12 1520 35 12 28 75 98 0 139 3606 5919/02/20 14:00-
15:00
32 1659 174 1865 69 1410 13 1492 37 12 31 80 91 0 150 3587 5719/02/20 15:00-
16:00
28 1972 283 2283 74 1639 11 1724 34 11 30 75 92 0 149 4231 8019/02/20 16:00- 41 2081 267 2389 62 1549 11 1622 25 9 16 50 76 0 156 4217 1/2Page:
SWNW SE NE
to 2/19/20202/19/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Parkway &
Creekside Ridge (332)
5/19/2021 1:27:45 PMReport Date:
106
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
8319/02/20 17:00-
18:00
44 2229 341 2614 81 1530 12 1623 26 12 29 67 103 0 186 4490 5619/02/20 18:00-
19:00
26 1903 224 2153 73 1254 6 1333 29 9 22 60 80 0 136 3682 2119/02/20 19:00-
20:00
27 1313 134 1474 57 879 6 942 31 7 16 54 52 0 73 2543
1619/02/20 20:00-
21:00
16 808 82 906 52 716 5 773 21 7 11 39 40 0 56 1774
919/02/20 21:00-
22:00
21 696 74 791 31 559 2 592 11 2 10 23 25 0 34 1440
619/02/20 22:00-
23:00
16 395 33 444 15 270 1 286 7 2 10 19 10 0 16 765
219/02/20 23:00-
00:00
2 211 19 232 12 160 2 174 12 2 7 21 6 0 8 435
53360163009787812851243722242313421275101428526312924889508 652Summary 2/2Page:
WN S E
to 2/20/20202/20/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Galleria & Roseville
Pkwy
5/19/2021 1:24:45 PMReport Date:
73 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 5120/02/20 00:00-
01:00
28 19 1 48 33 17 12 62 27 56 35 118 7 72 130 358
1820/02/20 01:00-
02:00
14 12 1 27 12 7 11 30 8 11 14 33 4 26 48 138
1920/02/20 02:00-
03:00
7 11 0 18 5 8 7 20 5 18 16 39 3 27 49 126
1920/02/20 03:00-
04:00
5 11 3 19 18 11 1 30 4 10 8 22 1 24 44 115
3020/02/20 04:00-
05:00
10 17 1 28 49 29 6 84 9 39 21 69 4 33 67 248
9420/02/20 05:00-
06:00
19 38 2 59 133 51 11 195 18 147 52 217 12 108 214 685
23420/02/20 06:00-
07:00
53 75 9 137 351 146 34 531 54 451 190 695 18 273 525 1888 43920/02/20 07:00-
08:00
158 262 50 470 522 417 93 1032 114 1085 459 1658 59 647 1145 4305 56920/02/20 08:00-
09:00
203 309 50 562 598 398 164 1160 134 1307 585 2026 85 911 1565 5313 55520/02/20 09:00-
10:00
207 333 31 571 431 373 140 944 210 863 345 1418 95 726 1376 4309 53120/02/20 10:00-
11:00
251 434 39 724 436 415 177 1028 290 724 316 1330 168 791 1490 4572 61220/02/20 11:00-
12:00
300 539 79 918 441 551 272 1264 371 800 386 1557 245 917 1774 5513 63420/02/20 12:00-
13:00
333 559 87 979 542 563 309 1414 423 889 402 1714 272 1002 1908 6015 60820/02/20 13:00-
14:00
336 543 63 942 543 613 344 1500 450 1021 442 1913 250 959 1817 6172 61420/02/20 14:00-
15:00
347 569 49 965 579 649 329 1557 409 998 474 1881 221 1026 1861 6264 68220/02/20 15:00-
16:00
438 653 97 1188 591 611 303 1505 415 991 480 1886 239 1137 2058 6637 74920/02/20 16:00- 471 685 59 1215 515 614 313 1442 425 1087 530 2042 205 1263 2217 6916 1/2Page:
WN S E
to 2/20/20202/20/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Galleria & Roseville
Pkwy
5/19/2021 1:24:45 PMReport Date:
73 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
79620/02/20 17:00-
18:00
477 848 58 1383 558 629 355 1542 435 1057 480 1972 200 1384 2380 7277 64020/02/20 18:00-
19:00
349 582 54 985 495 517 312 1324 406 864 411 1681 189 1182 2011 6001 44020/02/20 19:00-
20:00
241 352 34 627 357 392 292 1041 339 530 236 1105 144 793 1377 4150 32220/02/20 20:00-
21:00
152 225 15 392 319 267 209 795 246 427 219 892 90 532 944 3023 20720/02/20 21:00-
22:00
95 127 20 242 253 235 134 622 146 320 166 632 50 398 655 2151 13020/02/20 22:00-
23:00
40 70 15 125 123 113 80 316 72 151 103 326 23 261 414 1181 8320/02/20 23:00-
00:00
49 53 4 106 66 47 37 150 42 90 45 177 17 142 242 675
8403226311146342601254036415139365052195883945767379701273082173264583 9076Summary 2/2Page:
WN S E
to 2/18/20202/18/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Galleria & Roseville
Pkwy
5/19/2021 1:23:56 PMReport Date:
73 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 4018/02/20 00:00-
01:00
27 14 0 41 22 25 11 58 13 33 28 74 5 49 94 267
1618/02/20 01:00-
02:00
5 9 1 15 15 15 7 37 10 12 6 28 2 23 41 121
1818/02/20 02:00-
03:00
12 6 1 19 17 9 9 35 9 9 9 27 2 26 46 127
2318/02/20 03:00-
04:00
5 12 0 17 10 8 6 24 3 12 8 23 4 18 45 109
3118/02/20 04:00-
05:00
6 18 0 24 50 19 4 73 10 49 27 86 2 35 68 251
9618/02/20 05:00-
06:00
17 34 2 53 137 46 14 197 20 153 55 228 7 116 219 697
25518/02/20 06:00-
07:00
48 69 8 125 370 164 38 572 55 473 183 711 19 260 534 1942 46918/02/20 07:00-
08:00
151 245 49 445 500 378 102 980 120 1091 478 1689 55 683 1207 4321 56118/02/20 08:00-
09:00
213 293 55 561 584 419 161 1164 153 1312 556 2021 120 860 1541 5287 57918/02/20 09:00-
10:00
185 302 45 532 468 389 122 979 231 932 385 1548 149 731 1459 4518 56518/02/20 10:00-
11:00
260 400 50 710 452 482 203 1137 301 706 347 1354 194 776 1535 4736 58018/02/20 11:00-
12:00
292 541 60 893 499 588 302 1389 379 767 318 1464 259 895 1734 5480 62518/02/20 12:00-
13:00
346 560 78 984 516 577 318 1411 434 824 389 1647 292 929 1846 5888 60418/02/20 13:00-
14:00
318 511 68 897 533 602 336 1471 455 927 433 1815 220 969 1793 5976 59418/02/20 14:00-
15:00
303 567 65 935 549 657 308 1514 377 988 438 1803 216 941 1751 6003 71518/02/20 15:00-
16:00
397 618 102 1117 559 566 262 1387 398 1102 458 1958 211 1151 2077 6539 73818/02/20 16:00- 451 655 60 1166 486 614 275 1375 414 1026 474 1914 221 1248 2207 6662 1/2Page:
WN S E
to 2/18/20202/18/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Galleria & Roseville
Pkwy
5/19/2021 1:23:56 PMReport Date:
73 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
76418/02/20 17:00-
18:00
460 793 56 1309 527 568 347 1442 399 1046 498 1943 209 1386 2359 7053 60118/02/20 18:00-
19:00
388 581 54 1023 458 459 270 1187 373 869 391 1633 179 1168 1948 5791 41118/02/20 19:00-
20:00
202 306 33 541 358 365 225 948 327 537 236 1100 138 743 1292 3881 28018/02/20 20:00-
21:00
147 193 17 357 281 251 169 701 232 377 152 761 74 499 853 2672 23418/02/20 21:00-
22:00
116 134 16 266 218 197 128 543 138 284 163 585 61 382 677 2071 13118/02/20 22:00-
23:00
53 71 9 133 105 95 51 251 65 164 103 332 18 208 357 1073 8718/02/20 23:00-
00:00
50 39 2 91 52 48 37 137 27 87 34 148 10 114 211 587
8205225894142102667248926169137804943190123705754177661225483169714452 9017Summary 2/2Page:
WN S E
to 2/19/20202/19/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Galleria & Roseville
Pkwy
5/19/2021 1:24:29 PMReport Date:
73 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 7019/02/20 00:00-
01:00
30 26 5 61 45 25 18 88 27 60 38 125 7 68 145 419
2219/02/20 01:00-
02:00
11 9 1 21 22 16 9 47 9 24 6 39 1 30 53 160
2419/02/20 02:00-
03:00
13 3 0 16 15 9 5 29 7 17 9 33 2 27 53 131
1419/02/20 03:00-
04:00
3 17 0 20 17 13 5 35 1 18 12 31 3 30 47 133
3119/02/20 04:00-
05:00
10 12 2 24 50 28 4 82 5 46 22 73 1 28 60 239
11719/02/20 05:00-
06:00
13 40 1 54 136 49 14 199 21 165 42 228 13 111 241 722
23519/02/20 06:00-
07:00
60 88 8 156 353 147 43 543 40 491 192 723 16 278 529 1951 45319/02/20 07:00-
08:00
134 220 53 407 535 386 94 1015 119 1115 450 1684 55 659 1167 4273 53919/02/20 08:00-
09:00
235 309 52 596 583 383 182 1148 149 1339 518 2006 87 867 1493 5243 56519/02/20 09:00-
10:00
195 310 41 546 457 358 139 954 196 955 375 1526 128 775 1468 4494 57319/02/20 10:00-
11:00
248 408 39 695 449 394 174 1017 275 669 319 1263 122 807 1502 4477 59819/02/20 11:00-
12:00
329 492 58 879 455 494 280 1229 350 762 359 1471 233 861 1692 5271 60919/02/20 12:00-
13:00
288 560 74 922 539 580 303 1422 418 915 389 1722 238 1002 1849 5915 57319/02/20 13:00-
14:00
308 540 71 919 552 580 327 1459 420 933 369 1722 230 915 1718 5818 57419/02/20 14:00-
15:00
316 510 68 894 539 632 308 1479 414 931 473 1818 217 1004 1795 5986 70419/02/20 15:00-
16:00
398 633 127 1158 494 562 284 1340 429 1115 460 2004 246 1141 2091 6593 74919/02/20 16:00- 452 694 60 1206 546 574 282 1402 451 1064 496 2011 224 1202 2175 6794 1/2Page:
WN S E
to 2/19/20202/19/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Galleria & Roseville
Pkwy
5/19/2021 1:24:29 PMReport Date:
73 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
74619/02/20 17:00-
18:00
541 793 56 1390 524 634 338 1496 416 1100 491 2007 205 1406 2357 7250 64119/02/20 18:00-
19:00
320 582 48 950 476 508 315 1299 434 878 350 1662 182 1211 2034 5945 46119/02/20 19:00-
20:00
200 339 38 577 358 346 263 967 323 569 248 1140 152 795 1408 4092 30119/02/20 20:00-
21:00
149 222 30 401 314 258 153 725 224 432 171 827 95 515 911 2864 25319/02/20 21:00-
22:00
107 138 14 259 265 235 170 670 155 324 182 661 51 446 750 2340 13119/02/20 22:00-
23:00
53 95 6 154 105 83 61 249 60 165 96 321 29 272 432 1156 9619/02/20 23:00-
00:00
47 59 12 118 62 47 30 139 32 87 55 174 17 123 236 667
8293326206145732554252716122141744975190333801734178911242386470994460 9079Summary 2/2Page:
4/25/22, 8:28 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:28:29 PM From 2/20/2020 to 2/20/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Gibson
Intersection: 86
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 20/02/20 00:00-
01:00
4 99 23 126 3 45 0 48 0 0 1 1 19 0 4 23 198
20/02/20 01:00-
02:00
5 45 9 59 1 14 0 15 1 0 1 2 8 0 4 12 88
20/02/20 02:00-
03:00
1 32 14 47 2 18 0 20 0 0 1 1 9 0 1 10 78
20/02/20 03:00-
04:00
0 20 5 25 0 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 50
20/02/20 04:00-
05:00
0 34 11 45 3 57 0 60 0 0 3 3 12 0 1 13 121
20/02/20 05:00-
06:00
1 89 25 115 31 181 0 212 1 0 5 6 30 0 4 34 367
20/02/20 06:00-
07:00
0 276 62 338 19 589 0 608 0 0 10 10 110 1 15 126 1082
20/02/20 07:00-
08:00
5 684 221 910 30 1690 0 1720 3 3 19 25 193 2 45 240 2895 20/02/20 08:00-
09:00
17 871 315 1203 61 1831 0 1892 3 2 27 32 222 2 73 297 3424 20/02/20 09:00-
10:00
15 749 174 938 69 1297 0 1366 2 1 20 23 163 1 39 203 2530 20/02/20 10:00-
11:00
13 796 150 959 62 1170 0 1232 1 1 21 23 172 1 48 221 2435 20/02/20 11:00-
12:00
19 1126 162 1307 72 1422 1 1495 2 2 16 20 188 1 48 237 3059 20/02/20 12:00-
13:00
21 1336 210 1567 91 1386 0 1477 1 1 11 13 242 2 55 299 3356 20/02/20 13:00-
14:00
54 1451 211 1716 59 1386 1 1446 1 0 13 14 178 1 60 239 3415 20/02/20 14:00-
15:00
43 1588 175 1806 60 1427 0 1487 3 2 23 28 200 1 58 259 3580 20/02/20 15:00-
16:00
41 1771 198 2010 67 1536 0 1603 1 1 21 23 185 1 57 243 3879 20/02/20 16:00- 29 1847 218 2094 115 1550 0 1665 1 1 16 18 290 2 60 352 4129 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:28 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:28:29 PM From 2/20/2020 to 2/20/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Gibson
Intersection: 86
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
20/02/20 17:00-
18:00
39 2015 278 2332 159 1514 0 1673 1 1 10 12 318 3 84 405 4422 20/02/20 18:00-
19:00
33 1711 203 1947 110 1216 0 1326 2 2 16 20 223 2 100 325 3618 20/02/20 19:00-
20:00
49 1281 182 1512 54 698 0 752 3 2 10 15 131 1 75 207 2486 20/02/20 20:00-
21:00
46 995 129 1170 38 458 0 496 0 0 7 7 80 1 57 138 1811
20/02/20 21:00-
22:00
27 780 95 902 37 302 0 339 1 1 2 4 62 0 36 98 1343
20/02/20 22:00-
23:00
27 353 63 443 13 189 0 202 0 0 1 1 30 0 22 52 698
20/02/20 23:00-
00:00
21 218 36 275 10 86 0 96 0 0 1 1 30 0 13 43 415
Summary 510 20167 3169 23846 1166 20083 2 21251 27 20 255 302 3098 22 960 4080 49479 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:27 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:27:40 PM From 2/18/2020 to 2/18/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Gibson
Intersection: 86
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 18/02/20 00:00-
01:00
6 88 14 108 2 32 0 34 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 14 156
18/02/20 01:00-
02:00
7 32 9 48 1 15 0 16 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 12 76
18/02/20 02:00-
03:00
0 29 10 39 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 7 61
18/02/20 03:00-
04:00
0 20 6 26 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 7 53
18/02/20 04:00-
05:00
0 40 7 47 3 62 0 65 0 0 2 2 18 0 3 21 135
18/02/20 05:00-
06:00
2 102 26 130 33 197 0 230 0 0 2 2 35 0 3 38 400
18/02/20 06:00-
07:00
0 263 52 315 16 615 0 631 1 0 8 9 114 1 12 127 1082
18/02/20 07:00-
08:00
7 715 217 939 27 1690 0 1717 2 2 20 24 197 2 32 231 2911 18/02/20 08:00-
09:00
8 855 289 1152 69 1817 0 1886 3 2 23 28 198 2 72 272 3338 18/02/20 09:00-
10:00
13 729 178 920 64 1371 0 1435 1 0 26 27 171 1 44 216 2598 18/02/20 10:00-
11:00
15 865 160 1040 68 1159 0 1227 1 0 14 15 160 1 59 220 2502 18/02/20 11:00-
12:00
16 1155 147 1318 92 1234 0 1326 3 3 10 16 166 1 65 232 2892 18/02/20 12:00-
13:00
25 1333 173 1531 74 1214 0 1288 1 0 12 13 224 2 59 285 3117 18/02/20 13:00-
14:00
32 1358 225 1615 57 1270 0 1327 2 1 15 18 187 1 62 250 3210 18/02/20 14:00-
15:00
19 1513 176 1708 73 1342 0 1415 3 2 10 15 194 1 54 249 3387 18/02/20 15:00-
16:00
28 1582 199 1809 85 1523 0 1608 2 1 16 19 192 1 73 266 3702 18/02/20 16:00- 33 1778 223 2034 94 1496 0 1590 1 1 11 13 253 2 71 326 3963 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:27 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:27:40 PM From 2/18/2020 to 2/18/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Gibson
Intersection: 86
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
18/02/20 17:00-
18:00
36 1982 292 2310 133 1479 0 1612 1 1 16 18 307 3 102 412 4352 18/02/20 18:00-
19:00
40 1708 221 1969 112 1210 0 1322 1 0 14 15 207 1 111 319 3625 18/02/20 19:00-
20:00
39 1156 165 1360 75 685 0 760 2 1 9 12 114 1 84 199 2331 18/02/20 20:00-
21:00
36 854 125 1015 27 379 0 406 2 1 3 6 91 1 51 143 1570
18/02/20 21:00-
22:00
41 705 90 836 29 282 0 311 0 0 0 0 53 0 38 91 1238
18/02/20 22:00-
23:00
19 311 64 394 10 194 0 204 1 1 4 6 43 0 20 63 667
18/02/20 23:00-
00:00
6 185 26 217 4 87 0 91 0 0 1 1 25 0 13 38 347
Summary 428 19358 3094 22880 1148 19388 0 20536 27 16 216 259 2980 21 1037 4038 47713 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:28 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:28:08 PM From 2/19/2020 to 2/19/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Gibson
Intersection: 86
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 19/02/20 00:00-
01:00
13 84 21 118 0 34 0 34 0 0 0 0 9 0 7 16 168
19/02/20 01:00-
02:00
5 40 8 53 2 24 0 26 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 9 88
19/02/20 02:00-
03:00
0 38 7 45 1 17 0 18 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 73
19/02/20 03:00-
04:00
0 17 8 25 0 20 0 20 0 0 1 1 6 0 1 7 53
19/02/20 04:00-
05:00
0 32 11 43 5 66 0 71 0 0 1 1 11 0 0 11 126
19/02/20 05:00-
06:00
4 92 30 126 44 190 0 234 0 0 3 3 31 0 1 32 395
19/02/20 06:00-
07:00
2 273 62 337 32 628 0 660 0 0 8 8 110 1 22 133 1138
19/02/20 07:00-
08:00
5 692 221 918 53 1737 0 1790 2 1 21 24 198 2 42 242 2974 19/02/20 08:00-
09:00
11 891 282 1184 72 1829 0 1901 3 2 25 30 210 2 74 286 3401 19/02/20 09:00-
10:00
11 775 186 972 84 1407 0 1491 1 0 19 20 158 1 34 193 2676 19/02/20 10:00-
11:00
9 893 163 1065 57 1134 0 1191 1 0 12 13 184 1 58 243 2512 19/02/20 11:00-
12:00
11 1100 199 1310 94 1239 0 1333 2 1 18 21 208 1 69 278 2942 19/02/20 12:00-
13:00
30 1296 195 1521 95 1296 0 1391 1 1 14 16 260 2 67 329 3257 19/02/20 13:00-
14:00
48 1323 218 1589 71 1206 0 1277 2 2 17 21 206 1 56 263 3150 19/02/20 14:00-
15:00
36 1456 169 1661 58 1290 1 1349 1 1 15 17 195 2 52 249 3276 19/02/20 15:00-
16:00
33 1687 223 1943 82 1586 0 1668 2 1 23 26 207 2 56 265 3902 19/02/20 16:00- 32 1722 231 1985 110 1548 0 1658 1 1 11 13 298 2 80 380 4036 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:28 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:28:08 PM From 2/19/2020 to 2/19/2020
Roseville Parkway &
Gibson
Intersection: 86
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
19/02/20 17:00-
18:00
33 2139 274 2446 137 1471 0 1608 2 1 15 18 324 3 74 401 4473 19/02/20 18:00-
19:00
40 1628 216 1884 103 1166 1 1270 2 1 10 13 206 2 95 303 3470 19/02/20 19:00-
20:00
39 1220 183 1442 73 705 0 778 1 0 15 16 125 1 66 192 2428 19/02/20 20:00-
21:00
49 888 127 1064 27 434 0 461 1 0 6 7 78 1 64 143 1675
19/02/20 21:00-
22:00
44 785 102 931 25 278 0 303 1 0 7 8 69 0 27 96 1338
19/02/20 22:00-
23:00
31 331 68 430 11 176 0 187 1 0 3 4 32 0 19 51 672
19/02/20 23:00-
00:00
17 175 41 233 10 84 0 94 0 0 2 2 30 0 21 51 380
Summary 503 19577 3245 23325 1246 19565 2 20813 24 12 246 282 3173 24 986 4183 48603 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:31 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:31:17 PM From 2/20/2020 to 2/20/2020
Pleasant Grove &
Roseville Pkwy
Intersection: 85
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 20/02/20 00:00-
01:00
69 31 35 135 11 16 1 28 2 45 17 64 36 78 9 123 350
20/02/20 01:00-
02:00
41 18 20 79 2 6 4 12 2 29 7 38 15 43 2 60 189
20/02/20 02:00-
03:00
28 11 8 47 3 5 0 8 2 21 12 35 9 23 2 34 124
20/02/20 03:00-
04:00
17 10 13 40 5 5 0 10 2 46 19 67 2 27 3 32 149
20/02/20 04:00-
05:00
23 16 23 62 7 10 0 17 1 71 39 111 13 26 3 42 232
20/02/20 05:00-
06:00
61 43 59 163 25 61 0 86 1 166 110 277 50 70 3 123 649
20/02/20 06:00-
07:00
190 110 119 419 59 133 2 194 7 375 337 719 133 237 22 392 1724 20/02/20 07:00-
08:00
416 247 298 961 98 501 8 607 18 771 756 1545 508 484 46 1038 4151 20/02/20 08:00-
09:00
530 294 395 1219 148 578 19 745 30 894 877 1801 556 556 99 1211 4976 20/02/20 09:00-
10:00
448 263 365 1076 152 329 12 493 45 1039 719 1803 373 557 86 1016 4388 20/02/20 10:00-
11:00
511 255 391 1157 122 233 19 374 26 920 665 1611 391 728 71 1190 4332 20/02/20 11:00-
12:00
623 323 583 1529 193 305 25 523 31 1014 741 1786 545 948 112 1605 5443 20/02/20 12:00-
13:00
766 392 635 1793 203 285 25 513 41 1050 677 1768 658 1074 173 1905 5979 20/02/20 13:00-
14:00
845 423 633 1901 208 314 25 547 24 993 644 1661 667 1091 156 1914 6023 20/02/20 14:00-
15:00
884 418 659 1961 171 359 21 551 34 836 658 1528 611 1131 146 1888 5928 20/02/20 15:00-
16:00
1000 557 673 2230 218 431 24 673 65 1013 736 1814 545 1133 165 1843 6560 20/02/20 16:00- 1054 559 696 2309 174 463 24 661 41 1041 757 1839 629 1188 154 1971 6780 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:31 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:31:17 PM From 2/20/2020 to 2/20/2020
Pleasant Grove &
Roseville Pkwy
Intersection: 85
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
20/02/20 17:00-
18:00
1051 636 814 2501 179 463 17 659 47 1001 780 1828 609 1250 142 2001 6989 20/02/20 18:00-
19:00
985 501 703 2189 223 277 38 538 24 991 693 1708 543 1212 155 1910 6345 20/02/20 19:00-
20:00
812 424 495 1731 101 155 18 274 23 682 385 1090 385 901 133 1419 4514 20/02/20 20:00-
21:00
697 316 372 1385 82 107 5 194 10 453 257 720 247 679 77 1003 3302 20/02/20 21:00-
22:00
576 257 280 1113 58 76 8 142 13 290 164 467 191 459 72 722 2444 20/02/20 22:00-
23:00
275 123 132 530 24 46 9 79 6 181 116 303 109 321 35 465 1377 20/02/20 23:00-
00:00
185 77 77 339 17 34 1 52 1 83 42 126 66 154 18 238 755
Summary 12087 6304 8478 26869 2483 5192 305 7980 496 14005 10208 24709 7891 14370 1884 24145 83703 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:30 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:30:31 PM From 2/18/2020 to 2/18/2020
Pleasant Grove &
Roseville Pkwy
Intersection: 85
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 18/02/20 00:00-
01:00
72 29 27 128 4 8 0 12 2 40 15 57 27 65 12 104 301
18/02/20 01:00-
02:00
33 14 14 61 6 5 0 11 2 16 7 25 7 30 5 42 139
18/02/20 02:00-
03:00
17 15 3 35 4 1 0 5 1 23 9 33 4 23 0 27 100
18/02/20 03:00-
04:00
13 9 13 35 2 6 0 8 0 34 19 53 6 17 4 27 123
18/02/20 04:00-
05:00
24 16 28 68 11 7 0 18 1 64 47 112 12 23 3 38 236
18/02/20 05:00-
06:00
66 51 49 166 29 47 0 76 3 149 142 294 45 63 9 117 653
18/02/20 06:00-
07:00
212 116 116 444 59 134 6 199 7 344 372 723 144 225 26 395 1761 18/02/20 07:00-
08:00
449 243 307 999 94 531 8 633 22 773 757 1552 471 469 41 981 4165 18/02/20 08:00-
09:00
540 291 353 1184 144 545 22 711 42 895 893 1830 560 557 89 1206 4931 18/02/20 09:00-
10:00
462 258 331 1051 148 369 17 534 39 1017 756 1812 368 575 78 1021 4418 18/02/20 10:00-
11:00
552 254 426 1232 174 271 12 457 29 903 630 1562 406 688 88 1182 4433 18/02/20 11:00-
12:00
677 341 557 1575 167 295 12 474 29 986 666 1681 449 935 125 1509 5239 18/02/20 12:00-
13:00
775 390 681 1846 230 285 34 549 36 958 644 1638 508 1003 154 1665 5698 18/02/20 13:00-
14:00
763 387 584 1734 168 318 24 510 21 910 649 1580 560 1072 163 1795 5619 18/02/20 14:00-
15:00
786 417 594 1797 178 322 32 532 33 821 668 1522 544 1041 152 1737 5588 18/02/20 15:00-
16:00
948 483 670 2101 201 440 23 664 50 940 753 1743 564 1077 190 1831 6339 18/02/20 16:00- 1016 530 716 2262 186 438 29 653 35 1089 728 1852 575 1186 173 1934 6701 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:30 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:30:31 PM From 2/18/2020 to 2/18/2020
Pleasant Grove &
Roseville Pkwy
Intersection: 85
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
18/02/20 17:00-
18:00
1110 628 764 2502 181 458 24 663 42 978 696 1716 621 1183 163 1967 6848 18/02/20 18:00-
19:00
940 515 667 2122 183 315 34 532 31 938 624 1593 577 1157 170 1904 6151 18/02/20 19:00-
20:00
753 373 481 1607 94 162 11 267 24 603 395 1022 319 908 102 1329 4225 18/02/20 20:00-
21:00
602 285 330 1217 88 106 13 207 16 404 196 616 234 665 72 971 3011 18/02/20 21:00-
22:00
509 241 235 985 49 81 4 134 21 234 154 409 169 428 71 668 2196 18/02/20 22:00-
23:00
245 106 98 449 18 51 3 72 3 158 97 258 117 260 31 408 1187 18/02/20 23:00-
00:00
151 71 68 290 12 21 4 37 4 88 42 134 49 165 9 223 684
Summary 11715 6063 8112 25890 2430 5216 312 7958 493 13365 9959 23817 7336 13815 1930 23081 80746 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:30 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:30:58 PM From 2/19/2020 to 2/19/2020
Pleasant Grove &
Roseville Pkwy
Intersection: 85
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 19/02/20 00:00-
01:00
77 24 29 130 5 8 0 13 2 40 10 52 30 58 13 101 296
19/02/20 01:00-
02:00
31 16 14 61 5 10 0 15 0 23 11 34 13 28 1 42 152
19/02/20 02:00-
03:00
41 14 7 62 6 1 0 7 4 20 10 34 6 24 4 34 137
19/02/20 03:00-
04:00
13 7 14 34 2 7 2 11 0 39 15 54 5 27 3 35 134
19/02/20 04:00-
05:00
17 12 20 49 9 11 1 21 2 68 47 117 14 22 3 39 226
19/02/20 05:00-
06:00
55 50 53 158 37 47 0 84 3 168 138 309 60 65 10 135 686
19/02/20 06:00-
07:00
188 122 138 448 62 129 4 195 6 362 369 737 172 221 23 416 1796 19/02/20 07:00-
08:00
450 240 300 990 95 558 7 660 16 725 797 1538 498 510 57 1065 4253 19/02/20 08:00-
09:00
527 305 407 1239 179 532 26 737 28 862 878 1768 553 559 98 1210 4954 19/02/20 09:00-
10:00
496 269 373 1138 149 393 11 553 35 1054 763 1852 396 604 92 1092 4635 19/02/20 10:00-
11:00
578 274 421 1273 139 279 19 437 31 927 636 1594 379 738 79 1196 4500 19/02/20 11:00-
12:00
645 326 549 1520 187 312 19 518 28 1011 639 1678 467 919 132 1518 5234 19/02/20 12:00-
13:00
742 392 605 1739 202 285 18 505 26 1096 704 1826 561 1003 153 1717 5787 19/02/20 13:00-
14:00
798 373 588 1759 193 301 21 515 29 895 629 1553 535 1075 161 1771 5598 19/02/20 14:00-
15:00
821 414 617 1852 176 335 29 540 28 833 621 1482 522 1092 128 1742 5616 19/02/20 15:00-
16:00
974 502 613 2089 186 469 32 687 52 1000 759 1811 576 1072 149 1797 6384 19/02/20 16:00- 1019 551 675 2245 182 482 20 684 34 1003 719 1756 610 1180 166 1956 6641 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:30 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:30:58 PM From 2/19/2020 to 2/19/2020
Pleasant Grove &
Roseville Pkwy
Intersection: 85
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
19/02/20 17:00-
18:00
1087 642 873 2602 181 456 20 657 35 1057 704 1796 632 1260 171 2063 7118 19/02/20 18:00-
19:00
941 522 675 2138 161 295 25 481 31 955 672 1658 482 1195 140 1817 6094 19/02/20 19:00-
20:00
793 388 457 1638 118 170 9 297 26 645 418 1089 314 903 127 1344 4368 19/02/20 20:00-
21:00
590 301 328 1219 98 95 5 198 15 440 245 700 226 665 97 988 3105 19/02/20 21:00-
22:00
568 251 255 1074 45 74 8 127 10 292 154 456 169 543 56 768 2425 19/02/20 22:00-
23:00
271 108 101 480 22 46 2 70 5 152 99 256 99 250 28 377 1183 19/02/20 23:00-
00:00
162 70 65 297 10 26 2 38 3 85 44 132 55 154 14 223 690
Summary 11884 6173 8177 26234 2449 5321 280 8050 449 13752 10081 24282 7374 14167 1905 23446 82012 Page: 2/2
SWNW SE NE
to 2/20/20202/20/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Pkwy &
Reserve
5/19/2021 1:25:08 PMReport Date:
89 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 020/02/20 00:00-
01:00
14 90 0 104 0 66 5 71 19 2 48 69 3 0 3 247
120/02/20 01:00-
02:00
1 52 1 54 0 29 2 31 4 1 4 9 0 0 1 95
020/02/20 02:00-
03:00
2 39 0 41 1 32 2 35 5 0 7 12 1 0 1 89
020/02/20 03:00-
04:00
2 28 0 30 3 20 1 24 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 57
120/02/20 04:00-
05:00
4 42 3 49 1 68 1 70 3 0 3 6 0 0 1 126
120/02/20 05:00-
06:00
7 114 11 132 1 204 6 211 15 1 12 28 2 0 3 374
320/02/20 06:00-
07:00
15 330 16 361 5 667 32 704 24 4 37 65 8 1 12 1142
820/02/20 07:00-
08:00
53 824 21 898 4 1585 297 1886 110 10 76 196 11 2 21 3001 1120/02/20 08:00-
09:00
97 1140 42 1279 16 1895 133 2044 102 10 121 233 13 3 27 3583 620/02/20 09:00-
10:00
92 902 73 1067 24 1283 123 1430 79 10 100 189 22 5 33 2719 2420/02/20 10:00-
11:00
141 892 185 1218 41 1119 129 1289 130 13 129 272 56 8 88 2867 6220/02/20 11:00-
12:00
176 1068 221 1465 45 1238 229 1512 202 20 162 384 125 18 205 3566 6720/02/20 12:00-
13:00
196 1233 204 1633 46 1283 236 1565 289 27 211 527 173 22 262 3987 8020/02/20 13:00-
14:00
190 1212 231 1633 45 1319 203 1567 321 29 310 660 193 24 297 4157 7720/02/20 14:00-
15:00
179 1335 193 1707 48 1371 234 1653 299 26 247 572 203 26 306 4238 7920/02/20 15:00-
16:00
200 1514 149 1863 32 1409 244 1685 348 30 245 623 183 22 284 4455 6820/02/20 16:00- 182 1702 156 2040 50 1577 235 1862 278 27 245 550 150 23 241 4693 1/2Page:
SWNW SE NE
to 2/20/20202/20/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Pkwy &
Reserve
5/19/2021 1:25:08 PMReport Date:
89 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
7920/02/20 17:00-
18:00
219 1822 170 2211 51 1474 262 1787 361 32 267 660 157 23 259 4917 8520/02/20 18:00-
19:00
176 1485 178 1839 39 1208 221 1468 304 27 246 577 166 24 275 4159 5620/02/20 19:00-
20:00
168 1033 120 1321 15 728 133 876 255 22 199 476 112 16 184 2857 5420/02/20 20:00-
21:00
101 739 62 902 11 490 121 622 209 17 189 415 120 15 189 2128 5520/02/20 21:00-
22:00
69 531 21 621 9 408 52 469 120 10 112 242 86 11 152 1484 1320/02/20 22:00-
23:00
48 331 6 385 3 243 31 277 47 4 68 119 19 3 35 816
520/02/20 23:00-
00:00
18 203 1 222 1 116 19 136 31 1 57 89 3 0 8 455
562122887246180669763097323355623274295119832491230752064186612350 835Summary 2/2Page:
SWNW SE NE
to 2/18/20202/18/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Pkwy &
Reserve
5/19/2021 1:25:49 PMReport Date:
89 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 318/02/20 00:00-
01:00
4 78 0 82 0 55 3 58 17 1 20 38 1 0 4 182
218/02/20 01:00-
02:00
4 31 0 35 0 25 4 29 3 0 4 7 3 0 5 76
018/02/20 02:00-
03:00
3 41 0 44 0 19 0 19 3 0 9 12 0 0 0 75
018/02/20 03:00-
04:00
3 26 0 29 2 21 0 23 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 56
018/02/20 04:00-
05:00
4 42 2 48 2 83 0 85 4 1 6 11 1 0 1 145
018/02/20 05:00-
06:00
7 130 8 145 1 218 8 227 9 1 11 21 1 0 1 394
118/02/20 06:00-
07:00
25 299 15 339 6 683 38 727 36 4 42 82 9 2 12 1160
1118/02/20 07:00-
08:00
54 858 30 942 13 1597 279 1889 121 12 70 203 10 2 23 3057 418/02/20 08:00-
09:00
97 1099 40 1236 14 1895 132 2041 103 11 103 217 15 3 22 3516 718/02/20 09:00-
10:00
108 855 79 1042 21 1372 145 1538 126 12 107 245 20 3 30 2855 2318/02/20 10:00-
11:00
120 946 159 1225 35 1104 131 1270 152 14 133 299 57 8 88 2882 4218/02/20 11:00-
12:00
192 1093 197 1482 46 1095 165 1306 199 20 194 413 110 15 167 3368 5418/02/20 12:00-
13:00
178 1180 222 1580 44 1196 192 1432 307 29 247 583 150 20 224 3819 6718/02/20 13:00-
14:00
208 1208 200 1616 40 1200 221 1461 303 26 268 597 202 25 294 3968 7218/02/20 14:00-
15:00
186 1192 161 1539 28 1296 229 1553 366 33 270 669 178 23 273 4034 5818/02/20 15:00-
16:00
163 1470 174 1807 44 1498 192 1734 267 23 232 522 172 23 253 4316 7518/02/20 16:00- 153 1665 152 1970 28 1479 202 1709 277 23 219 519 166 22 263 4461 1/2Page:
SWNW SE NE
to 2/18/20202/18/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Pkwy &
Reserve
5/19/2021 1:25:49 PMReport Date:
89 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
7718/02/20 17:00-
18:00
187 1843 150 2180 46 1489 270 1805 314 28 218 560 167 25 269 4814 5318/02/20 18:00-
19:00
167 1521 153 1841 42 1194 208 1444 314 28 211 553 130 20 203 4041 5918/02/20 19:00-
20:00
133 915 117 1165 30 700 131 861 228 21 209 458 125 16 200 2684 5018/02/20 20:00-
21:00
90 682 41 813 12 468 68 548 166 14 169 349 85 13 148 1858 4518/02/20 21:00-
22:00
71 530 20 621 10 364 63 437 114 11 102 227 72 10 127 1412 1018/02/20 22:00-
23:00
38 268 4 310 2 253 31 286 45 5 53 103 33 6 49 748
118/02/20 23:00-
00:00
17 181 1 199 2 113 13 128 26 2 39 67 2 1 4 398
543192660237170967592939319350122610272519417468222901925181532212 714Summary 2/2Page:
SWNW SE NE
to 2/19/20202/19/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Pkwy &
Reserve
5/19/2021 1:25:28 PMReport Date:
89 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 319/02/20 00:00-
01:00
11 82 0 93 0 53 6 59 18 1 33 52 4 1 8 212
119/02/20 01:00-
02:00
6 42 0 48 0 30 2 32 6 0 8 14 1 0 2 96
019/02/20 02:00-
03:00
1 40 1 42 0 27 1 28 1 0 1 2 3 0 3 75
019/02/20 03:00-
04:00
3 31 1 35 1 29 1 31 1 0 4 5 0 0 0 71
219/02/20 04:00-
05:00
3 34 3 40 4 69 1 74 4 0 4 8 0 0 2 124
019/02/20 05:00-
06:00
9 123 8 140 2 217 9 228 12 2 17 31 2 1 3 402
019/02/20 06:00-
07:00
26 327 19 372 6 684 37 727 26 3 27 56 7 2 9 1164
619/02/20 07:00-
08:00
47 812 30 889 12 1617 284 1913 132 12 68 212 12 2 20 3034 419/02/20 08:00-
09:00
104 1139 38 1281 19 1862 153 2034 112 10 123 245 18 3 25 3585 1419/02/20 09:00-
10:00
109 922 75 1106 27 1410 131 1568 105 11 95 211 28 5 47 2932 2519/02/20 10:00-
11:00
117 943 163 1223 41 1078 120 1239 143 15 109 267 55 8 88 2817 4919/02/20 11:00-
12:00
175 1100 190 1465 54 1138 196 1388 191 18 159 368 131 18 198 3419 5419/02/20 12:00-
13:00
207 1190 202 1599 42 1281 235 1558 254 24 235 513 156 23 233 3903 6919/02/20 13:00-
14:00
176 1157 202 1535 38 1199 191 1428 284 26 294 604 159 23 251 3818 7119/02/20 14:00-
15:00
192 1208 184 1584 28 1285 221 1534 298 26 298 622 197 24 292 4032 6119/02/20 15:00-
16:00
201 1505 153 1859 42 1514 236 1792 338 30 257 625 164 21 246 4522 8119/02/20 16:00- 183 1616 141 1940 34 1570 239 1843 291 27 248 566 147 21 249 4598 1/2Page:
SWNW SE NE
to 2/19/20202/19/2020From
Intersection:
Turning Movement Volume Report
Roseville Pkwy &
Reserve
5/19/2021 1:25:28 PMReport Date:
89 Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
6519/02/20 17:00-
18:00
191 1915 156 2262 44 1534 252 1830 375 34 260 669 153 22 240 5001 6319/02/20 18:00-
19:00
203 1475 165 1843 37 1187 194 1418 308 26 256 590 128 18 209 4060 5719/02/20 19:00-
20:00
157 1012 98 1267 28 718 123 869 234 21 216 471 108 16 181 2788 4719/02/20 20:00-
21:00
95 658 53 806 19 510 79 608 196 17 163 376 110 15 172 1962 5619/02/20 21:00-
22:00
70 627 18 715 11 409 63 483 114 10 132 256 98 15 169 1623 1019/02/20 22:00-
23:00
45 338 4 387 1 224 31 256 40 3 59 102 18 3 31 776
119/02/20 23:00-
00:00
15 180 1 196 2 122 11 135 26 2 44 72 6 1 8 411
554252686242170569373110318350923075281619767492227271905184762346 739Summary 2/2Page:
4/25/22, 8:29 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:29:44 PM From 2/20/2020 to 2/20/2020
Roseville Parkway &
West Mall (332)
Intersection: 109
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 20/02/20 00:00-
01:00
5 108 1 114 3 63 4 70 5 0 2 7 8 0 3 11 202
20/02/20 01:00-
02:00
6 51 1 58 0 26 0 26 5 0 3 8 1 0 1 2 94
20/02/20 02:00-
03:00
0 44 2 46 1 28 0 29 2 0 2 4 6 0 3 9 88
20/02/20 03:00-
04:00
0 27 3 30 2 21 1 24 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 58
20/02/20 04:00-
05:00
0 44 1 45 2 69 0 71 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 1 121
20/02/20 05:00-
06:00
1 118 7 126 13 201 0 214 10 1 10 21 1 0 2 3 364
20/02/20 06:00-
07:00
3 350 30 383 23 685 5 713 22 1 18 41 7 0 10 17 1154
20/02/20 07:00-
08:00
7 914 37 958 29 1880 1 1910 22 1 21 44 6 0 9 15 2927
20/02/20 08:00-
09:00
9 1197 56 1262 66 2007 7 2080 41 2 29 72 16 0 23 39 3453 20/02/20 09:00-
10:00
15 906 95 1016 114 1375 9 1498 22 1 27 50 35 0 45 80 2644 20/02/20 10:00-
11:00
13 937 96 1046 150 1213 11 1374 18 1 20 39 69 1 60 130 2589 20/02/20 11:00-
12:00
15 1215 98 1328 205 1407 16 1628 30 2 28 60 77 1 126 204 3220 20/02/20 12:00-
13:00
29 1472 93 1594 198 1443 10 1651 18 1 18 37 102 1 146 249 3531 20/02/20 13:00-
14:00
18 1495 95 1608 179 1445 10 1634 25 1 24 50 120 2 178 300 3592 20/02/20 14:00-
15:00
22 1604 109 1735 168 1489 14 1671 25 1 17 43 151 2 220 373 3822 20/02/20 15:00-
16:00
25 1841 84 1950 167 1579 12 1758 13 1 18 32 139 2 194 335 4075 20/02/20 16:00- 26 1947 100 2073 180 1678 10 1868 15 1 12 28 137 2 200 339 4308 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:29 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:29:44 PM From 2/20/2020 to 2/20/2020
Roseville Parkway &
West Mall (332)
Intersection: 109
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
20/02/20 17:00-
18:00
35 2164 97 2296 185 1646 14 1845 18 1 15 34 155 2 214 371 4546 20/02/20 18:00-
19:00
33 1789 89 1911 153 1329 14 1496 27 1 17 45 117 2 175 294 3746 20/02/20 19:00-
20:00
26 1299 48 1373 96 760 17 873 17 1 10 28 94 1 173 268 2542 20/02/20 20:00-
21:00
25 976 22 1023 48 522 14 584 15 1 13 29 93 2 160 255 1891 20/02/20 21:00-
22:00
15 712 15 742 24 347 10 381 13 1 9 23 114 2 179 295 1441 20/02/20 22:00-
23:00
19 382 6 407 9 229 4 242 6 0 7 13 37 1 34 72 734
20/02/20 23:00-
00:00
10 241 0 251 1 129 4 134 4 0 0 4 11 0 9 20 409
Summary 357 21833 1185 23375 2016 21571 187 23774 376 19 323 718 1498 21 2165 3684 51551 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:29 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:28:59 PM From 2/18/2020 to 2/18/2020
Roseville Parkway &
West Mall (332)
Intersection: 109
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 18/02/20 00:00-
01:00
3 103 0 106 2 49 2 53 2 0 1 3 9 0 4 13 175
18/02/20 01:00-
02:00
0 36 1 37 0 28 1 29 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 70
18/02/20 02:00-
03:00
2 40 2 44 0 18 2 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 65
18/02/20 03:00-
04:00
0 28 1 29 3 18 2 23 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 56
18/02/20 04:00-
05:00
0 48 1 49 3 77 0 80 6 0 7 13 1 0 0 1 143
18/02/20 05:00-
06:00
0 130 14 144 10 224 1 235 8 0 4 12 5 0 2 7 398
18/02/20 06:00-
07:00
1 320 29 350 23 713 3 739 21 1 13 35 2 0 8 10 1134
18/02/20 07:00-
08:00
3 954 43 1000 23 1891 1 1915 22 1 25 48 8 0 9 17 2980
18/02/20 08:00-
09:00
16 1165 61 1242 48 1988 6 2042 44 2 38 84 12 0 19 31 3399 18/02/20 09:00-
10:00
17 883 104 1004 104 1449 12 1565 25 1 31 57 48 1 37 86 2712 18/02/20 10:00-
11:00
20 1022 86 1128 133 1204 10 1347 25 1 19 45 48 1 61 110 2630 18/02/20 11:00-
12:00
14 1226 99 1339 167 1248 10 1425 17 1 12 30 80 1 123 204 2998 18/02/20 12:00-
13:00
20 1412 100 1532 160 1298 11 1469 23 1 17 41 96 1 141 238 3280 18/02/20 13:00-
14:00
29 1433 115 1577 166 1323 19 1508 28 1 23 52 121 2 165 288 3425 18/02/20 14:00-
15:00
19 1540 86 1645 143 1401 9 1553 24 1 23 48 144 2 185 331 3577 18/02/20 15:00-
16:00
24 1676 114 1814 165 1563 17 1745 20 1 14 35 154 2 175 331 3925 18/02/20 16:00- 34 1857 109 2000 176 1572 18 1766 22 1 17 40 143 2 199 344 4150 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:29 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:28:59 PM From 2/18/2020 to 2/18/2020
Roseville Parkway &
West Mall (332)
Intersection: 109
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
18/02/20 17:00-
18:00
39 2140 96 2275 161 1645 21 1827 22 1 9 32 151 2 192 345 4479 18/02/20 18:00-
19:00
30 1822 80 1932 131 1296 24 1451 24 1 17 42 122 2 178 302 3727 18/02/20 19:00-
20:00
37 1185 45 1267 84 740 9 833 12 1 11 24 106 1 161 268 2392 18/02/20 20:00-
21:00
23 875 29 927 32 460 10 502 15 1 12 28 83 1 115 199 1656 18/02/20 21:00-
22:00
23 694 21 738 22 323 13 358 7 0 9 16 111 2 127 240 1352 18/02/20 22:00-
23:00
5 329 5 339 14 234 10 258 12 1 6 19 43 1 45 89 705
18/02/20 23:00-
00:00
10 199 2 211 4 109 7 120 5 0 3 8 17 0 10 27 366
Summary 369 21117 1243 22729 1774 20871 218 22863 384 17 312 713 1508 21 1960 3489 49794 Page: 2/2
4/25/22, 8:29 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 1/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:29:21 PM From 2/19/2020 to 2/19/2020
Roseville Parkway &
West Mall (332)
Intersection: 109
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 19/02/20 00:00-
01:00
1 106 2 109 1 51 5 57 4 0 3 7 6 0 3 9 182
19/02/20 01:00-
02:00
2 50 0 52 0 31 4 35 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 4 93
19/02/20 02:00-
03:00
2 41 1 44 0 26 1 27 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 5 77
19/02/20 03:00-
04:00
2 26 3 31 1 25 1 27 1 0 2 3 3 0 1 4 65
19/02/20 04:00-
05:00
0 43 1 44 6 71 0 77 3 0 3 6 1 0 0 1 128
19/02/20 05:00-
06:00
0 125 12 137 7 220 1 228 9 0 8 17 5 0 4 9 391
19/02/20 06:00-
07:00
2 340 26 368 25 719 1 745 19 1 13 33 2 0 7 9 1155
19/02/20 07:00-
08:00
4 924 41 969 43 1925 4 1972 24 1 19 44 10 0 12 22 3007
19/02/20 08:00-
09:00
11 1221 57 1289 60 1995 7 2062 39 2 35 76 17 0 29 46 3473 19/02/20 09:00-
10:00
7 957 89 1053 99 1486 11 1596 20 1 26 47 39 1 27 67 2763 19/02/20 10:00-
11:00
11 1020 75 1106 148 1185 12 1345 20 1 16 37 47 1 77 125 2613 19/02/20 11:00-
12:00
17 1242 99 1358 181 1283 14 1478 26 1 22 49 91 1 105 197 3082 19/02/20 12:00-
13:00
28 1406 87 1521 149 1428 13 1590 26 1 24 51 109 2 143 254 3416 19/02/20 13:00-
14:00
17 1395 105 1517 149 1305 11 1465 24 1 21 46 109 1 171 281 3309 19/02/20 14:00-
15:00
26 1483 79 1588 126 1393 9 1528 18 1 20 39 122 2 177 301 3456 19/02/20 15:00-
16:00
28 1811 95 1934 155 1647 20 1822 17 1 15 33 154 3 186 343 4132 19/02/20 16:00- 32 1867 90 1989 167 1674 17 1858 27 1 22 50 150 2 167 319 4216 Page: 1/2
4/25/22, 8:29 PM Document
traffic.roseville.ca.us/webreports/DxReportViewer.aspx?rpt=TurnMovementCountReport 2/2 Turning Movement V olume Report Report Date: 4/25/2022 8:29:21 PM From 2/19/2020 to 2/19/2020
Roseville Parkway &
West Mall (332)
Intersection: 109
NW SE NE SW
Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Int Total 17:00
19/02/20 17:00-
18:00
35 2269 97 2401 144 1671 24 1839 26 1 20 47 138 2 213 353 4640 19/02/20 18:00-
19:00
28 1750 74 1852 121 1276 20 1417 18 1 14 33 124 2 168 294 3596 19/02/20 19:00-
20:00
29 1275 63 1367 97 759 14 870 19 1 13 33 102 2 150 254 2524 19/02/20 20:00-
21:00
21 910 24 955 46 496 16 558 14 1 12 27 102 1 120 223 1763 19/02/20 21:00-
22:00
26 787 19 832 20 351 10 381 19 1 9 29 129 2 151 282 1524 19/02/20 22:00-
23:00
11 383 10 404 8 217 10 235 6 0 7 13 34 1 28 63 715
19/02/20 23:00-
00:00
9 206 3 218 0 125 5 130 7 0 4 11 4 0 6 10 369
Summary 349 21637 1152 23138 1753 21359 230 23342 388 17 329 734 1500 23 1952 3475 50689 Page: 2/2
Roseville Parkway Widening
Traffic Evaluation
Appendix B
Analysis Worksheets for
Existing (2020) and Existing (2020) plus Project Conditions
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Start Time 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50
End Time 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 9165 9150 9055 9095 9168 9112 9267
Vehs Exited 9173 9210 9001 9044 9175 9042 9248
Starting Vehs 354 441 354 379 361 373 356
Ending Vehs 346 381 408 430 354 443 375
Travel Distance (mi) 8209 8212 8073 8115 8250 8145 8202 Travel Time (hr) 388.6 392.2 383.6 383.7 402.7 392.8 421.7 Total Delay (hr) 182.9 186.7 181.4 180.9 195.2 189.0 215.8 Total Stops 11108 11378 11020 11144 11752 11515 12334
Fuel Used (gal) 353.2 353.4 346.1 348.3 358.7 350.4 362.5 Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Start Time 7:50 7:50 7:50 7:50
End Time 9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 9244 9253 9248 9171
Vehs Exited 9192 9261 9212 9159
Starting Vehs 332 418 380 369
Ending Vehs 384 410 416 392
Travel Distance (mi) 8291 8253 8177 8193
Travel Time (hr) 389.1 404.1 390.7 394.9
Total Delay (hr) 181.4 196.8 185.3 189.6
Total Stops 11322 11669 11413 11463
Fuel Used (gal) 355.1 358.1 351.9 353.8
Interval #0 Information Seeding
Start Time 7:50
End Time 8:00
Total Time (min) 10
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
No data recorded this interval.
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Interval #1 Information
Start Time 8:00
End Time 8:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 2256 2272 2264 2324 2298 2260 2302
Vehs Exited 2251 2316 2253 2318 2232 2230 2186
Starting Vehs 354 441 354 379 361 373 356
Ending Vehs 359 397 365 385 427 403 472
Travel Distance (mi) 2005 2098 2051 2068 2041 2028 2023 Travel Time (hr) 93.6 104.6 96.1 97.8 103.9 97.0 106.3
Total Delay (hr) 43.1 52.3 44.8 46.3 52.8 46.3 55.8
Total Stops 2567 2990 2644 2838 2897 2874 3020
Fuel Used (gal) 85.4 92.1 87.0 88.4 89.6 86.9 90.1
Interval #1 Information
Start Time 8:00
End Time 8:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 2350 2291 2360 2295
Vehs Exited 2293 2323 2333 2272
Starting Vehs 332 418 380 369
Ending Vehs 389 386 407 393
Travel Distance (mi) 2098 2085 2100 2060
Travel Time (hr) 94.5 100.5 102.1 99.6
Total Delay (hr) 42.1 48.2 49.3 48.1
Total Stops 2751 2837 2979 2838
Fuel Used (gal) 88.1 89.2 91.1 88.8
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Interval #2 Information
Start Time 8:15
End Time 8:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 2297 2268 2243 2246 2265 2210 2302
Vehs Exited 2279 2285 2224 2311 2284 2309 2365
Starting Vehs 359 397 365 385 427 403 472
Ending Vehs 377 380 384 320 408 304 409
Travel Distance (mi) 2042 2028 2020 2047 1987 2016 2038 Travel Time (hr) 96.9 92.9 97.2 91.8 100.8 96.0 107.8
Total Delay (hr) 45.9 42.3 46.5 40.3 50.6 45.4 56.7
Total Stops 2828 2747 2824 2631 2996 2803 3222
Fuel Used (gal) 88.0 86.4 87.3 86.1 87.2 86.3 91.3
Interval #2 Information
Start Time 8:15
End Time 8:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 2344 2322 2264 2274
Vehs Exited 2360 2311 2286 2303
Starting Vehs 389 386 407 393
Ending Vehs 373 397 385 368
Travel Distance (mi) 2086 2093 1957 2031
Travel Time (hr) 98.3 103.9 92.5 97.8
Total Delay (hr) 46.1 51.3 43.4 46.9
Total Stops 2848 3060 2804 2876
Fuel Used (gal) 90.3 91.6 84.1 87.9
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Interval #3 Information
Start Time 8:30
End Time 8:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 2332 2345 2232 2243 2302 2297 2252
Vehs Exited 2275 2331 2280 2158 2266 2205 2258
Starting Vehs 377 380 384 320 408 304 409
Ending Vehs 434 394 336 405 444 396 403
Travel Distance (mi) 2047 2104 2024 2008 2109 2020 1992 Travel Time (hr) 99.2 99.4 95.8 93.2 100.7 97.5 101.3
Total Delay (hr) 48.1 46.9 45.3 43.2 47.8 47.1 51.1
Total Stops 2835 2776 2798 2636 2948 2760 2870
Fuel Used (gal) 88.7 89.6 86.8 85.3 90.6 86.9 86.9
Interval #3 Information
Start Time 8:30
End Time 8:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 2215 2284 2279 2277
Vehs Exited 2216 2312 2308 2261
Starting Vehs 373 397 385 368
Ending Vehs 372 369 356 383
Travel Distance (mi) 2012 2056 2099 2047
Travel Time (hr) 96.9 98.4 101.0 98.3
Total Delay (hr) 46.7 47.1 48.2 47.1
Total Stops 2709 2704 2930 2789
Fuel Used (gal) 86.5 88.7 90.2 88.0
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 8:45
End Time 9:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 2280 2265 2316 2282 2303 2345 2411
Vehs Exited 2368 2278 2244 2257 2393 2298 2439
Starting Vehs 434 394 336 405 444 396 403
Ending Vehs 346 381 408 430 354 443 375
Travel Distance (mi) 2114 1981 1978 1993 2114 2081 2149 Travel Time (hr) 98.9 95.3 94.4 101.0 97.3 102.3 106.2
Total Delay (hr) 45.9 45.3 44.9 51.1 44.0 50.2 52.1
Total Stops 2878 2865 2754 3039 2911 3078 3222
Fuel Used (gal) 91.1 85.2 85.0 88.4 91.3 90.3 94.2
Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 8:45
End Time 9:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 2335 2356 2345 2324
Vehs Exited 2323 2315 2285 2319
Starting Vehs 372 369 356 383
Ending Vehs 384 410 416 392
Travel Distance (mi) 2096 2019 2021 2055
Travel Time (hr) 99.3 101.3 95.2 99.1
Total Delay (hr) 46.6 50.2 44.3 47.5
Total Stops 3014 3068 2700 2953
Fuel Used (gal) 90.2 88.5 86.5 89.1
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Performance Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
7: RV Parkway & Gibson Dr Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.2 2.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 10.8 1.0 3.3 4.1 2.6 2.4
Stop Delay (hr) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Stop Del/Veh (s) 8.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5
73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 1.5 8.7 0.7 1.4 5.9 0.5 2.7 3.8 0.0 7.7 3.9 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 41.6 23.5 4.4 60.4 22.4 3.3 47.8 44.1 1.5 46.3 34.8 1.8 Stop Delay (hr) 1.4 6.2 0.0 1.4 4.2 0.0 2.5 3.3 0.0 6.9 3.3 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 38.1 16.9 0.0 58.0 16.2 0.0 45.2 38.4 0.0 41.4 29.4 0.0 73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 36.9
Total Del/Veh (s) 24.7
Stop Delay (hr) 29.2
Stop Del/Veh (s) 19.5
84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 4.3 2.2 0.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.1 Total Delay (hr) 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.6 0.0 1.4 2.7 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 54.0 49.0 1.3 50.3 48.4 1.5 67.1 9.8 1.6 52.3 8.7 1.2 Stop Delay (hr) 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.0 1.3 1.7 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 51.9 46.5 0.0 48.1 44.9 0.0 65.3 6.0 0.0 49.3 5.5 1.0 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.3
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4
Total Delay (hr) 8.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 12.3
Stop Delay (hr) 6.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 9.0
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Performance Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.9 0.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.7 2.6 2.7 0.3 0.4 Total Delay (hr) 2.2 10.3 0.0 8.6 4.0 0.4 0.5 13.1 2.2 10.3 3.9 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 53.2 61.9 7.3 58.3 49.0 3.6 66.3 52.1 8.9 64.7 24.8 2.3 Stop Delay (hr) 1.9 8.7 0.0 7.8 3.5 0.0 0.5 10.6 0.1 9.0 3.1 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 48.0 52.2 1.9 52.9 42.7 0.0 61.7 42.0 0.2 56.6 19.4 0.0 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 1.5
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1
Total Delay (hr) 55.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 39.5
Stop Delay (hr) 45.0
Stop Del/Veh (s) 32.0
86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.9 3.3 0.2 4.5 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 12.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 53.0 6.3 51.1 18.0 6.6 67.2 58.8 19.9 47.7 50.8 1.6 13.2 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 1.7 0.2 3.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 9.1 Stop Del/Veh (s) 50.7 3.4 47.4 12.3 0.0 66.0 56.5 19.9 45.4 46.7 0.0 9.3 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Delay (hr) 0.3 6.2 0.2 1.5 1.1 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 50.5 11.4 3.8 54.8 3.4 1.6 50.9 49.7 9.9 57.2 49.6 1.3 Stop Delay (hr) 0.3 3.9 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 48.7 7.2 2.1 52.7 1.4 0.0 47.7 44.8 8.4 55.3 46.9 0.0 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.2
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2
Total Delay (hr) 11.7
Total Del/Veh (s) 11.5
Stop Delay (hr) 8.4
Stop Del/Veh (s) 8.3
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Performance Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
106: RV Parkway & Creekside Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.5 2.1 0.8 0.2 4.2 0.2 4.0 0.4 Total Delay (hr) 0.7 1.8 0.0 0.4 5.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 9.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 41.6 3.4 0.5 59.3 11.5 7.1 56.4 61.6 15.6 55.0 16.7 8.8 Stop Delay (hr) 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.4 2.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 5.4 Stop Del/Veh (s) 39.8 1.5 0.4 56.8 5.1 1.8 54.9 58.5 15.4 52.2 15.8 5.0 109: West Mall & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 0.8 5.7 0.0 0.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.0 13.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 51.0 9.9 6.4 55.8 15.4 1.4 37.5 53.0 24.0 47.4 1.2 13.3 Stop Delay (hr) 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.0 8.1 Stop Del/Veh (s) 47.3 3.6 1.1 53.5 11.4 1.1 36.6 51.4 24.1 45.6 0.0 8.2 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 6.8 0.2 1.8 1.2 1.5 0.1 11.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 13.8 6.3 47.4 5.1 45.9 1.6 13.3
Stop Delay (hr) 3.3 0.0 1.6 0.5 1.4 0.0 6.9
Stop Del/Veh (s) 6.6 0.0 43.1 2.4 43.2 0.0 7.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Delay (hr) 2.5
Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0
Total Delay (hr) 187.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 70.5
Stop Delay (hr) 119.8
Stop Del/Veh (s) 45.1
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: RV Parkway & Gibson Dr
Movement EB EB B12 B12 B12 B12 WB
Directions Served L T T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 170 2 356 381 400 208 5
Average Queue (ft) 53 0 32 74 78 13 0
95th Queue (ft) 116 2 196 311 326 130 5
Link Distance (ft) 451 352 352 352 352
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 4 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 600
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served UL L T T T R UL L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 87 116 217 222 243 47 56 87 177 162 176 30 Average Queue (ft) 29 51 121 123 130 3 13 24 72 68 74 1 95th Queue (ft) 70 95 202 207 216 45 39 60 146 143 151 31 Link Distance (ft) 568 568 568 568 414 414 414
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement B61 NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T UL L T T T UL L L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 6 118 134 129 125 114 192 238 240 236 226 3 Average Queue (ft) 0 43 70 77 71 52 105 141 153 104 108 0 95th Queue (ft) 6 91 117 120 113 107 176 220 224 183 181 3 Link Distance (ft) 384 354 354 354 362 362 362 362
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 260 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement B3
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 5
Average Queue (ft) 0
95th Queue (ft) 4
Link Distance (ft) 567
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served L L LT L L LT T L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 12 81 28 28 58 82 10 6 42 183 211 206 Average Queue (ft) 0 30 5 3 20 30 1 0 10 55 88 106
95th Queue (ft) 12 69 22 17 50 65 9 4 33 153 175 184
Link Distance (ft) 238 238 341 341 567 567 567
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 200 200 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr
Movement B3 SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 34 73 113 232 226 190 37
Average Queue (ft) 1 24 55 100 89 58 7
95th Queue (ft) 34 62 93 193 182 141 28
Link Distance (ft) 362 663 663 663 663
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B12
Directions Served UL L T T T R UL L L T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 122 231 335 303 273 55 231 285 305 217 219 7 Average Queue (ft) 43 75 172 153 139 3 126 160 174 100 111 0 95th Queue (ft) 92 163 281 254 237 50 210 250 263 175 182 7 Link Distance (ft) 843 843 843 352 352 352 451
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 175 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 6 0 2 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 1 0 3 13
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement B12 B12 B12 NB NB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T T UL L T T T R UL L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 40 82 41 31 205 408 428 450 235 410 458 368 Average Queue (ft) 1 3 1 3 26 213 206 187 26 215 237 98 95th Queue (ft) 39 60 41 18 104 346 355 360 168 357 387 246 Link Distance (ft) 451 451 451 737 737 737 811
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 400 400
Storage Blk Time (%) 7 4 1 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 36 2 3 0
Intersection: 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 325 208
Average Queue (ft) 93 76
95th Queue (ft) 207 150
Link Distance (ft) 811 811
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB B6 B6 B6 WB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served L T T T T T T L T T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 116 196 212 236 87 47 91 109 387 386 388 29 Average Queue (ft) 49 66 85 97 3 2 3 16 81 79 87 3
95th Queue (ft) 101 144 163 177 64 48 67 70 264 266 269 17 Link Distance (ft) 505 505 505 454 454 454 1077 1077 1077 185 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 19 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1
Intersection: 86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway
Movement NB SB SB SB
Directions Served TR L L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 64 118 122 107
Average Queue (ft) 20 74 64 53
95th Queue (ft) 47 112 108 96
Link Distance (ft) 185 202 202 202
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB B66 B66 B66 WB WB WB
Directions Served L L T T T R T T T L L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 12 46 273 294 362 285 9 9 157 92 98 89 Average Queue (ft) 1 16 128 147 212 54 0 1 12 35 52 30
95th Queue (ft) 7 42 235 259 339 178 9 11 85 77 89 75
Link Distance (ft) 285 285 285 905 905 905 381
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 17 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 255 255 235 215 215
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 5 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 8 0
Intersection: 89: Reserve & RV Parkway
Movement WB WB B64 B64 B64 NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served T T T T T L LT R L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 99 133 97 49 49 89 143 94 58 50
Average Queue (ft) 35 50 3 2 2 30 72 44 15 11
95th Queue (ft) 85 115 71 50 50 70 120 77 46 36
Link Distance (ft) 381 381 568 568 568 525 283 283
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 235 240
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served UL T T T R UL T T T R L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 102 135 144 148 40 67 208 355 440 262 17 49 Average Queue (ft) 44 42 42 50 9 23 83 96 162 43 2 12
95th Queue (ft) 91 109 109 115 32 56 169 247 342 142 10 37 Link Distance (ft) 384 384 384 384 1152 1152 1152 169
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 230 220 235 60
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5 0
Intersection: 106: RV Parkway & Creekside
Movement NB SB SB SB
Directions Served R L LT R
Maximum Queue (ft) 19 26 89 63
Average Queue (ft) 3 3 41 19
95th Queue (ft) 14 16 79 45
Link Distance (ft) 360
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 60 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served L L T T T R L T T T R LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 60 75 270 296 327 20 50 392 457 480 48 93 Average Queue (ft) 13 36 82 102 130 1 11 79 95 129 11 33 95th Queue (ft) 42 65 213 244 282 12 36 276 317 359 36 74 Link Distance (ft) 1077 1077 1077 905 905 905 905 224
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 275 250 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 109: West Mall & RV Parkway
Movement NB SB SB
Directions Served R L LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 96 12 49
Average Queue (ft) 42 1 12
95th Queue (ft) 83 7 35
Link Distance (ft) 224 287
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B6 B6 B6 NB
Directions Served T T T R UL T T T T T T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 270 287 312 108 260 287 228 164 58 99 53 184 Average Queue (ft) 120 144 158 4 107 52 48 52 0 4 2 89
95th Queue (ft) 236 256 269 61 218 174 149 123 4 73 54 157 Link Distance (ft) 1633 1633 1633 454 454 454 505 505 505 201 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 7 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 120
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Start Time 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50
End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 13662 13587 13656 14004 13641 13924 13904
Vehs Exited 13591 13540 13594 13938 13595 13765 13540
Starting Vehs 663 669 680 757 706 623 632
Ending Vehs 734 716 742 823 752 782 996
Travel Distance (mi) 10931 10755 10901 10972 10930 10951 11026 Travel Time (hr) 865.6 873.1 881.9 808.2 946.2 839.3 978.4 Total Delay (hr) 585.5 597.2 603.0 526.5 666.3 558.6 696.6 Total Stops 27047 24842 25744 26192 26531 26713 30216
Fuel Used (gal) 572.2 568.3 575.3 558.3 588.4 565.4 599.5 Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Start Time 4:50 4:50 4:50 4:50
End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 13797 13746 13781 13772
Vehs Exited 13699 13562 13657 13648
Starting Vehs 682 595 676 665
Ending Vehs 780 779 800 788
Travel Distance (mi) 10876 10776 10967 10909
Travel Time (hr) 876.9 790.3 921.4 878.1
Total Delay (hr) 598.1 513.6 640.9 598.6
Total Stops 26763 23856 26496 26440
Fuel Used (gal) 573.9 546.2 583.5 573.1
Interval #0 Information Seeding
Start Time 4:50
End Time 5:00
Total Time (min) 10
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
No data recorded this interval.
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Interval #1 Information
Start Time 5:00
End Time 5:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3527 3474 3396 3504 3390 3594 3447
Vehs Exited 3383 3330 3357 3515 3352 3424 3259
Starting Vehs 663 669 680 757 706 623 632
Ending Vehs 807 813 719 746 744 793 820
Travel Distance (mi) 2763 2720 2685 2773 2699 2733 2714 Travel Time (hr) 194.3 193.7 193.9 181.1 188.2 178.5 181.4 Total Delay (hr) 123.1 124.1 125.2 110.0 119.2 108.7 112.0 Total Stops 6404 6515 6365 6047 6340 6116 6009
Fuel Used (gal) 137.6 136.7 135.8 135.8 134.6 133.4 132.8 Interval #1 Information
Start Time 5:00
End Time 5:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3441 3436 3494 3468
Vehs Exited 3353 3327 3365 3367
Starting Vehs 682 595 676 665
Ending Vehs 770 704 805 774
Travel Distance (mi) 2678 2676 2756 2720
Travel Time (hr) 184.0 162.6 191.4 184.9
Total Delay (hr) 115.2 94.1 121.0 115.3
Total Stops 6430 5307 6450 6198
Fuel Used (gal) 133.1 127.4 136.6 134.4
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Interval #2 Information
Start Time 5:15
End Time 5:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3399 3352 3423 3539 3551 3373 3469
Vehs Exited 3432 3470 3380 3526 3448 3385 3433
Starting Vehs 807 813 719 746 744 793 820
Ending Vehs 774 695 762 759 847 781 856
Travel Distance (mi) 2743 2708 2679 2780 2806 2729 2749 Travel Time (hr) 200.5 202.6 214.3 191.9 220.7 207.4 230.2 Total Delay (hr) 130.5 132.9 145.5 120.5 148.9 137.3 159.8 Total Stops 7020 6159 6353 6202 6788 6753 7682
Fuel Used (gal) 139.8 139.0 141.4 138.6 146.4 140.4 147.5 Interval #2 Information
Start Time 5:15
End Time 5:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3441 3536 3401 3447
Vehs Exited 3449 3497 3417 3442
Starting Vehs 770 704 805 774
Ending Vehs 762 743 789 772
Travel Distance (mi) 2740 2765 2724 2742
Travel Time (hr) 209.9 188.4 238.9 210.5
Total Delay (hr) 139.6 117.5 169.0 140.2
Total Stops 6524 6236 6689 6642
Fuel Used (gal) 142.5 136.6 147.7 142.0
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Interval #3 Information
Start Time 5:30
End Time 5:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3385 3308 3482 3492 3302 3589 3452
Vehs Exited 3354 3325 3459 3415 3296 3545 3378
Starting Vehs 774 695 762 759 847 781 856
Ending Vehs 805 678 785 836 853 825 930
Travel Distance (mi) 2673 2617 2825 2716 2649 2835 2750 Travel Time (hr) 231.3 221.3 232.5 216.2 251.6 221.0 268.4 Total Delay (hr) 162.9 154.1 160.7 146.4 183.7 148.4 198.1 Total Stops 7123 5886 6800 7208 6357 7063 7929
Fuel Used (gal) 145.3 140.9 149.8 142.0 147.7 147.3 155.0 Interval #3 Information
Start Time 5:30
End Time 5:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3441 3376 3418 3426
Vehs Exited 3393 3420 3444 3402
Starting Vehs 762 743 789 772
Ending Vehs 810 699 763 793
Travel Distance (mi) 2693 2686 2764 2721
Travel Time (hr) 231.9 207.3 243.8 232.5
Total Delay (hr) 162.9 138.2 173.3 162.9
Total Stops 7097 5937 6799 6822
Fuel Used (gal) 145.0 138.5 149.5 146.1
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Simulation Summary PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 5:45
End Time 6:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 1 10 2 3 4 5 6
Vehs Entered 3351 3453 3355 3469 3398 3368 3536
Vehs Exited 3422 3415 3398 3482 3499 3411 3470
Starting Vehs 805 678 785 836 853 825 930
Ending Vehs 734 716 742 823 752 782 996
Travel Distance (mi) 2752 2711 2712 2703 2776 2655 2813 Travel Time (hr) 239.4 255.4 241.2 219.0 285.7 232.4 298.4 Total Delay (hr) 169.0 186.1 171.7 149.5 214.5 164.2 226.7 Total Stops 6500 6282 6226 6735 7046 6781 8596
Fuel Used (gal) 149.5 151.7 148.3 141.9 159.6 144.3 164.2 Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 5:45
End Time 6:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.
Run Number 7 8 9 Avg
Vehs Entered 3474 3398 3468 3428
Vehs Exited 3504 3318 3431 3436
Starting Vehs 810 699 763 793
Ending Vehs 780 779 800 788
Travel Distance (mi) 2765 2649 2723 2726
Travel Time (hr) 251.2 232.0 247.3 250.2
Total Delay (hr) 180.4 163.8 177.5 180.3
Total Stops 6712 6376 6558 6774
Fuel Used (gal) 153.3 143.7 149.7 150.6
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
7: RV Parkway & Gibson Dr Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1
Total Delay (hr) 2.9 0.6 12.2 0.4 0.6 16.7
Total Del/Veh (s) 60.7 1.4 21.5 21.1 4.2 13.7
Stop Delay (hr) 2.8 0.1 5.3 0.2 0.1 8.4
Stop Del/Veh (s) 57.8 0.2 9.3 10.5 1.0 6.9
73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.6 0.9 Total Delay (hr) 9.4 10.8 0.5 4.6 35.6 4.1 7.4 13.4 0.0 10.8 15.0 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 74.7 36.5 3.9 89.8 98.3 20.0 54.7 55.8 2.5 68.9 84.1 7.6 Stop Delay (hr) 8.6 8.8 0.0 4.2 29.7 2.2 6.6 11.3 0.0 10.0 13.4 0.4 Stop Del/Veh (s) 67.8 29.6 0.1 81.6 82.1 10.7 49.1 47.1 0.0 63.4 75.0 4.1 73: Galleria & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.6
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3
Total Delay (hr) 112.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 56.2
Stop Delay (hr) 95.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 47.6
84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 3.3 1.4 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.2 Total Delay (hr) 4.3 0.6 0.1 2.7 1.0 0.2 1.9 13.5 0.1 3.1 8.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 44.7 41.8 1.5 47.9 45.4 2.4 71.9 27.4 2.7 49.6 25.8 3.7 Stop Delay (hr) 4.0 0.6 0.0 2.5 0.9 0.0 1.8 8.0 0.0 2.8 6.0 0.1 Stop Del/Veh (s) 41.1 37.9 0.0 44.1 40.7 0.0 65.7 16.2 0.1 45.0 19.0 2.7 84: Galleria & Antelope Creek Dr Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.7
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.6
Total Delay (hr) 35.9
Total Del/Veh (s) 27.8
Stop Delay (hr) 26.6
Stop Del/Veh (s) 20.6
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 9.6 7.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.8 0.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 32.7 37.5 1.9 0.4 0.4 Total Delay (hr) 3.1 7.8 0.0 21.4 8.6 1.5 1.1 45.8 8.5 14.3 12.5 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 59.7 59.5 4.5 71.7 50.0 6.5 110.1 153.1 44.2 78.6 35.2 3.2 Stop Delay (hr) 2.8 6.6 0.0 18.6 7.2 0.0 1.0 40.3 5.2 12.5 9.2 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 54.6 50.6 0.0 62.4 41.8 0.0 98.0 134.7 27.2 68.2 25.9 0.0 85: Pleasant Grove Blvd & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 17.8
Denied Del/Veh (s) 9.1
Total Delay (hr) 124.7
Total Del/Veh (s) 63.1
Stop Delay (hr) 103.4
Stop Del/Veh (s) 52.3
86: Castaic Dr/Gibson Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 2.1 4.9 0.5 13.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 25.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 54.9 11.7 49.8 21.9 7.5 89.6 63.6 15.2 47.4 33.5 1.6 20.4 Stop Delay (hr) 1.9 2.1 0.4 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 Stop Del/Veh (s) 50.0 5.0 42.6 11.2 0.1 87.8 61.3 15.2 44.7 30.1 0.0 12.2 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.2 3.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Delay (hr) 0.6 12.0 0.5 3.2 6.7 0.1 5.2 0.5 1.1 2.1 0.3 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 50.3 27.6 7.7 63.0 13.1 2.3 49.7 53.9 14.8 48.5 52.1 1.5 Stop Delay (hr) 0.6 9.6 0.4 3.0 3.9 0.0 4.7 0.4 0.9 2.0 0.3 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 47.7 22.1 5.5 59.2 7.6 0.0 44.7 47.1 12.1 45.5 48.1 0.0 89: Reserve & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.4
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3
Total Delay (hr) 32.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 23.6
Stop Delay (hr) 25.7
Stop Del/Veh (s) 18.8
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
106: RV Parkway & Creekside Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 77.2 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 90.8 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 130.1 124.1 123.8 0.8 0.2 4.1 0.4 3.9 72.1 Total Delay (hr) 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.8 33.7 7.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.7 46.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 37.6 3.2 0.2 69.3 57.9 80.3 56.0 59.3 13.3 48.0 29.8 38.4 Stop Delay (hr) 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.7 20.0 4.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.7 29.4 Stop Del/Veh (s) 35.6 1.4 0.2 58.0 34.4 53.3 54.3 56.0 13.1 44.8 28.5 24.2 109: West Mall & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.2 Total Delay (hr) 2.7 5.1 0.1 0.6 9.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 67.3 10.7 8.3 60.3 15.7 1.6 59.4 32.9 17.5 45.3 33.7 1.8 Stop Delay (hr) 2.4 1.3 0.0 0.5 4.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 Stop Del/Veh (s) 60.3 2.7 0.9 55.3 7.5 1.2 58.2 31.7 17.8 42.3 30.5 0.0 109: West Mall & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.1
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1
Total Delay (hr) 20.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 16.0
Stop Delay (hr) 11.0
Stop Del/Veh (s) 8.6
151: Chase Dr & RV Parkway Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 4.7 0.1 1.8 5.5 0.8 0.0 13.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 11.0 4.8 56.4 9.8 49.9 1.4 12.0
Stop Delay (hr) 2.3 0.0 1.6 2.0 0.8 0.0 6.7
Stop Del/Veh (s) 5.3 0.0 52.0 3.6 47.7 0.0 6.2
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
SimTraffic Performance Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Total Network Performance
Denied Delay (hr) 110.7
Denied Del/Veh (s) 28.5
Total Delay (hr) 487.9
Total Del/Veh (s) 121.7
Stop Delay (hr) 332.7
Stop Del/Veh (s) 83.0
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: RV Parkway & Gibson Dr
Movement EB EB EB EB B12 B12 B12 B12 WB WB WB WB
Directions Served L T T T T T T U T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 263 290 254 57 316 391 393 238 30 650 799 622 Average Queue (ft) 127 43 21 1 29 84 76 11 11 96 104 123 95th Queue (ft) 240 195 136 27 186 336 318 120 104 627 680 689 Link Distance (ft) 451 451 451 352 352 352 352 1633 1633 1633 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 9
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 1 0 5 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 30 2 0 0 3
Intersection: 7: RV Parkway & Gibson Dr
Movement WB SB
Directions Served R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 81 124
Average Queue (ft) 31 14
95th Queue (ft) 264 102
Link Distance (ft) 300
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 600
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 23: Bend
Movement SB SB
Directions Served T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 200 170
Average Queue (ft) 7 6
95th Queue (ft) 87 80
Link Distance (ft) 354 354
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Roseville Pkwy Widening Existing (2020) No Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB WB
Directions Served UL L T T T R UL L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 265 284 330 272 272 126 167 300 504 504 517 300 Average Queue (ft) 158 177 165 160 159 9 58 197 374 377 409 233 95th Queue (ft) 256 273 291 249 245 80 122 388 575 574 605 438 Link Distance (ft) 568 568 568 568 414 414 414
Upstream Blk Time (%) 21 20 33
Queuing Penalty (veh) 165 153 258
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 5 1 0 0 44 45 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 16 6 0 2 88 361 1
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement B61 B61 B61 NB NB NB NB NB NB B23 B23 SB
Directions Served T T T UL L T T T R T T UL
Maximum Queue (ft) 413 448 474 242 296 344 309 282 68 46 29 206 Average Queue (ft) 96 114 219 138 177 203 196 187 4 3 1 112 95th Queue (ft) 324 369 543 219 277 320 294 277 61 37 30 185 Link Distance (ft) 384 384 384 354 354 354 484 484
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 7 1 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 9 55 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 290 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 4 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 19 1 0
Intersection: 73: Galleria & RV Parkway
Movement SB SB SB SB SB B3 B3 B3 B3
Directions Served L L T T R T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 298 394 383 388 356 68 81 58 62
Average Queue (ft) 153 184 230 237 85 12 12 9 10
95th Queue (ft) 262 345 373 377 327 99 109 83 87
Link Distance (ft) 362 362 362 362 567 567 567 567
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 6 6 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 20 22 15
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 260
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 16